Bcc: FYI
Original article:
When I earlier posted a critiqueof the ‘Green New Deal’, I expected to receive mixed reviews from readers. On the one hand, I believe the article is well documented and presents convincing evidence. On the other hand, in this era of a climate-crisis mentality, I can understand why criticism of the GND would be one red-pill too many for lots of folks to swallow. After all, this is one article vs. the whole mainstream media. What’s one to believe?
Context is all important – the GND does not exist in a vacuum. Those who are enthusiastic about the GND see themselves in a context of environmental crisis, a context that outweighs all other considerations. Those of us who are skeptical of the GND initiative are thinking of a different context, the context of class struggle between elites and the people of the world. That isn’t to say we aren’t facing an environmental crisis. But when viewed from the context of struggle, we need to be wary of that crisis being used to lead us down a garden path, to somewhere we don’t really want to be.
My own view of the ‘struggle context’ is described in the Elite Plan article. Below I’ll be sharing your responses, but first I’d like to summarize the main points in the article, and point out the relevance to our ongoing discussion.
In the first section, ‘The era of growth’, I describe the bankster elite, and I explain how they came to hold so much power, power they exercise from behind the curtain. The relevant observation here is that any major change that comes about will be a change that suits elite interests – even if at the same time the change seems to be responding to public pressure. Keep in mind the awesome power of the elite-controlled media has over public opinion.
In the second section, ‘The end of growth’, I explain how the bankster elite have no more loyalty to capitalism than they have to any particular place or nation. They know the growth paradigm is unsustainable and they have no intention of going down with an economic Titanic. I could have mentioned in this section that the Club of Rome, with itsLimits to Growth, is a Rockefeller-initiated project. The relevant observation here is that ‘greenness’ and ‘sustainability’ will be the natural selling points of elite plans for a post-capitalist society. The devil will be found not in the selling points, but in the details.
In the next two sections, ‘The end of sovereignty’ and ‘The end of liberty’, I explain how the nation state is being dismantled, along with the ‘rights of citizens’ that was the fruit of the Enlightenment. I outline the likely nature of the planned global technocracy, and explain how an orchestrated collapse scenario will lead people to embrace the globalist ‘solution’. The relevant observation here is that these outcomes will be part of the post-capitalist era and its birth, along with whatever greenness is actually delivered. Be careful what you wish for.
In the final section, ‘The post-capitalist era’, I talk about societal myths, myths that define a society’s understanding of itself and its history. In my 1950’s youth, the myths were about truth, justice, and the American way. And about how the noble Founding Fathers overcame evil royal tyranny and created a ‘government of laws not men’, guaranteeing liberty and justice for all. Such myths tend to contain some truth, some falsehood, and a great many historical omissions. When people believe such myths, I call that ‘living in the Matrix’. In this final section I describe the kind of myths that would make sense in a managed technocratic society. As with all societal myths, they are based partly on demonizing the old world, and partly on singing the praises of the new. Here’s a summary of how the new society is likely to be justified:
myth 1: Democracy and national sovereignty were bad ideas, leading to social instability domestically, and warfare internationally. How wonderful that we now live in an harmonious global society where decisions are made by those with the most expertise.myth 2: Capitalism, competition, and the pursuit of money were roots of evil. “How much wiser we are now, to live within our ration quotas, and to accept our assigned duties, whatever they might be, in service to humanity.”myth 3: The family was an abusive patriarchal anachronism. “How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught discipline and healthy values.”
Do these myths describe a utopia or a dystopia? When I was young, in the 1950’s, most Americans would have seen this description quite definitely as dystopian. Indeed, the description resonates to a considerable degree with everything we didn’t like about the USSR, its desire to get rid of capitalism, and its social-engineering pursuits. But times have changed, particularly in the past several years. Many people, particularly left progressives, would now see elements of utopia in the myths:
re/ myth 1: Consider all the activist energy around ‘follow the science’ – quit playing politics and do what needs to be done, re/ carbon emissions. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a global agency that could mandate scientifically sound practices? As regards national sovereignty, isn’t that the kind of thing Trump talks about, with his ‘Make America Great Again’? Aren’t we better off seeking global solutions to global problems?re/ myth 2: Back in the 50’s one saw very little criticism of capitalism; indeed it was being praised as a roaring success. But today we have a whole anti-capitalist genre, including the influential and popular book, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure,by John McMurtry. A reviewer notes: “McMurtry rigorously exposes the opposed paths between which humanity must choose: money-driven life-collapse or civil commons enabled life-development and enjoyment.” And indeed there is much talk of socialist solutions among Left Democrats, for reasons both economic and environmental.re/ myth 3: The family is not yet being demonized, but it is under attack on many fronts. Here in Ireland a ‘Children’s Amendment’ was adopted, which in effect declares the state, rather than the family, to be the ultimate guardian of the child. In one of the Scandinavian countries a child was forcibly taken from an immigrant Czech family so that the child could be raised within the dominant culture and language. The LGBT movement, along with the ‘modern family’ entertainment genre, has dethroned the primacy of the family as the ‘normally accepted’ way for people to live together. A recent pro-family conference in the UK was demonized in the liberal media as being an ‘extreme right’ gathering, because it didn’t look favorably on the LGBT movement.
My view is that we are in the midst of a social engineering project, aimed at adapting our beliefs and values to match the design of the banksters’ planned global system. When I see mainstream energy being generated around the Green New Deal, I see evidence for that view.
——
Robert Gregory wrote:
Again, as in the past, you have provided insightful analyses of where we are, where we are heading, and how. Well thought out, deep, and frightening views for us to contemplate and comprehend. I would add that the easy to reach resources have been found and consumed, that the population has risen and that we have increasing problems with pollution of the oceans, atmosphere, land, and water resources, endangering us and life itself. Thank you Richard – profound! bob g
Thanks Robert, I’m glad the article (from ten years ago) still makes sense to you. And yes, there are very real problems that need solutions. And the real solutions do involve a focus on community and localism, which is indeed part of the GND Elite solution. But these solutions do not need a global government to micromanage everything from economics to health care. They would be better implemented under local democratic control, where local circumstances can be taken more effectively into account.
——
Diana Licht wrote:
Thank you for this, Richard. Is it a chapter of a book, or just an essay/article. Perhaps it’s civil war time in the US. I’ve just lost an acquaintance over our diverging attitudesabout Mr. Trump.
I considered writing another linear book, but instead I offer my website (cyberjournal.org), as an evolving hypertext book. The main pages of the site outline what I’ve learned, over a number of domains, and my most important articles, including the one on Elite plans, are referenced from relevant pages.
Yes, you need to be very careful what you say among liberals, as the slightest deviation from politically correct views can lead to an end of conversation, if not personal rejection. The PC-social-justice community (cult?) is so self-assured of the rightness of its beliefs, that there is no longer any discussion to be pursued, but only sides to be taken. You are either with us, or with the deplorables.
——
Brian Hill wrote:
If you listen to Amy Goodman’s clip on the Green New Deal today by its authors you should be able to clearly understand that it is in no way a part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy of the ruling classes to prevent limiting their abilities to exploit the world. Rather it is very grass roots.
I’m not surprised that the authors speak from grassroots values or that there is considerable grassroots support. The question is what actually gets implemented, or not, in terms of legislation and government policy. If implementation actually occurs, then we can read the fine print and identify who really benefits in the long run, and who has their fingers in the policy pie. If there is no implementation, then the GND initiative nonetheless serves to move the culture toward a technocratic mentality.
rkm
______
——————————————————————————
To subscribe, send a message to cyberjournal-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
To unsubscribe, send a message to cyberjournal-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net
Share: