Difficult times, with absolutely no reason to be. But when you fail to recognise an enemy, when you are faced with war and you either don't mobilise, or use insufficient forces, what do you suppose happens?
This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.
But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).
So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.
Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")
The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?
But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.
The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?
But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.
But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.
You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.
Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.
Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.