In 2020, a team of academics from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom produced a paper, “Rationing and Climate Change Mitigation,” which argued, as the title suggests, that rationing fuel, food, and even clothes could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions.
The paper was accepted by the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment in January of 2023 and published on Feb. 19. This would seem a pretty extreme proposal, even if it came from the most zealous of adherents to the cult of climate change, but perhaps it’s another nudge in the direction of the Great Reset. It certainly does align with a strategy championed since 2020 at the World Economic Forum (WEF).
You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. This was the first of “8 predictions for the world in 2030” that appeared in a chilling 2020 propaganda video produced for the WEF. So, how do the global elitists expect to wean the common folk off their irritating desire to own things? That is clearly going to be a gradual process that has already begun; the first stage is to get everyone used to consuming less – not just food, but all manner of goods from pork chops to pickups to pullovers. What better way to achieve this goal than to come up with an existential crisis; a threat so great that, if not addressed with drastic measures, would bring about nothing less than the extinction of humanity?
And what more effective method of accustoming people to owning less than to place limits upon how much a person can buy – all for the good of the planet, of course?
Economist Milton Friedman said, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” He almost certainly would have agreed that governments are, more often than not, the cause of the problems they then claim to be trying to solve. Either that or they will dream up a “problem” that doesn’t exist, purely to expand their powers or write new laws. Such is the case with anthropomorphic – or man-caused – climate change.
As far as manufactured crises go, this one is the mother of them all, since it will supposedly wipe out our species if not dealt with. A threat of this magnitude is the perfect excuse to promote the Great Reset. What does that mean? Is this so-called Great Reset nothing more than a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory? The BBC – along with every other state-approved and establishment news organization in the western world – wants you to believe the Great Reset is not at all sinister and will make the world a better place in which everyone gets a pony. Well, actually, you will only be able to rent a pony because you won’t own anything – but you’ll still be happy, nonetheless.
The truth, however, is that the Great Reset is very real and represents what can only be described as a hostile takeover – of everything.
WEF head honcho Klaus Schwab and Britain’s King Charles III – two pioneers of the Great Reset – make no efforts to conceal the goal:
A world government will own everything and allocate resources as it sees fit. What does this world government look like? At least in the beginning, it is likely an organization comprised of the leaders of the world’s richest countries and the CEOs of the world’s largest corporations – so, much like the WEF itself, only with a more official political status.
The term Great Reset was coined at the WEF. In 2020, it was the name given to a meeting at the organization’s get-together in Davos, Switzerland. There’s even a Great Reset podcast – and a book.
The authors of the recently published paper on rationing are, like the WEF, remarkably upfront about their proposed strategy.
While they lean heavily on the example of World War II and how rationing in the UK supposedly played a key role in the eventual victory, the academics acknowledge one significant difference between then and now.
It is far easier to get people to accept rationing when there is an obvious shortage of a particular product. How can the riffraff be persuaded to accept the rationing of something that is in plentiful supply, though?
The paper is quite chilling in its utter detachment from humanity; written by people who, it seems, relish the idea of conducting this grand experiment with the unwashed masses as guinea pigs.
It argues that the scarcity needed to justify rationing already exists because we cannot afford to burn through the earth’s supposedly limited remaining supply of so-called fossil fuels. That is a curious argument, of course, given that climate change activists are demanding an almost immediate switch from oil, coal, and gas to alternative energy sources. If the plan is to abandon the use of the former fuels, why would it matter if we exhaust our remaining reserves? The answer to that question, of course, is that mankind continues to rely heavily on those naturally produced fuels and will do so for decades to come.
The academics brazenly propose that the public be subjected to government propaganda sufficient to persuade people to accept the new conditions: “This approach would still rely on a public that was willing – or could be persuaded – to support their government’s efforts to mitigate climate change.” Throughout the paper, methods of normalizing rationing are discussed. Quite literally, how governments can trick people into believing that placing limits upon what they can buy and in what quantities – and at what price – is all perfectly normal and necessary.
As to the specific problem of getting people to accept the rationing of a product that is in plentiful supply, the authors have a simple solution. Through regulation, governments can create shortages and then use those scarcities to justify rationing: “On this approach rationing would not be the first step in combating climate change. Rather we would start with various forms of regulation. Rationing would then be a policy to help manage the expected repercussions.”
The plan, as it is laid out, is to create chronic fuel shortages which will in turn lead to shortages of just about all other consumer goods and food, and then introduce rationing as a way to deal with the problem.
Will this all be permanent? The paper’s authors argue that it could be temporary, but they are less than convincing, even quoting historian Naomi Oreskes, who wrote, “Climate change will become the new normal. Therefore, whatever mechanism is used to address it must be normal, too.” Why would anyone imagine that the globalists would ever declare the alleged problem of climate change solved when it provides such an all-encompassing opportunity for total domination? As Milton Friedman also said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
Post a Comment