Avatar: Anti-Military and Pro-Ecoterrorism?

I’ve been reading several places where people are in an uproar over the movie Avatar—one of the highest-grossing films of all time, in spite of its release only one month ago. The issue is that several notable conservatives seem to think that this fictional film is promoting a message that ecoterrorism is justified, and giving an anti-military message as well.

I can see their point. But I don’t agree with it. I certainly can’t see that anything particularly terrorist was done in the film (though defense of themselves through the destruction of a camera seemed reasonable to me, given the circumstances in the film, even if there might be a later price to pay). The “military” forces in the film were clearly no longer in the military—they were wash-outs and misfits, hired by a corporation. To me, this isn’t anti-military, but rather a call to responsible activity by those who hire security personnel which are too aggressive.

Other lessons I think I saw:

• Money tends to be too much the focus of what people want, to the exclusion of moral thought—and this leads to confrontations over money.
• Our historical treatment of the native peoples of many lands (not just North America) tends to be more savage than the “savages” are. Some of this was necessary; most of it was not.
• When we see a connection to something, it is nearly impossible to un-see it.
• When people learn true principles, it is difficult also to fail to see the truth.
• Actions speak louder than words.

There is a long list of  others, but these seem to be the best of the lot. So, what about the anti-corporate message?

This is certainly a part which is present, but it’s less anti-corporate than it is pro-responsibility. A responsible corporation which is accountable to the public interest should see that there is more at stake than their bottom line. The people in the film were no more or less evil than the executives at AT&T who conspired to tap hundreds of millions of telephones without a warrant, or no more or less evil than those who seek to eliminate all competition in the marketplace, rather than to allow a true free market. They are no more or less evil than corporate executives who seek to corrupt Washington politicians by ensuring that their own interests are served above those of the population.

Money is really the focus of business, and people can’t seem to live without it. So, it’s true that money is important. But there are also other things to consider. For example, we should consider the reasons for obtaining money in the first place: we need to live, to support family and self, and to address our obligations to others. Without these reasons, of what purpose is money? Money is certainly important, but it’s far from the most important thing, and far too many people focus on it as their top priority.

The next time you’re with someone you love, consider the money it takes to spend time with them. Money itself is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. When we die, money is pointless to have in our possession. It is left to those who are still living.

And yet we tend to take the position that everyone is really too focused on currency, at the same time scrambling to make ends meet, worrying about the economy instead of finding ways to create new jobs for those around us, and in all ways finding excuses not to have to work.

Which brings me to another lesson learned by the film: fiscal responsibility. The line about unobtainium (nice name, by the way) being “twenty million a kilo” is one of those expository lines which shows just how invaluable life itself is.

There are more important things than money. But how many people can honestly say that they put those things first?

That’s the real lesson: putting what is truly important as one’s first priority is the fastest way to earn opposition. And that’s why the film is so highly rated by the population. It’s not so much that people identify with ecoterrorist activities, or that they are against corporations, or even that life itself is more important than money. It’s that people who actually have their priorities in line are often the first people to get assassinated.

We think of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and even people who aren’t dead yet, and how they each influence our thinking, but how the opposition despised them! The only way to be rid of them was to silence them forever. Today, we don’t kill them, we merely arrange a gossip column to scandalize them.

In a free republican democracy, the expressions of others show how our principles operate. They show what we truly value by action, and this can allow us to correct those values.

But the value we should respect most of all is that of the freedom to think. I don’t criticize these ultra-conservatives for believing as they do; nor the ultra-liberals for saying that perhaps the movie could have illustrated the point more plainly. To both, I merely point out the box office figures and say: “You’re wrong. The public perception is satisfied with this, the correct principle of conservationism.”

A conservative value in itself, responsibility depends on achieving and maintaining the moral high ground, not in merely maintaining power at all costs. This was the point of the American Revolution in the 1760’s and 1770’s, it was the point of the US Civil War in the 1860’s, and it was the point of the militia groups in the 1990’s. We simply cannot stand by and watch all of our future resources go to waste; neither can we strip all of the resources from an area and expect to survive. And survival is the key—not money, not politics, not even law itself. This is why democracy was invented: when the survival instincts of the population speak, it is with a voice so powerful that very little short of death itself can stop them.

But unless all life is ended, an idea can never be killed.

Some Food for Thought…

Someone told me that violence never solved anything. If this was actually the case, then we cannot say that war pressured Heinrich Himmler to shoot Adolf Hitler in the head and claim it was suicide. We could not declare that democracy was a valid solution to the abuses of power which were perpetrated against people in the American colonies. We cannot recognize that slavery in the United States was solved, nor dispute that we are anything but individualists as a result. We could not say that the Japanese could have been repelled from their own violent attack on our country. We could not claim that tyranny was bad—we would have no freedom to do so.

Violence is an act of freedom. It is also an act of desperation. Violence is often used as the first solution, instead of the last. Violence (and the threat of it) is necessary so long as there are people who would use it against us. Violence, however regrettable, can have a positive outcome if it is used wisely and as a last resort.

But where we have the “War on…” paradigm, there can be no positive outcome.

The word “drugs” is an idea—one with power. If we ignore this power, then the War on Drugs is essentially lost. So long as we continue to propagandize the people of that war, painting them at their worst instead of as normal people who have a problem, we can never win. The only “win” in the War on Drugs is in adherence to the rules of war: are the people who use drugs our enemy? The dealers? The manufacturers? Pharmaceutical companies, which were responsible for a number of addictions because of poor labeling? Or how about the very people who declared war? Who is the enemy? There is no enemy declared; therefore, there is nobody to fight. The War on Drugs is nothing more than a propagandist pipe dream.

The word “crime” means a lot of different things to different people. On the one hand, it means something which is against the written laws of mankind. On another, there is a higher law, one which is based in the concepts of survival and benefit to our species. Often, the two are incongruous. One can commit an act which is technically within the written law, yet which is still a crime against humankind. And who do we label as criminals? Do we assume that the “bad guys” are in every corner, arrest everyone, and have them prove that they are not guilty of any crime? Or do we assume that everyone with a criminal history (such as jaywalking) is prone to do it again, and lock everyone away for life? Without a clear ability to label who the enemy is, a war cannot be fought. Just saying “criminals” doesn’t tell us whom to look for. It doesn’t say to look in the mirror.

The word “terror” is an emotional hot-button. An old adage says that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The Bushes and Clintons refused to meet with the enemies of the United States. Again, we have nothing more than a faceless idea: “terrorist organizations.” But in our War on Terror, we have inadvertently become the terrorists—equal if not superior in all ways to the atrocities which were committed against us. Our own failure to listen to the demands of these people—these jihadist Muslims of one minor sect which continues to claim power in the Middle East in the same way that racism claims power in our own country—has caused these atrocities to be planned against us. Had we but listened, the enemy of our country says that the violence could have been avoided. The demands have never been publicized as a cogent work, so we can’t say if they are reasonable or not. If we believe them to be the ravings of a madman, then our War on Terror is still unjustified.

These are all paradigms which have been started with a noble purpose. But without the full support (forced compliance?), involvement (conscription?), and moral superiority (propaganda?) of the population, there can never be a win. These are terrible things, it’s true, but we shouldn’t ever give up our freedoms in order to be safe. If we want safety, we have it within our power to take back our streets. We must go to war, and have the government’s authority to do so. This means a violent solution if no compromise is possible. Such was the provision of Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and even Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. These people understood the cost of war. They also understood the price of apathy.

If we are unwilling to do what is necessary, perhaps we are unwilling to solve the problems which our society faces. So long as we have someone who believes that they can control others with impunity, we will always have problems. The problem is in believing that there are no consequences, or that the consequences are unimportant. There are no “little things,” because it’s all relative to what’s important to someone. Consider these “little things” which people continue to call important:

• Cancer, which is a metabolic aberration at the cellular level.
• Smoke, long-term inhalation of which can contribute to cancer.
• Fire, which produces smoke.
• Paper and dried leaves, which can keep a fire going.
• Cigarettes, which are essentially little pieces of paper wrapped around dried leaves.

Each of these is such a little thing by itself, but it all adds up to things which can have a significant impact. This is just food for thought, and I hope at least one politician reads this and can take to heart how things may need to change.