The carbon vs silicon election
Last April, a Yale University report stated that “U.S. communities from California to Massachusetts are instituting bans on natural gas in new construction. Proponents say the measures are critical for speeding the transition to an all-electric future powered by renewable energy.” Dozens more U.S. [Democrat-run] cities are reportedly contemplating gas bans or all-electric mandates, motivated primarily by “climate concerns.”
The 2020 Presidential and down-ballot elections, should Democrats emerge victorious, will doubtless expedite this stampede toward an all-electric society with few exemptions. While some predict a rosy future, others are not so certain. Thus, in just a few days, Americans will choose whether to abandon their comfortable carbon-based world and entrust their futures to Silicon Valley’s favored wind and solar future.
On a deeper level, the divide is not between “old, dirty” energy and “new, clean” energy. The high-tech lords of the sun and wind view humanity quite differently than the generations that overthrew feudal aristocracies and birthed an Industrial Revolution. That society rekindled an interest in human liberation from oppressive monarchs who enriched themselves and penned a Bill of Rights that asserted no government dare contravene.
The new tech lords have amassed outlandish fortunes (even in a time of pandemic) and virtual veto power over any ideas or movements that do not serve their interests. Should their candidates prevail in November, the U.S. – and the entire world – will have forfeited all its freedoms and come to the end of what Friedrich Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
“Elections have consequences”
As Travis Hoium reported in 2017, Silicon Valley is driving the renewable energy revolution and thus the push to “decarbonization.” Their standard bearer, as reported by Nish Acharya in Forbes, is not the 20th Century relic Joe Biden but Vice Presidential nominee (who could quickly ascend) Kamara Harris.
Acharya, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress, says that Harris “understands the Bay Area and Silicon Valley in a way few national politicians could…. She understands [and approves of, we believe] its extraordinary power to create transformative technology and its callous disregard for the way those technologies impact society and the human condition.”
That callous disregard was well spoken by the 2016 Democratic Party nominee, who called the 60 million who voted against her “irredeemable deplorables.” That view was apparently shared by many in official Washington. The Internal Revenue Service gained notoriety a decade ago for targeting conservative nonprofits so as to delay or even deny their nonprofit status.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged it was “clear” that the Obama IRS was “using inappropriate criteria to screen applications” for tax-exempt status from conservative groups. Yet, despite multiple investigations and lawsuits, the Trump Administration never brought any criminal charges against rogue IRS officials.
“Dead men tell no tales”
Perhaps emboldened by this ineptitude, the social media giants, along with the near-monopoly search engine giant Alphabet, Inc., (which owns Google and YouTube), began using data mining to profile and manipulate what users get to see. They also began censoring ideas, individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and others whose views their “fact checkers” found objectionable – by ever-shifting, unpublished standards.
Summit News reported in July that Google Search had blacklisted numerous major conservative websites – including Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Infowars, Human Events, Red State, and many more – by removing them from results in what appeared to be a major new censorship purge.
YouTube has for several years barred videos from Jewish commentator Dennis Prager for various violations of its “standards.” Under America’s convoluted legal framework, the platform, despite boasting that “everyone deserves to have a voice,” is a private forum, “not a state actor” subject to the First Amendment. Americans have only recently learned that what they thought were a “free” Internet and “public” forums are neither free nor public.
These self-styled arbiters of truth have gone overboard censoring information about the COVID 19 virus. The Wall Street Journal objected to no avail to YouTube’s abrupt decision to remove a 50-minute video with Hoover Institution neuroradiologist Dr. Scott Atlas which presented solid evidence that strict coronavirus lockdowns cause social harm.*
[* In just five days, over 14,000 scientists and medical practitioners, and over 100,000 individuals, signed a petition against COVID 19 lockdown measures … saying that they are causing “irreparable damage.”]
Twitter and Facebook even censored the President!
Social media sites, network news, and leftist politicians have also censored climate realists. NASA’s James Hansen, whose salary is paid by taxpayers, demanded prosecution of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said that doubting the infallibility of the UN IPCC is “treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors.”
[CFACT, too, has been a censorship target. Both of its Climate Hustle films have been flagged by YouTube and Amazon Prime Video. Twitter even disabled CFACT’s account. Climate Depot’s Marc Morano warns [should the Silicon Lords prevail] of a coming “climate lockdown” in which “our lives are going to be ruled by nameless, faceless bureaucrats …for our safety and for the good of the planet.”
This first silicon versus carbon election is also a financial record-breaker. Some estimates are that spending will approach ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS for the various 2020 campaigns. The stakes are high. The future of America – and the planet – is on the auction block. The media have become a siren chorus demanding a single result: Get rid of the orange monkey (and all of the irredeemable deplorables too) who is interfering with our plans.
“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”
Rumor has it that Don Quixote said it first. The Free Dictionary defines this idiom as meaning “to invest, devote, or commit all of one’s energy or resources into a single venture, opportunity, or goal, generally at the risk of losing everything in the event that that thing fails or does not come to fruition.”
Cervantes’ laughable character (who tilts at windmills) well illustrates the all-electric, all wind and solar folly quickly sweeping through Western society (but not India, China, Russia, or power-short Africa). The tech billionaires have chosen Kamala Harris as their modern-day Saint Georgina to finally slay the fire-breathing, carbon-based dragon.
But even given the power, can they succeed? California and Hawaii have both locked in a path toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2045, while 80 British cities and towns boast they will be carbon-free by 2050. Harris-Biden promises the Green New Deal’s carbon-free world in California time. Can wind and solar replace ALL of the world’s conventional energy in 25 years?
Or is that not their real intent? Their machines and their robots may be sufficient for the Beautiful People – just not for a vastly larger group of “irredeemable deplorables.
The dark lords of Silicon Valley callously spit on freedom of the press, speech, assembly, and religion, the right to bear arms. And every other tenet of the Bill of Rights. What makes anyone think they value human life at all?
Just yesterday, children played outdoors, learned about nature, and hoped for their futures. Today, even their schools are glorified X-Box screens, and they cringe when masked “intruders” invade their “sacred spaces.” Virtual reality quickly fades to black when the power goes out.
And it will.
If they win.