Is the 'Environmental' movement really about 'conserving nature' ?

Does the Rockefella Foundation 'donate' large tracts of land to the federal government for 'wildlife parks' ? (Yes).. did they originally buy much of this land through shell companies to mask the real buyer ?
(yes).. did they also own land near the acquired property ? (yes)...
Did their land skyrocket in value after the park was established ? (yes)

In donating the land.. did they also manage to 'acquire' the rights to hotels etc AT those parks ? (yes)

It is the contention of a startling video "Behind the Green Curtain" that there the environmental movement has been hijacked by powerful financial and political interests.

The evidence is documented.

The reaction has been building for some time now.. with Environmentalist Foundations actually making money from TIMBER MILL interests after they used their 'environmental clout' to shut down other mills... creating an immediate shortage of timber.

Always remember.. behind that next 'endangered species' their might be lurking powerful money and political interests who don't care squat for the furry thing..but they sure do care about nationalizing private property with them pulling the strings of power.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7934453684194357754#

See how an environmentalist lawyer is exposed blatantly using an artificial 'endangered species' ploy to achieve a much bigger goal of control and nationalization of land.

Always remember the UN report on "Human Settlements" (previous thread) where the Vancouver Action Plan 1976 says:

http://habitat.igc.org/vancouver/vp-d.htm

Preamble
1. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.

Welcome to the GREENS and Bob Browns world of Socialism.

Boazy honestly you baffle me.
I as you know I am suposed to give my preference to the greens.
Yet for the first time ever will not.
But for none of the reasons you give.
I am very concerned with the extremism of Bob Brown, he is not the same man who saved the Tasmanian rivers.
I am aware middle class middle to high income people run the party.
I even think they inhabit a world that truly does not exist.
But Socialist?
Apart from the taint of extremism that keeps the greens third party Australians are conservationists.
How can a Christian become so radical, thats what you are.
Just Boazy as radical and remote from mainstream as Bob Brown.
Brown reminded me to use my preference on saying he no longer agreed with preference deals.
Mine will expire before going to him.

Belly :) yes..I am 'extreme'

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
II Tim 4:7

The difference between my 'fight' and the war against humanity the Watermelons are waging..is, mine has a good (eternal) outcome.

Dear ALGOREisRICHFAT&UGLY, while there may indeed be shady deals involved with the examples you draw our attention to, and an underlying deviousness, there may also be nothing of the sort or perhaps a mixed bag of good and bad motives.

National parks created as a result of Rockefella Foundation land donations were a win-win situation, were they not? If there had been nothing in it for RF, some or all of those parks may have never been acquired.

In short, the green movement SHOULD be working within the capitalist system, striving to find the support of big business interests, and working towards win-win situations wherever possible.

Al
Is a good eternal outcome the only purpose? What about the damage we wreak while on earth, an earth that you believe your God designed. If entry to heaven is only connected to belief and forgiveness but ignores behaviour, what purpose does religion have in earthly matters?

You state environmentalism has been highjacked by corporate and vested interests and that is possible and by these few isolated examples ask is environmentalism really about conservation. Is that not being disingenuous. The answer will sometimes be NO not when environmental issues are used for false purpose.

But that in itself does not make environmental issues unimportant. I am continually suprised at how some Christians on OLO can completely ignore the importance of the environment merely for the exploitative purposes of man.

Do you think Jesus would have been an environmentalist?

Polycarp,

I'm not surprised by your one eyed approach.
I think that the grouping you serve is even more restrictive of human 'rights', more didactic, far more dictatorial and just as given to deviousness (unchristian by nature and intent.).

Drawing the connection between the Rockefeller Trust and the Australian greens not only tenuous but in context bloody inane.

That's like calling you fornicator and a liar because the leader of the biggest evangelical group in the USA was caught playing away and embezzling funds to do so.

Did it occur to you that some godless entrepreneur on hearing that a rich foundation like The RF being interested would be the basis for outrageous profiteering ?
Come on old son you can't have it both way.