A short article, sent by one of our readers, Brant Evans.
I once told a friend that knowledge of our current situation without appropriate action is the same as complete denial, but now I’m not so sure. I’d been working on my friend over the past couple months trying to open his eyes to the reality of our culture and lifestyle, just as my eyes had been opened by another friend. Some people seem right on the verge, and if you can find the right nugget of information or analogy, the puzzle pieces fall into place for them and they start to see the bigger picture. This particular friend knew enough to be pissed off, and he knew enough to start contemplating the changes that need to happen. He could see a vague image of the picture, but he was still not ready to act on his own.
To be sure, knowledge without action is a symptom of insanity, plain and simple. In a culture where this type of denial is the norm, most of us have learned to accept it, unfortunately. I recently broached the subject of peak oil with my dad. After introducing him to the standard argument (I like peak oil as an introduction for people unfamiliar with the anti-civ movement because it’s very practical), he furrowed his brow, and admitted that a lot of the conclusions I offered seemed pretty inevitable. The next day, he gave me a lecture about the importance of starting to save money while I’m young. Clearly, the gravity and reality of our discussion had not hit home. In a world where our government just dropped a trillion dollars of imaginary money into our “economy” to keep it churning, I can’t imagine that saving up little pieces of green paper will be all that important for the future. Good riddance.
After we’ve dealt with stubborn people hell-bent on remaining in a shell of denial more than a few times, many of us stop trying to forcing the issue on these types of people. This could be a mistake.
As I mentioned, I once told a friend that knowledge without action is the same as complete denial. You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem. That was my position, but I can see another angle now.
My friend has one foot on the grass and one foot on the fence. He might not initiate a mission to blow up Monsanto. But guess what? He sure as hell isn’t going to call the cops if someone else does. Revolutions may require guerilla warriors, to be sure, but equally frustrating for those in power are those silent villagers who might know a little more than they let on.
We need to spread this message, because right now, most of the “villagers” are enamored with the system that is making them so miserable. We need to be a little rude and force the issue. Not talking about these things because they are socially awkward is another example of surrender. Just remember to choose your battles.
I’m a little perturbed by your subtle implication that violence, in any form, is needed or should be tolerated. It’s very convenient to vaguely allude to the evils of Monsanto, a likely and easy villain, when talking about radical change, but it is a thin justification for taking actions that are inherently wrong.
Before you propose the use of force against Monsanto or any other icons of the evils of our society, you had better take a look at the staggeringly large militarized juggernaut that will defend it to the death first. Yes, the “armed forces”.
We must take action and form political groups to end our paranoid delusional addiction to war. For too long we have become complacent regarding the existence of standing armies – the world was not always thus. Our militarized society is far more prepared to deal with rhetoric about changing civilization than you give it credit (General Eisenhower would call it a military industrial complex). The villagers are constantly bombarded with messages of patriotism and the glorification of our amazing military prowess (these make them feel good). No talk about such grim futures as “peak oil” is going to hold a candle to that ringing chorus of glory (because those grim futures make them feel bad).
Until we have *peacefully* demilitarized our civilization, as it is, and ended the sycophantic song of that chorus, we will never be allowed to obtain the critical mass of people required to actually affect change – and this way of life that it to be so despised will endure.
this article was written by a reader – but you will find plenty of not so subtle implications through the site, suggesting that we have a moral obligation to do whatever is necessary to stop greater evils/violence and ultimately stop the empire committing genocide and ecocide. you seem to perceive violence against corporations to be the same as violence against humans and other living creatures…. in many cases, sabotage and direct action are the only avenues left open to those who are threatened by the empires corporations… are you suggesting that violence is always inherently wrong? even when committed against fictitious or non living entities that would go on to commit greater violence… or in self defence? which any action against empire and its corporate machine, as it makes this planet uninhabitable, is surely?
we are surrounded by violence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oh1ESxDeNw
monsanto is not an icon. that one corporation is responsible for agent orange, dioxins, gm foods, bovine growth hormones – the management of monsanto should be tried for ecocide, genocide and unbelivable polluting activities – but govts have been bought by the likes of monsanto.
ps. do you think those same military and the people who govern, will allow us to peacefully dismantle? or even allow any of us to walk away from civilisation en masse? they are insane, and are addicted to control.
at what point will people start defending their communities, land bases, ecosystems? just how bad do things need to get before people start shutting down the corporations and polluters that are creating the damage – regardless of what the govt puppets dictate?