I think that’s the spirit of the text, but he’s very careful not to actually call for violent protest. Instead, he repeatedly just says that it should be considered for obvious reasons. The text has a “won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest” effect. Regardless, he makes a compelling argument and the violence he considers is purely against property and not people so, unless you’re a property fetishist, the degree of violence being considered is nothing compared to the violence of climate change.
Indeed, this is an important point, when talking about violence, he talks mostly about attacking equipement owned by fossilf-fuel companies so mostly victimless violence not about performing a Luigi Mangione
I think that’s the spirit of the text, but he’s very careful not to actually call for violent protest. Instead, he repeatedly just says that it should be considered for obvious reasons. The text has a “won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest” effect. Regardless, he makes a compelling argument and the violence he considers is purely against property and not people so, unless you’re a property fetishist, the degree of violence being considered is nothing compared to the violence of climate change.
Indeed, this is an important point, when talking about violence, he talks mostly about attacking equipement owned by fossilf-fuel companies so mostly victimless violence not about performing a Luigi Mangione