When the signal fails during the advertisement break, who will be screaming: the children in the middle of getting their fix of consumer messages; the shoppers finding out what they can buy on their next mall run; the drivers being tempted by vehicles with more power, more safety and more sexiness; the television sales executives placing advertisers' messages where they will be absorbed by the maximum number of people; the advertisers creating the adverts that sell product and dreams for their clients; the companies that produce the goods and services that make them money; the system that needs the children, the shoppers, the drivers, the sales executives, the advertisers and the companies to all play their part so that the economic machine can keep on turning?

You can make the system scream, if you want to.

Adam sits in his apartment in front of 5 kilowatts of broadcasting equipment, watching the channels, flicking and flicking until..."We’ll be right back after this break"...474 MHz on scramble: and the aerial sends out a wave of television liberty, just until the adverts are finished.

It only takes a few hours until the "off" switches are used. The hypnotic dance of the lights across the glass teat that once sold dreams to the masses is now an unintelligible squall of white noise, cascading arcs of interference, static dissonance of interest to no one: least of all the children, the shoppers and the drivers. They look to each other, they talk, they connect: where once there was a room of atomised individuals hooked into their own electronic realities, there are families and friends once more.

Until Adam is prosecuted, and locked out of harm's way: a criminal, an airwave terrorist, an enemy of the system.

A hero.


Why Sabotage?

To understand the need for sabotage, we have to go back to a few basic principles. Rather than reinvent the wheel (if only the wheel had never been invented, then we would probably not be in this mess) here is a short list of logically connected statements, extracted from A Matter Of Scale (www.amatterofscale.com), that take us to an inevitable conclusion:

1.    The world is changing rapidly and dangerously, and humans are the main reason for this change. If we fail to allow the Earth's physical systems to return to their natural state then these systems will break down, taking humanity with them.

2.    Humans are part of nature; we have developed in such a way that we think we are more than just another organism; but in ecological terms we are irrelevant.

3.    Regardless of our place in the tree of life, humans always have been, and always will be the most important things to humanity. We are survival machines.

4.    Our failure to connect the state of the planet with our own inarguable need to survive will ensure our fate is sealed. This must not happen.

5.    In order to bring us to a state of awareness, we must learn how to connect with the real world; the world we depend upon for our survival. We are all capable of connecting.

6.    Our lack of connection with the real world is a condition that has been created by the culture we live in. The various tools used to keep us disconnected from the real world are what make Industrial Civilization the destructive thing that it is.

7.    To understand how to remove Industrial Civilization we must realise that we, along with everyone else in Industrial Civilization, are the system.

8.    Industrial Civilization is complex, faith-driven and extremely sensitive to change and disruption. It will collapse on its own, but not in time to save humanity.

So what is the next step, assuming you follow this line of argument (if you don't, then I strongly recommend you read the whole book on the web site linked to above)?

It’s obvious when you think about it: we need to do something that will remove the things that stop us connecting with the real world, the people around us and our own ability to think for ourselves. These "Tools Of Disconnection" are everywhere: advertising that makes us want things we don't need; legal systems that bind us to a standard way of living as prescribed by the state; communication systems that tie us into restricted, and synthetic means of connecting with each other; economic systems that deign to carry our lives along a path of material growth; education systems that turn us into good and willing workers; corporate lobbyists who ensure that our every activity is touched by the hand of industrialization – all of these things and more work together to keep us under control.

We exist in a state of cosseted discontent: convinced that the way we live is the only way to live, and yet constantly craving more of the same.

The only way to ensure as many people as possible can live their lives in a sustainable, non-industrial, non-approved way is to take away the things that stop them thinking there is another way. To give the people a chance, we have to sabotage the Tools Of Disconnection.

Sabotage What?

The things I have mentioned are pretty esoteric and so the link between the things that stop us from being ourselves, and the things we can actually attack directly, needs to be made clear. I wish I could do so, but to do so directly, would be to place myself in a very difficult situation: at some point the words I write could be classified as terrorism; maybe not now, but maybe some time in the future when a growing number of people are carrying out many minor acts of sabotage (or, to be more specific, things that Undermine the Tools Of Disconnection) and it becomes clear that Industrial Civilization is starting to lose control over its slaves.

Adam lost his liberty because he chose to sabotage the media machine - the one selling the wares of the corporations that drive economic growth and environmental catastrophe - on a large scale. What he was doing lost no lives, and freed up the minds of thousands of people, but he broke the rules: he became undesirable.

That is the risk you take, but it is a risk that many people would think worthwhile. Adam didn’t need to be caught – he could have used a smaller transmitter over a shorter period of time, working in loose collaboration with a number of similarly equipped and motivated people. He could have, under cover of night, stripped off billboard advertisements; removed advertising from public transport; blocked radio rather than television adverts. He could have.

And Sarah could have posed as a corporate lobbyist in conversation with politicians; or posed as a politician in conversation with corporate lobbyists. She could have got them to agree to things normally considered off limits. Sarah could have recorded the conversations and placed them on the Internet, making sure as many web sites as possible mirrored the recordings. She could have made the political system very unstable indeed.

And Pierre could have taken a job in an educational establishment, altering curricula to remove positive references to economic growth and the need to be good citizens; or perhaps sent a few memos to schools, without even needing a job at the education authority, requesting the downgrading of citizenship and economics, and the need for compulsory nature walks, gardening, community work and time for students to think freely. He could have given a few children their lives back.

And Rosa could have started spreading information about the dangerous side effects of certain carbon-intensive, highly processed food products – placing letters in newspapers and calling up radio stations. She could have posted information on financial web sites reporting on the financial precariousness of highly destructive companies currently trashing the planet for economic gain. Rosa could have created instability.

And Keith could have run a web site devoted to exposing and broadcasting the greenwashing and blatant environmental lies told by corporations, governments and even the half-hearted efforts of environmental charities, helping people to understand that what they see, hear and read may just be designed to keep them living a destructive existence.

They could have, and so could you…

I believe that something like this would be better off in a forum, where it would be allowed to be discussed more freely then in a blog like situation. I also believe that it would be wrong to agree or disagree fully with something of this proportion without asking a few questions. I noticed that it's also almost been a week without any comments, while people may just be touchy about something like this post, or you don't get a lot of comments, I'm not sure. Personally I don't comment often, but here I am, typing away. While I did read your post, I did not read "A Matter of Scale", or at least not yet.

So I guess I'll just pose a question as opposed to making an argument for or against. I believe that, no matter what is written nor by who, there is no perfect way to convey all your feelings, ideas, etc. in a coherent manner when one writes, most will get through, but there's always one or two that just don't make it. It's not always dependent on the writer either, it is perhaps more often the reader's fault for misinterpreting something or just not quite getting it.

So now for that question, or perhaps a grouping of words that sum out to what I believed was conveyed by a certain portion of your article. I'm assuming by "industrial civilization" you mean the way America and many other countries are now: excessive growth without need (building buildings faster than humans are being born), overproduction of goods only to be thrown away, unnecessary production of goods that cause companies to go bankrupt and put it all in the garbage dump, the over use of fossil fuels for... everything, desensitizing people with flashing lights, ads forcing people to think the way they want to sell a product by defining what looks good beautiful or hot, and so much more. Now the question would have to be, what would industrial civilization be replaced by? Would it be an ecological civilization? A harmonic civilization? While we're at it, let's just drop names like that, if it's g...

[Sorry, Enzer, your message was curtailed, please continue...]

Hi Enzer

Keep going with your question. I can answer the first one: Industrial Civilization is the current (last 200-odd years) version of a form of living that is always unsustainable. What you describe are symptoms of Industrial Civilization, but they are only symptoms of the far deeper functions of this system. The key function of all civilizations is essentially the exploitation of resources (environmental and social) outside the place of habitation - always cities and towns - in order to progressively benefit people, in terms of material wealth, depending on their place in a social heirarchy.

Given that this applies to *all* civilizations, then no form of civilization would be a suitable replacement.

Cheers

Keith

Well, I'll try to keep this one short then, though I guess I'll have to sum up what was removed. If industrial civilization were to be subdued by it's slaves, what would be erected in it's place? What would be put in it's place that would be better, perhaps not in all aspects but let's say that "better" is subjective for now? Also please explain to me what a "social exploitation of resources" is, would that be something like making the citizens think to the mass media's will?

I understand also that our current way of living is unsustainable, though I must admit force of habit. Even if it takes 400 years to decay it's still decaying, and that's a problem , and one day it will decay until there's nothing left, but industrial civilization doesn't just decay one way, it decays socially, ecologically, and even decays structurally all the while forcing the environment to decay at will. In the end it appears the environment may be decaying quicker than the rest. What's worse is that those who aren't even involved in industry yet are needlessly suffering, what was great about most tribes was that they used absolutely everything they could when they killed an animal, leaving nothing to waste, though sadly it has evolved past a point where nothing goes to waste. I guess I'll have to cut this short, sorry I couldn't post the rest of my previous message, but it took a while to get there, and I had not saved nor memorized it. I look forward to your response.

Hi Enzer

I think you are in a good place at the moment, and if you pondered for a little longer I think you would find your own answers: this is important because the key phrase, as borrowed from Daniel Quinn is, "There is no one right way to live." Surprisingly, despite the amount of effort that has gone into creating the monolithic industrial machine - and partly because of the amount of effort - it is quite vulnerable to internal and external shifts. I go into this in some detail in Chapter 15 of AMOS; and I do recommend you read the book, because there are answers to all of your questions there.

Social, as opposed to Environmental exploitation, is simply the use of humans to feed the machine - there are many ways this takes place, and most of us are "resources".

The best thing about tribes, IMHO, is that they were (are) all unique - they exist, and will exist, as part of the local natural ecology. There's a big clue to the end point...

K.

I hear, and feel what you say when you say that "no form of civilisation would be a suitable replacement", but I cannot believe this is an option in the way you imagine it might be.
what is your anarchist vision?
You like tribal society- so do I. But tribal society has existed in the past, in far far less dense population conditions, and it shouldn't be over romanticised. Some societies adopt violence, and those that are less into violence and defence are dfenceless. And without "civilisation" (I use the word to mean a system of law- only possible with some form of state- an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force) what controls can there be over those people who decide to take a short term approach to exploiting resources?
It is possible to look at the current system of growth based, share holder interest powered capitalism and say it cannot get worse, but it really could.
Most of the environmentalist anarchists I know live in our privileged, politically stable society and I believe there are alot of things we/ they take for granted.
we need reform. and a huge change of mentality. My feeling is for reform within the current structure, to as a radical a point as possible in terms of reducing the power of corporate interests, but also a parralell movement among people- to change the mentality of living from within our communities. To build a new culture- freely, within the protection of civilisation.
And there is reform to be made to civilisation to allow ways of life that do not contribute to economic growth but are sustainable to be possible.
I can only see a sentence at a time, so I may be incoherent in there, hope my thoughts come across ok

Hi Beva

It's worth looking at the responses I gave to Enzer above - particularly about the type of world I am envisaging; or rather not envisaging.

You assume I am an anarchist, and in one sense you are right - because I really don't find being told what to do by a destructive system a good way of living; but there are many connotations to this, one being that I just want to sweep everything away and see what happens. I really recommend you read A Matter Of Scale, because it encompasses what I need to tell you. The future will get worse before it gets better, but you have a choice as to quite how bad it does get - with civilization it might well be the death of us all.

Civilization cannot be reformed, it is what it is, and that is unsustainable. Please read the book - I think you will understand.

Regards

Keith

What is strange is that we both used centralized energy to write and view these blog. Wow....this will be harder than any of us think.

Great post!

[True, though my supplier is 100% renewable, and my house is pretty much wood heated only. Getting there, but it takes a while.

Cheers

K.]

There’s a great video on San Francisco I Am where hundreds of teens in the Bay Area ditched their video games at home and headed for the biggest green festival in the nation. The Festival was held in San Francisco and the kids learned AND taught one another about climate change and green jobs. Even Chuck D from Public Enemy was there.

You can check out the video here:

http://www.sanfranciscoiam.com/videos/c898d779b574

[That sounds all very nice, Ted, but was it just a load of kids who fancied a free festival, or did anything change as a result of it?]

Hi Keith,

I've just finished the book, 'time's up' and I was pleasantly surprised at the radical stance it takes. I'm sitting here somewhat fired up, and yet, bloody hell, the task is a hard one isn't it. I agree with what you say, that it's no good tinkering around the edges of the system, if the system itself is flawed. But stepping outside of the industrial system we live in is, well, a bit tricky isn't it. I know personally I need to have a sit down, and continue to think about what I can do to start making changes, and influencing others, but it's so easy to be a hypocrite, or simply carry on as before, hoping. Actually taking that step to move outside of a system that exists purely to keep you inside it, is hard, even knowing what step to take would be nice.

Anyway, keep up the good work, I might return, I feel like I need some advice/help/support!

Dave

[Hi Dave, will email you - the next moves vary depending on your personal situation, but I can give you a bit of advice. Glad you enjoyed the book.

Keith]

I've read your book and Jensen and zirzan and ward churchill etc and I think they are all truthful essentially. The working required is on the transitioning process. Gn

[Thank you. If you want any help / would like a chat, then please email me. Cheers, Keith]

http://www.residua.org/book-xxxiv-2009/withdrawing-together-with-keith-farnish/

{Thank you for the review. Keith]