Really loved this post—you so eloquently addressed how certain activists get left behind by the popular press (because they've crossed the line and gone from acceptable critique to unpleasant/unpalatable radicalism)…and how important it is to help ourselves, and other people, grow in their political stances over time.
You're one of my favorite political Substacks, and I always appreciate your writing!
A crucial step along her evolution as an activist that 'gets it' is her aligning with indigenous people in North America and supporting freedom for Amsrica's Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier. They have always supported freedom for Palestinians and known Gaza is like a reservation - and its people, oprressed by an occupying force. Peltier, who will be 80 years-old September 12th, and Thunberg are friends now, and Thunberg has been to Water Protectors' protests. She is a galvanizing force to be reckoned with, and you are correct - that is the reason why we hear less and less about/from her. And there are countless Americans like her - people who've been used as non-consensual research subjects STILL, of all races and no longer merely the poor - in institutional policies the Clinton Administration, when he had the chance, never did anything about. Other than to undertake a perception management campaign to make Americans believe the well-known of these human rights atrocities are anachronistic. Ever heard anyone say that before? Or talk about the other AIDS our government lies about the existence of? No? Let me tell you what it's like to be a COINTELPRO target today . . .
It's the same phenomenon that happens to radicals after they are dead. I can never forget the irony that the Martin Luther King statue in DC was largely funded by corporate donations, when MLK spent most of his activism linking capitalism ,racism and imperialism.
What resources would you recommend for those of us who are still learning solutions and learning how to organize? I feel like I have a decently nuanced understanding of the problems we're facing, but don't always know what to do with that knowledge or how to find others locally who are organizing.
I think that's not coincidence. A guide I found helpful in my education 35 years ago before I was (quickly) snitch-jacketed was Brian Glick's War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activisits and What We Can Do About it (So. End Press). He was a National Lawyers Guild Attorney who represented the AFSC in a successfu lawsuit against the CIA and FBI for using COINTELPRO against them, but it was (1) not well-written (sort of grew out of a pamphlet/guide for activists during the U.S. led-coups in Central America and the subsequent migration of peoples caught in civil wars of the 70s and 80s), and (2) seems to be missing at least 5 pages in the latest reprints. Basically advises groups to train themselves on how agents actually infiltrate groups (from the top since Reagan's 12/1981 E.O. 12333, which put CIA in positions of leadership in all human and civil rights groups, even churches, just one venue I was separated from others when I was being researched and under seige) and develop an open-vetting process in place where people with leadership roles can be challenged without fracturing the alliance so they can be relieved temporarily of their duties. Doesn't work well if the group is ad hoc, as in church social justice groups. Because snitch jacketing happens a lot - and ordinarily to the rank and file, like Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, not the actual snitches running these groups (and yes - I know that sounds like an agent trying to undermine all human and civil rights groups; all I can say is the proof is in the pudding - like this article about Greta Thunberg. The fact remains no group is free from government interference. And hasn't been. My guide on who to trust used to be on how antagonistic they were. If they were clowns that upended the basic CIVIL disobedience mandate by putting their members in unnecessarily dangerous situations that didn't directly demonstrate their strength but caused mayhem instead (chaining themselves to barrels filled with concrete in the middle of dangerous 4-lane highways at rush hour), that's a red flag for me - especially when all it ends up doing is destroying the goodwill of sympathetic community members. Discrediting campaigns are the bread and butter of the CIA, and if they can get you to discredit yourselves, that's what they work to get you to do. Wouldn't trust any *leader* who initiates such a stunt. And BTW - there is no deep state. It's the state. There are troves of books, congressional records, news accounts by reputable reporters such as Chris Hedges and non-standard news outlets like DemocracyNow! and The Real News Network who talk all the time about the nefarious things the CIA does around the world and, now, because it's no longer legal, here, often in concert with the FBI and local law enforcement (thanks to Bill Clinton, whose AG Janet Reno implemented a plan devised by former CIA head Geo. H.W. Bush to give CIA and FBI tech to local law enforcement. If you think that meant only rubber bullets and pepper spray, you are too naive).
Not to be a doomer, but the phrase "avert climate collapse" is a scientifically illiterate statement, as there is no stopping nor reversing the abrupt climate change caused by human activity due to the heat already absorbed by the ocean and cryosphere.
The damage already done can only be mitigated and adapted to - major work in itself - but there's still the matter of ongoing emissions making it all still worse in the future.
Completely untrue. The ending of fossil fuel extraction and direct atmospheric sequestration of carbon could mitigate most species extinction events. Take care Vladimir Putin agitprop fellation elsewhere.
However?, it might make the inevitable climate change already building and taking shape for decades now?,
more integrated into our decision AND economic planning processes,
As a PRO active and practical matter as opposed to a simple reactionary process, which leaves us quite literally putting out fires, as opposed to preventing them in the first place.
We keep a constant vigil as to the swiftly approaching climate changes and catastrophes : indicating where we must make changes in our infrastructures, building materials, living spaces, and food protection: all in the process of adaptation to these inevitable changes. Changes with horrific consequences for the very survival of our species and the others that we depend upon for our survival as well.
The climate collapse is all around us, and we must take PRO active measures to prevent further damage whilst acknowledging the inevitable changes in climate that have always existed, and begin to adapt as our earliest ancestors did. Those who did not ?, simply did not survive.
It’s too late to stop the climate changes wrought by our very existence , but adapting TO them and changing our personal, physical, economic, and political infrastructures?, is essential to our future ( your long term future to be more exact).
The problem is that climate change is so abrupt that vertebrates cannot adapt fast enough to keep up, nor can mammals adapt fast enough to keep up. As vertebrate mammals, this is not good news for us human animals.
I agree Obsolete, the future is not looking rosy but if we can't save humanity yet to be, we can certainly be kind to humanity, and others, who already are.
And not be fooled by the propaganda and conditioning all around.
Not true. We could do it if we had to political will. Sequester carbon from the atmosphere for meeting to valuable solid such as carbon fiber in and the extraction of fossil fuels. The best time to do it was 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Judging by the ignorance of your comments elsewhere on this article, I'm going to assume you don't know about the lag time between emissions and heating, the aerosol masking effect, or the latent heat already absorbed by the oceans and cryosphere.
You replied to me, and now you're telling me to go away on my comment thread. And what was that you said about bullshit ad hominem stupid comments? Looks like another projection to me. Maybe seek therapy to address your insecurities and inadequacies.
I don't where you got 2 -3 billion from nor how you address the 'carrying capacity' of the planet? But the richest 10% are responsible for something like half of emissions and the top 1% for 25%- it's not about population size at all.
The people who made their money from oil are the most responsible for the burning of it.
Well this is.bogus. It clearly.depends how much energy each human uses doesn't it. If they each use a reasonable amount of energy millions could use more and a few would have to use considerably less. Calculations have been done by scientists as to what that amount would be to support 8-9 billion humans.
I’m not a global ecologist, so I won’t be arguing this point here. I encourage you to listen to the entire interview and then decide if the claim is bogus.
If you could show me the scientists claim that earth could comfortably carry 8-9 billion humans, I could read that and decide if that claim is bogus.
Climate change is a symptom of industrial civilization and ecological overshoot. Try to comprehend the severity of the predicament we're in before commenting next time.
Fulfilling the two absolute prerequisites in mitigating the worst effects of the climate catastrophe, has nothing to do with the true causation. Which is fossil fuel extraction and burning along with derivatives manufactured from it. The overshoot and overpopulation that you speak of is only possible because of this dynamic. Now, one more bullshit ad hominem stupid comment from you and I will punt you into the Internet ether.
Thanks for pointing out with clarity why someone who was at the forefront of the news cycle fell off the pages of the mainstream media as her own personal clarity on interconnected issues grew. We sometimes dimly register these political changes but it’s nice to have a writer who can bring it all together.
Why are we even listening to someone who is a billionaire funded fake whose family has more money than they can even dream of? No wonder this world has been taken over by globalism so easily 🙄
I am one month younger than Greta (a source of pride since I was 15) and I am simultaneously so proud of her and so scared for her. The forces stacked against truth, against freedom and ecology and children, are so massive that I often don't know what my next step(s) should be. My young activist friends and I are trying to face the elefante in the room of our dread and despair and hopefulness. Writing like this keeps me sharp. It reminds me that the truth does indeed still exist, and we can save it, we can save our futures, if we have the courage like Greta does.
Remember the struggles of your better parents, grand and great grandparents who came immediately before you. The courageous ones who were the first to risk all to even have this conversation in the first place. All in hopes that now, you might be the ones to finish it.
You must be willing to take the risk as they did:
But also do not forget or follow the old fools who set up this precarious situation in the first place. Watch their mistakes, and precisely how they made them: so that you might not make the same ones.
The mood here seems to be celebratory about her growth, but it seems likely to me that the practical-political effect of losing her in the highest-profile climate discourse is negative.
Greta had gained a unique platform, largely on the purity of her message and herself as its messenger: climate change is the most important issue *for the world* for the foreseeable future, wrought by elder generations, with impacts falling increasingly on younger. Changing course is a moral as well as practical imperative.
Nothing that happens to (for example) Gaza, or Israel, short of triggering a nuclear exchange, substantially changes the possible courses before us on climate. So while Greta as an individual of course has the right to be involved with whatever she wants - and the fate of Israel/Palestine *is* important, on a different level - I do regret the loss of that purity, where there were no angles in, from other politics, by which to dismiss her.
Really loved this post—you so eloquently addressed how certain activists get left behind by the popular press (because they've crossed the line and gone from acceptable critique to unpleasant/unpalatable radicalism)…and how important it is to help ourselves, and other people, grow in their political stances over time.
You're one of my favorite political Substacks, and I always appreciate your writing!
Thank you so much Celine! This warms my heart, I appreciate it so much.
A crucial step along her evolution as an activist that 'gets it' is her aligning with indigenous people in North America and supporting freedom for Amsrica's Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier. They have always supported freedom for Palestinians and known Gaza is like a reservation - and its people, oprressed by an occupying force. Peltier, who will be 80 years-old September 12th, and Thunberg are friends now, and Thunberg has been to Water Protectors' protests. She is a galvanizing force to be reckoned with, and you are correct - that is the reason why we hear less and less about/from her. And there are countless Americans like her - people who've been used as non-consensual research subjects STILL, of all races and no longer merely the poor - in institutional policies the Clinton Administration, when he had the chance, never did anything about. Other than to undertake a perception management campaign to make Americans believe the well-known of these human rights atrocities are anachronistic. Ever heard anyone say that before? Or talk about the other AIDS our government lies about the existence of? No? Let me tell you what it's like to be a COINTELPRO target today . . .
It's the same phenomenon that happens to radicals after they are dead. I can never forget the irony that the Martin Luther King statue in DC was largely funded by corporate donations, when MLK spent most of his activism linking capitalism ,racism and imperialism.
What resources would you recommend for those of us who are still learning solutions and learning how to organize? I feel like I have a decently nuanced understanding of the problems we're facing, but don't always know what to do with that knowledge or how to find others locally who are organizing.
I would highly recommend the book “Let This Radicalize You” by Kelly Hayes & Mariame Kaba.
This looks very helpful! Thanks!
I think that's not coincidence. A guide I found helpful in my education 35 years ago before I was (quickly) snitch-jacketed was Brian Glick's War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activisits and What We Can Do About it (So. End Press). He was a National Lawyers Guild Attorney who represented the AFSC in a successfu lawsuit against the CIA and FBI for using COINTELPRO against them, but it was (1) not well-written (sort of grew out of a pamphlet/guide for activists during the U.S. led-coups in Central America and the subsequent migration of peoples caught in civil wars of the 70s and 80s), and (2) seems to be missing at least 5 pages in the latest reprints. Basically advises groups to train themselves on how agents actually infiltrate groups (from the top since Reagan's 12/1981 E.O. 12333, which put CIA in positions of leadership in all human and civil rights groups, even churches, just one venue I was separated from others when I was being researched and under seige) and develop an open-vetting process in place where people with leadership roles can be challenged without fracturing the alliance so they can be relieved temporarily of their duties. Doesn't work well if the group is ad hoc, as in church social justice groups. Because snitch jacketing happens a lot - and ordinarily to the rank and file, like Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, not the actual snitches running these groups (and yes - I know that sounds like an agent trying to undermine all human and civil rights groups; all I can say is the proof is in the pudding - like this article about Greta Thunberg. The fact remains no group is free from government interference. And hasn't been. My guide on who to trust used to be on how antagonistic they were. If they were clowns that upended the basic CIVIL disobedience mandate by putting their members in unnecessarily dangerous situations that didn't directly demonstrate their strength but caused mayhem instead (chaining themselves to barrels filled with concrete in the middle of dangerous 4-lane highways at rush hour), that's a red flag for me - especially when all it ends up doing is destroying the goodwill of sympathetic community members. Discrediting campaigns are the bread and butter of the CIA, and if they can get you to discredit yourselves, that's what they work to get you to do. Wouldn't trust any *leader* who initiates such a stunt. And BTW - there is no deep state. It's the state. There are troves of books, congressional records, news accounts by reputable reporters such as Chris Hedges and non-standard news outlets like DemocracyNow! and The Real News Network who talk all the time about the nefarious things the CIA does around the world and, now, because it's no longer legal, here, often in concert with the FBI and local law enforcement (thanks to Bill Clinton, whose AG Janet Reno implemented a plan devised by former CIA head Geo. H.W. Bush to give CIA and FBI tech to local law enforcement. If you think that meant only rubber bullets and pepper spray, you are too naive).
Thanks for posting about Greta's evolution, Joshua. I think it's wonderful that she's connecting these dots and speaking out.
Not to be a doomer, but the phrase "avert climate collapse" is a scientifically illiterate statement, as there is no stopping nor reversing the abrupt climate change caused by human activity due to the heat already absorbed by the ocean and cryosphere.
The damage already done can only be mitigated and adapted to - major work in itself - but there's still the matter of ongoing emissions making it all still worse in the future.
Picky aren’t you? :) Very true. Edit to say “avert further climate collapse” ?
Such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff.
Completely untrue. The ending of fossil fuel extraction and direct atmospheric sequestration of carbon could mitigate most species extinction events. Take care Vladimir Putin agitprop fellation elsewhere.
Climate change is already more abrupt than the rate at which most species can adapt, including us humans.
Indeed Obsolete,
However?, it might make the inevitable climate change already building and taking shape for decades now?,
more integrated into our decision AND economic planning processes,
As a PRO active and practical matter as opposed to a simple reactionary process, which leaves us quite literally putting out fires, as opposed to preventing them in the first place.
How do we prevent them in the first place? 🤔
Obsolete,
We keep a constant vigil as to the swiftly approaching climate changes and catastrophes : indicating where we must make changes in our infrastructures, building materials, living spaces, and food protection: all in the process of adaptation to these inevitable changes. Changes with horrific consequences for the very survival of our species and the others that we depend upon for our survival as well.
The climate collapse is all around us, and we must take PRO active measures to prevent further damage whilst acknowledging the inevitable changes in climate that have always existed, and begin to adapt as our earliest ancestors did. Those who did not ?, simply did not survive.
It’s too late to stop the climate changes wrought by our very existence , but adapting TO them and changing our personal, physical, economic, and political infrastructures?, is essential to our future ( your long term future to be more exact).
The problem is that climate change is so abrupt that vertebrates cannot adapt fast enough to keep up, nor can mammals adapt fast enough to keep up. As vertebrate mammals, this is not good news for us human animals.
I agree Obsolete, the future is not looking rosy but if we can't save humanity yet to be, we can certainly be kind to humanity, and others, who already are.
And not be fooled by the propaganda and conditioning all around.
Preservation and compassion IS the key to survival.
Not true. We could do it if we had to political will. Sequester carbon from the atmosphere for meeting to valuable solid such as carbon fiber in and the extraction of fossil fuels. The best time to do it was 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Allow me to introduce to you a little something called the laws of thermodynamics, specifically entropy.
That has nothing to do with this. Thank you fossil fuel fellation elsewhere
Judging by the ignorance of your comments elsewhere on this article, I'm going to assume you don't know about the lag time between emissions and heating, the aerosol masking effect, or the latent heat already absorbed by the oceans and cryosphere.
Your observation is an accurate one Obsolete:
Yes.
I do. Go the fuck away. You're about as sharp as a Kubo and have the manners of a chimpanzee in heat.
You replied to me, and now you're telling me to go away on my comment thread. And what was that you said about bullshit ad hominem stupid comments? Looks like another projection to me. Maybe seek therapy to address your insecurities and inadequacies.
There needs to be between 2-3 billion people on the planet for us to live comfortably within the carrying capacity of the planet.
You’ll have to explain how carbon sequestration gets us there to make it convincing argument.
I don't where you got 2 -3 billion from nor how you address the 'carrying capacity' of the planet? But the richest 10% are responsible for something like half of emissions and the top 1% for 25%- it's not about population size at all.
The people who made their money from oil are the most responsible for the burning of it.
Jo,
You’ve made a good start.
It was dropped in this interview with global ecologist Corey Bradshaw as a rough consensus of ecologists about the carrying capacity of the planet.
https://youtu.be/qJwsJhFK98o?si=0iQvzN9JolTWOcNv
Well this is.bogus. It clearly.depends how much energy each human uses doesn't it. If they each use a reasonable amount of energy millions could use more and a few would have to use considerably less. Calculations have been done by scientists as to what that amount would be to support 8-9 billion humans.
I’m not a global ecologist, so I won’t be arguing this point here. I encourage you to listen to the entire interview and then decide if the claim is bogus.
If you could show me the scientists claim that earth could comfortably carry 8-9 billion humans, I could read that and decide if that claim is bogus.
That's not relevant to the fucking climate catastrophe. We need to sequester first. Jesus take a fucking hike fossil fuel cocksleeve
Climate change is a symptom of industrial civilization and ecological overshoot. Try to comprehend the severity of the predicament we're in before commenting next time.
Climate change is directly and completely the real world effect of fossil fuel extraction and use. UBIQUITOUSLY SOLELY and ABSOLUTELY.
False. Civilization is a heat engine regardless of what powers it. Citation: Tim Garrett, et al.
Fulfilling the two absolute prerequisites in mitigating the worst effects of the climate catastrophe, has nothing to do with the true causation. Which is fossil fuel extraction and burning along with derivatives manufactured from it. The overshoot and overpopulation that you speak of is only possible because of this dynamic. Now, one more bullshit ad hominem stupid comment from you and I will punt you into the Internet ether.
I didn't mention overpopulation, did I? No, I didn't. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Get some reading comprehension. If you don't think I understand that basic premise, you're dumber than I thought you were. And that's a high bar.
Hate to break it to you like this, but civilization is a heat engine regardless of what powers it.
Thank you for this important statement!
Thanks for pointing out with clarity why someone who was at the forefront of the news cycle fell off the pages of the mainstream media as her own personal clarity on interconnected issues grew. We sometimes dimly register these political changes but it’s nice to have a writer who can bring it all together.
Actually Irshaad,
Greta is safer that way: (out of the direct glare of the constant limelight).
She may have the chance tomorrow to grow into the international status of an Anita Hill, or an Angela Davis:
But she needs to stay alive to graduate to that much influence.
Real proud of Greta!
She is the real deal!
“and rarely found myself with the energy to be as politically active as I wanted to be.”
This is on purpose. This is how they beat us down, with wage-slave jobs.
General Strike May 1, 2028.
I didn’t know about the strike Ian. Thanks for the heads up 👍.
Well, we help each other. We learn together
Evolution is a positive thing, for everyone......
Why are we even listening to someone who is a billionaire funded fake whose family has more money than they can even dream of? No wonder this world has been taken over by globalism so easily 🙄
I am one month younger than Greta (a source of pride since I was 15) and I am simultaneously so proud of her and so scared for her. The forces stacked against truth, against freedom and ecology and children, are so massive that I often don't know what my next step(s) should be. My young activist friends and I are trying to face the elefante in the room of our dread and despair and hopefulness. Writing like this keeps me sharp. It reminds me that the truth does indeed still exist, and we can save it, we can save our futures, if we have the courage like Greta does.
Indeed Sophia,
Remember the struggles of your better parents, grand and great grandparents who came immediately before you. The courageous ones who were the first to risk all to even have this conversation in the first place. All in hopes that now, you might be the ones to finish it.
You must be willing to take the risk as they did:
But also do not forget or follow the old fools who set up this precarious situation in the first place. Watch their mistakes, and precisely how they made them: so that you might not make the same ones.
Organize a 100 million person strong #GeneralStrike #OccupyEverything #NoCompromiseListOfDemands
They would be met in 10 days if those numbers were reached.
The mood here seems to be celebratory about her growth, but it seems likely to me that the practical-political effect of losing her in the highest-profile climate discourse is negative.
Greta had gained a unique platform, largely on the purity of her message and herself as its messenger: climate change is the most important issue *for the world* for the foreseeable future, wrought by elder generations, with impacts falling increasingly on younger. Changing course is a moral as well as practical imperative.
Nothing that happens to (for example) Gaza, or Israel, short of triggering a nuclear exchange, substantially changes the possible courses before us on climate. So while Greta as an individual of course has the right to be involved with whatever she wants - and the fate of Israel/Palestine *is* important, on a different level - I do regret the loss of that purity, where there were no angles in, from other politics, by which to dismiss her.
Climate change isn't independent of military activity or politics. It's all interconnected, there is no 'purity'.
Purity of *message,* for the sake of effective politics.
The best chance of effective politics is by uniting in solidarity and recognising the common cause of all struggles.
Real proud of Greta!
She is the real deal!