Posted on January 14, 2023



Dots, You And I

How global greenies view humanity


Daniel Clark



In the classic 1949 movie The Third Man, Orson Welles' affable villain Harry Lime explains his callousness toward his victims to his disillusioned friend, played by Joseph Cotten. "Look down there," he says, pointing to the people below from the top of a Ferris wheel. "Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?"

Lime's crime was that he had stolen penicillin and resold it on the black market, but not before diluting it in order to maximize his profit. As a result of having been treated with the watered-down medicine, hundreds of children were killed or badly brain-damaged. Because he hadn't witnessed the suffering, Harry was able to trivialize it by reducing human beings to "dots," based solely on their distance from him. This is how eco-elitists around the world view the people whose lives they affect.

In the Netherlands, farmers are protesting their government's stated policy of reducing greenhouse gases by cutting livestock production in half. This, of course, would drive a large percentage of farmers out of business. In fact, the Dutch government has announced plans to seize approximately 3,000 farms from their rightful owners, in compliance with European Union standards on nitrogen emissions. What will become of the farmers? Nobody bothered to ask before enacting the policy.

The Netherlands currently ranks second only to the United States in agricultural exports, but the greenies who govern that country are broadcasting their intention to deliberately retard its production. Both the farmers and their customers are merely dots, far too distant from the policymakers to be of any value to them. The people who matter are far more concerned about fashionable causes like "climate change" than where their next meal is coming from, or how they and their families are going to earn a living.

The World Economic Forum has proposed its Food Systems Initiative, which, if enacted, would change our behavior in ways that very few free people would voluntarily choose. "We need to fundamentally transform our food systems to provide all humanity with affordable, nutritious and healthy food within the limits of nature by 2030, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement," it says. At a minimum, this means a dramatic reduction in livestock production, and in the use of nitrogen fertilizer. Sri Lanka banned chemical fertilizers in 2021 with the aim of making farming in that country 100 percent organic. The immediate and predictable effects were that food production fell, prices skyrocketed, and people rioted. Nevertheless, Canada is now considering a scaled-down version of that same policy.

"Success rests on millions of smallholder farmers adapting to sustainable practices, billions of people improving their diets, and an ecosystem that can enable transitions," it continues. If you consult your totalitarian-to-English dictionary, you'll see that what this amounts to is the raising and eating of insects, which the WEF directly promotes elsewhere on its website. "This will demand an unprecedented level of regional and country action, supported by global leadership and underpinned by multiple integrated programmes and large-scale initiatives to leverage technology, streamline value chains, and adjust market systems." In other words, powerful central authorities are needed to keep the dots in line, by separating the production and distribution of food from the free enterprise system, and compelling billions of individuals to behave in ways they'd rather not.

In a 2019 report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change advocated "sustainable land management," by which it encouraged member states to enact reforms that allow governments to exercise control over, if not outright possession of, those properties whose rightful owners refuse to get with the program. If such a collectivization of farmlands under bureaucratic control sounds unoriginal, perhaps that's because it was a central component of both Stalin's Five-Year Plan and Mao's Great Leap Forward. Another thing those two men had in common was that they used these agrarian reforms to kill millions of people through starvation.

To accuse the WEF, the UN and likeminded governments of having similar designs might sound outrageous, if they didn't publicly discuss their plans to consign us to lives of oppression and deprivation. They seek to control every facet of our existence, from confiscating our property to dictating our eating habits, and they come right out and tell us so. It could hardly be more obvious that these self-appointed Saviors of The Planet have as little regard for you and me as Harry Lime did for the little victims of his penicillin scheme.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar