EFJ: Earth First! has changed a lot since it hit the scene in late 1979. Then it was about property destruction or monkeywrenching and less popular white-guyish type redneck wilderness politics. Since the late '80s, EF! has moved strongly toward a strategy of above-ground nonviolent direct action&emdash;basically a lot of civil disobedience. Some EF! groups even publicly denounce monkeywrenching now. What do you think EF!'s role should be in the environmental movement today?

To always promote and keep alive the consciousness of the Earth. I think that is what it should be about, regardless of what the difference of opinion may be about whether it is spiking trees or sitting in trees, these are just tactics that people are working out to accomplish the one thing that Earth First! needs to stick by and that is protecting the Earth.

I think that one thing for people to remember is that all things on this planet are different. It is how all the different things work together that makes the balance. So, within Earth First! there must be an understanding that there are different ways to get things done. If nothing else, whether or not people agree with the differences at this point, I would say that every idea should be respected.

EFJ: The new generation of EF! activists are arguing over whether or not nonviolence is the most expedient strategy for the movement. People are discussing whether or not it would be appropriate right now to employ more self-defensive, possibly even violent means of defending the Earth. What effects do you think that would have on the movement?

I think we need to have an understanding of what violence is because a great many people say they are against violence, yet they live off of the fruits of violence... We live within systems that are violent. We live in excess. We are part of an excessive consuming society. That's the result of violence against the Earth... The reality is that even though we say we are against violence, we still consume the products of violence against the Earth. Anytime that we have more than we need, anytime that we live a life that we are consuming all we want, especially in the material sense, then we are perpetuating violence.

EFJ: The definition of violence is something that a lot of people talk about. I honestly don't think there is ever gonna be a resolution of that argument.

Right, there's not gonna be a resolution to that. Just like the ying and the yang, the sun and the moon, the light and the dark, these two things are needed to keep the energy flowing.

I'm real interested in the concepts of violence and nonviolence. I just look at it in the sense that you have to do what you have to do and that's decided by the moment and the circumstances. Part of that is who you are and what your perception of reality is. I don't think that just a blanket law can be laid down. But, for people to embrace violence just out of frustration or anger or emotional reaction is a big mistake. As individuals we are all responsible for what we do...

I think another discussion needs to take place over the difference between civil disobedience and noncooperation. We live within a system now where we can win some things, we can hold our ground on some things through civil disobedience... But, that just leaves us in a position where we are just barely holding our own. In a way, violence and nonviolence play along with the rules of the state. They may have to give into us on a little political thing here or there, but... the energy is being contained.

EFJ: So, there is no honorable way to fight?

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between civil disobedience and noncooperation.

EFJ: You're familiar with Gandhi's work and the civil rights movement. What then is your opinion of Gandhian-style noncooperation?

Gandhi was operating in a different situation than here. So, I think that there are elements of what he was doing that work here. But, what Gandhi did in India is not going to work here because this isn't India. We aren't Gandhi. But, I think lessons can be learned. I think it is really about noncooperation in the long run.

Say it became Earth First!'s objective, on behalf of the Earth, as a means of raising environmental awareness, to organize on one agreed upon day that we didn't spend any money. We went to work. We did whatever else it is we do... but we don't spend any money. Look on a national level and try to get 25 percent of the population to do it. Everything we do violently or nonviolently is feeding into the economic system. We're attacking the issues but we're not dealing with the reality of what's behind the issues and that is the economic system.

Let's say 25 percent of the population is involved... That would add up to incredible number that would affect the daily economic reality... You look at the economic system. It is in such a fine line balance anyway. If people would just one day say, "Hold on, I'm not going to consume," then they would really understand what kind of power they have in this society, which goes way beyond the power of the vote. I think it could be accomplished... There doesn't have to be any party line, no one idea that is prevalent other than protecting the Earth, standing fast with the Earth. It's a fast for her. If somebody's issue is the river or if somebody's issue is the trees or if somebody's issue is toxic waste, they can still talk those issues... To me it goes into the area of noncooperation. It's not about violence or nonviolence or obedience or civil disobedience. We just won't cooperate.

EFJ: There is this discussion of whether self defense in those situations where violence is being perpetrated against activists is appropriate.

This is where I think the discussion needs to be taken into other areas. Every time you go out and demonstrate now, there they are with their cameras, and they got their pictures of everybody now. Everybody they arrest, they've got their home addresses and they know how to find them forever, basically, because most people, if they are fighting for the land, that means they're gonna be there. If they have a national security matter or martial law, shit, 10 to 15 years from now they know exactly where to go. The anti-nukes movement coughed up a whole lot of that information with all the arrests we went through. They know where to come and look for us in case there was a real problem. We gave them a lot. We gave them our identities.

EFJ: Do you think that was a mistake?

Well, I think it's something I just wouldn't eagerly embrace. They take pictures of everybody. They document and record and they see who shows up the most... So, in case there is a real nuclear problem or whatever, they know who to go get first. That is a real learning thing for them... They're documenting us. They're trying to identify us. Maybe the best way to defend ourselves is to understand the reality of these things and how far they can go.

EFJ: Was that something AIM was doing in the 70s and do you think it was effective?

Well, it was and it wasn't. There's a little good and bad to everything. But, yes, overall I think it was effective&emdash;just what AIM was about. But, what we're talking about now isn't about what AIM was about. That was then. This is now. The lessons to be learned from what AIM went through, and it wasn't just AIM, it was the whole anti-war movement, everybody is to not just repeat the motions that they went through during the '70s, the '80s... Take the best from that and incorporate into it whatever new needs to be added. I don't think there has really been anything added to all this that was based on the idea of noncooperation itself. Everything has been based on some form of civil disobedience, although there are things going on that are noncooperative. Take the woman sitting in the tree [Julia Butterfly]... She's not cooperating. That's a very individual effort of noncooperation.

Everything they do is for money. They want our money. During the '60s and '70s, everyone was understanding that they did all this for money. It was about economics. It was for profit. But we don't attack their profits... That's never been a strategy. Maybe a boycott. It has taken that kind of a form against a specific company or multinational.

EFJ: Like the United Farm Workers did in the 70s.

Right. But, what I'm saying is that in America it is too difficult to get people do something that takes that much time. So, you ask them to do it for one day.

EFJ: Over the years EF! has forged strong alliances with Native Americans in defending sacred sites at places like Enola Hill and Anpo in Oregon, Big Mountain and Mt. Graham in Arizona, Ward Valley in California and the Nevada Test Site. Do you have any advice for activists wanting to work more with native peoples?

Don't stop doing whatever it is you're doing with direct participation. If there are ways you can increase that participation, I'd say do it. But, I can't tell you how to do it or what to do.

EFJ: Let's talk about art. You express a lot of political views through your art. Your poetry and spoken word is pretty intense live. Do you think that art is a better medium to move people with reality today as corporations, the mass media and the government have everyone so distracted with materialism and inane bullshit?

I think culture and art are the things that we can best express our truths with because we come from culture, and art comes from us, and culture comes from art... This is based on the reality of who we are. This is before citizenship or religion or the rest of that stuff, the patriotisms or whatever they are... Politically and economically, even religiously, when we get into these areas then there is a certain party line that has to be adhered to. Whereas adhering to a cultural line includes all of the things that it takes to make a culture whole, whether its economics or religion or whatever it is. The cultural encompasses all of them.