Artwork for podcast Blueprints of Disruption
Forget Stonehenge - the Planet is on Fire
Episode 1392nd July 2024 • Blueprints of Disruption • Rabble Rousers' Cooperative
00:00:00 00:36:33

Share Episode

Shownotes

Special Guest: Scott Martin

With special guest Scott Martin, we unpack the criticism and backlash faced by activists who disrupt and protest against climate change. In this case its Just Stop Oil, orange cornstarch and Stonehenge, but this conversation applies to all that disrupt the status quo.

The repetitive and disingenuous arguments used by politicians and media to discredit these actions just underscore the need for more revolutionary optics and diverse tactics. We also look at the criminalization of indigenous land and water defenders in Canada and around the world, and the lack of media coverage on these critical struggles.

All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support us: Patreon

Follow us on Instagram

Resources:

Transcripts

Speaker:

We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's

Speaker:

happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this

Speaker:

world, there's room for everyone, and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

Speaker:

The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's

Speaker:

souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

Speaker:

We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left

Speaker:

us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too

Speaker:

much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we

Speaker:

need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will

Speaker:

be lost. Welcome to Rabble Rants. I'm Santiago Gelo Quintero, and alongside Jess McLean, we're

Speaker:

going to unpack the stories that have us most riled up and challenge the narratives around

Speaker:

them. Scott Martin is with us in the studio. He's going to introduce himself a little bit

Speaker:

more fully than that, but he tweeted out this banger and obviously blueprints of disruption.

Speaker:

We talk about this all the time. He says, can we stop with the just stop oil discourse for

Speaker:

two seconds? Energy corps and collaborating governments are on track to eradicate human

Speaker:

existence. I don't give a fuck. how nice Stonehenge is. Scott, you got more than 280 characters

Speaker:

now to unpack that. Welcome to Rabble Brance. Thank you, and I will not be paying for a blue

Speaker:

check mark anytime soon, so I will be limited to 280 characters. For those who don't know

Speaker:

me, I'm an independent journalist based in Ontario. I run a newsletter critiquing news analysis

Speaker:

and I just saw this briefly. I just went camping. This happened before it. And essentially for

Speaker:

those who don't know, what happened was Just Stop Oil in the UK took orange corn flour,

Speaker:

I believe it was, and then threw it on Stonehenge in protest of, it's what it is on the tape,

Speaker:

Just Stop Oil. And it seems like I've, this is probably what a lot of people have been

Speaker:

through, but it was... Just deja vu. Because if anyone has ever seen anything from Just

Speaker:

Stop Oil before, it's typically kinda high profile stunts like this. I believe they, I can't remember

Speaker:

what painting it was, but they would throw paint on a painting. And basically to- Gluing their

Speaker:

hands to art. Yeah, putting their hands to art and all of this in service of focusing, like

Speaker:

this is attention grabbing and it's directing it towards how climate change is destroying

Speaker:

everything. And if you've seen one of these, you've seen it all. It's always, oh, how dare

Speaker:

they, how disrespectful. They don't respect art. They're like, what does this do for the

Speaker:

cause? It's literally the same bullet points every single time I see it. Frankly, like,

Speaker:

I don't know if the right word is disgusted. I'm disgusted for sure, but I'm a little disappointed

Speaker:

because every single time this comes up, it's like the people saying these things are just

Speaker:

shouting into like a mirror because they've been debunked nonstop. First of all, don't

Speaker:

care about art, well, not a lot of art's gonna survive if every single human and human civilization

Speaker:

is dead. You know, they are not doing good for the cause, they should do better, well, what

Speaker:

the fuck are you doing? You're not doing anything. And then just all this higher up stuff, like

Speaker:

Keir Starmer from the Labour Party basically said that they should be punished to the full

Speaker:

extent of the law. Keir Starmer, essentially the biggest weasel on- on the global's politics

Speaker:

stage right now, knows how bad climate change is. So does Rishi Sunak, but you know, nobody

Speaker:

likes him no matter what the circumstance. So every single person who pushes this line that

Speaker:

is a politician or a pundit is fully aware that what they're saying is dishonest. And the fact

Speaker:

that it seems to be this, this Sisyphean pushing of like, oh, well, this happens and we're going

Speaker:

to have the same fucking conversation over and over again. And It's frustrating to see not

Speaker:

only just because of this instance, but it happens literally anytime there's any dissent ever.

Speaker:

It's the same talking points nonstop, way past the point of actual utility until it's like

Speaker:

a thought-terminating cliche. So I think it's time a lot of people kind of point this out,

Speaker:

you know, instead of like, oh, taking it seriously, like, oh, you know, if somebody says they don't

Speaker:

care about humanity, like, well, this is what climate change is doing. I think it's a high

Speaker:

time to say, you know what you're doing. This is not a convincing line of argument. Every

Speaker:

Canadian knows what we had to go through last year with the forest fires. Climate change

Speaker:

is here and we have to deal with it. To your point there that it's like all modes of dissent

Speaker:

or disruption, it's evident even if you look at Just Stop Oil's feed. So they do a myriad

Speaker:

of actions. Spray painting, banks, traffic disruptions. And when you see people's response to that,

Speaker:

like cars are trying to drive them over, buses are right up behind on their ass while they're

Speaker:

holding a banner and trying to just walk really slowly in front of traffic. People are losing

Speaker:

their mind. And so definitely the news media feeds into it, the pundits and the politicians,

Speaker:

because it's very opportunistic and people pick up on their talking points as well. But you

Speaker:

do see some recoil as well from what you call like, regular people and I've even seen critiques,

Speaker:

so the ones that bother me the most are the ones, like I say, like calling from inside

Speaker:

the house, like leftists, people who do stuff, like most people critiquing are armchair quarterbacks,

Speaker:

you know, like keyboard warriors, but like I've even, activists I respect, take issue with

Speaker:

destroying art, not because they care so much about the art, but because of the other recoil,

Speaker:

like that it damages the image of the movement. But you hear that in every movement ever, right?

Speaker:

Black Lives Matter was like any public damage. Even people who understood riots are justified

Speaker:

and definitely Black Lives Matter is justified and a right cause would have side arguments

Speaker:

over, was that necessary? Do we burn down police? Pre-saints not because they don't think there's

Speaker:

rage is yeah, like I say justify but because it's like this What's best for the movement

Speaker:

as a whole? How may we be most appealing to the most amount of people? How can we portray

Speaker:

ourselves in ways the media won't? Demonize us and it's like to Scott's point Doesn't matter

Speaker:

what you do You could just walk slow in front of traffic people will be irate you could like

Speaker:

a lot of these paintings are even behind glass So they're really just demonstrative. I'm not

Speaker:

saying like you can't destroy art, but like people even get worked up by the idea they

Speaker:

might've destroyed it. And it's like, but they don't care about climate change. They're not

Speaker:

worked up about that. Yeah, I think like this is indicative of, I think what has kind of

Speaker:

been a natural outgrowth of a lot of social media, and not to say that social media isn't

Speaker:

good for organizing. It very much can be, but a lot of what is focused on is optics, rather

Speaker:

than... effect and not that optics aren't important necessarily, but even like, you know, Jessa,

Speaker:

when you mentioned doing the BLM protests in 2020, if I recall correctly, I can't remember

Speaker:

the exact poll, but when the Minneapolis police precinct was burnt down, it was like, not a

Speaker:

vast majority, but a majority of Americans were like, that was justified. So this reflection

Speaker:

that we see in politicians and the news media is very much like We always have to keep in

Speaker:

mind that it's hard to appeal to your enemy because, broadly speaking, politicians are

Speaker:

not working for the working class interests. There- and neither are news media conglomerates

Speaker:

which are owned by, you know, powerful businessmen or mostly businessmen, occasionally a businesswoman

Speaker:

if you're lucky. And they're pushing at these points. I'm not looking for equality there,

Speaker:

don't worry. Yeah. They're pushing these points is indicative of class interests. So to fall

Speaker:

into this trap of first of all believing what they say because I know a lot of working class

Speaker:

people probably do have those opinions, but they see it reinforced and then they think,

Speaker:

oh, okay, this is the right opinion to have. We need to keep in mind always when this happens

Speaker:

is to point it out and Santiago, maybe you When I've been taught journalism, a lot of times

Speaker:

what I've been told is just lay out the facts and the reader is, you know, they can come

Speaker:

to the conclusion themselves. And I've learned increasingly that media literacy is something

Speaker:

that is not standard. We can't trust the average reader to have all the context. And that's

Speaker:

not a reflection on readers not knowing enough. That's a reflection on the system not cultivating

Speaker:

that skill. So when this all happens, and you see these points. you know, count on them if

Speaker:

you want, but also keep in mind that this is an intentional tactic. They're not just saying

Speaker:

these things because they believe them and they don't know any better. They know better. And

Speaker:

then that's why they're saying these things. Yeah, I don't know if you've come across that

Speaker:

Santiago. Oh, yeah. Constantly. And you know, speaking of like media, I mean, climate change

Speaker:

is something that is so constant that according to, you know, your news values, not a lot of

Speaker:

point to cover it. because we know we're fucked, that's been covered, but you need new things

Speaker:

to cover, right? That's what they say. Like, where's like the recency? Where's what's happening

Speaker:

right now? And so like it or not, these tactics bring attention to something right now and

Speaker:

they're gonna get coverage and they're gonna have people talking about it. And I don't care

Speaker:

how much people like this art. It needs, like this is our lifetime catastrophe. As you say,

Speaker:

nothing will matter. if the planet is destroyed. And for me, there's also a certain like frustration

Speaker:

from like, people have the these feelings for these paintings and these monuments and stuff.

Speaker:

But what about like, the destruction of the planet? Like, I feel disgusted every time I

Speaker:

look outside and I see everything that humanity has done to the planet. And that is so many

Speaker:

times worse than a singular piece of art, a singular monument. But that's never going to

Speaker:

get the same rage. And so people really need to get their priorities straight when looking

Speaker:

at this. Because I was just thinking of the bison the other day and how bison used to be

Speaker:

all over North America, and then we destroyed all the bison, specifically the screw over

Speaker:

indigenous people. And it's like, you know, that will not get rage in the same way. Yeah,

Speaker:

well, it's interesting that you mentioned that, because a thing that I saw. specifically in

Speaker:

this context, but it's also kind of been broader use was a lot of people were like quote-unquote

Speaker:

concerned that the paint that they used would destroy the rare lichen that's on Stonehenge

Speaker:

and It's this just craven opportunism where yeah, we're all concerned about climate change

Speaker:

So why are you harming this lichen that's on Stonehenge in protest of the world dying? And

Speaker:

it's like when Trudeau was like, actually we bought a pipeline and we're operating it so

Speaker:

we can stop climate change. We can use the profits from that to stop climate change. And I don't,

Speaker:

it's the same thing. I don't think these people genuinely believe or expect us to believe this

Speaker:

because it's so blatant. But at this point, it's just reinforcing the current status quo

Speaker:

because they need to do it at any cost because they don't have a reason on their side, clearly.

Speaker:

And it's just disgusting to see. I'm sorry, I'm just stuck over here trying to figure out

Speaker:

like who is that person that came up with that talking point? So I'm imagining it's like some

Speaker:

microplastics PR guy who just like has this side fixation on Stonehenge and knew about

Speaker:

some rare and he was like, yeah, that shit will kill it. We know because we make it that paint,

Speaker:

you know, like we got I gotcha. We got them this time, you know, like finally a good use

Speaker:

for our destructive of the environment. We could turn it around on them. Like who did the research

Speaker:

for that? I mean, that is some climate change think tank working over time there. I want

Speaker:

to go back to like the optics, because, yeah, we did like a live stream on narratives, managing

Speaker:

the narratives. And so when you said optics. shouldn't be like important. They shouldn't

Speaker:

be the be all end all. And I think you're right from the perspective that you meant it, but

Speaker:

I just want to add like a little kind of side clarification. Optics are super important,

Speaker:

but managing them isn't. What I mean is shaping these images that you want to put out to placate

Speaker:

or to like you say, speak to your enemy, convince your enemy or speak to their talking points.

Speaker:

Those kind of optics aren't important, but like revolutionary optics are very important, right?

Speaker:

I imagine more people are fired up by seeing these direct actions than are just genuinely

Speaker:

disgruntled by it. You know, like, like more than one tweet sent out about it. Like they

Speaker:

are writing their politician on this Stonehenge business, right? But sending out revolutionary

Speaker:

optics, you know, getting in the news in any means possible with your images, because then

Speaker:

they can recycle these. Even their arrests, right? They are very adept at getting in the

Speaker:

face of folks being arrested where they're saying, this is my name. This is why I'm doing it.

Speaker:

This is why this won't stop me. And like surely any bad press you get. in those moments is

Speaker:

worth being able to then use social media to share those kinds of, you know, optics and

Speaker:

not to worry about how you come across, but to set that path, right? This is how we're

Speaker:

going to come across and we own it and, you know, you can too. That's a good point to bring

Speaker:

up. And I also think that's something, this is kind of a far cry, but this is what comes

Speaker:

to mind. Something that... appeal to a lot of people when Trump ran in 2016 was he was honestly

Speaker:

a piece of shit. And when you go through so many politicians who are like dishonestly a

Speaker:

piece of shit, somebody who's just like, yeah, I hate Mexican people is disgusting and does

Speaker:

appeal to racists. But it strikes me as the liberals are conflating that with the actual

Speaker:

values being held. The amount of times in personal conversations I've been completely open about

Speaker:

my politics and, you know, one of the things that I do fairly regularly is on a whole broadly

Speaker:

I'll defend the USSR. Obviously, every country is not perfect and I will own that up. But

Speaker:

a lot of people, and I do have a privilege in this being a cis head white guy, I will admit

Speaker:

that, they kind of at least respond to that. They're like, oh, okay, well, you know, everything

Speaker:

I know is bad about this. And this is just an example. So if in these situations, just like

Speaker:

you mentioned, like if somebody's being arrested and they're saying, I am being arrested for

Speaker:

protesting against the death of the planet or everybody on the planet. And all my crime was,

Speaker:

was throwing paint on some very old and significant rocks. If that is done and... sent out through

Speaker:

separate channels rather than like Sky News or whatever who's probably going to play that

Speaker:

footage and then just like mute it or something or not even play the footage like they'll do

Speaker:

everything they can to avoid that if you provide that alternate perspective to a narrative that

Speaker:

is being made that is important and I typically when I say optics I mean like a lot of this

Speaker:

liberal idea of um this fetishization of non-violence can be a good tool and I hope everybody at

Speaker:

least prioritizes that. But on occasion, I've seen, I mean, if we want to criticize Just

Speaker:

Stop Oil, we certainly can. But one of my criticisms of just it broadly is a lot of people will

Speaker:

not have tactics to de-arrest in certain situations. And technically that's violence if you're de-arresting

Speaker:

somebody. I do agree that revolutionary optics are good and we should not defer to how movements

Speaker:

and actions are viewed. just because of how news media presents them. Cause that, I mean,

Speaker:

that's one of the main things I want to do with the catch is point out that it's consistently

Speaker:

happening. A lot of people read manufacturing consent, rest in peace, Noam Chomsky, you're

Speaker:

still alive, Michael Perranti and understand it as a concept. But when you see it happen

Speaker:

regularly, and especially in instances like this, where it's the same talking points being

Speaker:

pushed over and over, it really cultivates that media literacy that is just completely abandoned

Speaker:

in modern society. You know, I asked all my J-School profs if they had read Manufacturing

Speaker:

Consent. Only one of them had, and he was the best one I had. But it's crazy to me how many

Speaker:

happened. But it's, you know what I can't help think of was that movie Don't Look Up. And

Speaker:

I think it was like a really good show of like how Knowing about this issue isn't going to

Speaker:

save us from it. It's not a lack of knowledge about climate change that's the problem. People

Speaker:

don't need to know more. And so like back to like what you were saying about facts, right?

Speaker:

Like if news is just presenting facts, well, that's not enough, right? And clearly, we tried.

Speaker:

It's worked well so far. I don't know what you're talking about. We'll work for who? Yeah. And

Speaker:

so. When people are faced with this incredible frustration of like, it's been decades and

Speaker:

we've made almost no progress and it's getting worse and we're starting to experience the

Speaker:

consequences and now we're choking on smoke. What do you expect people to do? Do we expect

Speaker:

people to just sit there and just... you know, kumbaya your way to the end of the world? No,

Speaker:

like, this is the inevitable... reaction and honestly, it's not even far enough. No, I mean,

Speaker:

we started talking about corn starch. Corn starch! Yeah, like, it's times like these when I don't

Speaker:

even know what to say because it's just such a huge issue. Like it's so, like what the,

Speaker:

like we know what the answer is like at the end of the day, it's just shut everything down.

Speaker:

Like, like shut every railway down, shut every pipeline down and force their hands, right?

Speaker:

And I guess like the only question is like getting there at this point and this is a step towards

Speaker:

that. And so when this is the backlash, like it's not even like, like I want to say like,

Speaker:

just forget about this. Forget about the cornstarch on the thing. Let's go like block some railways

Speaker:

and like really make some noise because we don't have time. We have so little time to deal with

Speaker:

this. It's just this overall attempt to really lower our toleration of any disruption at all

Speaker:

too. Right. Like that's one of the main. drivers of the media feeding into this so badly and

Speaker:

you hear it like you say with Starmor criminalizing it and he's I mean that's just one example

Speaker:

that is normal that's happening here in Canada we document it regularly back on blueprints

Speaker:

of disruption especially but it's where you can do it when you can do it how you can do

Speaker:

it do you need a permit What can you say in your microphone? Wait, you can't use a microphone.

Speaker:

You know, spray painting on the ground ends up with violence, responses from police. And

Speaker:

there's just like endless examples that it, from cornstarch to de-arresting, the narrative

Speaker:

facing you is the same. It's still criminal, it's still abhorrent. It's, you know, you might

Speaker:

be blocking an ambulance with your march, like there's... There's a fire hazard at the encampment.

Speaker:

Like everything challenging that system will face massive amounts to delegitimize it. And

Speaker:

I hate that anybody ever feels obligated to like defend themselves. Like I don't think

Speaker:

Just Up Oil spends any time issuing many responses to. It was just corn starch. Don't be worried.

Speaker:

You know, like I think they just plow ahead. to the next. They're anticipating this kind

Speaker:

of response. It's part of their strategy that Santiago laid out, like getting us to talk

Speaker:

about climate change, at least, right, rather than it being a forest fire that gets us to

Speaker:

talk about it. It's just like some rocks that people piled up. But like hell, even the forest

Speaker:

fires are like met with so much like skepticism and like arson. Yeah, it was a bunch of arsonists

Speaker:

and this and that. Yeah, I think it's indicative that it almost seems like when media covers

Speaker:

Just Up Oil's actions, it seems like they're only covering it to discredit them because

Speaker:

if there was any honesty in the reporting, they would say, Just Up Oil did this to Stonehenge

Speaker:

in protest of climate change. This many acres burned in Canada the past year. This is what

Speaker:

the sea is like. It would point out... the context of it, because when you just say climate change,

Speaker:

it is this thing that we're all kind of aware of, but we don't really know the specifics

Speaker:

of it. And there's a really good piece of McLean's of all places. I think it was last August.

Speaker:

It was like Canada in the year 2060. And it just went through, like if we stopped all oil

Speaker:

production now, this is what it's gonna be like in 40 years. I think that was a really good

Speaker:

piece. But the problem is, is we've kind of segmented that idea off into itself. So when

Speaker:

stuff like this happens, it's... not even like in the conversation because I guess we got

Speaker:

to hit 800 words and that's too much. And another thing that kind of came to mind when we were

Speaker:

talking about what just stop oil is doing, this is something that also I it's kind of known

Speaker:

but I don't think it's reported too much. The majority of like actions directly combating

Speaker:

like climate change and energy companies is done by indigenous people and indigenous people

Speaker:

across the world have faced such repressive violence. In fact, I think it was fairly recently,

Speaker:

a few months ago in Panama, there were people protesting a Canadian mine and I think it was

Speaker:

an American tourist just shot one dead. So when we see this coverage, disproportionate coverage

Speaker:

of spray painting Stonehenge, compared to maybe two articles about a climate protester in Panama

Speaker:

being shot dead by a tourist, like which one of those two is easy to turn against? the protesters.

Speaker:

Kind of like that's just one example but like if you just look broad broadly about it and

Speaker:

all this coverage about Wet'suwet'en land and CGL and NBC it's kind of dropped off and left

Speaker:

a lot to indie publications and it's still ongoing all of what's happening in this violence against

Speaker:

indigenous people and I think when this is mainly the function of news media when it focuses

Speaker:

on oh everybody knows Stonehenge everybody loves Stonehenge don't you hate when Stonehenge has

Speaker:

paint on it? And that's pretty much the end of the conversation. And it's so frustrating

Speaker:

to see not only those points being pushed, but being engaged with like they're an honest position

Speaker:

to be debunked or something like that when they're clearly not at this point. Even further than

Speaker:

that, there's stuff like, I mean, if we're talking about the destruction of like national monuments

Speaker:

and stuff, like Israel's genocide against Palestinians has been destroying. all kinds of sacred sites

Speaker:

and while simultaneously war is incredibly bad for the planet in terms of like emissions and

Speaker:

that's not going to get the same response out of people as Stonehenge even though that is

Speaker:

incomparable to Stonehenge right like the and this is the problem of leaving things to news

Speaker:

values. is that it's not actually a reflection of anything value based. One thing that comes

Speaker:

to mind while I'm thinking about this, and this is a bit of a personal anecdote, was, you know,

Speaker:

my grandfather was an architect and an artist, and he was also very concerned about climate

Speaker:

change. And I'm just thinking about, like, what he would have said if, like, something that

Speaker:

he created was targeted to make an demonstration. He would have, like... fully supported. I'm

Speaker:

sure like so many of the artists that created all of these things that people care about

Speaker:

now would have been people that would have said, no, my art doesn't mean shit next to the destruction

Speaker:

of the planet. You know, like it's people, it's not a reflection of that at all. And I just

Speaker:

take a moment to mention like my home city Bogota, as an effect of climate change, we're running

Speaker:

out of water. Bogota might run out of water this month. And everyone's having to ration

Speaker:

water because of climate change. And that has never happened before. So those are the real

Speaker:

effects. Those are the real important things, but Stonehenge. I want to go back to the Wet's

Speaker:

Wets'n though for a second because there is an update there and it's just so hypocritical,

Speaker:

right? So if we're talking about protecting things, things that should be there, you know,

Speaker:

these are land, literally land and water defenders that are being criminalized. and their trial

Speaker:

has been postponed until September. It should have been taking place right now. Apparently

Speaker:

an illness has postponed it, is what the explanation is, but it's so inflammatory and problematic.

Speaker:

That's not even adequate to describe it, but the Amnesty International sent... delegation

Speaker:

to observe the trial and they issued a really condemning statement which you know it's not

Speaker:

the first time for amnesty to come down on Canada especially when it's dealing with their history

Speaker:

or their current treatment of indigenous peoples but I just want to read their statement because

Speaker:

it speaks to like what we're talking about here where you're criminalizing folks that are trying

Speaker:

to do the good work One of their America's director there said it should speak volumes that the

Speaker:

world's largest human rights organization has a global campaign to stop the criminalization

Speaker:

of indigenous land and water defenders from the what's a nation. So they are appealing,

Speaker:

sorry, side note, they're appealing to folks in other countries to help stop what the Canadian

Speaker:

government is doing right now. So I'm sure we've all been there where we've signed petitions

Speaker:

criticizing other countries and stop your criminalization and targeting of activists. And so that's actually

Speaker:

happening on an international scale with Amnesty International. And they added there, it's appalling

Speaker:

that instead of protecting the rights of these defenders, the authorities of British Columbia

Speaker:

have decided to prosecute them. Some of these defenders even face possible jail time. Canada

Speaker:

is on the sadly long list of countries in the Americas where land offenders remain at risk

Speaker:

for their essential work. Yeah, so we'd like to dish on Canada's national identity as often

Speaker:

as possible. Like, we are not what we say we are. Of course not. No, and it's that colonial

Speaker:

dimension to it. And I'm kind of glad you brought this up, Santiago, about the genocide that

Speaker:

Israel is currently committing in Palestine, because when it gets to a certain point, that's

Speaker:

all that's left to do is to post dishonest condemnations. which we've seen time and time again coming

Speaker:

from Israel, you know, oh wow, well there was a Hamas base under this hospital, that's why

Speaker:

we had to bomb it. Well there was, oh here's a list of the terrorist schedule and it's just

Speaker:

the days of the week for like, hospitals. Like it's this point where the point of the lie

Speaker:

is to just reinforce what's happening rather than convince anybody. I think in the terms

Speaker:

of like BC and amnesty coming down on BC and Canada's treatment of indigenous people is

Speaker:

if you were to if it were more prominent in new cycle and you take it to BC, they would

Speaker:

just say something like, you know, we respect the rule of law, which most of BC if not all

Speaker:

I believe is on unseated indigenous land. So if you actually wanted to like do like law

Speaker:

and order, you would return all of the land that you have taken from indigenous people.

Speaker:

Because this is a system that cannot logically defend itself at this point. Maybe back in

Speaker:

like the 60s or 70s where there wasn't as widespread knowledge or access to information, maybe you

Speaker:

could post something like this and a lot of people would go, well, I didn't think of it

Speaker:

that way and so on and so forth. But with the news cycle being so fast and the same excuses

Speaker:

being put out verbatim every time. I sincerely doubt that anybody's convinced by it. And my

Speaker:

greater concern is that people are just disengaged because of this onslaught of like dishonesty.

Speaker:

They're just like, everybody lies. So I'm not gonna even care, which is not the response

Speaker:

because that's kind of what they want. So you should be mad that people think you're this

Speaker:

stupid. That's why, that was what gets me fired up. Is that like, nobody is this stupid. You

Speaker:

can't honestly believe that we think that you're arguing in good faith. And I think that's a

Speaker:

much better and more productive path to take. Yeah. That definitely disengagement is hard

Speaker:

to tackle. Like it's such a barrier because then people will just regurgitate whatever

Speaker:

they're reading on social media and whatever comes easiest to them. Even though we're at

Speaker:

a time where resources are the most available that they've ever been, right? Like you said,

Speaker:

there's really no excuse. Everything is at your fingertips, but... And I

Speaker:

even though it's demonstrably not true, because people are throwing paint on Stonehenge in

Speaker:

a small act of resistance. There's all this systemic pressure to minimize it and refute

Speaker:

it because if this act, however small and you know, if you want to critique it for not being

Speaker:

you know, bombing something, that's you know, that's a different discussion. But however

Speaker:

small it is, all this systemic pressure to discard it is almost a sign of like how precarious

Speaker:

things are right now. Because if it didn't matter, you would see one story about it maybe, and

Speaker:

then that would be the end of it. But since everybody is up in arms about it, they have

Speaker:

to pick an easy win that they can frame and I don't think it's going to be as easy as they

Speaker:

think it is, especially considering how it's the same plate book every goddamn time. Like

Speaker:

I have so many feelings about this topic, but it's like one of those things where I don't

Speaker:

even know how to articulate what I'm feeling because it's so absurd. Yeah, that's the thing

Speaker:

too is like, that's kind of why I posted that I was like, can we not do this? Like, it seems

Speaker:

self evident that this is just a ridiculous conversation that's happening. And I don't

Speaker:

know how else to put it like, stop. So we spend more time on it. That's our thinking. But I

Speaker:

think it's like they've got some creative bits as well. So. It doesn't have to be a discussion

Speaker:

around the critiques always, even though it's important to give people courage to not worry

Speaker:

about these critiques, right? To push through them. But at the same time, today, I'm loving

Speaker:

what people are coming up with as forms of disruption. I feel like we are in peak creativity era.

Speaker:

And like corn starch maybe is not up there, but there's folks today, maybe still. Blockading

Speaker:

Elbit systems somewhere in the UK. I apologize for not having the details and they've like

Speaker:

cemented themselves to a vehicle somehow cemented themselves and so yeah, and so You can go watch

Speaker:

live if they're still there the cops Desperate trying to figure this out, right? So there's

Speaker:

a car, there's a cop like in the trunk with a jackhammer trying to chip away at this big

Speaker:

block of concrete. And there's like folks lying around the car. So they're somehow attached

Speaker:

to it. I don't fucking know, but they know no end. I think the diversity of tactics is really

Speaker:

important too. Cause I didn't want to focus on a criticism of just stop oil, even though

Speaker:

there are some are honest ones you could do. But like when it comes down to it, they're

Speaker:

doing something. And at this point, we need to do everything. And whether you think something

Speaker:

is enough or not is irrelevant because unless you are also working towards something, it's

Speaker:

all talk and no action. Random side note, just because cement was mentioned, do not cement

Speaker:

yourself to things. Cement has toxins that will build up and can be very dangerous. There are

Speaker:

other ways to permanent, to attach yourself to things that are a lot safer. Just cement

Speaker:

is not one of them. To be fair, I think the cement is in the trunk and the people are somehow

Speaker:

attacked and they're outside the car, but I imagine there's dust and I don't think they

Speaker:

gave them, you know, ventilation masks. The cops are in there, they're not masked. Yeah,

Speaker:

just do not cement on your body, is my thing. They're using super glue, like isn't that,

Speaker:

like, anyway. Very much so. Bracels. Agreed. But yeah, no, it's everything. We need everything

Speaker:

because we have no time. We don't even have time to like... Talk about what we should do.

Speaker:

We just need to do literally anything. It's like throw everything at the wall, even corn

Speaker:

starch. Kitchen sink. Exactly. And that's why I think it's a productive conversation to have

Speaker:

something like this rather than sitting down and debunking the points bit by bit. Because

Speaker:

I think when we talk about it on a macro level and how this is systemically being reinforced,

Speaker:

and you can navigate it a bit more, especially if you do these actions or if you follow these

Speaker:

actions, you can navigate it more in a more productive way. hopefully refine movements

Speaker:

and tactics. I think that's important. Yeah, hopefully nobody's out there trying to disprove

Speaker:

the fact that the Lycan would survive said cornstarch. Like, I hope there's no energy being spent

Speaker:

there. Keep moving forward, people. All right, I think that's it for our rabble rants today,

Speaker:

folks. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank you for joining

Speaker:

us. Also, a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Jaluc Quintero. Blueprints

Speaker:

of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on Twitter

Speaker:

at BPEofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo, please

Speaker:

share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only does our

Speaker:

support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and

Speaker:

let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube