AnarchoNinaWrites
Brey, I can't explain it any simpler than this:
Planet is on fire, we know billions of ppl are going to die, we know it's capitalism and the fossil fuels it depends on that's doing this.
And what are your leaders doing? What is your state spending money on? Solving this problem? Absolutely not. They're arming themselves to the teeth, militarizing security forces, criminalizing protest, hardening borders, increasing the size of their armies.
You have to be a dipshit not to see what time it is.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol I honestly don't think so, or I wouldn't be talking the way I am.
The shape of the problem is: the fossil fuels have to go, the capitalism (both in terms of pre-existing wealth, and wealth generation for billionaires and the ruling class) DEPENDS on the fossil fuels so the capitalism has to go, and finally the ruling class order is not going to let you end capitalism without enacting violence to prevent it; this will never be on the ballot.
So? It's revolution or die. Pretty sure.
craignicol
@AnarchoNinaWrites is there any solution that doesn't involve revolution?
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol Green energy is a long con; it does not exist because the capitalist order will not ever allow it to exist. Rich people and corporations have already booked more than enough fossil fuels to boil the world twice over, and entire planks of the global economy/wealth have been generated based on those bookings. Rich people and the states they own are not going to dissolve that money because "planet on fire" or they would have already. Capitalism does not work w/o fossil fuels.
craignicol
@AnarchoNinaWrites there's certainly governments who aren't full on for fossil fuels who are gambling on green energy etc to end fossil fuels without them having to do anything unpopular, but I don't think any of them have realised that in a changing climate, nothing is stable, and everyone holding up the status quo will be hugely unpopular.
We're seeing hints of it with the populist fascists around the world, but they still basically want the same thing, only with less diversity.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol I mean they will literally kill you if you try, because again switching off fossil fuels will turn booked reserves worth like actual TRILLIONS of dollars into worthless sludge. And the problem is even bigger than that for the capitalists because the banking structure has already done loans, investments and created wealth based on the idea those fossil fuels are worth trillions and will be burned.
Switching would bankrupt the ppl who own everything, overnight.
craignicol
@AnarchoNinaWrites of course. They can control the supply of fossil fuels. If they can't control the supply, the capitalist mythos crumbles to dust. And even if most of us switch to less and less, burning fuel is what keeps their wealth high. In the yachts and the private jets, and the war machinery. It's a self-preserving myth
And if that lie is exposed, everything is up for grabs, and the hierarchy cannot be sustained.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol And?
We know they're not willing to do that, or they would have already since it's not very clear that climate catastrophe is real and indeed is already happening.
Furthermore, they are installing fascism, buying our states and those states are arming to the teeth and revoking civil rights for their own citizens. So we can REASONABLY surmise they intend to fight, employ lethal force and eliminate our freedoms to protect that capitalist order.
This stuff is all very evident.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol They figure they'll be dead or able to run to Mars/wherever by the time it matters and billions of us are just "useless eaters" anyway.
Rich people have a whole cult (google: TESCREAL sometime) that posits that it's fine if everyone dies so long as rich people and artificial minds continue to exist because that will allow them to escape finite resources (and life on earth).
craignicol
@AnarchoNinaWrites which is depressing because what does it matter if you're bankrupt in a post-scarcity world? They're only hiding into the myth because it gives them power. And they'd rather have power in a dead world than life in a fair world.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol The fact that it won't work, isn't going to stop them from trying it and building a belief system to justify it; they already doing it.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@craignicol Reading the replies I've typed in this thread, I'm realize that they probably should have been public posts because more people need to hear this kinda shit.
Would you object to me retweeting my replies? I've looked back on your posts and near as I can tell we're agreeing with each other a lot, so I don't think doing so will reflect poorly on you but it MAY attract muppets who like to argue with ME into your replies. So that's why I'm asking first...
craignicol
@AnarchoNinaWrites they want to change facts to fit their beliefs instead of the other day round.
AnarchoNinaWrites
@thesquirrelfish @craignicol They're literally going to shoot you if you try to eliminate the capitalism that's killing you.
So that's a nice theory, but you don't always get to pick when someone declares war on you.
squifish
@craignicol
Massive cultural change that includes whole visible lifestyle changes & protecting those who resist the demand for labor that harms the planet would be a good start.
A lot of jobs make the planet less livable. We need to make sure that the people who are in those jobs can quit and maintain dignified lives if we want a more livable future.
Can we get there from here? It's not looking good in America right now but I'm not sure a violent revolution would have a better chance of creating that change. A drafted Vietnam Vet I knew once drunkenly yelled "I had to kill for this country, you only have the rights I give you". I think a lot of forms of coercion & violence can be like that - once people have had to endure or enact it, they often only respect others who've gone through it.
So powers gained through violence beget systems that empower violence. People who have had to work hard demand others labor as hard, even if it's not producing anything useful.
@AnarchoNinaWrites
AnarchoNinaWrites
@thesquirrelfish @craignicol Protecting people is not going to stop the planet for boiling; I think we're quite clearly having different conversations and I'm going to check out now.
squifish
@AnarchoNinaWrites
I agree - this is why I had "protect the people .." right in there. I mean both protecting as in stuff like housing & providing welfare & dignified lives for those who do not work, and protecting as in not allowing death squads/police killings/denial of health care/people freezing to death on the street.
Just like the deaths caused by the system aren't always as direct as a gunshot, the ways of protecting people aren't always as direct as a violent uprising.
@craignicol
AnarchoNinaWrites
@maxsol @craignicol yes, that's the more common term in English; but I did know what you mean.
I would in fact argue that pretty much the entire West/Pig Empire, is a petro-fascist order.
maxsol
@craignicol @AnarchoNinaWrites in English maybe petro-fascism
maxsol
@AnarchoNinaWrites @craignicol
you make me think (too quickly?) to the concept of carbo-fascism
The Sleight Doctor 🃏
@AnarchoNinaWrites @craignicol
Also, there's the not insignificant fact that a lot of what's being pushed as "green" energy today, is not without its own, potentially huge environmental and human costs.
Of course you already know this, but some of your readers may not.
👇
https://mastodon.world/@ApostateEnglishman/113538244703215500
Dianora (Diane Bruce)
@ApostateEnglishman @AnarchoNinaWrites @craignicol Also Hydrogen is not a 'green' energy solution.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.