Luke Warzecha: A large Lie to Sustainable Development

pch24.pl 2 years ago

The slogan of sustainable improvement is simply a large fraud. As it has been in past with almost all the beautifully sounding slogans behind which ideology stood.

The concept of sustainable improvement is actually purely ideological. It means imposing on people the pre-adopted rules that the elite felt were right, announcing that they were the only possible ones if we wanted to save ourselves from disaster. What a disaster this could be – it's actually a secondary matter. The current main threat is the climate disaster.

Sustainable improvement means that people request to impose, ban or order quite a few things, due to the fact that they will not do so themselves due to the fact that they do not feel the need, and in many cases it is about actions that conflict with natural human needs and instincts.

Consider any examples that may seem extreme, improbable or absurd. However, if we mention what was considered improbable a decade or 2 ago, skepticism will prove inappropriate. Experience shows that there is actually no specified thing as not being able to enter the mainstream in time as part of moving the Overton window.

Don't eat that!

Example one: your plate is no of your business. This is no longer a request for crazy radicals, but an increasingly bold approach to mainstream debate. There are 2 threads here. The first is the link between animal husbandry, especially cattle, and climatic hysteria.

Cows are expected to emit powerful amounts of methane, so the first radically limited meat would be beef. But this is almost surely not going to end, due to the fact that here comes the second theme, which is the pushy promotion from the ground of the false notion of animal rights (something specified as "animal rights" does not be and cannot be – but it is simply a subject on a separate text).

Adopting the concept of "animal rights" means moving distant from breeding in general – not only cows, but besides pigs or chickens, not to mention fur animals.

The consequences, including economical ones, are not hard to predict. The deficiency of animal meat or eggs in our diet will should be balanced – and here there are 2 possibilities: synthetic meat (it is known that Bill Gates invested serious money in its production) and infamous worms. nevertheless fantastic it may sound today.

Natural meat will stay an advantage and luxury for the richest, most likely imported from outside Europe, which has large ambitions to stand in the vanguard of progress. On the another hand, agriculture will be drastically reduced and many farmers will go with their bags and will be forced to sale their farms. Of course, individual will buy these areas – with small money – and someway usage them. For example, to start producing large-scale alternate food there.

Car's not for you!

The second area where bans and restrictions are inevitable will be mobility. Freedom of movement has always been a salt in the eye of totalitarians. This has a very deep cultural and civilisational foundation: the regulation of freedom of movement from almost the beginning of human civilization is linked to the low position of a given person. This symbolically represented the peasant's attachment to the land or slave status. On the another hand, a free individual can decision freely, for whom he is an component of his subjectivity. A citizen who feels his own subjectivity – unlike the subjectivity – is much harder to push around.

Of course, no 1 is talking about restoring slavery. The point is to deprive the average man (preferably through economical incentives) of the desire and ability to travel freely. To this end, actions go – clearly visible already – 3 tracks. The first is to make the age of comparatively accessible and inexpensive motorization end. In this thread we have an effort to destruct the combustion engine (partly stopped due to Germany's opposition, but this, without getting into detail, mostly deluded concessions) under the appearance of a transition to "motorisation" electrical – indeed highly impractical, very costly and poorly accessible.

Track 2 is simply a extremist increase in fuel prices. This will happen in the EU shortly after the entry into force of ETS II, a fresh version of the Emissions Trading System, including aviation taxation. This will not only hit their vehicles with fossil fuels, but besides in those who inactive want to usage comparatively inexpensive air transport. The era of inexpensive travel, at least for Europeans, will go into the past.

Track 3 is organizing cities. This is what we see: our cities are organized in specified a way as to make life as hard as possible for drivers and make them second-class citizens, while introducing always higher and increasingly discouraging car maintenance costs in the city. This is the parking costs and, by the way, the deficiency of parking spaces, but besides an instrument in the form of clean transport zones, introduced Electromobility Act, passed by the Law and made available to local governments. In addition, under EU legislation, the introduction of SCT will be mandatory in cities above 100,000 inhabitants, where nitrogen oxide standards are exceeded over a specified period.

Why do you request an apartment?

Not being able to own a car is taking distant quite a few the second most valuable thing they own. The first is of course the flat – and the game is besides played in this field. Its latest phase is the EPBD directive, which can make many people forced to dispose of their properties within a decade, due to the fact that they cannot afford to bring them to the zero-emission state required by EU legislation.

Here is an crucial point: we are talking about a directive, a provision that is not straight implemented into national law, but the associate States are to fulfil their objectives. The directive so states in its present form that support should be provided to the most deprived, but does not say what it should look like or what it should be. It can so be assumed that countries that cannot afford this will limit the mechanisms of specified aid to the maximum, leaving a multitude of people alone. Even if support were to appear, they would all gotta submit. After all, the state does not have its own money – it only has taxpayers' money.

Shut up!

Finally, another area (not straight linked to the climate, but with the specified spread of sustainable improvement and all that follows) is the freedom to circulate information. The West has been playing with fresh forms of censorship for years. It takes various forms: from imposing political correctness and imposing restrictions on the law based on it, through the actions of corporations that are part of the oligopoly of social media, ending with restrictions to theoretically prevent public manipulation. Here comes another pretext – from pandemic to war in Ukraine.

The latest and possibly very dangerous solution is the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (No 2021/0381) on transparency and targeting of political advertising at this point in time in the EU institutions. It was originally intended to counteract hidden political messages and theoretically prevent unrest. In practice, in its current form, it would hit powerfully independent creators or, in fact, anyone who would like to share in the virtual sphere their views, assessments, observations or news in any way regarding the political situation. And that is, as you know, the concept of maximum capacity.

At the beginning of February, the European Parliament passed amendments to the draft regulation, which, however, in no way reduced the risk. It looks as if parliamentarians are full aware of their intention to make it hard for citizens to express independent opinions.

Big Brother's watching!

The communicative of the supposedly better life to which the thought of sustainable improvement is to lead us is simply a large lie. In order to accomplish it, we will either gotta take distant our freedom of choice in many areas, or carry out mass brainwashing, which will make adequate people believe that war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and a pathetic substitute for average life is the top happiness.

Read Orwell!

Luke Warches