|
 s
Jerry Seinfeld might ask, "So, what's the deal with supporting
terrorism?" Indeed, that is precisely what now needs to be
asked of anyone perpetuating Seinfeld's wealth, or that of actor
Christopher Lloyd, among others. Sure, the entertainment industry
is renowned for its starboard tack and its support of feel-good
causes like the "environmentalist" movement. (Inspect
them all at www.Green-Watch.com.)
And that enviro community — which sprang from the ashes of
the failed "zero population growth" crusade, to pursue
the same ends by different means — has certainly given us cause
to suspect them of being anti-people.
But the Earth
Island Institute, undeniably "mainstream" since its founding
by a former Sierra Club board member, now further exposes the darker
side of "environmentalism." EII's most current report
claims Seinfeld as the largest individual contributor to its hateful
advocacy, in addition to past and present support from numerous
corporate or affiliated entities. Theirs is a campaign that each
and every one of its supporters must be called upon to explicitly
affirm or condemn.
Earth Island's
commentary on the September 11 attacks has skipped the subtleties,
instead choosing to flaunt its underlying philosophy: Violate the
tenets of environmentalism, it says — or its sister-in-arms,
anti-capitalism — and reap justified doom. EII took the "opportunity"
to submit a statement via their website,
"U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance."
[Editor's note: Earth Island Institute has taken the piece from
their site. You can view it on CEI's
site.] Steeped in, well, self-righteous arrogance — and
belying the clear import of "likely suspect" Osama bin
Laden's record — the report denies that the September 11 attacks
represented any act of war. Instead, EII sheds a tear for those
oppressed peoples who have communicated, in the only way they knew
how, their anger at the capitalist, globalist society that led them
to this. Theirs "was an act of anger, desperation and indignation."
How could anyone subjected to the horrors of oil-assisted employment
and prosperity take issue with this infliction of calculated murder
upon thousands? Clearly, we were asking for it.
"This
was not an 'attack on all American people,'" fumes EII. You
see, not all kinds of Americans died — it was mostly Pentagon
— and "multinational financial empire" types. Plus,
"[t]his was not the sort of flat-out terrorism that targets
random innocents at a disco or a beach." Not "flat-out"
terrorism? How "innocent" must one be in order not
to be a just target for mass murder? Clearly those Americans who
were performing peaceful tasks — on their own shores, and for
a branch of government that defends EII's right to be mind-bogglingly
offensive — merit no such consideration.
Our environmentalists
draw no distinction between actors with malice aforethought, conducting
or directing activities of which environmentalists disapprove (e.g.,
investments), and those performing ritual tasks of data entry, custodial
and food service, or fire suppression and rescue. EII then curiously
decries President Bush's assertion that no distinction should be
drawn between terrorists and those who harbor them, "find[ing]
this statement extreme cause for alarm." Think about this.
The environmentalist (on his comfortable bed of donated wealth)
finds degrees of evil among terrorists, but not among capitalists.
Terrorists' accomplices are entirely different from actual terrorists.
But in for a penny, in for a pound, when it comes to creating wealth
for your (gasp) family.
EII goes on,
outrageously — disparaging the FBI infiltrator who betrayed
previous Trade Center bombers for his apparent treachery, analogizing
pursuit of responsible parties with child abuse, etc. Though Earth
Island includes brief, boilerplate rant about oil, their statement
is so visceral that they forget to even mention the environmental
angle in all of this. Their site is pure evil rhetoric, with a dash
of rabid leftist politics.
Yet it has
plenty to do with "environmentalism." People — so
that teaching goes — are pollution. A human footprint on the
planet is, by definition, destructive, for man's prosperity and/or
proliferation can have no good result. All that perpetuates it is
unacceptable, to be disposed of by whatever arguments — or,
apparently, means — necessary. This philosophy is exactly why,
for example, this same organization attempted to block the removal
of the gray whale from the Endangered Species List several years
ago, despite the fact that there were then, and indisputably, as
many if not more gray whales than there had ever been in all of
recorded history. EII's reasoning was that only so long as the whale
stayed on the list was it possible for them to halt offshore oil
drilling, seabed mining, U.S. naval maneuvers, development around
coastal estuaries, and anything else facilitating the lives of what
they hold to be the several billion too many of us.
We've heard
tales that every soft-drink purchase lines bin Laden's pocket, given
his prominent position in the market of base-ingredient gum Arabic.
If that thought repels you, should you continue to shop at May Department
Stores? Should you back the government bailout of Southern California
Edison? Should you, for that matter, go on contributing to groups
that sell images of adorable creatures and perpetual catastrophic
threats — but that offer restrictive policies designed, directly
or indirectly, to reduce the world population of 6 billion by two-thirds?
(Two billion, max, is the generally accepted "environmentalist"
position.) Or, should you agree that there may in fact be too many
people on earth, and that you're going to stop subsidizing the existence
of a particularly noxious sort?
|
