Why Does Prison Planet attack Environmentalists, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 20-2-2008 @ 10:54 AM by Silenceisall

I have a few problems with Jones' Prisonplanet site. While I think it has been useful in bringing some of the 911 evidence to light and getting the word out, I also find that it takes a kind of rabid tone when it comes to enviromentalism. I know they don't believe in global warming and think it's a big con, but how could you attack someone (or an organization) for trying to eliminate plastic bottles that remain on this planet for a thousand years before they fully degrade. Remember that eliminating plastic water bottles does not necessarialy mean drinking tap water--which he seems so scared of. You can buy large refilliable water cooler bottles, and refill a metal 1 litre bottle like I do.

www.prisonplanet.com...

This for me just says that Jones has gone off the deep end and sees conspiracy everywhere. Clearly he and his troops don't give a hoot about the planet, as long as they have their mythological freedom from enslavement. A degraded planet will mean another kind of enslavement, believe me.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 10:56 AM by h3akalee

Dont even make it an problem for yourself to even consider.

If a site cant handle a certain topic then in my opinion that site is a pile of crap.

Take care.

Regards
Lee

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 11:13 AM by stikkinikki

A few less than enlightened "environmentalists" such as the ELF and some of the whiney black hooded crowd are mostly in it to get some glory from their cohorts. MOST "environmentalists" are sick of seeing trash floating on every lake they go fishing on or having a summer day ruined by a ozone alert warning. In my opinion there are forces associated with the corporate profit at all cost crowd that seek to tarnish the name of "environmentalists" so that they have unlimited access to extract whatever resourses they can with out having to worry about what happens down the line.

Anti-environmentalism is part of the scheme to total control. Peons shouldn't worry about such things - trust in big corporate.

And if that don't work for you then maybe armageddon will scare you enough to not worry about your future because it doesnt exist.

No one really speaks for the common human.

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 11:21 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by stikkinikki

I agree completely that anti-environmentalism has more to do with the enslavement that Jones is so scared of than skull and Bones, or whatever it is he is having nightmares about. He lost all credibility for me when he started framing environmentalism as an evil thing. I can't understand it. I think he has been consumed by fear.

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 11:38 AM by SpeakerofTruth

Jones is a fundamentalist. He is of the impression that people who value the earth are earth "worshippers."

Honestly, despite the fact that I respect much of Jone's' work, I think the man has lost his ever-loving mind, but that's just my opinion.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 11:57 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

Yeah. Totally. I guess there is really not much to say on this topic other than once you go down the road of fear, you will end up thinking everything is out to get you. The thing that Jones needs most is a more spiritual perspective. I think he's stuck in a kind of literal, materialist scheme of things that has him connecting the dots between everything and illuminating nothing.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 12:14 PM by Trauma

It's about setting the precedent of Big Brother telling you what you can and can't do because of global warming. They start with something reasonable, like bottled water or grocery bags.

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:02 PM by Silenceisall

Sometimes people do need to be told what to do. It's unfortunate, but imagine if we had no laws. I understand that it can sometimes be a slippery slope, but who can really argue against banning plastic bottles or plastic bags. Jones' alternative is complete and unrestricted freedom even if that means destroying the earth. Well, that infringes on my freedom to enjoy life on a healthy planet, so I say too bad. This is a consensus reality.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:28 PM by Miishgoos

My Opinion

Well here is my personal Opinion

First of all drinking tap water is pretty safe!! a lot safer than drinking untested bottled water or water with fecal coliforms and other contaminants.
Tap water is treated with chlorine and that's where the big scare probably comes from because there are no long term studies on the effects of chlorine on the human body.
What is known is that drinking untested water or water with pathogens and contaminants will hurt you.

I agree that plastic bags are non biodegradable at least for a long time, But I do agree that people shouldn't be forced to do things like stop using plastic bags even if you dislike it and how does having some plastic bags in a landfill that you most likely don't live beside infringe on your right to a healthy planet? Landfill technology is pretty advanced these days and no people just don't throw garbage in a big hole anymore.

I have no idea who this fellow you guys are talking about is but you have just read my personal opinion!!! Not anybody else's opinion just mine.

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 02:32 PM by scientist

Originally posted by h3akalee
If a site cant handle a certain topic then in my opinion that site is a pile of crap.

careful, you know ATS can't handle some topics either, but that doesnt make ATS a pile of crap.

PrisonPlanet isn't so much for people that are open minded, but rather it's the anti-Fox. similar in every way except for their political stance, which is polar opposite. Both use sensationalism, heavy editing and extreme censorship. They just swing different directions.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by scientist]

reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 03:02 PM by Silenceisall

Hey:

It infringes on my freedom because everything is connected. What is landfilled in Arizona, is landfilled in the planet I call home. I don't make geographical distinctions, since I believe the Earth is a single complex lifeform.

reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 06:57 PM by Ectoterrestrial

I wouldn't go as far as the Gaia hypothesis, but I would agree that having a neighbor who dumps toxins in his back yard "For Freedom's Sake" may be pissing in the water reserves of all of his neighbors.

Its just really tough for ultra-libertarians to qualify their philosophy with the physical reality of interdependency. They just don't care for that level of reality. So they choose to ignore it.

On the other hand, socialists use environmentalism as a fear-based motivation for top down control. That's also dangerous. Most people don't want the details. They just want the emotional hook.

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 08:15 AM by Silenceisall

I think you struck a nice ballance with your last post. There is always the risk that a positive movement can be twisted by devious control-freaks, and environmentalism is not an exception. That said, I think we need to use our common sense on this one and let the paranoia take a back seat. Not every form of control is evil. Stop signs are not eveil. Neither is a prison term for a child molester. Laws against dumping toxins into waterstreams are also not conspiratorial or devious. The selfishness strain in hard-core libertarianism bothers me, and so does the lack of realism. Frankly, the libertarian utopia that some of these guys are describing sounds like a cruel and lawless world to me..."Let me do what I want to do and stay out of my business." "Fine, but where does your business become my business?"

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 08:31 AM by Throbber

reply to post by Silenceisall

"Cruel and lawless" because of what?

Because you're expected to be secure enough to ask for help from your neighbours if you need it?

The only bad thing about libertarianism is the same bad point about democratic capitalism, only with libertarianism the damage potential of that singular point is vastly reduced.

A libertarian society is a secure society, so long as you're not afraid of being a part of it.

Your final comment on people's respective lives is something that will happen no matter what we do - sooner or later somebody's daughter will get interested in the local rival's son, or vice versa.

Other good examples would be;

Next-door park their car (or other socially viable transport) in front of your house.

The kids down the road won't stop partying all day long and you've got crops to plant.

And so on.

Except the main difference between what we have now and what we could have is that instead of calling the cops and having the kids, local rival or neighbour questioned for the night, you get to deal with it yourself!

Imagine that!

A world where justice lies with the individual and not with the state!

Now, granted - this probably seems pretty dangerous to you, but there would be a 'law' or two, but nowhere near as many as we have currently.

Everyone would still acknowledge that there is no justification for causing pain and suffering to another human being, and therefore the crime & punishment would be decided by those at the scene.

With the Antagonist/Protagonist restrained until judgement had been passed of course.

Cast your doubts aside, Give Justice back to the people.

p.s; i'm not actually a fan of utopian viewpoints such as this, but i do enjoy giving input now and again.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Throbber]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 08:52 AM by Silenceisall

I don't agree. There is also a tone of glee in your post when you say...just imagine...you get to take care of it yourself. What does that mean for you. What if the guy that you want to deal with feels just as strongly that he is correct, and is willing to kick you up side the head to prove it. I guess you pull out a weapon then...or do you call the cops. Basically, Libertarianism is a utopian philosophy that cannot work until humans are ready to live in that kind of a society. Ron Paul paints himself as a humanitarian, but making everyone fend for themselves, even if they are not able too, only works for the strongest in society. It all just sounds like everyone running around thinking they know best and getting off on the power trip...the burden of compassion falls on the compassionate, and those who don't give a damn don't have to pay taxes and so get to spend more of their money pleasuring themselves....Bottom line...I look around and do not think we are ready for the responsibility that Libertarianism requires.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 08:55 AM by Throbber

reply to post by Silenceisall

You're right, Society isn't ready for it.

Which is bad, because Society is the vital ingredient.

You're not just relying on yourself to deal with the problem, but on other members of the community to help you.

Obviously in a situation such as you highlight the community would be acting as a force of reason.

p.s; the Burden is only half as heavy when you have people helping.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Throbber]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 09:04 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by Throbber

Then we basically agree. I would like to see a society where everyone is self regulated, and I believe that we will get there, but a good percentage of the poeple advocating pure Libertarianism want if for the wrong reason IMO. The proof is that they want it now, when we are not ready, and are not thinking about the negative consequences.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 09:05 AM by Throbber

reply to post by Silenceisall

Then you and i are on the same chapter.

The question is what kind of event or series of events could lead to society being ready?

edit; *picks nose*

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Throbber]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 09:14 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by Throbber

That's the golden question, and it's one people have been asking for a long time. What we would be looking at is a society in which compassion becomes a kind of innate value. This would require nothing short of an inner awakening on the part of most people. The catch 22 with Libertarianism is that those who advocate it say that everyone would get to care for themselves, but what is required for Libertarianism to work is a society in which everyone cares just as much if not more about others, and is willing to voluntarially sacrifice some of their wealth (which will mean some material freedom) for others, as well as other things. What I am saying is that selfishness runs against Libertariansm and will destroy it, and its advocates and cult members need to figure that out. The change has to come from within on a large scale, otherwise Libertarianism is just adult playtime, and a rather nasty playtime too.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 22-2-2008 @ 09:25 AM by Throbber

reply to post by Silenceisall

Quite, which is why this isn't something you can simply 'show' to people and say "This works! It really Works!" because there will always be people out there whom are quite capable of pointing out the critical flaw in the system (ahem).

So, how do we get people to believe in something in a way that doesn't mean we have to resort to fascist ideologies in order to get our point across?

I believe this is one of those questions in life where the answer is absurdly simple, and yet it would escape even the most critical mind.

I'm afraid the best i can do is point you in the right direction with one simple word;

"Information".

By making the information available and sharing it with others - perhaps even going so far as to highlight the critical differences between Our Capitalist society where our security forces are PAID to protect us so that they themselves can LIVE in a house with a roof over their heads, we might be able to shunt things along a little faster.

The problem is that there are a great many people who cannot see any way forward other than an approach through action, and that would work only in a society where that action would be understood and appreciated.

One that we're trying to get to.

Perhaps it isn't the mainstream culture that's got it wrong - perhaps it's us, the people who are trying to cause the change.

All too often people resort to methods that the mainstream audience simply aren't ready for, and all that does is turn people from the cause.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by Throbber]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^