In Europe, you will often hear savvy politicians refer to Green Party politicians as "watermelons". The reason is that even though they may be 'green' ecologists outside, these leftists are secretly communist red if you look under the surface.
They usually resort to this subterfuge because environmentalism is more popular than Marxism. A former East German Communist is inevitably unpopular, but perhaps less rehabilitated as an amateur of renewable energy.
The case of Alexandria representative Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, is different in that she's openly proclaimed socialist in a country with a well-founded historical aversion to such foreign ideologies. But his big political initiative, the $ 93 trillion Green New Deal, was still presented as a legitimate environmental idea. We were supposed to try to save the world from imminent destruction. As Ocasio-Cortez says, "We think the world will end in 12 years if we do not deal with climate change."
It would then make us think that it's a conversation about science. We need the Green New Deal, otherwise humanity is doomed. But now we know a lot more about this proposal and it seems that this is not the case at all for the Green New Deal.
His chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti (the brain and the money behind his political operation since his primary victory in 2018), leaked an involuntarily brutal commentary in the Washington Post that the Green New Deal was not only based on the science of climate change, but that it was not even conceived in the spirit of climate change. "[I]It was not at all a question of climate at the origin, "he said.
In other words, it was not that they were looking for a way to save the world, but they just happened to find a way that implied promises of full employment, the renovation of millions of people. Buildings, income for those who did not want to work, the high-speed passenger train, and the reduction of air travel and carnivores. It's precisely upside down. The Green New Deal was born because Chakrabarti wanted to turn the US economy into something more primitive, and environmentalism seemed like the best excuse to do it.
Think of the Green New Deal as an updated (and hopefully less lethal) version of the "Zero Year" concept. The Americans will be reassigned under a new socialist order to tasks respectful of the environment. Saving the planet is not the goal of the Green Green New Deal, but rather its excuse: the common goal around which we are all united to pursue the deindustrialized and utopian America of tomorrow.
And we need this utopian socialist society because … wait, why exactly? Because of the despotic cruelty of our tsar and the extreme poverty of his subjects recently reduced to slavery? Because no peasant owns land in our impoverished feudal society?
That does not seem right, is not it?
The problem may be that workers' wages have reached unprecedented highs and unemployment is at its lowest level. Or maybe it's because our country is so poor and deprived of opportunities that anyone who can walk or even crawl is literally at risk of living and going through deserts to get here.
Well. We now see why the Green New Deal has been sold as an environmental bill and, in general, why the "green" part of the watermelon is still kept on the outside. Like all socialist schemas, Chakrabarti's "zero year" is the answer to a question no one asks and no one would ever ask.
That is why the attention-grabbing socialists, such as Ocasio-Cortez, should not be taken seriously as decision-makers and we should not listen to those who claim that the world will end unless immediately pass my bill.