Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Propaganda Alert: James Lee is NOT an Environmentalist

According to ABC news "A radical environmentalist who took three hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters while wearing what police may be explosives was shot and killed by officers, police said."

I am asking ABC News to retract this blatant lie about environmentalists. Even if it was actually true, that James Lee was an environmentalist, it would still be propaganda to link the environmental movement to someone who went nuts and tried to take hostages.

But so far I have seen no proof that this guy was any more of an environmentalist than Charlton Heston. I think we actually have some pretty strong proof that this guy was actually more of a teabag carrying gun nut than an environmentalist .

What is the basis for calling this deranged person an environmentalist? Did he ride a bike to the crime scene? No. Did he recycle all his left over pop cans? No. Is he a vegetarian? Maybe. Does he keep his air conditioner up at 78 degrees? No. Does he belong to the Audubon Society? No. Does he contribute money to the "Save the Whales" campaign? No. Was this action part of a Greenpeace protest? No.

Actually, the evidence of James Lee being an environmentalist was taken from his website manifesto. This manifesto actually has a lot more in common with Glen Beck's Teabaggers than it does with the Environmentalists

He suggests putting a game show on the Discovery channel to give ideas on how to live without giving birth to more "filthy human children", since those new additions "are pollution". Environmentalists have never used to word pollution to refer to anyone's children or babies.

"All programs promoting War and the technology behind those must cease" That would be a pacifist position, not environmentalist. By the way, pacifists who use guns and strap explosives to their body are also rejected by the pacifist movement.

"Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and
the anchor baby filth that follows that.... FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH
AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH!"  (that is pure right wing racist stuff, not on any environmentalist agenda I know of. But a very popular point of view with the right wing.)

"Develop shows that will correct and dismantle the dangerous US world economy." Too general to distinguish between right and left economics.

"THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! all human procreation and farming must cease!" The end of procreation and farming have never been discussed, to my knowledge, by environmentalists. Although, to be fair most environmentalists do believe that farming does take away habitat from wildlife. But most environmentalists also know that there is a big difference between the amount of land and water used to produce meat and what is needed to produce fruits, grains and vegetables. If James Lee actually knew anything about environmentalism he would at least be aware of this difference.


  1. Mainstream American news sources have been quick to categorize James Lee as an 'environmental militant', 'radical environmentalist', 'environmental extremist' or even (in the case of the New York Daily News) a 'crazed tree-hugger.'

    It's interesting to contrast that with the mainstream British news outlets (BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, Times, &c.) which generally refer to Lee as the 'gunman', the 'hostage taker' or the 'suspect.'

    In fact, if one does take the trouble to read Lee's manifesto, it's quite evident that Lee was an individual suffering from serious emotional problems, one who could, at worst, be classified as an incoherent misanthropist (or an inarticulate pedophobe).

    Labeling Lee as an 'environmentalist,' however qualified, smacks of condemnation through association and would best be avoided, as the British, correctly, have.

  2. In my next blog, I reviewed the Canadian press and they did not make much of the so-called environmental connection either.