Understanding The Sierra Club

[editec]

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that most grassroots environmentalists think that the SIERRA CLUB is a tool for industrialists.

Yeah, that's right most of US (note I include myself in this disenfranchised group?) KNOW that the Sierra Club will sell out at the drop of a hat.

 

[Bfgrn]

Protection racket is the least of it.

The OP plus is designed to show the real red underbelly of the Sierra Club.....


Throughout, the conspicuence of the Sierra Club is explained.

Rather than aimed at improvements in the environment, it is of a piece with totalitarianism, and, therefore, a hatred of free-market solutions.




In the Iron Curtain countries, where there were no constitutional democracies and no private property rights, the central planning ethic could be fully realized; the results have been shown to be catastrophic. But, in dire need of a mitigation for their beloved Marxism, the failure, it was posited, was due to the fact that it hadn’t been tried using the bounty of the West!


a. When the Soviet Union fell, many fellow travelers migrated to the environmental movement. So much so, that the movement is often referred to as the ‘Watermelon Movement”: green on the outside, red on the inside.


b. “Delingpole does an excellent job of cutting through he jargon and presenting the essentials. But where the book really shines is exposing the politics behind this manufactured crisis.”
From a review of “Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors”

The usual PC hyperbole.

The PEOPLE voted it down...heaven forbid We, the People have any say...

People make mistakes....

....look who's in the White House.

Thank you for outing yourself PC. The right HATES democracy and really embraces totalitarianism.

End of thread...

 

[asterism]

Can anyone explain to me why the Sierra Club is opposing Baseball Parks and nixing Urban Housing Plans in the Bay Area? Is there a special Sierra Club chapter there that never takes field trip to the Sierras?

I think PC explains this correctly.. Some Sierra Club chapters are made up of folks who thinks the meetings are for the Green Party of Bay Area...

The same reason the Sierra Club blocked a Home Depot here but now there's a Whole Foods in the same spot. Whole Foods made a "contribution to protect the environment." In other words, they paid a bribe.

Very interesting.. So instead of hawking bags and stuffed animals, they're in the protection racket now eh?

Ethics would dictate that you at least throw in a little parkland for the citizenry... Like the Cities do when they shake down a potential big box store..

The Sierra Club needs all that money for bulk mail - see how saving the environment works?

 

[asterism]

The same reason the Sierra Club blocked a Home Depot but now there's a Whole Foods in the same spot. Whole Foods made a "contribution to protect the environment." In other words, they paid a bribe.

Very interesting.. So instead of hawking bags and stuffed animals, they're in the protection racket now eh?

Ethics would dictate that you at least throw in a little parkland for the citizenry... Like the Cities do when they shake down a potential big box store..

Do you folks actually see no distinction between the ecological value/cost of a park and a professional baseball park? And since when does the Sierra Club have the authority to "nix" urban plans? As to Whole Foods, they make donations to environmental causes all over the country and as a continuing practice - not limited to when they want to open a new story. If you want to accuse them of paying a bribe, you're going to have to come up with a much better case. Did Sierra oppose them UNTIL they made the donation? Did the donation benefit the Sierra Club? I think you're full of crap here.

Sierra opposed the Home Depot on the basis that the land upon which the Whole Foods now sits was environmentally sensitive. They did not oppose the Whole Foods at all and the then local Sierra Club Treasurer explained that Whole Foods contributed to the St. Johns Riverkeeper and the local Sierra Club.

 

[asterism]

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that most grassroots environmentalists think that the SIERRA CLUB is a tool for industrialists.

Yeah, that's right most of US (note I include myself in this disenfranchised group?) KNOW that the Sierra Club will sell out at the drop of a hat.

True but some extremists refuse to believe that.

 

[Abraham3]

It's been a standard practice here in Florida and elsewhere in the country, that sensitive lands may be utilized if the builder offsets the loss of land with the purchase and donation of similarly sensititive lands elsewhere.

 

[longknife]

Without getting into all the vitriol and having ignored the vase majority of posts on this thread - let me add my two cents.

John Muir was a man who sensed the beauty and harmony of Nature. He saw everything in balance and, like American Indians, wanted to keep the balance. He was responsible for urging politicians to seek ways to preserve natural beauty under the threat of being destroyed. Our national parks are a heritage of his.

However, as often happens, professionals have taken over an organization with a good aim and turned it to their own political goals. Truly sad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without getting into all the vitriol and having ignored the vase majority of posts on this thread - let me add my two cents.

John Muir was a man who sensed the beauty and harmony of Nature. He saw everything in balance and, like American Indians, wanted to keep the balance. He was responsible for urging politicians to seek ways to preserve natural beauty under the threat of being destroyed. Our national parks are a heritage of his.

However, as often happens, professionals have taken over an organization with a good aim and turned it to their own political goals. Truly sad.

May I point out that Muir was of the 'humans are a virus' school of thought.

Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot had very different views of environmentalism...

1. Teddy Roosevelt, icon of conservation, along with his ideological soul-mate, Gifford Pinchot, head of the Division of Forestry (later the Forest Service), strongly believed in the preservation of forest lands. Their view of conservation saw waste as the problem…..not people. “He was a progressive who strongly believed in the efficiency movement. The most economically efficient use of natural resources was his goal; waste was his great enemy.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. TR and Pinchot did not intend to set aside forests for perpetual pristine preservation. Their conservation was anthropocentric, a very different concept from Muir and the modern environmentalists. No, their aim was to set aside resources for future development, for profit, and for the benefit of the many: “The greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time” (the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham).


a. While John Muir fought against dams in Yosemite, TR and Pinchot felt that San Francisco’s need for water took precedence. “With the creation of the National Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, and with Pinchot as its first director, his view prevailed in Washington: forests would be treated like a crop, not a temple. Pinchot prevailed again when he persuaded President Theodore Roosevelt to allow the construction of the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, despite Muir's vociferous objections.” The National Parks: America's Best Idea: Historical Figures | PBS



3. TR and Pinchot believed that the first duty of the human race is to control the earth on which we live; nature, they believed, is unable to do the job on its own.” Pinchot was generally opposed to preservation for the sake of wilderness or scenery, a fact perhaps best illustrated by the important support he offered to the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.” Gifford Pinchot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

The usual PC hyperbole.

The PEOPLE voted it down...heaven forbid We, the People have any say...

People make mistakes....

....look who's in the White House.

Thank you for outing yourself PC. The right HATES democracy and really embraces totalitarianism.

End of thread...

I accept all thank-yous gratefully.


Now to educate you:


In 1992, the UN-variety socialist, Maurice Strong, announced: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” (Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit)


1. Consider that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), issued a report in the summer of 2010, the Year of Biodiversity, claiming that fully one-third of the earth's species are at risk of going extinct, ten thousand almost identical stories were published in almost every respectable newspaper in the world.


2. From the United Stated departments of State, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service, and National Parks Service, together, pay $519,000 in annual dues to the IUCN, as do agencies from 167 other countries. The IUCN also includes 875 NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, etc. All contribute money: the IUCN spends $150 million a year promoting fears of biodiversity collapse."
Elizabeth Nickson,"Eco-Fascists," chapter thirteen.




Now....wait for it:



3. The organizational structure of this environmental behemoth was developed by Maurice Strong, whose motto was to use capitalist tools to achieve socialist ends. Maurice Strong - KeyWiki

 

[Bfgrn]

People make mistakes....

....look who's in the White House.

Thank you for outing yourself PC. The right HATES democracy and really embraces totalitarianism.

End of thread...

I accept all thank-yous gratefully.


Now to educate you:


In 1992, the UN-variety socialist, Maurice Strong, announced: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” (Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit)


1. Consider that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), issued a report in the summer of 2010, the Year of Biodiversity, claiming that fully one-third of the earth's species are at risk of going extinct, ten thousand almost identical stories were published in almost every respectable newspaper in the world.


2. From the United Stated departments of State, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service, and National Parks Service, together, pay $519,000 in annual dues to the IUCN, as do agencies from 167 other countries. The IUCN also includes 875 NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, etc. All contribute money: the IUCN spends $150 million a year promoting fears of biodiversity collapse."
Elizabeth Nickson,"Eco-Fascists," chapter thirteen.




Now....wait for it:



3. The organizational structure of this environmental behemoth was developed by Maurice Strong, whose motto was to use capitalist tools to achieve socialist ends. Maurice Strong - KeyWiki

And you always follow up being owned with obfuscation and the non sequitur.

I trust We, the People. You trust totalitarianism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thank you for outing yourself PC. The right HATES democracy and really embraces totalitarianism.

End of thread...

I accept all thank-yous gratefully.


Now to educate you:


In 1992, the UN-variety socialist, Maurice Strong, announced: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” (Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit)


1. Consider that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), issued a report in the summer of 2010, the Year of Biodiversity, claiming that fully one-third of the earth's species are at risk of going extinct, ten thousand almost identical stories were published in almost every respectable newspaper in the world.


2. From the United Stated departments of State, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service, and National Parks Service, together, pay $519,000 in annual dues to the IUCN, as do agencies from 167 other countries. The IUCN also includes 875 NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, etc. All contribute money: the IUCN spends $150 million a year promoting fears of biodiversity collapse."
Elizabeth Nickson,"Eco-Fascists," chapter thirteen.




Now....wait for it:



3. The organizational structure of this environmental behemoth was developed by Maurice Strong, whose motto was to use capitalist tools to achieve socialist ends. Maurice Strong - KeyWiki

And you always follow up being owned with obfuscation and the non sequitur.

I trust We, the People. You trust totalitarianism.

Really, BoringFriendlessGuy?


1. In science, the straight line goes from Hegel to Ernst Haeckel, the man who coined the word ‘ecology.’

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19


b. Hegel to Haeckel to Hitler, or Marx and Engels to Soviet science or Nazi science. Both forms are corruptions of science.

2. "Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.

A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

And did you notice who all the totalists.....like you....are?

 

[flacaltenn]

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that most grassroots environmentalists think that the SIERRA CLUB is a tool for industrialists.

Yeah, that's right most of US (note I include myself in this disenfranchised group?) KNOW that the Sierra Club will sell out at the drop of a hat.

Not surprised.. It's a high bar that set for "grassroots".. You can't be too organized or have too much influence or own your own lawyers. Then you loss "grassroots" status..

ONE of the Sierra Club problems is that they give WAAAAAAAAAYY too much autonomy to their chapters and the message gets mangled.. Seems like youre doomed to irrelevence either way. Stay weak and principled -- or grow some cajones and get called "a tool"

 

[Big Black Dog]

I understand the Sierra Club perfectly well. Goofy people doing goofy things.

 

[Bfgrn]

I accept all thank-yous gratefully.


Now to educate you:


In 1992, the UN-variety socialist, Maurice Strong, announced: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” (Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit)


1. Consider that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), issued a report in the summer of 2010, the Year of Biodiversity, claiming that fully one-third of the earth's species are at risk of going extinct, ten thousand almost identical stories were published in almost every respectable newspaper in the world.


2. From the United Stated departments of State, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, EPA, Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service, and National Parks Service, together, pay $519,000 in annual dues to the IUCN, as do agencies from 167 other countries. The IUCN also includes 875 NGOs, such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, etc. All contribute money: the IUCN spends $150 million a year promoting fears of biodiversity collapse."
Elizabeth Nickson,"Eco-Fascists," chapter thirteen.




Now....wait for it:



3. The organizational structure of this environmental behemoth was developed by Maurice Strong, whose motto was to use capitalist tools to achieve socialist ends. Maurice Strong - KeyWiki

And you always follow up being owned with obfuscation and the non sequitur.

I trust We, the People. You trust totalitarianism.

Really, BoringFriendlessGuy?


1. In science, the straight line goes from Hegel to Ernst Haeckel, the man who coined the word ‘ecology.’

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19


b. Hegel to Haeckel to Hitler, or Marx and Engels to Soviet science or Nazi science. Both forms are corruptions of science.

2. "Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.

A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

And did you notice who all the totalists.....like you....are?

There is nothing remotely 'liberal' about Hitler or Stalin. Both were raised in ultra-conservative households.

Hitler wanted to be a priest and Stalin received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi.

Their philosophy was right in line with today's right wing conservatives in America...Ayn Rand social Darwinism...

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you always follow up being owned with obfuscation and the non sequitur.

I trust We, the People. You trust totalitarianism.

Really, BoringFriendlessGuy?


1. In science, the straight line goes from Hegel to Ernst Haeckel, the man who coined the word ‘ecology.’

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19


b. Hegel to Haeckel to Hitler, or Marx and Engels to Soviet science or Nazi science. Both forms are corruptions of science.

2. "Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.

A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

And did you notice who all the totalists.....like you....are?

There is nothing remotely 'liberal' about Hitler or Stalin. Both were raised in ultra-conservative households.

Hitler wanted to be a priest and Stalin received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi.

Their philosophy was right in line with today's right wing conservatives in America...Ayn Rand social Darwinism...

Only one chopstick in the chowmein,....



Here, let me help you:

Marxism, Nazism, Progressivism, Liberalism, socialism.....all fruits of the same collectivist tree.

And you feel the heat, don't you?





The opposite view is conservatism, classical liberalism, i.e.. the founders.

...based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.




Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?

 

[editec]

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that most grassroots environmentalists think that the SIERRA CLUB is a tool for industrialists.

Yeah, that's right most of US (note I include myself in this disenfranchised group?) KNOW that the Sierra Club will sell out at the drop of a hat.

Not surprised.. It's a high bar that set for "grassroots".. You can't be too organized or have too much influence or own your own lawyers. Then you loss "grassroots" status..

ONE of the Sierra Club problems is that they give WAAAAAAAAAYY too much autonomy to their chapters and the message gets mangled.. Seems like youre doomed to irrelevence either way. Stay weak and principled -- or grow some cajones and get called "a tool"

Not really mate.


Sierra sells out.

Plenty of local environmental battles have lawyers and are highly organized.

Sierra's seems more interested in appearing to be "reasonable" than in saving the environment.

They sell out locals. Seem it happen at least twice here in Maine.

I think Sierra is a FAUX environmental organization.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that most grassroots environmentalists think that the SIERRA CLUB is a tool for industrialists.

Yeah, that's right most of US (note I include myself in this disenfranchised group?) KNOW that the Sierra Club will sell out at the drop of a hat.

Not surprised.. It's a high bar that set for "grassroots".. You can't be too organized or have too much influence or own your own lawyers. Then you loss "grassroots" status..

ONE of the Sierra Club problems is that they give WAAAAAAAAAYY too much autonomy to their chapters and the message gets mangled.. Seems like youre doomed to irrelevence either way. Stay weak and principled -- or grow some cajones and get called "a tool"

Not really mate.


Sierra sells out.

Plenty of local environmental battles have lawyers and are highly organized.

Sierra's seems more interested in appearing to be "reasonable" than in saving the environment.

They sell out locals. Seem it happen at least twice here in Maine.

I think Sierra is a FAUX environmental organization.

Bet you really, really miss that other environmentalist group, the CPUSA.

 

[Bfgrn]

Really, BoringFriendlessGuy?


1. In science, the straight line goes from Hegel to Ernst Haeckel, the man who coined the word ‘ecology.’

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19


b. Hegel to Haeckel to Hitler, or Marx and Engels to Soviet science or Nazi science. Both forms are corruptions of science.

2. "Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.

A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

And did you notice who all the totalists.....like you....are?

There is nothing remotely 'liberal' about Hitler or Stalin. Both were raised in ultra-conservative households.

Hitler wanted to be a priest and Stalin received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi.

Their philosophy was right in line with today's right wing conservatives in America...Ayn Rand social Darwinism...

Only one chopstick in the chowmein,....



Here, let me help you:

Marxism, Nazism, Progressivism, Liberalism, socialism.....all fruits of the same collectivist tree.

And you feel the heat, don't you?





The opposite view is conservatism, classical liberalism, i.e.. the founders.

...based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.




Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?

Herein lies your problem

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is nothing remotely 'liberal' about Hitler or Stalin. Both were raised in ultra-conservative households.

Hitler wanted to be a priest and Stalin received a scholarship to attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiflis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi.

Their philosophy was right in line with today's right wing conservatives in America...Ayn Rand social Darwinism...

Only one chopstick in the chowmein,....



Here, let me help you:

Marxism, Nazism, Progressivism, Liberalism, socialism.....all fruits of the same collectivist tree.

And you feel the heat, don't you?





The opposite view is conservatism, classical liberalism, i.e.. the founders.

...based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.




Is that a sign in your ear saying "Space for Rent"?

Herein lies your problem

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

"Herein lies your problem."

Must you continually prove that you are among the least perceptive of posters?

Really?


Point: I have no problems.....

I know I'm not perfect....but so darn close it's scary.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not surprised.. It's a high bar that set for "grassroots".. You can't be too organized or have too much influence or own your own lawyers. Then you loss "grassroots" status..

ONE of the Sierra Club problems is that they give WAAAAAAAAAYY too much autonomy to their chapters and the message gets mangled.. Seems like youre doomed to irrelevence either way. Stay weak and principled -- or grow some cajones and get called "a tool"

Not really mate.


Sierra sells out.

Plenty of local environmental battles have lawyers and are highly organized.

Sierra's seems more interested in appearing to be "reasonable" than in saving the environment.

They sell out locals. Seem it happen at least twice here in Maine.

I think Sierra is a FAUX environmental organization.

Bet you really, really miss that other environmentalist group, the CPUSA.

Green Party got to them first.. Editec is right. These orgs become opportunistic when they control the brand. That part isn't political..

The part that's political is the guidance and principles that they ADOPT from political heritage.. AND the fact that left-leaning orgs (even the Libertarian Party for that matter) don't LIKE top-down organization and rules and platforms.

At this point -- the critters and the trees are wondering where the hell the cops went.. While the Sierra Club is overlooking Urban Development and playing PR patsies for their favorite big box retailers.. Someone needs to text message the forest critters and tell them "you're on you're own" --- "we're busy with administrative details"...