The Coming Global Ghetto

When people in power believe their own BS, nothing good follows

The defining feature of a ghetto is not the poverty or the crime or even the despair. It’s the lack of an ownership structure. Conditions suck because no one has an interest in improving them because no one is invested in improvement. This mentality is not confined to ghettos. A homeowner is far more attentive to a property than a renter is; people may do things with a rental vehicle that they would never do with their own car; and you will spend your own money far more carefully than someone else’s.  

Why mention this? Because it highlights the ridiculousness behind “you will own nothing and be happy.” Please. There are no happy people in ghettos. There is no rush of people trying to get in. On the contrary, the goal among the few ambitious residents who have not been beaten down by the soul-draining nature of such places is to get out and never come back. The ghetto is the antithesis of freedom. It is a prison of the mind and spirit.

The term ‘ghetto’ itself initially implied separation when it was applied to Jews in Europe. That did not change when it was later applied to urban America and its mostly black populations, nor is it different when other euphemisms are deployed to describe conditions in other cultures. The favelas in Brazil, the slums of Mumbai, and the banlieues outside of Paris all speak to certain people being segregated from the rest of society.

This is the sort of existence that the globalist cabal - the WEF, the WHO, far too many leaders in the West, and others among the self-anointed “elites” – has for us. Whether it is described as a 15-minute city or something else, the end result is the same and no one should confuse this mode of life for living. The flowery language behind it hides a fundamental truth:  An ownership society cannot co-exist with a central planning mentality. The two are fundamentally, and perhaps violently, at odds. Our society is characterized by economic and political freedom, yet not a single word or action from these groups points to us having more of either.  

The stated impetus behind these schemes is the climate because, apparently, 1) govt officials who fail in their basic tasks can somehow be trusted to manage climate, and 2) it’s a lot easier to frighten people into compliance by picking a goal in which ‘victory’ is impossible to define. Consider, for example, the C40 Cities concept, which as the name implies, involves major cities around the world and features the usual rubric of initiatives that are “inclusive,” “science-based,” and aim for a “fair share” of emissions reduction.

What constitutes a fair share? No one knows, least of all the people involved in this program. But the result is never the point; it’s the stated intentions of the cause that matters and like any attempt at collectivism, it targets the most impressionable – children. The C40 Cities’ home page features two initiatives aimed at engaging the yoots, building on the existing fear porn that is already freaking out young people. Many cannot see a viable future, they’re deciding against having families and children, and to the point of this piece, they’re finding home ownership much harder than their parents did.  

The horrifying part is that the C40 cities project is being led by mayors, who unless something has changed, are elected officials. Have any of you been asked to vote on this idea? One might think that the people who constantly lecture us about unseen threats to “our democracy” would realize that many people see voting as a fundamental part of the democratic process. It may well be a worthy idea to pursue “healthy, equitable, and resilient communities,” but doing so by coercion will fail on all three counts.

Anyone who dares question this or the 15-minute cities idea is immediately branded as, what else, a conspiracy theorist. This talking point was picked up by media domestically and abroad in stories that ran just one day apart. No doubt, noticing this ‘coincidence’ is further evidence of a conspiratorial mindset. We’re not supposed to think of the media as a herd dutifully doing its masters’ bidding, now are we?

There is one small problem with the climate happy talk – there are some cracks in the wall of support. Politicians in Europe who comprehend the truism of Thomas Sowell’s statement that “there are no solutions, only tradeoffs,” are recognizing that arbitrary emissions goals are just that, arbitrary. They also bring consequences that are not likely to make the public happy – a deepening of the current cost-of-living problem, the impact on food production, and the expense of retrofitting buildings to new standards, the loss of freedom in moves to ban gasoline-powered vehicles in the future.  

Thus far, this brush with reality has evaded the US govt. Just before the Independence Day break, the Fish & Wildlife Service proposed a rule that would turn an obscure lizard into an endangered species. The lizard’s habitat just happens to include the Permian Basin in the Southwest, which according to the Dallas Fed, accounts for nearly 40% of domestic oil production and another 15% of natural gas. What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

When someone tells you that these masters of the universe mean to make our lives poorer, more miserable, and probably shorter, it is well beyond time to believe them. Because the people who fancy themselves as our rulers have been crystal clear about their intent – they’re attacking farmland, they desperately want to do away with meat consumption, they want to force you into these ghettos where, in theory, everything you could ever need or want is a short walk away. You’ll own nothing. And you’ll like it. Never mind the hundreds of years of human history that betray this farcical notion.

There is no ‘solution’ to climate change just as there is no solution to a host of things. At best, there is tinkering around the edges that invariably creates new problems. Has DEI improved or worsened race relations? Has the drug war lived up to its promise? Climate solutions also presume that millions of people around the world who are struggling to rise out of poverty care about this first-world concern. Spoiler alert: they do not. Since every proposal brings with it foreseeable consequences, this is a good time to remind you that any result which is foreseeable is also intentional.