Jan. 23, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
25:50
4288 Ocasio-Cortez: "WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 12 YEARS!"
🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneuxAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez helps you get your priorities straight during the end-days of the climate apocalypse.▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSource: https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-world-will-end-12-years-un-report-1300873
So, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez takes square aim at facts, reason, evidence, and reality, and talks climate change.
This is from a Twitter account named Tom S. Elliott, and here's what she has to say.
And we're like the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change Okay, the world is gonna end in 12 years now.
This sounds like crazy lunatic hysteria, but it is crazy lunatic hysteria from Our good old friends at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, there's only a dozen years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, they say, any higher, even by half a degree, would significantly increase risks of floods, drought, extreme heat, and potential poverty for hundreds of millions.
So as you've probably been aware, there was an 18 year pause in global warming, and quite a lot has happened to keep the mathematical models from coming into existence.
But she is very, very concerned.
So she says, basically, we have just a tiny bit of time.
... years if we don't address climate change.
And it's going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
Okay, so the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
And your biggest issue is your Your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?
Sorry, it's the tonality.
How are you going to pay for it?
So the biggest issue is how are you going to pay for it?
Well, that does matter.
Not the first Pretty Woman I've ever seen who doesn't have any clue how finances work, but you know, I mean, there's Justin Trudeau.
Your biggest concern is how you're going to pay for it.
Well, now, here's the thing.
So if this young lady... 29?
Ah, 29.
I remember it vaguely.
So if this young lady is very, very concerned about climate change, then there's something very simple that needs to be done, which is going to do more than just about anything else you can think of, and that is to start bringing people from the third world to the first world.
Absolutely, the number one thing that needs to be done is stop mass migration of millions and millions and millions of people from third world countries to first world countries.
Why is that?
Well, because, of course, when you move from a third world country to a first world country, your carbon footprint goes up dozens of times.
You end up consuming far more resources.
You get your free housing.
You get your free MacBook Air.
You get your free money.
You get your free health care.
All of this consumes massive amounts of resources, so you absolutely want to stop mass migration, or really migration at all, from the third world to the first world.
It's just 12 years, you know, until we can get a handle on this kind of stuff, right?
So, and the UN, of course, if you ever, if you did watch my video on the United Nations and their global migration compact, I mean, it's the UN, so you can't expect any consistency except in banning DDT and killing 60 million people as a result.
But if the United Nations is so terrified of global warming, then clearly they should put a halt on human migration, because people can live in their own countries.
But if everybody piles into the first world, Mother Nature gets destroyed, and that's it.
You can't have both in a rational universe.
Okay, you're in the UN, so you're not in a rational universe.
But you can't have both in any rational universe.
You would have to say, well, if we're really, really worried about carbon emissions, we have to stop migration.
But no, they want massive migration and they want massive taxation and regulation to control climate change.
These two are complete opposites.
And, you know, there was a big debate.
Way back in the day.
I guess the advantage of being slightly older than 29.
But there was a big debate back in the day among environmentalist groups like, should we stop immigration?
Should we oppose immigration?
And of course, the magic two-syllable word, racist, was used.
And of course, then everybody had to shut up and go along with it.
And there was some, at least one that I can think of.
You can look it up.
It was An environmentalist group that took a huge amount of money from benefactors in return for never bringing up immigration.
So that's number one.
The second thing, of course, if you care about climate change and if you care about the environment, as we all do, then you have to crush government spending immediately.
Immediately!
Because government spending, unfunded liabilities, and debt in particular, right?
Debt is the consumption of future resources in the present, right?
So, if you go a hundred billion dollars in debt, that means you spend a hundred billion dollars that you don't have, which means you've consumed a hundred billion dollars worth of nature's scarce resources and left less for the future, right?
So, when it comes to this, she should say, you know, hey, you know, I love people south of the border, but, you know, sorry guys, for the sake of saving Gaia, for the sake of Saving Mother Earth for the sake of ensuring that we have any kind of habitable planet for future generations.
You guys got to stay south of the border.
We're going to build this wall.
We're going to build this wall because people are pouring in, using huge amounts of extra resources.
But it's nothing to do with that, right?
It's nothing to do with that.
I mean, they're just trying to figure out as much as humanly possible that they can tax.
And if you can tax energy, fantastic.
Now, of course, the primary greenhouse gas component ninety percent sometimes it's been rated as high as ninety five percent the very highest greenhouse gas component in the atmosphere is water vapor Right, so water vapor.
You've got 400 odd parts per billion of carbon dioxide, but you have 90 to 95 percent of the greenhouse gas componentry is water vapor.
Now, of course, they can't really classify water vapor as a pollutant.
They can classify CO2 as a pollutant, although it's actually plant food, but that is the reality that It's just it's about taxation and it's about control.
So let's hear what else she has to say.
And like this is the war.
This is our World War Two.
Again, it gives a lot of bets of, this is our World War II.
But okay, so this is World War II.
This is a massive effort to prevent the worst possible catastrophe from overtaking the planet.
This is World War II.
Nothing should be spared in terms of human effort.
World War II slaughtered, what, 40, 50 million people.
Countries like Germany and Japan were bombed from end To end, and so, boy, people were rationed.
It was, like, incredible, the amount of sacrifice.
Like, when I grew up in London, England, you'd regularly walk down the street and you'd see, in front of these buildings, there'd be these low walls and there'd be all these holes in them.
You'd say, I remember asking, what are those holes?
My mom said, I remember very clearly, my mom, you know, she grew up in Germany in the war, so it was a bad time for her.
But my mom said, That's where they used to have the railings and they pulled them all out to make airplanes and bombs and bullets.
They pulled all the railings out and that's why they're just holes left in the ground.
So, no amount of sacrifice should be too great in order to combat global warming.
Because it's our World War II, right?
Men got drafted, men got their heads blown off, right?
Bodies scattered all across the world.
So what you would clearly want to do is you would clearly want to end the welfare state because the welfare state, you see, pays women to have children.
And so you would definitely want to end the welfare state in order to, well first of all, you can control immigration by ending the welfare state because I imagine 90% of immigration will absolutely collapse if there's no welfare state to get to, right?
You can see all of these people coming from the Middle East, they go through all of these countries that are perfectly safe havens just to get to the countries that have the highest welfare benefits.
And so, you simply get rid of the welfare state, and then you control immigration, don't even have to change the laws, and you say, wow, that's going to be tough for women.
Yeah, it is going to be tough for women.
For sure, it's going to be tough for a lot of people.
And, you know, in World War II, funny story, not funny story, it was really, really tough for men in World War II because, as I mentioned, they got drafted, they got their heads blown off, they were separated, they were traumatized.
I mean, it was absolutely wretched what happened.
So in this particular instance, right, so women say that, you know, they're empowered, they're strong, equal to a man, right?
And they're ready to stand alongside men in society.
Okay, well, so I guess Roughly speaking, for about the last hundred and fifty thousand years or so.
A hundred and fifty thousand, maybe forty thousand or so for East Asians and Whites.
Tens of thousands of years, let's say.
So for tens of thousands of years, men have had to go to war.
And women didn't.
And if they were conquered, women could, well, women could always land on their backs, right?
For tens of thousands of years, it's men who have had to make the sacrifice in order to save civilization, to save societies, to save the world that women and children live in.
And now, once, once in human history, women are going to have to make the sacrifice.
Now what is that sacrifice?
Do they have to get drafted?
Do they have to go and get their heads blown off?
Do they have to get traumatized?
Any of this sort of stuff?
No.
No, they have to find a way to survive without massive government handouts.
That means that they can Get a man.
That means they can double up or triple up.
That means that they can all get together, they can watch each other's kids while people go off to work, and it can be handled, it can be managed, right?
Because it's World War II!
And now, finally, women get to take their side of the sacrifice relative to what men have had to do all the way throughout human history, so... Of course, it's not going to happen.
But, logically, it should be a conversation, right?
So what does she say?
And I think for younger people, we're looking at this and we're like, how are we saying let's take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year?
How are we saying let's take it easy?
I don't know what she's referring to, but I assume it's something to do because she talks about the justice system, something to do with dying in custody or something like that.
And it's like, yeah, well, I mean, tens of thousands of Americans died from Right?
Suicide, opioid crisis, and all these kinds of things, right?
Absolutely wretched, and a lot of that has to do with this very poor southern border where a huge amount of drugs come charging across.
So again, if you're really, really concerned about that, but anyway, so... When the Nth person has just died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system, how... Right, so she's talking... Tom's the black fellow, right?
So naturally she has to talk about this cruel and unjust criminal justice system and this is all the way back to the standard talking point on the left which is because blacks and hispanics get arrested more than whites and east asians and jews then it must be racist and it's like no No, there's no data to support that.
In fact, all the data supports that the reality is that blacks and Hispanics commit a huge amount more crime than East Asians and Jews.
And this is true of blacks all over the world.
Blacks commit huge amounts more crime.
You know, whether like Haiti, they've been out of colonialism for hundreds and hundreds of years, or South Africa, the rape capital of the world, or Detroit, or Chicago, like wherever.
You have a substantial black population, you have massive amounts of crime.
For reasons I've gone into, you can check out my presentation on the truth about crime.
And so there's this, you know, partly I think it's these IQ differences, partly there's a toxic culture, the single motherhood, three quarters of blacks being raised in single, being born to unmarried women.
And this used to be much, much lower back in the 1940s and the 1950s, even earlier.
So it's not the result of racism unless you're going to say there was less racism back then.
And so you have to make this talking point that every single time there's a disparity in outcomes between groups, it is the result of bigotry.
And it's not true.
Blacks are arrested at particular proportions that match almost perfectly to victim crime reports, right?
I mean, you wouldn't sit there and be raped by some black guy and then say, oh, no, no, it was a white guy who did it.
I'll be raped by some East Asian guy, should that ever happen, and say, no, no, no, it was a Hispanic who did it, right?
I mean, because it wouldn't make any sense and that's not – wouldn't be – if you're going to pursue the justice, you want to see the guy caught.
So the last thing you're going to do is start lying about race because you're not going to get caught, right?
So, yeah, but she has to say it's this unjust system, right?
No, the system is, you know, it's tragic, right?
I mean, a third of young black men are somewhere in the justice system that's more than a graduated from college, and there's some stuff that can be done about it, like, you know, peaceful parenting and black dads staying together, but all that has to do with ending the welfare state, but she has to say this kind of stuff because you can't tell the truth.
Boy, you ever want to find out how terrible The educational system is in the West and how much people are addicted to lying to themselves.
Just bring up some uncomfortable truths as I've been doing on Twitter.
You should follow my Twitter account.
I've really stepped it up a smidge.
I'll put the link below.
So let's go on.
Take it easy when the America that we're living in today is so dystopian with people sleeping in their cars that they can work a second job without health care.
Ah, okay.
So yes, dystopian.
It's interesting.
So if America is dystopian, then we should keep people from moving to America, particularly if America is a racist country, then we should certainly prevent non-whites from coming to America because it's so racist.
Like they may be fooled into thinking it's a good country, but she knows, right?
And everybody knows who's on that side of the fence, that America is this horrible, racist white privileged white supremacist society and therefore you know just for the sake of of kindness we should make sure that people uh... don't get exposed to that who aren't white or or east asian say so that is something that she talks about and the other thing too let's just go back here for a sec living in today is so dystopian with people sleeping in their cars so dystopian right?
okay so who educates everyone in america it's so weird to me You know, as somebody who looks at things rationally, it's so weird to me that people are constantly saying, oh, America this and the West that and so on.
And it's like, well, who gets to educate the children for 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 years just from sort of pre-K or daycare all the way up to high school and so on, right?
Who gets 10 to 15 years or so to educate the children?
And if the society is dysfunctional, If the society is dysfunctional, then it must have something to do with the education.
In which case, we should really review the educational system and look back to what worked.
And what worked was much cheaper and better educational systems in the past where you could get educated for fifty to a hundred dollars in contemporary money.
In like today's currency, fifty to a hundred dollars a year.
Kids would teach each other and they would learn skills from those above and pass those skills down because you know, the way that you really know something is when you can teach it to someone.
That's when you really know that you know it.
So there were much, much better schools in the past.
Massachusetts, I think, had a 98% literacy rate before the introduction of government schools.
And, you know, there were no government schools when Dickens was popular, when Shakespeare, well, Dickens, I guess it was just coming in, but there were still mostly teachers in the private school system or the free market system.
There were no government schools when, or very few, very little government education when Shakespeare was very popular, right?
And people say, ah, well, Shakespeare went to government schools.
It's like, yeah, but only 12 weeks a year.
It wasn't very much.
So it's weird to me that people say, oh, this is big problems with America.
And they never say, so we've really got to revisit this educational system.
We've really got to just start it from scratch.
It's a terrible system.
It always passed right over that whole educational system.
And of course, right, because Democrats get their money from teachers' unions, right?
So they don't want to mess with the educational system.
So they'll blame, you know, white racism.
They can work a second job without health care and we're told to settle down.
I don't, it's a... Who's telling anyone to settle down?
I mean, it's kind of weird to me.
It's a fundamental separation between, you know, that fierce urgency of now, the why we can't wait.
Ah yes, the fierce urgency of now.
That is fascinating and you see that so much.
There's a whole branch and sometimes it seems to be just about all of moral philosophy called, you can refer to it as the ethics of emergencies.
You know, like you're in a lifeboat and, you know, like you don't have enough water for everyone or, you know, one I did years ago.
There's a guy hanging off a lamppost.
Can he kick in your window to save his life rather than fall to the ground or Is it okay to steal if your children are starving?
Can you steal a loaf of bread?
Is that moral?
And so ethics, when you combine ethics with emergencies, ethical standards just dissolve, right?
Because nobody's going to sit there and say, well, I'm going to respect the property rights of the baker rather than steal a loaf of bread to feed my starving child who will otherwise die, right?
Of course, right?
What they do is they try and create all these emergencies so that you will say, well, human life trumps property rights, therefore a welfare state is good, right?
So if they can keep you in a state of perpetual panic, ooga booga, perpetual panic, then you're going to give up your moral standards, right?
There are, you know, as I say, there are no atheists in foxholes, but the ethical reasoned considerations tend to fall by the wayside in emergencies, which is why They're constantly summoning these undead giant golem hobgoblins from hell to loom over you and scare the living bejesus out of you.
We only have... It's not a great Queen song.
Flash!
But in general, we only have 14 hours to save the earth or whatever.
So it's like, we only have 12 years to save the earth.
What are you talking about property rights?
It's an emergency!
We don't have time!
They want to keep you in a state of perpetual panic so that you don't sit there and reason things through.
Because for the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change scenario to be true and valid and to end up with this massive amount of government control then the increase in CO2 that's been observable since the 18th century would have to A. be primarily caused by human beings B. would have to be catastrophic
C, would have to be remediable in some manner, and D, the government would have to be the very best and only way to do it.
And, of course, governments don't care about the future.
If governments cared about the future, we wouldn't have a national debt.
Of course, if governments cared about the future, there'd be honest conversations about immigration, which there isn't.
So, that... All those things have to be true in order for you to want a government program to control CO2, right?
I mean, the CO2 is rising, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Nobody disputes that who's got any brains about the matter.
But, is it primarily human caused?
Can it, like, is it catastrophic?
Can it be remediated?
And is the government the very best vehicle for doing that?
All of those things have to be true in order for you to support.
But they don't.
They just say, Doom!
Government!
I mean, come on.
This is crazy stuff.
So anyway, let's just listen for a minute or two more.
King spoke of that at some point, these chronic realities do reach a breaking point.
And I think for our generation, it's reached that.
And I wish I didn't have to be, you know, doing every post.
But sometimes I just feel like people aren't being held accountable.
Ah, yes.
Okay, so then, so you go from generic problem to generic positive thing, like, you know, holding people accountable.
Now, if it comes to holding people accountable, I mean, it's insane, what they're talking about.
The Paris Climate Accord is talking about spending a hundred, not billion, a hundred trillion dollars to affect the worldwide temperature by 2100 by a tiny fraction of a percent, one percent, by a tiny fraction of one degree.
A hundred trillion dollars.
Now, who's accountable?
When there was a huge pause in global warming that no model predicted and no model can explain, who was held accountable?
If she fails to provide what she wants, who is held accountable?
How can someone dare to stand up there in the government and say people have to be held accountable?
People in the government are never held accountable.
Never held accountable.
I mean look at George Bush.
The architect of the invasion of Iraq that killed about half a million Iraqis, destabilized the region, unleashed ISIS, and there has been, in Fallujah they used such horrible weapons that there had been permanent genetic corruption.
Like in Vietnam!
JFK got him in.
LBJ kept it going.
Nixon ended it.
And there are still birth defects from Agent Orange and other horrible weaponry in Vietnam decades and decades and decades after the end of the war.
Who is held accountable?
No one.
No one is held accountable.
The only way leaders are held accountable is if other leaders invade them and they get put on trial or they kill themselves.
If you look at Libya, Completely destroyed.
From a fairly functioning, though brutal obviously, society, fairly functioning society to just complete chaos, warlords, open air slave markets, you name it.
That was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Who's held accountable?
Nobody's held accountable.
So what is she talking about that has something to do with holding people accountable?
Think of the environmental damage that the Iraq war and the destruction of Libya and the destruction of Syria has engendered.
Who's being held accountable?
No one.
It's just, I don't know, when people start talking about holding people accountable, they don't understand how government works.
If anybody wanted to be held accountable, like I want to be held accountable, so I don't work in the government.
I work for you.
And until we all start pitching in and holding people accountable, I'm just gonna let them have it.
How are you going to hold people accountable, Alex?
How?
How are you going to hold people in government accountable?
I don't know what any of this means.
Like, once we understand, like... I mean, just look at the last hundred years.
Just look at the last hundred years.
Governments gained control.
100 plus, right?
Gained control of the currency.
Can print whatever money they want.
There was the First World War.
There was the Spanish Flu, which killed more people than the First World War did and was spread by returning soldiers to a weakened population.
There was the massive inflationary boom driven up By the Federal Reserve in America, the stock market speculation and insanity of the 1920s, there was a giant crash in 1929.
The Great Depression lasted for 13 years until the West slid into the most gruesome war in human history, the Second World War.
After that, there was the Cold War, there was the Korean War, there was the Vietnam War, there was the Welfare State, there was stagflation in the 70s, there was a gas crisis.
There was the boom and bust of the tech sector, there was the first invasion of Kuwait, and then there was the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, 9-11, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, it just goes on and on.
Then the housing market crashed in 2007 to 2008.
America has been at war for virtually all of its history.
This is a country with giant oceans to the east and west and friendly neighbors to the north and south, if you discount the cannibals in Saskatchewan.
So it's a terrible way to organize a society.
It's a terrible way to organize a society.
We need more freedom.
We need more voluntarism.
We need more choice in our lives.
We're never going to get that.
And this grinning person who's blathering on about holding people accountable and it's our World War II and the world's going to end in 12 years.
