The liberty and mobility granted to average people by cheap gasoline and home energy is absolutely infuriating to socialist central planners. They need you people to stop moving around so much. You keep scuttling their glorious five-year plans.
Socialism depends on keeping the value of labor down. When the common man's labor becomes too valuable, he starts seeing himself as liberated, a successful participant in capitalism. He becomes unwilling to give his valuable time to the State.
When the average value of labor increases too much, people start thinking social safety nets should be limited and temporary. They grow resistant to demands that every cost should be "socialized," meaning EVERYONE should be dependent on government programs.
Valuable labor means employment is a seller's market, so people grow resistant to socialist demands for control over the entire economy so they can take proper care of the perpetually unemployed. People naturally sense that if labor is valuable, there must be high demand for it.
Cheap energy is one of the most important factors in making labor valuable. Highly mobile people can shop their labor around, a lesson many of us learned when our first employment options were sharply limited because we didn't have our own car yet.
Highly mobile people with access to cheap energy are also much more effective at discovering and exploiting opportunities. Central planners HATE that because it makes them look bad. They despise the vast and unpredictable power of distributed intelligence, i.e. economic freedom.
Cheap, abundant energy makes us more productive, and creates new opportunities for people to use their productivity. Labor is more valuable because more enterprises are competing to purchase employee labor and generate profit with that resource.
Socialists have a few reliable techniques for forcing the value of labor down to keep people dependent and complaint. Open borders immigration has long been a favorite. They like tinkering with the minimum wage because it forces the PRICE of labor up but depresses overall VALUE.
But nothing socialists have ever before conceived, no scheme they have hatched short of armed communist revolution and oppression, comes close to the power of Green ideology and the Climate Cult for depressing the value of labor. It's the end of the Middle Class as we know it.
Expensive and unreliable energy will permanently depress the value of labor. People will no longer feel free to travel unpredictably over long distances to pursue opportunity. They'll go where the central planners tell them to go: mass transit and short hops in electric cars.
Expensive, unreliable energy will wipe out entire industries and eliminate whole classes of employment. The labor supply will permanently, and painfully, exceed demand, creating more permanent unemployment and underemployment - opportunities for socialists to expand power.
Entry-level employment and grassroots entrepreneurs will disappear, locking more populations into permanent underemployment and dependency - which creates opportunities for the parasitic socialist elite, to nurse underclass resentments and promise them benefits.
The mania for "renewable energy" is a push to decisively weaken the Middle Class, leaving it with fewer options and opportunities, teaching it to be satisfied with less so it won't rebel against the failures of socialism. You're being programmed to accept a diminished lifestyle.
Remember Barack Obama and his munchkins musing early in his first term about how Americans really ought to be paying $8 a gallon for gas, so they would learn to drive less and reduce their carbon footprints to save the Earth? That's how these people THINK.
If you use less energy, you move around less, do less, make smaller plans, lower your expectations, and reduce your ambitions because you've been told to accept a diminished lifestyle. In every respect, the people will become smaller and easier to control. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One reason the Left hates Rush so much is that he was so effective at skewering their pretensions to moral and intellectual superiority. He made it okay to laugh at them, to judge the failure of their policies without ritually celebrating their alleged good intentions.
Rush did to the Left what they had done to the culture they destroyed in the 60s and 70s. He used humor to destroy their pieties and expose their hypocrisies. More than anyone in the post-Cold War era, he DISRESPECTED them, and he had a blast while doing it.
The Left strongly believes in forcing its subjects to show respect and piety. Your parents might have taught you respect must be earned, but the Left believes the opposite. If you force people to act like they respect you, it doesn't matter if they really do in their hearts.
I never got to speak to Rush Limbaugh, but he always seemed like a friend I heard from every day. He quoted my work on the air a few times, and it was a surreal delight, a joyous thing that could not possibly be happening. He helped us all become friends.
That's the real measure of Rush's impact. He helped so many people realize they were not alone, even as the mainstream media labored to make them feel isolated and hopeless. He understood that totalitarians overwhelm and dominate ordinary people by making them *feel* surrounded.
How often good and decent people felt isolated before Rush! They wondered why nobody could see what was so perfectly obvious to them. The secret of totalitarian success is to make ordinary people fear everyone around them is an informer or enforcer. Rush shattered that illusion.
Is it possible to fight against totalitarian statists without ever compromising conservative "principles?" Is it better to play "fair," and constantly lose? Can you grapple with monsters without becoming a monster? That's the question at the heart of the schism on the Right.
This schism long predates Trump, but it became much more heated during his 2016 campaign and presidency. It's a question asked in many ways on a variety of subjects. It launches endless accusations of hypocrisy, insincerity, opportunism, foolishness, and weakness.
One of the big problems with academic conservatism is that it acts like the great debate over how to order our society has only just begun, as if we can hold an enlightened conversation between Right and Left over how much freedom we should have and how big the State should be.
Also, we're still feeling the cultural aftershocks of Hitler betraying Stalin and the Left turning against Nazism. The constant message is that only left-wingers are allowed to throw around Nazi analogies willy-nilly because Nazism is supposedly the "opposite" of leftism.
Obviously the people howling for Gina Carano's scalp have no principled objection to comparing modern political trends with Hitler or the Holocaust - THEY do it ALL THE TIME. They are never criticized or censured for going overboard, trivializing the Holocaust, etc.
The real issue is that almost a century later, the Left is still hysterically obsessed with painting Nazism as "right-wing" ideology. They erupt into gibbering neurotic fits when anyone points out that fascism was originally seen as a form of socialism and allied with communism.
Stupidity is extremely useful to statist politicians, not just because stupid people are easily manipulated, but more importantly because they believe the world can be remade to fit their incorrect beliefs if enough force is deployed. This is the basis of most left-wing populism.
Stupidity is aggressive, while ignorance is passive. Stupidity refuses to seek out knowledge, rejects information that does not fit its preconceptions, and destroys what it does not understand. The defining characteristic of stupidity is the refusal to admit ignorance or error.
The refusal to admit error is also a key characteristic of statist politics. The State is never wrong. Its programs never end. It acts with absolute confidence that it can do everything from managing trillion dollar economies to rewriting human nature and controlling the weather.
It's striking how the great anti-bullying crusade of the new millennium was immediately followed by bullying becoming the universal instrument for social and political change. Bullying was mainstreamed into adult society, not eliminated from schools.
Judging from the results, you would think the ubiquitous anti-bullying seminars of the past generation were actually training camps for bullies and oppressors. The standard tactics of the schoolyard punk are now employed daily by self-righteous bullies in legacy and social media.
The basic mentality of the bully - preying on perceived weakness, asserting strength and dominance to compensate for insecurities - has become universal. An entire generation has been taught to act like cafeteria shakedown artists.