fill in a little prose in main chapters

3 files changed, 139 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index f500275..ff9f650 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -9,3 +9,52 @@ solutions, and fails to identify an appropriate audience.
 3. R fails to identify credible routes to credible solutions
 4. R fails to identify an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference
 5. The material results of R have been dismal
+
+Good rhetoric does four things:
+
+1. Accurately diagnoses the root causes of a serious problem
+2. Presents a credible route to a credible solution
+3. Addresses an audience that can be persuaded to make a difference
+4. Proves to this audience that taking action is good for them
+
+Contemporary green rhetoric too often fails, and it's usually down to the first
+three points.
+
+First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the root
+cause of green evils is the combined consumption choices of all the world's
+individuals. But in fact, most of the world's consumption isn't driven by
+choice.
+
+This then leads green rhetors to propose incredible solutions. The worst is
+simply to cut consumption. Most of the world's people can't afford to cut back.
+A little better is proposing market-based policies like carbon taxes. But there
+is no credible route to implementing and sustaining an effective carbon tax,
+because it is against the interests of almost everyone. The route green rhetors
+almost universally promote is: listen to the science, then act rationally. This
+denies the evident fact that society is driven by the private interests of those
+who have power, not collective interests; and this is also true of science
+itself, which, as we have proven time and time again, is up for sale to the
+highest bidder. The spectre of the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster' as
+the bogeyman behind all resistance to the collective interest serves only to
+hide the real enemy: the powerful private interests that pay him.
+
+Then, the rhetoric fails to properly identify an audience that can make a
+difference. In line with its scientistic ideology, it pretends to speak to the
+universal human citizen, as if we all have shared interests. But in fact, it
+speaks only to the professional-managerial class (PMC). The whole point of the
+rhetoric is to fight the interests of capitalists, so of course it doesn't speak
+to them. Nor does the condemnation of indulgent over-consumption and the demand
+for cutbacks have any way of resonating with the working class.
+
+Yet this rhetoric doesn't even work for the PMC, because it has already failed
+to identify a credible route change. The exhortations are addressed to the
+universal human collective, or nebulous imaginary entities like 'countries': cut
+carbon emissions! Give 'developing countries' money to stop chopping down
+rainforests! Fund research! But these recommendations don't come with a credible
+route to making them happen. It fails to diagnose why these things are hard to
+do, i.e. identify the vested interests that are preventing change, and show how
+to fight these vested interests and win.
+
+The action that PMC people have taken so far (alternative consumption, political
+protests, banning plastic straws, holding COPs, setting targets) have not been
+effective. The result is that PMC people feel powerless.
diff --git a/chapter2.md b/chapter2.md
index 7411c83..d760e62 100644
--- a/chapter2.md
+++ b/chapter2.md
@@ -11,3 +11,35 @@ Thesis: anti-apocalyptic criticism of R mis-diagnoses the problem.
 11. In fact, apocalypse can meet the critic's concerns in principle
 12. (In order to do so in practice, those with power need to attack the
     structures which drive the downward spiral)
+
+Since contemporary green rhetoric doesn't work, the rhetors think they need to
+increase the temperature, and drive towards increasingly dire warnings of
+impending catastrophe, thinking that people just need more of a shove. They call
+on the familiar symbolic language of nuclear winter. The interests of mass media
+also favours sensationalist language. This only leads feelings of powerlessness
+to degenerate into despair.
+
+This has led many people to think that the end-of-the-world sensationalism is
+the root cause of the problem. Some have even labelled this trope
+'apocalypticism' and thus blamed the apocalyptic imagination, accusing
+apocalypse as being life-denying, pessimistic, quietist, destructive, and
+hopeless.
+
+This follows a long tradition of authority distrust of apocalyptic imagination,
+and the Apocalypse of St John in particular. Authorities tend to see it as
+exhorting quietist expectation for a supernatural deliverance over taking
+effective action for change, or exhorting sadistic pleasure in witnessing
+vindictive violence, if not participating in such violence oneself. Meanwhile,
+those who have read apocalypse 'from below' tend to emphasise how it has a
+visionary interpretation of the tribulations of this world, and a visionary
+expectation of this world being transformed, and use this vision to motivate
+movements for transformational social change.
+
+In fact, apocalyptic language is perfectly capable of meeting the critics'
+concerns, and the Apocalypse of St John is an excellent demonstration of this.
+
+The apocalyptic form is therefore not the reason that green rhetoric is failing.
+As explored in chapter 1, green rhetoric is failing because it is failing to
+diagnose the root causes of the problem, present a credible route to a credible
+solution, and address an audience that could be persuaded to make a difference.
+Were rhetors to solve these problems, they could use apocalyptic effectively.
diff --git a/chapter3.md b/chapter3.md
index dbd798a..6cee85e 100644
--- a/chapter3.md
+++ b/chapter3.md
@@ -8,3 +8,61 @@ their PMC audiences to a martyrdom ethic.
 15. Socialist rhetoric in the past has used apocalypticism for this very purpose
 16. Once rhetors addressing the PMC have fixed all the other problems with R,
     they'll need this apocalyptic hope, too
+
+In the previous two chapters, I've explored how and why contemporary green
+rhetoric is too often failing, and argued that the apocalyptic form is not one
+of the root causes. In this chapter, I aim to show that green rhetoric needs
+apocalypse in order to succeed.
+
+The Apocalypse of St John is written from below and primarily written to readers
+reading from below. He places their struggles in a larger context: of a cosmic
+battle between Jesus Christ and legions of demonic powers, a battle which will
+be ultimately won by Jesus, delivering a world free from all evil, oppressive,
+life-denying powers. He thus exhorts his audience to keep resisting the powers
+of evil which oppress them.
+
+How does this rhetoric work for John's subaltern audience? Large parts of this
+are impossible now to reconstruct. John probably wanted his audience to stop
+eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. What serious problem was this
+supposed to solve? How was it supposed to solve it? We can't know for sure. What
+we do know is that his audience were capable of following his exhortation. Thus,
+if the rest of John's analysis, which is lost to us now, stacked up, he would
+have identified an audience that could credibly make a difference. The question
+that remains is: why would it be good for his audience to act in this way?
+
+John's vision serves to answer that question. He does it by nesting their small,
+local, temporary action in a much larger cosmic and eschatological context.
+While he doesn't deny that their action cannot bring about large-scale social
+change -- in fact, he emphasises their relative powerlessness -- he shows how
+their acts of resistance meaningfully participate in a much bigger social
+transformation. By resisting the temptation of the Beast, they are anticipating
+and securing their privileged place in a future where the Beast is destroyed,
+and in its place is its mirror image, the New Jerusalem. In contrast, those who
+submit to the Beast and take on her mark are only participating in her
+destructive, suicidal death-drive.
+
+This is in fact just what green rhetoric needs.
+
+First rhetors need to fix all the first three points. They need to correctly
+diagnose the problem, identify a credible route to a credible solution, and
+address an audience that can make a difference. This can be done in the way the
+@{climate-change-class-war} does it, by exhorting workers in strategic sectors
+to force change by threatening industrial action. But Huber is too pessimistic
+about the power of the PMC: they can also bring about social-scale change
+through their power over the state via the political parties and the civil
+service.
+
+The question that remains in both cases is: why is it good for me to take part?
+Just because collective action is good for me doesn't mean that my individual
+participation is, too. Most collective action suffers from the prisoner's
+dilemma. It follows that what we need is a martyrdom ethic: I am prepared to
+sacrifice myself for the greater good. How can martyrdom be good for me?
+
+Apocalyptic rhetoric provides the solution by revealing how individual actions
+participate in cosmic battles and eschatological futures.
+
+Socialist rhetoric is often excellent at doing this: joining a union becomes
+part of a cosmic battle between the proletariat and capital, and participates in
+an eschatological future where the rule of capital is broken and the means of
+production are socialised, and are thus all the wonders of scientific technology
+are harnessed to the interests of everyone instead of the few.