Climate Lords: Millions Must Suffer for the Common Good
We’re seeing the return of a political view with long, dark roots:
pragmatism requires populations to lose their rights.
“One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.” This quote attributed to Robespierre (Bartleby.com) underscores a fundamental difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. On July 4, 1776, the founding fathers of America signed a parchment that dedicated their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in commitment to a logical belief in God-given individual liberties:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…. (National Archives)
These famous words that rely twice on the belief that humans are created imply that no government should abridge individual rights because they are endowed by a Creator and therefore unalienable. That Creator, moreover is not a force, but a personal God possessing the attributes of life, liberty and purposeful action that would be logically necessary to endow such gifts to his creations.
Note: The difference in attitude about these words are apparent between the American political parties. Former President Donald J. Trump (Republican) always emphasized our “God-given rights” in his campaign speeches and rallies, and continues to do so today. His crowds cheer wildly when he says that. Democrat President Joe Biden once tried to quote the Declaration in a speech, but mangled it so badly as to embarrass himself and the country, suggesting that he either didn’t really consider the ideas all that important, or was reluctant to say the word “Creator” as if it might alienate the atheists and academics who who predominantly vote Democrat. On a campaign speech in March 2020, he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing.”
The French Revolution that followed (1789-1799), shortly after America adopted its Constitution based on “We the People,” ended in a bloodbath at the foot of the Guillotine: the “Reign of Terror.” What happened? Didn’t the French intellectuals use “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” as their motto? The difference is this: the focus of the French Revolution was not on individual rights but on “the common good” or “the collective.” That shift of focus allowed those in power to justify mass murder in the name of “the greater good” of the revolution. Before long, French citizens wrongly suspected of opposing the revolution were slaughtered without trial. Robespierre, leader of the Jacobins who started the revolution, lost his own life at the guillotine at age 36 in 1794, illustrating how violent social revolutions often “eat their own” voraciously.
Ironically, the French Revolution against the monarchy was followed by another dictator who arose to restore order: the Emperor Napoleon. Napoleon’s dictatorship was mild compared to the Reign of Terror. But George Washington, urged by some Americans to become a king after his presidency, refused. He would never violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence for which his armies had suffered and died, and the Constitution over which he presided those long months in Philadelphia. And so he stepped down, peacefully transferred power to the newly-elected 2nd president John Adams, and resumed his farming at Mt. Vernon. The will of the individual citizens prevailed. For not seizing the power that was in his grasp, a dumbfounded King George III proclaimed Washington to be “the greatest character of his age” (Heritage Foundation).
Although both the American and French Revolutions followed some teachings from Enlightenment thinkers, America’s founding fathers leaned toward Locke and Montesquieu, who emphasized individual liberty. Rousseau also taught individual liberty but his teachings tended to promote class identities of oppressed vs oppressors; he also introduced the idea of “the common good” (quick summary at Constitutional Rights Foundation). Most of the founders, even the deists like Benjamin Franklin, respected the Bible as a pillar of western civilization. Half the signers of the Declaration had divinity training (source), and John Witherspoon was an ordained minister. French revolutionaries were largely atheists or deists, students of the philosophes, who largely disdained the Bible.
The Collective and Pragmatism
“One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.” That metaphor has an elitist stench to it. Who decides to make an omelet? What if someone wants waffles or oatmeal instead? Who decides what eggs need to be broken, and which should eggs be allowed to hatch? The answer is always the same: the ones who gain political power and can lead a mob decide, because they care more about the collective than the individual and are usually driven by utopian visions. A collective ideology can therefore justify occasional atrocities, because the end (the Ideology, the Revolution, the Utopia) overrides lesser concerns like the suffering of individuals.
This assumes a philosophy called Pragmatism. Pragmatism is not the virtue of practicality; it is the ideology that “the end justifies the means.” Pragmatism has no reverence for a Creator. Pragmatists possessed of a utopian “end” that can justify infinitely malleable “means” do not wish to be subservient to eternal Divine principles. For instance, atheist Sam Harris recently attracted opprobrium for an interview in which he said that censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election, or lying about it, was warranted to keep Trump out of office (New York Post, 19 Aug 2022). Harris agreed it was “absolutely unfair” for the media to censor the story. But the end—his end—justified the means. A society cannot survive on pragmatism that rationalizes dishonesty.
Darwinian Ideas Have Consequences
The strategies that led to the horrors of collectivist states of the 20th century are outlined by Mark Levin in his best-selling book, American Marxism (2021). He specifically fingers Rousseau, Hegel and Marx as the founders of collectivist ideologies that exalt the State over the individual. In the world’s worst tyrannies, individuals are expendable for the “common good” which, as usual, is defined by those in power. Collectivist thinking filters down to populations, where people are nudged to identify with groups and social movements. As an illustration, picture the faceless Antifa rioters in the summer of 2020, all dressed in black with faces covered in masks to avoid identification, acting like a single organism on a common goal. They lost their consciences in the group identity.
Darwinism played a pivotal role in this transformation. Levin quotes Richard Weaver who, in his 1948 book Ideas Have Consequences, was trying to explain the massive disintegration of Enlightenment values that had resulted in two terrible world wars. Weaver said,
…biological necessity, issuing in the survival of the fittest, was offered as the causa causans [the primary cause of action], after the important question of human origin had been decided in favor of scientific materialism. After it has been granted that man is molded entirely by environmental pressures, one is obligated to extend the same theory of causality to his institutions. The social philosophers of the nineteenth century found in Darwin powerful support for their thesis that human beings act always out of economic incentives, and it was they who completed the abolishment of freedom of will. The great pageant of history thus became reducible to the economic endeavors of individuals and classes; and elaborate prognoses were constructed on the theory of economic conflicts and resolution. Man created in the divine image, the protagonists of a great drama in which his soul was at stake, was replaced by man the wealth-seeking-and-consuming animal. [Levin, p. 57]
Note: Did you catch the self-refuting fallacy there? For help, see Pearcey, Evolution News, 8 March 2015. This renders the entire modern statist enterprise bunk, because it is built on a logical fallacy. Its leaders are mentally ill with the Yoda Complex.
As a result of Darwin and his admirers, like Marx and Freud and John Dewey, the intelligentsia have moved the western world from rugged individualism to collectivism. Modern statist leaders find it more useful to categorize individuals by their collective identities, which may overlap in certain ways on the theory of “intersectionality.” Those with higher scores as “oppressed” groups gain status as useful revolutionaries. A few outliers from the other party can function temporarily as “useful idiots” to aid revolutionary goals. Their dupes fail to realize that the camaraderie is usually short-lived. After the revolution, useful idiots are no longer useful. They’re just idiots.
Western Civilization at the Brink
After 246 years of protecting individual rights, is America on the path to tyranny? Are powerful leaders ready to break a few eggs “for the common good”? Some disturbing headlines suggest so. Whether saving the planet from climate change, preventing overpopulation, or stopping the rise of “populism” in certain countries, the Statists of the New Left (also called Globalists) are on the move. In Canada, socialist prime minister Justin Trudeau crushed a grass-roots trucker rally who wanted to protest vaccine mandates. An American version petered out when the federal government closed access routes to DC and threatened arrests of truckers taking part.
It remains to be seen what will become of a weeks-long Farmers’ Protest in the Netherlands, where farmers are fearing collectivist takeover of their private farms, elimination of fertilizer and mass migration into their properties that would drive them out of business (see Breitbart News). The globalists/statists/collectivists don’t care. The Ideology drives the policy, and too bad if a few common folk (or millions of them) have to suffer for the common good. The irony is colossal. The statists prided themselves on their concern for the oppressed common people. Some of them still talk that way, but it’s hard to support it when so-called “democratic governments” crush commoners simply trying to exercise their right of assembly for the redress of grievances.
“Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains” (Marx); “Man is born free but is everywhere in chains” (Rousseau).
In the following news headlines, look for two evils: (1) Pride, exemplified by an elitist attitude: “Tsk, tsk, isn’t it sad that so many people will have to suffer for the common good.” (2) Hypocrisy: the masses must suffer, but the elites are exempt. Will any of these prophets of doom set an example by giving their goods to the poor, lowering their own carbon footprint, and stopping their travel on private jets while forcing the “peasants” to decrease energy for heat and travel? Will any of them fight for individual rights, or will they rationalize “breaking a few eggs” for their perceived omelet, even when millions stand to suffer and many die?
Fuel Poverty as a Necessary Path to Revolution
Marmot Review: Thousands will die and millions will suffer from humanitarian crisis of fuel poverty (University College London, 1 Sept 2022). This review predicts an epidemic of “fuel poverty” that is threatening masses of low-income people in the UK this winter. Prices of energy have skyrocketed, and many will be unable to purchase energy to heat their homes. Many more people die each winter from cold than die of warm weather.
“Warm homes, nutritious food and a stable job are vital building blocks for health. In addition to the effect of cold homes on mental and physical illness, living on a low income does much damage. If we are constantly worrying about making ends meet it puts a strain on our bodies, resulting in increased stress, with effects on the heart and blood vessels and a disordered immune system. This type of living environment will mean thousands of people will die earlier than they should, and, in addition to lung damage in children, the toxic stress can permanently affect their brain development.
The review fails to recognize the real culprit of this crisis: the globalist leaders and their policies that push for “sustainable” and “renewable” forms of energy and restrict the use of oil, natural gas and coal that could quickly solve the crisis. They make the energy companies out to be greedy capitalists. That’s a fear-mongering tactic that tries to arouse hate against the perceived obstacles to “green energy” development.
“In a rich country like the UK, the idea that more than half of households should face fuel poverty is a sad judgement of the management of our affairs. It is an absolute travesty that energy companies are raking in billions of pounds in profits and tax cuts are being suggested while half the population is facing shortened lives and severe hardship through no fault of their own.”
But is the solution to punish the energy companies even more? The fact is, energy prices are market driven, and when governments punish drilling and extraction of so-called “fossil fuels” the price goes up.
In the US, President Biden has siphoned off a significant fraction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which are intended for national security in wartime or for natural disasters—not for political purposes like overcoming the unpopular gas price hikes during his administration (from under $2/gallon under Trump to $4 to $5/gallon and higher under Biden). This shortsighted tactic (since the reserves must be paid back) only dropped gas prices a bit, but they remain double what they were under the previous Republican administration. Embarrassingly, Biden went begging in front of tyrannical governments like Saudi Arabia and Venezeula for more oil, when he could have just returned to the policies of Trump that had worked.
Trump’s promise was for energy independence, and he delivered on that promise for the first time in nearly a century. Biden’s “Green New Deal” policies (“for the common good”) undermined that big achievement, and sent energy prices skyrocketing. Who suffers? The poor; the common folk; the trailer families trying to stay warm; the truckers trying to fill their gas tanks, the sick suffering through a power outage caused by failed “green energy” projects, and the small business owners unable to keep their customers comfortable. Coupled with 40-year high inflation that raises the cost of living on everything else, the poor are taking a beating “for the common good” of the global climate agenda. Does anyone believe for a minute that the perpetrators of these damaging policies will be shivering in their homes or curtailing their vacation plans?
Fossil fuels causing cost-of-living crisis: climate expert (Phys.org, 30 Aug 2022). This article by Patrick Galey reposted on a “science” news site shifts the blame for the fuel poverty crisis to the energy companies, not to the governments whose “sustainable energy” policies punish oil and gas producers in favor of wind and solar, which only make up a fraction of the energy grid. Galey’s attitude is, ‘We told you that a crisis is coming; if you had only been good boys, you would have invested in windmills before now.’
“So this is fossil fuel-driven, supply-driven inflation. If 20 years ago you invested in solar (panels) or had a share in a wind farm, you’re not affected today.
“The only reason why we have this crisis now is that we’ve had 30 years of underinvestment in preparing towards this turbulent phase which we knew would be coming,” said Rockstrom.
“We’ve been saying since 1990 that we need to phase out the fossil fuel-driven economy towards a renewable-driven economy. And now here we are—we’re now hitting the wall.”
There is no evidence, however, that windmills and solar farms could have made up the difference. Those only work when the wind blows or the sun shines. Galey shares no remorse over millions of birds and bats sacrificed to windmills. Does he have a windmill near his house? We’d like to know. What would he think of the noise, the dead birds at the base, and the eyesore to his view? What does he think of the limited lifespan of the windmills and solar panels, the outsourcing of raw materials to China, the required mining operations that take advantage of the poor in third-world countries? Strangely, these left-leaning reporters never consider a different clean solution: modern nuclear power.
UK energy crisis sparks rush for firewood despite air pollution fears (New Scientist, 2 Sept 2022). New Scientist, long a supporter of the climate lords and their predictions of global warming, can’t help but notice that common people are scrambling to collect firewood for the winter. “People are buying up firewood and installing wood-burning stoves to heat their homes to reduce the impact of the hike in UK energy prices.” It’s happening in Germany, too, after that country’s leaders turned off the spigot for natural gas—one of the cleanest and cheapest fossil fuel sources—in the name of climate change mitigation. What’s the obvious solution? Lower energy prices! Turn on the gas! But no; the common good requires keeping the agenda on track. The reporter blames the war in Ukraine for the energy shortage. The only advice they can offer the peasants is to choose the right kind of firewood and try not to pollute the air. Notice the clue about “carbon” in the final paragraph. That’s what this is really about.
Gary Fuller at Imperial College London says: “It is important that vulnerable people are helped to keep warm this winter, but extra wood burning is not the answer. It will worsen the existing air pollution problems in our cities, towns and even across the countryside in the UK and Europe.” He says people also need to think about where wood is sourced from, because felling more trees will see woodlands release more carbon and could harm wildlife habitats.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Climate change concern over new energy policy chief (New Scientist, 7 Sept 2022). Anyone not fully on board with the global climate lords can expect to be trashed in the media; it comes with the job. For expressing hesitancy about going fully green, and thinking that fossil fuels still have a role in the economy, new UK prime minister Liz Truss and her energy secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg have been vilified in the media. Eight years ago Rees-Mogg said, “I would like my constituents to have cheap energy rather more than I would like them to have windmills.” Buzz! Trap door opens.
Rees-Moggs’s apparent caveat-free enthusiasm for further North Sea oil and gas production also puts him potentially at odds with the government’s advisers, the Climate Change Committee.
The Climate Lords must be obeyed for the “common good” even if millions of commoners suffer in the process.
How a human rights approach to climate change can spark real change (University of Colorado at Boulder). Isn’t that a nice-sounding headline? Human rights. Coming out of Boulder, Colorado, though, a leftist bias can be expected. This article encourages propaganda tactics: how to use tear-jerking stories to promote the global climate ideology. The gist of the tale of woe is that some Inuit are suffering from global warming. The loss of snow and ice is affecting their livelihoods of hunting and fishing, leading to cultural problems and in some cases damage to their homes. Therefore, the article concludes, telling emotional stories in the media about this apparent violation of their human rights can lead to more public support for the globalist green agenda.
This is an overt example of selective reporting or card stacking combined with half-truth for an emotional effect. The focus is on one emotional story, not the evidence in context of larger groups in other parts of the world suffering from the green agenda. What about the human rights of coal miners and oil drillers whose livelihoods, often going back generations, are being snuffed out? What about the farmers losing their properties and expertise in the USA, Canada and Europe, under the thumb of globalist climate lords? What about third-world poverty-stricken people in Africa pressured to mine for rare earth materials to supply EV batteries and solar panels? What about slave laborers in China? The story begs the question whether there is any other way to accommodate the needs of the Inuit other than to make millions of other poor people suffer elsewhere. Why is a university engaging in propaganda instead of real clear science?
The climate lords are cooking up their omelets. Unfortunately for the peasants, the poor won’t get a bite. The omelets are being sold to the Chinese Communist Party. They will get the benefit from “sustainable” energy policies. Everyone else must shiver. It’s for the common good.
This will be a critical winter to watch. Last winter, Texans froze as their “sustainable energy” windmills iced up, and state and federal officials had no solution. They just let it happen. The projections for Europeans (and some Americans) look grim. We predict that the leftist-globalist leaders and their lapdogs in the media will blame the victims for complaining. ‘You should have invested in green energy when we told you global warming was coming,’ they will say with wagging their self-righteous fingers from their warm homes. They will blame the fossil fuel companies. They will blame conservatives. They will blame the war in Ukraine. They will blame anyone but themselves, because they are elitists. They are on the ‘right side of history’ and prove it by flying private jets to European conferences on sustainable energy and writing papers from their warm luxury hotels about climate change. For the ‘greater good’ of saving the planet, they will feel justified living in comfort themselves as millions freeze, many die, and children suffer stunted growth from being unable to do their homework in the dark when the power is off, and shivering when the gas heater is off. This is the way of the collectivists, statists and globalists. The Climate Lords know what is good for you. So suffer in silence and shut up.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Deny this Genesis-based foundation, and bad things happen.