🚀 go-pugleaf

> This is a typical situation faced by the "cadre" of
> organizations like Greenpeace, the Green Party, World Wildlife
> Fund, and many other pseudo-environmental groups.  The average
> indoctrinee has no idea how radical the overal goals of the
> organization are.

=o= This is rich.  Would you mind explaining what you think
the "radical overal [sic] goals" are for these organizations,
and where you got your information?

=o= I find it absurd and bizarre to see those three groups
listed together, and as a "cadre."  Huh?

=o= A recent disappointing sellout of dolphins by Greenpeace
USA notwithstanding, Greenpeace is certainly far more "radical"
than the other two groups, though not what any sober commentator
would call "socialist."

=o= The Green Party's agenda is no secret whatsoever.  The web
site at http://www.greens.org/ spells it out pretty clearly.
Some of it is definitely "radical" in the precise sense of the
word (focusing on society's problems at their roots).  To call
them "socialists with funny hats" is sheer nonsense.  There is
a focus on individual- and community-level responsibility that
is practically indistinguishable from conservatism (and which
makes more traditional leftists nervous about the Greens).  You
clearly don't know what you're talking about here.

=o= The World Wildlife Fund is a hopeless sellout organization,
generally ready to concede anything and everything to powerful,
moneyed institutions.  That you would list them along with the
other two only serves to underscore how far your comments miss
their mark.
    <_Jym_>