“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
June 14th, 2008
1) Hope and government: The nomination of Barack Obama is said to be ‘hope’ to the Black community in the U.S. The acceptance of the first Muslim Arab to be a member of a kibbutz in Israel is said to bring ‘hope’ to the Arabs. Blacks in the U.S and Arabs in Israel are once again being led down the sheep trail of dependency, forced to believe that as long as a few wealthy elitists welcome one of them to some club that they are therefore succeeding. Those who wait on the government or others to give them success are doomed to fail, communities that do so are doomed to remain impoverished and forever complaining of their victimization.
2) Who travels sees more? Omar Sharif, the Muslim convert actor, condemned Americans on Egyptian television, calling them ‘ignorant’ and complaining that they don’t travel enough. One wonders what percentage of his audience has ever been out of Egypt? Furthermore one wonders why America, a large country of 300 million, must always be contrasted with small countries such as Denmark in terms of who travels the most. Danes would be hard pressed to spend their whole lives in their thumbnail sized nation. Lastly, Europeans may travel throughout Europe and Saudis may travel to France and the U.K to get prostitutes but this does not constituted ‘opening minds’, traveling does not necessarily mean enrichment.
3) The great hypocrisy: Madeline Albright's post-secretary years: Madeline Albright did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. As Secretary of State she encouraged the bombing of half a dozen countries and sat down for tea with the North Korean dictator. Now she is calling on the U.S to invade Myanmar as part of a ‘humanitarian intervention’. One just wonders why she doesn’t seem concerned about Sudan. Madeline Albright is not only a hypocrite, she is a ham-fisted war-monger of the worst type.
4) Environmental fantasy world: The newest ten step program to helping the environment includes steps such as ‘protesting’ and ‘joining activist groups’ and ‘donating money’ and ‘buying green….’ It seems that helping the environment has little to do with the environment and more to do with lining the pockets of spoiled semi-adults who refuse to learn a trade and whose ‘profession’ is ‘manufacturing’ carbon-offsets.
Hope and government
June 12th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
On June 5th, 2008 the headline of the New York Times was 'many African-Americans find hope in Obama's breakthrough.' One black person interviewed for the article stated that "we as black people now have hope that we never had…I have new goals for my little girl…she can't give me excuses because she is black." Another black person interviewed for the article noted that "our children need to see a black adult as a leader of the country so they know they can reach for those same goals." In Israel on June 12th a lead article in the Jerusalem Post noted that "first Arab Muslim accepted to Kibbutz." A local author and expert on the Kibbutz movement noted that "it'll certainly give Arabs a feeling that all things are possible." A common thread links these two statements: the notion that success has little to do with the self and almost nothing to do with personal responsibility but that hope and success are derived primarily by the whims of others. In the case of Mr. Obama the hope and success of the blacks is driven by white voters who make up the majority of Obama's supporters. In the case of the Arab woman named Amal Carmiyeh who was accepted to the kibbutz the hope of the Arabs is achieved because Jews accepted an Arab to a village commune. The fact is that the failures or the endless complaining and griping of blacks in the U.S and Arabs in Israel and other minorities elsewhere about why they can't succeed is directly linked to this phenomenon: relying on others, especially the government for that success.
Many immigrant groups in the U.S have been phenomenally successful without ever seeing one of their members attain the highest office, or even regional offices. Jews, Italians, Scots, Germans, Indians (from India) have all succeeded without first having one of their members elected President of the U.S. Rather than waiting for their members to gain a seat in government or be hired by a well known American firm these groups succeeded on their own through their building their own companies and eventually finding that this led them to success in other areas such as politics. They made their own way and found their own niches in America.
In contrast the first Black Senator, Blanche Kelso Bruce, in American history was actually elected in 1875. This would seem to have been a harbinger for hope among Black Americans that they could attain high office just 10 years after the end of the Civil War and 12 years after the freeing of the southern slaves. Yet Bruce's success did not engender success among the Black community at large. African-American history has tended to blame the ending of reconstruction for this setback in black success. But that does not account for the lack of black success outside the south, especially after the great migration of southern blacks to northern cities. In fact what set in among American blacks was a long malaise that eventually culminated in victimized mentality that paints a portrait of failure and racism at every corner and sees only suppression and lack of access everywhere. In attempting to heal the wounds inflicted on the black community and make up for slavery leftist whites have fed blacks an unending line of 'we can help you' (or 'you need our help to succeed') since the 1960s. This has caused blacks to become dependent on the good will of whites, whether it is affirmative action or less obvious ways in which blacks rely on the charity of whites it has given birth to an entire generation of blacks who see their salvation only in the whims of what white leftist elites provide them, whatever crumbs can be pushed off the table to them. Thus the success of a half black African raised by his white mother who describes his ancestors variously as 'white racists' or as 'white liberators of Auschwitz' but never speaks about his black ancestors in Kenya is seen as brining hope to the black community. But the hope of Barack Obama and the chance that very many black Americans can follow in his footsteps is as unrealistic as the other popular occupational dreams of American blacks: becoming a rap star and becoming a basketball player. Thus the American Black community that numbers some 39 million Americans is almost entirely enslaved to dreams that are open to only a few thousand of them. Adding 'American President' as the dream of the average Black child can't possibly be helpful. While seeing a black president may indeed make blacks think 'oh look, someone who looks like a lighter skinned version of me is in charge', the chances that merely having a black president will raise blacks out of poverty is as far fetched as other liberal-leftist dreams for 'helping the black man'.
In a similar vein is the notion that the acceptance of one Arab to one financially failing kibbutz should be a message of hope to Arabs in Israel. The Kibbutz was a Jewish invention: the realization of the communist dream on the local level. But the creation of a kibbutz was never something that only Jews could do. Anyone can create a kibbutz. Arabs in Israel, likes Blacks in the U.S, are constantly being told by leftists that they can only find success at the hands of others and that only someone else can bestow success. Thus the Hebrew University, a Jewish University founded in 1925 can bestow success and hope on the Arabs by promoting an Arab professor. But how ridiculous is this? Here you have Arabs who have lived in the country for generations, many of whome before 1925, who don't have an institution that can promote them so that they can feel successful in their own milieu? They have no measure of success except the success given to them by someone else? This false hope, the reliance on others, is a hallmark of failure. While people think that the promotion of Ms. Carmiyeh and Mr. Obama herald some form of hope in fact the notion that they inspire hope should in fact be chalked up to mass failures on the part of their communities in creating any system of hope from within. People that lack hope from within can never receive hope from others, they only receive a fake hope. This is the hope promised by Mr. Obama to the blacks: the fake hope. How many blacks were inspired when Clarence Thomas became a Supreme Court judge? Almost none. Blacks revile Mr. Thomas. Yet the hope that Mr. Thomas provides to the black community is probably more realistic. Few blacks want to be the next Clarence Thomas and in fact, few blacks will be the next Clarence Thomas just as few blacks ever wanted to follow in the footsteps of Senator Bruce or Thurgood Marshall or Booker T. Washington, or Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Juan Williams or Ward Connerly.
In one article in The Black Commentator entitled 'Ward Connerly's Crusade to Erase Black People', Mr. Connerly is referred to as a 'whore' who wants to 'erase', 'disappear' and 'ethnically-cleanse' black people from 'official American map' because he supported the Racial Privacy Act which declared that "the state shall not classify any individual by race, color or national origin [for the purposes] of education, public contracting or public employment." Leftists and Black activists couldn’t envision a world in which blacks were not classified properly by the government and thus provided with the proper entitlement. In the end the tragedy is that communities throughout the world will continue to look to government to solve their problems rather than looking to their own hands. The story of Rome's birth from a pitiful city-state to great empire can be traced to 387 B.C when Rome was suddenly sacked by a Gallic army. The Romans, deprived of their city and hiding out in the hills around it, so the story goes, looked to their swords in their right hands and resolved that Rome would not fall again. It would not fall again for 800 years.
Who travels sees more?
Seth J. Frantzman
July 9th, 2008
In 2007 the Association for the Study of Travel in the Near East celebrated its tenth anniversary with the publication of Who Travels Sees More, a collection of essays, art and stories about travelers in the Near East. The books title was apparently taken from an Arab proverb which says "who lives sees much, who travels sees more." Omar Sharif, the Arab-Franco-American actor who was born Michel Dmitri Chalhoub in Alexandria in 1932 and converted to Islam in 1955, may not be aware of this famous proverb nevertheless thinks it is applicable to Americans. In an interview in Arabic on Al-Hayat television on June 7th, 2008 he claimed that "Americans don't understand what is going on in the rest of the world…they are ignorant…only 10 percent of Americans have a passport, in other words 90 percent have never left America…you show them an unmarked map of Europe and ask them where France is and they don't know… they don't know anything." Omar Sharif said all this in the context of complaining about the War in Iraq. He was noting that Democracy is anathema to Arab nations because people prefer to go to the village Sheikh rather than the government for help. "If someone stole from you, you take him to the neighborhood sheik, and you say, 'This man stole from me.' The sheik says to him, 'Return the money, or never come back to the neighborhood." (There was a time when American Italians also used to do this, except they called the man 'godfather' or 'Padrone' not 'sheikh').
Omar Sharif's logic is one that is echoed by many callous people who chose to insult Americans based on this one fact: that Americans are ignorant because they don't travel abroad and thus cannot identify countries on a map. The statistic quoted by Sharif is probably true. But its truth does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Americans are either ignorant, nor that traveling abroad makes one enlightened or that it is logical that Americans need to travel abroad to broaden their minds.
When juxtaposing the United States' ignorance with another place most people compare it to Europe. They note that all Europeans travel abroad and they compare this fact to the lack of passport holdings in the U.S. However the supposed logic of this argument merely shows up the accuser as to his ignorance. The population of the EU is about 495 million but it is less than half the size of the U.S. If the borders of the EU are increased to take in more countries so that it is the same size as the US than it would include Eastern Europe, Turkey and the Ukraine and Belarus. The claim that Europeans travel more is based mostly on the fact that they all have EU passports and almost all Europeans travels abroad, which is to say they travel in Europe. But for a Belgian to travel to Germany does not make him more 'well traveled' than the average American. While most Americans do not go abroad, most travel within the borders of the U.S. The percentage of Europeans who have actually been outside the confines of Europe and its immediate neighborhood is no higher than the number of Americans who have passports, 30 million or 10%. Europeans believe that traveling within Europe qualifies them for a lack of ignorance but this is nonsense. Most Europeans remain comfortably within the confines of their continent and travel less distances in their lives than most Americans. The only comparison between who goes abroad more should not be the number of passports held by Americans but the number of EU passport holders who have left their continent.
Omar Sharif was speaking to an Arab audience at Al-Hayat. One wonders how many Arabs have ever traveled outside their own country. How many of Sharif's fellow Egyptians have left their country? Yet Mr. Sharif was not drawing a comparison between Arab ignorance and American ignorance. If Mr. Sharif was thinking of the Arabs as a traveling people he must surely have been either thinking of the 7th century Arabs or of modern day Saudis and Gulf Arabs. Yet in terms of ignorance and parochialism there are no people in the world who rival that Saudis for their hypocrisy and extremism. Many Saudi males study abroad in the U.S. Many of them summer in the French Riviera or other top European tourist destinations. They drink alcohol and have sex with numerous women and frequent brothels. But when they return home they put their headdresses and robes back on and become teetotalers. They forbid their women to drive and murder them for harming 'family honor'. Women are not permitted to travel or leave the home without permission. This society is quite well traveled and yet this traveling does not change the mindset or hatreds and extremist culture of its people. Thus it would seem, given the Saudi example, that although people who travel see more they don't become less ignorant. Traveling has not opened the mind of Saudi and made him tolerant, the only thing that has been opened are the legs of hundreds of foreign women and foreign female sex slaves at the European beaches and brothels frequented by the Saudi. His mind has remained firmly shut.
But what of the vaunted culture supposedly gleaned from traveling abroad. Europeans are travelers, at least within their own milieu. Yet what is this European culture that one should be so proud of acquiring if one is to travel. Europeans may very well be able to identify Luxembourg, Poland and Croatia on a map. If they are quite well traveled, which most are not, they might take a stab at finding Lesotho, Brunei and Barbados on a map. But has this culture truly made the European more interesting. To be sure he is not 'ignorant' because he has seen more. But just because he has seen the world does not give him any special insights into it. In my travels I have rarely mat Europeans whose depth of understanding of the world goes beyond his typical observation that "Americans are stupid and ignorant." This is the European mantra. But the European need to define himself against the American only illustrates his apparent weakness, feebleness, insecurity and inferiority complex. The European and the Arab need to insult Americans for their seeming lack of travel only belies their own realization that within their traveling is an emptiness and an inability to appreciate foreign things except superficially. While Europeans glory in their sex tourism in Prague and the brothels full of Moldovan and Ukrainian prostitutes in Milan and London, and perhaps farther afield in Djibouti they realize that their boozing and frequenting of houses of ill repute is not a substitute for traveling and that although they have crossed a border they have not actually expanded their minds.
America is a large country. It is almost identical in size to China. Its people are diverse. Within its borders one can find all the cultures of the world. Ten percent of Americans have traveled abroad. That is a higher percentage than the number of Chinese who have traveled abroad. It is also a higher percentage of travelers than one can find in other large countries such as India, Russia or Brazil. Europeans and Arabs and other arrogant people throughout the world pat themselves on the back and think themselves intelligent for pointing out that 'Americans are ignorant.' But their insult merely shows their ignorance. They are ignorant as to the size of America. They are ignorant as to the size of Europe. They are ignorant as to the amount of travel and foreign experience of their own countrymen. They are substituting their own ignorance and their lack of knowledge by repeating and insult that makes them feel better about themselves. They substitute learning about America or the world by insulting Americans. This insult is often said in a room full of an approving audience such as other Europeans, Arabs, or wealthy Americans. Wealthy Americans who travel enjoy insulting their countrymen the way any wealthy lord of old would poke fun at the stupidity of the peasants. Europeans think that they are being insightful when they receive congratulations on their 'courage' for 'standing up to America' by they insult Americans and call them ignorant. When other Americans sit around with Europeans and insult Americans the European feels even more vindicated; "I knew I was right." I have experienced this myself at school. We had a number of German foreign exchange students who loved to hear themselves say 'Americans are dumb' and enjoyed even more the chorus of American laughter and approval that followed. Americans feel that when they can join a European in insulting other Americans that this means the American has become accepted into the European cultural club of intellectualism. They are saying to themselves "I am special, I am not a dumb American, I am an open minded American and I am proving it because Europeans are taking me into their confidence and saying that my countrymen are dumb but that I am smarter than them." Americans endlessly seek approval from Europeans and other foreigners through this foil. They insult America in order to prove that they are open-minded. I, ignorantly, thought that the critique of America by Americans and Europeans was actually part of a self critique. I felt that Europeans critiqued America when they were in the U.S but that when one traveled to Europe it would be the opposite and Europeans would critique themselves. I was, ignorantly, unaware that this was not the case. It was a shattering experience for me to have to live in Italy in 2002 and experience the true nature of the European. In Italy the European, upon meeting and American, was always quick to point out that 'Americans are dumb.' They were surprised that I, an American, did not agree. They were surprised to learn that their foolish observation did not hold water. But for me it was a truly mind opening experience for I first realized that the insults always being hurled at Americans by foreigners in America were also hurled at Americans abroad and that the foreigner, and especially the Arab and the European, only had insults for America and never had critiques for his own country or culture. Europeans were always quick to speak of American 'racism' but never spoke of their own. Arabs always spoke of 'American religious extremism' but never spoke of their own.
One cannot expect American to stop insulting themselves. The American who travels is not always the most patriotic sort. The American who ingratiates himself with Europeans and Arabs is not always apt to defend his country. He seeks approval. This has been an age old American problem. There have always been Americans who desired the approval of Europeans. America, like a rebellious child, has always had this split personality of desiring to be free of the mores and culture of the 'Old Country' but always desiring secretly the approval of Father Europe. There have always been the Teddy Roosevelts and the Michael Moores, the former who cared not what others thought and the other who shows his documentaries in Europe to wide applause and feels he has 'made it'.
The true mark of European ignorance will always be the European knee-jerk need to insult America in order to build himself up. Truly intelligent and open minded Europeans see America for its diversity and understand that America, as a large nation, cannot possibly expect to have all of its 300 million people be educated, well traveled intellectuals. Simple minded Europeans have only one descriptive word in their vocabulary for the U.S: 'ignorant'. The next time one hears the European utter this ridiculous word one should merely ask the European where he has traveled. The inevitable answer will be "Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Barbados, New York." The inevitable reply should be "So you have not been to Southern Texas where they speak Spanish or Northern Maine where people speak French or perhaps the Navajo reservation where people speak Navajo or perhaps to Yellowstone National park or the Grand Canyon or Yosemite, or Gettysburg national battlefield or the bayou of Louisiana or Hawaii or Alaska or perhaps to Amish country in Pennsylvania or Mormon Utah or Jewish Crown heights or Boston's Italian North End. But you’re an arrogant European. You've never seen my country. You've never seen anything." America has more culture in New York than Europe has in its 10 million square kilometers. New York is only the little finger of the American colossus. Their simply is no comparison. While Americans still have the mentality of the insecure rebellious cousin it turns out that America has grown up and it is Europe that is paltry, pasty, sickly and lacking in vitality. It is Europe that has so little to offer that all it can offer up are insults, like a bully who has been beaten he has no strength left in him but his insults. That is why the sign of intelligent, thoughtful Europeans is that they are not full of insults but rather full of interest, much like Alexis De Tocqueville. The insulting, cursing European, like the Arab and like Omar Sharif only bequeaths his own insecurity, cultural inferiority and lack of substance through his insults. But who can blame Omar Sharif, he has been faking his role as an 'Arab' and a 'Muslim' for half a century. Coincidentally Europe has also been faking her claim to culture for precisely the same amount of time, for there has been little European culture and few new ideas coming out of Europe since its self-immolation in the Holocaust.
The great hypocrisy: Madeline Albright's post-secretary years
June 12th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
In April 1994 blood from the Rwandan genocide began to cloud the Akagera river leading to Lake Victoria. At that very same moment Madeline Albright sat in her chair as U.S Ambassador to the United Nations. When asked about whether the Rwandan genocide constituted a 'genocide' and thus required international intervention she and other members of the Clinton administration were clear: there was no genocide in Rwanda. There were 270 UN soldiers stationed in the capital of Rwanda at the time. Their commander, Major General Dallaire warned that a genocide could be prevented with more troops. When 10 of Dallaire's troops were killed by Hutu genocidaires Madeline Albright urged that the rest of the UN troops be removed. (lest any be left behind to document the genocide)
In her role as U.S Secretary of State, which began in 1996 she became an advocate of robust American intervention and UN colonization of chaotic places. While she had minced words during the Rwandan genocide and played semantics with the term 'acts of genocide' so as to keep America out, she now decided that America would be better served if she intervened, via bombing, in numerous countries. Despite the fact that her family had received Serbian hospitality when they lived in Belgrade between 1936 and 1939 when they were fleeing Nazism she branded the Serbs the 'new Nazis' in Europe. She supported bombing campaigns of Serbs in Bosnia and of Serbia over the Kosovo crises and aided in the cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo and the destruction of their churches and property. She enjoyed the label 'liberator' placed on her by the former terrorists in the Kosovo Liberation Army. She supported the bombing of Iraq in operation 'Desert Fox' which achieved nothing. In 2001 she met with the North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Il. She supported the U.S invasion of Haiti in the 1990s and when Cuba shot down two small aircraft piloted by Cuban exiles she claimed it was 'cowardice' on the part of the Cuban government.
If her role as Secretary of State was contradictory her comments since than have smacked only of hypocrisy. In her latest epistle published as an editorial on June 12th, 2008 and entitled 'the End of Intervention' she has decided that the next nation that needs an American invasion and a UN colonization is Myanmar. She complains about the "survival of totalitarian government in an age of global communications and democracy" and claims that "Myanmar's military junta employs the same set of tools used by the likes of Stalin." She condemns the fact that "sovereignty is an inviolable and overriding principle of global law is once again gaining ground." The same woman who as Ambassador to the UN in 1996 complained the sanctions against Iraq supports the sanctions against Myanmar. Albright claims in her editorial that "the international system exists to advance certain core values, including development, justice and respect for human rights." She has, however, condemned the invasion of Iraq in 2003. She notes that it has resulted in a return to isolationist rhetoric in America and laments the fact that "governments in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty…the concept of humanitarian intervention has lost momentum."
This was the motto Albright lived by as Secretary of State: 'humanitarian intervention'. But when the land cried out for the intervention in 1994 there was no intervention. There was nothing. There was not one American soldier sent to confront the killers in Rwanda. There was not one American M16 that could be spared to confront the mobs armed with machetes in Kigali. Madeline Albright has built a life on lies. She never recalled having Jewish parents (who converted to Catholicism) until she used the fact that she was Jewish to excuse the American bombing of the Serbs. As a Jew, so the logic went, she had to stand up against the new Hitler in Europe, Slobodan Milosevic. As a Jew she was uniquely able to see genocide and decide who the 'new Nazis' were. But the fog of the hills of Africa obscured her vision for those three months in 1994 when 800,000 were butchered. The view was not so sharp after all.
But now the view is sharp again. Another Stalinist-Nazi-Apartheid regime beckons a bombing. Its not Sudan, where millions have died. Once again Africa confounds the vision. But in the hills of Asia, even with all the debris kicked up by the cyclones and tsunami, there is a nation that needs a 'humanitarian intervention'. There is another East Timor or Haiti or Kosovo waiting for a UN mandate. There are another people who do not have enough brothels to service the foreigners. So we must bring them the brothels and the UN planes and the bombs, to break them and bring democracy and human rights to them. Only when people have been broken can they be built up. With Kosovo, Haiti and East Timor as examples and with plenty of European experts from those places we are sure to succeed in Myanmar.
Albrights rhetoric of lies and hypocrisy is another example of how intervention works. America was duped into intervention in the Balkans because of false screams of 'genocide'. All the while America has ignored the real genocides in Africa. Now we must sharpen our swords again for another assault on some non-Muslim country, some unique Buddhist country that be smashed into pieces. That is, after all, the true reason why Albright will not set her sights on Sudan. Her complaint about the Sudan amounts to; "Sudan has been able to dictate the terms of multinational operations inside Darfur." Is that all? Hasn't it also been able to murder 400,000 people, cause another million to become refugees, and enslave the survivors?
Madeline Albright's hypocrisy-laden hatred of Burma reminds one of Jimmy Carter's newfound hatred for 'Apartheid Israel'. Remember Mr. Carter? He did nothing about the real Apartheid in South Africa. No. But now he has found a new Apartheid regime just as Albright has found a new Stalinist regime (as opposed to the actual Stalinist-modeled regime in North Korea which Albright had no problem visiting and negotiating with).
American officials and bureaucrats and foreign policy gurus would be more believable if they actually did something while in office rather than waiting until leaving office to offer their 'profound' opinions on foreign policy and regime change. There should be a rule. If you can't stop genocide while you have the power don't tell others to stop other genocides later. If you can't stop Apartheid while President don't wait until later to complain about other Apartheids. Keep your mouth shut. Be silent. Let others do the talking. Advise people. Advise candidates. Advice them to learn from your mistakes. But don't lecture us, because you are a hypocrite.
Environmental fantasy world
Seth J. Frantzman
June 8th, 2008
The newest attraction in Australia is the ‘Planet Slayer’ website where the youth can learn about how to save the planet, how much of a carbon ‘hog’ they are, when they deserve to die for having used their ‘share’ of the planet and all sorts of other important information about the environment. The website defines 8 threats to the planet that are leading to its destruction: logging, fossil fuels, nuclear waste, salination (it chokes rivers apparently), consumerism, introduced species, war and toxic chemicals. There are 8 things that are good for the earth as well: clean-up programs, composting, protesting, solar power, clean transport, participation, recycling and wind power.
The website offers other pieces of advice. What are the five most important things one can do to reduce their ‘greenhouse impact’? They can go to ‘environmentally sound lenders’ for their mortgages. They can buy ‘Greenpower’ from the electricity company which means they will receive electricity from wind, solar and hydroelectric plants. They can join ‘Greenfleet’, an organization that “plants enough trees to cover our CO2 output from driving for a whole year for the price of only one tank of petrol.” People can ‘waste less’ and ‘buy less crap.’ In addition they put their waste into a compost or ‘worm farm.’ It turns out, according to the website, that we should purchase a new ‘energy efficient’ car as soon as possible because the ‘energy to make a new car was compensated by fuel efficiencies within 4 years.’ It turns out that using a wood stove or ‘open fire’ to heat oneself or one’s house is unacceptable because “as well as their greenhouse excesses, they produce a heap of other pollutants.” The website does try to answer the age old question “if I follow a recycling truck why do I see it going to the dump” with the answer “it only takes one coffee cup handle in a tonne of glass to contaminate it beyond use” and therefore recycling trucks unable to sort the glass from the other recycled material simply must dump it all at the dump. It also turns out that if the recycler bags his recyclables in a plastic bag that this too contaminates them and they must be dumped rather than recycled.(an odd contradiction if one is throwing away glass and coffee mugs because only a plastic bag would seemingly separate the two). The website informs us that in order to counteract the 24.5 tonnes of CO2 we produce we would need to plant 91 trees a year.
The game ‘find out when you should die’ gives real life examples of how much things you do contributes to your carbon footprint. Ideally one should drive a fuel efficient car or ride bycicles, fly rarely, live in an apartment, live with more than 4 people, have low energy bills, receive energy from a renewable source, use a compost, recycle, never eat meat, spend lots of money on ‘ethical investments’ such as businesses and organizations that make ‘environmentally responsible products’ or spend no money at all. If we do these things we are using our ‘fair share’ of the planet and deserve to live a full life.
The ideal life of this environmental fantasy must be quite extraordinary. It envisions people living in cities, in apartments with four other people, riding bycicles or buses to work, never traveling, eating organic food, participating in dozens of causes, protesting as often as possible, not using nuclear energy and using wind energy. This ideal world would look something like Japan with every crammed into cities, living in camped compartments and walking in lock step with the latest ‘energy efficient’ devise, always purchasing the latest energy efficient car and buying the necessary ‘carbon offsets’ from some company while refinancing with the latest ‘responsible’ mortgage company and only shopping at the latest ‘organic food’ store. This ideal human doesn’t work because most work causes pollution and so does commuting. This ideal human also seems to have an inexhaustible supply of funds to pay for all the latest energy efficient things he needs to buy while making sure not to buy the ‘crap’ that the latest environmentalist website warns against.
In truth the environmental carbon footprint fascism merely describes the lifestyle of the ultra-rich elite who are able to afford all these things. The same wealthy leftists who complain about the environmental destruction being wrought in China fail to provide a solution to how poor or even second-world countries can provide for their people. While the West was permitted over a hundred years of technological progress in order to get to its present energy-efficient carbon-neutral state the rest of the world is either expected to catch up overnight to live in some sort of pre-modern ‘native American’ world without electricity and apparently without open fires.
The energy efficient nonsense is almost too much to bear and its hypocrisy is endless. While it complains about nuclear power plants, which actually produce no emissions and don’t harm the environment, it also refuses to allow wind farms to be built anywhere. The places with the most wealthy environmentalists are also, coincidentally, the places where wind farms are not allowed and ‘wind turbines’ as liberal refer to windmills are forbidden lest they ruin the view of the leftist or ‘harm the birds’. When people wanted to place wind generating, environmentally friendly, wind farms in Nantucket sound it was no surprise who opposed it: leftists, rich leftists and very rich environmentalists. The present love for wind power is merely a myth and is primarily something people like to look at pictures of. Any attempts to actually build the giant wind farms needed to power the world’s cities has been met by protests by the very groups that tell everyone they should be using wind power.
The most fascinating result of the modern eco-friendly fantasy is that native-Americans are now decidedly not the ideal. Their open fires are a big ‘no-no’ in the new environmentalist fantasy which hates the idea of fires because they supposedly pollute. The new fad of ‘organic food’ is also a massive scam. There can’t logically be enough organic food for everyone to eat. Thus the only people that can afford it are the wealthy, the same people who receive huge paychecks for ‘environmental advising’ and for running the numerous ‘non-profits’ which now churn out the latest environmental nonsense such as ‘carbon offsets’. The organic food craze is primarily a craze of one class, the environmentally friendly class, which can afford the over-priced ‘organic food’, most of which isn’t any more ‘organic’ than the average food. The myth of the ‘corner grocery’ and its ‘local farm’ is what propels the obsession with ‘organic food’. But logically given the economy of scale behind ‘organic’ stores such as Whole Foods there can’t be enough ‘small town farmers’ to produce that much standardized food. Carbon offsets are another part of this scam as are all the tree planting non-profits. People seriously believe that for the cost of a ‘tank of petrol’ that they can have trees planted to offset their existence. But no trees are planted. The only thing being planted is large amounts of money in the bank accounts of rich environmentalists who can then spend it at ‘organic’ food markets so other rich environmentalists can purchase their necessary ‘carbon offset’ for their next flight to some exclusive resort, which no doubt is ‘eco-friendly’.
The environmental craze is one massive scam. Form the ‘eco-village’ to the ‘organic food’ counter it is all part of one massive fraud perpetrated on the consumer who more and more resembles a certain class of people who are able to afford these luxury goods. The only thing positive to come out of this is the fact that we know it is a scam. Its not just the lack of recycling and the fact that the recycling bin is dumped at the dump. It’s the fact that a few million wealthy leftists spending their parents trust money can’t possibly make up for all the gas guzzling and destruction affects of China and India and other developing countries. In fact their efforts to save the planet over an entire year to counteract the waste being produced in the Arab playboy city of Dubai where the cousins of the environmental class live it up with their eastern European sex-slaves and their indoor downhill skiing.