People often ask what I mean by system change re: the climate and ecological crisis. It is very simple. I mean a full shift to a truly sustainable society/economy. This means changing more or less every convention of our modern society.
Sustainable means what it says. A society and economy in balance with the ecological carrying capacity of the Earth. Essentially that means no unsustainable trends, where our impact on the natural systems of the world is growing.
You see, in ecological terms, if there is a component, where it's impact on natural systems is constantly growing. Eventually it will have catastrophic effects, impacting also on the component driving it i.e. human society.
Lots of natural components have growing impacts. Let's say an exploding population of rodents. But this is eventually counteracted, by a sudden fall in the population of that rodent. Often, it produces a cycle or rise and fall.
Humans appear to have got out of this cycle and effect, by using innovation to get around what would cause that contraction in that growth. For instance, the use of fertilisers and pesticides.
But this is at the cost of destroying other ecosystem components and biodiversity, which in a long loop, will eventually have serious impacts on us, that we can't innovate our way out of.
There is no simple recipe for creating a sustainable society economy. However, if we don't want our population, our civilization, our society and economy to crash, it is essential.
Let me try to sum up, why climate change denial, or minimization, is a lost cause. Those who deny it, or deny what a threat it is to humanity, do so because they don't want the system to be changed, to address the climate and ecological crisis.
1/🧵
This is a lost cause, because the single action, which will cause the most radical change to our system, is trying not to change our system, to address the climate and ecological crisis. Doing this will collapse our civilization. Change can't be more radical than this.
2/
Ironically, making radical changes to our current system, business as usual BaU, will actually produce, the least radical and adverse change. Those who deny or minimize climate change, can't get their head around this. They naively believe they can prevent radical change.
3/
I want to give a huge thanks to everyone that has responded.
There is no doubt whatsoever, that Elon Musk's X/Twitter has had major changes to it's algorithm, particularly in the last 4-5 months, which stops mutuals seeing each other's posts. I can only find their posts if I search them out.
1/🧵
This seems to deliberately target progressives, but not just those with overt political views, just anyone who doesn't endorse right wing populism. Many of these people whose posts I rarely see now, are photographers, birders, natural history people, who rarely post politicised views.
2/
By progressive I simply mean anyone with enlightened views who doesn't endorse the hate mongering and regressive views of the modern populist right, including old style Conservatives. Many of these people would not see themselves as progressive.
3/
It's so obvious that Starmer is playing right into the hands of Reform, that you have to wonder if Keir Starmer is a secret admirer of Nigel Farage, because if Starmer isn't aware of what he's doing, he's someone's useful idiot.
Remember, I accurately predicted the downfall of Boris Johnson, in 2-3 years, at the time of his big win in 2019. I'm not some sort of clairvoyant, and I've repeatedly explained how I make these accurate political predictions.
"US plans to start checking all tourists' social media"
This is why the whole "free speech" shtick of the American right is totally fake, the opposite of the truth, a classic Orwellian sleight of hand, doublespeak, doublethink, where everything is the virtual opposite of what is stated.
What this is about, is ideological purity, a fake right wing racist and white supremacist narrative, carefully dressed up in false justifications. It's a narrative based on total lying. The oligarchs, peddling this new fascism, know that their specious narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
2/
So they know they need to control the narrative, just like in the old Soviet Union. The irony is incredible, the right are using state communist mind control tactics. To control intellectuals, who see through their mindless, unintelligent lies.
3/
"Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right"
Is Keir Starmer just stupid, or is he following orders/directions/coercion?
Keir Starmer has got this stupid idea, that if he appeases the right, with a partial anti-immigrant policy, a sort of "Reform-lite", that he will draw support from Reform, and the far right. That's his argument anyway.
It plainly doesn't work, because support for Reform and the far right has grown, and they absolutely hate Starmer and Labour. I see no evidence whatsoever, that Starmer has won over one single right wing voter, through this strategy. theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/0…
1/🧵
The reason this is stupid strategy, a that doesn't work, is very simple.
1) It makes it falsely appear as if Reform, and the racist/xenophobic right, has a genuine point.
2) This actually increases support for Reform and the nasty right, because no one, with xenophobic or racist tendencies, would ever consider voting for Starmer/Labour.
2/
The right wing media, portray Starmer and Labour, as pro-immigrant, woke, and the cause of lax "immigration policy". Trying to say, we're a bit racist and xenophobic ourselves, doesn't win anyone over. It just appals traditional Labour/left voters, makes them less likely to vote Labour, and more likely to support another party.
3/
When I made this suggestion, in response to Elon Musk calling for the abolition of the EU, I got the usual abuse from right wing nuts, that I was a commie, a retard, etc, etc. I will justify what I said. Billionaires, should not exist.
1/🧵
In any fair and rational system, there would be progressive taxation, that made it impossible for anyone to accumulate that sort of wealth. By progressive taxation, I mean wealth taxation, that increases proportional to the wealth being accumulated. So a moderate wealth tax on millions.
However, if someone starts accumulating hundreds of millions, this tax should get progressively higher, until it becomes impossible to accumulate billions.
There are 2 main reasons I say this. Neither of them involves either envy, or ideology.
2/
The first reason, is that billionaires are anti-democratic. They subvert democracies with their wealth, to put in place politicians who work for the them, against the public interest. This is objective, a large proportion of billionaires actively engage in propaganda and disinformation, to gaslight the public.
3/