I’m in the final push to finish up “Mischief in the Forest.” Derrick had asked me to “add some magic,” so I’ve been attempting to do that with texture and pattern and shadow. I hope I’m succeeding. I’ll put a couple of “before and after” images below. Whether or not they’re magical, at least they’re improved!

I’m also in the final 11 days left with Kickstarter fundraising, and only $928 away from the goal of $6000 for printing costs. I’m afraid of seeming tacky to ask for more support now when our focus on support is (and ought to be) on Haiti, but if I don’t make it to the end, then we don’t collect any of the pledges and will lose the $5072 pledged so far. So if you can, your contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Page 33 BEFORE:

AFTER:
(I added grass, texture for the sweater, and texture on the walkway, and shadows).

Page 7 BEFORE:

AFTER:
(I added sweater texture, and leaf pattern).

Please click below to support this project:

I drew one for a client. It focuses on our instinctive human response: empathy, sorrow. Before that, I had to draw the political one. I just had to. That’s who I am.

Over the weekend I finished drawing all the pages of Derrick Jensen’s children’s story “Mischief in the Forest” (whew!)! I still have plenty of corrections and changes, but this is a milestone.

So I updated the youtube video of the book, minus the last 5 pages (backers can see them now in Kickstarter updates, or you can buy the book later). But this is most of it, anyway. Derrick narrates.

The book is almost…almost… half funded, and I only have 20 more days on Kickstarter, so if you’ve been planning to support this book, now would be a great time!

Thank you!

Here’s today’s Code Green comic. I add one every week at: stephaniemcmillan.org/codegreen/

Thank you to all those who have contributed so far to the publishing costs of “Mischief in the Forest”! We’re now up past $2200 — more than 1/3 funded!!

If you’d like to contribute, please visit Kickstarter, here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stephaniemcmillan/mischief-in-the-forest-a-childrens-book-by-der

There are a bunch of pages with a narration by Derrick Jensen (who has a wonderful storytelling voice!), here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-W_AEmzPug

And last night I finished this batch of pages:

Page 18:

Page 20:

Page 27:

Page 31:

Page 32:

In this time of escalating exploitation, poverty, imperialist wars, torture and ecocide, we don’t need a piece of art that consists of a mattress dripping orange paint, cleverly titled “Tangerine Dream.” In this time, as countless multitudes suffer and die for the profits and luxuries of a few, as species go extinct at a rate faster than we can keep track of, we don’t need an orchestra composed of iPhones. In this time, when the future of all life on Earth is at stake, spare us the constant barrage of narcissistic tweets juxtaposing celeb gossip with quirky food choices.

If we lived in a time of peace and harmony, then creating pretty, escapist, seratonin-boosting hits of mild amusement wouldn’t be a crime (except perhaps against one’s Muse). If all was well, such art might enhance our happy existence, like whipped cream on a chocolate latte. There’s nothing wrong with pleasure, or decorative art.

But in times like these, for an artist not to devote her/his talents and energies to creating cultural weapons of resistance is a betrayal of the worst magnitude, a gesture of contempt against life itself. It is unforgivable.

The foundation of any culture is its underlying economic system. Today, art is bullied to conform to the demands of industrial capitalism, to reflect and reinforce the interests of those in power. This system-serving art is relentlessly bland. It is viciously soothing, crushingly safe. It seduces us to desire, buy, use, consume. It entertains us and makes us giggle with faux joy as it slowly sucks our brains out through our eye sockets.

The system exerts tremendous pressure to create art that is not only apolitical but anti-political. When the dominant culture spots political art, it sticks its fingers in its ears and sings, “La la la!” It refuses to review it in the New York Times or award it an NEA grant. Political art is vigorously snubbed, ignored, condemned to obscurity, erased. If it’s too powerful to make disappear, then it is scorned, accused of being depressing, doom-and-gloom, preachy, impolite, and by the way, your drawing style sucks. Also by the way, you can’t make a living if your work’s not vacuous, cynical and therefore commercially viable, so go starve under a bridge with your precious principles.

We’re taught that it’s rude to be judgmental, that to assert a point of view violates the pure, transcendent and neutral spirit of art. This is mind-fucking bullshit designed to weaken and depoliticize us. In these times, there is no such thing as neutrality — not taking a stand means supporting and assisting exploiters and murderers.

Let us not be the system’s tools or fools. Artists are not cowards and weaklings — we’re tough. We take sides. We fight back.

Artists and writers have a proud tradition of being at the forefront of resistance, of stirring emotions and inspiring action. Today we must create an onslaught of judgmental, opinionated, brash and partisan work in the tradition of anti-Nazi artists John Heartfield and George Grosz, of radical muralist Diego Rivera, filmmaker Ousmane Sembène, feminist artists the Guerrilla Girls, novelists like Maxim Gorky and Taslima Nasrin, poets like Nazim Hikmet and Kazi Nazrul Islam, musicians like The Coup and the Dead Kennedys.

The world cries out for meaningful, combative, political art. It is our duty and responsibility to create a fierce, unyielding, aggressive culture of resistance. We must create art that exposes and denounces evil, that strengthens activists and revolutionaries, celebrates and contributes to the coming liberation of this planet from corporate industrial military omnicidal madness.

Pick up your weapon, artist.

Today’s NYT contains an outrageous op-ed piece by corporate cheerleader Jared Diamond, who states, “I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.” The examples he provides? Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron.

Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1260126009-z24nIK/1mEeC9l4sXErZHA

His title asks, “Will Big Business Save the Earth?” That’s not a difficult question to answer: No. No, big business will not save the Earth. Instead of being honest, though, Diamond, answers the question in the affirmative and subjects us to a poorly-argued, mind-warping, illogical and denial-drenched apology for some of the most destructive corporations that curse our planet with their existence.

His overall argument doesn’t hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. He spends the whole column arguing that we shouldn’t hate big corporations because market forces are causing them to make changes to help the planet. “Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run.” He attempts to show that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola and Chevron are transforming their production practices to reflect their concern for the natural world (and that this also improves their bottom line, so it’s a big win-win).

His actual agenda is revealed in the last paragraph, which is partly a plea for the government to give corporations incentives like tax breaks and money for research to facilitate these changes. But if they’re already modifying production practices to help the environment because that is good for profits, then why do they require incentives? I don’t get it.

Mainstream liberal environmentalist groups lack credibility among real environmentalists for many reasons, one of which is the presence of corporate executives on their boards, and another of which is the huge amounts of money that they accept from corporations. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, landed a $3 million contract with Chevron in the early 1990s to implement an “Integrated Conservation and Development Project” in Papua New Guinea, where Chevron’s oil drilling was vehemently resisted by the affected indigenous people. (See “Shilling for Chevron: Jared Diamond Greenwasher” at: http://www.counterpunch.org/proyect05092005.html).

Diamond happens to serve on the WWF board. I’m sure it’s purely by coincidence that he praises Chevron’s efforts to improve the environment in his book “Collapse,” and again in this NYT op-ed piece. I can imaging him hanging out with his fellow board members, business execs who complain of being misunderstood while sending him meaningful glances brimming with unspoken promises of millions of dollars in donations. I can imagine him deciding, “Hey, these guys aren’t so bad! I’m going to convince the American people to give them some love, damn it!”

In his op-ed piece he states, “I … have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies.” In contrast, he seems to have carefully avoided speaking with even one of the countless victims of these companies. There’s not a single quote by an indigenous person in the Amazon whose forest home was leveled for oil exploration and contaminated by oil spills. Not a single statement by a farmer in India whose crops died because Coca-Cola depleted and contaminated the village ground water. Not a peep from a single exploited factory laborer in China suffering with illnesses caused by the pollution generated by producing cheap plastic crap for Wal-Mart to import and sell to us.

The motivations for these companies to reign in their destruction of the world are, without exception, self-serving and purely concerned with the bottom line. It costs too much to clean up oil spills, retrofit factories, and crush angry natives. Diamond’s sympathies are 100% in line with this, and his only desire is to assist these corporations in their accumulation of profit. “We should reward companies that work to keep the planet healthy,” he urges. He doesn’t express the slightest concern for the well-being of the natural world itself or for the living beings who comprise it.

He talks about the challenges that Coca-Cola faces in finding acceptable sources of water, and tries to convince us that “Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture.” But the obvious point remains unsaid: Coke is not a necessity. It is in fact harmful to those who drink it. We don’t NEED to solve the problem of how Coca-Cola obtains water, or provide incentives for them to do it less destructively, because they could just fucking stop making it. Now there’s a simple solution.

Diamond tries to confuse us by conflating slightly restrained rates of massive destruction with a net positive effect. Even if companies make changes that cause them to destroy nature at a slower speed than they have been accustomed to, this is hardly the same thing as not destroying it at all (which is what sustainability means), and the exact opposite of helping the planet heal.

As a collaborator with and propagandist for ecocidal corporations, Diamond should not be granted space to spread his lies. Both he and the NYT deserve scathing contempt for this op-ed piece.

“It may be demanded…Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But…sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents…. We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings.”
– John Mason, who led Puritan soldiers in a massacre of a Pequot village in 1633.

William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: “Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”

***

If we’re going to celebrate today, let’s celebrate the spirit of resistance.

“In our family stories we have stories of what happened to our people. I have a grandma. Her name was Dora Hi White Man. She survived the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee. As a little child, four, five, or six years old, I remember my grandma Dora. So I’m very fortunate to know a survivor of the 1890 massacre. And today you might think 1890 was long, long, long ago. But it’s just recent, because I knew my grandma and my grandma ran from that massacre.

“I live in Oglala. When Wounded Knee 1973 was going on I was a little girl. I looked that way and the whole sky was pink (from the flares being shot up by the government). To me Wounded Knee was just right over the hill there. I was like, Oh right on! Cool! Keep on doing that, man! I was really happy. Little did I know that my nation was trying to make war with one of the big power nations of the world. I was just proud of them. And ever since Wounded Knee I’ve always been real happy to be an Indian and I’m proud of the fact that you mess with us, we’ll mess right back.”

– Arlette Loud Hawk, Lakota, resident of Pine Ridge Indian reservation
quoted in Revolutionary Worker, 1/16/2000

I’ve started posting over on Ted Rall’s blog (rall.com). A couple of people there, in response to my repost of “Capitalists Can Never Stop Killing the Planet,” have asked what I think we should do. I get asked that sometimes, so here are some ideas right off the top of my head:

1) As individuals, figure out how to use our talents, positions and resources in the most effective ways possible to expose the system’s oppressive nature, and physically undermine its ability to function. Strengthen, encourage and support those who want to defend the planet; ridicule, discredit and weaken those who want to destroy it.

2) Form affinity groups and connections with trusted friends to do the above more effectively and on a larger scale.

3) Network with allies and other groups, unite with them as broadly as possible, and find ways of stirring up large-scale disruptions and social disorder to weaken governments’ (plural) ability to rule.

4) Debate and discuss on all levels of society (small to large scale), to develop the principles, theory and strategy we need to form a cohesive movement to defeat those in power, dismantle this system and re-organize human activity to be socially just and sustainable.

How’s that for a start? The hard part isn’t to figure out what to do. The question is, are we willing to do the necessary work?