Greenpeace enviromental vandals

Nazca after Greenpeace I’ve written about Greenpeace before and it’s safe to say I’m not their greatest fan. However their latest self serving publicity stunt is a whole new level of stupid even for them. To “send a message” to the world leaders that they aren’t doing enough to tackle “climate change” they decided it would be a jolly wheeze to vandalize the Nasca lines a UNESCO world heritage site and a very delicate environment. The Guardian has a excellent bit of excuse making for this bunch of vandals, who decide to have 20 people carrying large rucksacks climb up onto the site in the dark wearing normal shoes to lay out a huge banner. According to Peru this week Greenpeace say that no damage was done as the banner didn’t touch the lines themselves. Which to put things in terms Greenpeace idiots can understand is a bit like saying “we didn’t damage the river, we just clear felled the flood plain”. Even on the sympathetic Guardian video you can see that they left marks where they walked and even more where they left their bags.

In the picture above ( via Reddit the lines of the removed text are very clear on the plain as is the scuffed up area where the bags were left. The damage done even before the banner was removed is obvious in this picture where the Greenpeace hooligans are still on the site.
Greenpeace vandals

That it was Greenpeace that caused the damage and where they left the bags carrying that banner and all the stones they used to weigh it down can be quite clearly seen in this footage from EuroNews:

Despite this apologists are claiming that the damage was done by other people, even though Greenpeace say they removed the banner, or that a 4×4 must have come along because the damage is more obvious in some photo’s than others – which is kind of how the whole Nazca line things work they’re quite sensitive to angle. The existence of some other party coming along latter and causing the damage is invented entirely out of whole cloth by these apologists. Removing things almost always causes more damage than putting them in place, and just try removing a tea towel from a try of sand without disturbing the sand, no matter how closely you put it down.

Hopefully Peru will prosecute though that won’t repair the damage done to an environment where “a footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years”. Even if this imagined third party did remove the banner and for reasons best known to themselves Greenpeace haven’t mentioned that they left the banner there for someone else to clean up:
This is an area so sensitive that no-one gets to visit it without special permission, which Greenpeace didn’t have.
This is an area so sensitive you have to wear special shoes, which Greenpeace didn’t.
Putting down the banner and dumping their bags containing the banner and specially brought in stone damaged the area even before they left.

So not content with endangering themselves or other people for a publicity stunt the vandals at Greenpeace have willfully and irreparably damaged a unique and fragile environment for a few column inches about renewable energies. If the environment has friends like this it really doesn’t need enemies.

A flash of understanding

I suspect that many of you already know what I’m about to say and probably worked it out ages ok, but sometimes I’m a bit slow on the uptake. I’d like to claim that it’s because what I’ve finally realised is so insane is so bonkers that I haven’t previously been able to believe it. However this morning I suddenly had an insight into the mind of the statist (at least of the left wing kind). I was reading an article over on vice defending the Hypocrite Mr Brand when one of the comments suddenly made something make sense. Whilst I still find it hard to believe I’ve finally realised that all those statists we see campaigning against cuts and for more taxes do actually 100% believe that:
the state forcing people to help each other is a better thing that people voluntarily helping each other.

This still seems utterly insane to me, I could understand it if they felt the state was best placed to help other people and would make a better job of it – I’d think they were wrong and quite mad but I could understand it. I could even well understand that they think that people wouldn’t help each other unless forced to – I think that’s a very depressing view of the world but I could understand it and the champagne socialists do tend to support it. No both of those views would make some sort of sense, but that isn’t what they think they do actually honestly believe that it is better that the state force people to help each other (after taking it’s cut) than people just help each other.

This to me explains why they get so wound up about food banks or homeless charities and all the other voluntary ways people try to help each other out. Hell it may even explain why they thing people can’t be trusted, after all if the state is the best way to help each other then everyone just lending a hand directly is undermining the benevolence of the state. That is the difference and it’s what I could never understand before I think we should be asking why does the state do so much, why aren’t we demanding that charities do more that we’re left alone to help each other, that the state stop interfering and starts leaving us with the resources to help each other – they think if the state isn’t doing it then it’s a problem.

It may well be they’ve been taught this, that the state is father and mother and they can never let go of the apron strings. The state knows best and anyone that questions that is a danger, I’m sure I’ve read that in more than one bit of sci-fi and it’s a terrifying mind set, but at least I’ve finally realised they do actually think that way. Not sure if that makes me despair all the more or if it maybe gives me a way to understand them and thus talk to them to try to persuade them that they’re wrong. But at the very least I at least now have some inkling of the gulf of thought that lies between us.

You can’t do that…

You may well have noticed that the UK censors have finally noticed the internet and have decided following a quiet amendment to the law to make the depiction of all sorts of legal acts illegal in online porn. Of course with typical “logic” this only applies to porn made in the UK, porn made anywhere else can carry on as it was, just as well the internet pays so much attention to country borders.

LegIron has already written an excellent article on the matter to which I’ve very little to add. The few bits I might have added were taken care of by the Punk Rock Libertarians. So the only thing I’ll add is to join in the popular internet meme’s of “#ThingsNowBannedInUKPorn” and Cards against Humanity and give you this:
#ThingsNowBannedInUKPorn