Climate change for thee but not for me
“When Swift flies on her private jet, it isn't her intention to spew tons of carbon.”
This is going to be a much shorter post than usual. Too long to be a note, too short to be considered an essay.
I am currently working on a longer piece covering my thoughts on the actual purpose of public education, breaking from justifications posed in the academic literature (i.e. democratic participation, workforce preparation, and social mobility), acknowledging that our system of mass public education demonstrably fails at achieving any of these ends. Rather, “the purpose of a system is what it does” and public education prepares drones incapable of challenging the ruling elite.
Speaking of the ruling elite, that’s what I want to talk about briefly here, namely Taylor Swift — the Taylor Swift discourse is simply unavoidable, my apologies.
Now, obviously, Swift holds no decision-making power — but neither does our president. She is a court jester whose role is to nudge the opinions of her massive and malleable fanbase in service of the goals of the regime — whose goal is always first and foremost the maintenance and expansion of power.
My forthcoming essay argues that the primary purpose of public education is to perpetuate an epistemology of power, claims to privileged access to Truth that allow a ruling class to consolidate their authority. Scientism is just the most recent incarnation of an epistemology which legitimizes power. To quote from that which I haven’t yet published:
Power now lies with he who marshals the scientific expert consensus, and just as the magician would build his village on a hill so that his crystals could reliably summon the rain, just as the king would cultivate favorable clergy and cast off those who would challenge his authority, so too the modern ruler ensures that the scientific consensus reinforces his own power. $50 billion a year flows from regime coffers to fund academic “research” in the United States. Little wonder much of that research justifies existing regime policy and undergirds the expansion of regime authority.
The expert consensus of which we are most frequently berated is, of course, anthropogenic climate change. From the perspective of the ruling elite, climate change is the perfect myth — one which allows power to insert its tentacles into all aspects of the daily lives of the ruled. They will tell you what to eat, where to live, how to travel, and even whether and how much to reproduce. The goal of all this is to make you fully dependent on the rulers for your very survival because dependence forestalls rebellion.
A significant flaw in climate change mythology is that the proposed remedies should, in theory, be universal, applicable to all regardless of station. Enter Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift, climate envoy John Kerry, billionaire soy-villain Bill Gates. These people fly around the world on private planes, spewing tons of carbon emissions while you’re implored to ride the public bus from your 400-square-foot studio — its refrigerator stocked with tofu and literal Soylent — to your soul-sucking cubicle job, whose monotony is only broken by periodic DIE struggle sessions where you repent for the color of your skin and the continued strain on the planet caused by your very existence.
The hypocrisy is so glaring that regime media must work overtime to prevent even the Swifties from noticing — case in point. The article begins with a timid rebuke of Swift and her carbon emissions “claimed to be 1,100 times the amount of the average person.” Claimed?
It then quickly pivots to explain, quoting Swift’s publicist, why climate change rules apply to thee but not to she — namely, carbon offsets. Swift is allowed to dump massive quantities of supposedly world-destroying gasses into the air to visit her boyfriend because she pays a magical fee for the privilege. The Catholic practice of selling indulgences comes to mind.
All of this precedes perhaps the two most retarded paragraphs I have read in an MSM article in a while — and that’s saying something.
"When Swift flies on her private jet, it isn't her intention to spew tons of carbon. Spewing carbon is an externality (an unintended consequence) of flying, driving, lighting a campfire and millions of other daily activities. Carbon credits matter because they're an attempt to put a price on that externality," Keyes said.
Thomas adds that Swift doesn't need to stop at carbon offsets to make her travel and touring more sustainable: she mentions artists such as Coldplay and Billie Eilish who make sustainability mandatory on their tours by minimising single-use plastics and having composting bins on site.
She doesn’t intend to spew tons of carbon, it’s simply an externality. You, on the other hand — you dirty plebe — you are intentionally ruining the planet with your gas stove, your dairy consumption, your desire to have children. Swift’s 150 tons is just a whoopsie. Who hasn’t acted a bit foolish when falling in love after all?
Of course, she could do more. She could stop climate change by making sure her fans use paper straws and recycle their trash.
The gall is astounding, but this explanation will be sufficient to appease those already inclined to give the rulers and their jester the benefit of the doubt — which of course is almost everyone who has passed through regime-affirming public schools. It follows then — as I’ll argue — that dismantling public education as it now stands is the only way forward for those who would challenge the existing regime.
More on that to come.