The Truth About Sierra Club

May 8th, 2010 — 7:50pm

Sierra Club is the oldest environmental group in America. It was founded in 1892 by a Scottish immigrant named John Muir, whose stated goal was “to make the mountains glad.” In many ways, that puerile policy compendiates perfectly the essence of Sierra Club.

Among other things, John Muir was an unapologetic racist, writing in 1894 that the Indians of Yosemite Valley were “mostly ugly, and some of them altogether hideous. [They] seemed to have no right place in the landscape,” and they disturbed his “solemn calm.” Sierra Club has never successfully shed its elitist roots — not, let it be noted, that it really cares to. Accordingly, their website has this resolution:

“State and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and discourage large families.”

Government bureaucrats, in other words, should tell us how many children we are allowed to have — as they do in Communist China, for instance.

Sierra Club cofounder David Brower advocates eugenics, of a milder sort:

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

Sierra Club also calls for “a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) into the environment, including those now approved.”

Why?

“All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent,” says Brower.

This is also known as the precautionary principle.

In addition to many other things, the precautionary principle assumes that an elite group of centralized planners are qualified to determine for the rest of us whether something is technologically guilty or innocent. As you would perhaps guess, Sierra is only too happy to assume that elitist role:

“We call for acting in accordance with the precautionary principle … we call for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops,” reads Sierra’s official policy on agricultural biotechnology.

Dr. Robert Paarlberg, however, notes that Sierra Club and other environmental groups “argue that powerful new technologies should be kept under wraps until tested for unexpected or unknown risks as well. Never mind that testing for something unknown is logically impossible (the only way to avoid a completely unknown risk is never to do anything for the first time).”

Technophobe and Sierra sympathizer Martin Teitel, former head of Responsible Genetics, puts it this way: “Politically, it’s difficult for me to go around saying that I want to shut this science down, so it’s safer for me to say something like, ‘It needs to be done safely before releasing it.’” He adds, correctly: [”The precautionary principle] means they don’t get to do it. Period.”

The precautionary principle was summed up nicely by Dr. Henry Miller, formerly of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): “For fear that something harmful may possibly arise, do nothing.”

Technophobia, however, is not Sierra’s only motivation:

In 2002, the Broward Sierra Newsletter spoke of “a vegetarian lifestyle as the way to counter the abuse animals endure to feed a hungry and growing global population.” The newsletter plugged PETA and their message that meat-eating in general, and livestock operations in particular, are a cause of world hunger and animal abuse. Sierra Club chapters in New York and Michigan promote the “Vegetarian Starter Kit” distributed by the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (a PETA front group), as a way to fight “corporate greed.”
And quoting Sierra Club’s board-of-director executive Lisa Renstrom: “The Club could begin to include animal rights positions in decades to come as members and the American public acknowledge the impact of our high animal protein diet on sustainability. [Sierra Club’s] sustainable consumption committee [issued a report in 2000 that listed] eating less meat as a Priority Action for American Consumers.”

Sierra’s ultimate goal here?

“Stronger ties with vegetarian organizations,” says Sierra Club committee leader Joan Zacharias.

Robert W. Tracinski had Sierra partly in mind when he wrote the following:

Past regulations have been imposed in the same manner that the new, less-restrictive process is being adopted: by executive-branch decree. The result of those decrees over the past three decades has been a vast environmentalist land grab, with millions of acres of land sealed off from logging, mining, grazing and even recreation. This is a basic technique used by the Left to achieve through the regulatory agencies what they could not achieve in an open vote. The technique is to introduce legislation to achieve some vague, positive-sounding generality, such as “worker safety” or “environmental protection” – things no politician will want to go on record voting against…

Consider that federal regulatory agencies make thousands of rulings each year, adding about 80,000 pages annually to the Federal Register. Do you think Congress can exercise “oversight” by debating all 80,000 pages of these regulations? Do you think the president, his advisors and his cabinet officers can consider and personally approve all of these decrees?
Most environmentalists embrace this goal, but few dare to admit it openly – so they peddle a variety of ruses to hide their meaning, ranging from “sustainable development” to “shrinkth,” a term suggested by the editor of Earth Island Journal as a less negative-sounding “antonym for growth.”

Of course, no discussion of Sierra Club would be complete without at least a cursory mention of the spotted owl. Author Bonner Cohen, in The Green Wave, says this: “[The spotted owl campaign] was brilliantly orchestrated and thoroughly dishonest.” He goes on to cite the now-infamous words of an attorney with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund named Andy Stahl:

“The spotted owl is the species of choice to act as a surrogate for old growth protection. And I’ve often thought that thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Northwest, for if it hadn’t, we’d have to genetically engineer it.”

The results of this campaign: from 1988 to 1993 timber harvest in the Northwest fell by 80 percent. The Mexican spotted owl in New Mexico and Colorado came next, and President Bill Clinton quickly deemed 4.6 million acres of forest “critical habitat.” Thus, over “three thousand timber-related jobs were lost” (Wall Street Journal, October 2005). In addition to that, the fauna and flora of these wilderness areas were devastated by forest fires that raged because of the lack of logging. There was also, of course, the millions and millions of dollars in human property loss because of these forest fires, but that’s quibbling.

Finally, the leftwing lovefest with Castro’s communist Cuba has for decades continued more or less unabated among elitist in this country, and socialist Sierra Club does nothing to break with this venerable tradition. Says Club president Jennifer Ferenstein:

Faced with challenges, Cubans have proven to be survivors. With a meat shortage in the city, they’ve turned to raising guinea pigs in cramped urban backyards. When rural farms couldn’t provide enough food to Havana due to the lack of refrigerated transport as much as production problems, the government encouraged the cultivation of fruit and vegetable gardens in Havana’s abandoned lots. When pesticides became unavailable following the collapse of the USSR, worm bins and organic gardening were celebrated. I will never forget my trip to Cuba, the beauty of the landscape, the passion of the people for baseball, and above all, the fragility of an island country struggling to improve its quality of life in a sustainable manner.

As if these poor people have any choice concerning which autocratic dictator they live under. As if there have not been untold thousands who have died on innertubes trying make it ninety miles across shark-infested oceans just to get out of that country she finds so romantic, and into the brutal U.S. of A, where she herself lives in complete comfort. As if the millions of innocents murdered and imprisoned under Castro’s bloody hand are no real big deal.

We are not surprised, therefore, to hear this same Sierra Club woman telling, in 2003, Range magazine:

“I’m a big proponent of bio-regionalism. The closer you can live off the land and the products you can use, the better off we all are … Fact is, I think people in Montana can get along without strawberries in December.”

But what of those people who want to actually grow strawberries in December and then sell them to people in Montana?

According to this woman, they shouldn’t be allowed to.

That is just a glimpse of the socialist agenda of Sierra Club.

There’s also, of course, the billions of dollars that Sierra Club has raked in with its bandwagon babble, a partial listing of which runs thus:

In 2002, the Sierra Club reported $23,619,830 in revenues, and disclosed $107,733,974 worth of assets to the IRS. Among its financial supporters are the Bauman Family Foundation; the Beldon Fund; the Compton Foundation; the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Scherman Foundation; the Bullitt Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, and many more (Discoverthnetworks.org).

Sierra Club, ladies and gentleman, friends of the earth.

But with friends like that, we must obviously ask ourselves: who needs friends?



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “The Truth About Sierra Club

  1. Mike

    “Club founder David Brower advocates eugenics, of a milder sort: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

    Oooo, thats just creapy man. Boys of brazil creapy, really creapy.

    “the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

    Barack and Michelle?

    Al and Tipper ?

  2. Mike

    The Precautionary Principle–yea, its like dodging the gerbal on the freeway.
    It justifies the 200 car pile up behind you.

  3. E.A. Blair

    From Margaret Sanger – The Founder of Planned Parenthood, and A Member of Time Magazines most influential 100.
    —————————
    On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
    “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
    On sterilization & racial purification:
    Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
    On the right of married couples to bear children:
    Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932
    On the purpose of birth control:
    The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
    On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
    “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
    On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
    “This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927) 
    On the extermination of blacks:
    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
    On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
    In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

  4. E.A. Blair

    From Ruth Bader Ginsberg

    Now I must say that Abortion should be Legal, Safe, and Rare – but these things make you wonder.

    “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

  5. George Marsh

    Dear Ray Harvey,

    Sorry to intrude here, but when I smelled pomade (sour as usual) and wine cork I knew you had another late night last night. Writing your latest polemic no doubt? I woke, and to my horror, there you were again, trying to make environmentalists into socialists, once again.

    Let’s say that, for sake of argument, Marx and Thoreau and John Muir (an absolute saint) and the others are the founders of these two philosophies. (Play along just for a bit). Walden came out in 1845, whereas Marx’s earlier texts regarding economics came out in roughly 1844; so, we see that they were contemporaries and might have been aware of each other’s works. Marx often said that only with the rise of the proletariat (you and me) could a society defeat the absolutism of traditional rule (Dick Cheney). Thoreau was into transcendentalism, a European concept that rejected traditional religion and government and said that man, as an individual, had to live his life according to time-tested principles, not external forces like the Frazier Institute. I will also add that John Muir loved individual freedom more than anyone. And Thoreau too (he was jailed for rejecting taxes — the Poll Tax) and he was especially peeved at the state of Mass. where they had just passed a law stating that all escaped slaves had to be returned to the South. (He was an abolitionist, too, you know that, right, you sonofabitch?) After all, slaves were private property, part of the free market; Thoreau never accepted that concept. Have you or your huge audience ever heard of “Civil Disobedience” and the concept of self-reliance? These came from people like Thoreau, the grandfather of environmentalism, the first American to really understand the weight of individual freedom.

    From roughly 1845, Environmentalism (though no one called it that at the time) went one way, while socialism went another. I regret that environmentalism, corrupted by marketing, has become more associated with bungee jumping and knee-jerk urges to run and sing naked among the grizzlies. (It seems to me that what Muir and Thoreau and others required and advocated about self-reliance has long since been jettisoned by those who see environmentalism as some sort of exclusive individual expression. But to suggest, as you constantly do, that environmentalism suddenly popped up when communism began to fail, is a joke. Only a true sonofabitch would propose such a thing. My biggest fear is that some of your more gullible audience members might go for it. Let me warn you all, don’t buy what Ray Harvey is selling here. It is as ridiculous as his former article about how slavery became a legal institution.

    Now check this out:

    In his inmature book Leave Us Alone, the grey-faced bartender wrote, “Private property is the crux of freedom. You cannot, in any meaningful sense, be said to be free if you do not possess the right to those things necessary to sustain your life.”

    Really, I thought it was guns. That is why I bought another Browning yesterday, punk. And I’m a dead eye.

    The nigh slumbering bartender penned, ““Control the property, control the person,” said Lenin,correctly.”

    Others, say the same about religion and media. You could say, “Control the XYZ, and you control the person.” For example, control the porn, and you control most of your customers.” Or, control the Miller Lite, and you control your mamma.” See. It’s easy, not very bright either.

    In the wee hours, Ray Harvey channels the late Julian Simon of University of Maryland and together on state funds, with the dead man’s ghastly hand on Harvey’s hand, they together wrote… “There is a million times more clean potable water. There’s instant hot or cold water. There’s instant light at the flick of a switch.”

    Not at my house, bitch. And, just FYI, if it’s potable, then it stands to reason that it’s clean. LMAO!!

    Ray Harvey writes: “Death by starvation, once commonplace, has been eradicated.”

    They must want for newspapers because in Darfur there is a current famine raging. But really, if you look at it, the famine is caused because tribes are living on oil-rich lands. But Reagan and Ray don’t pause for nuance. They truly are busy beavers. We all remember Reagan’s “No one goes to bed hungry in America.”

    Friends, I realize that Ray Harvey comes across as “intelligent,” or whatever; I realize that his writing is chosen for awards and accolades that I can only envy, but some of the recent stuff he’s selling is just pure shit. Just shit. I can only hope that you (if not he) wakes up and moves on to reality.

    Now put all of the above in your ass and smoke it.

  6. E.A. Blair

    Hello George
    You say

    Writing your latest polemic no doubt?

    So is this your attempt at a polemic?
    a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.

    I woke, and to my horror, there you were again, trying to make environmentalists into socialists, once again.

    They are.
    From Patrick Moore
    Secondly, following the falling of the Berlin wall, and the end of the peace movement, and the end of radical socialist politics in the labour and women’s movement, an awful lot of those people drifted into environmentalism. It’s been highjacked by political and social activists who are using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporate and class warfare than they do with ecology or saving the environment.
    I just realised that all you did was copy and paste “Dirk”’s comments from a “brief history of Environmentalism – very lazy.

    Let’s say that, for sake of argument, Marx and Thoreau and John Muir (an absolute saint) and the others are the founders of these two philosophies. (Play along just for a bit). Walden came out in 1845, whereas Marx’s earlier texts regarding economics came out in roughly 1844; so, we see that they were contemporaries and might have been aware of each other’s works.

    Ray already refuted this part.
    Ray’s rebuttal
    But I will continue.

    In his inmature book Leave Us Alone,

    You could have at least spell checked this post before pasting it.

    Ray Harvey writes: “Death by starvation, once commonplace, has been eradicated.”
    They must want for newspapers because in Darfur there is a current famine raging. But really, if you look at it, the famine is caused because tribes are living on oil-rich lands. But Reagan and Ray don’t pause for nuance. They truly are busy beavers. We all remember Reagan’s “No one goes to bed hungry in America.”

    How many people in the first world are starving? Or in the second?
    The reason that people in the third world are starving is because there is no respect for private property rights, or the rule of law.
    Of course all that foreign aid, disrupting the local markets, and suppressing the price of local foodstuffs does not help – it creates an incentive to remain dependent – much like all entitlements.
    In the words of James Shikwati – speaking on foreign aid to Africa
    Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.
    Here is a nice personal attack – attack the man, not the idea

    Friends, I realize that Ray Harvey comes across as “intelligent,” or whatever;

    You should try corresponding with him – very nice person, and intelligent.

    Now put all of the above in your ass and smoke it.

    Smoke Marijuana? You sound like a libertarian!

  7. Ray

    Thank you, Mr. Blair. Just incidentally, the reason George Marsh’s comment sounds like Dirk is that it is Dirk.

    Dirk wrote: > It is as ridiculous as his former article about how slavery became a legal institution.

    Click-click

  8. Ryan

    control through manipulation is what the left is best at. They learned the hard way that control through force didn’t work so instead they have rethought their tools and come back to the arena with a much more sinister plan. The lefties out there have figured out that the best way to appeal to people is through thier heart because most people won’t go against what their heart tells them even if their heads are sending up red flags all over the place. That is why the religion of environmentalism has become such a powerful tool of the left. Just like the tool of “public health” has been such a useful tool for smoking bans and limitations on private property. Just like children are being used as cover for de facto universal health coverage. If you can appeal to the hearts of the masses, you have won their approval and they will take what you say as gospel. If you tell them that they must sacrifice their lifestyles and private propertry rights to save the planet from “certain destruction” then people will do it, because after all, who in their right mind would go against saving the world?

    Had the reds figured this out back then, where would we be now? Their failure is what is driving the success today because their failure gave the neo-socialists something with which to work from. They learned from their past failures that people must give up their freedom willingly, and to do so they must be convinced that what they are doing is right. It’s basic psychology run completely amok, and if people could put their hearts aside for a moment and simply look at what’s happening they should be offended that they are being had by a bunch of liars using slight of hand. If the people could only open their eyes and see that the truth is being obfuscated behind a thin web of emotion and high school-level psychology, they would be outraged. Yet, we are faced with a problem in that they have figured out that it is difficult to get people to question their hearts, and as long as the left controls the heart, they control the future of our freedom.

    The only way to end it is to sever the puppet strings of the new socialist movement and attack it at its source. The global warming fiasco has already shown us that we cannot go after the followers as they ignore the facts and run with the lies because the lies appeal to their hearts. This is not new, but the past is frequently forgotten, and people don’t recognize when they are reliving history’s worst blunders. Just ask the Nazi-era Germans what happens when the heart is used to control the masses. The people must be shown that force comes in many forms, and manipulating the heart is perhaps the worst face of force.

  9. E.A. Blair

    No thanks necessary

    speaking of your “inmature” book, will there be copies of it in Chicago?

    Eric Arthur Blair.

  10. E.A. Blair

    Hi Ryan

    We have a Premier of Ontario, who uses the same rhetoric to cloak his Tax and spend agenda.

    He talks about how energy will get more expensive, but of course this is because he is signing deals to build inefficient windmills. Five Hundred Million worth.

    He complains of ballooning deficits, but his only solution is debt and taxes – I doubt that one government employee will lose their job. Every single one is “Essential”

    And somehow he equates these sacrifices with those of the Wartime generation… so empty and uninspiring.

    The only solutions government has to a problem is more government, more taxes, more laws.

    Invoking the spirit of the wartime generation, Dalton McGuinty yesterday called on Ontarians to make the necessary sacrifices to create a better future for the province.
    The Premier said each generation has challenges and sacrifices that have to be made for the common good. And just as parents, grandparents and great grandparents battled through war and depression to ensure a better future, the time has come for this generation to do its part.
    He said Ontarians should see tough economic measures, like the HST, as the kind of sacrifice that will create a better future for the next generation.
    Mr. McGuinty said a high dollar, high energy costs that are going to get even higher, government deficits, and ballooning health-care costs have combined to create a dramatically different challenge for Ontarians.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required) (will not be published)

(optional)



New Entries

Newest comments

  • Ray: No answer, eh, Micky? Bill, I believe, was a drive-by commenter.
  • Micky: So Bill… if I were to listen to you would you be that teacher and I no longer able to think for myself ?
  • Scott: Years ago before cell phones, answering machines and the wide use of e-mail, we had a pink pad of paper to...
  • Dave Zoby: Okay Scott–1976, I remember it like it was last week. I do, in fact remember The Traveling...
  • Scott: Jeez, Dave … nICE bucket of you don’t get it … unlike your recent award-winning paragraph –...
  • www.wattpad.com: With havin so much content and articles do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright...
  • Dave Zoby: Okay Ray, You asked for some notes on your latest video and here they are: Remember, I was a licensed...
  • Rotterdam Binnenhuisarchitect: ?De woonkamer wel muur schansen, vloer lampen, tafellampen voor lezing. Vindt u dat...

Categories

Monthly Archives

Search


rayharvey.org Bio  |  Books  |  Contact  |  Blog

Back to top