Staying Home

For Good

Mar 06, 2024

How do you get people to stop doing something they don't want to stop doing? Without them realizing what you're attempting? As a degree of subtlety is required, strong-arming them is clearly off-limits. Persuading them to change course by making a compelling case replete with convincing evidence might be thought to be the most effective option. And, ordinarily, it would be; but what if you don't have the evidence? What if your proposition – if adopted – is actively harmful to the people? In those circumstances, the number of available courses of action plummet.

Persuasion obviously isn't going to work. Well, not persuasion backed by genuine evidence, at any rate, but that's not to say that propaganda and mendacity might not be a successful combination. Of course, you'd need to have a near (or, better yet, total) monopoly on information and on the networks that disseminate it. Given that, as established, your proposition is false, you'd also need to be able to manufacture 'data' in support of the lie, so it would be helpful if you could buy 'expert' advice and then claim that a consensus supports your position.

A couple of other elements would also be desirable. If the proposition could be framed in a moral context, silencing dissent will likely go more smoothly; and, on the back of that, if you could create a climate of fear, so that those who still speak in opposition suffer severe consequences, then all the better. They can be tarnished with a badge of shame, a label such as 'denier', which can be trotted out ad nauseam - most opponents will do their darnedest to avoid that ignominy, rather than simply embracing it, which would call your bluff.

Then you start making things challenging; more dangerous, more expensive and/or more hassle. After a while you change circumstances to make doing it more difficult by reason of its scarcity and, as long as the underlying moral imperative remains viable, it's likely that you'll get away your deception for a substantial period of time. Your main concern is that you might lose control of the narrative, that the truth will find its way into the public consciousness and undermine your falsehoods.

In that scenario, you will likely still benefit from a lag in reaction time. There will be a period during which more and more people become aware of the bankruptcy of your narrative, but most of them will still be willing to participate in the Great Pretending, because that's what most people are like; they'd rather not be the one peeking over the parapet and taking a round between the eyes. Plus, if you're smart, most people won't be able to see how some of the elements of what you're doing are connected. If you're really smart, they won't even be able to sense your hand guiding proceedings. So it is with travel.

We are all tediously aware of 'climate change', the grown up iteration of 'global warming' and the cause of the 'climate crisis', the 'climate emergency' and the soon to be birthed 'climate breakdown'. We know (because we have been told, for over three decades) that this state of affairs is our fault, that our CO2 emissions - from the burning of fossil fuels - and the methane emitted by the cows that we eventually eat are the root cause of the looming disaster that will see global temperatures rise uncontrollably. And cause the seas to inundate our coastlines. And bring drought and pestilence.

Drastic action is, therefore, our moral duty; and it is our great good fortune to be blessed with leaders who know exactly what to do, just in case we are tempted to backslide. That's how we ended up with Net Zero by some arbitrary date in the near future. That's how we get reams of new regulations, such as the ones that mandate that new vehicles sold in the US will have to average 49 miles per gallon by 2026, not 32mpg as under Trump.(1) And speed limiters on all new EU cars, too. If you commit the unpardonable sin of speeding, the SMART tech will reduce your fuel flow until you decelerate to the correct limit. And it's how we get EVs without the infrastructure to cater for them.

We notice the above-the-line activity, all of which I have detailed elsewhere (The Gospel According To The Deniers), but there's much more besides; particularly to do with car travel and air travel. It's the sneaky stuff that the blob is undertaking, actions and outcomes that may not seem to be connected but which, taken together, accomplish the stated goals of the leaders of the West.

Take air travel. In the UK, this is the end point, written into law.

Figure 1

This isn't a joke, nor is it some manifesto item that is simply aspirational. This is what Sunak, Starmer or A.N. Other is required to accomplish. Gatwick Airport will close, as will all other regional airports in England; Manchester, Stansted, Luton, Birmingham – all gone. 102 million passengers from those airports alone (on 2022 numbers) that won't be flying in just five years time.(2) And while the US hasn't been so explicit, Net Zero is a commitment that has already been made by the Democrats.

But the ruling class knows that a voluntary surrendering of liberties is difficult to engineer and so they are working their way through their play-book. They are determined to make the flying experience as challenging as possible, something they've actually been doing since 9/11 – we just put up with it because they trapped us with the 'moral imperative' gag. Who's going to complain about the searches, scanners and interminable delays when the reason for them is, ostensibly, to thwart terrorism? In the States, this has empowered the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to introduce all manner of arbitrary indignities, none of which seem to have had the desired effect; they still “failed to detect 95 percent of the test bombs and weapons during covert tests by federal inspectors.”(3)

Lately, however, efforts have been ramping up. It's not that the public hasn't noticed at least some of the nonsense; in the first five months of 2023, complaints to the airlines in the US were up 68% on the previous year, which was 584% higher than the same period in 2019.(4) Scenes like this became increasingly common.

Figure 2

Don't bet on it getting better anytime soon:

“Though airlines improved their reliability in the second half of 2023, and vowed they were better-prepared for the holiday surge with more postpandemic hiring and investment in equipment and better technology, structural problems haven’t been solved. Shortages of air-traffic controllers, airplanes and pilots all add up to one conclusion: Travelers likely be facing higher fares along with more delay, cancellations and disruption.”(5)

Cancellations and delays are now all the rage. In January 2023, an air traffic computer 'issue' led to a nationwide ground stop for flights to and from Florida.(6) Southwest Airlines went through a period when they appeared to be cancelling more flights than they were completing.(7) Despite airlines' propensity for blaming adverse weather for delays and cancellations, it was apparent that problems with staffing and aircraft maintenance were the main culprits.(8) The solution favoured by airlines in the US was to reduce the number of flights, while launching hiring campaigns.

A major factor has been a sudden shortage of pilots. By the summer of 2023, American Airlines found itself unable to operate around 150 of their regional aircraft due to this one factor alone.(9) They weren't alone; the airline industry as a whole faces a projected pilot deficit of 80,000 by 2032.(10) Of them, the US will be down around 29,000. But how did this scenario eventuate?

Figure 3

One factor that has been apparent for several years is a shrinking supply from the military. Historically, this cohort has contributed around two-thirds of commercial pilots. That number has halved in recent years, particularly in the States, where the required service time for trained pilots has risen from six years to ten. Proportionately, the world has less military pilots that it did a generation ago.(11) The airlines have been slow to respond to what became an obvious trend and have only recently invested in pilot academies.(12)

“...one of the reasons the airlines rely heavily on the military is that it is challenging for somebody who wants to fly, who wants to be a commercial airline pilot, but doesn’t necessarily want to go through the military.”(13)

But of far greater import in the short term has been the 'vaccine' mandates. As of October 2021, all but two major US airlines required all their staff (pilots included) to be 'vaccinated'. Only Delta and Southwest were still holding out, although the unclean at Delta were required to pay a $200 a month surcharge for the privilege.(14) As it was, 90% of staff had already succumbed to the pressure (other airlines, such as United, had even higher percentages), which the Biden administration had applied when it ordered the nation's largest employers to mandate the jab – quite where it thought it had acquired that power from has never been adequately explained. The FAA bans the use of experimental drugs on pilots (and, lest we forget, these drugs are still experimental), but that stricture was simply ignored.

The Supreme Court struck the mandate down in January 2022, but not before more damage had been done.(15) British and European carriers didn't typically force their staff to get jabbed, but they didn't have to. We can all remember the rigmarole that accompanied international travel at that time – the litany of tests and certificates to take even a single flight was daunting. I would imagine that flying to a new country most days of the week (whilst 'unvaccinated') would have been too much of a carry-on for most airline staff. Plus, all new staff were required to be jabbed.

The effects of the mandates have been devastating, yet quietly so. Early retirements, or dismissals of those refusing the jab, sky-rocketed, adding to the disruption. The mainstream has had no interest in the topic, merely deployed the usual performative 'fact-checks' whenever there has been a suggestion of harm caused. Some pilots, however, were alive to the potential health risks from the beginning and pushed back. At American Airlines, around 4,000 of the 14,000 pilots held the line.(16) They were concerned that, as well as the short-term effects that were acknowledged, there might also be long term effects that would cause them to fail their FAA medical.

They weren't wrong. Pilots have been dropping like flies. The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents 67,000 pilots at major US and Canadian airlines, discovered that there had been a 40% rise in deaths of pilots under retirement age (65 years of age) in 2021 alone.(17) Heart problems were inevitable and duly transpired. The FAA, rather than acknowledging that they had a problem, simply changed their guidance. Pilots are required to take an EKG (electrocardiogram) on a regular basis, which they are expected to pass if they wish to retain their licence. In October 2022, without fanfare, the FAA widened the acceptable range of result from 0.12 to 0.2, to 0.12 to 0.3. This new range accommodates those with heart injuries.(18)

“Why would they do that? I’ll take an educated guess as to why they did that. I believe it is because they knew if they kept the original range, too many pilots would have to be grounded. That would be extremely problematic; commercial aviation in the US would be severely disrupted.”(19)

Presumably, the calculation is that allowing damaged pilots to fly will be less disruptive. And the damage is from the 'vaccine', not from Covid. An Israeli study of nearly 200,000 'unvaccinated' individuals – who had allegedly had Covid – showed no added risk of heart damage,(20) whereas a study of 177 people in Puerto Rico (97% of whom were 'vaccinated') demonstrated that 70% of them exhibited signs of cardiac injury.(21)

Predictably, the FAA's cavalier attitude to passenger safety has resulted in a rash of incidents that are still very much ongoing. In 2022, there was a 272% rise in mayday calls, a surge which continued into the early months of 2023, when the percentage increase had risen to 386%.(22)

Figure 4

Pilots are not reporting their ill-health, which is not now causing them to fail their physicals:

"They are not reporting brain fog, heart flutters, and dizzy spells because they don’t want to lose their jobs. Disasters will occur, and both aircrew and the traveling public will die unnecessarily."(23)

There have already been some close shaves. In March 2023, a Southwest pilot became medically incapacitated shortly after takeoff and was replaced by a non Southwest pilot who just happened to be commuting on the same flight. That was at least the fifth such incident in the prior fortnight.(24) On August 18^th, an Army student pilot suffered a cardiac arrest while flying at low altitude and had to be given CPR once the instructor had landed the helicopter.(25) Despite being effectively dead for 18 minutes, the defibrillator brought him back.

He was simply one of many. Hundreds of pilots have reported adverse effects, dozens have reportedly become incapacitated and have died “before, during or after their flights. In at least ten of the cases, the pilots reportedly suffered cardiac arrests.”(26) This is not in any way surprising. As Dr Peter McCullough, a renowned US cardiologist, has stated:

“I can tell you before COVID-19, I saw two cases of myocarditis my entire career ... two cases over decades. Now, I see two cases per day in the clinic."(27)

An American Airlines pilot had a seizure on final approach to the airport in November 2023, which jammed his feet under the rudder pedals. That could have spelled disaster. This was the fourth such incident in a fortnight and the eighth incapacitation or death in two months.(28) Three pilots died within a week of each other in August 2023, one on them in the lavatory on a flight from Miami to Santiago and another also mid-flight.(29) A report in November detailed the deaths of three Indian pilots in the previous three months.(30) One experienced pilot, who refused Australian Airlines 'vaccine' mandate and was sacked for his troubles, asserts that

“... somewhere on the international network daily, you will find a plane has been turned back because of a health emergency. Either a passenger health emergency or crew health emergency.”(31)

It seems that longer international flights are the safest, due to the requirement for an extra pilot, although it's extraordinary to be thinking in those terms. At any rate, it's likely to be only a matter of time before disaster strikes, but that doesn't seem to be bothering any of the alleged adults in the room. I can see why the airline companies might be avoiding the issue, unforgivable though that is – they are simply hoping that one of their competitors is going to have first go in the barrel. They are, presumably, mostly interested in the bottom line and maintaining their woke credentials, so that Wall Street doesn't single them out.

I can also see how a catastrophe brought about by the 'vaccines' would not necessarily be terminal for the administration. The FAA are clearly compromised and are not collecting the evidence that would be necessary to definitively prove an association between a dead pilot and the jab. And, indeed, in no other instance has the blob acknowledged a causal link. I wouldn't imagine that they would be about to start accepting liability when a plane crash causes devastation. It may well be that the gradual airing of problems with pilot safety suits their agenda if it results in a reluctance among potential passengers to risk running the gauntlet.

It's not as if pilot safety is the only source of trepidation. In August 2023, the UK national air traffic control system broke down, necessitating a switch to a manual system for all those already in the air.(32) 80% of flights were delayed and 500 were cancelled – on one of the busiest days of the year. This followed on from the entire FAA system suffering the same glitch that had afflicted Florida; the result, 1,000 cancelled flights and 6,700 delayed ones.(33) Strangely, Canada suffered similar problems the next day and the Philippines' airspace system had already collapsed on New Year's Eve, which resulted in all flights being diverted. Not a good look.

Figure 5

The US ground stop was only the second in the nation's history, the first being 9/11. It appears as though both the primary and back-up systems failed. However, I suspect that all is not as it seems. The Biden administration tried to pass it off as a regular snafu, but three snafus (globally) in a fortnight is a little hard to credit. Plus, the price of Bitcoin spiked 20% the week after – which it might well do if the US and Canadian governments had been obliged to purchase rather a lot of it in order to pay off hackers (that being the payment method of choice, for obvious reasons).(34) Or, if I may be cynical, if they wanted it to appear so while they ran their own beta test. I favor the latter explanation, because it fits the overall direction of travel.

Because, in addition to airport shithousery and ailing pilots, there are black swans popping up all over the shop. The Boeing 737 MAX seems to have been put together by a tribe of village idiots, who can't manage to drill holes in the right places. Fifty undelivered MAX jets were found to have faulty fuselages and 171 grounded examples are being subjected to a full inspection process.(35)(36) They'd been grounded because an Alaska Airlines MAX had lost part of its fuselage when a door blew out three miles above Oregon,(37) depressurising a cabin containing 171 passengers and six crew. The plane had been missing door bolts when it left the factory.

Figure 6

Shortly after this incident, a Boston-bound flight had to divert to Denver when a portion of its wing was found to be missing.

Figure 7

This on top of an incident with a Delta flight which was taxiing down the runway prior to takeoff when a wheel fell off.(38) Not forgetting the Atlas Air Boeing 747 cargo plane that caught fire shortly after leaving Miami International about six weeks ago.

Figure 8

When they're not coming apart in mid-air, planes are suddenly colliding on runways instead. Two private planes collided in Houston in November 2023 and two Jet Blue commercial flights managed to repeat the feat at Boston Logan in early February this year.(39)(40) According to the New York Times, these incidents are simply a drop in the ocean. Their investigation revealed 46 near misses involving commercial airlines in a single month (July 2023), all as a result of human error.(41) There are multiple incidents per week and over 300 in the year to August 2023. By the law of averages something is going to give at some point soon. It nearly did at JFK a year ago.

Figure 9

And the same thing kept happening all year. Here is a smattering of some of the worst.

Feb 4^th 2023 – Austin, Texas. A plane directed to land on the same runway as a departing flight – 100 foot miss at 150 mph.

Feb 12^th – Miami, Florida. Air traffic control again; planes only 200 feet apart on takeoff.

Feb 27^th - Logan, Boston. An aborted landing to avoid a plane that was taking off without permission.

May 8^th - Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A controller vectored two planes approaching the airport onto a collision course.

June 24^th - Salt Lake City, Utah. A near miss over the airport when a pilot's incorrect course was not noticed.

July 2^nd – New Orleans. Aborted landing as a plane was taking off from the same runway.

July 9^th – Denver, Colorado. Another near miss of 100 feet by pilot flying the wrong course.

July 11^th – San Francisco. Two near misses on the runway at 160 mph.

August 11^th – Baltimore, Maryland. 181 foot near miss on the runway with no warning from air traffic control.(42)

The problem, for both aircraft quality and aircraft safety (and, indeed, pilot recruitment), is correctable, but it won't be corrected, because it is a sacred tenet of Biden's progressives; DEI. And airline CEOs are some of the wokeist around. By way of example, this is the CEO of United Airlines, Scott Kirby.

Figure 10

American Airlines designed its very own Black Lives Matter pin for staff to wear.(43) This is the same outfit that proudly operated its first all LGBTQ+ crewed flight (or so it believes).

Figure 11

United Airlines achieved another proud first; travelers can now book as U (undisclosed) or X (unspecified) or even Mx. as well as Mr. and Ms. for the non-binary types.(44) The Delta Airlines CEO seemed to think that his opinion on Georgia's voting laws was worthy of a press release.(45) Southwest Airlines supported the Creamy City Foundation which sponsored drag queen shows for children and Alaska Airlines has its very own Pride Plane.(46) Even Ryanair seemed to think it appropriate to mock Djokovic's refusal to get 'vaccinated',(47) as if that was a suitable topic for an airline to be commenting on.

Figure 12

In short, the airlines and their manufacturers are all on board the woke train and they love their DEI. The company that manufactured the door plugs on the Alaska Airways jet is fully signed up to wokeness, if not to quality control.(48) Boeing wants 92.5% of interviewees to be 'diverse' – code for non-white and non-male.(49) United wants 50% of pilots trained by 2031 to be “women or people of color”.(50) None of this virtue signalling inspires confidence, but I don't suppose that it's meant to. The FAA does, however, take the biscuit. They've even invented a secret code word for black students to include in their resume, so that they may be whisked to the head of the queue.(51)

If anything, the situation with air traffic control is worse:

“While the disturbing decline in aviation safety is disturbing and multifaceted, we identified two main contributing factors that have received scant media attention. The first such factor is the likely contribution of Covid-era policies to the staffing shortage of many air traffic control rooms. The second factor is the aggressive affirmative action policies implemented during the Obama administration have contributed to the catastrophic collapse in the quality of controllers. In shirt, Covid policies have gutted the quantity of air traffic controllers [ATCs}, and diversity policies have gutted the quality of air traffic controllers, creating unprecedented danger for the aviation industry.”(52)

What's more, the agencies responsible for air safety in the States refuse to be held publicly accountable. Despite that, it is known that some airports are criminally understaffed with ATCs. As of May 2023, Miami had 201 ATCs against the recommended level of 298 plus. San Francisco was 33% down at the time of their incidents and, nationwide, the shortfall is around 10%; fatigue is, therefore, a factor and tired people make mistakes.(53) And self medicate with banned sleeping pills and alcohol.

The FAA has also been criticized for a lack of runway collision avoidance systems for at least seven years; only 43 of the more than 500 US airports have them. But the FAA hasn't installed a single one in the past seven years – no funding, allegedly.(54) It is apparent that the ATC issue cannot be resolved swiftly – it takes years to train them – and it is also clear that funding for the FAA is not a priority for Biden. If there's another group of federal employees that, on a daily basis, have more people's lives in their hands, I'd be extremely surprised and yet they are being intentionally kneecapped.

So, sooner or later, the inevitable will happen and we all now know that the blob loves a crisis. Any excuse to ground airplanes or issue new requirements that curtail (or make much more difficult) any sort of air travel will be grasped gratefully. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the conditions for a catastrophe are being engineered by government; it is, after all, the administration's obsession with DEI that is being replicated by the private sector and funding air safety properly is also within the gift of the feds.

The war against our freedom to travel is, in addition, targeting the automobile in ways that we have, no doubt, become aware of, but also in ways that are more subtle and left field. The initial requirement is control – if the blob can control our access to our vehicle, then every other imposition and tactic that is downstream can be implemented at its leisure. And control can be attained by many and varied methods, all justified by the climate change scam that most lack the courage to refute.

We already know about the drive to go all electric, regardless of the inefficiency involved and the fact that the modern combustion engine is already hugely efficient. Many achieve over 35 miles a gallon and have a range of over 500 miles. The tailpipe emissions, when compared to the 1960s, have been reduced by 98%-99%. There are also, clearly, many more refueling options – 115,000 of them in the US alone – which don't involve a two hour wait.(55) And, in reality, most vehicle-related particulate matter now comes from tire wear, not the tailpipe.

“California calls electric cars “zero emissions vehicles” because they don’t have tailpipes. That is deceptive. Generating the electricity that powers those cars creates particulate pollution, and of course electric cars still use tires, which are made from petroleum. Electric cars weigh far more than gasoline-powered ones, so their tires degrade faster...”(56)

But this is, nonetheless, besides the point; none of the purported advantages of EVs are relevant, whether they are real or imagined. The objective is simply to phase out vehicles that cannot be controlled. Hence, a blizzard of policies and private initiatives that directly impact a driver's ability to simply fill 'er up and drive wherever they want to.

Lawmakers in the US have only recently discovered (or so they say) that legislation that they signed in 2021 provides for some rather far-reaching government intervention in the operation of citizens' vehicles from 2026 onwards:

“A provision in the bipartisan $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that President Joe Biden signed in 2021 directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to come up with a rule by this year requiring new cars to have “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”

The law describes this tech as being able to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.””(57)

The law doesn't prohibit such a system from communicating with third parties (think the cops or insurance companies). Naturally, the claim is that the switch would only be deployed if a driver seemed impaired, although the government can't even be unambiguous on that score, either, as it provides itself with an out - “such a system won't necessarily be limited to preventing drunk driving”.(58) No, it wouldn't. It could be used to control when, where and how much a vehicle could be used and, if an individual had used up their carbon credits for the month, it could be used to prevent them even getting in the vehicle, let alone driving it.

The EU has come at the same policy somewhat obliquely by passing the 2022 Data Act, which mandates a kill switch in smart contracts.(59) One would assume that an EV contract meets that description. One would further assume that the European zealots who embrace Net Zero fully intend to follow the American lead. They've already mandated speed limiters, so if they can slow you down remotely, no doubt they can stop you, too.(60) Big Brother would, additionally, now have a record of everywhere a person drove. And hackers could switch a vehicle off and leave the driver stranded.

There are already other ways to disable vehicles remotely. Failed software updates, for example, can result in the blue screen of death.

Figure 13

Or your vehicle may lose functionality due to the upcoming 2G network shutdown, as with older Nissan EVs.(61) Or your neighborhood could suffer an arbitrary grid shutdown (due to the insistence on 'renewables'), leaving you unable to charge your vehicle. If you're brave enough to still purchase a Ford, you could find yourself sans vehicle altogether – they are seeking to patent

“... a proposed system that would allow Ford, in circumstances where customers are behind on payments, to gradually crimp the car's functionality and make the owner's life unpleasant before, in extreme scenarios, the car just… drives itself away to a repossession lot or a dump.”(62)

New cars have been too complicated to work on – by anyone but a mechanic – for a good while and vastly more expensive to repair. Finding technicians with the skill set to fix newer vehicles is becoming increasingly difficult and the software necessary to repair them must be leased from the companies themselves.(63) It isn't difficult to see how further difficulties can be created. Older cars are, of course, less easily controlled; but, no matter. The answer is to pass legislation that effectively bans the right-to-repair for vehicles more than fifteen years old, as the EU is currently proposing.(64)

The sale of new petrol or diesel cars will, of course, be banned in the UK from 2035 (although that will almost certainly revert to the original date of 2030 under a Labour government) and in the EU from the same year.(65)(66) The Environmental Protection Agency in the US, overreaching once again, has issued rules that will result in at least two thirds of new car sales to be electric by 2032.(67) All the usual suspects (read Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are also following suit.(68)(69)(70) But we'll still have personal vehicles, won't we? Isn't it just that the wagon has been firmly hitched to an electric future?

Well, no. Firstly, motorists do not really want electric vehicles, especially in the US. Dealers there find that they simply clog up their lots.(71) They are viewed as more expensive and of less utility than gas-powered vehicles. Hertz is about to sell a third of its EV inventory at a loss of $245 million.(72) Indeed, the average price of a used Tesla has been tumbling for eighteen months straight.

Figure 14

Even the historically more buoyant European and British markets are slowing. In the UK, despite generous subsidies, only a million EVs have been sold since 2002.(73) By way of reference, there are currently over 33 million cars registered in the nation.(74) In the EU, declining EV sales contributed to year-to-date orders that were down 12% in France and 21% in Germany by November 2023.(75)

Secondly, cost is a huge problem, across the board. New vehicle affordability in the US is the worst it's been for fifteen years, with an average monthly loan payment for a new car of over $750 a month.(76)

Figure 15

This is compounded by much more expensive insurance premiums.

Figure 16

That amounts to an average of $212 a month in the US,(77) but within the overall data there is a notable trend; EV car insurance was up by 72% on the year.(78) And in the UK the number was 50%, which means that an electric vehicle now costs twice as much as a petrol vehicle to insure – an average of £1,344 to £676.(79) It seems that EV drivers make more claims and the necessary repairs are also more expensive.(80) Plus, as is becoming much more apparent, electric batteries are “expensive and prone to damage”.(81) Some drivers couldn't even get coverage; some were quoted £5,000 or more for a year's premium.(82)

So, while Western regimes are signalling their intention to force us all into EVs, they are simultaneously ensuring that we won't be able to afford them. And that's without reference to the vast increases in fuel prices for using our current rides.

Figure 17

Figure 18

Or the efforts of the likes of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, champion of ULEZ, which charges motorists (but not those driving EVs) exorbitant fees for the privilege of using the city's streets ('city' now being defined as including the entirety of Outer London, too). Charges, for ULEZ and other recent tolls, can rack up at an alarming rate.

Figure 19

“It is not just London and Ulez: low emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods and parking, bus lane and box junction fines are proliferating across the country. Birmingham has had a low emission zone since 2021, Bristol since November. Glasgow began enforcing its zone last month. Cambridge is planning a £5 a day congestion fee, while Oxford and Canterbury will soon limit motorists from driving between one area of their city and another.”(83)

ULEZ is supposed to be all about reducing air pollution, although there is very little evidence to show that it does.(84) But Khan and his buddies have barely gotten started. He and the mayors of another 39 cities (including Paris, Washington DC, LA, Montreal and others) are committed to creating C40 cities. This would entail reducing car ownership to a maximum of 190 per 1,000 people by 2030 or, preferably, a minimum of zero – this in a country of 632 vehicles per thousand.(85)(86)

The way to achieve these targets is to also charge drivers per mile by using the ULEZ cameras; it's called Project Detroit and its stated aim is to enable “forms of charging based on distance… if [when] a decision was made in future to do so”.(87) Khan denies it (in fact, he says he doesn't know what Project Detroit is, despite it being under his purview and its employment of 97 staff), but he denied that he would extend the ULEZ zone to the 'burbs and then did just that eight months later.(88)

Note that the project isn't concerned with a transition to EVs – it's concerned with eliminating private vehicle use completely. There is no pretense here, no gilding the lily, no insistence that an EV is a suitable replacement vehicle or that it's all about climate change. If it were, it would be about Teslas and charging points. But no governmental entity is doing anything about the power grid:

“If every car were electric, the grid would crash and rationing would be the norm. And maybe that’s the whole point. You drive only with permission. Nothing about your transportation is within your control. Authorities will decide everything for you. It’s a perfect strategy for creating a society of dependents.”(89)

And if every car were electric, we'd be spending a lot more time rubber-necking at accidents and fires. Lithium batteries have a disconcerting habit of combusting; last year - in New York City alone – 267 e-bikes caught fire, resulting in 18 deaths and 150 injuries in a single year.(90) In the UK, a 'diesel' Range Rover burned down a parking garage at Luton airport in October 2023, destroying 1,500 vehicles in the process. At least, that is what the media is desperate to tell us. Except the evidence points overwhelmingly to a runaway lithium battery fire in a hybrid Land Rover, instead.

We wouldn't even be safe on the high seas. The Felicity Ace, a huge car transporter ship, was lost to a fire in February 2022. About 4,000 cars went to the bottom, including Lamborghinis and Porsches. The shipping line then suspended the transportation of EVs.(91) The Freemantle Highway, carrying over 4,000 cars (498 of which were EVs) was also set ablaze in July 2023 in the North Sea.(92) There have been a number of others in the recent past, all sharing similar characteristics – namely EVs and uncontrollable fires.

Figure 20 Luton Airport fire source

So, electric vehicles are not the answer and nor are they intended to be. They are too costly, inefficient and dangerous. They are, instead, merely camouflage – an incremental step on the way to a car-free society, one that has no need to travel, because that's what our lords and masters have decreed. The future is high density housing, à la Agenda 21 and any and all efforts to force us in that general direction are permissible:

“In addition to price hikes at the pump, new tolls, rerouting roads by condemning old short cuts and replacing them with new longer routes in the name of protecting the environment and creating a more “scenic” view, Agenda 21 wants to purposely discourage you from driving. Regardless of whether you are driving to and from work, school, place of worship, supermarket, home or vacation, Agenda 21 wants to make it much more difficult for you to travel to the point that you will pack up your bags and move into a city where everything is close. You will thus be manipulated into moving, of your own accord, out of rural areas into urban settings, due to high taxes, increase in the price of fuel, and other general inconveniences.”(93)

So, the WEF feels justified in going to war on parking spaces, because there's too many of them and they're not expensive enough.(94) Apparently, “outdated and regressive attitudes and approaches” - code for a personal vehicle – can “hold back decarbonisation.”(95) Car park owners in the UK have certainly heard the call; a £30 daily charge is now commonplace, if you can manage to park your vehicle in the shrunken space provided.(96) Trains are constantly disrupted by strikes, ticket offices are being closed and bus services are being rapidly discontinued.(97) Scotland is planning to introduce 20 minutes neighborhoods nationwide.(98)

And in New York, the Governor instituted a beta test travel ban (not an advisory, a ban) because it was going to snow. In fact, she banned people from leaving their homes even if it wasn't snowing. Travel bans have never been issued by the Governor and always follow on from a declaration of a state of emergency.(99) This is the same person who set a quarantine camp regulation that would allow for “the seizure and indefinite detention of anyone suspected of exposure to a communicable disease “(100) in response to Covid, so perhaps we shouldn't be taken aback.

So, cars are headed for the scrap heap. Neither do we need to fly, although we haven't yet realized it. The blob is busy prodding us though, drawing our attention to reports entitled A Sustainable Future for Travel (101) (spoiler alert: the imposition of carbon passports) and introducing new taxes to discourage short haul flights.(102) In the States, they are also making it much more difficult and time consuming to renew a passport.(103) And, given what is envisaged, there is no point in training up ACTs and spending on air safety; it'll be money down the drain, because after the inevitable mid-air coming together of a pair of Boeings, most people will think better of it. They won't want to be saving up their carbon credits so that they may board a flying coffin.

I would imagine that, to a certain degree, I am doing the authoritarians' job for them; in drawing attention to the increasing dangers of air travel, at any rate. My guess is that they view their actions in that arena as resulting in a win-win. Either we are dissuaded from flying or we continue signing up to be potential cannon fodder. They are confident that they will experience little in the way of blowback when it all goes wrong and they have every reason to be – after all, they've not been held to account for anything they've done, whether that be embroiling the West in a proxy war with a nuclear power, funding our ally's enemy in the Middle East, stealing elections, tanking our economies or locking us down and forcing a toxic, experimental gene therapy into our arms. Why would being responsible for an entirely preventable air crash be any different?

However, it's also true that we can't do anything about anything unless we know that the anything actually exists. The war on driving, while increasingly obvious, could do with the context and, additionally, it's important to torpedo the myth that they just want us to drive EVs. They don't; firstly, because it isn't about 'climate change' (and never has been for the string-pullers) and, secondly, because it is all about controlling the masses. They don't want us driving anything.

Their poster boy is Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who is building The Line, a smart city that will house 9 million people in a 1,500 foot high, 109 mile long wall in the middle of the desert. It will be

“... outfitted with the most advanced technology available, including vertical farms, facial recognition, zero-emission transportation, cloud seeding, and other programs that are in development.”(104)

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Ours won't look much like that, I suspect – we don't have the funds. Nor do we have leaders who have any interest in spending money on useless eaters. But they will share the same feature; no cars. We'll only be able to go where we're allowed to go at a time of someone else's choosing. And The Line isn't some fever dream that will never actually be built, just as Agenda 21 isn't an abstraction of minimal import. They've started construction already. Welcome to the future.