What happens when democracy has been dissolved is anyone's guess, because once you remove the public from politics, and expect nothing from them but obedience (under pain of re-education), *anything* goes.
I don't wish to be dramatic, but the claim that "Public involvement, education and empowerment are central to the #ClimateAction process" is pure and simple the recipe for *actual* eco-fascism.
Whereas fascism was defined as something similar to state corporatism, today we have global political institutions and global corporations.
And they do not require your consent to advance their agenda.
"Oh don't be ridiculous, of course they aren't fascists...".
Then what are they now? What can or will they be tomorrow? And how can we remove them from office and power?
Not by voting.
So tell me again that they are not fascists.
If you still do not believe me, read @SalkaMargret's piece here, and ask yourself where democracy fits into her motherhood-and-apple pie account of global climate politics.
The United Nations is a project that is explicitly hostile to democracy.
Where, in her piece do people who do not agree with her view of the world get given the opportunity to express their disagreement?
The entire weights of a supranational institution and national governments are being thrown against the individual, and against democracy.
"UN countries will agree to renewed principles for how countries and stakeholders can empower all members of society to engage in climate action."
Where is the debate? Where is the vote? What if we disagree?
She does not explain. She cannot explain. She cannot be wrong.
"we have seen a significant rise in public empowerment and engagement on climate change. This includes increased youth participation, more national climate education policies, more climate communications, further understanding of the changes in behaviour needed to reach net zero"
But no vote.
No debate.
No criticism permitted on news broadcasters.
Critical academics ejected from their positions.
All of "civil society" being displaced, bought or aligned with private interests.
That is what she means.
Look at this. "Stakeholders" does not include people who disagree or representatives of people who disagree.
"Stakeholders" means people who are expedient and obedient to the political process.
It does not mean the public. It does not mean democratic representation.
"this is not about telling people what to do", she claims.
No, it's about "empowering" people to do what you tell them to do.
If it's not about that, @SalkaMargret, then you need to explain how the views of people who disagree with you are included in the full scope of the political process you are an instrument of.
You can't explain it, because there is no room for them.
Because it is eco-fascism.
"Fascism" is a dramatic word. I do not use it lightly.
Their agenda is a dramatic political project.
It involves dismantling the foundations of liberal, democratic society, removing people's power to chose their governments.
But with lovely words like "stakeholder engagement".
Who could disagree with lovely words like "stakeholder engagement" and "education"?
I could.
But @COP26 won't be inviting me or anyone else to explain the problems we might have with the ugly ideology that belies such beautiful terminology.
While you're here, read my piece on why there is no 'climate crisis', and why claims that there is a 'climate crisis' are driven by bad faith, on the new, first edition of Cornerstone magazine. My piece starts on page 27. s3.amazonaws.com/futurerad.io.l…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I would much rather have had governments that were less concerned with the world than the ones we have had that have sought to bomb it, and to constrain economic and technological development by imposing green ideology on it.
"Britain" (the government) is a force for bad.
And notice how at odds this concern for "Britain's standing in the world" actually is.
The wars were unpopular. The climate agenda has zero domestic support. The public do not agree with sending vast sums of cash in "aid" -- and they don't know the reality of it.
The problem being, of course, that @BBCPolitics "RealityCheck" can't check reality, because it would upset their favoured commentators and their shared orthodoxies.
That is 100% of the 'aid' budget did good in the world.
No one objects in principle to emergency and disaster relief etc. But the database of government's generosity, reveals things like the taxpayer giving £Millions to the WWF and WRI, which are already well-funded by billionaires, to leverage that funding in lobbying governments.
If failure to stop a crime is equivalent to commissioning a crime, aren't all Police and all politicians guilty of narco-trafficking, human trafficking, murder, rape, kidnap...?
The "environment" is the organising principle of the transfer of power from national governments to global political institutions, embedding it above democracy.
We climate sceptics are often accused of being 'oil industry funded denialists'. It isn't true.
In fact, the people who began this process of using the 'environment' as a pretext for transferring power away from people were oil tycoons like the Rockefellers and Maurice Strong.