By Alex Doss
Neither the Green New Deal nor its predecessors give an honest, definitive limit as to how much CO2 is acceptable and how much is too much. Yet it sets progressive restrictions on industry, based allegedly on what they determine an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” trend in the climate. This is not a valid reference, and the use of undefined boundaries as to how much is or is not acceptable is what has allowed the “experts” to subject the vast areas of industry to whatever degree of control they desire.
Not one molecule of man-generated industrial gas has ever been observed in an upward journey to the stratosphere, let alone the mesosphere. No one has ever observed a single instance of these molecules being split up by ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere despite billions of dollars in research. It has never been seen to break down a single molecule of ozone. This is likely due in no small part to the fact these gas molecules are four to eight times heavier than air, depending on the specific compound measured. There is only a slight chance that a few of these molecules can rise into the lower stratosphere, because the troposphere is very turbulent, and it diffuses small amounts of gases and particles into the stratosphere. The convective clouds in the tropics can loft air and its contents nearly to the tropopause, and occasionally through the tropopause into the stratosphere. However, of the molecules that might make this journey, a large portion of them are washed away by the heavy precipitation that accompanies it.
Not one theory or policy pertaining to the agenda has been voluntarily retracted by its proponents after having been exposed as wrong. Without knowing anything else, this is reason enough to question its true motivation.
The Soviet Union was defeated in the late 1980s, and both its first and last captive, Ukraine, finally became free in 1991. These were among the brightest days in American and world history because it was a victory over a reign of terror and darkness that had lasted more than 70 years. Yet, it is important to understand that communism never claimed total surrender. It has never been completely renounced by everyone, everywhere. Just prior to the Montreal Protocol in 1990 and the subsequent launch of “Agenda 21,” the Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev made a historic visit to the United Nations in December 1988. In this speech, Gorbachev called for a “world environmental order,” run by an ecological security council operating within the UN and deploying its own military, with the power to enforce and oversee the implementation of environmental policy. This international police would operate independently of sovereign governments, with the power to intervene militarily against nations accused of polluting the environment. This proposal was sprung during the victory and brightness of the late 1980s – a time when such a proposal would be most likely welcomed, with the least chance of its consequences being foreseen.
Since 1988, many people, politicians and organizations have been complicit in the Gorbachev scheme. Despite their many names and affiliations, they can be discerned by a common, defining trait. That trait is to downplay the importance of informed individuals and local leadership making voluntary decisions to safeguard their cities and states.
If they were to encourage free, individual initiatives to preserve nature by keeping population levels low in their counties, for example, it would detract from the occasion for its outside, draconian plans and from the cause to change the form of government.
Despite their alleged concern with environmental protection, they are fundamentally hostile to rural and suburban America, for the power and sovereignty of a nation, and thus its subversion is determined not only by its industry but by the control and use of its land.
Because of this, the “green” agenda and its perpetrators oppose the ability of people to live independently in rural areas with low populations.
Because of its war against both industry and agriculture, it seeks to drive farmers and ranchers out of their livelihoods for a centralized, state-controlled food supply.
At the same time, regulation, inflation and non-prosecuted crime is used as a weapon in the cities, to drive the labor force away from their homes, and thus their valuable roles in industry. Because these three problems make it difficult for people to remain in their homes, it gives the federal government exactly the occasion it needs to take control of housing, to “provide” housing to those who “need” it through its “affordable housing” programs. To this end, land in the suburbs (Hernando County) is rezoned to allow for additional housing, and home builders and developers form a “partnership” with the federal government and its “housing programs” in order to “resettle” this population. This housing is not limited to high-rise apartments; It also includes single-family homes. Government control of housing and land means more control over where and how people live. This, combined with the three previously mentioned problems, serves to take away the possibility for private property ownership in the future. This resettlement scheme does not solve the problems in the cities. It only spreads the problems to the suburbs. Those who are involved in it, which includes the BOCC and Zoning/building department, are facilitating the Green New Deal, and are ignorant of the warning given by Thomas Jefferson: “When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”
Those areas of land in the suburbs which are not used for housing are largely used for redundancy and “clutter”, which is of no enrichment to the area culturally or spiritually, and which offers little to no employment potential for its people. On those occasions when something is built of potential value, it is out of place, and reflects the marxist priority of scrambling the normal order, such as the placement of a fire station right next to a library. Using the nation’s land in this way, one county at a time, serves to take away from the character of the place we call home, and the memory of what has been, and detracts from the possibility of success for unique, original talent.
Although the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society” is known as a federal and UN agenda, it cannot be implemented without the cooperation of local officials, who become extensions and foot soldiers for the regime, rather than independent, faithful servants of the county.
Marxists, Communists and their “useful idiots,” both past and present, understand that their war against the United States is not only on the federal level but “in every continent, every country, in every street of every town and village.” They take seats in local government, educational centers and church positions and come from all types of backgrounds. They are affiliated with both political parties and dislike those who truly seek to make America great again. Not wanting to be associated with well-known, sensational problems and thus reveal who they really are, they burrow into the county’s inner workings like dull worker drones, faithfully holding quiet, 9:00 morning meetings, far away and generally out of view, in a traditional government building. Thus, rather than conquering with tanks, death squads, and compulsory salutes, they take a nation, one property, one new development and one meeting at a time, all under the seductive guise of “progress.” In the words of Lenin, it is “Death by a thousand cuts,” and preferably, all of it is done with your consent.
Alex Doss is a musician and piano technician in Spring Hill and has many other areas of interest and knowledge.
