#anti-economics

[spaceintruderdetector]

Most anarchist perspectives on economics amount to a makeshift tableau ofanti-capitalist banalities borrowed on loan from Marxism and other social- ist ideologies. This largely-unconscious Marxist bias (with its built-in duality of evil, stingy capitalists versus caring, philanthropic communists) has en- cumbered anarchist thought with a surface-level, dichotomous analysis of economics itself—pulling it ever deeper into the black hole of generic and impotent leftism. This one-way transfer of ideological currency has also led to aninflated estimation of the actual worth of secondary, throwaway orifices of Marxism, as exemplified in the presently chic anarchist infatuation with anti-state or left-communism.

https://archive.org/details/the-old-calendrist-tracts-for-our-times-1-up/Enemy%20Combatants/Too%20Much%20of%20Nothing%20-%20An%20Anthology%20of%20Anti-Economic%20Thought%20%281-up%29/mode/2up

[nando161mando]

Gary Stevenson: ‘Economists have been all wrong about almost everything for 15 years now’

[mysharona1987]

[alpaca-clouds]

A Reminder of the Fact, that Billionaires are not Real

I know. I know. Most people right now expect me to do more historical write ups. But please listen to me for a moment. This is kinda important. Because with Trump trying to make himself a fucking god emperor or some shit, I need y'all to understand this one thing.

This is a reminder: Billionaires are not actually real. As in: There is not a person who has a ten-figures amount of money on their bank account or anything like that. Nobody. Not Elon Musk. Not Jeff Bezos. Not Zuckerberg. Nobody. They are valued in the billions, but they are not actually billionaires. In fact some of them might not have so much as a million on their bank account from all we know.

So, why are they billionaires?

Because they own assets. Everyone who is really, really rich does not own money, but assets. Those assets are:

Real Estate and land

Luxury vehicles, yachts, private jets etc.

Art

Investment portfolios

Shares in companies

Stuff like mines and natural ressources

Patents and Copyrights

General stuff Marx would call: "The means of production"

The "net worth" that gets thrown around is just what people estimate the stuff those people own is valued at. But again: Very for of them have more then a few million actually on their bank accounts. And this also is the reason why right now we have so many billionaires.

Because since the entire bullshit in 2008 (for those who just turned 18: The real estate bubble burst and what not - watch "The Big Short" for more context) something has been happening called "the asset inflation". Basically the worth of all those assets has shot up in price BY A LOT, which made people who had been "just" multimillionaires before into billionaires suddenly.

But what you need to understand is, that this is just... It is fictional. It is a mirage. And if we all could just agree on that, they literally would have nothing. Because you cannot eat a yacht. You cannot eat company shares. You cannot do shit with any of that. You cannot even buy something with that.

You know how billionaires buy stuff? They go to a bank and go: "Hey, look at all this shit I have. I want to buy XY, so if you give me the money to do that, I will tots pay you back. And if I don't, you tots can take some of my shit, fair?" And the bank will go: "Yeah, whatever. Here. Have 20 billion fantasy dollars."

But all of this just works, because everybody agrees that if the billionaire or the bank sold whatever assets the billionaire offers up to someone else, they would actually get the money.

I wrote about this before: This is why we cannot get away from fossil fuels. Because right now everyone who has the money to invest in energy has not actually real money, but just valued assets - and those assets are oil pumps, and coal mines, and gas plants. And if we all agreed that we no longer want oil, gas and coal, those would be worthless - and those investors would no longer have money. Because their "money" is just the worth that those mines, pumps, and plants have.

And that is also, why they are so much against the "capital gains tax". It is more than it appears to be on the surface. See, a capital gain is, when those assets you hold gain in value. Which currently happens at an alarming rate. Some of them gain literally 20 or more percent in value each year. So if you implement proper capital gains taxes, those "billionaires" would have go give some part of the theoretical monetary gain they made each year from the inflation of those assets - and obviously newly gained assets - as money to the government.

Just look at our most hated billionaire: Elon Musk. In 2023 he had a net worth of 180 billion, in 2024 he ended the year on 410 billion. That is a gain of 230 billion. Almost all of it falls under "capital gains taxes". Now, let's say we implemented a really, really soft capital gains tax of just 5%. Which is nothing in terms of tax. You and I pay more taxes on our salary. But 5% of 230 billion is 11.5 billion. And because you cannot pay taxes in assets, Elon would need 11.5 billion to actually pay his taxes. And he does not have that. Nobody does. Again, I doubt that there is really anyone who has more than a billion in liquid assets (= actual money or anything that can be used as flat payment). In fact I doubt that most billionaires have actually a billion in liquid assets. Some might have several hundred million, sure, but nothing more. Again, this is basically monopoly money.

And if they would implement a capital gains tax this entire fantasy construct would come down. Because, yeah. Nobody actually has the liquid assets to pay the taxes. And they would have to admit that.

Right now their influence is build mainly on the fact that most people do not understand how "rich people economics" work. Which is why you need to understand it.

They do not have money. They have just assets. And those only are worth billions, because people let them get away with claiming this.

You know. We can just... adjust for that.

[sankofaspirit]

Why Dr. John Henrik Clarke Is Correct About Black People Having No Friends (and why We Don’t Need Any) – a Garveyite Perspective

Dr. John Henrik Clarke famously stated, “Black people have no friends.” For many, this may sound harsh, but it is a sobering truth when viewed through the lens of Pan-Africanism and Marcus Garvey’s philosophy. Garvey understood that Black liberation can not depend on external allies; it must come from within—rooted in self-reliance, unity, and a shared commitment among Black people globally.

Here’s why, Dr. Clarke’s statement rings true and why, from a Garveyite perspective, Black people don’t need friends—only each other.

1. History Proves It

From colonialism to the civil rights era, supposed "friends" of Black people have repeatedly betrayed or abandoned us. Other groups have leveraged Black struggles for their own gains, only to leave Black people behind once their goals were achieved.

Post-slavery labour movements excluded Black workers.

Civil rights coalitions saw other groups gain rights, while Black people remained trapped under systemic racism.

Garvey and Clarke both saw these betrayals as evidence that Black people must prioritize their own interests and stop relying on others.

2. Global Anti-Blackness Is Real

Anti-Blackness isn’t confined to one region—it’s a global phenomenon. Across continents, Black people face systemic oppression, discrimination, and dehumanization.

Other groups often form alliances to protect their own power while marginalizing Black voices.

Even in spaces of shared oppression, anti-Blackness often takes precedence.

Dr. Clarke’s assertion and Garvey’s vision both point to this truth: Black liberation must come from within because no one else will prioritize us.

3. Dependency Leads to Exploitation

Depending on outside "friends" or "allies" often comes with hidden costs. Foreign aid, alliances, and solidarity movements often prioritize the interests of others over Black liberation.

Aid to African nations often perpetuates dependency rather than fostering self-sufficiency.

"Allies" in social justice movements often centre their struggles, leaving Black people to fight alone.

Garvey warned that dependency breeds vulnerability. Clarke reinforces this: Black people must build their own systems to avoid exploitation.

4. We Have Everything We Need

Garvey believed that Black people possess the resources, talents, and ingenuity needed for liberation.

Africa’s wealth: With its vast natural resources, Africa can fund global Black empowerment if reclaimed from exploitative systems.

Diaspora talent: Across the globe, Black communities excel in innovation, creativity, and resilience.

Dr. Clarke’s statement echoes Garvey’s vision: We don’t need friends because we already have all the tools for success.

5. Cultural Exploitation Is Proof of No True Friendship

Black culture—music, art, fashion, and more—is celebrated globally, but Black people are rarely compensated or empowered by their own creations.

Other groups profit from Black innovation while perpetuating anti-Black systems.

Cultural exploitation demonstrates a lack of true solidarity.

Garvey’s solution: Black people must reclaim their culture and use it as a tool for empowerment, not exploitation.

6. Unity Is Our Greatest Strength (and Threat to Oppressors)

A united global Black community is the most powerful weapon against systemic oppression. Garvey emphasized unity, and Clarke’s assertion underscores why others fear it:

A unified Black world challenges global power structures that thrive on division.

By focusing on internal unity, Black people strengthen themselves and disrupt oppressive systems.

7. Allies Often Divide Us

Alliances can create divisions within Black movements, as external influences pit factions against each other or dilute the focus on Black liberation.

During the civil rights movement, alliances often marginalized more radical Black voices.

Today, funding from external groups can cause conflicts between grassroots Black organizers and larger organizations tied to outside agendas.

Garvey’s emphasis on self-reliance offers a solution: Black unity must come first, free from outside interference.

8. Other Groups Prioritize Their Own Interests

Every group prioritizes its own survival and progress—it’s not wrong, but Black people must learn from this.

White nations maintain global alliances to uphold their dominance.

Asian nations focus on economic self-sufficiency.

Jewish communities have built strong networks to protect and uplift their people.

Garvey and Clarke would agree: It’s time for Black people to do the same and put themselves first.

9. Historical Success Through Self-Reliance

History proves that Black people thrive when they rely on themselves:

The Haitian Revolution succeeded because enslaved Africans united and rejected external dependence.

Garvey’s UNIA (Universal Negro Improvement Association) built businesses, schools, and a global movement without outside help.

These examples show that self-reliance works. Black people don’t need friends—they need focus.

10. True Liberation Is Self-Determined

Liberation can not be outsourced, gifted, or borrowed—it must be self-determined. Allies may help temporarily, but no one will prioritize Black liberation over their own interests.

Garvey envisioned a world where Black people controlled their own economies, politics, and resources.

Clarke’s assertion reminds us that we can’t afford to waste time seeking validation or support from others.

11. Black Liberation Threatens Global Power Structures

Both Garvey and Clarke understood that Black liberation isn’t just a struggle for freedom—it’s a direct threat to the systems of power that dominate the world.

A free and united Africa would undermine Western economic dominance, which relies on exploiting African resources.

A globally empowered Black diaspora would disrupt industries, politics, and systems built on anti-Blackness.

This explains why no other group can truly be a friend to Black liberation. Their survival often depends on maintaining the status quo that oppresses us.

12. “Allies” Often Centre Themselves in Our Struggles

Even when other groups claim to stand in solidarity with Black movements, their involvement often centers their own experiences, narratives, and priorities.

Non-black allies frequently shift attention to their struggles, leaving Black people to carry the burden of fighting for everyone else.

Movements like Black Lives Matter have seen external groups co-opt their messages for personal or political gain.

Garvey’s philosophy reminds us to stay focused on our own goals and not allow our movements to be hijacked.

13. Romanticizing External Help Distracts from Pan-African Solutions

One of the pitfalls of seeking allies is the belief that external help is necessary or even superior. This mindset can prevent Black people from exploring Pan-African solutions.

Garvey’s vision of “Africa for Africans” called for African nations and the diaspora to work together without relying on foreign nations or systems.

Clarke’s statement reinforces this idea: the best solutions come from within. Black people don’t need external friends—they need internal unity.

14. Allies Often Maintain Anti-Black Systems

Even so-called “progressive” allies often uphold the same systems that oppress Black people.

Corporations claiming to support racial justice continue to exploit African resources and labour.

Governments speaking out against racism still engage in policies that harm Black communities worldwide.

Dr. Clarke and Garvey both understood this hypocrisy. Real liberation requires rejecting systems that perpetuate oppression, even if they claim to support us.

15. Our Focus Should Be on Building Future Generations, Not Pleasing Others

Garvey often emphasized the importance of preparing future generations to lead and succeed independently.

Clarke’s warning about having no friends reinforces this: Why waste time seeking allies when we could be building schools, economies, and systems that empower our children?

A Garveyite perspective prioritizes creating a legacy of self-reliance and leadership that ensures the survival and progress of Black people globally.

By focusing on the future, Black people can stop relying on the approval or assistance of others and instead secure their own destinies.

Final Reflection: All We Have Is Us, and That’s Enough

Dr. John Henrik Clarke’s statement and Marcus Garvey’s philosophy both lead to the same conclusion: Black people must take responsibility for their liberation. True freedom can not and will not come from allies—it must come from within. The power lies in our hands, in our unity, and in our shared commitment to self-determination.

We don’t need friends. We need ourselves.

[truth4ourfreedom]

DR FAUCI LIED AND HE KNEW IT!

Dr. Fauci knew in 2005 that chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine) was a "wonder drug" for SARS-CoV, according to the NIH themselves. Despite this, he demonized the drug and falsely said it was ineffective.

He even used the fake and retracted HCQ Lancet study to push this lie.

-------------------------------------------

How much Dr FAUCI personally benefit from the COVID-19 pandemic? Inquiring minds want to know!

[maxdibert]

Marauders fans who try to whitewash the actions of James Potter and Sirius Black or excuse them with the pretext that Snape joined the Death Eaters, I have news for you: you’re a bunch of classist idiots, and you don’t even realize it because you’ve never bothered to open a damn book to read about how capital and power work and how they are connected.

Was Severus Snape a racist? No, because believe it or not, there are many reasons to join an extremist group, and when we talk about vulnerable youths, ideology is often the last motive. Severus joined the Death Eaters because he wanted protection, he wanted to fit in somewhere, he wanted power. That need for protection stemmed from coming from a home filled with violence, but also from being systematically bullied at school without any consequences. In fact, not even the attempt to murder him had consequences. His life meant nothing, while his abusers—those rich, popular, and handsome kids (economic capital, social capital, physical capital)—did whatever they wanted without facing consequences. He was poor, friendless, and ugly, so he had no power, he was nothing. The only way to become something, to gain status and defend himself, was to do what other people with capital told him to do, those people he met at his house who didn’t treat him like an outcast. They promised that if he joined their group, he too could win, he could have power, he could be part of something—and he accepted. And he accepted because people like him only know how to do one thing: survive. A poor kid raised in violence is a survivor, and survivors do whatever it takes to stay alive. And they do ANYTHING to stay alive. Severus learned this from a young age, and that’s what he did as a teenager; that’s why he created spells to defend himself and why he made decisions to survive. Were they the right choices morally and ethically? If we ask ourselves this from the comfort and stability of a structured life, probably not, but that wouldn’t be fair, because his reality was very different.

It’s very easy to make the right choices when you have everything going for you. It’s very easy to surround yourself with the right people when you’ve had nothing but good influences around you. It’s very easy to have the right views when that’s all you have to think about and not whether you’ll have food the next day or survive a beating. James Potter had it incredibly easy in life, and even then, he chose to torture a poorer and more vulnerable kid simply because he could. And he didn’t do it alone; he did it supported by his friends, outnumbering him. Potter didn’t have to survive, he didn’t have to fend for himself, he didn’t have to find safe spaces because he was born surrounded by gold and affection, and still, he chose to be a jerk. And he did it because he had the money and the social position to do it. He did it because he was rich and Snape was poor, because he had loving parents and Snape didn’t, because he was a spoiled, classist brat. And so was Sirius. Sirius was classist and violent, and he enjoyed the suffering of others. He had the usual sadism of the Black family, except he changed the discourse about blood. But Sirius also never had to survive. He left his home with a millionaire inheritance from his uncle and was taken in by other millionaires, the Potters. He never had to fend for himself or survive anything, and he never knew what it was like to truly escape from hell with absolutely nothing. And he chose, like his other rich friend, to take advantage of his privileges.

Defending the abuse of power based on class advantage is classist. Not considering someone’s socio-economic conditions when evaluating their decisions is classist. Comparing the decision-making power of someone rich with that of someone who has nothing is classist. Judging the ethics of a person who had everything with someone who has feared for their life since childhood is classist.

And yes, defending the Marauders is classist as hell, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[embodiedfutures]

from @/pslnational

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[weird-machine]

One of the funniest things about communism is that it rests on a premise that's basically like, "Hey, once everybody voluntarily gives up a specific set of strategies and advantages, everything will be wonderful. So, once we figure out how to coerce everybody into voluntarily giving those up, we'll be set."

[rabiesbaby]

Some Tumblr Posts to Save You Money <3

Plain text: Some Tumblr Posts to Save You Money <3

Free Books!

Remember, The Internet Archive and your local library are your best friends!

Academic Articles and stuff

Scientific Documents

DnD shit

Sewing technique to repair and strengthen seam rips.

Scratch the "Buy Something" Itch without buying something

US Centric Ways to Live In Direct Opposition to Capitalism

Crash Course on YouTube teaches most subjects!

Home art hack

Go ahead and add some <3 We're all in this together <3

[mysharona1987]

[aronarchy]

Why we don’t like it when children hit us back

To all the children who have ever been told to “respect” someone that hated them.

March 21, 2023

Even those of us that are disturbed by the thought of how widespread corporal punishment still is in all ranks of society are uncomfortable at the idea of a child defending themself using violence against their oppressors and abusers. A child who hits back proves that the adults “were right all along,” that their violence was justified. Even as they would cheer an adult victim for defending themself fiercely.

Even those “child rights advocates” imagine the right child victim as one who takes it without ever stopping to love “its” owners. Tear-stained and afraid, the child is too innocent to be hit in a guilt-free manner. No one likes to imagine the Brat as Victim—the child who does, according to adultist logic, deserve being hit, because they follow their desires, because they walk the world with their head high, because they talk back, because they are loud, because they are unapologetically here, and resistant to being cast in the role of guest of a world that is just not made for them.

If we are against corporal punishment, the brat is our gotcha, the proof that it is actually not that much of an injustice. The brat unsettles us, so much that the “bad seed” is a stock character in horror, a genre that is much permeated by the adult gaze (defined as “the way children are viewed, represented and portrayed by adults; and finally society’s conception of children and the way this is perpetuated within institutions, and inherent in all interactions with children”), where the adult fear for the subversion of the structures that keep children under control is very much represented.

It might be very well true that the Brat has something unnatural and sinister about them in this world, as they are at constant war with everything that has ever been created, since everything that has been created has been built with the purpose of subjugating them. This is why it feels unnatural to watch a child hitting back instead of cowering. We feel like it’s not right. We feel like history is staring back at us, and all the horror we felt at any rebel and wayward child who has ever lived, we are feeling right now for that reject of the construct of “childhood innocence.” The child who hits back is at such clash with our construction of childhood because we defined violence in all of its forms as the province of the adult, especially the adult in authority.

The adult has an explicit sanction by the state to do violence to the child, while the child has both a social and legal prohibition to even think of defending themself with their fists. Legislation such as “parent-child tort immunity” makes this clear. The adult’s designed place is as the one who hits, and has a right and even an encouragement to do so, the one who acts, as the person. The child’s designed place is as the one who gets hit, and has an obligation to accept that, as the one who suffers acts, as the object. When a child forcibly breaks out of their place, they are reversing the supposed “natural order” in a radical way.

This is why, for the youth liberationist, there should be nothing more beautiful to witness that the child who snaps. We have an unique horror for parricide, and a terrible indifference at the 450 children murdered every year by their parents in just the USA, without even mentioning all the indirect suicides caused by parental abuse. As a Psychology Today article about so-called “parricide” puts it:

Unlike adults who kill their parents, teenagers become parricide offenders when conditions in the home are intolerable but their alternatives are limited. Unlike adults, kids cannot simply leave. The law has made it a crime for young people to run away. Juveniles who commit parricide usually do consider running away, but many do not know any place where they can seek refuge. Those who do run are generally picked up and returned home, or go back on their own: Surviving on the streets is hardly a realistic alternative for youths with meager financial resources, limited education, and few skills.

By far, the severely abused child is the most frequently encountered type of offender. According to Paul Mones, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in defending adolescent parricide offenders, more than 90 percent have been abused by their parents. In-depth portraits of such youths have frequently shown that they killed because they could no longer tolerate conditions at home. These children were psychologically abused by one or both parents and often suffered physical, sexual, and verbal abuse as well—and witnessed it given to others in the household. They did not typically have histories of severe mental illness or of serious and extensive delinquent behavior. They were not criminally sophisticated. For them, the killings represented an act of desperation—the only way out of a family situation they could no longer endure.

- Heide, Why Kids Kill Parents, 1992.

Despite these being the most frequent conditions of “parricide,” it still brings unique disgust to think about it for most people. The sympathy extended to murdering parents is never extended even to the most desperate child, who chose to kill to not be killed. They chose to stop enduring silently, and that was their greatest crime; that is the crime of the child who hits back. Hell, children aren’t even supposed to talk back. They are not supposed to be anything but grateful for the miserable pieces of space that adults carve out in a world hostile to children for them to live following adult rules. It isn’t rare for children to notice the adult monopoly on violence and force when they interact with figures like teachers, and the way they use words like “respect.” In fact, this social dynamic has been noticed quite often:

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority” and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person” and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

(https://soycrates.tumblr.com/post/115633137923/stimmyabby-sometimes-people-use-respect-to-mean)

But it has received almost no condemnation in the public eye. No voices have raised to contrast the adult monopoly on violence towards child bodies and child minds. No voices have raised to praise the child who hits back. Because they do deserve praise. Because the child who sets their foot down and says this belongs to me, even when it’s something like their own body that they are claiming, is committing one of the most serious crimes against adult society, who wants them dispossessed.

Sources:

“The Adult Gaze: a tool of control and oppression,” https://livingwithoutschool.com/2021/07/29/the-adult-gaze-a-tool-of-control-and-oppression

“Filicide,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide

[possiblyunhinged]

It's laughable that the media, which exists to serve the interests of the affluent, is now clutching its pearls over Luigi Mangione’s so-called 'cold-blooded' murder of a health insurance CEO.

For decades, these same outlets have done the legwork to disillusion us to suffering—convincing us that 'justified' killings exist, even excusing the deaths of countless civilians at the hands of US and UK military forces in the name of the 'greater good.' But now that this detachment doesn’t work in favour of the people who pay their bills, it’s suddenly a problem—not for innocent civilians, of course, but for billionaires. Right?

It reminds me of that line from '71: 'War is rich cunts getting stupid cunts to kill poor cunts.' It's always been about protecting the interests of the rich, manipulating the rest of us into doing their dirty work. And now that even their most loyal bootlickers can’t summon sympathy for a man whose wealth was built on the suffering of others, the irony is sickening.

And sure, maybe this sounds 'extreme,' but when we’re so disconnected that even working-class people struggle to relate to one another, how are we supposed to empathise with multi-millionaires whose fortunes are carved from our pain?

[queercodedangel]

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology

[dailyanarchistposts]

The way most people talk about climate change we are led to believe we all have an equal part in creating the capitalist nightmare we live in, but that’s a lie. The unsustainable and extractive nature of capitalism grew directly from the ideological and material foundations of European colonization. We cannot hold the entire human species responsible for that. It’s victim blaming.

The vast majority of waste is produced by the same people and institutions who hold power. Fighting for our planet, the health of our land, our food, our homes, our communities, is where the fight against capitalism and white supremacy collide. Any fight for environmental justice must also be a fight for racial justice because BI&POC are the ones who disproportionately bear the weight of climate change.

White Settler Colonialism Is Destroying the Planet, Not Poor BI&POC

Don’t believe the Malthusian and eco-fascist myth that there are too many people on the planet to care for. This is a lie peddled by capitalists, eugenicists, and people who advocate for genocide. We know that every landbase has its limit for how much life it can support (indigenous peoples have been saying this for hundreds of years), but “overpopulation” rhetoric is overwhelmingly used as a means to enforce colonial hierarchies where wealthy white people can maintain lives of access and privilege while poor BI&POC barely survive.

Instead of telling poor BI&POC to have less children or to stop wanting better lives, we should build a movement to fight climate change which centers racial justice, abolishes capitalism, and forces wealthy, predominately white populations to stop hoarding resources.

Here are some Earth Day facts for tomorrow so you don’t fall for the lies:

Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. (Source: the Guardian)

Black communities are exposed to 56% more pollution than is caused by their consumption. For Latinx communities, it is 63%. (Source: American Journal of Public Health)

97% of waste produced in the United States is corporate waste. 80% of businesses are owned & operated by white people. (Source: “The Story of Stuff” & US News)

Indigenous peoples make up less than 5% of the planet’s human population, yet they are protecting 80% of its biodiversity. (Source: National Geographic)

The world’s richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while the poorest half contribute only 10%. (Source: Oxfam)

The world’s wealthiest 16% use 80% of the planet’s natural resources. (Source: CNN)

We are not all equally “responsible.” White settler colonialism and capitalism are destroying the planet, not poor BI&POC.