Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well.
Climate change activism is all the
rage right now, with Greta Thunberg’s strikes
for climate change, and
the UN Climate Summit having just taken place.
The mainstream
media has given it all glowing coverage; presenting
these activists as
the educated, enlightened class, acting entirely
in good faith and
willing to risk life and limb to save the
planet.
Only, as I mentioned in my last video, this
is not always the case.
While there are certainly many on the climate
activist bandwagon
whose motivations are pure, there is a particularly
insidious element
to the group who have much more at stake than
just saving the
environment.
I’ve already covered climate activists do
as I say not as I do attitude,
and their wanton, unashamed abuse of children,
I’ve linked that
video in the video description if you’d
like to watch it.
But that’s not
the extent of the bad behaviour of some climate
change alarmists.
And it is time they were comprehensively called
out for all of it.
Before we go any further, I would like to
state, again, for the record,
that these videos are NOT about whether or
not climate change is
real, or my opinion of the climate change
issue.
I am a climate
centrist, and I am willing to listen to all
sides of the debate to find the
best possible solution.
I’m not planting my stake either way, and
I’m not pushing an agenda.
What I am doing is highlighting extremism,
alarmism, intimidation,
and misrepresentation, none of which I condone
from anyone, left or
right, adult or child.
So, under that assumption, let’s continue.
It has become blatantly obvious over the past
few years that climate
change alarmists have a distinct problem with
freedom of speech.
In
the early stages, they simply demonized anybody
who was an
outright climate change denier as stupid or
ignorant, in an attempt
to discredit them and intimidate them from
speaking.
This has augmented morphed into what we have
today, which is a
complete and often aggressive rejection of
any debate on the
subject, any at all.
Nowadays, anybody who is not an alarmist who
supports radical action to combat climate
change is branded a denier
and demonized as not only wrong, but immoral
and dangerous.
This branding of what are essentially normal
people is backed up by a
very deliberate change in rhetoric.
For example, in May this year, The
Guardian updated its house style guide in
terms of how it reports on
climate change.
In order to make everything seem more
catastrophic, the phrase “climate change”
is to be swapped for
climate emergency, climate crisis, or climate
breakdown.
Global warming is now to be known as global
heating, and the term
climate sceptic is to be abolished and everyone
who is not an
alarmist is to be called a climate denier.
This rhetoric from the
Guardian is mirrored by other media outlets,
celebrities, politicians,
even the Pope.
The point of this is to portray anybody who
doesn’t support massive
overhaul to combat climate change as a danger
to society, because
what kind of stupid, evil person wouldn’t
act quickly in an emergency
or a crisis?
The intent, therefore, is to scare ordinary
people into
jumping on the bandwagon, while intimidating
non-alarmists into
shutting the heck up.
A lot of this seems to be coming from the
mainstream media; which
is no surprise, as it’s full of climate
change alarmists posing as
journalists.
In fact, over 170 media outlets worldwide
have joined an
initiative called Covering Climate Now.
Publications who pledged to this initiative
committed to a week of
coverage focussed on climate change, from
September 16 th to
September 23 rd . Participants included The
Guardian of course, AFP,
Bloomberg, The Christian Science Monitor,
New Zealand Herald,
Newsweek, Al Jazeera, and Australia’s own
The Conversation.
The Conversation is an academic publication,
funded by the taxpayer
via Australia’s universities.
This website is very heavily left leaning
and climate focussed, but has recently taken
it one step further.
Via a statement on September 17 th from Editor
and Executive
Director, Misha Ketchell, the website is now
going to ban so-called
climate change deniers from their comments
sections.
Not only will
these deniers have their comments removed,
they will have their
accounts locked, so keen is The Conversation
to avoid any kind of
debate on the issue.
Now, there are a number of problems with this,
most pointedly that
this publication receives tax payer funding
so probably shouldn’t be
putting its stake in the ground this vehemently,
but also, this is an
academic publication that claims to value
free thought and
expression.
Banning people with opinions that differ from
the
website’s party line wouldn’t seem conducive
to that.
What confuses me about The Conversation’s
policy, and those who
agree with them, is that surely, if they are
that concerned about
climate change, they would want to hear as
many dissenting voices
as possible in order to debate them and potentially
change their
minds?
If climate change is such an existential threat,
why aren’t they doing
everything in their power to engage with so-called
deniers in order
to make them understand their perspective?
Wouldn’t that be the
best thing for humanity?
To make as many non-believers proverbially
see the light as possible?
We all know the regressive left isn’t hot
on debate, but climate
change seems to be the ultimate sacred cow.
And for anyone who
continues to wax lyrical that climate change
isn’t political; please
don’t be wilfully ignorant.
It absolutely is, and it is the political
nature
of it that influences so many alarmists to
be so particularly opposed
to debate.
So how is it political?
Well, first of all, it’s a cause that’s
tailor made
for the regressive left.
It’s a globalist initiative where the individual’s
needs are sacrificed for the good of the collective,
and it’s morality
101.
Since these people love flexing their moral
high ground muscles,
there is no easier way to do this than acting
as an environmentalist.
Who wouldn’t want to save the planet?
It’s morality for dummies.
But these aren’t the only reasons climate
change is a political issue,
specifically for the radical left.
The nature of the climate change
cause also involves massive government intervention,
and what is
essentially a giant redistribution of wealth,
both domestically and
globally.
So, let’s put this together.
What political ideology involves morality
101, sacrificing the individual for the good
of the collective, massive
government intervention, and a giant redistribution
of wealth?
Okay!
Just let me back up here.
Before anyone starts accusing me of
pushing conspiracy theories, or jumping on
some kind on radical
right wing hysterical bandwagon of shrieking
about a Stalinesque
socialist takeover based on my own anxiety
about losing my
apparently massive, ill-begotten, filthy capitalist
wealth, that’s not
what I’m doing.
I promise.
All I’m doing is responding to what I have
read, heard, and seen of
some, not all, climate change alarmists.
These particular activists are
very happy to admit that climate change action
is a handy avenue
through which to implement socialism.
Take, for instance the
Democratic Socialists of America.
In an article published in the Socialist Forum,
which is a publication
of the DSA, the tag below the title reads,
“Climate change will create
an opening for socialist politics by breaking
the link between
capitalist growth and political legitimacy.”
Hello??
You don’t get much more explicit than that.
The article goes
on to say, among other things,
“If we can show that capitalists are asking
for bailouts to counteract
environmental disasters they themselves caused
we can highlight the
link between capitalism and climate change.
We can harness mass
anger to mobilize the public to oppose specific
benefits for
capitalists.”
“By redirecting government money from
capitalists to the mass of
workers we can offer an antidote to the effects
of the past forty
years of neoliberalism.”
Okay, comrade.
The same is true of the UK Socialist Party,
who published an article in
their newsletter entitled, ‘Climate Change:
what’s socialism got to do
with it?’
According to the Party, quite a lot:
“Socialism is the conscious recognition
of the current situation.
Humanity determines the future of the Earth’s
natural systems.
Capitalism is blindly stumbling towards ecological
crisis.
Socialism
would actively seek to implement a plan, rebalancing
natural systems
to build a harmonious future for all life.”
The Guardian preaches a similar sermon.
In an article by Jeff
Sparrow, who is a self-admitted card-carrying
member of the
Victorian Socialists, he states,
“there’s every reason to expect various
versions of socialism to play
an increasingly important role in discussions
about the climate
catastrophe.”
“Isn’t that the obvious (perhaps only)
solution to the environmental
crisis – the conscious direction of resources
away from fossil energy
and towards planetary repair?”
So, already we can see there is a faction
of climate activists who are
very keen to use the climate change situation
to implement the
socialist Utopia they have always dreamed
of.
This is very evident in
policy as well.
Take the Green new Deal.
Alexandria Ocasio’s ex Chief of Staff himself
admitted the Green new
Deal wasn’t actually about the environment.
In an interview
published in the Washington Post, he stated
in these words, “Do you
guys think of it as a climate thing?
Because we really think of it as a
how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
You can see this all the way through the deal.
Along with the noises it
makes about clean air and water are policy
ideas like,
“promoting justice and equity by stopping
current, preventing future,
and repairing historic oppression of indigenous
peoples,
communities of color, migrant communities,
deindustrialized
communities, depopulated rural communities,
the poor, low-income
workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused,
people with disabilities,
and youth (referred to in this resolution
as “frontline and vulnerable
communities”);”
What does that passage have to do with the
environment?
Nothing;
it’s all just jargon about affirmative action
and possibly reparations
for communities Red Cortez has decided to
privilege over others.
The
deal also speaks of
“providing and leveraging, in a way that
ensures that the public
receives appropriate ownership stakes and
returns on investment,
adequate capital (including through community
grants, public banks,
and other public financing), technical expertise,
supporting policies,
and other forms of assistance to those working
on the Green New
Deal mobilization;”
Again, nothing to do with the environment,
and everything to do
with redistributing capital via government
overhaul as an incentive
for people to join the ranks.
In other words, those who won’t join the
regime will receive worse treatment than those
who do.
It kind of reminds me of George Orwell’s
famous phrase from Animal
Farm; “All animals are equal, but some animals
are more equal than
others.”
These policies from the Green New Deal are
echoed by many of
those striking for climate change.
The group Youth Climate Strike,
who helped organise the September 20 th marches
in the USA, has a
list of demands.
These include removing the apparently entrenched
racial, regional,
ability, and gender-based barriers to income
and wealth; creating a
public bank, eliminating community-level threats,
whatever they may
be, via equitably distributed investments
to historically
disadvantaged communities, and a random passage
that demands
respect for Indigenous women, Indigenous queer
and trans women,
women of color, and queer and trans people
of color.
Nothing to do with the environment, everything
do to do with
overhauling the economy, social justice, and
equality of outcome.
This is why climate change alarmists are so
violently opposed to free
speech.
They have been waiting for years for a window
of
opportunity to realise their socialist dreams.
Now they have one, and
they’re not going to let anything sway the
public narrative away from
it.
Even if there is dissent among the scientific
community, which
there is.
For example, 500 scientists, more than the
number who put together
the IPCC report that people are so concerned
about, sent a
“European Climate Declaration” to the
Secretary-General of the
United Nations asking for a long-overdue,
high-level, open debate on
climate change.
The letter stated, “The general-circulation
models of climate on
which international policy is at present founded
are unfit for their
purpose.
Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent
to advocate the
squandering of trillions on the basis of results
from such immature
models.
Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously
undermine
the economic system, putting lives at risk
in countries denied access
to affordable, continuous electrical power.
The letter urged the UN to follow a climate
policy based on sound
science, realistic economics and genuine concern
for those harmed
by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
Again, I’m not putting my stake in any of
the science here, but this is
evidence that there is disagreement from many
qualified experts.
However, they are being ignored by climate
activists in favour of the
alarmist model, because it gives them an excuse
to promote
socialism as a solution.
And may I remind you that socialism has never,
ever, EVER worked,
no matter where or how it’s been tried.
See?
Acting in bad faith.
I am
all for saving the planet.
But alarmism, radicalism, and insidious
ulterior motives are simply not
the
way to do it.