Ever wonder how some of these guys expressing far-Right opinions on Twitter and Facebook avoid bans? They threaten no one because they state a narrative that the System can work with in that it is basically a special interest which can be bought off with a few token acts.
What you read here instead is analysis of how the System works and what the few alternatives to it really are. For this reason, our stuff gets banned on every major site and ignored by most of the Right. They fear what will disrupt their cozy arrangement, even if our stuff requires looking into tangential issues like the great green scam.
Modern societies have mixed economies, which means a capitalist engine that powers a socialist welfare state, and these work through Keynesianism, which is the “broken window” economics idea that if government pays money to its citizens and creates debt, it has produced two assets upon which it can build its future tax base.
Every few decades government requires a new blank cheque for this process. These are issues that unite an audience and polarize the rest, which means that they can be used to justify any expansion of powers and spending for a certain length of time. Civil rights was one, and now the “climate change” narrative is another.
Although for many of us the environmental issue is at the top of the stack, the System has done the usual job of making a bad option into the only option and styling those who are against it as murderers. This mirrors Political Correctness itself: taint or sabotage every option but what you want, and people will be forced to conform.
There are many responses to our environmental crisis, which is bigger than carbon and methane, which would actually address the problem, but the System is not interested in that. It wants more money and power, and forcing everyone to jump through hoops while subsidizing a new industry is its goal.
For example, we could admit that only one plan will really ensure long-term survival of nature, and that is Half Earth:
The ongoing mass extinction of the natural world ranks with pandemics, world wars, and climate change as among the greatest threats that humanity has imposed upon itself. Biodiversity loss was ranked as the third most severe threat humanity will face in the next 10 years in the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022. To lose so much of Earth’s biodiversity is to both destroy our living heritage, and to risk the stability of the planet today and for all future generations.
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.”
If you really want to end the problem of human changes to our world, set aside half of it to absorb what we produce and keep creatures, plants, and ecosystems alive. That works without any further intervention and does not require human management. It is also not great as a jobs and subsidies program, so government and voters ignore it.
Instead we get an inkling of how centralized economies work. Government decides where the money goes and big corporations reconfigure our economy as they mutate to address this new area of profit. In this way, Washington DC can shape the whole of the economy around ideological objectives.
We can see this economy by fiat approach in the latest bonanza coming down from the Beltway:
President Joe Biden will use his executive authority to create a New Deal-style American Climate Corps that will serve as a major green jobs training program.
In an announcement on Wednesday, the White House said the program would employ about 20,000 young adults who will build trails, plant trees, help install solar panels and do other work to boost conservation and help prevent catastrophic wildfires.
The White House declined to say how much the program will cost or how it will be paid for, but Democrats proposed $10bn for the climate corps in the climate bill before the provision was removed.
Whatever cost is listed will expand over time. There will be unintended gaps between how the problem was assessed and what is needed to make it happen, equipment will be more expensive, and objects will not last as long or perform as well as anticipated. The program will expand to take up any money we have or can borrow.
In the meantime, none of our leaders will state that this is an ideological program as well as an ideological implementation. It aims to be a subsidy and to take control of the economy, but it does so not out of concern for the environment, but in order to wage class war against the West:
This is a global issue, as well as a national one. According to the Global Footprint Network, every person in the UK uses the equivalent of 5 hectares of land and sea through the food we eat, the products we use and the carbon we release, which has to be absorbed somewhere if it is not to accelerate global warming. Yet the UK’s “biocapacity” (our ability to absorb these impacts) is a little over 1 hectare per person. Our extravagance is a cost that others must bear.
Public luxury available to all, or private luxury available to some: this is the choice we face at all times, but especially at this election. It is the conflict between these two visions that defines – or should define – our political options. There is a significant difference between Labour and the Conservatives in this respect, but I wish it were stronger.
Any human group has this issue. Most people produce very little, so experience little reward, but look, there are a few people with a whole lot, so the herd assumes that this was “taken” from them instead of simply not being produced by them. The herd hates leadership, especially that required to organize it into producing the little it does.
Now that democracy has taken over the world and created globalism, or a single political system for all nations with an economy to match, the herd consists of the nine-tenths of humanity that lives at a subsistence level or near to it. They want to seize whatever the West has and portrays us as bloated and greedy to justify the theft.
Whether that theft comes from mass migration, voting for socialist subsidies, or outright violence, the herd does not care. Until they have their revenge, they will be reminded of their own place in the hierarchy, which is as unimportant and irrelevant cogs in the machine.
However, wherever this new green jihad-crusade goes, it starts to experience pushback, mostly because it takes from productive sectors of the economy in order to fund its ideological obsession, much like the mess left behind by the Carter and second Clinton administrations.
Already defectors are rising as they realize that this expenditure endangers the welfare state as well as the economy:
Mr. Sunak is delaying until 2035 a ban on the sale of new internal-combustion-engine cars and vans that was scheduled for 2030. He’s also delaying a ban on the sale of new oil and natural-gas boilers that households use for hot water and central heating, and he’ll exempt some 20% of households from having to switch to heat pumps where it is impractical or too costly.
Also gone is a requirement that landlords upgrade the insulation on rental properties within two years. And Mr. Sunak promised never to impose car-pooling requirements for commuters or taxes on flights or meat, all of which are common proposals from the climate-obsessed left.
The political rationale is obvious. Cutting carbon emissions polls well in the abstract, but voters revolt when they have to pay for it. Voters delivered this message in July when Mr. Sunak’s Conservative Party won a surprise victory in a parliamentary by-election in suburban London that became a referendum on a tax on old cars imposed by a Labour Party mayor.
The third world is not green because it has chosen to be so, but because it exists at a subsistence level, and we will find in the future that the Left has been cooking the books and altering the “facts” here to conceal just how much carbon and methane is output by the third world with its simpler technologies.
Right now, thanks to an El Niño event, the Left seems to have the upper hand as the world reacts to a long hot summer which will be followed by more floods as the rains finally come. They also ignore other plausible scenarios, such as a steam volcano that has caused an interruption in normal weather patterns:
While most big blasts cool the planet with a sun-dimming haze, the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai in January 2022 blew the equivalent of 60,000 Olympic swimming pools of water into the stratosphere, high above the planet.
Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas, trapping heat as it swirls around the globe. By contrast, major land eruptions — such as Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 — temporarily dim sunshine with an ashen sunshade before falling back to Earth.
“The majority of volcanoes will have a cooling effect,” said Peter Thorne, a professor of climate science at Maynooth University in Ireland. The Tongan volcano “is an exception to the rule and a significant wild card we haven’t seen before.”
This would interrupt the narrative, so in classic Leftist methodology it must not be mentioned or “debunked” through lots of angry monkeys screaming epithets at it. If these latest weather events do not correspond to “climate change,” the whole green narrative may collapse from internal inconsistencies.
In fact, some assessments of extreme weather events suggest that we are not seeing anything anomalous:
We conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ~2000.
In other words, we see more extreme weather now by a bias toward the present, ignoring the past when fewer of these events were reported far beyond the local area. Systematic collection of data allows us to see just how violent weather is on Earth normally, and our minds naturally slot it into the “climate change” narrative.
Taking the long view however, the green New Deal agenda will be thwarted by something simpler: it is killing the workforce. The West has a chronic shortage of workers in part because many have been taken from functional industry and placed into ideological industry:
Labor shortages are turning into a long-term labor crisis that could push wages and turnover higher.
Work experts have warned for years that the combination of baby boomer retirements, low birthrates, shifting immigration policies and changing worker preferences is leaving U.S. employers with too few workers to fill job openings. While the labor market is softening, none of those factors are expected to change dramatically in the coming years.
Total employment will grow about 0.3% a year until 2032, the Labor Department recently projected, much slower than the 1.2% rate over the past decade, largely because of population constraints. That will contribute to slower growth in gross domestic product, the agency said.
We knew a crisis was coming with the retirement of the Boomers, which took millions out of the workforce that have not been replaced because people in high-tax environments reproduce less. It has nothing directly to do with education, and everything to do with the high costs of socialist government.
The Boomer replacement crisis has been exacerbated by a tendency to shift workers into jobs that are regulatory creations, including the green economy. When a few million get siphoned off from the regular workforce, it is suddenly hard to find people to do the regular stuff we need. They are busy getting paid more by government.
In the end, that provides a convenient excuse for government to seize more power and wealth. The voters will approve it out of fear that the little they have in the form of social benefits and retirement funds will be in danger, despite this being a clear path to self-destruction. As long as it happens after they are dead, what do they care?