Łukasz Warzecha: "Sustainable Development" to deprive us of ownership

pch24.pl 2 years ago

In 2016, Ida Auken wrote a futuristic essay about her imagination of the planet in 2030. It said, “You will have nothing and you will be happy.” It besides appeared on a short movie produced by the planet economical Forum. erstwhile we look at what is happening now, at what phase we are at, we announcement that what Mrs.Auken thought of then and what could be treated as a reasonably abstract imagination of the future, present is not so abstract at all," said Mr. "Sustainable improvement – Globalist Spell, full Slavery Instrument".

The concept of sustainable improvement itself sounds a bit like "social justice". Justice is just justice and "socialist" is no longer justice. Sustainable improvement is precisely the same. We all know what "development" means, but "sustainable" means that it is no longer to be free. It is not to be governed by marketplace rules, the rule of freedom, but there are to be restrictions on it in the name of any ideology of "sustainability".

My views on the economy are fundamentally liberal, but where I hear about "sustainment", "balance" or "equality", my alarm light is immediately lit. economical equality for equality alone has no justification. Meanwhile, this is how it is today, and it is 1 of the fetishes of the alleged sustainable improvement agenda. It is to be “equal” and “equal” is good in itself. No, she's not good at herself. Of course, we can think about situations where we are dealing with a very large scope of incomes – there is simply a tiny group with very advanced incomes and a vast majority of much lower earnings. 1 can look at the causes of specified a situation, but absoluteization of economical equality is – in any simplicity – the introduction to murderism, not only economic. It's always from socialism in the economy to muzzle people.

‘My’ Passive Salon

The issue of ownership and password, which has become a symbol of the Agenda for Sustainable Development, meaning “you will have nothing and you will be happy” appeared for the first time in 2016, in an essay written for the planet economical Forum in Davos. WeEF ordered specified texts in respective or more people. A Socialist MP, MP Ida Auken on respective pages, created any kind of sociological fantasy, writing about "how it is in my [dreamed] city". Of course, it is simply a imagination of the future, but not far away, due to the fact that the date of 2030 appears there. In this “her city” nobody needs anything. The author writes about herself – she besides lives there and describes her situation in specified a way that she no longer has any property there. To specified an degree there is nothing that, as he reports, “there are business meetings in my surviving area erstwhile I am not there and I do not request it.” I was very happy. Imagine that you live somewhere, go to work, and then strangers install there and do something at your apartment.

Auken describes this in an acceptable tone. The same applies to issues specified as cooking. She feels like making something, and then all the equipment she needs for it is planted under her door in, say, half an hour. Of course, these devices do not belong to her, but are rented. So there is no ownership in this “perfect city of the future”.

At any point these “other people” appear in the essay. The worrying author is that there are even those who live outside this perfect city and for various reasons do not agree to these principles. any due to the fact that they do not accept these rules, others neglect in life. They're a problem. Auken doesn't propose what to do with them.

The author is happy in this city, although she is puzzled by 1 more thing: in fact, she is being followed everywhere. The strategy knows at all minute where it is and what it does. She writes that it concerns her, but the text shows that this issue is not a large problem either.

Get addicted and pay

Password: “you will have nothing and you will be happy” besides appeared on a short movie produced by the planet economical Forum in 2016. This was the announcement of the already mentioned series of texts written for the WEF. However, it has been respective years. erstwhile we announcement what is happening today, at what phase we are at, we will realize that what Mrs Auken thought of then and what could be treated as a reasonably abstract imagination of the future, present is no longer abstract. Therefore, even issues that even present seem absurd – specified as the assumptions recorded in the 2019 C40 study – are subject to the process described in a phenomenon called Overton's window. any problems, which are first only on the margins of public opinion, are gradually moving towards the centre. They end up being the subject of an authoritative decision by the authorities.

In the subject of extremist ideas to deprive people of their property, in my opinion, we are halfway there. The problem is that this process takes place partially due to the top-down restrictions – specified as those on combustion cars – but to any degree besides on a free marketplace consequence principle. If politicians make certain rules, entrepreneurs adapt to them, and it is hard to blame them. And this adjustment is that abruptly it turns out that the rental model, the subscription model, is more attractive than the sales model. Why? The subscription attaches us to something. If we're not the owner of something, we're the subscriber, we can rise the price at any time. It's like drug addiction. The dealer first distributes his goods even for free to start selling them and then rise prices. It is akin here, especially where we are dealing with monopolies that start utilizing a rental model or subscription alternatively of a ownership model.

It's a problem of the young generation. If we talk to young people about how they perceive to music, we will realize it very well. Service streaming specified as Spotify, which makes young people mostly no longer collect music. I can boast that I have a large collection of records and they are only mine. I'll always have them, I'll always be able to perceive to them. But if individual doesn't collect records or even have music files downloaded to their computer, and only is simply a Spotify subscriber or another service streaming, this service can at any time, for example, make the subscription no longer cost – say – 20 PLN, but 250 PLN. And what can be done in specified a situation? You can either not perceive to the music, or you can drain the 250 PLN out of your pocket, and yet you can pay.

However, this method of action can be utilized practically by any company that makes people dependent on each other. And that's where the strategy is going. And, contrary to what the idealists and supporters of specified a model say, the property will not disappear. She will only not be distracted between us all anymore, but will be concentrated in the hands of respective 100 corporations that will manage all these subscription models.

The first effect: people no longer have anything of their own, they can be addicted and drained from money virtually indefinitely.

The second, very crucial effect. Now we collect things and then we pass them on to another generations – this thing was the basis of Western civilization. That's why you worked. Whether there were many or fewer of these things was different, depending on where individual was on the social ladder.

It's just not in the rental model. There's nothing to say. The full component of material heritage passed from generation to generation disappears.

So the social consequences of leaving property – if that happens – will be very crucial and worth realizing.

Not. ROM

(the titles come from the editorial board)

Fragments of Luke Warzecha's speech during the presentation of the study by Agnieszka Stelmach, entitled "Sustainable improvement – a spell of globalists, an instrument of full enslavement".