I made this comment in response to @ZackPolanski comment, about being attacked by the right. I will place it as a free standing thread. It is about why an agenda of radical change, is the only realistic way forward, and why.
1/🧵
“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
What the right cannot get through their thick heads, is that radical change is coming whether you like it or not. The climate and ecological crisis is going to radically alter our societies, ESPECIALLY, if we try to carry on with business as usual BaU.
3/
Trying to carry on with BaU, what the right are about, will result in the most unpleasant radical change to our societies. Ironically, the radical change, that will be the least unpleasant for us, is making radical change now, rather than having it forced upon us.
4/
The right, and indeed a large proportion of the left, wrongly think we can carry on with BaU, without the unpleasant consequences, by denying the reality of our current situation.
5/
The reality of our current situation, is that we should have started making radical changes to our system, over 25 years ago. This would have allowed these changes, to be less painful. But we've left it so late, that only the most radical action, will prevent serious impacts.
6/
The longer we leave it, the more drastic the radical changes will have to be, to avert the catastrophic collapse of our civilization. I'm sorry to be a party pooper, but this is just how things are.
Pretending that the climate and ecological crisis is not real, or not that serious, is what has got us into this mess. If we ramp up the denial, and procrastinate more, it will only make it even worse.
8/
None of what I say is ideological i.e. demanding change for the sake of ideology. It is about physical and ecological reality. Where we are breaching all the Earth's main planetary boundaries, and pretending it's not happening.
9/stockholmresilience.org/research/plane…
None of those dismissing the dangers as not real, have any expertise in the dangers they are dismissing. This includes techno-optimist climate scientists, who only have expertise in climate science, and not expertise in ecology, and joined up thinking.
10/
The belief that we can fix this situation, with techno-fixes, without major changes to our system, is simply based on ignorance and denial of reality. I have been through this scores of times with these people.
11/
None of these techno-optimists have any fix for the rapidly deteriorating biodiversity crisis, which can't be fixed with their simplistic techno-fixes, and they just spit their dummy out, when I bring it up.
The biodiversity crisis is just as big an existential threat to our civilization as the climate crisis. It's not me saying this. It was the conclusion of the biggest scientific examination of our biodiversity, ever carried out.
I'm sorry to keep bringing this up. There has been no attempt to address or acknowledge these dire crises. They have NOT gone away, they have got worse. Just turning a blind eye to them, won't make them go away.
14/
Only radical change will prevent eventual collapse. The most important single action, is to shift from a highly competitive system, to a far more cooperative system, which requires equity, reducing the gap, between rich and poor. That is not communist, it's about survival.
15/
Cooperation is important because when it gets much worse, if people are working together, for the good of humanity, rather than competitively grabbing as much as they can for themselves, that gives us the best chance of avoiding collapse.
16/
I'm well aware this may seem too radical for some. But it's not ideological, or speculation. Our leadership has created this radical reality, with their reckless pursuit of BaU. We have to deal with this reality, or our civilization, WILL collapse.
I want to commend @ZackPolanski for finally saying things in public, in a strong and forthright way, that appeals to everyone. Progressives, without a platform, have been saying these things for years, but never have they been effectively articulated publicly.
1/🧵
Yes, other politicians, have said enlightened things, and I acknowledge them. But none have shaken up the discourse, like @ZackPolanski has. We need far more people to pick up the baton, and start saying these things, in a clear and effective way, to speak with one voice.
2/
We need to create a mass movement for change. This can only be effective, if we speak with one voice, and to put aside any factional bickering. To stop our societies being taken over by the lies of the populist right, we need to come together and fight.
3/
This is straight up sophistry, clever false argument by @lewis_goodall. I can explain to @ZackPolanski how to deal with false argument like this. Instead of trying to counter the false argument, the tactic should be to demand he produces examples to support his assertions.
1/🧵
@lewis_goodall is not asking questions. He is making a series of provably false assertions, implying that fascists declare their intentions to create a one party authoritarian state, before they get into power. I know of no example where this has happened.
2/
In all the examples I'm aware of, especially in a democratic system, fascists only create an authoritarian one party state, after they've got into power. Most deny that is their intention.
3/
So I'm supposed to believe that I only got 298 views and 8 likes, on a factual, thread about the Orwellian truth manipulation we are being subjected to, when I have over 26K followers, and 2 months ago, over half a million people were viewing my threads? 1/7
Here is the evidence of the sort of viewing figures I was getting only 2 months ago. I mean, I have had over 3.2 million views in 7 days. I know what happened, I am not fucking stupid. 2/7
After Charlie Kirk was shot, when the Trump regime were trying to turn him into a martyr of left wing violence. I merely pointed out no one deserves to be killed for what they said. But the prima facie evidence, was it was by a lone deranged gunman.
3/7
The world is in a very dangerous place. The extreme right, and centrist neoliberals (they merge into each other) are use Orwellian doublethink/doublespeak, and the methods described in "1984", as a political how to do it manual.
According to Keir Starmer's government, a non-violent direct action group, who simply sprayed paint onto military planes, were classified as terrorists. Old retired vicars, and entirely peaceful people, protesting again genocide, are arrested for holding pieces of paper.
3/
I condemn anti-Semitism, and the type of hatred that led to this mindless violence, as much as I condemn the Zionist hatred of Palestinians. Mindless violence and hatred, is mindless violence and hatred. It's not about sides.
2/
My point is not whataboutery, or relativism. It's to ask why has Keir Starmer gone to such lengths, not to condemn Netanyahu's terrorisim, and genocide in Gaza? Constantly denying it's genocide, and uttering meaningless inanities, like Israel has got a right to defend itself.
3/