THERE is a globalist agenda in play, and the fact that we are aggressively dissuaded from using that word affirms the effectiveness of its primary authors.
Our global elite, the billionaire puppeteers who pull the strings of our lifeless political masters, are pretty good at launching attacks on the local rhythms of life.
Everyday language is always an enemy to them. These are people so powerfully dispersed that they think they can announce which words we are or not permitted to use. So here I go: it’s a globalist agenda.
In his 2011 book Green Philosophy, Sir Roger Scruton argued that the environmentalist idea has been confiscated by the Leftist managerial types: people who construct arguments from armchairs.
He also contended that concern for the environment agenda is best pursued within the context of localism: farming presents itself with all manner of problems which only the farmer can understand.
Sir Roger suggested that philosophy, when properly understood, involves practice as much as argument. You want to understand the environment? Become a farmer. As he did.
If you really are ‘green’ then give the swerve to the managerial elite who have appropriated the concept of the ‘environment’ in service of a Leftist version of it. The distinction between being an environmentalist and being genuinely ‘green’ is that the former requires observance in the direction of an ideology, whereas the latter appreciates spontaneous forms of affection.
Sir Roger announced, in that book, a colonisation by the Left at the expense of those who are effectively announcing a war against those who wish merely to steward the land. His argument was that the Left has affected a coup against our shared affections for the environment. And it’s done it in service of ideology, rather than genuine concern.
The environmental obsessionists have picked an enemy. As all revolutionaries do. You always need to manufacture a victim if you want to change the narrative. Thus farming is the current primary victim of the weaponisation by the globalist types. There is a globalist war against farming, one which is taking increasingly subversive and disparate forms.
In the Netherlands, the government is seizing land by the ethically dubious (at best) mechanism of compulsory purchase. Why? Some fake nonsense about nitrogen emissions. In Ireland, they are playing the same erroneous environmental card. The history of Ireland is a history of farming. If you think about it (and I am Irish) my country’s identity is defined by a cascade of farming tradition. But its major EU sponsors are attempting a neutralisation of history, via an insistence that the Irish do without their farms. And therefore, without their history. The history of Ireland isn’t just one of the farm, it’s the ability to hand down stories of the farm.
This isn’t merely a rewriting of history. It’s a form of moral and historical sabotage.
The globalist types hate forms of affection which are not directed at them. The farmer who stewards his land has a primary affection in this direction: the local, the everyday contingent, this idea that when things go wrong it’s a correction in the local order of things, something we can deal with ourselves.
These are quotidian expressions of love, generationally embedded.
They are inherited mechanisms of affection which the globalist, managerial types look not on with love but as a threat.
