The judge stated that “the stance taken by you [by pleading not guilty] distinguishes you all from others who have chosen to follow the long and honourable tradition of civil disobedience on conscientious grounds, that is accepting that you have broken the law and accepting the punishment that follows”.

This requirement alone–to have to plead (not) guilty–is characteristic of a perverted justice system. Why force the defendant to anticipate the verdict of their own trial? This is ridiculous. This is to be found out by the trial, not prejudged by one party. Pleading serves only to intimidate defendants and frustrate their defense strategy, and so it is an expression of a bias of the state, which is overrepresented in court by four parties (judge, jury, prosecutor, and author of the laws), towards ordinary (non-corporation) people. It has no place in a society with rule of law.

I wish collapse aware thinkers like her were not so uneducated in economic theory (Marxism) and steeped in neoliberal dogma so that I could take them more seriously. Their theorizing lacks economic insights and is pretty misguided. It is somewhat disturbing that they, as system thinkers, are so ignorant of the system encroaching on everything, i.e. capitalism.

I agree with the picture, but not the title. Nonviolent action is an option and was successful many times. Contingent on the situation, it can be more effective.

Better ditch this crap and use AWK for manipulating tables. It has all the intelligence you'll need.