So what’s the REAL point of “Just Stop Oil” protests?

Kit Knightly

It seems every day lately there is a new “shocking viral video” of “desperate drivers losing patience with Just Stop Oil”, or some similar phrasing.

Something like this…

No sporting event has been spared the orange dust and hi-viz vest of Just Stop Oil, and wherever they go they are either cheered on for their antics, or the subject of vigilante justice…which likewise gets a cheer.

But are these videos and protests organic? And if not, what is the point of these clashes?

First of all, let’s agree the protests themselves are pointless, even on  their own terms.

Not only do none of the people being inconvenienced by the blocked traffic or disrupted sporting events have any power at all to “just stop oil”, but slowing down traffic actually increases emissions whilst the destruction and disruption will certainly turn many people against the movement.

But that doesn’t actually matter anyhow because the entire movement is FAKE.

Yup, stop the presses guys, news incoming is that Just Stop Oil are not actually a guerilla band of desperate anti-petrol hippies!

Turns out they have branding and funding and social media managers.

Turns out they are a product being marketed as much as anything else, and they are backed by the Climate Emergency Fund, a US-based NGO.

Shocking, right.

Ok,  before any of you get apoplectic, it’s perfectly possible some (or all) of the JSO people out there actually wearing their hi-viz and chanting their slogans genuinely believe they’re doing the right thing.

But it’s just as possible they’re all being paid to be there.

Yes, just like charity collectors or seat fillers, paid protesters exist.

Hell, it’s possible the “ordinary people” doing the violence are paid too and the many of the “viral videos” are entirely staged.

Staged or not, paid or not, the violent videos will certainly encourage real violence eventually. And even if they don’t spawn more physical violence, they provide endless ammunition for violent disagreement.

Yes, you guessed it, it’s another fake binary.

A dialectic construction to control the conversation. Making the question on the public mind not “is climate change a problem?”, but “is protesting hydrocarbon production this way right?” or “is violence against protesters acceptable?”.

And, of course, no matter how you answer those questions you’re providing support for one establishment narrative or another.

See, if you support the protesters, you’re agreeing we should be using any means necessary to reduce CO2 emissions etc. You agree that the problem these people are reacting to requires a solution. That way lies carbon taxes and a laundry list of restrictive policies that contol and impoverish people in the name of “saving the planet”.

But, on the other hand, if you’re anti-protesters you’re going to be gaslit into supporting “new anti-protest legislature” to “stop environmentalists disrupting daily life” or “prevent outbreaks of violence” or something.

This anti-protest legislation will be used to stamp-out REAL protests when they inevitably occur in response to Great Reset policies down the line.

See how it works? It’s a win-win for the establishment.

That’s the nature and purpose of the false binary. Violent disagreement across a very narrow band of opinion, and no matter which side you take you’re partaking in a constructed reality that directs your behaviour and responses into endorsing a New Normal policy.

This is almost literally everything that’s been in the news since Covid sputtered out, and the solution is always the same: Keep objective and refuse to take a side.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.