Comments on: Post Apocalyptic Book Club: Book 1: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

By: Traverse Davies

Traverse Davies — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:14:21 +0000

In the short term maybe it’s a brake… but long term I think that the FBI cracking down on the populace is what will help incite people to action.
Right now there is very little action in the populace because we have bread and circuses (okay, maybe it’s McDonalds and reality TV… same idea) but as things get worse, people are more willing to take risks. Eventually, if you get in trouble for reasonable action it makes you more willing to undertake unreasonable action.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:10:30 +0000

Greentangle, that’s a good post, and I liked that the FBI came up in the comments – we talk a lot about apathy, and the media, and all that stuff…I was questioned by a homicide detective for marching in a protest (well, theoretically for scaring a police horse, but still – homicide?).

I have known several people who had FBI knocking on their doors, skulking around asking about them.

We’ve all heard the stories about people mysteriously turning up on TSA lists and anyone can find information about the way police & FBI infiltrate groups (here, by arresting random punk kids and stealing their clothes for undercover officers to wear, among other tactics).

It has a definite chilling effect on doing anything at all – if I’m going to have an FBI file for peaceful protest, if they send people to prison for trespassing at the School of the Americas, and if you know there’s a large chance that anyone you talk to at an activist event is an undercover officer, and a larger chance that the whole thing is being filmed and audiotaped — that is definitely a brake on anything you might try to do that’s larger or more political than planting a garden.

By: greentangle

greentangle — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:21:13 +0000

I didn’t get into the book, but I’m loving this great conversation about revolution, modern day apathy, religious/spiritual motivation, Jensen (who I’m pretty much in complete agreement with), etc. It was interesting that you brought up slavery, Sharon, and now the subject of the charismatic leader has come up. A few years ago I wrote a column after reading a book about John Brown and I touched on some of these issues of apathy and violence. I plugged the column in as my website link if anyone’s interested in reading it. Very glad you started this.

By: Jennie

Jennie — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:24:18 +0000

I think the leaders will definitely have to be of the local variety. We are not going to solve this problem with a large and in charge leader of a national persuasion. There are too many variables and too many distractions at that level. Local solutions work better, local leaders will too. Just as the solutions for Luna won’t work for us on Earth, the solutions for Colorado won’t work for New York.
Local leaders, and local solutions to the problem I think will result in less violence. A series of local community gardens implemented in the next couple of years will do more to change this country than the entire Congress can in the same amount of time.

The question Sharon put forward, “Why are we so blase about this?” is one I have asked myself numerous times over the past couple of years. Mannie’s perspective of odds helped me see it a little better though. I think most people run the odds in their heads and figure it isn’t even worth fighting. I think the problems are just so entrenched and so huge that people don’t know where to start, so most of them just don’t. We aren’t under military threat by a recognizable entity. If anything, we are the ones threatening others with military force. “If you don’t take our money and give us oil in exchange we’re going to bomb you.” We paid good money to get in this situation.

We can’t revolt against the oil rich nations, they are halfway across the world. We can’t revolt against ourselves for buying into the suburbia myth.

So, while the limitations described in tMiaHM and the consequences thereof are relevant, the methods used are not so. I think we’ll get more results, faster, if we work on local levels to find and enact sustainable solutions.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:58:16 +0000

p.s. this discussion really makes me think that we should discuss Antarctica – it’s plot is like the Pilgrim’s Progress of green activist theory.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:56:51 +0000

Rebecca, that’s my point exactly – you can make small political changes with violence, but you can’t change the underlying system. Even Haiti’s original revolution didn’t change the plantation system, or the underlying system of exploitive trade that the plantations serviced. It just put different people in charge of it.

We need a whole new system. Some people think you can do that by destroying the existing system and starting from the ground up, but even if that’s true, is there time?

By: Texicali

Texicali — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:15:28 +0000

Depending on the extent of the crisis we are describing here the leader (or leaders) will be of a local variety. World leadership from someone like the head of the UN is very unlikely, as national politics and self-interest will quickly overrule any direction such a person would provide. National leadership from the president could potentially happen. I am a big fan of Obama, so I have to at least pretend in my mind that it will make a difference. However, there is an institutional bias against the bearer of bad news. Such a person is considered to be a crank, loony, Malthusian (who happened to have the right idea, just did not forsee all of the ways that humans could escape their limits for a period of time), etc. This is where the flow of information is important. Free speech is generally a good thing, but in marshaling action by the majority of the populace it is lousy.

Take global warming. The majority believe that it is happening, but unless something like peak oil takes down the system nothing will happen to really address it. Yes, there will be pledges of 10 percent by 2010, and 20 by 2020. But Hansen is talking about huge cuts needing to happen in the next couple of years. A controlled media could contribute to such an action, but an uncontrolled media trots out the various characters that represent astro-turf groups funded by industries or the technological optimists; both of which focus on the single message “you don’t need to change, we will solve it for you.” Which is a lie, even if they believe it. As a result the vast majority of people will be so slow in reacting that a real crisis will be at hand before they are in any sense prepared. In a perfect world/situation a leader/machine would control the flow of information to provide truth (or at least the information that results in positive action). However, I can’t think of an example of such a situation turning out well in the long run. So, long live free speech! We will continue to foment the revolution of the individual mind.

By: Student

Student — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:07:08 +0000

Hummingbird is right – a successful revolution would require seizing control of the media – (such as in V for Vendetta when “V” appeared on national television). That probably can’t happen in real life, so it becomes obvious that the internet is the only medium that can be utilized in any effective way.

The charismatic leader will hopefully arise, but discernment here is essential. Power and charisma are unattached to good or evil; they serve both. We need someone like Sharon – someone who doesn’t want the power…

By: Hummingbird

Hummingbird — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:24:24 +0000

Sharon,

I have never heard you speak, so I don’t know if you’re a charismatic leader or not. I picked you as an example because you focus on practical positive responses to crisis, are unafraid to tackle anything, and seem able to inspire people to follow your lead on positive, seemingly difficult challenges (eg: the riot for austerity, weekly list of preparations, food storage classes.)

I am afraid Derek Jensen would scare people, tho times may yet make him seem reasonable.

So, all I am suggesting is that you look around for a charismatic leader you can write speeches for, and in the meantime continue to be the charismatic leader you are while calling it something else.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:55:37 +0000

Rosa wrote “But that begs the question – if people resort to violence to feed their children, will it help? Will it keep the children fed?”
I don’t think it really matters, Rosa. When people get hungry they will make the only choice they can. That’s what happened in Haiti a few months ago -there almost certainly wasn’t enough food on the island for the government to give them even if it had wanted to, but they still rioted. They faced the police, the guns, and stormed the Presidential palace. And they DID succeed in bringing down the prime minister.

Greenpa and Sharon, I agree. Unlike most of my friends I’m no pacifist. But then, I grew up hard and fast on the wrong side of the tracks -so I learned early on that there is a place for violence.

The problem with most revolutions is that they just replace one set of rulers with another. Very seldom does the underlying system change. That’s what we need to change here -the system itself as well as who rules it. The system is poisonous as well as nonsustainabe. I sometimes think that the only way to change it is to help bring it down and be ready to replace it when the collapse finally does come.