"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
The green movement is really going to great lengths these days. Gone are the days of finding ways to create abundance and in are the days of finding ways to ration away more and more. Everywhere I go these days I'm rationing because people are too dense to allow the free market to operate without the all seeing eye of government.
If you don't already live in a location with an emphasis on virtue signaling green then stick around, it's coming to a city near you soon. Living in California I'm overwhelmed with an unhealthy, nauseating portion of proving just how green you really are.
But of course it's all just BS. Even the people who live here know it's BS, but they just go along with whatever the State tells them because that's how most people operate. They go along to get along. And so we all just cope with a lower standard of living that allows the ruling class to extract a greater portion of our energy via whatever deceptive label they can come up with.
We have a water drought? Better to cut back than actually find a way to create more water. Afraid to inconvenience a few fish to get some fresh water around here? Better just inconvenience some humans instead. Humans are much less important than fish.
I can literally barely wash my hands anymore. Every time I go to a public facility and use the water the pressure is set extremely low to conserve water. Great idea. Maybe we can cut back a little more on water and really go green and really go back to the good ol' days before we had indoor plumbing.
Problems showering? No problem, no need for lots of water pressure. We have to conserve water and cut back. After all, we wouldn't dare want to waste it. And even more importantly we wouldn't dare want to actually find a way to provide more water.
The free market is geared towards solving any problem that exists. If there is a shortage of water prices will rise, competition will kick in and people will fight to provide water to take advantage of the rise in prices. Through competition the price of water will naturally fall back down and people will have cheap water without needing to ration it any longer. But that is far too logical for most people. And besides, how is the state supposed to make any money when they don't control water?
Paper bags used to be bad for the environment. Now plastic bags are the big problem. So what can we do to solve the problem? Simple, charge for plastic bags. How does this solve any problem? It doesn't, but it sure makes the people feel good about themselves. Why have the store supply bags when the customer can be guilted into buying them instead? After all, that's all this is about anyway. Stores used to provide bags complimentary because they're kind of needed to carry stuff out of the stores. But now they just force another tax on the customer in the form of $0.10 bags.
But of course it doesn't stop here. Why charge a tax on top of bags when you can go for the jugular? Why stop there when there are plenty of people drinking bottled water because they are scared to drink from their government supplied faucet at home. Give them crappy water out of their faucet so they will buy the bottles. And since bottled water is in shortage because the government won't let the free market provide it you know what that means... EXTRA FEE! A $3 24 pack of water in California becomes $4 after the ever so green water tax. Sounds green alright.
Hopefully next they will charge for shopping carts because it's you know, environmentally friendly. What, you got a problem with paying for shopping cart usage? What are you, some kind of Fascist Nazi? Don't you care about the ONE PLANET WE HAVE?!? DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE RESOURCES ON THIS PLANET?!? OMFG NAZI!
It's a good thing taxes work so well on decreasing production of things. Maybe next we should decrease everyone's income by enforcing an income tax on them. Whoops! Too late for that!
Pretty soon we can tax everything in our lives and slow our standard of living to a complete halt. Makes sense to a 3rd grader anyway.
But of course it's all just great for business. As a business, by going green you get to provide lower quality for the same costs. Who wouldn't want to do it?
Why should hotels wash bed sheets every day if instead they keep the same unwashed sheets for you during the duration of your entire visit? After all, you wouldn't dare want to waste water or use harmful chemicals. This is the green thing to do. It's called moving forward.
Problems with the shower pressure? No biggie, you're doing the right thing by conserving water. This is better for the environment. Just don't ask how.
Missing a few plastic cups? Of course you are! This is the future. We are cutting back instead of upping production. Plastic is very bad for the planet don't you know? But we got plenty of it in the vending machines! Need ice? Better grab that while it's still free.
It's all quite simple really: if you want to make more money go green. You get to offer lower quality service for the same product. Have a customer upset about something? Just blame it on the new green initiative. They'll love you for it and probably even give you a big tip for your forward-thinking, progressive attitude. A true Earth whisperer you are.
If all this sounds a bit foreign to you because you still live in a somewhat coherent city then let's talk about something a little bit closer to home: recycling. Now I know you got this going on pretty much anywhere you live. And why wouldn't you? This is one of the oldest forms of going green there is.
Let's just talk this through for a moment. Why do we recycle? Well, to re-use resources that we previously used. This way we don't have to re-dig them up and do the whole process from the beginning. We don't have to spend the same amount of energy to re-make something with recycled items. But is this really true?
Well, we dump our recycled goods in those blue and green recycling bins. And then these need to be transported to a recycling facility. And this transportation costs gas and creates a carbon footprint. And this recycling facility doesn't run on nothing. It also takes energy to run this facility. And then you have to pay people to sort out all the items and figure out what goes where. And of course the recycled goods need to be cleaned with lots of chemicals so that they can be re-purposed into something useful. So just by thinking about what is actually going on you can see how it's not so simple as recycling = good.
And now compare this to just creating the same thing from scratch. A lot of the time you are cutting out a lot of extra work. And more importantly, you're cutting out a lot of extra bureaucratic work, because after all, recycling is a government program. And if you know anything about the government you will know that basically everything it does is lower quality and more expensive than that of the free market. And recycling is no exception. The EPA is behind recycling because, well, feeding us BS about how the climate changes just wasn't enough for them.
Landfill is almost always cheaper than recycling. The government subsidies behind recycling hide the true costs of recycling. But of course they do. The same thing happens with the Post Office. The cost of shipping something isn't the cost of the little stamp you buy. It's the taxes you pay in the annual Post Office losses.
But since recycling costs are pre-packaged into the black hole of taxes we already pay nobody even notices or cares. It's all a dark fog that we throw money at hoping for something useful to come out of it. We pay our taxes and hope that some of it goes to good use for recycling and for the environment. But of course, most of it is shuffled behind an inefficient bureaucracy of government workers who have a family to feed and a job to keep. You better not question where the money goes.
It costs around 3 times as much money to recycle goods than to just throw it away and start fresh, from scratch. Let me say that again.
Recycling costs 3 times more than just throwing your stuff away.
Think of the wasted resources, money and environmental footprint being done by this process. But what will we do with all the useless recycling employees who we won't need anymore once we find out we're wasting money? We wouldn't dare want to get rid of an unnecessary job. Better just ignore it and continue paying taxes.
If people actually had the option of paying $1,000 or $3,000 at the end of the year for their "end of use product fee" what do you think they would choose? Would they pay $1,000 for a cleaner, cheaper solution or $3,000 to waste energy, resources and unnecessary manpower on recycling it? It's obvious. But when it all goes into the void of taxes nobody cares.
Running low on natural resources like trees? Scared of endangering those precious rainforests? I know a simple solution: plant more trees. And that's precisely what we do. Since people need paper we plant trees to provide paper. We don't get our paper from rainforests, we get it from tree farms the same way we get our food from food farms. It's a pretty simple solution and it works not just with trees. When demand of something goes up the supply is also increased to meet that demand. Crazy this economics I tell you.
Now don't get me wrong. Some things are a net gain with recycling. Actually very few things. Aluminum is in fact a net gain when we recycle it. This is something where it is actually more profitable to recycle the item and re-use it. But this isn't the only thing we recycle. We also recycle plastic and paper. Neither of these things are a net gain. Both of these are a loss and cost more to recycle than to just landfill and start over from scratch. But that doesn't feel good to most people so they'd rather just pay more taxes and complain about being poor. Oh wait, that's right, poor people don't pay taxes.
We have to really stop and ask ourselves, what is more important, humans or the environment? Yes, of course they're both important. But we have to realize that at some point we are going to have to impact the environment on some level. And yes, over time we will discover cleaner and better ways to utilize resources from the environment. But during this evolution we are going to have an impact on the environment. And this impact will lead towards cleaner, more viable solutions. This impact will lead towards better forms of energy that have a smaller and smaller impact on the environment. This is already taking place and we are already getting there.
But for the time being we still have a lot of humans that matter. And if we were to cut off oil production in exchange for wind or solar we just couldn't supply enough energy for the world. We would no longer have energy for food production and medical facilities to sustain our current 7 billion person population. 7 billion people need energy you know and wind and solar doesn't cut it right now.
So guess what? We have to decide what is more important: humans or the environment? We have to find a balance and make a trade-off. It's not all one way or the other. If we want no environmental footprint then we need no humans at all. So it's pretty obvious we're going to have to settle for something.
Look, I'm all for taking care of the environment and using only what you need. Just make sure you're actually doing that and not being used as a tool for a higher power. And this my friends, leads us to the real meat of the matter here.
Where did this environmental movement come from? Why is everybody so concerned with going green these days? People didn't care much a few hundred years ago. And people especially didn't care 5,000 years ago when the environment was kicking their butt as they spent all day wresting with the environment trying to survive. So why are we so infatuated with the environment all of a sudden? Well, that's an important question. And like most things people are into, it's not by their own choice but by marketing from a much higher power.
Let me share a few quotes:
'The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. [...]
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. [...]
An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not "credible."
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply "the price we must pay to save Mother Earth."'
Didn't hear this one in your government school? Hmmm, perhaps you heard this one:
"The environment is being used in many ways to further the Agenda through problem-reaction-solution. If you are looking to impose global ‘solutions’ you need global ‘problems’ and the environment is perfect for that. It allows you to pass international laws and create centralized, global organizations to police them. It allows you to move native peoples from their ancient lands to create wildlife parks and ‘conservation’ areas all over the world, particularly Africa and the Americas, which then come under your centralized control."
These are just two quotes showing what is really going on. And I think most of the people reading this kind of know this. You know something is up with all this. There are lots of ways to control people: religion, war, science, the environment, you name it. And there are people out there who know this and use it to their advantage.
So you want to talk about carbon taxes? Yeah, sure. You want to talk about climate change? Oh right. Didn't seem to matter much 50 years ago. This is all simply the new religion, and many people are catching on to it.
We are literally devolving in order to please our masters. We are literally letting them reduce our standard of living so that we can feel good about ourselves. We are giving them our taxes and energy so that they can take more and more power away from us. We used to find ways to expand our options and level of living. Now we aren't.
Now instead of solving a problem we simply adjust to the problem.
And I get being minimalist and whatnot. This isn't that. This isn't taking only what you need and leaving what you don't. This is creating a system that doesn't allow for competition or creativity which leaves us with BS solutions and no ability for innovation. This is taking orders from superiors because we are too afraid or too stupid to actually stand up to obvious manipulation.
This is setting up false dichotomies. If you don't want the government to tax you and control your life further you don't care about the environment. This is straight social engineering. It works great on the sheep but not everyone. If we care about freedom we should also go murder millions of people throughout the world too, right? Because you know, we can't have freedom without war. If we want borders closed we're racist because it couldn't possibly be that people coming into our country disproportionately use welfare and invoke crime. It's all phrased in a manipulative, binary way. It's really easy to do this and trick most people unfortunately. It's no different than tricking your dog to do a trick by dangling a treat in front of them. Most people are really easy to manipulate.
Yes, I get that this is all extremely nuanced. Yes, I get that it's not all one great big conspiracy. I get that there is a lot of good in this. I get that there are a lot of great people who truly want to move humanity forward and help out. I get all that. But I also get the big picture. And the big picture is to use any tool possible to further control people.
Did you already forget what America was all about? Have you already forgotten why the Revolutionary War was fought? Did you already forget that America was an experiment? America was never supposed to be. Freedom is not the normal state of humanity. The last 200 years is not normal if you look back on history. This all didn't come out of nowhere. And the people who lost the Revolutionary War didn't forget. It's not over and they will use whatever method they can to recapture their Virginia Company.Filed under: Politics / Government, Doing Bad While Feeling Good, Feelings > Logic, Makes Sense To A 3rd Grader, Millennials Gone Wild