Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The Environmental Revolution was started and funded during the cold war with the Soviet Union. The communist party started the environmental revolution as a weapon against our economy and they thought they could at least damage us, if not bring us down by doing so.

Just thought that was kind of interesting--I don't know if it is true or not, but apparenty a lot of funding to environmental groups in the beginning was from the communist party.

Rodney

Rodney,

When you post comments like this you damage your credibility.

Joe

I am damaging my credibility by bringing up a topic I heard on talk radio?

Yikes, are you sensitive and politically correct minded!

Not only is it very possible, it's quite probable. I was just wondering if anyone had proof of this, or knows where I can find the proof. It happened in the right time period. The person I heard on the radio was an elderly man, who was very cridible and respectful, that was recounting an article he read by a news magazine years ago. He thought it was either Time or Newsweek, but couldn't say for sure which one. I thought it was interesting considering how many "environmental" groups make huge amounts of money today by bringing lawsuits against any company they can squeeze money out of. They certainly are more interested in making a buck than helping the environment! All these lawsuits certainly hurt the economy and the consumer by bringing delays, court costs, and higher prices for comsumers. That would certainly be a good weapon to use during the cold war.

Frankly, I think you are hurting your credibility by not even considering things which may very well be, and probably are, true. We now know many of the anti-war demonstrations were funded by international ANSWER, a Marxist/Lenonist group. Imagine trucking people in and paying them to protest! Who would have believed that a year ago?

Rodney

Rodney,

You postulate a theory that the environemental movement was a communist plot. You site for evidence an old man you heard on the radio who was trying to remember where he read it. And you want people to respond to it seriously? Gimme me a break man.

The fact that you even considered posting such nonsense informs us of your inability to discern reality.

Joe

Ed

You know guy...pulatus does have a point in one respect. In your debates with me you bashed enviromentalists as well in other posts. The radio story you presented may have been innocent in it's posting if taken alone...but on the weight of many more statements you have made, it strongly points towards a predjudicial additude toward people who favor the ecology and chose to act on it (and Fast Eddie if you read this..the proof of my statement can be found in the earlier series of posts about the wetlands).
I will say as an enviromentalist who campaigned for Goldwater in 64, voted for Nixon and Regan twice (in different elections)and who hates PETA and other KOOK enviroidiots, I feel a bit funny when you keep insinuating that enviromentalists are communist (or at the least...communist dupes.). I wish you could come over and see a sainer part of the country than the land you live in. It might help improve your perspective.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Let me state this one more time.

I am not against ecology or saving the environment. I am against "environmental" groups such as the Sierra Club, Earth First, Green Peace, the list goes on and on and on. I see these groups as nothing more than con-men like the ones who steal retirement monies from the elderly, or evangelists that live like kings while the poor are throwing money at them. These groups attract con-men because con-men know there is a great deal of money to be made here!

These groups are not interested in the environment or environmentalism except for the way that they can use it as a tool for their own ends--to gain power and money. They use catch phrases like environmental, ethical, and earth in order to sucker people into giving them donations (money). They use lawsuits in order to make companies settle by giving them money. Many tax dollars are also used fighting these suits and a lot of these organizations also get tax dollars directly from the government (money). Not to mention all the money and lawyers that corporations need to fight these suits. They have huge office buildings with think tanks that employ people to figure out ways that they can get more money. They frequently represent environmental situations fraudulently because that will get them more money. Noticed a trend here. They all say how bad businesses are, and everything they do hurts businesses and the economy, but they themselves only seem to be interested in money. They have been caught drilling and logging land that they have purchased for a sanctuary because that land had an endangered animal on it. Yet, they bring lawsuits to stop businesses from doing the very same thing (and on land that isn't even set up as a reserve!) It is now known that the Spotted Owl's population is twice as large as it used to be many years ago. Representing it as endangered to stop logging was a fraud. When it was taken off the endangered species list, because of this fraud, they are now bringing a suit against the court that took it off the list! You would think they would be happy that it is known that it is a thriving species and it is not endangered, but that doesn't make them any money.

Numerous, huge forest fires have been the direct cause of environmental suits. They don't care, they already made money form these suits and now are concentrating on the next set of suits that will bring them some more money.

A perfect example of what I am taking about is Green Peace. It was started by an environmentalist who quit when the organization he started was taken over by lawyers who were only interested in making money. He now fights the same organization he started! Here's a link to prove my point. Read some of his background info. at the site. I heard about and found this site after our previous debate on logging/thinning the forests. While I am against clear-cutting the forests in all cases, I otherwise agree with what this guy is saying.

http://greenspirit.com/index.cfm

I thought that the idea that environmentalism was started by the communist party as a weapon against the American economy was very interesting. Especilly when you consider how the "environmental" groups always represent businesses as evil and are always fighting them. Clearly, this is exactly the same thing that the communist party would have wanted if they did start the environmental revolution as an economic weapon agaist us during the cold war. I clearly stated that I didn't know if it was true or not, but that it made a lot of sense. If anyone has news articles or proof of this, please post it for me. I did a search on the internet using communism and environmentalism and I got so many hits that I didn't really have time to look at them yet. This is, after all, an open debate forum.

I also find it interesting that the ideas of communism, socialism and the democratic party are all basically the same, just to a different extent. (Big government taking care of everyone and running everything). I also find it interesting that the environmental groups have the democratic party in their back pocket. The democrats are typically against business and so are the environmetalists. The republicans are for business, the economy, and generally against environmentalists. It doesn't seem like a huge stretch of the imagination that communists were (during the cold war) also for environmentalism, not only as a weapon against our economy, but because they have many of the same views as democrats. Again, I am speaking in generalizations, not about any one specific person.

Rodney

Hey....No arguement there..Just wish you were over here for awhile to see that not everywhere is like California. Our local ecologists actually fight for what their supposed to and with a lot more common sense. We are no fans of PETA, GREENPEACE or any of those fools.
Never said you were against ecology (I certainly know better)...But it did need to be pointed out that at times you do come across that way.

Idea! You can talk fast Eddie into hugging a tree instead of me!!!! (LOL)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Rodney, my man,

You speak as though everything you've ever learned you've learned from the comedians on right wing talk radio. All your arguements amount to simplistic idealogical attacks. You seem utterly incapable of discerning another point of view, or appreciating any subtlety in these complex issues.

Why don't you calm down a little, take a few deep breaths and actually try to understand some of these involved issues? You approach everything as if there is only your unsupported self-rightious attitude that stands to protect the US economy against all the evil (communist) environmentalists in the world.

As I said below, environmental groups do what the people who support them want them to do. They have to, or they wouldn't be able to raise the money they need to be effective. When I give money to Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, etc. it isn't because I hate business and want to see our economy suffer. Its because I feel the environment needs a proponent.

Big business has plenty of people looking out for it, the environment only has concerned people who are willing to help pay for its protection out of their own pocket.

Why don't you try turning off those silly men on right wing talk radio who have learned to so skillfully manipulate your emotions for their own financial gain and try instead reading a little? Doing so might give you enough of a reality based framework that would allow you to recognize how silly it is to blame the environmental movement on the communists.

Joe

If you had some facts to back up what you are saying, I might agree, but so far I have only heard accusations. And yes, I am passionate about this. That's why you see all the to let people know that I am not hysterical, just passionate.

You said,

As I said below, environmental groups do what the people who support them want them to do. They have to, or they wouldn't be able to raise the money they need to be effective.

That simply isn't true. All these groups have to do is to make the public perception of them appear to be doing what they want.

Take the Nature Conservancy for example. They are one of the best perceived environmental groups. (and one of the ones with the fewest bad traits as far as I can tell) How many of their members support drilling and logging on land that they own as a reserve for endangered species? How many of their supporters even know they are doing this? Or giving large tracts of land to their executive officers for a small donation? Or under congressional investigation for misuse of non-profit tax status?

I'm sorry if informing the public of the evils of most environmental groups means to you that I am only getting info from right wing radio. At least I am not blind to that info. and I am letting people know what these groups are really doing so the "perception" of them can be shattered and be backed up by facts. One thing I have noticed in my life is that conservatives seem to back up their arguments with facts and liberals back up their positions by their feelings. Feelings are often manipulated or just plane wrong.

How many people support not letting fire fighters use a stream to fight a fire while men are being burned alive? This happened here because of an endangered fish that lives in that stream and a lawsuit that prevented any use of that stream. It seems that as time goes on, liberal thinking (which used to mean open-mindedness) now means stopping all facts and free speech not in support of your argument.

Sure some environmental groups have done some good. But I could never give money to a group that praises environmentalism on one hand and gives their executives and lawyers amazing lifestyles and salaries on the other.--While preaching to all of us the evils of those same lifestyles because they are wasteful and bad for the environment.

Take a look at PETA for example. They get support by telling people about stopping chemical testing on animals eyes or crash testing cars with live pigs in them. Who is for that? I knew a number of people I used to work with that were going to support them for just that reason. (a co-worker was on a membership drive for them). That is the "perception" a lot of their supporters had from their brochures. When I told them about PETA trying to make all pets illegal and how they try to shut down and protest zoos and public aquariums and how they tried to have all the California Condors destroyed (from a legal suit) because they shouldn't be in cages, those same people no longer wanted to support them because of other facts that PETA didn't want people to know about at that time because it didn't fit into the money raising perception they needed. Now PETA has gone so crazy that they seem to want that wacko perception. The point is, your "perception" of them is what they want you to know so you will support them. Ignore reality if you must.

Rodney

It's a pity when well meaning people form an organization and then either the kooks..or the money (or kooks with money) take charge. It's the same with any power based organisation...the orrigional purpose gets lost in the shuffle. Probably that is the main reason that I never joined any eccological society beyond my local Herp club.........Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

You said:
"One thing I have noticed in my life is that conservatives seem to back up their arguments with facts and liberals back up their positions by their feelings. Feelings are often manipulated or just plane wrong. "

Is that right? Then why are your posts almost always devoid of references? You've made some pretty outlandish claimson this board, and your "facts" have been supported by such valuable resources as "some guy I heard on the radio"

What gives here Rodney? Are you the proverbial pot calling the kettle black? Do you have some supporting references to your assertion that communists started the environmental movement? I wouldn't think you would post something that outragious unless you had some tiney shread of evidence to back it up - oh wait, you heard it on right wing talk radio...pretty funny.

Here's another strongly supportable opinion of yours:
"It seems that as time goes on, liberal thinking (which used to mean open-mindedness) now means stopping all facts and free speech not in support of your argument. "

Can you reference any credible source that shows this? Or are you just caught in the throws of an emotional attack devoid of reason and evidence? Where's the evidence for your feelings here Rodney? I mean, you don't want to look like those dasterdly liberals who have emotional responses not supported by fact do you? Show us how Liberals are trying to stop freedom of speech, ok?

You also said:
"Sure some environmental groups have done some good. But I could never give money to a group that praises environmentalism on one hand and gives their executives and lawyers amazing lifestyles and salaries on the other."

You implying that ALL environmental groups aare unworthy because ALL give their executives and lawyers "amazing" lifestyles? Tell me who these executives are and what they earn, OK? Take a look, check their credentials, see what their education and experience is, see what they would be earning in a comperable corporate position, then tell us what they earn as an executive in an environmental organization, OK? I assume you have this info readily available since you were willing to trot these "facts" out for everyone here. You wouldn't be just mounting an emotional arguement devoid of facts would you? Gee, only liberals do thet huh?

Finally, you said:
"Ignore reality if you must. "

But Rodney, its not reality at all. Its just your unsupported opinions , and its becoming increasingly clear that you don't actually have any opinions of your own, rather you ape the simplistic tripe spouted by the clowns on right wing talk radio.

You won't support environmental groups because "they" funnel too much money to their execs and lawyers. If you believe this you obviously are basing your opinions on facts - so show us the facts. What percentage of the Sierra Club revenues goes to executives, for example? How about the Nature Consrvancy? What percent goes to lawyers? How many, and how much on average? Is this at the industry average or way above it as you seem so certain of?

I sure hope your not just engaged in emotional arguements here Rodney. I know you conservatives are much too intelligent to do that. I mean who, other than a conservative would have been astute enough to detect the link between communism and the environmental groups?!

Good job Sherlock!

Joe

First Joe, you need to understand the English Language. I am amazed at how many people read my post and totally change what I have said. Like on the logging issue where I said some trees should be allowed to be cut and a lot of people coming back with, "You want to cut down all the trees in the world".

In my post on the Communist Party funding and starting the Environmental Revolution I clearly stated that I didn't know that it was fact, just an interesting call that someone made to a radio station that made sense. I have never represented anything on this forum as fact that I haven't got references for. And I have only debated with others on things they have represented as facts that I could disprove. I have never debated anyone's opinion, because that is exatly what it is- an opinion, and thus not open to debate.

Second, the words It seems like and I think indicate opinion not fact. If I don't have references for some point/s I am trying to make, I preface the statement with these words to clearly indicate they are my opinion.

Third, here are some of references you so desperately need.

Take particular note of the references on Global Warming and Scientists bragging about fraudulent environmentalism at this site

http://pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

Radioactivity and the dangers of coal energy production vs. nuclear plants.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Nature Conservancy frauds.

First, causing forest fires by preventing thinning.
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/newsservice5_21_03.htm

Second, about them making endless appeals like I said. A congressional investigation on them.

The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Forest Conservation Council were among the worst to file frivolous administrative appeals. House Resource Committee Chairman, Richard Pombo (R-CA), expressed outrage at the findings:

“This finding is nothing short of appalling [in light of last year’s catastrophic fires],” he said. “I hope this study serves as a wake-up call to the American people that radical environmental rhetoric serves a political purpose, not an environmental cause,” he continued.

http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue27/am44.htm
Below is an important, pertinent excerpt so you don't have to read the whole article if you don't want to. Moore is the founder of Greenpeace.

Through his website (www.greenspirit.com) Moore notes: "I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism."

He supports these statements with real evidence. He describes Greenpeace's duplicity in the "Brent Spar" campaign that actually resulted in more environmental damage after the Greenpeace "solution" had been adopted. Moore told us about his challenge to the current dogma about endangered species, which states we are losing about 50,000 species per year due to human activity. "Name one", he challenges, but has received no replies as of yet.

About them giving land to their executives and logging and drilling on land that is a reserve for endangered wildlife. First two or three paragraphs are amazing!

http://www.familywateralliance.com/nature_conservancy.htm

About new logging practices that don't cut the large trees or clear-cut the forests.
http://pushback.com/environment/forests/ModernLogging.html

About "environmentalist" lawyers asking for government money to pay their legal fees that are grossly exaggerated.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/graphics/graphic3a.html

A whole series of articles by the Sacramento Bee about environmentalism being big business and some of their frauds.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/index02.html

I have plenty more reference if you need them. And note, many of these references come from liberal newspapers like the Sacramento Bee and N.Y. Post- so you can't accuse me of getting it from right wing radio.

Like they say on the X-Files--The truth is out there the environmental groups just don't want you to find it!

Rodney

Take a pill Joe! Rodney merely raised a question, he didn't make any unsupported claims, as you say. Since you haven't noticed, Rodney is pretty good a providing facts and references to support any claims he has made (You need to re-read his posts). Obviously, based on some of Rodney's posts, there is a fair amount of abuse regarding environmental groups. Your determination to degrade Rodney by insinuating that he is brainwashed by morons like Rush Limbaugh has obviously prevented you from giving a legitimate response. Rodney dismantled any argument against Bush made here by the liberals, by using facts. He's doing the exact same thing to you on the environmental argument. Apparently, your feelings are preventing you from realizing this. Why are you so defensive of environmental groups?

Ed

By the way, when he called me Sherlock, I don't think he was being sarcastic. He was just complimenting me on my use of logic and deductive reasoning!

I hope he takes the time to read all the references I provided. I didn't provide them in my other posts because I figured no one would want to read them. I don't recall seeing any references on any of his posts! (Kind of hypocritical considering he was "after me" for not providing them, when he didn't either!)

And, yeah, I get emotional. I just don't let my emotions take priority over facts when I am making decisions.

Rodney

My pleasure Rodney!

Although you don't need any help.

When you bury these guys with facts and figures, they'll attack your character because they have nothing logical to say.

Keep up the good work!

Ed