Doubly Dumb Ideas: Leftist Jane Fonda Pushes Climate Horror and Blames It On…Racism

P. Gardner Goldsmith | January 30, 2023
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Looking back at the not-so stellar behavior of actress Jane Fonda since she became one of the most prominent radicals of the “Sixties Generation,” many Americans can see in her fiery, misguided displays the same falsehoods, ignorance, and philosophical venom that have poisoned much of the leftist mass media and western mass-public education system for decades.

And while “Hanoi Jane” once apologized to Megyn Kelly for sitting on an anti-aircraft gun used by the Viet Cong to shoot down U.S. fliers, calling it “the one thing that happened” in her days as, perhaps, not an “anti-war” activist, but as a promoter of the Viet Cong (notice her use of the passive voice in, “the one thing THAT HAPPENED” – as if it was something that happened to her, rather than her own action), she has not fully addressed all her other errors in judgement and in promoting misleading, pro-collectivist nostrums.

So, it’s no wonder that, while pushing her latest film, she would combine two ill-informed fantasies that currently are part of the Cultural Marxism magic act.

Appearing on the intellectual redoubt of the Kelly Clarkson Show, the two-time Academy Award winner once more revealed why little statuettes don’t help educate about climate, the propagandists pushing it, or about race, freedom, living standards, and upward mobility.

Courtney O’Brien reports for Fox News:

“Clarkson asked Fonda how she branched out to other areas of activism, to which the actress suggested it wasn't much of a stretch.

‘Well, you know, you can take anything - sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, whatever, the war,’ the actress said. ‘And if you really get into it, and study it and learn about it and the history of it and everything's connected. There'd be no climate crisis if it wasn't for racism.’"

Which, first, assumes a so-called “Climate Crisis.”

This is not the case.

Fonda might have been spending too much time reading scripts, but, even as her pop media friends kept pushing the “apocalyptic climate change” fantasy at elitist gatherings that exposed their own hypocrisy, and even as worldwide government “climate-focused” directives brought hardship and harmed people’s lives and businesses, the planet was in ANOTHER multi-year stretch of ZERO warming.



She evidently missed that, but can find the report about the nearly eight-year-long period and the link to the satellite data supporting it, at WattsUpWithThat, and the excellent piece written by Lord Christopher Monckton.

Fonda also could return to that site and read about the previous stretch of virtually no warming that lasted from 1997 to 2014.

Along similar lines, Fonda also could read about how climate propagandist Michael Mann lost a 2019 lawsuit he brought in Canada when he would not produce the data behind his so-called “Hockey Stick Graph” – a graph used by climate fraudster Al Gore in his 1996 film, “An Inconvenient Truth” to conveniently overlook the Medieval Warm Period and to falsely depict to the audience that assumed-to-be-man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration were the drivers of increases in global temps, when, in fact, the graph actually shows temps rising prior to the historical increases in CO2 as measured by isotope readings taken from ice core samples.

Related: Scottish Government Cuts 14M Trees To Make Room For Windfarms | MRCTV

Gores prognostication has collapsed like a souffle in the snow, but, evidently, Jane favors fearmongering over facts.

Perhaps charitably minded observers might grant her a few passes, here and there, since she embodies the puerile, emotion-based leftist public face of the “caring” generation. After all, O’Brien reports, she told Clarkson:

"‘Where would they put the poison and the pollution?’ Fonda continued. ‘They're not gonna put it in Bel Air. They've got to find some place where poor people or indigenous people or people of color are living. Put it there. They can't fight back. And that's why a big part of the climate movement now has to do with climate justice.’"

And perhaps, generally, she draws attention to something approximating a good point.

Certainly, as I have discussed with economics students, since the disposal of trash is handled through collectivism, not through markets, respect for private property, and the importance of responsibility and liability that are only the market can provide, people do not deal with the personal expenses of their trash and how it is eliminated. In most of the western world, trash is handled by government – the thing Fonda has consistently applauded and promoted for constant growth. No one can attach a price to his pollution, and the government will not consider liability when it comes to disposal/dumping.

In real market actions, where private property and liability are considerations, private companies work to conserve, not waste, their investments. They have to be considerate of other people’s property, and they find ways to maximize use of their resources. Thus, forests owned by private paper/lumber companies are not clear-cut; their owners don’t invite soil erosion. But, on government lands where cutters are allowed to operate, clear-cutting and soil erosion have been long-term problems. True to the Tragedy of the Commons, renters on government lands rush in, grab what they can, and have no need to think about long-term investment and loss.

And if Ms. Fonda is so concerned about so-called “climate justice,” as she and many of her climate propagandists oft proclaim… if the “climate problem” is directly tied to racism and exploitation and the poor… then why didn’t she speak up when Barack Obama told people in Africa that not everyone can better his or her life to a point where he or she can get air-conditioning or a decent home? Why didn’t she protest his claim that some people – evidently poor Africans – must be segregated and closed-off from better living standards through the use of cheap, storable, efficient petrochemical fuels?

Is it her contention that “justice” is achieved by politicians attacking the internal combustion engine, one of the greatest breakthroughs for life-improvement in the history of mankind?

Why not allow those people -- whom she seems to think need her elitist help – to decide for themselves, rather than push onto them things like electric cars and inefficient, environmentally hazardous, unreliable windfarms?

And while she’s got the time chatting with Kelly, why doesn’t Ms. Fonda mention that her “justice” could see tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of poor kids digging for cobalt and lithium so that her wondrous utopia of Electric Vehicle Earth can be realized, in all its impossible, unworkable glory?

Better yet, why doesn’t Ms. Fonda explain to Kelly how she justifies selling her expensive New Mexico ranch via a company that specializes in selling ranches – often used to raise cattle – which, according to many of her Climate Cult compadres, are major culprits in the use and emission of nitrogen and methane, both of which her Cult colleagues erroneously tells us are “warming gasses”?  

Perhaps Ms. Fonda has had good intentions all along her stroll down the elitist-collectivist path. Perhaps she truly wants to help people whom, from her lofty celebrity position, she sees as needing her help via the force of government.

But the recipe she has served never has helped the people for whom she supposedly cares.

Instead, that recipe has been one of warmed-over Marxism: one of the worst ideologies in the history of the world.

Related: Jane Fonda: COVID-19 is 'God's Gift to the Left' | MRCTV

Follow MRCTV on Twitter!