"Donald Trump blamed “the radical left” for the shooting and promised a crackdown"
The man who tried to shoot Donald Trump, was a registered Republican, and so was his family. This is Nazi style lying and hijacking of a murder for political reasons.
The biggest instigator of political violence, in America is Donald Trump. He instigated a violent attempted coup on 6 January, in which a police officer died, to overthrow a legitimate election result.
2/
Currently, Trump is instigating militaristic invasions of states and cities run by political rivals, on entirely false and made up grounds, to intimidate them. He did it in California, then Washington DC, and is now threatening it in Chicago.
3/
Trump's militaristic invasion of Washington DC was based on the false pretext of his lies that violent crime was out of control. Whereas the objective figures showed it was falling, and had been far higher in the past.
4/
Trump's latest attempt at violent political intimidation, is to threaten to release "Chipocalypse Now", violent military invasion of Chicago. Where Trump was portraying himself as a violent war freak comic character, from an anti-war film.
It is objective fact, that the biggest instigator of political violence, in America, objectively, by long way is Donald Trump. Trump is blaming his political rivals, what he calls the "radical left" of being behind the shooting of Charlie Kirk. There's no evidence for this.
6/
Even if the shooter of Charlie Kirk turns out to identify with what Trump falsely calls the "radical left", it doesn't prove any general threat by the "left". The young man who "shot" Trump, was a registered Republican. Does that make all Republicans responsible for this act?
7/
Trump's repeated references to the "radical left", is itself an inflammatory lie, as there is no major radical left movement in America. Even @BernieSanders and @AOC are actually moderate social democrats, not radical left.
8/
"Radical left" means revolutionary communists or Marxists, who generally are open about their radical ideology. The accusations of Trump's political rivals being communist or Marxist, are made up political smears to incite fear and violence.
9/
The actual radical left, have very little presence in the US, and are tiny. Whereas the extreme and far right, are mainstream supporters of Trump.
Even "antifa" is a made up enemy, as there is no coherent group with that name.
10/
In other words, there is a disparate number of small anti-fascist groups, not one singular organization, as the far right conspiracy theorists falsely claim.
It is these made up enemies right out of Orwell's 1984, or Animal Farm, that is most telling.
11/
If Trump were not a would be fascist dictator, then why would he feel the need to keep making up non-existent enemies to justify oppressive, militarized intimidation, of legitimate political opponents, and characterizing them as something they are not?
12/
Self-evidently Trump has no respect for the truth, for democracy, for free speech, or anything else. He is a deranged man-baby narcissist trying to incite political violence, so he can take over and rule as a dictator.
13/
But here's the thing, Trump is not even a real fascist or Nazi, he's pretend one. He has none of their coherent ideologies. It's purely about Trump the narcissist egomaniac, and his billionaire oligarch mates, trying to legitimize their oligarchy, with cod ideology.
14/
There is no coherent ideology or philosophy behind this attempted take over by tech bros, and juvenile minded billionaires. They are like a bunch of egocentric toddlers, "I want, I want, I want low taxes and the ability to do whatever I want".
15/
Trump is a man-baby, not like the nasty dictators he idolizes, who didn't invite him to their military parade in China, because they do not treat Trump seriously and regard him as just a petulant child.
16/
Trump is a plastic fascist, like you have plastic gangsters.
I abhor political violence. However, it is very clear that there is one main driver of political violence in the US, and that is Donald Trump. Even though he is not a serious person.
This is the thing about the attempt at a fascist dictatorship in the US. It is not serious, it will not last, because those trying to create it are juvenile incompetents, who have no idea at all, of what they are doing. They are sowing the seeds of their own downfall.
18/
Yes, they'll create violence, more people will needlessly die, it will create great injustice and oppression. But it will just fizzle out, eventually, because these people are idiots and incompetent. Trump, the plastic fascist and plastic dictator, is not a serious person.
19/
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's very dangerous, not just in the US with the Trump regime, but with US influenced Western governments around the world, that are now absolutely denying reality, from the climate crisis, to the genocide in Gaza. A really dangerous turn.
2/
If governments refuse to accept such obvious truths and reality, there is nothing they can't deny or say.
The denial of the veracity of this letter is ridiculous, as it predates the first arrest and conviction of Epstein, and when Trump still openly socialised with Epstein.
3/
I'll briefly explain what I'm attempting to do. We face several serious crises. The climate and ecological crisis. A social justice crisis and the creeping control of us and our societies, by a powerful clique of billionaires and corporate interests. All this is interlinked.
1/🧵
All this is putting our societies on a catastrophic course, where the powerful vested interests I mention, try to mislead us about the situation we are in, so they can exploit us and accumulate far more wealth from our exploitation.
It is not in the interests of billionaires and corporate interests, for the people, the public, to know, how much danger they are in because of the climate crisis, because the burning of fossil fuels are a key part of how the very rich, increase their wealth.
3/
So it can't be claimed that I have misquoted what @jasonhickel said during that interview with @AaronBastani, I took the trouble to carefully transcribe what he said from the YouTube closed captions.
"You have some climate scientists like Kevin Anderson, one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists uh who routinely says 3 degrees is not compatible with organized human civilization as we know it. Now, that doesn't mean that there is going to be mass deaths. ..."
2/
"... I think that's an unlikely scenario, but um it does mean that a lot of the things we take for granted about the organization of society, would not be feasible in such a world. So it's kind of a different sort of planet."
I want to briefly explain my purpose in writing this. I am shocked to find how many academics apparently arguing for climate action, are actually in deep denial about the probably consequences of not taking urgent action now. That are in denial of the consequences. 1/9
Specifically, when pressed, they actively deny that the climate and ecological crisis, is an immediate existential threat to our civilization. They actively deny that there could be mass deaths, and falsely imply that anyone who says this, is an alarmist.
2/9
“There are now no non-radical futures. The choice is between immediate and profound social change or waiting a little longer for chaotic and violent social change. In 2023 the window for this choice is rapidly closing.” @KevinClimate
I agree with @jasonhickel's view of capitalism, driving the climate crisis etc. But after a watching a Novara media interview with him, just over a week ago, I have serious reservations about his understanding of the climate and ecological crisis, and its implications.
1/🧵
What I say here, is in the manner of positive criticism i.e. in the hope of that criticism leading to a better understanding.
I was very concerned about some of the things @jasonhickel said in this interview.
2/
For instance @jasonhickel cited what @KevinClimate said about 3C of warming, making civilization as we know it almost impossible. But then went on to say this wouldn't mean mass deaths (not derived from Kevin) and seemed to think, this would only impact some regions.
3/
I want to write this from an overall perspective, rather than particulars, or you end up not being able to see the wood for the trees.
The BIG question, is how did we end up with such a dire and dreadful PM?
1/🧵
When Keir Starmer stood for leader after Jeremy Corbyn resigned, whilst he didn't appear to stand for much, it seemed like we had some idea of what he was. An MP who was willing to work with the left, and a broad church leader.
2/
When standing for leader, he pledged not to change Labour much, and to keep most of Corbyn's policy. Yet as soon as he was elected, he started to systematically renege on everything he had pledged, waging war against the left, and expelling Corbyn from the Labour Party.
3/