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.