Let Us Do Evil That Good May Come October 28, 2005
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Ecology , trackbackWhat you are about to read is an attempt at problem-solving from the venerated New York Times — Here’s some of the latest verbiage from the editorial staff:
There’s no serious disagreement that two major crises of our time are terrorism and global warming. And there’s no disputing that America’s oil consumption fosters both. Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance both terrorist acts and the spread of dangerously fanatical forms of Islam. The burning of fossil fuels creates greenhouse emissions that provoke climate change. All the while, oil dependency increases the likelihood of further military entanglements, and threatens the economy with inflation, high interest rates and risky foreign indebtedness. Until now, the government has failed to connect our crises and our consumption in a coherent way …
And apparently, the all-knowing New York Times has?! Apart from the fact that Islamo-Fascism is indeed a “major crisis” of our time, virtually everything else in the above statement is wrong. I did say earlier that this was to be an attempt at problem-solving … well, feel free to divine where we’re headed if the subject can’t even make a correct diagnosis of the problem to be solved.
Not to mention that even the problems we are offered are simply thrown at us — as if they were self-evident — through sheer intellectual intimidation. Yes, we are supposed to simply accept that “global warming” — the anthropogenic kind — exists, and its cause being nothing but our “addiction” to energy consumption. Why? Problably because the NYT says so — and we would also look “unserious” if we disagreed. Now, who wants to looks unserious, and by Zeus, who dares disagree with the New York Marxist Times Itself?! Well … read on.
America does have a serious crisis on its hands today — and I do not mean anything that the NYT refers to above. I mean something much more serious: the fact that people have little to no idea as to what is truly wrong! Hence the near-agonizing spectacle of everyone pointing at symptoms of problems, but never identifying their root cause. The NYT itself provides an excellent exemple of this fact: it identifies general high prices as being the cause of inflation — but alas, that is merely a symptom of the existence of inflation — its real cause being that thing called the Federal Reserve Bank and its careless manipulation of the money supply. The NYT’s diagnosis is as false as that of a medical doctor who would point to a fever as the cause — and not the symptom — of a headache.
As to “connect[ing] our crises and our consumption in a coherent way”, the NYT — once again — does anything but. The West, especially the United States, is not entirely innocent with regard to the phenomenon of Islamo-Fascist terrorism as it exists today. No, I do not mean this in the manner a socialist would, i.e., alleged U.S imperialism and oppression, and Muslim alienation. In the domain of Foreign Policy, the West’s guilt consists essentially of moral cowardice — its constant apologies for its material success, and failure to assert its just and unalienable right to exist; e.g.: by letting primordial thugs nationalize its property and hold its citizens for ransom. Today, Islamo-Fascists are merely exploiting this moral default.
Terrorism needs more than moral fuel to thrive, however. It needs material, i.e., financial fuel as well. This is where the domestic anti-business policies of the past decades come in. Specifically, this is where environmentalism comes in. It is this anti-human ideology, arguably more than anything else, that is responsible for the existence of virually all the financial assets that presently serve as means towards the ends of Islamo-Fasism.
The editors at the NYT seem astute enough to note that there is a link between our large dependence on foreign oil and the propagation of Islamist terrorism — that “[o]il profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance both terrorist acts and the spread of dangerously fanatical forms of Islam.” Alas, being devoted ecologists, anything else they have to say beyond this stage, is less than worthless, as it is the endless number of environmental regulations — supported and instituted by the back-to-nature movement — that are the cause of our dependence on foreign, Arab oil; therefore, whether intentionally or not, ecologists hold enormous responsibility concerning the present terror crisis … not to mention your excrutiatingly high gas prices.
No, it isn’t that we are “running out” of crude oil, as they can’t stop telling us. It is that, thanks to their anti-human-life, and not-in-my-backyard policies and regulations, the last oil refinery to be built in the U.S was in 1976; 29 years ago. As to the domestic supply of oil, in the name of, “wetlands”, “fragile ecosystems” and “wildlife refuge[s]“, it is untouchable. With regard to nuclear power, which is by far the cleanest and safest source of reliable power that we possess today, it is anathema to ecologists. But that’s because a clean and safe human evironment was never the goal of their crusade, as these insatiable enemies of human values will assault wind and solar energy as well when these are thought to interfere with the migratory patterns of birds.
So, functioning with this sort of mentality, you can safely except the NYT editors not to propose as a step toward the solution to the terror crisis, anything related to the repeal of destructive ecological regulations. No, the NYT proposes something much more interesting: the stifling of the American demand for energy by an increase in the gas tax — hence the following:
The best solution is to increase the federal gasoline tax, in order to keep the price of gas near its post-Katrina highs of $3-plus a gallon. That would put a dent in gas-guzzling behavior, as has already been seen in the dramatic drop in the sale of sport-utility vehicles. And it would help cure oil dependency in the long run, as automakers and other manufacturers responded to consumer demand for fuel-efficient products.
There you have it: the alleged solution to satisfying our growing demand for energy is to reduce our demand for energy! And if you don’t want to curb your unsustainable addiction voluntarily, the NYT will have the government give you “market incentives” to do so. One important thing to know however, is that the inevitable result of an artificially hightened price of gasoline is a reduction in consumption that would otherwise not have existed, i.e., if we pay more for gasoline, we must buy less of, i.e., forgo, something else. But that is not all: the NYT’s cries about “fuel-efficien[cy]” notwithstanding, the standard of living that we enjoy in the West today is entirely proportional to the amount of energy that we consume — and to the extent that we restrict that consumption, we must forfeit our standard of living as well. But of course, ecologists, being the ascetics that they are, have no problem with such a prospect.
This latter fact is made rather very clear by the very title of the editorial in question — which is: “Gas Taxes: Lesser Evil, Greater Good”. Interesting that the NYT editors think that not only can evil means lead to good ends, but that supposedly good ends justify the use of admittedly evil means, is it not?! If Human Life is to be the standard of value however, and if history is to serve as guide, I am afraid to say that they are sorely mistaken.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry