Attacking The System When Revolution Fails

Most of my essays up to this point have argued against the revolution Ted has proposed. The anti tech movement is corrupted, loosely aligned and full of irrational types, so cannot practically take action against the issues it states to solve. Most of my essays have also stated that even a well organised and strong movement will have a very small chance at success, and that their ideology includes a number of serious flaws that have yet to be addressed.

So what is to be done if such a revolutionary movement either is in a mess, not currently existing or highly impractical?

It is here I will make a guide for those who are not revolutionaries for one reason or another. It should be treated only as a guide and nothing more. Reject what you want. I’m offering suggestions, not concrete solutions. Treat it as helping you stand, so you can run.

This essay/guide will not mention violence and will focus more on using conventional methods. Whether you choose violence is up to you, however for the most part, violence only strengthens the system. It may also turn away people. After all, no one is going to say that people who blow up kids have a point. And by the time you are using violence, you should rather be getting with revolutionaries than anything else.

Movements that halt/harm the system

First of all, lets discuss various movements that attack the system in some way at the moment. Firstly, the anti abortion/pro life movement. With genetic modification becoming a real possibility, I’m sure that the pro life movement will be opposed to such a thing as tampering with sacred human life. This movement has been mentioned by Ted as one of the most successful in regards to stopping the systems advance. The pro life movement is therefore one such movement to consider joining, as they will stop the system’s complete control of humanity, and ensure that what is allowed is humane.

Next we have ideologies and parties that put an emphasis on freedom or tradition. These include libertarian parties, social conservatives, pirate parties, ect. I do not include more extreme nationalistic parties as they do seem to be quite interested in eugenics, genetic modification and sterilization, with no regard for how inhumane some of these may be.

Finally, human rights. It is plausible as the situation in regards to AI, genetic modification and so forth becomes more relevant, human rights organizations will advocate for human rights laws in regards to these issues.

Success of these movements will damage the system, as each attack will either increase liberty and choice, attacking technique, or limiting or halting the systems advancement.

What can an Individual do?

Secondly, what can you do on your own? I shall say this first and foremost. By merely knowing what is, you are doing something. You know about technique, about our present situation. Someone more aware of these issues will then make his own decisions on what he does. I recently read some of Darren Allen’s work on his site. While I think he falls into the same trap as many AnPrims, and I fundamentally disagree on a number of things, I think he is worth a read [1]. In a blog post, he responds to criticism. In one such response, he states that while he is critical of many things, it does not mean he is telling people to do anything. He’s personally critical of such a thing, but it doesn’t mean he’s calling for the elimination of such a thing.

In the same post, he says that he never offers solutions. Merely suggestions.

I do provide ideas on how to improve your personal life and even our social lives, but these are optional, trivial and dispensable suggestions

In his view, telling people what to do harms the reader or listener’s truth.

If you do what someone else tells you to do, no matter how wise they are, you’ll ignore the intelligence and complexity of the specific context you are in

The only solution people who are free ever need is the truth of what is. They hear the truth and are inspired to act on it in their own way

I think there is truth to this, and why I stated what I did at the start of this essay. I don’t completely agree, at the end of the day practical action I think is still somewhat needed to provide change, but it does not mean that people should be coerced or brainwashed into a movement. If there is a movement that inspires or attracts them, they will join it regardless.

But for what you can do, here are some ideas.

You could try and get your voice out there. Anyway you can. You could message your local MP or something about your concerns. Expand your knowledge on certain issues. Read more. Choose what technology you want to use, maybe choose to live a different lifestyle or try to be as self sufficient as possible. Work jobs you like. Abstain if you want to abstain.Whatever you think is best for you. The more people live the way they want, the more our society will change to something positive. Be the change you want to see.

Have hope. Darren rejects hope as he believes collapse will happen and hope is a rejection of collapse. If you believe in collapse, that's fine. If you find it liberating, then that's okay. I may disagree with it, but you aren’t me. But if you are similar to my views in regards to collapse, then have hope in that things can get better. The more people know about these issues, or are concerned for them, the more they will act.

An Ellulian movement

Finally, find like-minded people and potentially create a movement which pressures the system. I’m not going to discuss the details much, the movement will naturally decide what it stands for and against. I would personally have the movement focus against technique and for increased autonomy most. It could arrange strikes to choke the system, or other tactics, pressuring it more and more until it is seen as having capitulated. Personally, I’d recommend such a movement push for a focus towards what is best for humans rather than technique, decentralise the system, making local areas more autonomous and allow for people to choose to live different ways of life. Make sure that hunter gatherer/primitive societies are protected, and that people can go to areas where they can live that way. In regards to nature, start growing nature around human settlements more.

What I am trying to say here is that Jacques Ellul is there for inspiration. He is the antithesis of Kaczynski (even if we are influenced by Ted) in that he targets something far greater than just technology, which is merely a part of the greater whole. Technique. He doesn’t encourage violence, he doesn’t call for complete destruction. Rather, he calls for a revolution of our minds. For us to take personal responsibility, to stop asking for the state to intervene at every opportunity. He allows an alternative to primitivism.

This movement should not however, fall into the same trap I think primitivists fall into, that there is an absolute, concrete solution out there and we can magically fix all problems to where we imagine possibilities that are impractical, utopian and all but a dream. It should strive for a world not better, but less worse.

That's all I have to say on this matter, again, use this only as a guide and add your own ideas to it, or reject what doesn’t work for you. We are all different and so what may work for me does not work for you.

[1] I emailed Darren saying most of what I’ve said here and he thanked me for emailing and for the kind words. We exchanged a few emails, and while I made it clear I disagreed on a number of things, Darren appreciated my comments.