Greenpeace--liberalism at its worst
 

BBC News - Greenpeace sorry for Nazca lines stunt in Peru

I'm sure most of you have heard about Greenpeace's stupid stunt in Peru outlined in the link above. If you don't, I'll give you a quick rundown: A bunch of self-important fanatics bent of saving the world from itself aka Greenpeace went to the Nazca lines in Peru and spread out a huge banner on the ground next to the hummingbird. The trouble is, they did not bother to ask for the Peruvian authorities' permission which is necessary not only out of respect to the hosts in whose country you are visiting but because the site is restricted access because without special footwear, you will leave permanent footprints all over the place. The very reason the lines have endured for 1500 years is the same reason why you can't just go walking around out there--because your footprints will endure as well.

At the Detroit Art Institute, they have a sculpture there that they invite people to touch. Everything else is off limits. A plaque on the sculpture points out the amount of wear the sculpture has already endured just from people touching it and points out that this is why none of the other art is allowed to be touched--it would be destroyed. In the American southwest, there was an ancient astronomical sight called the Anasazi sun-dagger. Once its secret was discovered, people trekked to see it. It was located on a sandstone butte which cannot handle that amount of traffic without severely eroding. Ten years after its discovery, the stone slabs that were carefully placed had slipped and the alignment was destroyed due to excessive foot traffic. Peru is trying to prevent the same thing from happening to the Nazca lines.

To make things worse, Greenpeace then issued the worst apology I've ever read. “We fully understand that this looks bad,” it said. That statement shows they are only interested in their image and not what damage they did to this World Heritage Site. Not since the Taliban blew up those 1700-year-old Buddha statues has a certain cult-like group done so much to convince the world what a bunch of humorless, self-righteous, bigoted as-sholes they are.

In the past Greenpeace generally only made asses of themselves in funny ways such as following Japanese whalers into the Antarctic trying to disrupt their whaling activities only to end up stranded for the night on a big chunk of pack ice in the middle of the ocean and having to be rescued by the same whaler they were harassing. Then they say, "But that won't deter us from continuing with our activities." Fine. Next time, I hope the whaler leaves you stranded out there. Then there was the time they ran their boat into path of a Japanese whaler, got run over and then accused the whaler of deliberately hitting them.

I ended up arguing with a bunch of these jerk-wads in some forum and they are hopeless. I told them Greenpeace has a lot of nerve to point the finger at Japan or the Inuits or the Makah Indians for hunting whale when it was the Yankee Quakers far and away that nearly drove the sperm whales extinct. And Greenpeace was founded by Quakers. How is that for hypocrisy? How about actually doing something for whales instead of pointing fingers at everybody else? I really got jumped on by everybody there--all loony lefties. Well, can you hear me now?

The difference between a conservative and liberal is that the liberals lie to themselves a bit more to maintain their worldview. "We care about the world and conservatives don't." Neither of them do. Both have a rock-solid belief in the righteousness of their cause and that any means justifies the end. Their messages matter more than culture or people or anything. Conservatives would just knock down an ancient site and build a strip mall over it and call anyone who objects a bunch of damn cry-babies. Liberals, in contrast, would destroy an ancient site by plastering it with banners telling everyone to conserve the environment. Conservatives and liberals are each other's reflection which both find utterly repulsive and for good reason. They are the same type of people cut from the same cloth.

With these types of people protecting our environment, you can see why the environment doesn't stand a chance.

Btw, feel free to tldr this thread to death.

I've always despised those Greenpeace cunts.

tl;dr

When I was in Norway serving aboard a vessel, Greenpeace made it very hostile for us. They started this "No Nukes Here!" campaign and picketed us at the pier we docked at. First off, we were not a nuclear vessel and we did not carry nuke weapons all the time--probably very little if at all.

They had these boats that surrounded us in the harbor and they just watched us. Do these people have ANYTHING else to do than float in water giving us hostile stares sunup to sunset? But then we cast off to leave--you would think it was what they wanted--but THEN they try to board us! We had to have teams of guys with charged up fire hoses to spray at them to keep them from boarding the ship. One guy even got onto the anchor before the sprayed him off and into the water.

What were they trying to do?? If they got onboard, they'd have been arrested, if they resisted they would have been shot. We were one, little ship in their harbor at their govt's invitation and you'd have thought we had opened fire on their town or something. They were very nasty people.

Unfortunately, Greenpeace has a lot of influence in Scandinavia. What they are doing amounts to a form of terrorism. But, as I said, they and their supporters believe wholeheartedly in their cause and believe that anything they do in the name of that cause is just--which is exactly how all terrorists think.

This Nazca vandalism stunt was a disgusting insult to all of humanity. I hope those fools get the death penalty. You don't mess with 2000 year old art.

I'm also very tired of the whole "left versus right" thing. There are ultra-conservatives blowing up statues and ultra-liberals stepping on protected environments, and it takes an equal amount of hypocrisy and ignorance to do both. Anything when taken to an extreme ends up this way. And yet each side has to have their little pot-shots at the other. And since the later part of your post agrees with what I just said, I find the above quote kind of hypocritical and out of place.

Greenpeace is the Facebook of the environmentalist world.

Conservatives, strangely enough, don't care about conservation. They don't lie to themselves if they destroy, say, an ancient Indian mound. It was in the way and therefore impeding progress and profit. It may be heartless and stupidly lacking in cultural and historical perspective but they did it and they knew they did and they wanted to do it so they did it.

Liberals, however, will destroy the same mound claiming they were saving it and saving the environment. So they have to lie to themselves more than conservatives who have a "F-uck the environment" mentality. Liberals are as heartless but they hate to think of themselves that way so they have to rationalize. Conservatives don't care how heartless they are being. To them it's just, "Awwww, cry me a river so I can pollute it for you!" As long as it pisses liberals off then they'll do it and f-uck all. Liberals are the same about conservatives but make up narratives that deny it otherwise they wouldn't be able to distinguish themselves from the conservatives they hate so much.

I see your point. But earlier you talked about the Taliban destroying statues of Buddha. The Taliban is a Conservative group, and they did what they did because they thought they were "saving" the morality of humanity. So you see, both Conservative and Liberal extremist groups want the same thing: to get people to submit to their moral ideals. It's just that typically ultra-Conservatives want to stop things from changing because they consider change morally unfounded, while ultra-Liberals want to bring about change because they consider the modern state of affairs to be morally unfounded.