The Sierra Club’s Profitable Descent into Leftism

Brenda Walker, Social Contract, Spring 2011

The Sierra Club was once an honorable organization, and not that long ago either. A few decades ago, it was truly bipartisan, as befitted a group trying to protect wilderness. Conservatives were not shunned as members, but were welcomed as part of the team. One example was life-long Republican Dr. Edgar Wayburn, who helped save more than 100,000 acres of scenic wild places during his 103-year lifetime. He was a five-term president of the Sierra Club during the 1960s. But it’s inconceivable that a member of the GOP could be elected to that post in today’s organization, which has been fundamentally corrupted by left-wing political influence and millions of dollars with ideological strings attached.

How corrupt is the Sierra Club today? It has become so debased that it has done nothing to combat the destruction of parts of treasured national parks like Yosemite and Sequoia by invading Mexican drug gangs. The cartels have moved into public lands in the United States and set up toxic marijuana plantations that environmentally degrade protected places that are supposed to remain pristine. But the Sierrans have made a political marriage with open-borders Hispanic Democrats, and maintaining good relations with political allies is now more important than what was once the Club’s prime directive.

The impetus for the loss of integrity was simple greed. In the 1990s, the Club came across a deep-pocketed donor with an interest in the environment, one David Gelbaum, a Wall Street investor who had made hundreds of millions of dollars. He was willing to be a generous funder to the Sierra Club, but with one stipulation. As he was quoted in a Los Angeles Times article (“The Man behind the Land,” 10/27/04), “I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

That restriction posed a problem, since existing Sierra Club policy dating from the 1960s recommended a steady-state population for the United States and recognized immigration’s being a major cause of increasing human numbers. In 1969 the organization expressed hope that American population could be stabilized by 1980. In 1970 the Club endorsed a resolution from Zero Population Growth (later renamed “Population Connection”) that included support for actions that would “bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world.” In 1989 a Sierra Club policy specifically noted that “Immigration to the U.S. should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the U.S.”

But with big money beckoning in return for the disavowal of the clear connection of environmental harm with excessive immigration and population growth, Sierra leadership folded like a cheap lawn chair. In 1996, the Club rescinded its previous population policies that could be seen as related to immigration levels. The elite management team probably rationalized that enormous environmental good could be done with great riches, and therefore merited dispensing with integrity about an increasingly controversial topic.

And the Club was very well rewarded indeed by the generous David Gelbaum; the organization received over $100 million dollars in a couple donations over the years 2000 and 2001. In any normal circumstance, such a transaction would be considered a bribe and roundly condemned. But the Club leadership kept the source of the new riches secret, until the 2004 LA Times article revealed Gelbaum as the sugar daddy. Even after the dots were connected, however, the liberal press couldn’t bring itself to recognize an Enron-sized environmentalism scandal of an iconic organization.

Of course, any honest and educated environmentalist understands that human overpopulation is a great danger to sustainable natural systems. If you care about preserving wilderness, protecting species, and having enough water, then piling in another hundred million people every few decades into the high-consuming United States is not the way to go.

Starting in 1996, a concerned group of grassroots members became alarmed at the Club’s reversal on long-held population policies. Your humble correspondent was a member of this group, known for a time as Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization until threatened with a lawsuit for using the Club’s name (despite existing Gay Sierrans, Sierra Club Seniors, etc.). The acronym SUSPS then became the operating title (SUSPS.org online).

We spent untold volunteer hours working to return the Club to its former sensible, environmentally appropriate positions. We gathered member petitions to qualify candidates for the Board of Directors and pose policy referendums for the membership’s consideration in the annual Club-wide elections. We succeeded in getting several fine environmentalists elected to the Board, although our important population initiative of 1998 failed to make the cut.

Had SUSPS members known in the beginning that the Sierra Club had been bought and paid for, I doubt we would have spent eight years trying to reform a morally bankrupt and dishonest institution.

By 2004, Club management began to fear that democracy might win the day because of SUSPS’ strong slate of candidates. Carl Pope and his leftist cronies MoveOn.org and the SPLC launched a most reprehensible smear campaign of false accusations, with the help of a compliant liberal press. It took a truly supine media to accept and recite the idea that the former Democratic Governor of Colorado Dick Lamm and former Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Frank Morris were racist right-wingers. But the press swallowed the Sierra propaganda because who would think that the virtuous environmentalists would be fighting dirty for their faction’s selfish greed. So the Sierra management’s approved slate of obedient toadies swept the election, and the SUSPS candidates lost under the barrage of inuendo and outright lies from the left-wing establishment.

Along the way to its new identity, the Sierra Club lost many old members who were disgusted by the tragic devolution of John Muir’s wilderness club into the leftists in hiking boots. However, the group acquired new associates which it appears to find quite agreeable, like MoveOn.org, the SPLC, La Raza, and George Soros. So there is no shortage of money, even if the potential membership pool is greatly diminished.

The Sierra Club, the Democratic Party, and Al Gore all claim to be deeply concerned about global warming caused by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But it’s hard to take their worries seriously when all are quite happy with immigration-fueled skyrocketing population growth in the world’s top resource-using country. If any of the climate worriers truly cared about global warming, they would be leading the charge for limiting immigration. By rapidly increasing the number of residents of America, Washington makes the United States an even bigger engine of pollution and greenhouse gases. Immigrants don’t relocate to this country for the better recycling opportunities: they come hoping for an American level of material consumption (also known as “seeking a better life”).

In December, we learned the results of the 2010 Census. The total population of the United State on April 1, 2010, was counted at 308,745,538, an increase of 27,323,632 over just 10 years. The science- and math-ignorant press did not think that was a big deal; in fact some media sources emphasized the slowdown, as did MSNBC’s headline “Population growth slowest since 1940, census shows” (12/21/10). That assessment is certainly accurate, particularly from the rate of growth, expressed in percentages: the 2010 growth rate was 9.7 percent, compared with 13.2 percent from the previous decade. However, there is no increase in the natural resources like water necessary to support the additional 27 million people, and the loss of farmland continues to reflect the profitability of housing construction over food production. If there were any environmental organizations pointing out the effect of continuing rapid population growth on natural resources after the Census announcement, it was muted at best.

Sadly, the degradation of the Sierra Club from a bipartisan science-friendly environmental organization into a semi-outdoorsy left-wing political group is bad news for the earth, Our planet needs all the friends it can get, judging by worsening species extinction, the collapse of major fish stocks like the North Atlantic cod, the enormous Great Pacific Garbage Patch of floating plastic, and many other symptoms of ill health. No matter what anyone’s opinion on the idea of human-caused climate change, the Sierra Club’s position on that issue or any other can no longer be trusted as genuinely environmental when the organization is now all about left-wing globalist politics.

A timely illustration of today’s Sierra Club priorities can be found in the campaign statements of the eight persons running in the 2011 Board of Directors election. There is not a single mention of population, not even that the global number is forecast to reach seven billion later this year. That’s a one-billion person increase since 1999, when the six-billion threshhold was crossed, in just 12 short years. One might hope America’s top green organization would recognize the meaning of those numbers and provide much needed leadership and public education. But the Club is too politically correct to suggest how unprecedented human growth threatens our planet’s natural systems of replenishment. Elite Clubbers prefer to lecture Americans about resource use rather than acknowledge the whole picture, in which population and consumption multiply each other’s effects, as expressed by Paul Ehrlich’s I=PAT formula (Human Impact on the environment equals the product of P= Population, A= Affluence, T= Technology).

Another aspect of the current Club Board of Directors election deserves attention. One candidate is Larry Fahn, who was President during the decisive election when SUSPS Board candidates were poised to possibly take power. Fahn helped lead the shameful smear campaign against our highly reputable candidates, and he now states his pride in being a Club hatchet man, saying in his 2011 campaign statement: “I led the Club during trying times, the ‘hostile takeover attempt,’ when outsiders, anti-immigration activists like former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm, ran for several board seats. Lamm and others sued me over my leadership against them.”

It’s sad reflection on the current Sierra Club that being an enthusiastic purveyor of character assassination is now considered an advantage for gaining office. Interestingly, the late David Brower, an admired conservationist, resigned from the Board in 2000 because the Club leaders had lost all passion to save the earth. “The world is burning and all I hear from them is the music of violins,” he said.

Music would be an improvement at this point. The earth needs defenders now more than ever, but the Sierra Club is playing a different tune indeed.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Jupiter7

    Is this the best that Brenda Walker and the Social Contract can come up with? This an old story. The big question is what’s behind the anti-ecology world view of the Sierra Club.

    The Big Ten are on the take from the really big corporations. What do the really big corporations want? Obviously a very low wage economy and a massive transfer of wealth from millions of Ordinary Native Born White Americans to the White Liberal Corporate Greedy Cheating Class. I mean, it is really a great crime this massive theft of Ordinary Native Born White American wealth(“behind every great fortune is a great theft”).

    Of course, this great theft of Ordinary Native Born White American wealth needs a “humane” justification….enter the “blessings of diversity” and cultural elitism-arrogance gift wrapping around this great crime.

    Ok, what I have just written above is painfully obvious. But what is just as painfully obvious is that post-1965 high fertility nonwhites are the number one threat to the ecological stability of the ecosystems that comprise America. And they are being pumped into America at a horrifying rate for no other reason than the obvious fact that they are the scab labor that makes this massive transfer-theft of wealth possible. What I don’t get is why Brenda Walker-long time contributor to vdare.com-can’t state the obvious..which is:post-1965 nonwhite high fertility nonwhite immigrants are a major threat to America’s ecosytems …number one threat!!!! Quite frankly, Brenda Walker’s writings range from the anemic to the incredibly dishonest. Never once has she mentioned-stated the obvious that the post-1965 policy of racially transforming America-with the intended goal of reducing Native Born White Americans to an ever dwindling racial minority within the borders of America-goes hand-in-hand with the destruction of America’s ecosystems by high fertilty post-1965 nonwhites such as Asian legal immigrants..such as the one that introduced a breeding pair of giant snakehead fish into the Potamac River in Virginia which has set into motion the ecological destabilization of Virginia’s river system. This must be what wealthy Liberals mean by the “blessings of diversity”. Why isn’t this kind of commentary on vdare.com?

  • Anonymous

    As you drive through what used to be beautiful California, note the endless freeways, shopping centers, strip malls, parking lots, housing tracks, broken down cars, trash, taco stands, and people, people, people. The Sierra Club did that.

    Worse though was what happened to the greater “West.” As late as 1970, the states surrounding Californai, from Washington to Montana, to Utah, to New Mexico, were mostly empty, wild, and pristine. Due to the massive immigration into California, and the resulting decline in environment and quality of life, White Californians have fled to the surrounding states. Now all the developmental and social pathologies of California are ruining all the other states. Again, Thanks a lot Sierra Club, you Whor*!

  • GetBackJack

    Are we really surprised here? I can’t think of a single organization, regardless of sector, that has been able to retain its luster when its leaders and supporters are overwhelmingly Liberal, Socialist, or Marxist. Even the Nobel Peace Prize lost all of its credibility when it was bestowed upon Barack Obama.

  • ATBOTL

    The usual suspects are heavily involved here.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that the view is highly slanted-

    >

    The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or overexploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.

    >

    http://goo.gl/l5MGq

    Because you will note that even though MSM will talk about the problem (on a slow night when there is an eco conference in town) they will make only the most oblique reference to the underlying cause which is ALWAYS population. Not the type of damage but the quantitative amount of it, per capita.

    What I think most fail to recognize is that we are equally only a single generation out from total recovery, based on sudden population drops due to say fertility suppressants in a covert Codex Alimentarius regimen.

    Alternately, you can go ‘au naturale’ by something like heating the waters in Africas lakes and releasing a genetically fine tuned cholera bacilli.

    Or you can go mechanical, releasing very deep toxin clouds near midoceanic plume uplifts to halve fish populations. You destroy fishing in the Pacific on the assumption that ‘well, the finally did it with those longline trawlers’.

    http://goo.gl/GQm1e.

    As a more readily hidden approach which would starve half the Pacrim.

    Unfortunately, the problem with a Malthusian Outcome, particularly in an advanced society, is that it seldom creates a clean break of sufficiently total die off that you can innovate a replacement system which doesn’t do the same kinds of damage.

    Rather you get a partial meltdown, the system recovers (treating population loss as an excuse to build an even larger work process replacement) and hence any benefits are lost in the false perception of ‘rebirth’ rather than useful game changing.

    And of course to get the kind of real population destruction we need (not less than 5 billion), we would have to risk something like a global pandemic or an induced NEO collision which obliterated so much of the planet’s population that useful skills would be lost too.

    Particularly as built up areas have the highest (density occupation) loss rates among skilled classes.

    Point Being: If the Sierraists want to complain, they should stand in line like everyone else because the environment has no voice and the earth will recover just fine when we’re gone, same as it did in the Cambrian Explosion which killed off 90+% of all species.

    If they want to act on their beliefs, they need to get with the program and back the system. Specifically through advocating technology to offset cheap labor.

    For ONLY when it is no longer practical for mass populations to be exploited as junk consumerists and slave service economies (because robots are free) can we start to look at our uncomfortable proximity with each other as an unnecessary and solveable cultural problem rather than an abstract of environmental science.

    And the easiest way to get there is with robotics at a level that (‘I-Robot’) makes conventional ideas of the distributionist ideals of capitalism impractical on a profit basis as much as an environmental one.

    It’s ironic I think, that the best tool to detooth population growth as an abstract variable is something which does human tasks better than we do.

    Of course if you wanted to ‘solve the problem’ of Mexican marijuana on national parklands, I wouldn’t object to that either. Just be careful, I have a feeling that the number of interested parties in that enterprise is rather large and official.

  • DeadinDenver

    Try having a discussion with a enviro on the correlation between suburban sprawl, egalitarian lending practices and illegal immigration. It’s nearly impossible to lead them down that logical line of thought. Really it just proves that most enviros are just duped collectivist. As Steve Sailor points out the CIA world-book says Mexicans in Mexico average 2.2 kids but per State of California stat’s once they cross the border that goes up to 3.7 kid average. Besides the easy mortgage money that the likes of Wall Streeters such as David Gelbaum likely advocated, don’t underestimate the fuel that cheap illegal labor added to the real estate bubble. For years enviro types bemoaned suburban sprawl but there moneyed benefactor was likely doing his all to make it all happen. Now we we see the illegal alien apply-ed stucco falling off the on the foreclosed McMansion ghost towns…..does anyone care now how many trees were felled to build them?

  • ghw

    “The Club was very well rewarded indeed by the generous David Gelbaum; over $100 million dollars in in donations over the years 2000 and 2001. In any normal circumstance, such a transaction would be considered a bribe and roundly condemned. But the Club leadership kept the source of the new riches secret, until the 2004 LA Times article revealed Gelbaum as the sugar daddy.”

    …………………………

    And so it always goes: money talks. And million$ shout.

    How appropriate it is that his name – Gel(d)baum means “money tree”! Indeed.

  • Tim in Indiana

    Although it could be edited for length, an overall excellent article. I like how the author pointed out exactly what happened to the Sierra Club: corruption pure and simple.

    If big money has swayed the club from its original purpose (which it has) then it’s clear that the club has lost its entire reason for being, and it now exists solely for the enrichment of its board members.

  • ghw

    “the enormous Great Pacific Garbage Patch of floating plastic, and many other symptoms of ill health.”

    “The world is burning and all I hear from them is the music of violins,”

    Most interesting. I had never heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but I can well imagine. I was passing a huge, high-rise public apartment project in Harlem this morning. It was a beautiful spring day and the flowering tress have just come into bloom. (It’s a miracle how those pathetic trees manage to survive there at all, given the abuse they take.) Then, I noticed that the trees were festooned with multiple plastic garbage bags, and more bags blowing about in the wind, looking for a branch to hang on. Some of the bags were ragged and shredded to pieces and must have been there for years. Garbage everywhere! Even the ornamental trees have become garbage receptacles.

    Through this scene, kids were going to school, indifferent to the garbage blowing all around them.

    At once it reminded me of the movie, “Idiocracy”, where the future world is portrayed as living atop deep mounds of garbage piled up through many previous centuries. Garbage, garbage everywhere. And densely packed, low-IQ humanity everywhere too, blissfully indifferent to it all. To them, it’s just normal.

  • Anonymous

    From the very earliest times, the capital motivated right sided with big businesses, in assisting a blatant utilitarian rape of America’s natural resources. By the 1960s, the “conservative” right, had nothing but distain for the notion of preserving our natural environment. Money has always come first. The Sierra Club was always perceived as a leftist organization and they knew that they could never hope to gain support from the Republican Party, The Christian Right, or the business community. Like most old organizations, they have been corrupted by money and politics. But if they have become left in some ways that seem contradictory, it is only because they never had any hope to gain support from those who criticize them here in Amren posts.

  • Anonymous

    Anon #5

    Your post was spot on:

    One thing: I live in Colorado Springs, and am sickened that Mexican cartels are in OUR PIKE NATIONAL FOREST, killing the land and threatening us.

    and as for your quote:”Of course if you wanted to ‘solve the problem’ of Mexican marijuana on national parklands, I wouldn’t object to that either. Just be careful, I have a feeling that the number of interested parties in that enterprise is rather large and official.”

    …You are correct, sir. We are a LONG LONG way from the Mexican border. If the cartels are growing and selling here, trampling, poisioning our forrests HERE, then there are big politicians on the take.

    There’s no other way to explain it. I’d assume congressthings and senators are in the pocket of the Mexican cartels.

  • SoCalSad

    I got a membership letter from the Sierra Club in may mail today. I had joined some time back so as to vote for board members that would have a mindset toward limiting immigration into America. Those candidates did not win due to the slander and viciousness of leftist agitation. I threw the renwal membership letter into the garbage. I would suggest anyone here to do the same to any communications from this morally compromised organization.

  • Anonymous

    Why can’t people simply see what the article makes very clear. A very wealthy stock investor named David Gelbaum told the Sierra Club that he would give them hundreds of millions of dollars if they promised to never discuss the flood of immigrants (legal and illegal) into America. Why is immigration such an important issue with David Gelbaum? If you don’t know –I wonder why you even bother viewing this site.

  • John Engelman

    Sadly, the degradation of the Sierra Club from a bipartisan science-friendly environmental organization into a semi-outdoorsy left-wing political group is bad news for the earth,

    – Brenda Walker, Social Contract, Spring 2011

  • SavetheWest

    Unfortunately, whenever the topic of environmental advocacy is brought up, you very rarely see blacks & Hispanics. Most cannot think outside their own greedy lust for the material. I am sure that in Central and South America, there are some indigenous populations who feel a strong connection to Earth. But once capitalism takes hold, anyone w/ an IQ above 60 knows that cashola is the absolute corruptor. That has been the single biggest downfall of the Europn White race.

  • Anonymous

    Not unlike the left turn taken by Amnesty International. I support prisoners of conscience, and that includes those whose only crime was ‘hate speech.’ Amnesty International has a record of doing the same, but no longer. And no longer do they get my money or time. I continue to support prisoners of conscious without AI.

  • Fritz

    I dropped my memebership in the Sierra Club about 6 years ago after hearing about the battle with the groups management ranks over the issue of illegal immigration and its evironmental effects. I suggest consevatives concerned about the environment contribute to other, less liberal-corrupted organizations, like The Nature Consrvancy. So far as I know, they seem to have their priorities in the right place. I’m glad to see some light shined upon the Sierra Club situation. However, I think it’s important not to demonize conservationists as all leftist loonies, not that this article does that. The Left has certainly dominated the conservation/environmental movement, at least since the 60s. I think they go too far sometimes, just as the Right/big business does too little to conserve our natural resources. One of the things I dislike about about about Glenn Beck is his attacks on Teddy Roosevelt regarding his snatching up public lands for National Parks. I’m glad Teddy stretched the law a bit to save a lot of beautiful area for the enjoyment of future generations. He could just as easily have sold out to business interests who would have destroyed those areas in the interest of a quick buck.

  • Jupiter7

    DeadinDenver

    When “debating” a Sierra Club environmentalist, the appropriate response is to call the Sierra Club environmentalist a bold-face liar. In fact, it is rather easy to expose them and any other Leftists-Liberal “environmentalist” as a bold-face liar. Just ask them the following two questions 1)What you be very, very happy if Native Born White Americans began having very large families again like they did in the past and 2)if multiracial diversity and high-density urban living is so ecologically wonderfull, why don’t Liberal White Sierra Club “Environmentlist” pack up and go live in Newark NJ…the epicenter of racial diversity that they are so very enamoured of. While I am at it, why doesn’t the Anlgo-Irish legal immigrant and hardcore leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn-a well known vicious cheerleader for the race-replacement of the Native Born White Majority-go live in Newark NJ with the very racial groups he wants to race-replace us with instead of Lilly White Petrolia California.

    Of course, the White Liberal Sierra Club “Environmentalists” will recoil in horror-as would numbersusa.com,FAIR AND CIS-at the suggestion that the Native Born White Majority should be encouraged to have very large families again. They wouldn’t support this because it would put a rapid end to the race-replacement of the Native Born White American Majority.

    The point of this tactic is to get the Liberal White Sierra Club “Environmentalists” to reveal their very malignant intentions towards the Native Born White American Majority-in public.

    John Tanton was right on the money with his “pants down…pants up” internal FAIR memo ….for doing this he got trashed by the very well paid owners-Hedge Fund $$$$$$$$- of numbersusa.com and FAIR on the frontpage edition of the NYT this past Sunday…really despicable. They both gave the Cielia Munoz-

    LA RAZA former head,a office in the new adminstration and hardcore cheerleader for the race-replacement of the Native Born White Majority-response about the “blessings” of post-1965 racial diversity.

    Fact:the heads of numbersusa.com,FAIR and CIS oppose illegal immigration because they believe it harms Ceila Munoz’s La Raza co-racials. Something is very wrong with this picture.

  • Bon, Reporting from PC Ground Zero, Berzerkeley CA

    I had never heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but I can well imagine.

    –ghw

    Since you asked…

    The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

    Or:

    The North Pacific Gyre

    Or:

    The Great Pacific Vortex

    The title matters little. Here’s the skinny:

    The garbage patch extends over an indeterminate area…recent research sponsored by the National Science Foundation suggests the affected area may be twice the size of Texas

    The Patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge, and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.

    Young sea turtles, birds and other animals wind up swallowing plastic pieces, which can become lodged in their stomachs. Other problems can occur to sea creature populations when organic pollution is devoured and begins to impact the animal’s hormonal balance.

    Apparently there’s a new garbage patch — in the Atlantic Ocean.

    And, for your viewing pleasure!

    Get yer barf bag handy!

    http://tinyurl.com/3fugafp

    And:

    http://tinyurl.com/butwly

    And finally:

    Anon #11:

    Your post was dead on on:

    there are big politicians on the take…There’s no other way to explain it. I’d assume congressthings and senators are in the pocket of the Mexican cartels.

    Yes. Or some other large, wealthy entity working against the interests of Native Born White Americans — working for our demise that is.

    Bon

  • Californian

    Jupiter7 makes a very good point:

    “What do the really big corporations want? Obviously a very low wage economy and a massive transfer of wealth from millions of Ordinary Native Born White Americans to the White Liberal Corporate Greedy Cheating Class.”

    There is a general sort of assumption out there that the corporate-financial sector in America is conservative, perhaps because of capitalism being opposed by socialism. But much of the corporate world is quite liberal. I need not comment on how the corporate media promotes a decidedly liberal view of such things as race. While leftists might rail against the “corporate media,” that the same media has promoted the liberal (if mainstream liberal) party line for decades. Perhaps the conflict here is over who gets control of the means of information production?

    Similarly, look at how corporate foundations contribute to groups such as La Raza, as well as to leftwing and non-White racialist groups in general. And how corporations support “big government,” notably the recent spate of federal bail outs. And in more general terms, how American corporations have bailed out on the US worker by supporting outsourcing and illegal aliens as cheap labor.

    All this is justified by the (liberal) ideology of globalization. And corporate globalizing policing have done much to implement the old liberal dream of an internationalized world order.

  • Schoolteacher

    You can’t really be conservative if you don’t believe in conserving. Capitalists are not conservative.

  • Publius

    Yes, Indeed. Excellent article from the SCP.

    It should be mentioned that a similar thing happened to Edward Abbey, whose environmentalist credentials would be hard to question. Leftists have taken him to task for the his mentioning the difference between American’s and Mexican’s respect (or lack thereof) for the environment.

    I don’t see how leftists can be real conservationists (or even if any really are). It requires understanding the concept of natural limits, of humans (and human subgroups) as well as of the environment.

  • Anonymous II

    From Vdare

    Our suspicions were correct. The LA Times article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.

    Said Gelbaum, “I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

    The story continued:

    “Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

    ” ‘I asked, ‘Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?’ ‘Gelbaum said. ‘Abe didn’t speak English that well. He said, ‘I came here. How can I tell them not to come?’’

    “I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

    Gelbaum’s reasoning is patently anti-environmental. It assumes that this country can absorb millions of new foreign residents annually who come with dreams of American level consumption.

  • Jupiter7

    Publius, I am glad that you mentioned Edward Abbey. I got hooked into the ecology stuff big time one Sunday afternoon in August while watching a PBS show-with my late father, a victim of Asian legal immigration-where actor William Devane went out into the desert and interviewd Edward Abbey. Abbey definitely ignited something in me.

    Edward Abbey was the mentor to Earth First founder Dave Foreman. Abbey’s comments about deportng the Mexicans and Central Americans and sending them back with m-16s and grenade launchers was of course quite sensible. For writing this, he was viciously attacked by the likes of Alexander Cockburn,an Anglo-English foriegner and a well known leftist. These days Alexander Cockburn lives is Lilly White Petrolia California…as far away as he can get from the “blessings” of post-1965 nonwhite racial diversity. I mean, if he loves racial diversity so much, why doesn’t he pack up and go in live in bucolic Newark NJ? Instead, he has spent the last 23 years in Petrolia with his Counterpunch news operation which is platform for Hispanics,Asian and Muslim journalist,actiists and acdemics to call for the race-replacement of the Native Born White Majority. And Cockburn himself has justified race-replacing the Native Born White Majority because he argues the labor needs of corporations requires it. What a despicable character. How does Paul Caig Roerts feel abut this?

    By the way, Brenda Walker in this Social Contract essay has completely conceded the race issue to the race-replacement enthusiasts-which includes every post-1965 nonwhite and every black. That she has done this is obvious. Never once in all of her vdare.com posts has she ever stated the obvious fact that the reason why California will experience complete ecological collapse is because of the White Liberal Corporate Greedy Cheating Class’s openly stated policy of race-replacing the Native Born White Majority.

  • Browser

    look at how corporate foundations contribute to groups such as La Raza, as well as to leftwing and non-White racialist groups in general. And how corporations support “big government,” notably the recent spate of federal bail outs. And in more general terms, how American corporations have bailed out on the US worker by supporting outsourcing and illegal aliens as cheap labor.

    All of this is justified by the (liberal) ideology of globalization. And corporate globalizing policing have done much to implement the old liberal dream of an internationalized world order.”

    ——————-

    It goes way, way back.

    I remember reading long ago (was it in “Oil for the Lamps of China”?) an anecdote where old J.D. Rockefeller (the original one) was visiting China while on a world cruise. Impressed by the enormous hordes of humanity he saw there, he immediately began dreaming of all the customers they would make for his kerosene (lamps and stoves).

    So it began. It’s taken a long while to come to fruition, but now we have globalization. And the Chinese have our industries, our technology, and our treasury.

  • Anonymous

    Most environmentalists are “watermelons” “green” (environmentally “responsible”) on the “outside” and “red” (communist)on the “inside”.

    With environmentalists, it’s not about being “good stewards” of the earth, but rather about CONTROL.

    Most environmentalists would like to see most of humanity in cities in high-rise “projects” while they (anointed ones) get to enjoy nature’s beauty. No cars or utilization of energy for the unanointed masses, bicycles, trains and buses will have to suffice.