Passive assent or non-cooperation with evil?

by Geoff Hall on April 18, 2012 with comments

"Memory of the Berlin Wall" Copyright, 2012. Geoff Hall

What happens if governments around the world don’t receive a mandate from their people? What if a majority of registered voters choose not to vote? If only 25% of voters choose to vote, whose interests is the government representing? The bigger question of course is how do the 75% majority of the population respond?

Considering the chaos and destruction caused by the grasping of power, why do we vote for our political parties and their sales representatives? Democracy is like any other product, it has currency in an internal market, but recently it has expanded to the export market.

Why is the choice of parties restricted to two in America? What if the population desired more choice, for isn’t choice the sign of a free-market, of a civilised society? How would, how could that political choice be provided? When the global economic crisis has been caused by non-elected trans-national, ultra vires corporations, why are my elected representatives powerless to do anything about it? And, more to the point, why must WE the voters around the world, pay for it?

A word about such ultra vires corporations. If, as is the case, such entities are operating outside of the law, beyond authority, then how should we classify them? Is there an example we can follow? How about this? Usually we call this kind of operation ‘organised crime’ and the authorities are supposed to bring such organisations to justice, yes? But why has all that has happened been government subsidies to aid the continuance of such entities? Are our governments complicit in criminal activities; in subsidising organised crime? Why do we perpetuate this madness?

If the concern of a government was really for peace, for the happiness of its people, then why do they only bring misery? Where has the human equation gone in their policy-making?

We take for granted that the institutions, governmental structures, democratic principles are somehow irreplaceable, that they are the only logical development of a civilised society. The reverse is true, these mechanisms, anti-human machines have become the strongholds of untold misery, perpetuators of slavery in the world today. Is this the kind of world I wish to bring children into?

Such institutions will not change themselves, because the grasping of power has totally corrupted them; they are no longer here to serve the people, but to be served by the people. This is slavery, whether the institutions are spiritual, political, educational, artistic etc. – the only thing that will change them, is if we ourselves are changed. Transformation starts within, not without. God in a box is no God at all. Democracy by the rich, for the rich is a totally different principle than democracy by the people, for the people. Non-cooperation with these mechanisms of slavery is a starting point, but only a starting point.

When the mechanisms of power continue to shock us into compliance – for this is not a peaceful rule for the good of the people – what can we do but refuse this shock treatment by rejecting the diagnosis in the first place.

Erasing the world and the imago within is an attempt to eradicate this memory, so that the corrupted powers can re-image, re-imagine us as slaves and not as free people. Not as precious and beautiful in our fearful and wonderful making, but as limited in price and shelf-life; life as a commodity, sex rendered meaningless, love rendered meaningless, promises of a peace made hollow.

I, you, we…rendered disposable.

Should this process receive our passive assent? Jacques Ellul’s anti-process of resistance moves along this axis: silence, accusation, provocation. In this we have a ‘spirituality of resistance’ for the artist, for the community and thus destroying our collaboration with those who desire to be our owners.

Theoretically related:

Comment