The Future They've Chosen For Us

Is One Where Your Standard of Living Will Reduce by 85%.

What do the ruling elite want for the future of America?

We can put aside talk of conspiracy theories and secret agendas. The “conspiracy” is in the open, a coalition of government bureaucracies and NGOs that publishes white papers; their agenda isn’t secret, it’s available for free download in PDF. I’ve read many them, such as the United Nations Agenda 21; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; the United Nations Common Agenda 12 Commitments; the Long Term Vision for 2050; the Rockefeller Foundation Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development; and of course the famous World Economic Forum Great Reset.

They all say the same thing. You need to give up your economic freedom. You need to travel less. You need to consume less. You need to live less. There need to be fewer of you.

Perhaps this doesn’t surprise you. The ubiquity of climate change messaging in modern media is such that much of the populace has been persuaded, at least subconsciously, that Earth is in grave danger from overpopulation and climate change, and that you need to do your part by reducing consumption and saving energy. To do anything else would be immoral!

But exactly how much are you expected to reduce consumption? To answer that, let’s look at this recent release: The Future of Urban Consumption Headline Report by the C40 Cities (hereafter abbreviated as the “FUC Head Report”).

The Elite Want to Reduce Your Consumption by About 85%

The FUC Head Report asks you to give up meat and dairy consumption entirely within the next 6 years, or at a minimum to reduce your consumption to 16kg of meat and 90kg of dairy per person per year. At present, Americans consume 102.75kg of meat and 302.5kg of dairy annually per capita, so that’s an 85% and 70% reduction respectively in meat and dairy for the moderate target. The ambitious target is, of course, a 100% reduction.

The FUC Head Report wants you to purchase no more than 3 new clothing items per person per year, or at a maximum no more than 8. According to the NY Times, the average American purchases 68 garments per year, so the FUC Heads are asking for an 88% reduction at a minimum and 96% reduction at most.

Further, the FUC Head Report wants you to reduce ownership of private vehicles to… none at all. But they are willing to settle for just 190 vehicles per 1,000 people. At present, Americans own 814 private vehicles for every 1,000 people. Once again, the moderate target is a 77% reduction and the ambitious target is a 100% reduction.

Finally, the FUC Head Report wants you to reduce your air travel down to 750km per year at a minimum, and preferably down to 500km per year. According to the St. Louis Fed, US air carriers travel 948 billion miles per year. With 336 million Americans, that works out to 2,820 miles per year, or 4,538 kilometers. Once again, we see an expected reduction in consumption of between 83% and 89%.

The FUC Head Report, then, is hoping for between a 70% and 100% reduction in our consumption of air travel, automobiles, clothes, dairy, and meat. They have many other goals as well, but these make the point clear.

Now, when confronted by a white paper like this, the temptation is to dismiss it as a radical, implausible, extremist proposal intended for fund-raising and propaganda but with no choice of ever being enacted as policy. “No one actually wants US standard of living to be reduced by 85%!”

But such a dismissal would be a grave error, because…

This is Actually What the Elites Want

Take a moment to review the Rasmussen survey conducted for The Committee to Unleash Prosperity. The survey examined the views of the American Elite, which it defined as “people having at least one post-graduate degree, earning at least $150,00 annually, and living in high-population density areas.” Approximately 1% of the US population meets this criteria. Of the 1%, about one-half are part of a “super elite” that attended elite Ivy League or private schools.

Now, by these standards, I have been a not-so-proud member of the super-elite for most of my adult life. With certainty, from private conversations that have occurred for decades, I can say that the views in this survey really are the views of the majority of my Harvard classmates, my former media industry colleagues, and even some of my friends. It is to my despair that their views are utterly anathema to the world that I want to live in. (They feel the same way about me, of course, and wonder where I lost my way.)

And what are these elite views? What do they want?

For starters, they want you to have less individual freedom. 55% of super-elites believe the US offers too much freedom to individuals:

What sort of freedom do they mean to restrict? Well, the rationing of gas, meat, and electricity is high on the list, with a staggering 89% of the super-elite ready to ration your access of these vital components of Western life:

The vast majority of the super-elite would also like to restrict your freedom to enjoy modern conveniences such as gas stoves (80%), gas-powered cars (81%), non-essential air travel (70%), SUVs (60%), and private air conditioning (68%), seen here:

Note that in all of these examples, the preferences of the elite are in absolute alignment with the agenda of the FUC Head Report — and in all of these examples, their preferences are in utter opposition to the wishes of the 99%.

Again, it would be easy for a white-pilled believer in the American democracy to dismiss the views of the elites as irrelevant: “The American electorate would never stand for it!” But, again, this would be a grave mistake, because…

The Elite Get What They Want

Our democracy is not what purports to be. A notorious 2014 study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” published in Perspectives on Politics, analyzed the relative influence of political actors on policymaking. The study aimed to explore how the actions and preferences of elites, interest groups, and general voters influence the enactment of public policies. Conducted by Martin Gilens from Princeton University and Benjamin Page from Northwestern University, the study utilized a database that tracked the stances of voters and various interest groups on 1,779 policy issues from 1981 to 2002.

The researchers used the data to investigate four theoretical models of American political dynamics and the level of influence wielded by various groups in policy formulation. These models are: (1) majoritarian electoral democracy, where the average citizen is the primary decision maker; (2) economic-elite domination, with a focus on the affluent; (3) majoritarian pluralism, driven by mass-based interest groups; and (4) biased pluralism, where business-oriented interest groups have the most significant impact.

The study’s key findings were:

1. Average voters hold minimal to no sway over public policies, especially when compared to the influence of economic elites: “Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions, they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.”

2. When citizens achieved their preferred policy outcomes, it was actually the result of elite influence rather than the impact of the citizens: “Ordinary citizens might often be observed to ‘win’ (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they agree) actually prevail.”

3. A policy change that has limited backing from America's economic elite is only enacted approximately 18% of the time, whereas one with substantial elite support sees about a 45% enactment rate.

4. Even when American voters organize into mass interest-based groups, they have little impact: “Mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

The authors dryly conclude, “the results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination… but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

It goes without saying, of course, that the elites want these restriction to apply to you. Bill Gates and Jonathan Soros¹ will, of course, be able to enjoy meat, private jets, gas-powered automobiles, and air condition — it’s just you that won’t.

This is what is being planned for the United States - planned in minute detail by government agencies and non-governmental organizations across the country. If we acquiesce, if we allow it to happen, we cannot say we weren’t warned in advance.

Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe — but first enjoy a tasty bug-burger with soymilk cheese in your one-size-fits-all unitard on your electric bus ride to the UBI center.

1. My classmate at Harvard Law School, along with presidential candidate Julian Castro.