« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Greenpeace, the criminal conspiracy.

Happy Easter!

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  April 4th, 2010 at 02:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Read this fast, because Greenpeace will figure out pretty quickly how thoroughly they’ve stepped in it.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

Via small dead animals and The Corner.  Two free hints, Greenpeacers:

  1. You folks are a luxury group.  Western civilization keeps you around because we like guilt and you provided some at a price we felt like paying.  Guess what?  We’re not feeling all that rich, these days.
  2. Piously claiming that you don’t advocate violence right after you’ve explicitly told us awful eco-traitors “We know where you live” won’t help you with the eventual criminal conspiracy charges.

Who wants a pool on the link getting sanitized? I’m going to say 10:30 AM local time Monday.

Moe Lane

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    Too bad.

    I was gonna say hi and invite them over just to see how fast The Castle Doctrine Of Florida would be brought into play.

    Gee, ain’t I a stinker ?!?

    ;)

  • janis

    that Greenpeace had done a 180 and become much more conservative. If you happened to have overlooked the word “progressive” in that little rant, it sounds just like we do when referring to those who actually DO believe in that junk science stuff.

  • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

    A disclaimer seems to have been added, if it wasn’t there before;

    Greenpeace has almost 40 years of history as a peaceful organization. Two of our core values are:

    * We ‘bear witness’ to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner.

    • blah blah blah
  • mbecker908

    And make sure your little friends try to run down another whaling vessel.

    Phoenix – and Florida – would not likely be a really good venue to try out your wings.

  • mbecker908

    From your link to The Corner, Moe, Steyn wraps up his pithy comment with this…

    Don’t bring a wind-powered AK47 to a civil war.

    Ya just gotta love the guy.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    Eric Holder? fat chance.

  • JadedByPolitics

    I would love nothing more then to have a “conversation” with you! Why lets schedule for Human Achievement Day next year, what say you?

  • loupgarou1317

    saved this because they will deny deny deny after the clean-up Monday…….this needs to be remembered and brought up in their faces at any time we can!

  • NRPax

    I had a chat with Juliette and we decided to re-open the comments (they were closed for about an hour).

    She was understandably freaked out by the violent tone of some of the people posting.

    While we encourage and appreciate discussion in the comments, do stay polite and don’t incite violence. (Not towards our staff, not towards people we disagree with, not towards anyone. Please be nice people. Thanks.)

    I love how they are the ones threatening violence, plead that they were misunderstood and now they are freaked out by violence. Hippies are so cute sometimes.

  • brumbow

    How can an organization openly threaten those who disagree with them? How can they get away with that? This should be on the nightly news!

  • moralmajority

    I don’t get it. The message throughout the post advocates for “civil disobedience.” I don’t understand why that would have to be “sanitized.”

    Someone fill me in.

  • JadedByPolitics

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few.”

    That is a THREAT or do you live in some fantasyland whereby the above words do not constitute a THREAT?

    Perhaps you should try COMPREHENDING what is being written as opposed to jumping immediately to a silly question!

  • dwells

    But always derided as the fringe element of the environmentalists, yet if you’ve ever talked to eco hippies that are members of even “respectable” organizations there’s a hostility and anger underneath many of their sanitized, clinical statements that flies in the face of their supposedly peaceful ideology. Since these beliefs and theories ARE their religion, they’re stuck in a position of having to in many cases defend their entire worldview and career. Must be difficult to have everything you believe in proven as a scam.

    Won’t hear me complaining though, even though I believe in conservation and the environment, the anti human approach those people have to ‘fix the problems’ are so ridiculous and almost evil that no one with a brain or a spine can sign off on them.

    To loupgarou I know I screenshotted the page, and I’m sure many others did as well. The link will be sanitized or removed outright soon, so such things have to be done to keep them accountable for the message they’ve put out and the revealing nature of it.

  • moralmajority

    I guess I comprehended it differently. As the entire post is about civil disobedience and achieving goals through non-violent means, it seems logical that those sentiments apply to the last couple of lines as well. Meaning, they will show up at their homes and places of business and protest civilly.

    In any event, it’s a lot less inflammatory than some of the other stuff making headlines lately. Like rocks through windows and threatening emails to Mr. Erickson. This Greenpeace thing just looks like grasping at something that isn’t there.

  • mbecker908

    “Green movement”. They were born in eco-terrorism and their heroes are terrorists. Just watch the whaling program on Animal Planet for starters.

    Greenpeace is about as “peaceful” as CAIR.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    And yes, I did.

  • romans12n2

    first they campaign, then they get elected to congress and the White House. Next they get a fawning, compliant media to carry their water. Then they ram through a liberal progressive socialist agenda. Then after that they hurl insults and threats of retribution at anyone who dares to disagree, and if you try to speak out against it, they call you racist and fabricate stories of violence and threats against their members.

    If you need examples , please see CNN, NBC, CBS,ABC,MSNBC,PBS,NPR,LA TIMES,NY TIMES, AOL,YAHOO,GOOGLE,HUFFPO,DAILY KOS,WHITEHOUSE.GOV,OFA, etc. etc. etc.

    simple really

  • JadedByPolitics

    THREATENING people who do NOT agree with them. There is absolutely NOTHING in those remarks to indicate “civil disobedience” those are FIGHTING words or did you grow up in some small enclave with no other children and get home schooled?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    They’re trying to downplay it as being non-violent, because “We know where you live” is a legitimate threat.

    Now shoo. Nobody wanted to take your bait on the 3/5ths clause, anyway.

  • WarEagle01

    n/t

  • msctex

    Wow. So a handful of neohippies constitute “many,” while millions of increasingly PO’d tax-paying, law-abiding citizens make up a “Few.”

    I guess it’s just what they need to believe on order to get out of bed in the morning. But that said, one of the more enduring and effective Big Lies of the Left is the “Peace and Love” zeitgeist of the 60′s. In reality, the violence involved was unbelievable, and all of it came from people just like these.

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    I’ll drop over and say hi…… Seriously.

    Would love to have a civil discussion with some of the folks there, but I have a feeling that’s not possible.

    I’m just curious to find out why someone (or a group) would offer up threatening stuff like ‘we know who you are, where you live’…… that sort of thing and not expect to be challenged even slightly.

    Cheers !

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    But he has a point if looked at nakedly. If I had written an identical piece about conservative activism instead of green activism, “we know where you live”, etc…in fact, I think I have…I’d want the air just as pregnant with wonder as to what I really meant to say. I would write it just as they have done. Not so much to serve as a legal disclaimer as to cast hints and embed innuendos as to threats, etc. Greenpeace may have a much larger track record I don’t have (or can’t be proved), but that is because we are less vain and more clever. But Moralmajority is right that they still get the first bite at the apple. Beyond mere words, they still have to cross a line. There will be a time (soon) when our side will not get that same benefit of the doubt.

    Your outing them is important in that I’ve found that they don’t like doing something if they think someone is on to them or looking, and you’re one of the best for ferreting out little seemingly inconsequential blogs that may have embedded meanings others overlook. In fact, you’re one of the best at that that I’ve seen here.

    I only say this because, in the end, this will not end as a war of words. Nor will Greenpeace be the finishers. We already know that.

  • bassethound

    Aren’t tactics such as this the main reason why Patrick Michaels (a founder) has publicly renounced Greenpeace and it’s tactics. He’s appeared in the BBC documentary “The Great Globial Warming Swindle” and in the Wall Street Journal.

  • mbecker908

    I don’t follow them, beyond their formation in the hands of ecoterrorists.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …is that the eco-activists already have a wing of their movement that’s explicitly all about the violence. ELF and their ilk are out there spiking trees and committing arson; Greenpeace just announced that they’re joining the domestic terrorism party.

    So I can’t agree with your analogy. Respectfully. :)

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Obviously. :)

  • renny

    Who do they think are “many” when fully 50% of the country opposed the entire leftist agenda, and it’s only supported by 14%?

    Must be another problem of years of pub. ed. pushing more new math.

  • jbs58

    The post that you link to does not include any threats though, that’s the point that you seem to be missing. For instance, one can find out where you live by following your link asking people to buy you things via amazon. Stating that I have this knowledge is not a threat.

    I’m also confused by the post msctex, who writes “So a handful of neohippies constitute ‘many,’ while millions of increasingly PO?d tax-paying, law-abiding citizens make up a ‘Few.’”

    It sounds like some people here feel personally threatened by Greenpeace. Do you find that you fit in the category of “the oil and gas mafia running loose in New Delhi. The coal magnates that have Canberra by the short and curlies. The petrochemical giants that have placed a firm jackboot on the EU’s throat. The fossil fools and nuclear lobbyists that have Washington DC on speed-dial?”

    Why does this thread make it sound like Greenpeace is out to get the tea party movement, rather than corporate oil execs?

  • NRPax

    I believe that they have gone unchallenged for so long it was a shock to them to learn that their words would be considered in a less than pleasant manner.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Man, but this is great troll-bait. Trust me, it wasn’t worth burning your account over.

  • brumbow

    I suppose my comment did not project myself in an enlightened way; I was expressing outrage regarding the hypocrisy of the media/left (same thing); I both understand and agree with what you state.

    I hope this story is picked up by someone in the media and used as an example of the difference between political action by conservatives (tea party, peaceful), vs. liberal (threatening). good comment though; very well said. Thanks.

  • mbecker908

    == brain dead jack ass.

  • rbdwiggins

    a radical anti-capitalist movement built almost entirely on a lie, would be “out to get” anybody is the problem.

  • http://www.bloggybayou.com muckraker

    Sort of like “making us an offer we can’t refuse”

    Sooner or later, the facts become undeniable, so you go into denial and then you show your true colors… It was always about control…not the enviroment…

  • gawntrail1

    That is the implied threat. And others here have posted about the actual eco-terrorists. But, this is also in the post………..and its certainly not implied:

    “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

    ———

    All the unsaid stuff can be explained away. That last line is pretty straight forward.

  • romans12n2

    what you were trying to articulate. I was just havin some fun with ya. I t was obviously rhetorical. Some people (me) are just smart alecs! ; )

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    My commentary hasn’t been posted (yet) and was in a question form and truly not confrontational.

    Makes me think they only want to publish/post the angry Right as that’s the agenda to drive.

    Oh well, I tried.

  • loupgarou1317

    HAPPY that one of us did!! this will not be reported by the Dinos…unless we can push it and push it till they have no choice..

  • loupgarou1317

    and i will do the same, we need all the ammo we can get…..

  • jdw4america

    if a conservative were to put those same words in print. They would be clawing each other for the privileged of reporting it first.

    As it is now, they have to put words into the mouths of the tea partiers and anyone else they can think of smearing.

    There is nothing even remotely suggestive of civil disobedience in these words, unless you decide to interpret them that way.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    If you follow these links from ‘non-violent civil disobedience’ to just ‘civil disobedience’ with no disclaimers, note what the ‘Riders on Horseback’ links to, and follow the links on those pages…

    Pretty soon it’s just ‘Horseback’ and ‘we know where you live’ and ‘civil disobedience’ … and don’t forget, these are the folks who consider torching lots full of Hummers ‘non-violent’.

    I hope they don’t hurt anybody, but I do hope I do encounter one carrying a baseball bat off the ball field…

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    their founder was also pro-nuclear energy because it was more eco-friendly/efficient etc and yes he was run out when the lefty commie radicals hijacked the organization and has said as much in the past. He has a site that can be googled etc…

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    “We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain. We need to embrace the conservatives too, the ones that choose scientific rigour and court injunctions as their weapons.”

    As part of the CO2 supply chain, a major provider for the green grass around my home etc to consume I take a bit of offense to being portrayed as needing to be disrupted… my life is disrupted enough without direct intervention by (more) zealous idiots… Thank you.

    I’d tell all the greenies to go to hell, but they seem quite capable of manufacturing their own private hell and wallowing in it. Dragging the rest of us into your angst ridden b.s. filled fantasy world based on manipulated feelings and emotions will not go well for you in the long run.

    *Hope*fully the authors of this sort of b.s. will reconsider their – nah… they’re fanatics… never mind, let them self destruct and get it over with so the rest of us can get on without them having any more negative relevance anymore. By negative relevance I mean they are obstructionist to everything that makes our society better, more prosperous, safer and enjoyable. They are, in effect, a drag on their own larger tribe so to speak and in Darwinian terms will eventually weed themselves out of relevance or destroy their society like a cancer (same effect but with more suffering for everyone else).

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    The are a collectively spoiled brat that thinks they are the center of all knowledge, all seeing/knowing and righteous… and they reinforce this attitude with echo chamber/tow the line no matter what the facts are (and they’ll make their own “facts” if they need to) mentality.

    There is a certain degree of arrested development in their attitudes and general countenance that fits directly in with them being good little cult members and not much else…

  • msctex

    It’s a religious fervor, nothing more and nothing less, a kink in the human psyche that causes a thrill when one supposedly knows something important that someone else does not, and one doesn’t like that person very much anyway.

    But, when events unfold that cause that person’s POV to achieve prominence over one’s own. . .Things can get ugly.

  • mbecker908

    This article from the Times (UK) spells out the truth in stark terms.

    WHEN 35 Greenpeace protesters stormed the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) yesterday they had planned the operation in great detail. What they were not prepared for was the post-prandial aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement.

    ?We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,? one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. ?I?ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.?

    Another said: ?I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.? [...]

    Greenpeace had hoped to paralyse oil trading at the exchange in the City near Tower Bridge on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force

    So let me get this straight, the “peaceful” folk are using physical threats to close down operations they don’t like to make some sort of a point. They’re willing to take on civilians and SWAT teams. Peaceful. Right.

    On a personal note, I must say I’m really tickled that they got their butts kicked.

  • weatherford
  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    Sorry to be late, out on a raid, but your answer is the one I was looking for.
    Cordially