There is no precedent for the deliberate immiseration of a population, such as that which is implied by #NetZero, without tanks and guns on streets, pointed at citizens.
Talk of using military 'intelligence' & force is about controlling domestic politics.
1. The use of the British armed forces to 'protect' (i.e. confiscate) other sovereign territories is implausible.
2. #NetZero is going to create massive social and political chaos.
3. The UK's police and armed forces will be very busy right here at home.
That sounds over the top?
Consider that the official estimates of #NetZero are costed at around £20K per household.
We know that officials are not very good at estimating the cost of Grand Projets. Consider HS2, which has been inflating.
>>
We know also that £20K is very likely a massive underestimate, and that £100K per household is very much more likely, once all of the required domestic 'retrofitting' and the greening of the grid, transport and economy is accounted for.
But it may well be more. Because what that estimate does not anticipate is the broader economic consequences -- depression, debt spiral. And the political fallout.
The wealth transfer will continue, nonetheless.
So, imagine each UK household & business being in hock to the government's cronies to significant fractions of a £million a piece.
You are now owned by the green blob, which designs your life & lifestyle. And the debt must be repaid.
Tell me it doesn't create conflict.
It's a bigger deal than the UK's membership of the EU. It's a bigger deal than the miners' strikes. It's a bigger deal than the General Strike. It may well be a bigger deal than WWII or WWI. It's a rollback of British democracy.
There is no way it can fail to create vast, deep, interminable tensions in society.
None of those tensions can be resolved by democratic institutions, because they have been hollowed out.
The state will turn on the population.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No statistics or ordinary metric of 'disaster', 'crisis', 'emergency' or even 'risk' support the claims that they exist. In many cases, they demonstrate the opposite.
Climate ideologues like Dessler play with words and numbers.
At least he admits it, eventually. Words mean whatever he wants them to mean.
I think 'disaster', 'crisis', 'emergency' and risk have very real meanings, which should not be toyed with by green propagandists. Desller is okay with misleading the public.
Unpack the framing, too... It is "anyone who says climate change is not a disaster or an emergency is expressing their values". But he does not take issue with anyone declaring a disaster or emergency.
This is "the personal is political", rescued from the 1970s.
I.e., let virtue signalling obscure awareness of your material interests, to let bogus grievance mongers and race-baiters award themselves endless privileges at your expense.
You might be a socialist black man, or a capitalist Asian woman. But Femi and this TikToker want to claim that the black man and Asian woman should not discuss their political ideas, only the colour of their skin.
In order to do this, they have invented the idea of political parties 'openly' {sic} representing racism/homophobia/misogyny.
This reduces politics to a battle between identities, to displace democratic contest between ideas about how society & the economy should be managed.
Within months of having been formed, XR were invited to give evidence to Parliamentary committees, and had an hour long meeting with @michaelgove, in which he agreed with nearly everything their said.
Here's XR founder Gail Bradbrook speaking to the @beisgovuk committee.