There are many political leaders on the political left that are trying to use climate change as an excuse to increase the size and scope of the federal government and its level of control over our lives and everything else within society. It’s really a power play.
They are trying really hard to pressure us into giving up our rights and freedoms for the sake of protecting the environment and stopping climate change and global warming. According to their narrative, if we don’t accept their way of doing things, then that means we’re “climate deniers” and “anti-science,” as if supporting an oversized government with way too much control of everyone and everything is the only way to prove you care about the Earth and its well-being.
These leftist politicians love to use alarmist tactics, telling us that if we don’t go to the extreme in policy changes and extreme changes to our socioeconomic structures, that we are all doomed and the planet will be destroyed. In fact, they’re now telling us that it will happen in as little as 12 years. They’ve also amped things up, and are now calling it a “climate emergency.”
The truth of the matter is that those on the political left who are giving us that false alarmist doomsday narrative are just trying to frighten us into thinking that we need to give up our freedoms and liberties, and give government more control, if not complete control, of everyone and everything. Of course, if you dig deeper, what it really means is that there are elitist political leaders who think they know better than us how to run our lives, as well as the whole of society. They are people in positions of power, who don’t think they have enough power, and are always greedy for more power and control. And climate change is just one of an entire library of things they use to try to convince you to give them – those in power who are always greedy for more power – more power and control over you.
All of this begs a question. The federal government doesn’t have a good track record of getting things done right, or efficiently, or effectively, or successfully. Why would you want to give them more power, control, and responsibility over our lives and society? That would be like a business owner who has an employee who does a terrible job, and the owner deciding that the best solution to the problem is to promote the guy and make him a manager. Why on earth would the owner do that? Wouldn’t the best solution be to fire the terrible employee?
In the same way, if the government has a terribly bad track record, of being wasteful, ineffective and inefficient, wouldn’t it be better to vote into office politicians who work to reduce and limit the size of the government so as to reduce and limit the scope of their terrible track record, and its negative effects on society?
Besides, when you have a government with complete control over everyone and everything, there are several words that come to my mind that would accurately describe the situation in which you find yourself. Tyranny. Oppression. Totalitarianism. Is that what you really want?
The end result would be that we still would have the same environmental problems and climate change, but at least we’ll have a government with complete control of every aspect of our lives, and no individual freedoms left. Right? Sounds like what historically would have been defined as fascism to me!
Ecofascism
Enter into this context one other word – ecofascism. What is ecofascism? According to environmental historian Michael E. Zimmerman, “It is a theoretical political model in which an authoritarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the ‘organic whole of nature.’” It is a “totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being of the ‘land’, understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states.“
What many people don’t understand is that when you support massive government intervention and takeover of many, if not most, aspects of society, in which the endgame is state control of all things, such as is found in our political left’s Green New Deal, what you’re really doing is supporting what can only accurately be described as ecofascism, based on the definition that I just gave you. Now a good many of you reading this may think that “It’s not ecofascism if it doesn’t include some form of white supremacy!” Stop kidding yourself! That’s just a bunch of B.S.! Those of you who have studied historic fascism understand that it was a form of socialism. If you’re supporting “massive state intervention for the sake of the Earth,” you get away with it by calling it socialism. But you’ve got a problem – fascism was a form of socialism. What you’re really doing, in this case, is pushing what historically would be defined as fascism and getting away with it by hiding it under the label socialism, but the result is still the same in this case – ecofascism.
Conclusion
In my opinion, it would be far better for the private sector to work on solutions to our pollution and climate change problems, given the fact that they have a much better track record than the government at solving our problems. If you think expanding the size of government, and in the process destroy the private sector, is the best way to solve our environmental problems, you’re dead wrong. You may actually be putting us on a doomsday trajectory that’s more likely to wipe us out. And leave us in a state of ecofascist totalitarianism to boot.
