Identify Your Enemies - How are Enviro/Eco Groups Funded?

[NMC_EXP]

Finally got around to reading that .pdf. It's a good article, and well researched.

But he failed to note that the process he's describing is known as "Manufactured Dissent", which is similar to "Manufactured Consent" but works to co-opt and control the opposition.

In essence, the manufactured dissent strategy makes use of three key tactics:

Control the money.
Control the dialog.
Divide and conquer.


There is an excellent article, originally published in 2010, which describes how the strategy works in a larger context (i.e., it's not used to control just environmental groups):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/manufa...ement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110



The divide and conquer tactic works in two ways:

A) Keep the opposition groups focused on their differences. That prevents them from coalescing into a single unified threat.

B) Separate the leaders of the groups from the rank-and-file, by "inviting" the leaders to mingle with the money men and have "discussions about the issues". That shifts their focus from being radical reformers, to being moderate collaborators (this also supports the tactical goal of "controlling the dialog").


This very thread contains excellent examples of "Example A" at work.


I think it's also important to keep in mind that these billionaire foundations don't make their money by protecting the environment. They make their money by investing and avoiding taxes. In other words - the profit motive. They don't give a good goddamn about the environment. Their objective is to de-fang any opposition - so they can keep making their money by not giving a good goddamn about anything except profit.

Thanks for the links. I read Global Research occasionally but missed that article. I agree with your analysis re: manufactured dissent. It is the other side of a two edged blade making an effective system.

Range Magazine often has articles on the effect environmentalists are having on ranching. What is happening in that sector has a direct bearing on the future of off road travel.

I need to post something about the currently favored tactic of the environmentalists. That being "Sue and Settle" under the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts.

It is devious.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I always laugh when I read about how the well-funded radical environmentalists are advancing their agenda against the poor mining, logging, and grazing interests.

 

[NMC_EXP]

I always laugh when I read about how the well-funded radical environmentalists are advancing their agenda against the poor mining, logging, and grazing interests.

So in your opinion the environmental movement is in truth poorly funded, while the mining, logging, and grazing interests are well funded, or is it both?

 

[PirateMcGee]

"We need wilderness whether or not we ever set foot in it. We need a refuge even though we may never need to go there.... We need the possibility of escape as surely as we need hope." -Edward Abbey

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

So in your opinion the environmental movement is in truth poorly funded, while the mining, logging, and grazing interests are well funded, or is it both?

In comparison to the money and lobbying power of oil corporations, mining corporations, logging corporations, etc.? Yes, I think the environmental movement is poorly funded!

 

[NMC_EXP]

In comparison to the money and lobbying power of oil corporations, mining corporations, logging corporations, etc.? Yes, I think the environmental movement is poorly funded!

There is no doubt mineral extraction and possibly timber can leverage the government to their advantage. Ranching is mostly composed of small independent operators and has little influence.

If you read the linked information you will have seen some data regarding the level of funding for environmentalists.

The way a discussion like this usually goes is for you to challenge me to provide "proof" that one side is better funded than the other, or vice versa.

I'm not going to do it.

Even were I so inclined it would be impossible to do so accurately. Reason being both sides use multi-level shell organizations and dispersed donation channels to launder the influence money. As with all underhanded schemes, obscurity is the objective. Reason being the environmentalists want to maintain the illusion of a grassroots movement and the extraction industries want to skirt laws & regulations.

But don't try to convince me the political influence enjoyed by the environmental movement is funded via pensioner birdwatchers donating $20 per annum to the Audubon Society. Even with the obfuscation, there is enough data out there to refute that claim.

 

[Ursidae69]

I've not been on portal in a while. I came in today to look for pictures of the Overland Expo with all the snow and mud because I have several friends there right now. I had to make a visit to this sub-forum because, as a founding member, it was important to me to have this sub-forum to encourage dialog and make it clear that it's not just about land access, it's also about conservation.

I have the same truck that I bought in 2004 and I still wheel all the time, 211k on the ticker and counting. I'm also a wildlife biologist, scientist, conservationist, hunter, gun owner, backpacker, hiker, angler, and very much a liberal.

When I'm trying to identify my enemies with respect to land access in my small part of the world in northern NM, it's not the enviro/eco groups. It's the abusers that are the enemies. New roads are built all the time to find that next level of difficult for the next level of vehicle created in the shop, usually straight up a rocky drainage. That's not cool. I see trash everywhere, that ain't cool either. Every time I hike into the Pecos wilderness, I find ATV tracks further into the wilderness. I find cows in pristine areas crapping in all the streams, that's messed up. I see lazy *** hunters drive their trucks or UTVs into roadless areas to get their elk instead of manning up and carrying it out.

I don't call out the land access crowd itself as an enemy, I want land access too, but in a sustainable way. I call out abusers as the enemy. I would totally be willing to work with you on issues, but when I see the labels, libtard this, eco-that, I pretty much don't want to support you anymore. If the land access movement (is that the title? I don't know) is going to succeed, it needs to accept that conservation is part of the final solution. Compromise is part of the final solution. Controlling bad apples is part of the solution.

Glad this forum is active and still has a diversity of opinions.

 

[Howard70]

Ursidae:

Thanks for the reasonable contribution. I agree with you on all points. It's hard to have a discussion about points of view on any topic when derisive labels are the main contribution.

It seems to me that access isn't the issue, rather it is the means of access. Wilderness areas are accessible, but you have to leave a vehicle. That doesn't bother me a bit - in fact I seek the challenge. I've wondered why we find challenging our vehicles more satisfying than challenging our legs and lungs?

Howard

 

[rayra]

I always laugh when I read about how the well-funded radical environmentalists are advancing their agenda against the poor mining, logging, and grazing interests.

Why would that make you laugh? They're actively attempting to destroy entire industries. Needed industries. Where do you think the metals and petroleum products that make your 'conseventures' possible come from? Do the metals and jet fuel that transport you to Africa come from thin air? The industrial plastics and fabrics which make your durable packs, tents and camping accoutrements spring forth fully formed from the forehead of Gaia?
The connections of various 'eco' groups waging lawfare on those industries with their like-minded fellows inside government regulatory agencies is well documented. The Sierra Club for one repeatedly seeks to limit access to Yosemite and its environs to what they call zero-/no-impact visitors, to limit access to only the 'right' people.
I post this in answer to your 'laughing' at the idea as if it doesn't exist or is of no consequence.


As well as 'sue and settle' there are also suits brought in coordination with the EPA to "force" the EPA to step beyond their mandate, which they pretend to do reluctantly. They're repeatedly stepping beyond the confines of 'navigable waters' and redefining 'wetlands'. The accounts of people who've had their lawfully owned property or livelihoods restricted are legion.

I am recounting these activities as a rebuttal to your seeming scoffing that they occur, without any political position advocacy.

---

Let us hear / read no more drivel about 'vanishing wilderness'. it's quite simply farcical

 

[Ed B]

Ursidae:

Thanks for the reasonable contribution. I agree with you on all points. It's hard to have a discussion about points of view on any topic when derisive labels are the main contribution.

It seems to me that access isn't the issue, rather it is the means of access. Wilderness areas are accessible, but you have to leave a vehicle. That doesn't bother me a bit - in fact I seek the challenge. I've wondered why we find challenging our vehicles more satisfying than challenging our legs and lungs?

Howard

This is not that simple if you don't have the capability in your lungs or legs to challenge. For many people access is the issue. My brother enjoys getting into remote places but couldn't walk a 100 feet on his own into one because of physical limitations from birth. He certainly enjoys getting out, but has to rely on me and the use of my vehicle to get him there. Yep, I am sensitive to this issue and get a bit incensed when closing areas would exclude those with physical limitations. Also agree that the abusers are the problem and that abuse also occurs across all modes of travel off road, not just the motorized kind.

 

[agavelvr]

This is not that simple if you don't have the capability in your lungs or legs to challenge. For many people access is the issue. My brother enjoys getting into remote places but couldn't walk a 100 feet on his own into one because of physical limitations from birth. He certainly enjoys getting out, but has to rely on me and the use of my vehicle to get him there. Yep, I am sensitive to this issue and get a bit incensed when closing areas would exclude those with physical limitations. Also agree that the abusers are the problem and that abuse also occurs across all modes of travel off road, not just the motorized kind.

We all have physical limitations. I'm never going to have the skill or strength to climb El Cap, kayak the Colorado, or any number of other things. Does this mean we need to install a gondola to the top of every peak, control raging rivers so people can navigate them easier, and generally pansify the world so armchair explorers can access them? Perhaps all backcountry 4x4 routes should be graded and realigned to remove all obstacles so that a Prius can access them. That would be fair to all right? Is this the future you really want to advocate for?

There is more backcountry in the west than the average outdoor enthusiast can explore in a lifetime. The same can not be said for wilderness areas.

 

[NMC_EXP]

There is more backcountry in the west than the average outdoor enthusiast can explore in a lifetime. The same can not be said for wilderness areas.

How many acres or square miles of wilderness and wilderness like land is there?

How much of this "wilderness" was developed, i.e. mined, logged, ranched and transected with roads contrary to the legal definition of wilderness in the 1964 Act?

What percent of government ground is wilderness or wilderness like?

Wilderness use "man days" is less than 5% of total government ground use.

How much wilderness is enough?

 

[Howard70]

How much wilderness is enough?

Well, how many 4x4 trails are enough? Obviously many of us on Expedition Portal don't think there are "enough" 4x4 trails as it is now. So why is it hard to accept that others of us don't think there is enough Wilderness either? I suspect that an objective analysis of total loss of access (of any means) to outdoor areas might turn up some patterns that would surprise us.

For example, right now, in New Mexico, one of the classic routes that provides access to a beautiful region (the Monticello Box between Socorro and Sierra Counties) is threatened with closure. That closure would prevent many of us access to several hundred thousand acres of hiking and vehicular opportunities to the Southern San Mateo Mountains within the Cibola National Forest. Is that closure promoted by us radical environmentalists? Or is it us hippy college professors? Or maybe the purportedly excessively funded Sierra Club? Well, you could try the county commissioners of Sierra and Socorro Counties who are likely (if they haven't already done it) to give up county roads that head into the area across private inholdings in the National Forest.

Howard Snell

 

[cruiseroutfit]

We all have physical limitations. I'm never going to have the skill or strength to climb El Cap, kayak the Colorado, or any number of other things. Does this mean we need to install a gondola to the top of every peak, control raging rivers so people can navigate them easier, and generally pansify the world so armchair explorers can access them? Perhaps all backcountry 4x4 routes should be graded and realigned to remove all obstacles so that a Prius can access them. That would be fair to all right? Is this the future you really want to advocate for?...

There is a fundamental difference between building/improving new 4x4 routes or installing gondolas and simply preserving and protecting historic access we already have, i.e. existing routes and roads. With few exceptions I'm not an advocate of more routes, rather preserving access to our current routes and protecting the land on both sides of the road with classifications that fit, Wilderness if it qualifies, etc. Many of the anti-OHV groups (SUWA for example) isn't working to thwart the building of new routes, rather they are proactively working to close historic routes that have been used by motorized vehicles for 50+ years. That is not acceptable imo.

SUWA finds new Wilderness everytime they do an inventory, from 3.xM acrers to well over 10+M acres. If we can continue to use the land and they can continue to find new Wilderness, is there really an issue?

 

[agavelvr]

There is a fundamental difference between building/improving new 4x4 routes or installing gondolas and simply preserving and protecting historic access we already have, i.e. existing routes and roads. With few exceptions I'm not an advocate of more routes, rather preserving access to our current routes and protecting the land on both sides of the road with classifications that fit, Wilderness if it qualifies, etc. Many of the anti-OHV groups (SUWA for example) isn't working to thwart the building of new routes, rather they are proactively working to close historic routes that have been used by motorized vehicles for 50+ years. That is not acceptable imo.

SUWA finds new Wilderness everytime they do an inventory, from 3.xM acrers to well over 10+M acres. If we can continue to use the land and they can continue to find new Wilderness, is there really an issue?

Well, you kind of jumped into the middle of a debate about access, or how some people like to use "accessibility" for the disabled as a justification for keeping areas open. It is a slippery slope to use the disabled as poster children for 4x4 access, as the same logic can be used to grade those same routes into dirt highways so the non4x4 owning/using disabled community can access the places.