Climate change, the latest fad of the Global Left, is back in the news; thanks to a UN summit on the subject. In that summit, the mainstream media has extended ridiculously disproportionate coverage to a Swedish teenager named Greta Thunberg, whose theatricals during one particular scripted speech, as well as at the time of the US President Donald Trump’s arrival at the same summit venue, are currently taking the internet by the storm. A hashtag has promptly and duly been scribbled from her speech: “#HowDareYou”, which is currently doing the rounds on the Internet. Tweets, retweets, memes, podcasts, and YouTube video commentaries are pouring in by the second. Some of these depict Thunberg glaring at President Trump, something that should have been regarded as an impertinence for a public figure like her, especially because it was done in the public – on camera – but then people on the Left are seldom known for their adherence to the proprieties. Rather, this impudent act by the teenager has been hailed by the Global Left as some kind of divine judgment on Trump, whom the Global Left likes to paint as evil incarnate. ‘Divine’, because in this case the scornful judgment is coming from a child, who, we are told, has also had the misfortune of suffering from Asperger’s Disorder. Just like the Romantics, the Global Left would have us believe that anything that comes out from the mouth of either a child or a differently abled individual, must be true because their souls are untainted, and they are untainted because they are naïve – that is, innocent, and consequently far more closer to nature; and anyone who is naïve, must also be pure. In fact, this incident is a textbook example of the Global Left’s Romantic glorification of innocence, a page taken out of left-leaning, Rousseau-worshipping, revolution-craving Romantic poets like P.B. Shelley, who idolised the bloodthirsty violence of the French Revolution (Hancock, 1899) with its lofty ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity in order to ‘get back to nature’ and establish a more primitive social organisation because they fancied it to be untainted, or at least less tainted, with greed and therefore, more just and equitable. Or it can be seen as the Global Left’s desperation to remain politically and socially relevant at a time when more and more people are becoming aware (thanks to the Internet) of the historical crimes of the communist regimes, committed and justified in the name of the same utopian ideals of revolution for a perfectly just and equitable society, which caused around a hundred million deaths across China, USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam East Europe, Africa and India (Courtois et al, 1997). Many young men and women, in the years after the advent of the Internet, have become disillusioned with Leftist revolutionary vision, and they have called the bluff of Leftist political parties across the globe. This trend has become particularly apparent in the large democracies like India, USA and Canada. So the frustration and the resultant desperation of the Global Leftist forces is quite understandable.
In either case, it’s not very nice on the part of the Global Left to use a minor girl and/or a differently abled individual in order to propagate its political agenda. It is unethical to the core, it is morally reprehensible.
But what is that political agenda? And why is young Thunberg, of all people, stealing all the limelight from a show which was graced by the presence of a number of heads of states as well as leaders from various other fields? Because, presently, the said teenager happens to be the chosen poster-girl of the Global Left, on both sides of the Atlantic, in the latter’s massive propaganda campaign to block out all other issues of alarming import from the media (like global jihadi terrorism or mass illegal immigration), by making an awful din with climate change issues. It’s a simple game of power, which lies at the core of the Left’s understanding of the world and human relations. Having established a disproportionately bigger sway over the world’s media outlets in comparison with the Right and the Centre-Right, the Left has for some time been enjoying an undue advantage of getting a huge head-start at setting off its pet narratives on any and all issues. Hence it is only natural that they would try to dominate the narrative with an issue of their choice, so as not to let the atrocities of Jihadis and Radical Leftists come to the fore.
Celebrities are never too far behind when there is something – anything – with a potential to be turned into an obsession in and through the media. They will jump on the bandwagon to provide more steam to their celebrityhood; for these insecure souls have their own necessities of remaining in the limelight, remaining relevant. This brings people like Prince Harry into the picture. Prince Harry is currently visiting various countries in the continent of Africa to preach some very noble ideals like eradication of poverty, de-militarisation of conflict-ridden areas, and last but not the least, awareness for climate change. Interestingly, the continent of Africa, along with the Indian Subcontinent, happens to be one of the two places on the planet that were most brutally colonised, oppressed and exploited economically, physically, intellectually and, above all, spiritually by the European nations, the British being the foremost of them all. Despite that, the irony of the symbols of British colonialism – the members of the Royal Family – campaigning for justice and equality and safeguarding the planet with all its exhaustible resources, is something that we have come to tolerate with sagacious detachment, with a dash of humour. In such a state of affairs, the Duke of Sussex has declared that he was not going to have more than two children, for, as he claimed, he is very concerned about the future of the planet.
Prince Harry and the British Royalty are idolised by many patriotic British citizens, and especially those from England. Prince Harry’s mother, the late Princess Diana, was a darling of the common Brits, many of whom harbour a sympathetic soft-corner for the two motherless princes that Diana had left behind. The weddings of each of these princes, and especially that of Prince Harry, which took place last year amid great pomp and royal celebrations, as also the advent of children in each of these cases, were met with great anticipation and enthusiasm among the common folks of UK. Therefore it is natural that any strong stance taken by these popular figures will have a good deal of impact upon the masses in that country. Now the statement about the number of children that he prefers has come from the Prince at a time when England and Wales have recorded an all-time low birth-rate, which has progressively dwindled in the last six decades following the Second World War and the consequent dismantling of the British Empire with the colonies gaining independence. In the postcolonial era, the dwindling birth-rate of native Brits has met with an upsurge of immigrants from the erstwhile colonies, which has reached its peak in the last three decades in the post-9/11 years, especially from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, North Africa and the Middle-East. And in this, the UK is not alone; Germany, France, and even the US – to a certain extent – are all looking at the face of similar demographic doom. These nations are fast losing their national character; respect for rule of law and democracy are gradually giving way to Sharia. The UK has been compelled into taking the extreme step of Brexit when the final push came in the form of a threat of receiving many more thousands of unassimilated immigrants. As an aftermath of the Syrian crisis, the flood of immigrants into Europe was sought to be equally divided by the European Union among its member countries. It was then that the proud citizens of the UK voted to leave the EU in a 2016 referendum. The political Left in the UK, along with the left-leaning judiciary of that country, has since spared no effort to nullify this clear mandate of the majority of the British people to exit the EU in order to preserve their national characteristics and avoid the chaos that has descended upon the streets of France, Germany and Italy. By now, the demography of the UK has changed irreversibly, and for the worse. Its political dispensation has seen a rising number of those infiltrating into its ranks, that have their allegiance to Sharia first, and then everything else. They do not swear to live “For King and Country”, instead they work diligently for fulfilling the goal of establishing a religious empire through Global Jihad. Streets of London, Birmingham and Luton have been witnessing open demonstrations on its streets demanding Sharia law. Recently the Indian Embassy in London has been vandalised on two separate occasions by frenzied Pakistan-supporting mobs, with hardly any exemplary consequences for the perpetrators. Britain has descended into such chaos because there are several key players in its politics who sympathise with the cause of Global Jihad. One of the “British Muslim of the Year” nominees has been caught on camera inciting a mob for jihad. Unfortunately, the Labour Party, the biggest Left-leaning political party in the UK, has encouraged these radical elements to grow and take up key positions both within the party ranks and in crucial elected offices. In this context, Prince Harry’s pledge of having “a maximum of two children” is not just misplaced, it is a downright disgrace for any leader of the British society, which is facing a national crisis. Many British citizens look up to public figures like him, especially the young. The Duke of Sussex is placing a false ideal before them. To make things worse, hardly any critical voice so far has been heard against this pledge, made in the name of climate change awareness. But then, the British nation has probably lost its spirit. For if it was still alive and kicking, it would have denounced such leaders – just as it had deposed a monarch, namely James II, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – for betraying its national character, for betraying its civilisation.
It should be noted that the entity which I have called the ‘Global Left’ is by no means a homogenous unit; on the other hand it is a rather diverse body consisting of various institutions and groups, each focusing on a specific set of issues. Neither is the Global Left a new phenomenon; in fact the Left-leaning powers had started collaborating and negotiating during the lifetime of Karl Marx himself, by constituting what is commonly known as the First International in the early 1860s. Since then the international collaborations have evolved to take up newer strategies and organisational make-up. In the present context, it has emerged with the greatest diversity that it could boast of in its entire history. It has become ubiquitous, and at the same time its functionaries as well as their methods are most cleverly disguised. It has managed to get the largest representation in the academia, in media, and among artists; by systematically suppressing and throwing its opponents out of those institutions to the detriment of democracy and diversity of opinions. To pick an example, the mainstream media (or MSM in short), in the global context, is itself a vital organ of the Global Left. News establishments like the CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Al Jazeera have allowed themselves to turn into the spokespersons of the Global Left and their vicious ally, the Jihadis. This ‘unity in diversity’ only adds to the strength of the Global Left; it helps transform the latter into a multi-pronged attack on valuable institutions like family, free society, and civilization, putting on a mask of human rights crusaders on the Global Left that blankets their horrible past and present crimes.
Of course climate change is a real issue, of that there is hardly any doubt. In recent decades the effects of changing trends in the climate are being felt at almost every corner of the planet, either in the form of a drastic rise in average temperature and sea level, or in the form of erratic weather patterns and more frequent weather-induced natural disasters. But even that does not in any way warrant the deliberate, mischievous highlighting of climate change issues by the Left-leaning media at the cost of other equally, if not more, alarming issues presently afflicting civilized human settlements across the globe. We term it ‘mischievous’ because the attempt to drown the voice of the multitudes affected by various manifestations of global jihad, or radical Islamic terrorism, as also by the tyrannies of authoritarian leftist regimes, smacks of naked mischief on the part of the Left, who are ever so quick to accuse others of ‘intolerance’. Surprisingly, these multitudes are not located in some distant, inaccessible continent; rather they come from reasonably well-to-do countries, cities and towns – the very centres from where the global MSM outlets function. They come from the major cities of Europe, like London, Paris and Rome; they come from the once picturesque and prosperous English and German countryside and towns; they walk the well-maintained streets of New Delhi, Chicago, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bangkok, and Beijing – to cite just a few prominent names among these centres. In all of these places, there is a war going on. Sometimes the war is visible to the naked eye; like when in early July a small Hindu neighbourhood in Central New Delhi saw fanatic Muslim mobs attacking them – destroying their temple, looting valuables from the same, beating men and children – all because one of their brethren had a petty quarrel over car parking with one of the . It is visible in Kashmir – where in February this year a jihadi terrorist blew himself up in Pulwama, murdering no less than 40 Indian security personnel. Sometimes the terrible noise of this war is not audible – like in the towns and provinces of China, from where no news of the countless atrocities and exploitations of the communist regime is allowed to emerge into the outside world without first going through state censorship. Sometimes the war is not so visible – it is waged by surreptitious players working from behind the safe walls of reputable institutions like the academia, business, or the government. Almost all global institutional mechanisms have been breached. And so it is with the UN, oozing with shameless hypocrisy in its many arms – the UNSC, the UNHRC ( from which body the USA has prudently pulled out last year), the UNICEF etc., where insubstantial rhetoric and cheap theatrics are used to wipe out gruesome stories of murders of innocent people and destruction of civilisations by fanatic ideologues of jihad and socialist utopia; using gullible, spotlight-seeking celebrities and impulsive kids lacking in rigorous, well-rounded thinking, with just one goal: causing distraction from the imminent threat, from the war that has presented itself at our doors. How dare they?
Featured Image: Daily Express
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.
Sreejit Datta teaches English and Cultural Studies at the Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham in Mysore. Variously trained in comparative literature, Hindustani music and statistics; Sreejit is an acclaimed vocalist who has been regularly performing across multiple Indian and non-Indian genres in India and abroad. He can be reached at [email protected]