Well, this excerpt from the first chapter of Che Guevara's book might shed some light on that:

`Naturally, it is not to be thought that all conditions for revolution are going to be created through the impulse given to them by guerrilla activity. It must always be kept in mind that there is a necessary minimum without which the establishment and consolidation of the first center is not practicable. People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law, peace is considered already broken.

In these conditions popular discontent expresses itself in more active forms. An attitude of resistance finally crystallizes in an outbreak of fighting, provoked initially by the conduct of the authorities.

Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.`

The average person is generally peaceable. They don't want to fight anybody. So long as they believe there is a legitimate government that allows some believable possibility of redressing their grievances, they'll stay within the societal framework of public advocacy, voting, court challenges, etc.

If they start to believe that their government is illegitimate or that the normal, lawful paths to redress no longer function, then they will consider more active resistance.

That's not the point of the video, but sure

Obviously I'm no fan of Che or any other commie shitbag, but the hard left really has a lot more first hand experience with situations like this. May as well learn from them.

@Benjamin Henry I don't think there will be executions or even sterilizations. Too grisly. What they will do is tax the hell out of every way of life except farming in a soft form of socialism. Then, somewhere between half and two thirds of the global population will starve, if my math is correct.

This climate change shit is a distraction. It's just a power grab. The people funding this shit don't give a rat fuck about any of it. They just want to convince people to centralize more power in the governments they stand to take over.

It's a waste of breath to talk about.

Yes of course. and the people in power won't starve, you can bet on that

The foot soldiers protesting are too stupid to string together a coherent sentence. No point in talking to them. Those at the top of the leftist hierarchy are acting in bad faith. No point in talking to them. It's a complete waste of time to talk about period.

What Styx was saying is pure satire, he was just wondering why the Climate Orthodox believers aren't saying what they must really be thinking

its not pure satire thats how it will have to work. there is no way to feed 7.5 billion people without modern mechanized agriculture

It is satire because it's not a serious argument

It's dark comedy

it is a serious argument taken to its logical conclusion

Fine

Go on

No carbon emissions = no modern mechanized agriculture

You need about 1 hectare to farm subsistently

the carrying capacity of the world is about 3 billion

have you considered that not feeding people is not a bug but a feature for those seeking dominance?

not the first time that leftist authoritarians engineered famines to consolidate power

@pwtdo It's not a well-thought-out feature if that's the case

There need to be people in order to have power

sure. but which people?

yes it is. less people, more chance of survival. you just have to be sure youre the one on top

@pwtdo thats where the eugenics comes in.

they sure as hell don't need any pesky middle-class kulaks mucking up their schemes

Bernie "Just the Billyuhnahs now" Sanders had advocated for basically ethnic cleansing

@SilentSkies No it isn't. The more technology and luxury still exist, the more the power actually means

i disagree that technology and luxury are required for power

What's the point of being the ruler of the world if you still have to work 16 hours a day out in the field just to grow food for yourself?

louis XIV had more power than anyone alive today could dream of

power is relative. and the ruler would be the only one who doesnt have to work, so thats relatively the best

I'm not saying they're required. I'm saying the power is more useful if they exist

these people would rather be in a techno-aristocracy over a bunch of serfs than democratic leaders of free individuals

@SilentSkies Well that's a mistake

Think of O'Brien in 1984. He had very little additional luxury or technology compared to Winston.

But he had infinitely more power.

Power is relative. You already said that