So many people seem to believe that death, destruction and domination are the only ways human problems can be solved. This appears to be particularly true for those who wield great political and economic power.

The curious logic here is that when perceived violence disrupts the peace that defines the status quo of our society, more violence is the only way peace can be restored. This is the War Paradigm that our society is still trapped in. We believe we must fight fire with fire and project “toughness.” A counter-violence with its veneer of legitimacy is seen as the remedy. This is the Orwellian myth of redemptive violence: “good violence” is the solution to “bad violence.” The coordinated use “good violence” is the exclusive right of governments and corporations. Individuals who assume that they are purveyors of “good violence” run the risk of retribution from the powers that be. Any violent opposition to government or corporate agendas is regarded as “bad violence” and will be swiftly met with “good violence” to restore “peace.” The meaning of “peace” in this context is the return to the status quo of politics, economics and social hierarchy that supports governments and corporations in carrying out their agendas and reaching their goals.

The problem, of course is that this “peace” is all too often based on the imposition of varying degrees of inequality on the general population resulting in the subjugation of many in order to provide for the privileges of the few. As Martin Luther King stated years ago, this is when “peace becomes obnoxious.” When this is the case, it is our duty to become “disturbers of the peace.” We must become compassionate disrupters of the malignant indifference that looks like “business as usual.” Conscience requires that we do all that we can to make this toxic complacency as viscerally uncomfortable as possible.

There are times when following one’s conscience will lead one to actively oppose systemic evil. There are situations we will find ourselves in when conscience will not allow us to do nothing. These times, these circumstances of gross injustice, abject cruelty and blatant de-humanization activate conscience in such a way that passivity becomes impossible.

The current dominance of State and corporate entities is based on a deeply flawed understanding of human nature. They perceive human nature as fundamentally “bad” and therefore needing to be controlled by force in some way. This projection of force may be quite subtle or painfully obvious but the goal is the same: control. Human beings are seen as essentially separate from each other and locked in perpetual competition for everything. The government-corporate system subscribes to the notion that life is a “zero sum game.” They deny or dismiss the notion that human beings have qualities beyond the materialistic paradigm. In other words: modern capitalism.

Framing the human experience as one of necessary and inevitable competition maintains the current structure of human society. It conditions us to accept a particular story about who we are and what we can expect from ourselves and each other. It is reasoned that we must successfully compete in order to get what we need and want in order to survive and enjoy our lives. Just as important is the fact that this arrangement rewards us with feeling good about ourselves when we are successful enough in our competitions. Being a “winner” is extolled in American culture and other cultures worldwide.

The problem with the competition framework for human society is that in order to have a “winner” there has to be a “loser.” What does it mean to “lose” in this context? It means that you don’t get what you want and maybe not what you need. If “winning” helps us to feel good about ourselves, “losing” does the opposite. What happens to someone who experiences themself as a “loser”? If it happens enough, “learned helplessness” will take hold and defeat is increasingly accepted. This allows those who are successful to feel justified in labelling those who aren’t as “lazy.” In American culture, “losing” is all too often regarded as shameful, as an indication that there is something seriously wrong with a person. Too much internalized shame sets the stage for expressions of violence. This violence may be physical or non-physical, it may be overt or covert and it may be directed externally or internally.

Thus those in positions of power implicitly, and sometimes quite explicitly, assure themselves that they are superior humans and are naturally entitled to manage (i.e. dominate) their “inferiors.” They are perennial subscribers to the philosophy of Us and Them. Call them the 1%, the Elite or the Ruling Class. Whatever the label, this comparatively small but highly privileged and powerful group maintains a monopoly on the use of sanctioned violence. They usually want to maintain the privileges they enjoy by whatever means necessary. This invariably involves the use of some materialistic power at their disposal.

So what does conscience require of us when the odds are so stacked against us?

Albert Einstein tells us:

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

We must engage with the problem at a different level of consciousness. A paradigm shift is needed. We cannot hope to fight fire with fire. Violence cannot solve violence. Materialistic power cannot dismantle materialistic power. A different kind of power is necessary. We must find the right kind of water to put out the fire.

Conscience requires that we live in alignment with the truth to the best of our abilities. It requires that we whole-heartedly love each other, ourselves and those who we imagine to be our enemies. It functions as an organic GPS guidance system that directs us to live according to our values and to recognize the deeper truth of who we are and reject the limitations and falsehoods of materialistic extremism.

The deeper truth of our identity was well expressed in the 20th century by theologian and scientist Teilhard de Chardin, the mystic Georges Gurdjieff and more recently author Wayne Dyer who are all credited as stating some variation of the following:

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

If we can accept and embrace this as real, then we must recognize that there are many who don’t. If this is true, it means that many are unaware of who they really are and are acting from a false sense of identity. This false sense of personal reality is the myopic perspective of extreme materialism which sees human beings as nothing more than biochemical machines who are locked in perpetual competition with each other, trapped in a world with insufficient resources.

Conscience requires that we do all that we can to help not only ourselves but those who remain hypnotized by this false worldview.

If we accept the validity of this perspective then creative, principled nonviolence is the most rational strategy we can employ. Conscientious non-cooperation is a starting point. We must become fully aware of how we have become complicit with systemic injustice and end our complicity as publicly as possible. Freedom is exercised here as an expression of conscience. This is also a highly practical matter with respect to how we use our money. This is important because money is the language that government and the corporate world best understand. It is what they take seriously.

It has been said that the federal budget is a moral document. The budget shows what the government values and what it doesn’t. It is time we look at our personal bank accounts and financial investments the same way. Is our money saved, spent or invested in such a way that it is supporting death, destruction or domination? Is our financial advantage causing someone else’s poverty? Does our way of life depend on the suffering of others?

Sometimes it will be enough to consciously and publicly withdraw our complicity. We can choose to withdraw our financial support from those perpetrating injustice and de-humanization. However, sometimes more is needed in the form aggressive nonviolent public action. Aggressive nonviolence is not a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is an accurate description of the kinds of public actions employed by Gandhi and King. It was also emblematic of many of the public works of Jesus of Nazareth. It may be necessary to directly challenge the systems of power that impose injustice and that we do this with relentless compassion for those acting on behalf of such repressive systems. While being fully aware of the great harm being done we insist on loving the human beings involved. We must fully recognize and acknowledge the humanity of those who are serving those political and economic systems. Conveying hostility or shaming them is a serious mistake. They are not the enemy. They are potential allies in the making. They should be respected as such.

Conscience requires that we stop de-humanizing each other and that we start re-humanizing each other with all due haste. Such public actions of conscience seek to achieve a kind of moral resonance with those who have become trapped in their pain and their fear. These actions are not to be done to shame those who are trapped, although too often this is what happens. Those who think they stand on some moral high ground when they shout “Shame on you!” at those whom they imagine to be their enemies do so out of deep misunderstanding and ignorance of how counter-productive this is. Rather, public actions of aggressive nonviolence must aim at the reinvigoration of the true, compassionate humanity of all individuals and communities.

Conscience insists that we reject the toxic fictions of “Us and Them” and “Might Makes Right” that creates disposable people and objectifies and profanes our world. Conscience inspires us to move beyond the cancers of hyper-individualism, toxic masculinity, white supremacy, colonialism and “survival of the fittest.” It reveals the illusion of separateness and illuminates the reality of our connection to each other and all of creation. Conscience proclaims that all life is sacred and that we have a responsibility to behave accordingly.