Tuesday 21 March 2023

As You Were

The current culture war – selfish, individual identity versus national cohesion – is quite bad enough, all by itself and threatens stability for all. The LGBTQIP+++ alphabet people are aided in their assault on reason by the parallel war on intelligence, waged over at least the last half-century, which churns out ever more dependent, ever dumber, ever biddable young volunteers to the cause. Meanwhile the judiciary appears to have turned on the majority law-abiding in favour of the disrupters.

Banking is broken, the globalised Ponzi scheme of growth by consumption has feasted on the ready supply of lowest-common-denominator immigration, and we are, it seems no longer able to hire for merit, being driven by the diversity agenda to hire by skin colour or gender or disability. The great and the good, from their altar at Davos have proclaimed that we will own nothing and be happy.

Well, the first part of that certainly appears to be happening, owning nothing that is. Our roads are riddled with potholes, our rail infrastructure is creaking, public services everywhere are physically breaking down when they are not merely on strike, and the chances of getting a doctor’s appointment are close to zero. Zero is the theme – it seems to be the end goal of every policy, every administrative effort; it may as well be in the main parties’ manifestos.

So it seems uncannily timely that the latest orders from the seat of world government, the UN and the IPCC, that despite the impossibility of achieving the already ridiculous Net-Zero targets, developed nations must hit that unachievable milestone ten years earlier than pledged. 2040, they are saying, not 2050, and lest you be in any doubt, 2040 is effectively tomorrow. Emissions are still rising, they wail. Yes, they are, because the unseemly dash to achieve ‘not-zero’ by 2050 is creating industrial output on a scale not seen before… in China. Using coal.

You could not invent a fiction worse than this reality. Cleverer heads than me have worked out that not only do we not currently know of sufficient mineral resources – raw materials for batteries, wiring, electronic components, etc – the extraction of these resources is despoiling vast acres of the natural landscape while also emitting ever more CO2 into the atmosphere. It doesn’t even matter where you are on the anthropogenic climate change debate, 2050 was problematic, but 2040 is far, far worse.

Some are even calling for – and brace yourselves for this – 2025 (yes, just 20 months) to get the ball in that back of that impossibly small net. If Greta Thunberg wasn’t bad enough, prepare yourself for your kids to come home and denounce you as murderers for daring to have them, clothe them, keep them warm, transport them and feed them. Oh yes, food, that’s something else we are going to have to learn to do without, apparently.

Who is going to pay for it all? Yes, you guessed it, the taxpayer. We are. Again. No matter what the cause, no matter what the cost, the sacrifices will not be made by those making the policy. But here’s their problem; in order to muster the will and the resources to do things on the scale being demanded, you have to herd the sheep along a single path to the slaughterhouse. And for that you have to get some form of buy-in from the sheep. What’s in it for us, we ask?

As it stands, nothing. We get nothing in return for the pain which will be inflicted on us. Worse, we will be berated as ignorant and bigoted (and no doubt, racist) for resisting the reduction of our living standards to that of the third world and the payment of reparation to that same third world so that they can experience the industrial progress that dragged us out of the gutter. It is the same as seeing your hard-earned council tax go to replace the windows in the housing society property next door, occupied by universal credit dependent recipients, while you in your owner-occupied hovel shiver through the winter months.

Coming soon, to a neighbourhood near you...

Madness. If you wanted to dream up a scheme to foment mass rebellion you could do far worse than the climate change lobby. But even in the face of all of the above, I still see little active resistance. In the end the Net Zero lunacy will fail not due to the scale of the technological challenge, to which we are not equal, but to apathy, our new defining national characteristic. For, if the inanities of gender ideology, enforced diversity, and the winding up of all that once made us a force for good in the world isn’t enough to get us out on the streets, I doubt very much that climate action will ignite that spark. 

No comments:

Post a Comment