Lilliputian Homes and the New American Dream: Match Box Housing for Smurfs

The one world government elites stand to make billions from the global warming/climate change scam. That is why they are not going to give up. Too many billions have already been invested to implement a society dependent on an omnipotent government that claims to control nature – they are not going to give up that easily or any time soon.

The fact that we are forced to pay, cap, swap, and trade carbon taxes on the open market does nothing to affect the level of pollution that takes place in the world. It is so arrogant to believe that humans can control the fury of Mother Nature when it is ready to unleash its ire.

Although scientists have debunked global warming and have proven that the globe has actually cooled in the last 16 years, our Secretary of State still promotes the myth of global warming. In a recent speech, she said, “We’ve doubled production of clean energy, made historic investments in breakthrough technologies, and launched new international partnerships like the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to take aim at pollutants like black carbon and methane that account for more than 30 percent of current global warming. (

According to Cathie Adams, President of Texas Eagle Forum and Chairman of Eagle Forum International Issues, who is attending the Doha, Qatar U.N. Conference on Climate Change, quoted Christina Figueres, that the meeting in Qatar is to “negotiate a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said, “What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. It should happen much quicker, but it cannot happen overnight.” The Kyoto Protocol will go “into a second commitment period as of January 1, 2013… We are also moving toward a universal legally based agreement by 2015 to go into effect in 2020.”

Cathie Adams reported that the U.S. delegation chief, Todd Stern, did not object to the U.N.’s plan to fundamentally transform the global economy, on the contrary, he boasted about the U.S. reduction in greenhouse gas emission by 16.5% in the last four years of President Obama’s rule. “It is to appease the U.N. that Obama has placed excessive regulations on automobile emissions, power plants and appliances, as they destroy the American economy.” (Cathie Adams, December 3, 2012)

The United Nation’s multifaceted assault on every human activity and its end goal to control and destroy capitalism to the benefit of the one world communist governance includes the U.N. Agenda 21 with its hallmark of Sustainable Development, Green Growth, Green Cities, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, alternative food and plant derived energy, Green everything from cradle to grave.

I have watched this complex Agenda 21 octopus encroach everything across the globe stealthily, with little resistance from the population. Why would anyone oppose such a kind and gentle goal of greening everything? Who does not want a green planet or clean air and water? Who does not want to recycle inputs in order to maximize the use of raw materials? The problem is that the goal is more nefarious than people are led to believe if they only took the time to read and inform themselves.

United Nations is concerned about the size of our cars, our homes, our property, our farms, our wealth, the size of our “socially unjust” use of energy and resources, our recreational areas, the size of our hunting and fishing grounds, and the size and rights to our living space in general vis-à-vis a needy planet whose wildlife needs more space and wilderness devoid of humans.

We laughed years ago when Europeans came out with the Smart car with interchangeable fashionable side panels to match the driver’s outfit. It looked like a fun toy to drive to the local grocery store not a safe car to drive 60 mph on a busy highway. Years later and millions of dollars in advertising and brainwashing of our liberal youth into the urgent need to save the planet, the rather expensive-for-its-size Smart car is now a fixture on our freeways.

To conserve space and reduce human habitation to city dwelling in high rise and/or crowded spaces, the liberal architects and developers have come up with a new green idea – the 150-200 square foot home in an alley, the new “American dream.” Americans don’t know yet that this is what they want – they must be first convinced, indoctrinated, or coerced that this exactly how they want to live in the future.

The Northeast Washington neighborhood of Stronghold (close to the Capitol) is building a cluster of Lilliputian houses. Emily Wax of the Washington Post describes such homes as a dream of “compact bathrooms and cozy sleeping lofts that add up to living spaces that are smaller than the walk-in closets in a suburban McMansion.” (November 27, 2012)

There is no secret that proponents of Green Growth and Agenda 21 hate suburban sprawl and wish to ban further building of homes in suburbia because it is unsustainable growth. They would love to move everyone into high-rises downtown within walking distance of everything, abandoning the land to the state.

The diminutive homes that can be bought with wheels were first designed by Tumbleweed Tiny House Co. in Santa Rosa, California in 2000. According to Wax, “their increasing popularity could be seen as a denunciation of conspicuous consumption.” I have not met one person yet who was eager to live in a space the size of a prison cell unless forced to.

Boneyard Studios preferred the Smurf-sized houses to be built in a community connected to a neighborhood but zoning laws do not allow residential dwellings on alley lots unless they are at least 30 feet wide. No problem, it is time for D.C. to change its zoning laws and make them progressive.

The tiny homes sell for $20,000 to $50,000. Who can afford a real house when the economy has been driven into a downward spiral in the last four years and it is harder and harder to qualify for a real mortgage loan when you’ve been living in your parents’ basement unemployed?

Europeans have been living in crowded conditions for ages, multi-generational families forced to live together with elderly parents by the dearth of living space, city crowding, and high rental prices. Home ownership was discouraged in some countries by generous government-subsidized rental housing. Europeans always excused their cramped spaces as more enlightened priorities than American’s selfishly sprawling dream homes. If truth was to be known, they would gladly swap their living quarters with those of Americans.

What are the best selling points of a “tiny” house? They are easy to clean, mobile, “save a ton of money on heating and AC,” and the price is right. Besides, the generational trend gurus instruct us that our love affair with a real house has ended when progressives took over the economy and turned it into a disaster.

Saving money on heating and cooling, of course, features prominently into the playbook of Agenda 21 supporters who would prefer to roll back the clock to pre-industrial America in terms of energy use and living conditions, preferably to pioneer days.

Emily Wax said, “Here in Stronghold, the tiny houses also signal a culture clash between generations with different ideas about which American dream to aspire to.” The author must be referring to the new and improved American dream as envisioned by progressives. Patricia Harris, a descendant of freed slaves, (I am not sure why it was relevant to mention her lineage) is quoted, “These tiny houses feels like we are going backwards.”

Progressives and their children seem to prefer “restaurants, fitness centers, and a community life they can walk to.” The rest of Americans like to walk as well but they also prefer to own a car, a larger home, and a more independent lifestyle that allows mobility and travel to distant places.

Affordable-housing promoters hope that “tiny” homes will replace the much maligned trailer parks and low-income housing – well, at least until a hurricane or straight line winds decide to make land in D.C.

Emily Wax reports that a 5,200 square feet lot for a “tiny” home sold for $31,000. In a different part of the country, a family can buy a nice traditional home for $81,000, avoiding the indignity of having to live in a matchbox or a home the size of a prison cell.

One thought on “Lilliputian Homes and the New American Dream: Match Box Housing for Smurfs

  1. Not that living in a crowded city, smashed-in-amongst-everyone-else and within walking distance/public transportation to everything is BAD (especially for those who never had any different)–and I lived in Europe for a bit so I know how it is…but it should be a CHOICE! Great article, but I DO believe they (global powers) ARE influencing the climate with Monsanto’s genetic engineering and aerosols! They ARE creating drought and dangerous fire conditions AND I wouldn’t doubt if these things have an effect on the “superstorms” as in Sandy. All very interesting..all the dots are connecting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *