The Hypocrisy of the Left
Dr.M.Terry January 3, 2007

One cannot help but notice the hypocrisy demonstrated by groups and individuals of the leftist political spectrum in the United States (and elsewhere in the world). This hypocrisy can even be found in declarations by “leftists” themselves. One example of many possible can be seen in their claim, on the one hand, to be for truth, while, on the other, blatantly admitting that they are willing to tell the most outrageous lies to bring about their programs. But, to go on further, let us examine in some detail some of the specific hypocrisies practiced by the left.

The claim to be for peace, while creating a world that is determined to be ever more violent.

To be against monetary gain, while at same time pursuing it. To be for freedom of speech (even, in fact, to have more or less come into existence with the so-called “Free Speech“ movement of the 1960s), while practicing the suppression of all speech which is not supportive of their agenda.

To claim to be “for the people,“ when they are, in fact, against the people.

The claim to be against hate, while supporting hatred of White people, of the Christian religion, and of Western Civilization.

To claim to be supportive of feminists, while opposing non-leftist groups which support women’s rights. To claim to be fair-minded and open-minded, while, in fact, being dogmatic and prejudicially biased.

To claim to be against oppression, while, in fact working to create what may well become the most oppressive society the world has ever seen. This list could go on, but for now let us leave it as it is, and, instead, let us step back from the overall list and have a look at one issue in detail, that of a commitment to the preservation of the environment (i.e., environmentalism), versus the support of immense, endless, population growth (i.e., the left‘s actual stance).

Many years ago, perhaps 40, it was recognized in the West, on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, that if we were to have ecological conservation and a sustainable future for the world and its people, we would need to have Zero Population Growth. Campaigns were then immediately launched to bring this about, and have had marked success in the Western World - but miserably pitiful success in the Third World.

The governments of the West then began to support and encourage massive immigration into Western countries -both for supposed “humanitarian” reasons (despite the fact that to accept a few million immigrants per year from regions that were producing far more than that number was to do essentially nothing for the peoples of those areas) - and for the fact that they would be bringing cheap labor into those countries (and thus turn the West into just another group of Third World countries).

Since then, the people of the Western countries, as an overwhelming majority have been opposing this massive influx of people - an influx which was unasked for and unwanted by people who (1) had accepted Zero Population Growth as a fact, and as a factor to maintain life - not just a good life, but life of any sort - in the world; and (2) had nations, peoples and cultures of their own, and did not want them destroyed because of the total disregard of their desires as expressed by the ruling elites of their respective countries (so much for being for the people), or the inability of Third World people to grasp even as simple a concept as Zero Population Growth.

However, for the moment let us focus on the duplicity of the Ecology Movement in this crisis. What, for example, has the well-known Sierra Club been doing, or not doing, to face up the ecological impact of massive immigration, and the resultant massive population growth?

To begin with, it appears that the Sierra Club is not only doing nothing to stop massive immigration, but is actively opposing the stopping of it, and actively opposing those who try to stop it. For example, the Sierra Club supports open borders to allow the flood of illegals into the United States.

“Let them come,“ is essentially the official policy of the Sierra Club (and never mind the cost, in so many ways, to the citizens of the United States, or to the ecology of the United States). And, meanwhile, “the Green ‘Sustainable Development’ policy” is enforcing “Smart Growth“ regulations on American cities, to stop development, to control water use, and to force Americans out of their cars - all to accommodate a population explosion that has been brought about by the Club’s very own open border policy!

However, as of 2004, at least, this has brought about conflict within the Sierra Club, a war driven by these immigration issues, and one which may determine the future of the Club (and of the United States), as activists from its right wing and left wing have sought to take control.

Activists from the right had been seeking to change the Club’s position on the immigration issue. However, those members opposing the current Sierra Club leadership have been subjected to the usual leftist name-calling, having been labeled (ironically enough) “extremists,”(1) as well as being those who advocated the “greening of hate,“(1) and were accused by Sierra Club leaders of being “hate mongers”(1) and “racists”(1) for supporting national sovereignty or the protection of our borders (or, apparently, the protection of our environment).

On the other hand, from the left, a person like Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace,(1) was endorsing increased violence. And, this same Watson was also the founder of the “Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,“(1) a group of ecologically-minded terrorists armed with AK-47s who have sailed the seas searching for fishing boats so that they could ram and sink them, and who has openly admitted to having sunk at least 10 ships(1) (which is quite a comment on the left’s claim to be for peace). And, also, it is this same Watson has said that “there's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win,“(1) and the very same Watson who has declared that he intends to take over the Sierra Club.

And, one may find it interesting that the Sierra Club leadership has not reacted with anything like the alarm at the possible takeover by such a person as Paul Watson as they have towards those who seek to keep illegal aliens out of our nation, and to maintain a Zero Population Growth agenda. This fact could well reveal much about what the Sierra Club truly is, and what it could do in the future.

And, in fact, since 1996, the leadership of the Sierra Club has refused to admit that massive U.S. population growth, brought about by immense immigration levels, is causing huge environmental problems. And they have also refused to admit that there is a need to reduce U.S. immigration levels if we are to stop this population growth, and protect our natural resources (which latter, at least, is the stated reason for this organization‘s existence). And, their refusal to admit these things has been a mystery for nearly a decade.

However, on Oct. 27, 2004, the “Los Angeles Times” finally gave us the answer: David Gelbaum, a extremely wealthy donor, had demanded that the Sierra Club take this position as to immigration as a payment for Gelbaum’s very large donations, and the “LA Times” article that broke the story, written by Kenneth Weiss, quotes David Gelbaum as saying to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope: “I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”(2)

Thus, in 1996, and again in 1998, the leaders of the Sierra Club demonstrated their willingness to follow Gelbaum's instructions as to immigration. First, they enacted a policy of neutrality on immigration; and, second, they aggressively opposed a referendum to overturn that policy. Thus, in 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum gave donations to the Sierra Club Foundation in excess of $100 million, as reward for demonstrating their willingness to follow his instructions. And, then, again, in 2004 and 2005, the top leaders and managers of the Sierra Club followed suit once again: They suppressed dissent (as an example of the left’s approach to freedom of speech?), and they vehemently opposed efforts on the part of members to bring about a policy to reduce immigration. And, thus, the influence and power of the Sierra Club was sold out - for nothing more than money. And, what can this money do? Are they going to save a few bits of the environment, only to have it destroyed by this endless population growth that they have, thereby, been paid off to refuse to stop? Or, could it be simply for monetary gain that they are doing this?

But, beyond the doors of the Sierra Club itself, and beyond the reach of its influence, what does it matter who runs the Sierra Club? Well, it does matter, and it matters a whole lot. For, this organization has been working for years, under the name of the protection of the environment, and the protection of endangered species, to develop its ability to impose strict rules on the development of lands, both private and public. However, despite the seemingly noble purpose of protecting otherwise defenseless little animals, it has developed that science and reason have often taken a back seat in the outcome to the Club’s efforts. The Sierra Club has now developed the power to file lawsuits, and to intimidate government bodies at every level, and the Club now has developed the ability to virtually dictate government policies.

An example of this may be seen in the case of the Department of Homeland Security‘s initiation of an effort to build a wall along a heavily-trafficked section of the Mexican border, in order to try to slow down the flow of illegals getting through at that point. However, these efforts were halted by the California Coastal Commission [at least as of March 2004], which said that ”the new defenses would endanger the habitat of several rare birds. The Commission's biological assessment said the project would ‘harass’ one pair of least Bell's vireos and a pair of Southwestern flycatchers. Three gnatcatchers would also be ‘harassed’ along with several maritime chaparral on nearly fifty acres of land.”(1) And, so, the government's efforts to build this wall were denied. There was, however, no report on the impact that thousands of illegal immigrants trampling across that piece of territory would have on those endangered species. But then, such a report would have been very “politically incorrect,” wouldn’t it?

Could the Sierra Club possibly be proud of the impact its policies are having on the quality of life for all Americans, or even upon the environment? - or could the Sierra Club possibly even care?

As a postscript to this article:

The Sierra Club will be having board elections again in April 2006. However, at the writing of this article, we can cite the view of the SUSPS (which group is self-described as “a network of Sierra Club activists who support ... effective action for population stabilization in the United States [which includes addressing the problems of] ... mass migration ... on U.S. population growth.”)(2) on this issue. It is reported by the SUSPS website that “None of the current board candidates shows any indication he or she would support such a policy (i.e., one which ‘comprehensively addresses U.S. population growth’). Only two candidates even mention population in their candidate statements, and neither has shown by their prior activist experience a commitment to the population issue.”(2)

This article has been written with the help of information provided by:

(1) “The Sierra Club’s Immigration Wars” By Tom DeWeese March 4, 2004 on the website “NewsWithViews.com”

(2) “For the Love of Money” on the SUSPS website at “www.susps.org” on January 2, 2006