New York Times Op-Ed Applauds Inflation As Means To Enforce Green Diet

Just as late night propagandist Stephen Colbert cheered for higher gas prices and suggested people buy a Tesla (a vehicle far outside the affordability of the majority of Americans) if they want to avoid paying $15 a gallon for gas, the NYT Op-Ed has a familiar stench of elitism.

The UN and many globalist foundations have been engaged in a war on the average person’s diet for many years now. A main pillar of the UN’s climate change agenda calls for the end of large scale farming and meat production in the name of reducing our “carbon footprint.”

Also note that the temperature record started in the 1880s. Whenever NASA or the NOAA says that a particular day was the “hottest day on record,” they are referring to a tiny sliver of the history of the Earth in which data has been “officially” collected. In reality, the history of the planet is replete with long term global warming events (far hotter than we are witnessing today), and long before man-made carbon was ever a thing.

Today’s temperatures are low to moderate in comparison, but if you only look at the records that climate groups want you to see rather than the bigger picture then it might seem like the world is getting hotter than it should. The Earth’s weather history is vast, and changes occur without the input of human activity.

There is zero concrete evidence to support the claim that man-made carbon has any significant bearing on the current and historically minor temperature increase of today; only assumptions, once again based on correlation rather than proof of causation.

This fact won’t stop the climate cult from singing the praises of economic decline, though. If they can’t force Green New Deal-type legislation on the masses, then perhaps an inflationary collapse will do the job for them?

Even more disturbing is the insinuation by the Times that a reintroduction of the Lever Act might be in order. For those unfamiliar with this starkly unconstitutional legislation, the Lever Act, also known as the Food And Fuel Act, was passed in 1917 and used wartime conditions and price inflation as an excuse for the government to take control of agricultural production, specifically reducing meat availability. It also gave the government the power to confiscate agricultural resources and “prevent hoarding.”

As the Op-Ed notes in a quote:

“There was huge cultural buy-in to the idea that collectively, we could make small sacrifices — which is how people saw giving up meat — and we’d make the sacrifices in the name of a greater good and get something done…”

In other words, the argument is that climate ideologues and militant vegans should support government actions that violate private property and business rights because this has already been done before. A precedent was set in 1917, and they think this makes it okay to do it again.

It’s also funny how the “greater good” always seems to coincide with whatever establishment elites want to happen rather than what public freedom demands. The globalist organization known as the Club Of Rome openly admitted the agenda in 1992 in their treatise titled ‘The First Global Revolution’:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on how to convince the public on the need for global government.

Why does the UN and other globalist institutions want to remove meat in particular from our diet? It’s hard to say, but it’s certainly not climate related. There is some scientific evidence including multiple studies which suggest that a plant based diet can lead to stunted brain development and cognitive decline, especially in children and adolescents. Is removing meat availability from our society a bid to make the peasants dumber and less dangerous?

There are also multiple studies which link veganism to higher rates of depression and a higher chance of irritability and anger. This would help explain the bizarre zealotry we see among some vegans these days, but the overall problem is one of cultism.

Connecting dietary habits with moral responsibility is nothing new – Many religions have done this in the past. However, the NEW global religion is one of environmental faith and climate doomsday fears that never seem to materialize. At the very least, the anti-meat campaign serves to provide a sense of moral superiority that adherents desperately need in order to feel justified in their militancy. It is also something that any individual can do to feel as though they are making a difference on the planet, even if they are really achieving nothing at all.