Confected Emergencies and The New World Order

Big problems require big governments to solve. Also: “big government” requires big problems to solve. And this big problem with the climate is now conveniently being claimed at a time when the biggest government conceivable is being created before our eyes—a supranational entity, or world order,5 that demolishes the nation state and its democratic institutions, and arrogates to itself the power to regulate every aspect of the lives, behaviour, speech, and thought of every person on the planet.

Such an extraordinary social project requires extraordinary social transformations. Ubiquitous, omnipresent surveillance. Programmable money, linked to social credit scores, that algorithmically punishes and excludes non-conforming citizens from society. High levels of docility. High levels of tolerance for authoritarian control measures. High levels of tolerance for the suspension and destruction of fragile rights and freedoms of movement, association, and speech that have taken centuries to win from government, and required wars to defend. Destruction of the social bonds between citizens that confer immunity to authoritarianism. Ultimately, the removal from the language of the means even to conceive of, much less express, unauthorised thought.

Transformations of such a viscerally repellant authoritarian nature will not be accepted voluntarily. Citizens must be brought carefully into acceptance of them. A constant, subliminal state of fear is required to provide the permissive mind set in which social re-engineering tasks can be carried out. From time to time, emergencies must be declared that justify and legitimise the irreversible dismantling of freedoms and protections, the extra-legal imposition of instruments of coercion, and the inculcation of alien behavioural changes.

And of emergencies, there is no shortage.

Before the 9/11 emergency, for example, the state’s relatively modest civillian security forces could not have maintained control of an entire population in the event of widespread protest against authoritarian government action. Following the changes introduced in the aftermath, their span of control is now dramatically wider. There is now high acceptance of coercive and intrusive near-paramilitary security arrangements, for example in airports, and the willingness to submit to them. Without any of us authorising it, or even noticing it, the UK is now the most highly surveilled country in the world. Public opinion has shifted notably from defending civil liberties to demanding increased restrictions, as people perceive these measures will reduce their exposure to risks about which they have been deliberately sensitized.

Without the “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity” (“DIE”) emergency, would we have tolerated the sexualisation, feminisation, and castration of our children? Would we have tolerated men punching women in boxing rings for televised sport? Would we have tolerated gangs of thugs targetting and raping vulnerable young women, or beheading those of us who criticise their beliefs, or the blasphemy laws protecting them? Would we have tolerated the placement of rapists in women’s prisons, or boys in girls’ changing rooms, or men as heads of rape crisis centres? Would we have tolerated men in dresses, with no ability or interest in war fighting or operational readiness, commanding our military forces?

Without the Covid biosecurity emergency, would we have tolerated the imposition of a police state with arbitrary powers of arrest, fines and imprisonment for trivial offences? Would we have tolerated restrictions on our freedoms of movement, association, and speech? Would we have tolerated confinement to our homes under effective house arrest for months? Would we have tolerated the abandonment of society’s duty of care to the welfare of our children? Would we have tolerated the emergency suspension of safety protocols, installed for the purpose of protecting us from untested therapies produced by unethical pharmaceutical corporations? Would we have tolerated the imposition of digital identity papers, or the threat of being excluded from our economy on failure to comply with the conditions for holding them, or on failure to produce them on demand? Would we have tolerated the emergency suspension of fiscal controls that prevent massive fraudulent transfer of wealth from tax paying citizens to tax evading members of the new elite? Would we have tolerated the destruction of our economy and our savings through the suspension of the economy’s functions and the issuance of crippling quantities irredeemable debt? Would we have twitched our curtains and reported our neighbours to the police?

Without a climate emergency, would we have tolerated the willful and catastrophic destruction of an energy system capable of producing abundant, affordable energy, with no detailed and costed plan for its replacement? Would we have tolerated having our energy made first unaffordable, and then unavailable? Would we have tolerated the enslavement of children in developing countries to mine the colossal quantities of resources required to sustain luxury beliefs in developed ones? Would we have tolerated closure of our airports, the suspension of our shipping, the removal from our economy of meat, steel, cement, concrete, mortar, and the halving of the output of our farms?6 Would we have tolerated the war on our cars, or our coerced confinement to “20 minute walking distance” zones around our homes? Would we have tolerated a return to the squalor and life expectancy of pre-industrial per-capita energy levels?

All of these measures polarise us, destroy the bonds of trust between us, immiserate us, desensitise us to outrageous authoritarian state interventions, increase our dependency on the state, increase the power of the state to surveil and control us, remove our freedoms of movement, association and speech, weaken us, and transform our cohesive society into a self-policing, atomised mass that can be directed at will.7

Each of these measures promotes the creation of a supranational entity that demolishes the nation state and its democratic institutions, and arrogates to itself the power to regulate every aspect of the lives, behaviour, thought, and speech of every person on the planet.

This is not a coincidence.

There is no climate emergency.8 The oceans are not boiling. Rather, as we emerge from the recent CO2 famine and mini Ice Age, ten times more people still die each year of cold than of heat.9 But, to carry out its work, the growing supranational world order requires there to be a climate emergency, and many others, so as to continue stealthily under their cover to implement their changes.

And that is why they are now invoking authoritarian instruments, hatched and rehearsed under Covid, to protect people from bad weather.

This article (Confected emergencies and the new world order) was created and published by The State of Britain by Richard Lyon and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Richard Lyon