You may be inclined to dye your hair green, wear a nose ring and subscribe wholeheartedly to those plentiful Thunbergian prophets of impending climatic doom; as the truculent Swedish teen frightens the living daylights out of the big WOKE world. Or perhaps you're more inclined to side with Faragian ideals as he and his cohorts wax lyrical on that very newest of right-wing platforms GB NEWS, the clear antithesis of Guardianistic journalism.
Quite frankly, I don't care much for the hysterics of either lot. I just see two sides who are absolutely brilliant at arguing their point but don't seem to come up with any bright or coherent ideas on how to tackle the very problems they're bickering about. Which kind of makes it all a bit forlorn.
Surely, I can’t be the only one who finds both fanatical sides equally annoying? I reckon the world, with its plethora of problems, stands a much greater chance of becoming a better place if we hear less from the likes of Trump or doom-mongering Thunberg with their collective battalions of dogmatically-charged devotees. The devotees have assumed almost moronic tendencies to see just one side of any given argument. It's a trait that unnerves me somewhat. If this is all we've got to play with these days, small wonder our world is in a fix.
The whole wretched "Left vs Right" thing recently came to the attention of social media stalwarts when Andrew Tate had a Twitter spat with Greta Thunberg. It all kicked off when Tate taunted Greta about his large collection of planet-ripping cars. His tweet apparently offered to send Greta a list of his car collection, complete with a printout of their polluting statistics. Thunberg took the bait and hilariously replied making reference to the likelihood that Mr Tate was not very well endowed when it comes to a certain matter of physical masculinity (usually measured in inches).
I think most people were highly amused by Greta's reply. Most appear to concur with her assertions because nothing screams "male inadequacy" like a chap boasting about his sports cars. However, the praise and reverence that's since been bestowed upon Greta has certainly been somewhat overblown. A jeering left-wing chorus has elevated the young Swede to near Saintly status, as little Greta (bless her) single-handedly slayed a great fascist monster with one fatal jibe about his already dubiously proportioned manhood. Cringe!
The most striking thing that this inane clash has demonstrated is how remarkably similar the two sides (in this contemporary culture conflict) can actually be. On one hand, we have a bunch of sad male loners who revere Tate’s every word. On the other hand, we have ourselves a lot of young, self-loathing, middle-class eco-warriors rebelling against their own privileged upbringings who look upon Greta (bless her) as some kind of Green-Goddess who has been chosen to walk upon this ailing Earth with the sole objective of cleansing it from all of humanity's abject grossness. That's one hell of a task!
As I mentioned earlier, there is clearly no moral equivalence between Tate and Thunberg's politics nor their personalities. Whilst I frequently disagree with Thunberg's often extreme world-views, when it comes to picking between Greta and Tate (as human beings) there's absolutely no contest. Greta gets my vote every time. Tate actually declares his misogyny with a sickeningly, gleeful pride. He's even been arrested on suspicion of human trafficking. I don't understand how such a person even gets a platform, given his misdemeanors?
Trouble is, there are undeniable similarities between Tate’s online presence and Greta's. Both individuals are unquestionably nihilistic. Tate and his provocative band of online contrarians loathe the idea of traditional community. They seem to prefer the fleeting pleasures of promiscuity, set within their grossly hedonistic and meaningless existence. An existence that's garnished by the tasteless entrapments of their mega-consumerist tendencies. Thunberg and her followers view all of modern society (particularly the Tate model) as being highly polluting, dangerous, unethical and toxic. Thunbergian ideologists seem to hanker for some kind of pre-industrial, retrograde existence where human achievements are all but unwound, dragging us all back to a Flintstones-like state of cave-dwelling.
In their own way, both the Tate model and that of Thunberg lure their devotees into very dark places where there's both a tendency to fear and an inclination to repel modern society. Both factions have deeply illogical and ingrained visions of their utopia. But owning a fleet of gas-guzzling sports cars will be as unattainable for the average Tate follower as will be Greta's fantastical aspirations, as she and her disciples huddle together dreaming up ways to roll back as many of modern society's achievements as possible. It's a poor choice between the excesses of conspicuous consumption and the extremities of crippling conservation. Not much of a choice realistically.
We needn't look too hard to witness the demagoguery present in each camp. We all remember how fashionably left-wing metropolitan votaries slammed ‘low-education’ individuals for choosing to vote in favour of Brexit. I've never met any Brexit voters who idolise pro-Leave politicians in the same way as the Left have elevated Greta to near-Sainthood for her often flawed convictions. Any critical analysis of Gretaism is almost treated as blasphemy, her words revered as gospel. Eminent politicians have stumbled at her feet and silently tolerated her vehemently delivered reprimands.
Following the fabled Twitter spat, the greeny commentariat have mocked the credulity of Andrew Tate’s sad followers without ever fully realising that they’re just as much a bunch of saddos themselves. Someone needs to explain that idolising a young girl who constantly shouts that the world is ending is just as crazy as hero-worshiping a clearly deranged bloke who bleats ‘I have lots of expensive cars and YOU don’t’. What we're looking at here are two cheeks of one antisocial butt.
Of course, Greta is absolutely nothing like the nefarious Tate but her following is potentially way more dangerous. That's because her crusade against modernity has become hugely fashionable and her contempt for industrialism enjoys widespread political support. For me, Thunbergs brand of extremism is far more worrisome than some bragging online troll talking a load of drivel about fast cars to a bunch of impressionable teenage boys who'll eventually become bored of him.
Sadly, three billion people still live in abject poverty in 2023. Opposing economic growth and damning a system for which there is currently no realistic alternative is way more reckless than Tate’s pathetic posturing will ever be. It would surely be better if everyone starts discussing how to bring about fruitful and meaningful lives for all those beleaguered billions? Is it too much to try and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue a decent life. Neither Left or Right, Tate or Thunberg have any grand ideas on how to achieve such an honorable aspiration.