#Environmental Police

[scopophilic1997]

scopOphilic_micromessaging_965 - scopOphilic1997 presents a new micro-messaging series: small, subtle, and often unintentional messages we send and receive verbally and non-verbally.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.4 Are anarchists in favour of “absolute” liberty?

No. Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to “do whatever they like,” because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

For example, anarchists do not support the “freedom” to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. Neither do we tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it.

The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a “right” to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports “freedom for everybody … with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean … that we recognise, and wish to respect, the ‘freedom’ to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 53]

In a capitalist society, resistance to all forms of hierarchical authority is the mark of a free person — be it private (the boss) or public (the state). As Henry David Thoreau pointed out in his essay on “Civil Disobedience” (1847)

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”

[bugboy-behaviour]

‼️‼️URANIUM IS BEING ILLEGALLY TRANSPORTED ACROSS NATIVE LAND‼️‼️

[nando161mando]

Greta Thunberg arrested by Dutch Police at a climate protest in the Hague

'Dutch police using controversial bokkepootje wrist bend on 4’11” Greta Thunberg for protesting climate collapse and genocide at The Hague'

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

A group of scientists and policymakers have recommended the European Union support a Europe-wide moratorium on using a controversial geoengineering technique known as solar geoengineering.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/environmental-news/eu-scientific-advisors-call-for-moratorium-on-solar-geoengineering-aerosol-injection

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[annoyinganarchopunk]

i hate how everyone seems to hate ai until its convenient or entertaining to them. ill be honest i used to play around with chat bots and yeah it was fun but no amount of entertainment can justify the environmental impact it has.

like its genuinely crazy. mfs will talk about recycling for the environment and then go and ai generate shitty cat photos.

ive met people who will actively acknowledge that ai usage has a terrible impact on our already depleting water sources then turn around and make it spit out 5 shittily generated videos. like what???

i dunno call me the fun police or whatever but i do believe that ai is going to be the death of society someday. and in the event ai takes over and starts tryna kill anyone who has opposed it, im not against the idea of ai, okay listen i named myself after an android from dbh i do genuinely love the idea of being able to incorporate machinery into society and evolving. but i do believe we have unlocked it too early. i do not believe we have made the necessary steps to ensure ai can be used to help us without it actively destroying our planet and our ability to intake and output information. if ai will not be the death of us or our planet, it will be the death of critical thinking and problem solving skills.

i dunno, its just annoying and hypocritical. like you cannot claim to be an eco warrior then turn around and tell ai to write an essay for you.

like unless youre actively offsetting your carbon and hydrological footprint by planting trees or donating to re-foresting organisations (which i doubt any of them do, lol.) youre still contributing loads to the crash of ecosystems and freshwater supplies. even then i dont think that the only reason to be supporting re-foresting should be to offset ai use. just plant some trees instead of planting trees AND fucking over your writing skills.

its wild people get called soft or woke over this. mf i just care about not treating water like its an infinite resource when groundwater (40% of the planets freshwater) is being pumped from the ground too fast for it to replenish for the sake of shit like cooling servers.

i do believe humanity is getting ahead of itself, i do not believe we are at a point where ai can be used in a way where it is safe for both the environment and society itself. and because of that, i really do believe humanity as a whole needs to step back and prioritise not killing the rock we live on before we try to make dbh real.

anyways guys i think a red cherry shrimp in my aquarium is eggnant!!!!! wish me luck this could mean i wont have to spend $10 on 5 shrimp :)

[thoughtlessarse]

Wildfires are devastating Patagonia. In response, Argentinian authorities are removing environmental protections and raiding Indigenous communities Soraya Maicoñio lives in Mallín Ahogado, a rural area in the Comarca Andina,a region of sparkling rivers, mountains, lakes and lush forests in Argentinian Patagonia. It is an area well-known for its small-scale agriculture, forestry and tourism. In recent weeks, however, the region, which spans the provinces of Rio Negro and Chubut, has been in the news for its large-scale wildfires – and the authorities’ crackdown on the local population. Since January, more than 35,000 hectares (86,500 acres) of forest, farmland and pine plantations have burned. In recent days, several new fires have broken out on the eastern slopes of the Andes. “The fire has been incredibly violent,” says Maicoñio, 52, a Mapuche singer and actor from Chubut. “More than 200 families lost their houses. We also lost orchards, vegetable gardens, animals, vehicles, workshops and cultural and educational spaces.” Hundreds of residents have been evacuated. The southern hemisphere summer (between December and February) is the dry season in Argentina and Chile, favouring forest fires. Intense, arid winds from the Andes and temperatures above the normal range have worsened the situation. In 2021, under similar conditions of drought, high winds and temperatures, the region experienced wildfires that left three people dead, 500 homes destroyed and 14,000 hectares of forest burnt. -But authorities in both provinces have stressed the criminal intent behind the fires, downplaying other factors such as the impact of increasing tourism, pine plantations or inadequate maintenance of the electricity infrastructure. While climate scientists believe rising temperatures increase the risk of wildfires, Argentina’s president Javier Milei has called called the climate crisis a “socialist lie.” Accordingly, his government is imposing budget cuts on its environmental agencies. In 2024, the National Fire Management System budget alone was cut by 81%.

continue reading

[okay-owl]

It’s literally them

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.6 Why is solidarity important to anarchists?

Solidarity, or mutual aid, is a key idea of anarchism. It is the link between the individual and society, the means by which individuals can work together to meet their common interests in an environment that supports and nurtures both liberty and equality. For anarchists, mutual aid is a fundamental feature of human life, a source of both strength and happiness and a fundamental requirement for a fully human existence.

Erich Fromm, noted psychologist and socialist humanist, points out that the “human desire to experience union with others is rooted in the specific conditions of existence that characterise the human species and is one of the strongest motivations of human behaviour.” [To Be or To Have, p.107]

Therefore anarchists consider the desire to form “unions” (to use Max Stirner’s term) with other people to be a natural need. These unions, or associations, must be based on equality and individuality in order to be fully satisfying to those who join them — i.e. they must be organised in an anarchist manner, i.e. voluntary, decentralised, and non-hierarchical.

Solidarity — co-operation between individuals — is necessary for life and is far from a denial of liberty. Solidarity, observed Errico Malatesta, “is the only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible wellbeing.” This “coming together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each,” results in “the freedom of each not being limited by, but complemented — indeed finding the necessary raison d’etre in — the freedom of others.” [Anarchy, p. 29] In other words, solidarity and co-operation means treating each other as equals, refusing to treat others as means to an end and creating relationships which support freedom for all rather than a few dominating the many. Emma Goldman reiterated this theme, noting “what wonderful results this unique force of man’s individuality has achieved when strengthened by co-operation with other individualities . .. co-operation — as opposed to internecine strife and struggle — has worked for the survival and evolution of the species… . only mutual aid and voluntary co-operation … can create the basis for a free individual and associational life.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 118]

Solidarity means associating together as equals in order to satisfy our common interests and needs. Forms of association not based on solidarity (i.e. those based on inequality) will crush the individuality of those subjected to them. As Ret Marut points out, liberty needs solidarity, the recognition of common interests:

“The most noble, pure and true love of mankind is the love of oneself. I want to be free! I hope to be happy! I want to appreciate all the beauties of the world. But my freedom is secured only when all other people around me are free. I can only be happy when all other people around me are happy. I can only be joyful when all the people I see and meet look at the world with joy-filled eyes. And only then can I eat my fill with pure enjoyment when I have the secure knowledge that other people, too, can eat their fill as I do. And for that reason it is a question of my own contentment, only of my own self, when I rebel against every danger which threatens my freedom and my happiness…” [Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner magazine quoted by Karl S. Guthke, B. Traven: The life behind the legends, pp. 133–4]

To practice solidarity means that we recognise, as in the slogan of Industrial Workers of the World, that “an injury to one is an injury to all.” Solidarity, therefore, is the means to protect individuality and liberty and so is an expression of self-interest. As Alfie Kohn points out:

“when we think about co-operation… we tend to associate the concept with fuzzy-minded idealism… This may result from confusing co-operation with altruism… Structural co-operation defies the usual egoism/altruism dichotomy. It sets things up so that by helping you I am helping myself at the same time. Even if my motive initially may have been selfish, our fates now are linked. We sink or swim together. Co-operation is a shrewd and highly successful strategy — a pragmatic choice that gets things done at work and at school even more effectively than competition does… There is also good evidence that co-operation is more conductive to psychological health and to liking one another.” [No Contest: The Case Against Competition, p. 7]

And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only because of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary to resist those in power. Malatesta’s words are relevant here:

“the oppressed masses who have never completely resigned themselves to oppress and poverty, and who … show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they will not be able to achieve their emancipation except by union and solidarity with all the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world.” [Anarchy, p. 33]

By standing together, we can increase our strength and get what we want. Eventually, by organising into groups, we can start to manage our own collective affairs together and so replace the boss once and for all. ”Unions will… multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.” [Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, p. 258] By acting in solidarity, we can also replace the current system with one more to our liking: “in union there is strength.” [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 74]

Solidarity is thus the means by which we can obtain and ensure our own freedom. We agree to work together so that we will not have to work for another. By agreeing to share with each other we increase our options so that we may enjoy more, not less. Mutual aid is in my self-interest — that is, I see that it is to my advantage to reach agreements with others based on mutual respect and social equality; for if I dominate someone, this means that the conditions exist which allow domination, and so in all probability I too will be dominated in turn.

As Max Stirner saw, solidarity is the means by which we ensure that our liberty is strengthened and defended from those in power who want to rule us: “Do you yourself count for nothing then?”, he asks. “Are you bound to let anyone do anything he wants to you? Defend yourself and no one will touch you. If millions of people are behind you, supporting you, then you are a formidable force and you will win without difficulty.” [quoted in Luigi Galleani’s The End of Anarchism?, p. 79 — different translation in The Ego and Its Own, p. 197]

Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means by which liberty can be created and defended against power. Solidarity is strength and a product of our nature as social beings. However, solidarity should not be confused with “herdism,” which implies passively following a leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be created by free people, co-operating together as equals. The “big WE” is not solidarity, although the desire for “herdism” is a product of our need for solidarity and union. It is a “solidarity” corrupted by hierarchical society, in which people are conditioned to blindly obey leaders.

[herbouquetreign]

When we go voting, let’s all writes someone’s name in,instead of voting for Biden.

Bc Biden clearly proved that he’s actually not for the people at all. Hes not for women,he’s not for the environment. He’s not for decriminalizing weed.

He’s for profit of big corporations.

He’s just as crooked as every other politician that claimed to care about the people,then fuck us over.And so is Kamala Harris. She may seem all “girlboss,girl power,all wise” but she funded Israel,as well. And let them drop bombs on people.she would sell anybody out,then gaslight you and say they hate her bc she’s a woman.

Vote for someone competent,young,and always defended the people. Like Peter Buttigieg,AOC, mark kelly,Or Bernie sanders(ik he’s old, but he was there from the very beginning for minorities and women). The point is,you have the power to write a candidate in. You don’t have to choose “the lesser of 2 evils”

And don’t stop there. Vote in better senators,and local government. Anything where you can vote,do your research and go out and vote!

Because Im tired of this. Aren’t you?

[nando161mando]

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Indigenous groups turn to Brazil’s highest court to stop police violence

Brazil’s largest coalition of Indigenous groups has filed a motion with the country’s highest court in response to escalating police brutality against Indigenous peoples in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul.

In the first seven months of 2022, 759 violent incidents with police were recorded, involving a total of 113,654 families and 33 killings in land-related conflicts in rural areas of the country, marking a 150% increase from the first six months of 2021.

Most cases of violence are tied to disputes over non-demarcation lands; Indigenous peoples, attempting to reclaim their ancestral territory, often run into conflicts with landowners, such as farmers or developers, which end in forceful police interventions.

The Indigenous coalition is requesting the installation of GPS equipment and recording systems on security officers’ uniforms and vehicles, as well as measures aimed to improve their training and public protocols to protect human rights.

Continue reading.

[noirineverysense]

Yes lets side with large coorporations and help protect their copyright. In fact, lets help them accumulate more IPs! This is how we help small time writers and artists.

[poniadeaur]

Someone upstairs has been wasting water for two days, they kept their tap open all-night, and as a result, the whole building isn't able to get water in their taps during the daytime.

This is also how many other things in the world work, you didn't do anything wrong, but we all suffer collectively. When the system is weak, we all choose to suffer the injustice bestowed upon us.

[wolf-grimoire]

THE STATE'S REVENGE AND STANDING ROCK

What I mean to say is that Standing Rock became the public stage on which the authoritarian, surveillance-driven, for-profit domestic control regime brutally terrorized thousands of protesters from the most wartorn communities in America. I mean to say that the riot gear goon squads of officers and agents from all over the country wanted the public to watch the punishment. The energy companies and shareholders behind the pipeline wanted the public to watch the punishment. Standing Rock, I mean to say, was vengeance against organized pro-community populism, to say it was clearly law enforcement’s revenge against the public that had finally decided it wanted accountability, revenge for imposing a plausible cultural alternative to the mainstream, revenge most of all for questioning the authority of their new old secular religion in front of the whole watching world which is also the same as revenge for drawing attention to their revenge.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.16 Does anarchism require “perfect” people to work?

No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a “perfect” society. It will be a human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be “perfect” for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and Meltzer:

”[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] is an ‘idealisation’ of the workers and [so] the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class struggle … it seems morally unreasonable that a free society … could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of [existing] society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people’s shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact … that the workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they had acquired the social graces of the ‘intellectual’ or shed all the prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is favourable to them … What we say is … that once life can continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for them other than the free process of education.” [The Floodgates of Anarchy, pp. 36–7]

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies (see section I.5.8 for a discussion of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as disputes).

Like the “anarchism-is-against-human-nature” argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume “perfect” people — people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not perfect.

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a “new” (perfect) man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority, particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every example of a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be falling into “anarchy” whenever there is a disruption in “law and order” and looting takes place.

Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment’s reflection shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming an anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims is raised by the right-wing “anarcho”-capitalists to discredit real anarchism. However, their “objection” discredits their own claim to be anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists!). Needless to say, an “anarchy” made up of people who still saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon become authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because “the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves.” [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, p. 355]

Hence Alexander Berkman:

“Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism.” [What is Anarchism?, p. xii]

In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs “perfect” people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring “perfect” people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists, “history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed.” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in the struggle against oppression and exploitation, we not only change the world, we change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom which creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living as equals in a free society, so making anarchy possible.

As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means that the necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do not exist. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the heart of society, not the product of external shocks. Nor, we should note, do anarchists think that such a society will appear “overnight.” Rather, we see the creation of an anarchist system as a process, not an event. The ins-and-outs of how it would function will evolve over time in the light of experience and objective circumstances, not appear in a perfect form immediately (see section H.2.5 for a discussion of Marxist claims otherwise).

Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that “perfect” people are necessary anarchism to work because the anarchist is “no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.” As such, ”[i]f, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny — the government — then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished.” [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 355]

This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite has always used repression to defend its position in society. The use of fascism in Spain (see section A.5.6) and Italy (see section A.5.5) show the depths the capitalist class can sink to. Anarchism will be created in the face of opposition by the ruling minorities and, consequently, will need to defend itself against attempts to recreate authority (see section H.2.1 for a refutation of Marxist claims anarchists reject the need to defend an anarchist society against counter-revolution).

Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on convincing those subject to oppression and exploitation that they have the power to resist both and, ultimately, can end both by destroying the social institutions that cause them. As Malatesta argued, “we need the support of the masses to build a force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific task of radical change in the social organism by the direct action of the masses, we must get closer to them, accept them as they are, and from within their ranks seek to ‘push’ them forward as much as possible.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 155–6] This would create the conditions that make possible a rapid evolution towards anarchism as what was initially accepted by a minority “but increasingly finding popular expression, will make its way among the mass of the people” and “the minority will become the People, the great mass, and that mass rising up against property and the State, will march forward towards anarchist communism.” [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists attach to spreading our ideas and arguing the case for anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists from those questioning the injustices of capitalism and the state.

This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society and the resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it. Anarchist ideas develop spontaneously through struggle. As we discuss in section I.2.3, anarchistic organisations are often created as part of the resistance against oppression and exploitation which marks every hierarchical system and can., potentially, be the framework of a few society. As such, the creation of libertarian institutions is, therefore, always a possibility in any situation. A peoples’ experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions, namely the awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy and powerful few and to disempower the many. That while it is needed to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is not needed to organise society nor can it do so in a just and fair way for all. This is possible. However, without a conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused and finally destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power over the masses (the Russian Revolution is the most famous example of this process). It is for that reason anarchists organise to influence the struggle and spread our ideas (see section J.3 for details). For it is the case that only when anarchist ideas “acquire a predominating influence” and are “accepted by a sufficiently large section of the population” will we “have achieved anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy.” For anarchy “cannot be imposed against the wishes of the people.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 159 and p. 163]

So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner. This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a fully formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground for the gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social behaviour that remain after the struggle to change society has revolutionised those doing it.