How It’s Being Done . . . And Why

Guest Post by Eric Peters

By making “IC” cars impossible – legislatively – electric cars are to be made inevitable. In this way, the practical and functional deficits of EVs become irrelevances. Just as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are irrelevant as a practical and functional matter.

The commonalities – the tactics – are interesting.

Naturally, they emanate from the same place.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

In the case of the Fourth Amendment, the government simply decreed it had a “compelling interest” to override it at will, whenever it felt like doing so. The amendment’s crystal clear prohibition of any unreasonable search, absent probable cause wasn’t denied. It was simply swept away because it was in the way . . . of exactly the police state tactics those prohibitions were enshrined to forbid.

The EV Fantasy

Similarly, there is now a “compelling interest” to force-feed electric and automated cars to the public, which hasn’t asked for them. The analog of the Fourth Amendment impediment is the free market, which exists to prevent exactly such force-feeding (and profiteering, which always attends the funnel in the mouth, with the gun pointed at the victim’s temple).

Thus, the free market must be suppressed. In its place, a command economy – Mussolini (or Goring) style. The edicts about what shall be manufactured are decreed; price signals become . . . irrelevant. It is probably only a matter of a handful of years before there is an official Five Year Plan – complete with pronouncements about the overfulfillment thereof.

Electric cars have to be force-fed because there are not enough takers on the merits. It’s a simple statement of fact; no elaboration needed. If this were not so, the force-feeding wouldn’t be necessary. No one puts a gun to people’s heads to buy Starbucks coffee or for that matter, Toyota Corollas –  because it’s not necessary. They sell on the merits.

EVs don’t.   

Coming soon. . .

It is a bitter pill for their proselytizers – and profiteers – to swallow. In a moral universe, they’d go back to the drawing board, come up with something that could sell on the merits. But that has proved not possible thus far, which drives the proselytizers batty and fails to line the pockets of the profiteers (which includes but is by no means limited to Our Friend Elon).

Thus, the legislative and regulatory attempts to get rid of IC-engined cars. If you can’t build a better mousetrap, illegalize your competitions’ mousetrap.

They tried using emissions regs – but that failed because IC-engined cars got clean. Nearly “zero emissions” clean. That is, almost electric car clean. Very possibly, cleaner in the aggregate than electric cars – which haven’t got tailpipes but do have smokestacks. The government hasn’t – and never will – tally all the emissions produced by electric cars. Unless, of course, they become functionally and economically viable – at which point it will. But that is another story, saved for later.

And so, the government changed the rules. Better example, pulled away the football, Lucy-style, that Charlie Brown was just on the verge of kicking through the goalposts.

Carbon dioxide became a “pollutant.”

Almost at once – and as one – the media orchestra (which is funded by the same philanthropy) began to play the specified tune. It happened in much the same way that – if you were there and recall – the tune very suddenly changed from a libretto about Afghanistan to eructations about Iraq. It seemed very odd – to those plagued by a capacity for discernment, who knew that Afghanistan was one country (and home, apparently, to “enemies of freedom” who’d attacked the U.S.) and Iraq another – filled with people who had nothing to do with it.

No matter. Switch gears. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Eurasia is our ally – and always has been.

Just so, with C02.

It relies ons similar stupefaction – and a reflexive capacity to accept the New Story.

LIke the Iraqis, who played no role in the attacks of 911, C02 plays no role in the problems heretofore attributed to internal combustion, such as smog and respiratory problems. But just as there was a predetermined agenda to “regime change” Iraq, which the 911 attacks provided the necessary hysteria to set in motion,  so also the conflation of inert, environmentally inoffensive C02 with things like carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons and so on.

Like the “war on terror,” the war on carbon dioxide is a strategically brilliant tactic because it’s impossible to define and just as impossible to win. Both are forever wars which provide an endless pretext for any affront the government cares to rain down upon us.    

Eyes should be opening now, even if only a few. It was never about “the environment.” If it had been, there would have been a happy press conference about ten years ago at which a beaming EPA administrator would have said, in effect, mission accomplished – and let’s move on to other things.

This might even include electric cars, assuming they can ever be made economically sensible and practically plausible. There is always a market for a better mousetrap. The problem is the EV isn’t it – and may never be.

And if it ever, by some miracle of chemistry or physics, becomes economically sensible and practically plausible, it will at exactly that moment become a problem. The orchestra’s tune will change again. As quickly as the Tele-Promp-Ter switched from Afghanistan to Iraq, we will begin to have stories about all the Bad Things coming out of the smokestacks that power electric cars. The “free” electricity now available at government-sponsored Fast Charger stations won’t be anymore.

Because the point of the exercise isn’t a better mousetrap, or  even “clean air.”

It is shoring up the matrix, maintaining the integrity of the pyramid  . . . with guess who at the apex and the rest of us you know where.

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
BB

Don’t think this could ever happened without the building of about a 100 more Nuclear power plants which the Leftist Progressives would plug up in the courts forever.
Just read an article a couple days ago stating that the power grid would Collapse overnight in California with the induction of just hundred thousand EVs in California .Think about that .Well over 30 Million people live in California. Without the building of more power plants the nation’s power grid could never support the EV market.

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

We have one that can think. GET HIM!

Aquapura
Aquapura

Agreed that the grid cannot support a broad adoption of EV’s. At most I think the market is 25% of the autos – and I’d bet the greenies wouldn’t deny that, at least in private. That being said my gripe with Mr. Peter’s is he lets his own bias cloud the facts. What he misses is that there is an actual market for EV’s and nobody is being forced to buy a Tesla or equivalent, far from it. People are voting with their dollars (a LOT of dollars too) and for the most part they quite like EV’s. I don’t own one but have driven a few and let me say, they go like a raped ape. 100% torque cannot be beat. For my commute – a mere 5 miles and a parking garage with charging capabilities – I’m a perfect mark for one of these cars. Should be price ever come down to reasonable I’d strongly consider. Still would keep a gas burner in the garage for long trips, etc. but there is a real time and place where electric makes sense. And if you consider hybrid vehicles Toyota has MILLIONS of examples where the public is saying YES to electric assisted vehicles.

I’m appreciative of the thesis but honestly there has been no free market in autos in my lifetime. If there was Chrysler would’ve gone kaput in the 80’s and GM in the 00’s. Tesla wouldn’t exist either – but I have no doubt someone would still be making an EV today and selling them for $100k just like Tesla is.

c1ue
c1ue

Wrong in several counts:
1) Auto makers are forced to buy electric car (credits) in California. California’s CARB mandated that a certain percentage of all cars sold by each auto maker be “green” – which is why Tesla’s only profitable division is the one that sells these credits to other auto makers
2) There are massive subsidies on electric vehicles – on the manufacturing side (see the loans and grants given to Tesla) to the consumer side (tax credits, car pool stickers allowing rich Tesla drivers to drive in the carpool lane, solo). In Colorado, the credits were tens of thousands of dollars of income protected.

Trapped in Portlandia
Trapped in Portlandia

I would love to own and drive an electric car. Fast acceleration, low fuel costs, and an end to climate change (well maybe not). But other than for my daily commute and trips to the grocery store they are useless.

Go to Home Depot for some plywood, I’ll just take my electric pickup. Oh wait, it doesn’t exist.

A trip to the coast for the weekend. Oops, too far. Go skiing in the mountains for the day. Shit, too far again!

How about a weekend in Seattle. I better fly because 180 miles is too far.

Until the batteries can get you about 8-10 hours of driving, which is about how long a person wants to drive before taking a break or nap, electric cars are not practical for public.

But then again, when did our government ever care about the public.

unit472/
unit472/

Pre EV mania, Europe decided ‘clean diesel’ was the ‘future’ for their motoring public and the industry went along and sold diesel engines to their customers. Lots of them. Now the EU authorities want to get rid of them as they are not so clean.

Fortunately, Americans were a lot more suspicious about diesel cars. A big diesel motor was something for a Peterbilt, heavy machinery or a yacht, not a passenger car. As our auto industry didn’t offer many diesel engines our government avoided the ‘diesel debacle’ now taking place in Europe.

Lets hope those of us not under the domination of Jerry Brown’s solar powered mind will also escape the European’s next debacle- the EV mandate.

Dutchman
Dutchman

Old truckers never die – they just get a new Peter-built.

Fulton

Wrong answer on diesel. My Chevy Cruz gets 56-63 mph on the highway. Plus, I will take my finger, rub the inside of the tailpipe, and then suck that finger. Don’t try this with a hybrid, let alone a conventional gasoline car…

Truther
Truther

It all boils down to the economy. The debt levels are so high they need inflation to pay off old debt with new dollars. Basic economics 101 people. Forcing people into very high maintenance cost EV makes money be spent on repairs. Also limiting miles and duration forces more hotel stays and stops where they spend more money. They cannot tax much more without revolt so they make laws to make you spend more. Spending causes money flow. When money flows its taxed. It can only be taxed if it can be tracked that is why they are allowing crytocurrencies. They will crash the bitcoin and others causing massive mistrust then govts will launch their govt backed crypto until making cash illegal. Then we are doomed as real slaves.

Barney
Barney

Limiting your mobility is the goobermint dicktasterships wet dream, think Agenda 21 aka the hunger games.

mike
mike
GaryD
GaryD

I’ll take the Edsel …

greg

What this whole thing misses is just how bad climate change is going to get. Or is this just some stupid denier website?

Robert Bolman
Robert Bolman

Two fallacies in the article:
1) If the true environmental & social costs of fossil fuel use were accounted for, market forces would love EV’s.
2) While CO2 in-and-of-itself is not a toxin, dramatically increasing the percentage of it in the atmosphere is a big mistake if you believe that the oceans shouldn’t rise by multiple feet this century.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading