Back in 1989, the powers that be announced their replacement for the clear purpose and outlook of the Reagan years. The blank cheque of civil rights had expired in the 1960s after those ended in horror, general progressivism died in the 1970s after Carter impoverished us all like the Soviets, and now, the bureaucrats needed a new universal justification.
If you have ever found a universal justification, you know what power above your station feels like. When we were kids, we could justify just about anything as a learning experience. Later on, we learned to write history papers about the poor or racism, which gave us instant As from teachers afraid to grade us down.
Finally, you learn to spot variable universal justifications. This week at your average job, some big project is due, so if you want to spend a few hours dozing, claim you are going up to the roof to clean the antennas so when the big project needs them you can go.
Others come up with more persistent universal justifications. In the average office around here, half of the staff take off in mid-afternoon to pick up their kids from school, and if they do not want to attend any given day, they can always claim that their mini-mes have head colds or diarrhea (hint: no one questions the latter; we do not want to know).
Universal justifications represent a confusion of cause and effect as well as mistaking means for ends. We blame the effect of misfortune for its cause, which we cannot address, and we use a method of subsidizing the misfortune instead of aiming at the goal of health and wellbeing.
Although universal justifications are by that light bad psychology, they remain popular, and as such, they serve as the best way to manipulate a group. Government knows this, since it has to work around the emotions and prejudices of its electorate in order to get anything done, so it settles for pulling the marionette strings with justifications.
Back in 1989, the permanent bureaucracy — called the “deep state” these days — found its new blank cheque in the universal justification of climate change (née “global warming”):
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.
Since it was written, so it must be done, and when the voters accepted the premise of global warming, it both became a universal scapegoat for all of our problems, and a universal justification for governments to expand their spending and power.
We can look away from the obvious truth that the third world was always poor and remains poor because of its social disorganization, and therefore dislodges immigrants by the millions who want to come to the land of free stuff from government and anti-racism laws, instead blaming these events on climate change.
Even more, it provides an excuse for what the Left has always desired: one world egalitarian government, where they take from the strong to give to the weak in order to provide peace and equanimity, despite no instances of this ever working. It is more emotionally satisfying than realistic, like all Utopian plans.
Going back to the 1930s, our intellectuals believed that socialist world federalism — the precursor of the New World Order announced by neoconservative George Bush — was the only way to avoid future Revolutions and have humanity live in “peace,” despite that never having happened in history.
Our intellectuals today still parrot that view because the 1930s neocommunists taught it to the Boomers, who then taught it to the Millennials. Generation X noped out because we are a nihilist generation that believes in nothing but observable reality, including sometimes our inner selves which admit to a divinity to life outside humanity.
“Society has reduced the value of these ecosystems to just one metric — carbon,” the scientists from universities in Britain and South Africa wrote.
Carbon capture is “a small component of the pivotal ecological functions that tropical forests and grassy ecosystems perform,” they said in an article in the Trends in Ecology and Evolution journal.
Jesus Aguirre Gutierrez, an author of the paper, pointed to examples in southern Mexico and Ghana, where once diverse forests “have now transformed into homogenous masses”.
Those of us who are in favor of using forests to deal with not just carbon but the environmental crisis precipitated by human overpopulation and urbanization tend to suggest that instead of planting forest farms, we use nature in its original state by simply conserving half of Earth from the human onslaught:
In order to safeguard a sufficient number of species to protect global biodiversity, including humanity, the late American biologist, E.O. Wilson and a new generation of scientists, ecologists, and conservationists concluded that we must set aside roughly half of Earth’s land and seas for nature, known as the principle of “Half-Earth.”
However, this would not bring us to world socialism… therefore the powers that be fear it. They would rather use their 1989 agenda to seize power and then administrate as they see fit, which will inevitably include exploiting whatever nature is useful for socialist world federalism and “conserving” small amounts of the rest.
Now government unveils its deadliest servant, the quest to save humanity by ending fossil fuels in the first world, while the third world continues to use them because this quest is unenforceable there, enacting a wealth transfer from the first world to the third:
Fossil fuel exploration should cease globally by 2030 and funding to rescue poor countries from the impacts of the climate crisis should reach $200bn (£165bn) to $400bn a year by the same date, according to proposals in a UN report before the next climate summit.
The eternal dream of the contrarians is here: achieve peace through equal poverty, therefore being morally righteous and maintaining control over humanity, which seems mostly insane and prone to Revolutions after scapegoating its leaders for the consequences of overpopulation.
After all, the only consistent explanation for the French Revolution seems to be that poverty arrived after the population exploded at the lower levels. Our democratic leaders still have no idea how to handle the many living below a middle class level, and its solution is to buy their loyalty with socialism.
The intellectuals consider that very intelligent. The rest of us might see it as simply clever: dodging a problem through manipulation, basically forcing others to do what you want using rationalization and scapegoating. If people accept climate change, you can use climate change to argue for, say, world federalist socialism, as an example.
While many of us want to save the environment, we know it does not boil down to something as simple as limiting carbon. It requires setting aside land for nature, limiting human population, and avoiding the cities which concentrate waste and heat.
That will never fly in a democracy, so as the Ecocide intensifies, democracy is fading away, soon to be replaced by empires that sort people into two categories, useful and useless, and dispense with the latter. If they are smart, they will even set aside half of their territory as nature preserves.