Unius

extinction rebellion

Yes, yes, yes, to your motives and to the sentiments – you’re absolutely right. But who are you talking to? They have known for over 50 years that it was serious, yet they’ve done nothing to address this ongoing crisis. 

You, like those before you who challenged the system through direct action – albeit with very worthy and pertinent intentions – in certain regards have compounded the problems. When we fight for what we believe is right, our adversaries simply bolster up their defences, engage in counter attacks, and demonise and/or neutralise the threat, all to protect themselves. You naively thought that by trying to exploit their propaganda machine you would reach enough people – that ‘critical mass’ – to initiate that much needed change. And yes, you might have united those who already aligned themselves with the merits of your aspirations, (whilst also giving a sense of solidarity and refuge to the otherwise disenfranchised), but you also ignited hostility and resentment onto yourselves in far greater numbers than that of your anticipated critical mass, all because you used their media to promote yourselves. The media is a feature of the system you’re trying to change, and it used you for its own requirements. As a consequence we can’t demonstrate freely, we can be arrested for disruption, and opposing the will of the state is erring on terrorism. Unfortunately, you’re just one of hundreds of pressure groups that have invested a great deal in trying to make a difference, but you’ve really just exposed how impotent we all are.

Despite a few effective campaigns and successful legal challenges by environmental groups like yourselves, governments only consider responding to outside pressure if they can profit from it, or gain political advantage by doing so. We must not interpret that as a win.

We are programmed by the system to find purpose in having an enemy. This is the oldest and most effective trick in the book, responsible not only for every war in our so-called ‘civilised’ history but also for the deeply entrenched divisions that are an ongoing feature of every society.

The binary narrative of good versus evil underpins all systems of power, whether religious or secular. It dominates our stories, entertainment, and politics, perpetuating an endless cycle of conflict. This narrative plays out everywhere; on the global stage, in classrooms, on sports fields, and even within families. It amplifies our primitive instincts instead of engaging our capacity for reason. Rather than solving problems through intellect and cooperation, we default to thuggery – a destructive approach that is the consistent theme of civilisation. Conflict stagnates any prospect of positive progression. Even so-called ‘non-violent protest’ is just indirect aggression, still rooted in the same flawed paradigm. If we want real change, we must abandon this ‘might is right’ mentality and simply pursue ‘better’. Better is, by definition, a reasoned objective, and it has the substance that demonstrates why it is better.

The current system thrives on division, conflict, and exploitation. It is built on opinions, beliefs, self-interest, power, and greed. Trying to reform this system by rallying support for a cause is an exercise in futility. The only take-home from all the efforts of campaigning organisations is that the situation is getting worse because GOVERNMENTS DO NOT CARE – care is not in their agenda, but money, notoriety, and power are. And power inevitably manifests as destruction.

Nov 2023

Movements like the Sunrise Movement in the US or Extinction Rebellion in the UK and elsewhere, are just new players in the same game, another opposition party in the system’s endless cycle of division. They feed the very mechanism they claim to resist. The system thrives on this dynamic, and as long as we keep playing its game, nothing will change in any significant way.

Of course, the solution that we need is a different system, but one that understands its function in terms of protecting and preserving life; one built on a comprehensive understanding of what it means to be human, and utilises all of the accumulated knowledge and skills we have learnt as the means to achieve that objective.

Back to Part 2
Next Article

It seems that current UK government is redefining the definition of democracy to one which stipulates that you have the liberty to voice anything you like, and vote for whatever you like, so long as your views align with theirs, and you support their agenda, lest you are branded an extremist.


It is now a crime to question British values, institutions, and the governments own self-serving interpretation of democracy. They are discretely embedding into law ‘secular blasphemy’, where challenging their agenda is a punishable offence.


If we consider this in light of the global environmental crisis, if governments don’t radically change their short-term preoccupation with profit and power, there won’t be a planet on which to impose such totalitarian statutes.


Over the decades, western governments have condemned such suppressive tactics as anti-democratic and against human rights, citing China as an example of an oppressive regime by drawing on the thousands of political prisoners that voiced a opinion contrary to that of the state. Yet here we are, the UK government, silencing any form of dissent by the threat of imprisonment.


The fact that democracy isn’t perfect, but is still better than the rest – a too often quoted justification for its failings – doesn’t address the real problem which is the idea of power itself. When power becomes an objective, as it is with democracy, then it also becomes the main focus of those who have it, or those who want it, and the actual function of being in power, namely caring for the citizens and their future, becomes a side issue. This recent move to criminalise the right to question the actions and motives of the authority, exemplifies why power should be taken out of the equation, because vilifying dissent is simply protecting one’s position of power, rather than satisfying the responsibility that should accompany it.

we should be very worried!

It seems that current UK government is redefining the definition of democracy to one which stipulates that you have the liberty to voice anything you like, and vote for whatever you like, so long as your views align with theirs, and you support their agenda, lest you are branded an extremist.


It is now a crime to question British values, institutions, and the governments own self-serving interpretation of democracy. They are discretely embedding into law ‘secular blasphemy’, where challenging their agenda is a punishable offence.


If we consider this in light of the global environmental crisis, if governments don’t radically change their short-term preoccupation with profit and power, there won’t be a planet on which to impose such totalitarian statutes.

Over the decades, western governments have condemned such suppressive tactics as anti-democratic and against human rights, citing China as an example of an oppressive regime by drawing on the thousands of political prisoners that voiced a opinion contrary to that of the state. Yet here we are, the UK government, silencing any form of dissent by the threat of imprisonment.


The fact that democracy isn’t perfect, but is still better than the rest – a too often quoted justification for its failings – doesn’t address the real problem which is the idea of power itself. When power becomes an objective, as it is with democracy, then it also becomes the main focus of those who have it, or those who want it, and the actual function of being in power, namely caring for the citizens and their future, becomes a side issue. This recent move to criminalise the right to question the actions and motives of the authority, exemplifies why power should be taken out of the equation, because vilifying dissent is simply protecting one’s position of power, rather than satisfying the responsibility that should accompany it.

Back