Rupert Read writes in Aeon-
The classic philosophical debate around civil disobedience (or nonviolent direct action) asks: is there a right to engage in this form of conscientious law-breaking, under circumstances of deep wrong, where conventional methods of addressing that wrong have failed or are unavailable?
We may claim a right- for example the right not to die or the right to sodomize the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy- but it may conflict with a superior right or immunity held by some other party. Alternatively, if we can't provide the remedy for that right's violation ourselves, nobody will do so for us because either there is no vinculum juris or else that bond of law is ineffective by reason of incentive incompatibility or lack of resources.
It’s widely accepted among philosophers that there is such a right:
It is a claim. Anyone can claim anything.
it is virtually unknown for philosophers to argue against it; even an extremely mainstream liberal individualist such as John Rawls argues for it.
Some philosophers thought civil disobedience was a good thing only used by good people. Others thought it was ineffective but a way to pass the time- but didn't say so. The problem with civil disobedience is that it might create a public nuisance. This could create a backlash against the cause it seeks to advance. One particular problem is that if a passive resistance program attracts antagonomic nutters, cognitive dissonance is generated such that an entire political coalition loses public esteem.
And the climate crisis fits the bill for the exercise of this right.
As does the 'yellow vest' movement. The difference between a cause which affects the economic interests of participants and one which is altruistic or idealistic, is that the former represents a more potent threat. It may spontaneously turn violent and lead to the collapse of the rule of law across a wide swathe of territory. In other words, socio-economic grievances which initially find expression in non-violent demonstrations put more pressure on the administration to compromise than do 'virtue signaling' protests where neither side has any great incentive to strike a deal.
The climate crisis, however, is one where there is money to be made in 'Green Technology'. Furthermore, there may be a 'Green' floating voter with high Banzhaf-Coleman power to decide the result of elections. In this case, there may be resources available to finance both broad based non-violent protests as well as a hard core of militant nutters. The problem here is that the outcome may not align with the stated aims of the movement. It may simply lead to a redistribution of rents.
Because it is a case of a huge and urgent injustice – a threat to the very viability of ongoing human civilisation, an existential risk – where conventional methods have been tried and failed, and moreover where vulnerable unborn future generations are not able to stick up (let alone vote) for themselves to try to redress the matter.
We owe it to unborn generations to abolish death, naughtiness, and lack of nice cuddles given to us by various celestial objects. Why haven't we already destroyed the economy by doing stupid shit? Is it not because we haven't paid enough attention to Philosophy not to mention the criminal underfunding, in which we are complicit, of free and compulsory training in sodomy for frail and vulnerable senior citizens?
So there is no need to rehearse that debate.
Because it is shit.
It is basically settled: there is a right to engage in civil disobedience in our current extreme circumstances.
The law does recognize a right to certain sorts of public protest. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy, even where penalties are attracted, they may not be applied. Alternatively, juries may refuse to convict.
That, however, does not settle the matter of whether one should engage in such organised disobedience.
One may gain a reputational, financial, or psychological benefit by doing so. However, the consequence of the campaign may harm everybody, including you. The relevant concept here is global opportunity cost. What is the best alternative foregone by taking a particular course of action? Speaking generally, undermining the rule of law so as to promote a puerile agenda is likely to have serious unintended consequences.
For there is a more interesting, more timely debate emerging in recent years: are there circumstances and contexts in which (every)one has an obligation to participate in civil disobedience?
Sure. The Emperor says everybody should saw off their own heads every hour of every day on penalty of being guillotined. Everybody tells the Emperor to fuck the fuck off. This may not be very civil but it is disobedience.
This question goes far beyond the ‘Is it acceptable?’ debate. Former colleagues of mine in XR (now in Just Stop Oil) sometimes argue passionately that we are in precisely such a condition: that you, reader, are morally obligated to join them. I want to consider that case.
We each have our own view of how and in what circumstances we are morally obligated. I may like you personally, but if somebody from your clan killed somebody from my clan, I am morally obliged to kill you. On the other hand, I am not morally obliged to support my elderly Mum who raised me all by herself. This is because Mums have vaginas and are thus an inferior type of domestic animal. They should simply drop dead once they are unable to work in the fields.
What type of morality do shitheads who want to destroy the economy subscribe to? The answer is that it is a paranoid and evil morality. Other paranoid and evil people may feel morally obligated in joining their cause. Alternatively, they may pretend to have joined the cause so as to gain a reputational or other benefit.
I perceive two inseparable elements to the standard case for an obligation to participate in nonviolent civil disobedience, or (as it is often called) ‘civil resistance’: moral and pragmatic. The moral element says that this is simply the right thing to do – to be ‘on the right side of history’, whatever the consequences; and to signal one’s ‘solidarity’ with those worst affected; with the younger generation; with unborn future generations.
We distinguish a claim to some right, immunity or entitlement from a case being made for that thing. The former is a bare assertion. The latter seeks to support that assertion with factual and deontic arguments such that the claim is either admitted or grounds are given for its rejection.
Anyone can claim that everybody should do any crazy shit. But a claim does not by itself give rise to an obligation. Something more is required. A case has to be made. The problem here is that there can be no general obligation to participate in disobedience as opposed to rebellion. This is because, in the scenario envisaged here, no authority exists to whom there is a duty of obedience such that there is a duty of defiance to some other authority. In a rebellion, there is some alternative center of authority. Now I might say 'you owe it to yourself to be disobedient to everybody and everything when it suits you', but who would obey this silly stricture of mine?
In technical terms, following the great moral philosopher Immanuel Kant: what is to be done is allegedly deontologically or intrinsically determinable.
No it isn't. There can be a duty to obey authority. One may claim everybody has a higher duty to disobey authority. But no case can be made because it would be self-defeating as no authority could license such an antagonomic duty.
It is allegedly a universal obligation to seek to head off an unprecedented catastrophe,
e.g. death. Did you know that you are likely to die within the next hundred years> We have a universal obligation to stick a radish up our bum and prance around naked saying 'boo to Neo-Liberalism!' How else can we prevent the deaths of ten billion people?
by any acceptable (usually, nonviolent) means necessary. The idea is that, with the conventional political process having failed to put us on the path to a future indicated by science, precaution and ethics, we are obliged to take matters into our own hands by stepping outside the law in order to ‘just stop oil’.
The law permits you to take reasonable and proportionate steps in your own self-defense. But it gives others similar rights which they may collectively use to have you beaten, incarcerated or subjected to nasty comments about the size of your genitalia.
The first thing to say about any alleged solidaristic obligatory moral case for backing the radical flank is that now, in countries like the UK, it is hard to square with what young people actually want.
Which is Sex. Also money. But if being a climate activist gets you laid- screw money.
Consider the 2023 YouGov poll asking the public their opinion of JSO, the campaign group behind the now-dominant form of ‘civil resistance’ in the UK. Only 17 per cent of adults have some kind of positive opinion of what JSO are doing. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the figure is higher but not much: 21 per cent have a positive view. Across all ages, hugely larger percentages have a negative view: 10 times as many have a ‘very unfavourable’ view as have a ‘very favourable’ view of JSO. Among young people, the ratio is ‘only’ four times as many.
Which is why it makes sense for private equity mavens to fund those nutters. As for Gaza, that's a gift that could keep giving- for the Right.
Because a small minority of young people rather than a tiny one (of older people) supports Just Stop Oil plainly does not mean you can show solidarity with the demographic by supporting JSO.
It doesn't mean anything at all. Don't stop oil. Find something cheaper. Or don't. It makes no difference.
But, regardless of what young people happen to want, it might be argued that it’s simply the right thing to do to undertake civil resistance on their part.
This is a claim like my claim that Beyonce really wants to be my best friend. Its her security team which, coz they are totes jelly, are keeping me from her.
Paternalistic, perhaps, but still right, possibly.
I wouldn't like it if Beyonce called me 'Daddy'. I'm only thirty years older than her and, what's more, own a Malibu Barbie with which I would allow her to play. It's like new, except it doesn't have a head. Barbie can say some really mean things from time to time. I am not a fat bastard. I'm just big boned.
Nevertheless, any such case will be very weak by itself.
It would be a claim, not a case.
To be convincing, it needs coupling with the pragmatic case: that the action undertaken is likely to actually be the best available way to bring about the desired outcome that will protect young people.
In other words, these guys are smart and know the 'global opportunity cost'. But, if they really were smart, they would be very very rich and thus would have the resources to stop oil and replace it with something yet more profitable.
And this has been widely understood: the standard pragmatic case for civil resistance, based on social movement theory and indeed history, is that it is simply the most effective way to bring about transformative change.
Though it has never had any such effect. By contrast, the threat of violence or the economic opportunity cost has brought about both salutary and mischievous transformations.
The weakness of a moral case alone to support an obligation to nonviolent direct action is therefore clear.
There is a claim. There is no case. Suppose 'nonviolent direct action'- e.g. staying home though the Dictator said we should all dance naked in the street to celebrate his birthday- is in our interest. Then the thing will happen spontaneously. Consider what happened to Ceaucescu half way through one of his speeches. The crowd turned against him. There was no plan or underground network. Had there been, his secret police would have cracked down on it. But spontaneous 'disobedience' or 'protest' isn't what this nutter is talking about. Also the thing has nothing to do with obligations or morality.
Consider Mahatma Gandhi's attempts to recruit soldiers during the Great War. His fellow Gujaratis gave him a patient hearing and realized he was talking bollocks. So they chased him away. He didn't make the same mistake again. Indeed, Gandhi was only associated with Civil Disobedience because he was disobeyed most of the time. But this also meant that, after Independence, some patriot was bound to pump a few bullets into him.
Outside a relatively narrow category of intrinsically right or wrong actions, we commonly identify the morality of actions – especially, any costly and strenuous actions in the public sphere – with a hoped-for outcome.
No. Many of us will do our duty even if it means we are likely to get killed. Death is a good outcome if the alternative is infamy.
Or at least: making a hoped-for outcome probable is a minimum threshold for a collective endeavour to make sense.
Economics studies 'collective action problems'. But the solution isn't pretending to be Mahatma fucking Gandhi. It is to do mechanism design. This is boring stuff but Civil Servants like doing boring stuff.
Consider the person who chooses, on a ‘purely’ moral basis, what they admit is likely the less effective of two possible actions to change climate policy.
Nothing wrong in that. It is obvious that the most effective action involves genocide, or the certainty of its occurrence if one's demands are not met.
The logical response of a young person is surely to reject the ‘morality’ of this action: Damn your ‘solidarity’; I want a future! So kindly do what is effective.
The problem with taking the most effective course is that your opponent might very effectively kill you before you can kill him. Kids need to understand that they won't have a future if they pick a fight with more skilled and ruthless killers. Also, people of that sort can be hired quite economically. You may defy a sweet and nice authority but it is more difficult to pick a fight with who will kill you if you fuck with their bottom line.
Any philosophical assessment of an alleged obligation to undertake nonviolent direct action that hopes to be relevant to the real world must therefore consider likely consequences.
No. A philosophical assessment can simply admit that there is no such obligation. Claims in this regard are oxymoronic.
It cannot avoid assessing whether there may be a more effective alternative course of action.
That is an economic, not a philosophical, assessment.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not offering a simple get-out clause. Not at all. I do hold that we – each and every human not fast asleep – are obliged to take action on this existential crisis.
You may as well hold that everybody is obliged to say their prayers at night otherwise the Sun won't rise in the morning and there will be perpetual darkness and all life will go extinct even though my gym will continue to direct debit me.
Let me explain.
When we are failed by our leaders, when the system fails, this does not absolve us from responsibility.
Yes it does. We can fuck off elsewhere or choose new leaders of find a better system to be part of. If you hold no official position or lack an immunity for performing appropriate actions, you have no fucking responsibility.
On the contrary. Everything is now at stake.
This is always the case because we die. This does not mean we are responsible for abolishing death.
If you care about anything at all, then ipso facto, whether you know it or not, you care about the climate crisis.
If you care about the climate crisis you should have increased your savings so as to mitigate its effects on you and yours. This means lower expenditure, which means less environmental damage. On the other hand, if you are merely pretending to care about the climate crisis or don't yourself want to take responsibility for shielding yourself from its effects then you can use up scarce resources on stupid virtue signaling stunts.
For we are on track to have it sweep away all that we hold dear. If you care about the arts, or about disability rights, or about your own children, then you care about this: for they will all, on a default setting, get swept away by the ‘white swan’ threat of climate meltdown.
Nonsense! The world population will continue to rise for the rest of the century. Maybe one or two percent will be displaced. Nobody is predicting an extinction event. In any case, if you don't have grandchildren by about the age of 80, you know you never will. Your line is going extinct. Some collateral kins will survive even if there is a big population crunch. But something of that sort is bound to happen sooner or later.
So you must, at minimum, consider what you can do to change this situation, to avert or cope with this mother-of-all-threats hanging over us now. To put the matter in terms that the existentialists would have understood: all your projects are mortally threatened by this existential threat, this hyperthreat.
Only in the sense that all your projects are threatened by my ginormous dick which will soon sodomize the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way.
So you must, among all your projects (and, in a certain sense, prior to them), consider this project.
In an earlier age this nutter would have gassed on about how the Jews or the Freemasons or the Illuminati are planning to pawn all our immortal souls to their Satanic masters. My point is, if you say we have to do stupid shit to save the planet, other more ruthless nutters may say we have to slaughter everybody to preserve the Multiverse from the Wrath of a Jealous God.
You are obliged to consider your position. You are obliged to discover what is your most effective potential work to do, to contribute to there being a future.
Only if we believe your paranoid shite.
Feeling small and relatively powerless does not absolve you.
Get down on your knees and pray you miserable sinner! After that, you can suck off my ginormous pontifical cock.
So long as you have any power or voice whatsoever, you are obliged to use it (and grow it).
and give me all your money. Otherwise I won't absolve you. Satan will drag you down to hell and shove red hot pokers up your arse unless that's what you are into.
You are not absolved by speculating that we might be doomed.
I am offering absolutions and indulgences for the low, low, price of $ 9.99.
You don’t know that we are and, until you do, such speculations are beside the point. (Doomism is a prime instance of the undue ‘knowingness’ characteristic of our flawed civilisational model: the tendency to assume that we know something that is, in fact, imponderable.)
Says a guy who says he knows our species is doomed unless we do stupid shit.
Similarly, you are not absolved by wondering if it is perhaps ‘too late’. This widespread phrase is tellingly vague. One should always ask in response: Too late for what? Yes, it is way too late for a smooth ‘net zero’ transition, or for us to be able to stay in the climatic ‘safe’ zone. It is too late, as I set out earlier, for this civilisation to continue to exist! But it is not too late to co-create a new one (or at least: you do not know that it is); it is not too late to transform and adapt; and it is never too late to seek do the right thing in the place you find yourself.
You can be redeemed by doing stupid shit. Start immediately.
The vast majority of ‘doomism’ turns out to be what Jean-Paul Sartre called the grasping for a reprieve. A reprieve from having to act, a reprieve from committing. Those who reached for the excuse, during the Second World War, in (say) occupied France, that there was nothing they could do, that resistance was futile, that they were only obeying orders, we now judge to have been in bad faith, or at least to have been seriously mistaken.
No. What we know is that the French were right to minimize battlefield losses and wait it out till the Americans arrived. The wider problem was France needed to be able to 'front load' pain with an effective offensive doctrine. De Gaulle understood this. After the war the French, like the Brits, perhaps with help from the Israelis, got their own nuclear deterrent. Nukes are, au fond, a labor saving device.
A similar judgment waits to hang over those who are primarily motivated to find excuses not to act in the face of the climate more-than-emergency (which threatens to end up killing far more than Hitler did). Our children will reject such excuses, and they will, where appropriate, make such judgments.
Not if we don't have children or make a point of bursting into hysterical tears while describing in gory details all the indignities their Mummies inflicted on us on the honeymoon night.
I suggest therefore that everyone under the current unprecedented circumstances (of a collectively imposed existential ‘hyperthreat’ that is more or less tractable, but that conventional methods have largely failed to affect) is indeed obliged to act in a serious manner to deal with that threat.
By doing stupid shite or writing nonsense.
We are obliged by our situation to try to change our direction of travel, together: in simple terms, to change the world.
Kill yourself. Be the change the rest of us would like to see in the world.
But I pull back from the conclusion that we are obliged to undertake ‘civil resistance’, for the simple but crucial reason that our obligation must be understood as an obligation to undertake the most effective intervention possible in our circumstances.
There is no such obligation. Some may have an inclination of this sort. Others, unless bound by the terms of a contract or by reason of membership of a cult or ideological faction, should display 'Muth Rationality'- i.e. they should act in accordance with the correct economic theory. This involves ignoring nutters and farming out mechanism designer to those with the right incentives and knowledge base.
Let me now take a moment to consider a specific case where I think this good reason is visible. It’s the case I know best: my own country. ‘Civil resistance’ in the UK has met the limits of its effectiveness since 2019 and is now merely symbolic.
Unless it threatens to boil over into spontaneous violence. BLM & the Gaza protests may have that potential- at least in inner city areas.
The actions of Insulate Britain (IB), primarily blocking motorways, were very probably (and predictably) counterproductive. That is why IB has disappeared. Just Stop Oil, learning from IB’s mistakes, did not necessarily start out that way, but is now very much suffering from the law of diminishing returns, with citizens growing tired of attention-grabbing and disruption to the general public. With the UK government bringing in repressive laws that are, tragically, popular, JSO has surely become counterproductive too. This view is widely held in the environmental movement now, as well as beyond it. (It is not often stated, for reasons of ‘solidarity’.)
The problem with telling stupid lies is that you have to display solidarity with crazy nutters.
JSO has lost the war.
In the sense that I lost out to Prince Charles in the battle of succession to the late Queen Gorblesser.
It has not stopped oil; instead, the UK government doubled down on oil production; moreover, the Labour Party has said it will not undo new fossil fuel licences being issued en masse by the Conservative government.
I was horrified when Keir Starmer refused my suggestion that if racist cunts like Rishi don't want to see a bleck man on the throne, then maybe I could take over the spot left open by the late Queen Mum.
Not only has XR changed its strategy, as of December 2022, and moved away from public disruption, recognising it as counterproductive, but, this January, even Roger Hallam,
a former organic farmer who, in his fifties, decided to study for a Phd 'researching how to achieve social change through civil disobedience and radical movements'. The man appears unhinged. In prison, for criminal damage, he wrote and self-published a pamphlet where he claimed that the climate crisis would lead to mass rape, and featured a story in which the reader's female family members are gang raped and the reader is forced to watch.
XR’s co-founder and the doyen of the ‘more radical than thou’ flank, made a startling admission: ‘We were pushing up against a boulder called “the carbon regime”. Now, like Sisyphus, I see that we were doomed to watch it roll back in our faces.’
These guys were low IQ nutters and self-publicists. By contrast, the Brexit crew got what they wanted. So did all sorts of other vested interest groups or virtue signaling coalitions of wankers. That's how politics works.
So even he now allows for something like the mass, serious, moderate action that I am advocating for here.
What’s needed is depolarisation (whereas civil resistance inevitably polarises)
No. What is needed is the disintermediation of elderly Greta Thurnberg wannabes and Professors of stupid shite.
If one goes back to social movement theory
one finds it is ignorant shite
and examines the pragmatic case for nonviolent civil resistance, one finds that it is typically made against violent resistance.
Nope. The paradigmatic twentieth century example is that of Dissenters getting sent to jail for refusing to pay their rates. This was to protest local authority support for grant aided Anglican schools under the provisions of the 1902 Act. The thing was deeply silly but it hurt the Conservatives in the 1906 election. However, longer term it damaged the Liberal party because it increasingly appeared, as an American historian wrote- ' at the mercy of single-issue eccentrics and special-interest cranks who forced it to waste valuable parliamentary time attempting to enact huge and complicated quasi-constitutional measures that would best benefit only a minority of the king's subjects, while the rest, the majority, if not opposed, remained uninterested.'
The plain fact is, the Dissenters only pretended to believe that they would burn in Hell if a shilling or two of their rates went to ungodly Anglican or Catholic schools. The whole thing was a stupid piece of play-acting. The Non-conformist conscience needed to drink a couple of pints and let some passing Pope or Cardinal extract the stick up its arse.
Very good. But it virtually never considers the potentially viable alternative of a concerted programme of lawful moderate action at scale. In particular, whether such a programme may be doubly effective after some partly successful nonviolent direct action has been undertaken to force a national conversation. This is precisely the situation that the UK (and some other countries) have been in since 2019. With XR and Fridays For Future having succeeded in raising the alarm in 2019, the door is finally open for something that has never happened before: a more-or-less-concerted and yet distributed, truly mass, mainstream, climate more-than-movement.
Britain has had a Green Party since 1990. But they have plenty of influential allies in all the major parties. Stupid PhD students or professors suffering a mid-life crisis who think they are Greta Thurnberg are merely a nuisance.
The Climate Majority Project that I co-founded after leaving X
is useless- save as a sort of secular substitute for some primitive type of apocalyptic religion. It is obvious that there is going to be a big swing to Labor. People with strong green convictions are probably working behind the scenes to ensure that the new administration will be sympathetic to their aims.
asks everyone to consider a question: what is your work to do? How can you be most effective in the shared struggle for a future?
Tell these cunts to fuck the fuck off. They add negative value. It is one thing to talk of how one has fond meaning and purpose, in one's declining years, by becoming more environmentally conscious and mindful of the need to 'give back'. This has an authentic ring. It isn't histrionic, or hysterical or hectoring. True, if you are a misunderstood 15 year old girl- i.e. Daddy promises to buy you a Malibu Barbie thus changing the subject anytime you start detailing to him your plan for world domination- then, by all means, be a big fat bossy-boots. Otherwise, people think your wife is sleeping with the dog and that's why you've turned to politics. I'm not saying that's what happened to me. Anyway, it's the sort of thing which could happen to anybody.
If you are rich,
do stupid shit so you stop being rich
it is probably by throwing your money into the ring (and thus, in due course, becoming not-rich). If you are a lawyer,
do stupid shit so that the legal system becomes shittier
there are multiple ways you can parlay your skill into the cause. If you are in business,
do stupid shit. Don't just go bankrupt, lobby government so more and more British firms go bankrupt.
the raft of things that you ought to do starts with lobbying hard for government more effectively to regulate the business world, to reward ecologically sound behaviour and end the race-to-the-bottom that competitive markets otherwise create.
We call on all entrepreneurs to destroy Capitalism so that they can go fucking extinct.
For many people, the work will be to get seriously involved in climate-preparedness, in resilience-building in your community, as best you can.
Insulate your neighbor's loft using your own fecal slurry. Well when I say neighbor, obviously, I mean any bloke who has been porking my wife.
The beauty of such preparedness-building is not only its practical value, but its tendency to wake up others to the crisis.
Very true. You should carry around a scrap-book of newspaper clippings and show them to random strangers. I find it helps to wear a tin foil hat when engaged in this sort of 'preparedness-building'.
For teachers and academics,
it is about encouraging your students to pet the hamster you keep in your trouser pocket
it is about teaching and researching the crisis,
by using books on climate change as suppositories
and communicating it lovingly and truthfully,
there really is a hamster in my trouser pocket. Kindly acknowledge my truth in a loving manner.
supportively and efficaciously.
while undergoing gender reassignment surgery and protesting Gaza
For creatives, the way forward is somewhat similar:
chop your bollocks off. Penises cause RAPE!
put your talents into helping imagine how we can get through this.
Economists and businessmen make money by doing this. True, they may have to hire a lot of sciencey guys and the math gets complicated. But that's how grownups deal with 'Knightian Uncertainty'. There has to be a 'Hannan Consistent' strategy which is eusoical without being uncompetitive.
Until we can see a path through what is coming, we are unlikely to get serious enough about building it.
We don't have to see shit. Let the people with 'skin in the game' solve the underlying collective action problems.
For those in politics and policy, or in the media, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how you might actually respond courageously and effectually to the crisis, and lead on it. For advertisers and people in PR, it’s about putting your ‘dark arts’ into the service of bringing about some light at the end of the tunnel.
By having gender reassignment surgery at least twice a day. I would like to add that schizophrenic cats and lesbian giraffes too can make a very useful contribution by sodomizing neo-liberals.
For anyone unsure of how best to contribute to the struggle for a future,
ask your Mummy or your G.P whether you are capable of making any such thing.
it may well be that the most effective thing you need to do right now is stop, really think and feel it, talk it through, and thus spend some time figuring out your best role.
the answer tends to be Captain Jack Sparrow. It used to be Batman but Batman got fat.
Especially (though not only) if you are a young person, it may well be that the most effective thing you can do right now is to seek out a few people who are modelling leadership on the crisis,
narcissistic sociopaths
people who you think are acting particularly effectively, and volunteer your services to them;
or just join a fucking cult
I mean, figure out how they could use some volunteer assistance,
blow jobs
and how you could provide it to them in your free time. The huge advantage of this course of action is that you will gain some mentoring,
jizz
which is often the most effective way of figuring out what your own best contribution can be, longer term.
swallowing jizz.
There’s something for everyone under the #climatemajority banner.
sodomy for lesbian giraffes
For some, the change will be extremely drastic: if you’re are an oil exec, then your best options include defecting, or becoming a double agent or a whistleblower.
why not become a defecating double agent who gives blowjobs? that would be just as useful
For many, ‘changing your life’ will look surprisingly like continuing to do what you do – only doing it differently. Using your talents, your resources, probably your position, to the maximum effect, in the shared cause.
If you have a job or run a business and are part of a family or neighborhood, you are probably already in that position provided you are responding to market signals- e.g. using less energy when energy prices go up- and are displaying 'Muth Rationality'- i.e. acting in accordance with the right economic theory.
The Eschaton is the End of Days, God's day of Wrath. What holds the Eschaton at bay is called the Katechon which is the 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith representing God's 'mysterious economy' or management. The message here is simple. There will always be nutters who run around like headless chickens because the world will end next Tuesday at half past six. Tell them to fuck off. I'm not saying leave everything to the market. This is because market imperfections are profit or social benefit opportunities. You can make money or gain a reputational benefit by spotting and repairing such failures of the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment