The purpose of the police and the courts is the protection of capital from the people. Some cases illustrate this more clearly than others. This is one of them.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?
Turns out that in their demands on Sweden to change the way they apply the law when it comes to PKK demonstations, what Turkey is doing wrong is making it a quid pro quo for approving NATO membership rather than just helping the Swedish upper classes get richer.
Clearly freedom of speech CAN be traded in Sweden, as long as its for cold hard cash.
I could demonstrate to you That every single bank robbery That in every single case practically The cost of the police was more than The actual money that the robbers took from the bank Does that mean, 'Oh, you see There’s really no economic interest involved, then They’re not protecting the banks The police are just doing this ‘cause they’re on a A power trip or they’re macho, or they’re control freaks That’s why they do it’ No, of course, it’s an economic… Of course, they’re defending the banks Of course, because if they didn’t stop that bank robbery Regardless of the cost, this could jeopardize The entire banking system You see, there are people who believe That the function of the police Is to fight crime, and that’s not true The function of the police is social control And protection of property…
She should be getting a Nobel prize for putting a rapist sex-trafficker in prison with a single tweet.
Though I wish this were true it is not. Romanian authorities, specifically Ramona Bolla of DIICOT confirmed that the tweet had nothing to do with locating him.
You suggesting that Romanian authorities rely on tweets of some social media celebrity to arrest another one is not that different from Top scumbag himself suggesting he can bribe his way to stay away from prison in Romania. Both are pretty insulting to Romania.
Granted, yours isn’t as bad, yet you should still reconsider your position.
“We blocked the port in order to stop the use of fossil fuels that are killing innocent people,” she said. “The real crimes continue inside the gate of the port. We are not going to sit and wait while the fossil fuel industry takes our dreams away from us.” Asked if she’s worried about the consequences of the trial, she replied: “I personally am more worried about the horrible harm the fossil fuel industry is doing to the world.” “I’m not going to stop while they are threatening the planet.”
Much of the oil and gas industry says that continued production is necessary in order to meet global energy demands. Cutting oil and gas production would be “dangerous and irresponsible”, the head of energy company Shell told BBC News. The International Energy Agency has said that there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal now if governments are serious about the climate crisis. UN chief António Guterres recently said investment in new oil and gas production was “economic and moral madness”. This week the world experienced its hottest day on record on Tuesday, topping 17C for the first time.
Our world burns and people suffer so that oil companies can turn a profit. The few are making decisions that will have disasterous effects on the many in the not too distant future.
Asked if she’s worried about the consequences of the trial, she replied: “I personally am more worried about the horrible harm the fossil fuel industry is doing to the world.” “I’m not going to stop while they are threatening the planet.”
This. This is activism. I’m not brave enough to face a justice system hostile to my existence like she does, so I’m glad she’s there to do it.
Also, great job staying on message. Press wrangling is a chore, but it’s so important to get your story out.
Cue the millions of bootlickers who will claim “she’s been coached into this by her parents and Soros!”
As long as people are buying gas for their cars and flying planes around the world, oil companies will need to exist.
It’s so strange to me how people will protest oil companies, then go fill up their tank at the gas station. Or fly across the globe for their vacations.
For most Americans, there is no alternative for a car. The tram lines we used 60 years ago were bought and torn up by car manufacturers. We need grocery stores within walking distance, and transit lines to useful places before people will give up their cars.
I have grocery stores within walking distance, but even taking a dolly it’s a hell of a lot of work carrying back a bunch of groceries. Plus the way the roads are constructed I risk my life every time I cross the street. Young and fit people should walk to the store but it’s not practical for everyone.
Absolutely amazing. For those who say are saying that it was too extremist of a position, I’d say fuck off. She is doing what we all need to be doing. Oil companies and governments aren’t going to help us out of the climate catastrophe that is coming. They simply aren’t. Capitalism will not allow it. This is the only option we have left.
Something that intrigued me was how Martin Luther King managed to do so much through nonviolent protest. Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat and the bus boycotts made people realize how absurd and unfair Jim Crow laws were.
He even participated in a sit in at a department store and was arrested for it. People were getting arrested in such numbers for such simple things it made people think about what King and his followers were trying to do.
I have no doubts that Ms. Thunberg has good intentions, but her protests are simply ineffective. In this case, “blockading” an oil port just frustrates people for delaying a crucial product.
I don’t know, man. I’m not saying it was the best thing that could’ve been done, but at least she’s actually trying to get us to stop cooking ourselves. It wasn’t like she went full blown eco terrorist.
There are other problems in addition to global warming. The scientific reports I’ve heard of conclude that this is not a civilization killer. It’s a serious problem, but it’s not at the 100% serious level that it’s portrayed at.
And that 100% serious level is not a place you want to be, in terms of responses, if your responses might cause other problems that could reach the 100% serious level.
Like nuclear war. Nuclear war is a real possibility, and it’s something to avoid at all costs. It would be worse than global warming’s projected effects.
So if we cause a nuclear war by taking actions to avoid climate change, we fucked up and killed ourselves by overreacting.
I’m not saying it’s likely. I’m just giving some context into how the major changes being proposed scare some people. A lot of people see the economy and the power structures of the world and all of our fossil-fuel burning industry as a delicate system that is keeping us all fed enough to not be starting wars. Some people are more worried about fucking with that system than they are about climate change.
An analogy would be if you were in a little shack in the wilderness, in the bitter cold winter, and you had a heater that was producing noxious fumes like carbon monoxide.
It’s a really fucking serious problem to have th carbon monoxide in your air. So you’re like “let’s shut off the heater and replace it with blankets”. But if the blankets aren’t effective enough, you freeze to death.
Another analogy would be facing a man-eating tiger while there’s a minefield behind you. Two dangers. And someone who only sees tiger will be like “what the hell are you doing?? This is life or death! Get away from that tiger!” but there’s a legit worry about that minefield too.
Global warming is a new enemy of humanity. But we have to be careful that we don’t resurrect the old enemies of humanity while we’re fighting global warming: famine, war, disease, etc.
Another analogy: human culture is a gigantic codebase that somehow runs. The code was written by developers who aren’t here any more. There’s very little documentation. And this program is running and providing us with food and peace. Mucking about in the code, even for very good reasons, could disrupt existing features that we rely on heavily.
The second I saw MLK’s name I immediately though I was about to read a dogshit take. You did not disapoint.
I really don’t get comments like this. An insult, delivered in some slightly eloquent flourish. What’s the point?
Do you have any idea how the civil rights protests worked? Do you think MLK just asked everyone nicely to give black people rights pretty please? MLK did the exact same kind of thing as Greta, so don’t even pretend you give half a shit about MLK when you’re making it crystal clear that you don’t know a goddamn thing about his methods or beliefs. You wanna know what MLK actually thought about violent protests? In his own words: “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
I hate how often people like you use MLK to hide behind while misinterpreting him and ignoring everything he actually stood for.
It’s frustrating when people think talking down to others is going to change minds. It’s no wonder progressive activists fail to make progress.
If you expect people with different perspectives to get behind people like Greta you’ll want to adopt a better strategy. Otherwise, you’ll continue to polarize folks.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy, 1962
I wish you were right. Look at Bulgaria. A year of peaceful protest, and the ones who were supposed to save us from the corrupt government made a coalition with them and thus rehabilitated the mafia government. I hope that I get proven wrong, and Kennedy is correct, but only time will tell.
