Some astonishing and disgraceful revelations here about a man whose misleading claims on Covid-19 have formed the backbone of the "sceptic" case.
I keep seeing this pattern: people who make false claims in one field have a tendency to make false claims in others.
There also appears to be a common coincidence between downplaying the dangers of Covid-19 and holding a set of far-right beliefs.
Yeadon now claims that he "didn't write" one of these tweets, that appeared on his account. He hasn't explained who did, how it got there, or why it closely resembles a large number of other tweets, with similar claims from his account.
Astonishingly, however, his followers have simply accepted his claim that one of these offensive tweets was somehow planted in his account, even while other, very similar claims, published under his name over a period of months, remained undeleted until they were exposed.
Julia Hartley-Brewer is among those who has chosen to believe him. Yet she calls herself (checks notes) a "sceptic".
They're coming in thick and fast now, lots of tweets on these lines being found in @MichaelYeadon3's account, several of which, like this, remain undeleted. Are we really to believe that they were somehow planted by someone else, then left up by him?
Please remember: this is the man whose claims are central to the case made by those who call themselves "Lockdown Sceptics" or "Covid sceptics". His claims about the pandemic are equally unfounded and even more dangerous. fullfact.org/health/can-we-…
Michael Yeadon's superfans, like @JuliaHB1, tried to tough it out, by denying that he'd posted multiple racist and revolting tweets. He now appears to have taken a different approach. twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3
Yeadon now claims that the racist tweets published over the course of many months by his account were faked. 1. How? 2. How were they inserted, in real time, into active conversations? 3. Why did he fail to notice them? 4. Why didn't he change his password/take other measures?
Some of his acolytes now claim that Michael Yeadon's account was not Michael Yeadon's account.
So was the Michael Yeadon they were following and retweeting an impostor?
What about the MY who now says MY was hacked and has deleted MY's account?
And what happened to the real one??
There seems to be some kind of threshold people cross, after which they will believe anything. Literally anything.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. People are objecting to my lashing of academics and intellectuals in today's column. I understand this. Here’s my reasoning. I chose examples of topics that are endlessly circled by researchers with ever diminishing returns, while huge and existential questions are ignored.🧵
2. I see the obsession with the Bloomsbury Group etc as highfalutin celebrity culture. The effort and attention spent on it, in scholarship, publishing and reviews, seems to me to signal a deep sickness at the heart of intellectual endeavour. It has a name. Denial.
3. It reminds me of Eliot’s comparison of the mindless gossip in the pub with the mindless gossip in the high society salon in Part II of The Wasteland:
"‘Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your head?’
But O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag -
It’s so elegant
So intelligent"
1. A few days ago, I wrote a thread about the pros and cons of staying on this platform and asked for your views. They were very helpful. As a result, I’ve decided to stop using X from January 20. Already I’m mostly posting now on BlueSky (@georgemonbiot.bsky.social) instead.🧵
2. I won’t delete this account, as I don’t want to lose the archive. But I won’t post anything here after then. Will you join me in setting January 20th (a significant date) for the Xodus?
3. I thought for a while that the best alternative would be Threads. But Meta’s deliberate downgrading of political content and suspension of journalists on Threads rules it out as a prime platform for people like me. .theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
1. Who really won the US election? The fossil fuel companies and other polluting industries. We scarcely heard about them during the election campaign, which is just how they like it. Almost everything we *did* hear about was a distraction from the real agenda. 🧵
2. Trump’s campaign was an economic war against the interests of almost everyone on Earth, on behalf of the planet’s most powerful and destructive industries. But it was dressed up, as always, as a culture war: a trick that has been used to great effect for more than a century.
3. It’s not as if Biden/Harris were seriously curtailing polluting industries, especially oil and gas. It’s shocking how little Harris even mentioned the existential threat to humanity that climate breakdown presents. But now? It’s a free-for-all.
1. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of staying on this platform.
Pro: We were here long before Musk took it over. We built this.
Con: He has used our creation to help elect a far-right autocrat, and build his own grim political career.
🧵
2. Pro: We should never cede any space, real or virtual, to the far right. Fascist trolls are trying to drive us out. Don't give them the satisfaction.
Con: Our presence could be used to legitimise a far-right hellsite.
3. Pro: It remains, amid the viciousness, a good place to share information, ideas and opinions.
Con: It is also an abysmal, dispiriting place to inhabit, the humour, lightness and kindness crushed by bots and trolls.
1. My column on what happened, what comes next, and just how easy our fake democracies are to overthrow. + short thread on where our remaining hopes lie. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. People seek to destroy what they feel excluded from. Centralised “democracies” exclude all but a rarefied circle from genuine power. Centralised democracy is a contradiction in terms.
3. Disempowered people tend to be profoundly unimpressed by “rational arguments” for this faction or for that one: they have an entirely reasonable desire – however unreasonable its expression may be – to kick the system over.
1. Trump’s preposterous claim that a “savage Venezuelan prison gang” has “taken over Times Square” is a reminder that people like him actually know nothing about the world, because they never step out of their suites and chauffered cars, offices and private planes.🧵
2. The ruling class doesn’t do its own shopping, or wander around town, or use public transport, or walk into an ordinary café or bar, or join a queue or wait for anything.
3. They are totally reliant on other people – or their own lurid imaginations – to tell them what the world outside their air-conditioned bubble is like. And they appear to imagine a festering pit of humanity. Everyone outside the bubble is perceived as a threat.