WWF & Nature Conservancy: Global Land Trusts

Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Fri Nov 15 23:42:36 GMT 2013

One helluva read this lot if you hae a couple of hours
suggest you save or print out for a train ride or proper read - seriously
The bioregionalists always seem to hit the spot for me

BTW - we have the JFK 50th anniversary this week 
- this is IMHO by far the best doc on it all with 
a mind blower of an interview with the wartime US 
Naval officer that inspired Oliver Stone's JFK film
And came the closest to nailing the shysters
The Assassination of JFK: The Garrison Interview (1988)

best wishes to you all ;-)


Toward a Bioregional State
Launched to provide an information service 
connected with _Toward a Bioregional State, the 
book; the blog is the commentary, your questions 
and my answers, and news from around the world 
related to the issues of sustainability and 
unsustainability in a running muse on various issues of concern or inspiration.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
  How the Bioregional State Can Save the Pandas 
Better than the World Wildlife Fund and Other 
Global Neofeudal Ownership Regimes
A more accurate logo of the World Wildlife Fund, 
born 1961, bastard child of the Bilderberg 
Conference born 1954, and full of Skull and 
Bonesmen. The Panda's a clear-cutter. Why give it 
money? At this point for land protection schemes, 
I think the more decentralized, community 
riparian-based Waterkeeper Alliances are a better 
venue for your honest time and money.
"Everyone has their reason for doing things. And 
then the real reason." -- J. P. Morgan.

The Silence of the Panda

  There was an interesting film I saw recently. 
That film was the Silence of the Panda, about the 
World Wildlife Fund's incredible Janus face: how 
poor its actual actions are toward the 
environment versus the spiel it sells us about 
'caring for the environment' to make its money. 
It reminded me that there is a major ideological 
contention over the direction of environmentalist 
culture and leadership.  It reminded me that 
there are many well funded attempts to greenwash 
green politics so that people follow the 
charlatans of environmentalism and get distracted 
instead of actually working for sustainability.

  Before I talk about that film, it helps to 
relate what happened this week. I promise the 
introduction is very pertinent because the film 
may shock you how old is the is the rabbit hole 
of some wings of environmental charlatanism explored in this film.

  This week saw the annual conference of the 
Bilderberg Group from May 31 to June 3, 2012. 
This year they turned the Westfields Marriott in 
Chantilly, Virginia into their twilight zone 
police state compound. The Bilderberg Group is a 
globalist group with secretive membership, 
secretive annual meeting locations (they do their 
best--it leaks out), a membership extended by 
invitation only, no-media coverage for 60+ years 
please, and definitely no press releases--because 
it is "not a public organization" as they said 
this time in a rare admittance that the screaming 
protestors outside filming, blogging, standing in 
the rain might be interested in what they are doing in secret at all.

  Why is the media silent? Why are people 
interested? It is because when from all over the 
world for 68 years your publicly elected 
leadership, your corporate/banking leadership 
(illegally according to the U.S. Logan Act), your 
educational/media flagship leadership, and even 
your military leadership get together in total 
secrecy with European royalty as hosts in emptied 
out hotels guarded by snipers in "closed private 
meetings" yet paid for by your taxes--and later 
they pretend they never did these things--it gets 
people talking. It's not the media talking about 
this because they have taken the Bilderberg 
omerta as a condition of their attendance. (See 
an Appendix below with filmed attempts at 
interviews with frightened media heads either 
running away in fear of saying anything about 
their unreported attendance at such conferences, 
or they sit stonily silent as if the question was 
not asked and hope people move on from the 
'members-only' parallel universe that they belong 
to and which the questioner has touched upon. 
Some even admit their attendance, smiling like 
the Cheshire cat (where all that is left is the 
visible smile and an invisible body) as they make 
their escape from the interview.)

  It additionally gets people talking--four 
separate witnesses talking in fact--that Mitt 
Romney secretly stole away from his public 
campaign for the Republican Party candidacy to 
President of the United States to meet with Bilderberg last weekend as well:
  Four separate eyewitnesses inside the 
Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly Virginia 
told London Guardian writer Charlie Skelton that 
Mitt Romney was in attendance at Bilderberg 2012, 
suggesting the Republican candidate could be the 
elite’s pick for the upcoming U.S. presidential 
election. “Four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff 
told me Willard Mitt Romney was here at 
Bilderberg 2012. My four eyewitnesses place him 
inside. That’s one more than Woodward and 
Bernstein used. Romney’s office initially refused 
to confirm or deny his attendance as Bilderberg 
is “not public”. They later said it was not him,” 
writes BBC journalist Skelton.

  Whether Romney was just being friendly, 
verified, or vetted with their approval, it it 
hard to say. That it was done completely in 
secret assuredly means it is "not a social call" 
and more likely a summons to appear and be eyed 
by major global decision makers before he is 
likely made the official Republican Party pick 
(despite little grass roots support at all). It's 
similar to past USA politics typically unreported 
for decades to keep you in the dark: the careers 
of many aspiring U.S. federal politicians seem 
arranged by or at Bilderberg. The same goes for 
many major European politicians. At least many 
strange doors open for such people only after 
they appear in secret there. There was Margaret 
Thatcher, run as U.K. Tory Prime Minister only 
immediately after her Bilderberg attendance. 
There was Bill Clinton, run as Democratic Party 
candidate only after his 1991 Bilderberg 
attendance. There was Johnathan Edwards 
(remember, Kerry's VP in 2008--and that 
long-empty VP spot was filled only after his 
Bilderberg attendance--that took place overseas 
in another country altogether. Joe Biden's VP 
position for Obama sees the similar pattern. 
Hillary Clinton dropped her campaign for 
President in 2008 only after her Bilderberg 
attendance--at which Obama was as well. There are 
videos at the end of this post about Bilderberg if you are interested.

  I mention this because in politics, what 
happens on the surface is sometimes only a 
fraction of what is happening. The same principle 
can be applied to those who support the 
Malthusian ideological wing of environmentalism 
because there is a lot going on beyond the surface in this faction.

Malthusianism: the Bilderberg Side of Environmentalism

  However, let's talk environmentalism. Since 
Bilderberg happened this week, it is perhaps 
appropriate to review the different wings of 
environmentalism once more to see which pigs in 
it (or pandas) are claiming to fly. This time, I 
will concentrate on a critique of the 
neo-Malthusian and globalist versions of 
environmentalism--that come from Bilderberg 
itself. This wing is as distinct from the 
bioregional state versions of environmentalism as night is day.

  So this post begins two critiques of Malthusian 
views on environmentalism, both from the failure 
of its recommended policies to be translated (in 
three interlinked strategies) into meaningful 
environmental improvement where instead we see 
the cover-up of the facilitation of degradation 
by such Malthusian policies; as well as from the 
history of following the sponsors of the origins 
of Malthusianism in the 1800s as well as its 
redeployment from the 1960 as having little to do 
with environmental protection at all. In other 
words, just what kind of policies are created by 
Malthusianists, and just what kind of people and 
organizations are they who choose and popularize 
Malthusian policies in the real world? I'll 
concentrate on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as 
exhibiting both this Malthusian policy failure as 
well as an insight into just who major Malthusian 
elites are. I will touch on similar allied 
Malthusian peoples/organizations as well in the 
U.S. Nature Conservancy and in the ideas around the World Conservation Bank.

  The Bilderberg connection to some wings of 
environmentalism you say? What am I talking about?

  I am talking about the World Wildlife Fund 
(WWF). As of 1995, the Malthusian-policy oriented 
WWF controlled about 10% of the surface of planet 
Earth in this way. It takes in about $600,000,000 
a year. However, its record of attempting to 
enforce its Malthusian style policies as 
environmental ones has been environmental failure 
and open corruption detailed below, while other 
environmental strategies different than 
Malthusian policy are successful in moving us toward sustainability.

  Below is just one (big) area of Africa with WWF 
transnational jurisdiction from 2001:


The founding networks of the Bilderberg Group in 
1954 were the same founding networks of the World 
Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961, six years 
later.  (More detailed analysis of personnel is in "Appendix One" below.)

  This WWF global managerial version of 
environmentalism is a territorial empire--of and 
by the multinational corporate managers, the 
bankers, the military elites, the global media, 
select imperialist Dutch/British royalty (both 
frustrated in a 'post-colonial era'), and even 
Third World dictators getting a supporting role. 
This was an environmental strategy organized in 
response to the first years of many regional 
grass roots rebellions for decolonization against 
European empires--that were degradative to the 
environment and degradative to human rights. This 
was years before and distinct from the more 
civic, mass movement wings of environmentalism 
existed as a popular culture different from the WWF.

  The history of 'environmentalism' in the world 
since the 1970s has been one of the clash of 
these different strategies of environmentalism.

  So, were these earlier secretive groups 
interested in taking care of the environment, or 
just taking the environment--for themselves?

  As banker J.P. Morgan said, "everyone has a 
reason they do things. And then the real reason."

  I suggest we keep this dissembling quality of 
very powerful global interests in mind 
particularly for those that claim to sponsor 
'environmentalism' or 'care about the 
environment' as their 'reason' they build a 
global transnational territorial empire with a 
policy of rightless depopulation of both animals 
and people in the (mineral and resource rich) 
areas they want to keep controlling from afar. Is 
it the "real reason?" Are they sponsoring 
environmentalism in good faith, or are they 
attempting to steer it and use it as a cloak to 
their own private advantage that is harder to 
express openly as legitimate in a post-colonial 
context? The larger an organization gets and the 
more toes it steps on around the world, the more 
it requires legitimating itself within the 
current common cultural rubric to survive. In 
other words, for certain global elites is 'caring 
for the environment' actually "the real reason" 
they support their strange, ever-failing version 
of Malthusian 'environmentalism?'

  Before I get into the WWF (and two other 
globally privatized land trust strategies that 
choose only Malthusian strategies in which to be 
"environmentally conscious" as they buy up the 
world--the equally globalized U.S. based Nature 
Conservancy (founded 1951) and the World 
Conservation Bank idea), it helps to frame and to 
compare what particular theories about 
environmentalism that these global strategies are 
exhibiting in their actions--and how different 
their version of environmentalism is from the 
bioregional state and other versions of environmentalism.

Into the Heart of Darkness, Revisited

Down the Throat of "Ring #3 of the 
Environmentalist Circus": Neo-Malthusianism and 
Its Globalist Allies and Strategies

  In a previous post I have characterized 
political environmental as having a 'four ring 
circus' with the bioregional state as distinctly 
different in its solutions for sustainability as 
to be in a 'fourth ring' separate from the other 'three rings.'

  The bioregional state overlaps with the ring of 
#1 and #2--described at that link or here--though 
it definitely is against #3 below.

  I characterized these other three circus rings 
as [1] the voluntary sustainable localism 
movement (most bioregionalism--autonomy, 
democracy, materials change, identity change 
(voluntary simplicity, living and merely 'eating 
locally' as a voluntary decision)--in other 
words, voluntary depoliticized decentralization 
exclusively); [2] voluntary ecological 
modernization, biomimicry, industrial ecology, 
and the bioneers (voluntary-only corporate or 
supplier forms of material sustainability without 
any politics); and [3] sadly the ongoing 
anti-humanist neo-Malthusianism of many who say 
they are "concerned with the environment" though 
instead of acting to aid the environmental 
conditions or to improve them for people, they 
exclusively concentrate on blaming 
people--typically the most defenseless poor 
instead of the more fortified rich--and hope to 
kill off the poor one way or another or steal 
their land from them for what they claim are the 
best intentions. This idea of 'kill or remove the 
defenseless poor globally from their land in a 
racial eugenic fashion and call it 
environmentalism' is seen in many globalist's 
policies on depopulation. This neo-Malthusian 
adaption is the theory justifying (or at least 
attempting to justify) policies on massive 
private purchases of land by global interests 
after which they violently displace the population to "save the environment."

  Unlike the bioregional state, it is Ring #3's 
neo-Malthusianism that motivates one particular 
policy wing of global environmentalism. Ring #3 
tends to have three overlapping strategies: (1) 
demographic depopulation, (2) spatial 
depopulation (massive privatization and 
centralization in global ownership of territories 
that are then violently depopulated of their 
previously public or other person's private 
residence and use of the land; Agenda 21 
inclusive in this), (3) and the encouragement of 
global jurisdictions and the demotion of local 
democratically representative ones (like in the 
climate change scares; the "wild lands project"; 
and in Agenda 21). This amounts to three 
different strategies of the same idea: the idea 
that killing people, shrinking populations, 
removing people's national political rights and 
even legal due process, and removing people from 
the land, is innately justified by the "reason" 
of 'saving the environment.' Is that the "real reason"?

  And if it can be demonstrated that these three 
methods fail to save the environment over the 
past 50 years, what is the "real reason" for 
their durability as strategies then?

  Moreover, are any of these three themes true or 
are they merely unexamined misanthropy or 
fear-mongering that is disastrously misleading 
and brainwashing people down the wrong path who 
are good-hearted environmentalists?

  Who actually benefits from removing people from 
the land? Who actually benefits from global jurisdictions?

  The environment? You think so?

  What if I told you that just consolidated 
corporations and banks benefit, and that they 
have created their own version of 
environmentalism in this 'third ring' as a covert 
vehicle of much older delegitmated forms of crony 
corporate destructive and very martial imperialism?

"Watch Ring #3, Ladies and Gentlemen, Where We 
Have the Amazing Silence of the Panda!"

  The film The Silence of the Panda argues the 
case that all who follow 'ring #3' and its 
neo-Malthusian ideas should at least reexamine 
their support of this wing based on its 
environmental failures and hypocrisies--and 
perhaps more hopefully reexamine how they came to 
believe globalist Malthusianists were an environmental leadership at all.

  An interesting film was produced last year. 
Here's a link for the first 12 minutes. The 
remainder is linked at the conclusion of this post.

The Silence of the Panda: What the WWF Isn't 
Saying (2011: German Documentary; English translation)

  [Well, it was here a few days ago. Now this 
first two parts are gone though the other parts 
are available, below. I'll update this post if I find it elsewhere.]

  This is part 3:

  The film helps demonstrate [1] the huge 
failures of global environmental elites at 
protecting the environment with their 
neo-Malthusian strategies of spatial 
depopulation--and it introduces us to how their 
Janus face of environmentalism was just hiding 
private interests of control and wealth 
consolidation for themselves all the while. They 
made environmentalism their novel flag of 
imperialism. The film may make you change your 
mind about what kind of environmentalism you 
support--i.e., who are the leaders and who are the liars.

The Silence of the Panda (2011) was produced by 
Wilfried Huismann, a three-time winner of the 
most prestigious German TV prize, the Grimme 
Award. Huismann with camera crew in tow went 
around the world to visit many World Wildlife 
Fund (WWF) ownership sites. He found their 
depopulating, private ownership consolidation 
strategies were making the environment worse 
instead of better. However, the WWF ignores this 
in its fundraising--to keep funding the same 
failures. From the WWF's point of view then, what 
is the "real reason" for these policies then? And 
is is for them a real failure then? What is their 
actual goals? Protecting the environment or 
greenwashing for industry and consolidating 
territory in particular (tax free) international 
jurisdictions in which they have greater 
extraction and wealth creation control?

  Huismann demonstrates that there is a silence 
to the global brand of 'the Panda' about its 
ongoing failure in its strategies to make the environment better.

  There is a great disparity between what the 
'global brand' of the WWF is telling the world so 
people give it money "to protect the 
environment"--compared to the WWF's bad record at 
protecting the environment and its great record 
at helping itself and others destroy the environment.

  In 1961, the WWF was founded as the world's 
first globally expansive private land trust. By 
2012, it is now the world's largest of such 
globally private land trusts. By 1995, it had 
some kind of jurisdicction over 10% of the land surface of the planet.

  It employs its wealth and power with the 
strategy of "spatial depopulation" policies by 
pushing native peoples and others off the land 
"in the name of the environment." Is that the 
"real reason"? The WWF is really not protecting 
the environment at all and only making money by 
two factors that the film discusses: by 
certification that encourages cash crop 
plantations that destroy the environment by 
clear-cutting (laundered as more palatable to 
global consumers if "the Panda" supports it), and 
the cash crop of eco-tourism in its "protection 
zones" (A third source of money that the film 
fails to discuss is the massive wealth from well 
documented WWF carbon credits fraud in South 
America--though that is another story.)

The Three Silences of the Panda

  Huismann documents three silences: [1] the 
WWF's silence about its own failures since it 
encourages the destruction of the environment 
that it buys up that makes this strategy 
questionable yet it does nothing nothing to 
change; [2] the silence about the WWF destruction 
of sustainable, successful strategies that are 
working: strategies that integrate durable 
people, materials, and cultures in particular 
durable environments. The only sustainable ideas 
seen in the film are those that the WWF are 
destroying: how people are attempting to 
challenge the WWF to maintain and enhance their 
local jurisdictions for sustainability, an idea 
that both the globalist jurisdictions and 
Malthusian ideological assumptions of the WWF 
attempts to destroy despite their 
Malthusian-based WWF projects being failures in protecting the environment.

  In the film, the third silence of the WWF is in 
occluding its own checkered history: the 
background and motivation of the people who 
sponsored it into existence were two levels of 
secret globalist societies. The film only discusses one of these.

  This is the story of how the WWF was founded by 
the esoteric Bilderberg Group inventing the 
exoteric WWF vehicle for greenwashing its 
corporate banker land management to make money. 
These two organizations worked hand in glove in 
their leadership. Later, by 1970s, they added a 
third 'leg' to their network as a subordinate 
funding partner--the 1001 Club. This is the 
secret club that the film concentrates upon. The 
1001 Club was yet another secret membership 
roster now of Third World political elite and 
business roundtable groups from European and 
non-European areas (particularly filled with 
Third World dictators and ex-apartheid South 
Africa elites). They joined the secret club to 
fund the WWF's budget for land purchases toward 
spatial depopulation--and it seems they got a lot 
of investment contacts back in return quid pro 
quo the film indicates--most of it hardly environmentally sound.

  Why such an altrustic fund 'for nature' had to 
be secret club virtually unmentioned in the 
world's media is a clue that "helping the 
environment" was hardly its "real reason" alone.

  The 1001 Club is the second secret society with 
unpublished membership built into the designs of 
the WWF. The film references this 1001 Club as 
embedded with--and even founded with--Prince 
Bernard of the Netherlands who of course founded the Bilderberg Group.

  Prince Bernhard seemed to have founded the 
World Wildlife Fund as a form of ongoing 
'aristocratic leadership' taking up 
environmentalism among Europeans, Americans, and 
Third World dictators and other ex-colonial 
millionaires in raw materials extraction 
industries so they could meet and see eye-to-eye 
in environmentalist policy--and make a little 
money of course on the side with a nod and a wink 
as a result of creating, buying and selling such 
'transnational' environmental parks depopulated 
of other people that they could more quietly 
manage out of the public eye for their own benefit.

  However, WWF global international jurisdictions 
seem to have resulted in ongoing environmental 
degradation instead of actually environmental 
protection. WWF projects have been failures 
likely because the funding and friendship 
networks in which the WWF was extended were 'these guys':
  The 1001 Club: A Nature Trust is a trust that 
helps fund the World Wide Fund for Nature. It was 
established in 1970 by the then head of the WWF, 
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with help 
from Anton Rupert, a South African [billionaire 
drug and luxury items] entrepreneur.[1] They 
persuaded 1001 individuals to join the club, 
where each member would contribute US $10,000 to 
the trust.[2] [It is now related that the one 
time membership fee is $25,000 per member.] In 
the early 1970s, Charles de Haes took charge of 
the operation for reaching $10 million goal,[3] 
becoming Director General of WWF-International 
from 1975.[4] The resulting $10 million fund 
helps to fund the WWF's basic costs of administration.

  The membership of the 1001 Club largely 
consists of managers of banks and multinationals 
from around the world (see membership lists under References).

  According to a 1993 Washington Monthly article, 
"The secret list of members includes a 
disproportionate percentage of [apartheid era 
elite] South Africans, all too happy in an era of 
social banishment to be welcomed into a socially 
elite society. Other contributors include 
businessmen with suspect connections, including 
organized crime, environmentally destructive 
development, and corrupt African politics. Even 
an internal report called WWF's approach egocentric and neocolonialist."[5]
 From other information, it seems that the 'rank 
and file' as the 'porch brethern' of the WWF are 
kept in the dark and are entirely clueless that a 
secret society of blue bloods and 
corporate/banking  aristocracies called the 1001 
Club is a major funding source and certainly 
their main political leverage contacts list around the world:
  Press reports about the 1001 Club have been 
extremely sporadic. Possibly the only serious 
exposé on the club was published in 1980 by 
Private Eye. One of the questions this magazine asked was:

"The puzzling question is what do the '1001' get 
for their money apart from private prestige and 
the privilege of dining with Prince Bernhard or the Duke of Edinburgh?" [1]
  We'll leave the answer to this question for 
later. The mentioning of diners indicates that 
the 1001 Club is organized in the same way as 
many other establishment clubs, including the 
prestigious Pilgrims Society. An initial problem 
when writing this article was that it was 
difficult to determine whether or not the 1001 
still existed - information was extremely scarce 
to say the least. One thing that could be found 
was that new members were still invited in 1996. 
On the website of Buttonboss Plc. we can read in the history section:
"Buttonboss celebrated its 20th Jubileum and, 
once again, Prince Bernhard honoured us with his 
presence in attending the spectacular celebration 
party in Twente (Holland). It was on this 
occasion that he, in name of fellow members of 
the selection committee, offered Henk Brusse 
membership of the "1001-Club", for which he was 
responsible in founding. This club compromises 
1001 good friends and relations of H.R.H. Prince 
Bernhard, all of whom support the world-wide 
activities associated with the World Wild Life Nature Fund."
  The next step was to contact several branches 
of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature and ask 
them about the 1001. On August 10, 2005, the 
Dutch branch of the WWF finally confirmed that 
meetings were still being organized:
"I received your question about the 1001-Club. 
Regular meetings indeed do take place. The 
location is different every time. For instance, 
last April there has been a Panda Ball in Monaco 
and a diner in Barcelona... Could you please 
inform me why you are interested in this information?"
  In the email the question was asked if the 
meetings were held in London. The WWF employee 
said that although it's very likely that meetings 
have been organized here too, that they were held 
in various countries. A very brief 1978 report in 
The Times confirms that Prince Philip gave a 
reception at Windsor castle for 1001 Club members 
[2]. A leaked, confidential internal report of 
the 1001 Club furthermore confirms that Prince 
Bernhard regularly organized receptions at 
Soestdijk Palace for Dutch 1001 Club members, and 
that King Juan Carlos organized his own 
receptions in Spain for Spanish members. 
According to this last report, international 
meetings have also been organized on a regular 
basis. [3] One example of these international 
trips/meetings appears to have been a five-day 
trip to Nepal of some thirty 1001 Club members. 
The excursion was headed by Prince Bernhard [4].
  Three days after uploading the initial 1001 
Club article (the site was visited by WWF 
headquarters in Switzerland for some time after 
the emails had been sent) and five weeks after 
sending them an email, the British branch of the 
WWF finally decided to reply (it should normally 
take two days max). They confirmed the 1001 Club 
was still organizing meetings and added to it 
that the one-time introduction fee had been increased to $25,000.
"I have been in discussions with our major 
support section in order to find all the 
information that you require about the 1001 club. 
There is a one off membership fee of $25,000 (US 
Dollars) and there are field trips and events 
organised mainly by WWF International. If you 
have further queries please come back to us..."
  This short message took them five weeks! And 
why did this person have to go in "discussions" 
to receive "all this information"? Needles to 
say, we did get back to them and asked them 
whether or not the regular staff has actually 
heard of the 1001 Club, or if all this 
information is held behind closed doors within 
the WWF headquarters. The answer [or the lack of 
it] came after about three weeks, on September 5, 
2005. If we skip the usual apology for the delay, the whole email read:
"I would like to inform you that the 1001 Club is 
a scheme run by WWF-International, which is 
situated in Switzerland, and for detailed 
information we have to contact WWF-International."
  As expected, the answer doesn't tell us a whole lot.
  Anyway, if you have a thousand members with an 
average age of 45-50 years or so, you'd expect 
that at least an average of about twenty people 
die each year. Twenty new members who each pay 
the $25,000 introduction fee is a baseline income 
for the 1001 Club of at least $500,000 annually."

  And let's remember just who is Prince Bernhard 
of the Netherlands--besides the founder of both 
the World Wildlife Fund and the secretive crony 
corporate international elite club that funded 
it, the 1001 Club. Why, Prince Bernhard was the 
founder of the equally secretive globalist 
Bilderberg Group six years earlier in 1954. If 
the WWF is his baby, the WWF is Bilderberg's 
baby. If the 1001 Club is his brainchild, then 
the WWF is the 1001 Club's baby. WWF is a 
Bilderberg environmental strategy. Do you fund it as well? Then stop.

  The film might be aptly renamed:

The Silence of the Panda and the Silence of the 
1001 Club: the global secret secret society 
recruitment origins of the WWF and the failure of 
its corrupt brand of global elite-based corporate environmentalism.

  However, since the film surprisingly leaves out 
the Bilderberg connection and only concentrates 
on the 1001 Club and since Bilderberg occurred 
this week, it made sense to review this film 
showing the environmental side of Bilderberg, or 
the Bilderberg side of environmentalism.

  I think the film points to the latter: that the 
WWF was founded as a side operation of 
Bilderberg's globalizing control plans and that 
the 1001 Club is sort of a "Bilderberg Extension 
into the Third World": the required powerful 
(though lower tier) clients appended to the 
Eurocentric global domination and land management 
strategies desired by the Bilderberg of the First World.

  Furthermore, the filmmaker argues that when the 
WWF's networks on the whole and environmental 
impacts are reviewed, it is the same old European 
aristocratic/royal families version of European 
global imperialism now disguised as 'global 
environmentalism'--with 'global South' dictator 
proxies pulled simultaneously into and from the 
1001 Club, after vetting, being useful to the WWF 
as well as useful to the WWF 
sponsorship/certification networks of raw 
material extraction for Western industries in a post-colonial era.

  The WWF seems a similar human repression and 
environmental degradation repression under a 
different name. It seems a novel name and 
justification for the same repressing of the same 
old peasant populations and indigenous peoples, 
corrupting governments, corrupting certification 
strategies--though the effect is destroying the 
environment just the same though with the added 
disingenuousness of claiming it is 'WWF certified' destruction.

  It's an abomination of environmentalism to 
support this organization as naive 'porch 
brethren' on the outside, to support a strategy's 
"real reason" meant to be misconstrued to gain 
others' support. If you want other ideas for how 
to get to a sustainable world, look into the bioregional state.

  Let's add this film's historical perspective of 
this branch of global environmentalism to the 
history of different environmental strands. The 
film is a case analysis of the self-created 
globalist World Wildlife Fund, invented in 1961 
was before and distinct from other branches of 
the circus of political environmentalism that 
joined it with 'decentralist' Bookchin in 1962, 
with 'industrial reformist' Rachel Carson in 
1963, or with [mass popular social movements 
like] Earth Day in 1970. It begs the question: 
just what were these global elites doing in 
secret with environmentalist self-justifications 
back in 1961? Were they prescient planners and 
protectors of the larder they already owned in a 
consolidated fashion, or were they just working 
on expanding and preserving their own financial 
and corporate empire expansion as even they 
realized their previous ways were unsustainable? 
So they cloaked their empires under an 
environmental management rubrics, then the WWF 
green-washed and laundered any additional money 
(Prince Bernhard himself was caught in doing this 
at least once) that they wanted which came back 
through the networks of the 1001 Club and the 
Bilderbergs as quid pro quo to help them on their 
combined land-owning, investment, and political aspirations.

  An earlier film expose of the WWF was in 1990 
by the Irish journalist Kevin Dowling, with the 
film Ten Pence in the Panda. He argued something 
similar: that all this money for the WWF was not 
being used for protection of pandas, elephants or 
black rhinos or anything else--it was used for 
transnational empire and creating illegal private 
hunting reserves for the members who could 'get 
in' to the network. Below is an extensive quote 
from another website about the WWF/1001 
interaction-- starting with Dowling's previous 
research into the real world of the WWF:
  Although no politician or journalist will burn 
his fingers on this topic, helping people of 
third world countries is actually quite 
problematic from a strictly geopolitical point of view. The reasons:
it may upset the balance of power;
there aren't enough natural resources to support 
6,5 billion people with a high standard of 
living. [ed: To the contrary, the bioregional 
state feels that it is easy to organize this for 
people, though the current corrupt raw material 
regimes with their profits developed by 
artificial scarcities in their own materials and 
by the intentional demotion of options, means the 
repression of already-existing cleaner materials 
and technologies that are more decentralized and 
thus because of that are less easily managed to 
create human clientelism and less able to keep 
people poor artificially--like imperialists want to assure is maintained.]
  The economic power clique of the West seems to 
have realized this, judging from internal 
documents that leaked from the World Bank in 
recent years. These documents described the 
process through which the IMF and World Bank 
crush third world countries economically by 
extending their loans only after the leaders of 
the respective countries have accepted secret and 
very far-reaching policies of privatization and 
deregulation. [5] [ed: That is why it is best to 
have multiple alternative currencies available.] 
The eccentric financial expert Jean-Pierre van Rossem may have said it best:

"The whole third world is indebted to the banks. 
And it really is the financial power clique that 
keeps these countries poor. Why does poverty 
continue? Because it has a purpose." [6]

  The bankers and industrialists of the Eastern 
Establishment have traditionally been very 
involved in suppressing Latin American trade 
unions, while anti-communist hardliners, mainly 
from the United States and Israel, have been 
training death squads in Latin America since at 
least the early 1980s. There has been a degree of 
antagonism between these two groups, mainly about 
the degree of support for radical Zionism, but the lines are hard to define.

  Britain too has tried to find ways to remain an 
influence in the world, and some have argued over 
the years that British Intelligence and the 
Foreign Office have tried to use the WWF (and 
1001 Club) to pursue some of the country's 
geopolitical interests. The most important of 
these critics has been the Irish journalist Kevin 
Dowling, who in 1990 produced the documentary 
'Ten Pence in the Panda', in which he documented 
the extreme ineffectiveness of the WWF's efforts 
to defend species as the panda, the elephant, and 
the black rhino. During the controversy in the 
weeks and months after the documentary, Dowling 
produced more damning evidence against the WWF. 
It turned out that the people living in the 
reserves were forced to live under inhumane 
conditions (and could be shot on sight), that 
wealthy customers could illegally hunt on rhinos 
and elephants, that leading nature conservatives 
were involved in the illegal trade in ivory, and 
that criminal special operations were launched 
from nature reserves to sustain the apartheid system. [7]

More detail on "Ten Pence in the Panda" and the WWF can be found here:
The "Black Ivory" Report: WWF Covering up Illegal 
Ivory Trading When It Found It; WWF Let Its Own Staff Who Found It Get Tortured

  In 1972, sir Peter Scott [one of the founders 
of the WWF], in name of the WWF, commissioned 
Alan Parker, a licensed white hunter living in 
Nairobi to investigate the lucrative illegal 
business of ivory trading, rhinoceros horns, 
elephant´s feet, etc. Among other things, Parker 
found that President Jomo Kenyatta´s family was 
deeply involved in the illegal trading, and his 
daughter Margareth was working as a secretary in 
one company that sell rhinoceros horns and ivory 
to the Middle and Far East, trading that has 
decimated the big animal species in Kenya. Parker 
also included in his report many of the most 
famous Kenya´s conservationists among the illegal hunters.

  [A] [f]ew hours after delivering his report to 
sir Scott [of the WWF], Parker was kidnapped, 
taken to the infamous police station at Langatta 
Road, where he was beaten and tortured during 
three days. He was warned not to say anyone about 
what was in the report, or his wife would be 
murdered. The report, that was the best and most 
complete investigation ever done on the slaughter 
of wild animals in Africa, rested hidden and 
ignored for 17, years until Kevin Dowling, an 
Irish moviemaker working for the Independent 
Television Network of England, unearthed it for 
making his harsh denounce against the WWF: the film "Ten Pence in the Panda".

  By the same days Parker was being tortured, 
[leader of the WWF, Bilderberg, and the 1001 
Club] Prince Bernhard was awarding Kenyatta the 
"Order of the Golden Ark", especially created for 
him, for "saving the rhinoceros". Bernhard knew 
that a large number of animals had been killed 
during Kenyatta´s government because he had in 
his hands Parker´s report, "Black Ivory": he had 
signed the receipt! However, this revealing piece 
of information was kept ignored and secret due to 
colonial policies considerations. [This quote continues as Appendix Five.]

  Back to the previous quote source, where it continues:
  The Dutch Attorney J. Wilgers in more recent 
years looked into the work of Kevin Dowling and 
reached similar conclusions. According to 
Wilgers, the IUCN and the WWF (and therefore also 
the 1001 Club) have been created as fronts for British neo-colonial policies:
"In 1948, the IUCN, the International Union for 
the Conservation of Nature, was established. The 
most important person involved was Julian Huxley. 
This IUCN had a close working relationship with 
the British Colonial and Foreign Office. All his 
life Huxley had been working on projects related 
to the conservation of nature. In 1960, he made a 
trip through the British colonies that were about 
to become independent. He made sure that the 
British government was able to keep their hold on 
the nature reserves located in the countries of 
the Commonwealth, even today. Somehow he was able 
to convince the new African leaders that every 
person from Africa was a natural born poacher.

  "Great Britain has always been preoccupied with 
the capture of raw materials from the countries 
in the Commonwealth and the protection of the 
unlimited supply of it.  It is noteworthy that 
the IUCN still has the affix, "for natural 
resources" [International Union for Conservation 
of Nature and Natural Resources]. I also point to 
the fact that the IUCN is an extension of the 
government offices and the public sector of the 
United Kingdom, because in the end, these are the 
real beneficiaries. A year after Huxley's trip, 
the WWF was established with the sole purpose of 
gathering funds for the IUCN. The IUCN went to 
the background at the moment the WWF came into 
existence... "Thirty years later, the WWF 
controls 10% of the world's surface. They control 
40% of Tanzania. At the moment they are focused 
on South-America. This is something of the last 5 years [since 1994-1995]." [8]

It's no secret that a crucial aspect of the 
West's prosperity has to do with its reasonably 
inexpensive access to bulk materials as oil and 
precious metals around the world. If these 
supplies were to dry up, or become too expensive 
to import, the economy of the West would collapse 
totally and permanently. [To the contrary, we 
would be freed of the poor raw material regimes 
that are keeping us in suboptimal arrangements, 
unsustainble arrangements, corrupt governments 
that support environmental/human 
degradation--thus keeping us from moving to 
something incredibly better that already exists 
using readily available material and 
technological solutions kept out only by politics instead of economics.]

  One person who understood that very good was 
Sir Julian Amery, one of the most important 
behind the scenes players in post WWII Britain.

"The prosperity of our people [moreover the 
current material support of political elites 
rather] rests really on the oil in the Persian 
Gulf, the rubber and tin of Malaya, and the gold, 
copper and precious metals of South- and Central 
Africa. As long as we have access to these; as 
long as we can realize the investments we have 
there; as long as we trade with this part of the 
world, we shall be prosperous [at least for only 
a tiny percent,  gauging from the massive 
inequalities in Great Britain that, I have read, 
exhibits the lowest social mobility of any 
country in the OECD developed countries. 
Britain's "social" achievements are thus very 
marginal.] If the communists [or anyone else] 
were to take them over, we would lose the lot. 
Governments like Colonel Nasser's in Egypt are just as dangerous." [9]
Amery made these remarks in late 1962, after 
Egypt had sent troops to Yemen in order to 
prevent domestic forces from bringing back the 
ousted Imam. The British had a Crown colony in 
the south, Aden, but realized they were not a 
superpower anymore and could do little to defend 
their overseas interests. Overtly that is, as 
Amery and his good friend David Stirling, founder 
of the SAS, soon approached Sir Alec Douglas 
Home, Foreign Secretary at the time, in the 
White's Club to discuss their plan of a covert 
war. The idea was that Stirling would be send to 
Yemen with a group of ex-SAS men and train the 
local royalist groups, who were supporters of the 
deposed Imam. Under the leadership of the SAS, 
they would then undermine the Egyptian forces. 
Stirling approached the Saudi House of Al-Faisal, 
who agreed to fund the entire operation. Weapons 
were delivered by Adnan Khashoggi; the arms 
dealer's first major contract. Stirling also 
received support from the King of Jordan. The 
Mossad and former MI6 officers as George Kennedy 
Young and Billy McLean (another close friend of 
Amery) were also involved in the secret war. The 
operation was a huge success and in August 1965 
the Egyptians had been so tied down that they 
were forced to sign a cease-fire with the Saudis, 
the main overt supporters of the Yemeni 
resistance, and begin their withdrawal. 
Unfortunately for Stirling and Amery, Wilson had 
recently entered office and began withdrawing 
British forces all over the world. Yemen would 
soon be taken over by communist-sponsored 
elements in society. To prevent this from 
happening in Saudi Arabia, which had been left 
virtually defenseless by the British withdrawal, 
Stirling and his business associates managed to 
sell an Air Force to Saudi Arabia, maintained by 
SAS mercenaries. The deal would bring many other 
business opportunities in the future. [10]

  Although private interests, especially banks, 
always had a great deal of influence on the 
British government (or on any government), the 
events in Yemen is considered the start of not 
only the privatization of British foreign policy 
[continued through some environmental land trust 
proxies, perhaps like the WWF], but also of 
covert warfare. The result was not unlike a 
diluted version of the historic British 
East-India Company or Cecil Rhodes' British South 
Africa Company. And herein lies the problem: even 
though someone like Stirling was quite brilliant 
in his own way, the group he hung out with was a 
combination of robber barons, imperialists and 
fascists. Examples are John Aspinall, Lord Lucan, 
Sir James Goldsmith, Tiny Rowland, the Cecil 
family and Lord Julian Amery. Especially the last 
four had many connections to the leading 
aristocracy (they were part of it), the business 
community and international intelligence. They 
became involved in funding and training rebel 
groups across Africa; officially to counter the 
Soviet threat, unofficially to retain control 
over the minerals in that area. In itself not 
that much of problem, although human rights have 
never been a point of consideration for these 
people, who also supported dictators like Franco, 
Pinochet, Mobutu and Ian Smith. Rowland, together 
with Adnan Khashoggi, did a lot of business with 
Ghaddafi [11]. These two picked up where "rogue" 
CIA agent Edwin Wilson left off 10 years earlier.
One operation in particular would be damning to 
the British establishment if it were to be fully 
exposed. Men like the 7th Marquess of Salisbury 
(Cecil) and Julian Amery, both leading members of 
the international private intelligence group Le 
Cercle, were strong supporters of the apartheid 
governments in Africa [12]. The accusation is 
that when it became obvious in the 1980s that the 
apartheid system was breaking down, British 
fascists set up private SAS operations in 
southern Africa to counter this movement, largely 
in the same manner as the operation in Yemen 
about 25 years earlier. Retired SAS officers 
operated through front companies. One of those 
was KAS Enterprises, a private security firm 
first headed by David Stirling, and when he died 
in 1990, by Sir James Goldsmith. Officially, KAS 
was hired to protect elephants and rhinos from 
poachers in southern Africa. They were authorized 
to use deadly force. However, soon people began 
to notice that a disproportionally large amount 
of the people killed were ANC activists, many of 
them part of the armed resistance. [As The 
Silence of the Panda film indicates, this was 
funded by money laundering WWF funds back to 
Prince Bernhard who hired and trained mercenaries 
that were trained in "his" WWF nature parks to 
kill democratic activists.] Even though 
reportedly 1,5 million people ended up dead, the 
operation of bringing a halt to majority rule was 
unsuccessful. Attention was now shifted to South 
Africa alone and an attempt was made to 
destabilize the country to such an extent that 
the military of the apartheid government could 
step in and declare martial law. The idea was to 
set up the ANC against the Zulu-dominated Inkatha 
Freedom Party, respectively the largest and 
second largest anti-apartheid movements in South 
Africa. The tactic was to train black units, like 
the Anti-Cattle Thieves Brigade and the Crowbar 
Unit, and to have them commit terrorist actions 
in the black townships. This was to lead to a 
civil war followed by a military crackdown. The 
operation killed several ten thousand people, but 
accomplished nothing; in 1994 the apartheid 
system was history. Interestingly, a South 
African report about Operation Lock, as the 
project was called, was suppressed by the Mandela 
government as it was considered "too explosive" 
[partially because it was the WWF money, WWF 
land, and the leadership of Prince Bernhard of 
the Netherlands that gave the South African 
terrorists training. See below. This report is 
mentioned in The Silence of the Panda.]. Press 
releases did however indicate that the SAS, in 
part through KAS, was the origin of the 
mysterious "third force", blamed for the campaign 
of terrorism and assassinations. [13]

  KAS had been hired by "wealthy conservatives", 
although besides Prince Bernhard, names do not 
seem to have been released. It is also not known 
how much these men knew, or wanted to know, about 
the secondary operations of KAS. Kevin Dowling:

"I discovered that in the so-called [WWF] 
wildlife parks a system of total repression 
existed. People don't have any rights, their 
traditional way of income is forbidden. They 
can't even step on a flower without running the 
risk of being murdered. At the same time these 
so-called wildlife parks turned out to function 
as staging grounds and training camps for all 
kinds of mercenaries. South-Africa stationed its 
secret troops there which had to sow death and 
destruction in the townships of South-Africa and 
the frontline states, while also the terrorists 
of Renamo and Unita liked to hide out there. ... 
"Because I had so many contacts in Africa by that 
time, I was being overwhelmed with information 
about Project Lock. I discovered that very heavy 
guys were involved in the operation. The military 
branch of the operation was under the command of 
Colonel Ian Crooke, the second man of the special 
forces in England, the SAS. ... Furthermore, in 
the Lock network I found the name of Gordon 
Shepard. That is a kind of dirty tricks 
[specialist of MI6 who used to work in Northern 
Ireland] ... There were people of Kroll 
Associates, a kind of private intelligence 
service of Wall Street. In short, it was a real 
heavy group, an old-boy network in which the WWF, 
the SAS, MI5 and MI6 plus some CIA guys and 
private intelligence services brotherly came 
together. The civilian side of the operation was 
headed by John Hanks, Prince Bernhard's right-hand man in Africa." [14]

J. Wilgers, who was inspired by the work of Kevin 
Dowling, did his own research and reached similar 
conclusions [that WWF money was actually being 
used to train guerrillas and state terrorists]:

"During that time these [WWF and US/UK 
intelligence operations] people trained a number 
of elite black units in the wildlife parks [of 
the [so called] Peace Parks Foundation and the 
WWF]... I have seen that these projects were 
completely financed by the World Wide Fund for 
Nature. Of course a certain Prince [Bernhard] has 
been involved in that, who has walked around 
there with a suitcase full of money, but the 
question remains how much this man knew about the projects..."

"It is known that in the past SAS units of the 
British army have been flown into South-Africa 
and were stationed on territory controlled by the 
WWF with the purpose of conducting military 
operations....Military units have been trained in 
these kinds of parks and were later brought in 
connection with [terroristic] murders in the 
South-African townships [attempting to keep the 
apartheid system]. In the Zambezi-Valley, members 
of the military wing of the ANC have been shot at 
from WWF helicopters. The Zambesi-Valley was the 
primary entrance into South-Africa. Under the 
cover of fighting poachers ANC members have been 
executed without any form of trial. I call that 
an undeclared war or genocide..."

"There are 2 types of parks: nature parks and 
strategic parks. The official purpose of the 
nature parks is the protection of nature. Often, 
these parks contain important minerals like 
diamond or uranium [that are locked up and 
accessible only to WWF/Bilderberg cronies]. 
Locals are encouraged to leave or simply chased away.

"Type 2 are the strategic parks. If you look 
carefully you'll find that these [strategic] 
parks are either located on certain ridges useful 
for military observation, or they are border 
transcending parks like for example those in 
South-Africa and Mozambique... It is remarkable 
that corridors have been projected in such a way 
that they cleverly combine the preservation of 
nature with the gaining of a military advantage." [15]

  Wilgers was persecuted by the WWF for making 
public statements that the World Wide Fund for 
Nature is a criminal enterprise. Unfortunately 
for the WWF, they lost their case, although they 
never had to admit that Wilgers was right in his 
accusations. Wilgers wasn't "knowingly speaking 
untruths", it was concluded [16]. Years later, I 
made a call to Mr. Wilgers, who stated that the 
1001 Club is directed by the Privy Council and 
MI6. This now turns out to be similar to the 
leadership of Le Cercle. All British chairmen of 
Le Cercle were deeply involved with British and 
foreign intelligence, and the last three were members of the Privy Council.

It may be possible that these so called 
'strategic parks' might not be limited to 
Southern Africa. For instance, if you take a look 
at Pakistan, the "ally" of the United States in 
the War on Terror (and significantly represented 
in the 1001 Club, in part through the Bhutto 
family), you'll see five major national parks in 
the north of the country. One is located at the 
border with India, another at the border with 
China, and yet another one at the border with 
northern Afghanistan. The management of these 
parks works closely with the IUCN and the WWF. 
The Aga Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP) of 
1001 Club member Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan is 
another partner in many of the same projects in 
that area. It's hard to say if these parks are 
used for some type of military operations, but 
they certainly are conveniently located."

  Back to the Silence of the Panda. The film 
really is a good segway into just some of the 
above: the disingenuousness of some branches of 
environmentalism that are global, or that claim 
the WWF global leadership is different than past 
degradative, anti-human, absentee-landlord imperialisms of the past.

  The film argues that the global agro-business 
relationships of the WWF certification  were 
designed to provide quid pro quo benefits to the 
1001 Club (and thus with Bilderberg--though the 
film fails to mention Bilderberg) instead of 
innately be a vehicle of environmental protection 
primarily as the "real reason." At least that is 
the interpretation in the filmmaker's mind: that 
you are unable to disentangle the intrinsic 
covert 1001 Club for industrial degradation 
greenwashing from the extrinsic overt spin of the WWF.

  Bernhard and a South African branch President 
of the WWF recruited the original 1001 Club for 
funding (and networking) the WWF cover vehicle 
into wider existence. As a cover vehicle design 
to do what is is doing well, the WWF was 
pro-industry more than pro-environment from the 
start. The film even shows the WWF support of the 
oil industry. The WWF helped to cover up an oil 
spill off France in the early 1960s to keep its corporate oil funding.

  This support of oil corporations by the WWF was 
several years before mass public environmentalism 
was launched, as some try to argue, from only 
1963 with the publication of Silent Spring. 
Carson's book was a proponent of an 
anti-degradative, anti-industrial critique of 
such private jurisdictions over chemical and 
land, particularly when linked to a government 
that was protecting them. From 1963, a grass 
roots decentralization version of green culture 
got more independent culturally and out of elite 
control throughout the 1960s through the 
inspiring work of both Carson and Bookchin I would argue.

My Analysis of WWF Founders

  First, for me, it's an interesting twist to the 
WWF as just a branch of the 1001 Club (and of 
course thus just a branch of the Bilderberg 
Group). It is a fascinating angle to think about 
in the real world that has spun the framing of 
what ideologies and policies that 
'environmentalism' operates within in some 
group's minds. It is well worth watching.

  Politically, the documentary is a well required 
(re)start into delegitimating the WWF as a 
monstrosity of an organization, a task pioneered 
over 20 decades ago by Kevin Dowling. Nothing has 
changed since then. The WWF's own record 
continues to damn it. The WWF elites help 
themselves to the environment materially and as 
an ideological cloak, more than they help the 
environment. Because of this angle, it's a novel 
twist on the WWF explaining global empire origins 
from the start as very important in its opeation 
instead of really environmentalism--very 
different than other more honest environmentalist 
leadership vehicles that came later and had 
different environmental policy ideas.

  I felt that there are other disingenuous 
elements to the WWF that could have been stressed 
to make the film's case even stronger: like how 
if it is connected to Prince Bernhard, it is 
connected to Bilderberg; like how the WWF is 
involved in many other scandals involving 
carbon-credits fraud to make money in South 
America that the film fails to discuss; or like 
how its founders were the usual globalist 
jurisdiction ("NWO") suspects as follows:

Founder(s) of the WWF (Expanded Later in Appendix One's Biographies)

Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld [a son of a 
sovereign royal house of the Second German Reich; 
the Bilderberg spider; co-founded Bilderberg in 
1954; founded WWF in 1961 (with money from the 
Rockefeller family originally); with South 
African billionaire Rupert, Bernhard founded 
another secret society, the 1001 Club ('for 
nature') in 1970: full of bankers, South African 
apartheid leadership, global corporate fascists, 
global dictators worldwide; Prince Bernhard 
himself is ex-Nazi and his brother was in the 
Nazi Reich's Air Force; married into Netherland's royalty]

Julian Huxley [WWI spy for UK in intelligence; 
big racist eugenicist; popularized old 
depopulation of Malthusianism; witnessed and 
loved 'USSR style big project' ideas and linked 
it to environmentalism; admired and learned how 
diseased-areas of depopulated Africa were 
connected to large nature park creation...]

Max Nicholson [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]

Peter Scott [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]

Guy Mountfort [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]

Godfrey A. Rockefeller; U.S. military background; 
both his father and grandfather were Skull and 
Bones--some of the few Rockefellers inducted into 
Skull and Bones; Godfrey was not in Bones though 
he went to Yale. He put the actual WWF original 
staff together in 1961 and used his money to fund them.)

  Now, who is the world would accept these 
people's backgrounds as environmentalists? Have 
you believed in the WWF before? Do you still?

  The film helps people see (if they keep their 
eyes open) how certain already powerful players 
in the global sense plotted to use the WWF and 
environmentalism from the very beginning 
disingenuously to manage a novel global corporate 
and military integration openly (and secretly) as 
a form of empire in an era increasingly rejecting 
open colonialism--instead of them doing this to 
really save ecological relations.


  So the royalty of Bernhard founded two secret 
societies and the WWF in this order (and in the 
WWF worked with the financial royalty of 
Rockefellers spiced up with Skull and Bones memberships):

  - 1954: Bilderberg, secret society, global 
integration, "anti-Communist" (Fourth Reich 
corporatism across the U.S. and Europe?)
  - 1961: WWF, ostensibly open society for global 
integration of environmentalism, though funded 
originally from secretive Rockefeller families 
with a history of military intelligence and Skull 
and Bones memberships who were later more open in 
administrating the WWF by 1977 when founder 
Prince Bernhard was pushed out because of his 
military corruption scandals in the Netherlands.
  - 1970: 1001 Club for Nature (for WWF funding), 
secret society, global integration of the 
previous corporatism for global environmental 
management across U.S., Europe, and adding elites from Third World areas now

Six Points: The WWF's Policies Now Make Sense

  Six public aspects of the WWF make more sense 
with this inside secret society view of it: (1) 
its globalized versions of environmentalism 
intentionally destroying required local 
jurisdictions and local communities for 
industrial monocultures--when it is these 
localized jurisidictional solutions of people 
integrated into the environment that are the only ones that work:

  Local jurisdictional dominance in nested court 
decisions and commodity ecology resource use is 
how people and environments together creates a 
durable local political feedback against 
degradative ecological tyrannies of state 
politics and can preserve biodiversity 
politically as well (noted in another previous post).

  Here is a short film about the expansion of 
local jurisdictional power in Namibia, Africa as 
the country sees its first political stability, 
finances for education and livelihood combined 
with wildlife protection--in its 50 year 
postcolonial history. In other words provide for 
stable people, and you provide for stable 
ecological protection. Undermine people and local 
jurisdictions like the WWF does, and you provide 
for ecological destruction and corruption in development policy.

Community Sponsored Conservation is the Financial 
Infrastructure in Namibia: John Kasaona: How 
poachers became caretakers, and created a 
sustainable developmental, financial, and consumptive framework
18:00 min.

John Kasaona is assistant director for the 
Integrated Rural Development and Nature 
Conservation (IRDNC), Kasaona works on ways to 
improve the lives of rural people in Namibia by 
involving them in the management of the lands 
they live on -- and the species that live there with them.

In his home of Namibia, John Kasaona is working 
on an innovative way to protect endangered animal 
species: giving nearby villagers (including 
former poachers) responsibility for caring for 
the animals [and the local environment instead of 
turning jurisdiction over to a distant, 
corruptible gatekept state of ecological tyranny 
like in Ecuador]. And it's working.

Kasanoa's Community-Based Natural Resource 
Management (CBNRM) program helps rural villages 
set up communal conservancies, which manage and 
use local natural resources in a sustainable 
manner. Essentially, it's about restoring the 
balance of land and people to that of 
pre-colonial times, and allowing the people with 
the most interest in the survival of their 
environment to have control of it. His work was 
featured in the recent film Milking the Rhino.

  "Our attitude is important. If we pretend to be 
concerned and helpful but still see the community 
next to a conservation area as a threat, 
conservation won't work."--John Kasanoa
  That is the direct opposite of what the WWF is 
doing, and that is why it works! WWF sees the 
local community as a threat to neofeudalist, 
corporatist globalism and the WWF's ongoing 
oversight and double use of particular 'private 
transboundary park' regions as military covert 
operations bases that themselves contribute to 
the destruction of the environment.

  Another example of local community 
jurisdictions getting stronger and facilitating 
ecological restoration better than the WWF in that area, comes from Indonesia:

Willie Smits restores a rainforest
20:39 min.

By piecing together a complex ecological puzzle, 
[a] biologist [forced to become a local community 
developer to preserve the environment] Willie 
Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut 
rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans and 
local communities -- and creating a thrilling 
blueprint for restoring fragile ecosystems.
  See? The same mixing of environmental 
protection and community security and local 
jurisdictional maintenance. Why stop there? Go 
global with the bioregional state: the same 
recovery of local jurisdictional dominance in 
material decisions can occur in more 'developed' 
areas that have historically been core to the 
ecological tyrannies of the current extensive 
global system (including the WWF) that encourages 
environmental degradation. It seems 'core' areas 
are finding their ecological voice once more if 
they can reject "ring #3's" Malthusian form of environmental charlatanism.

  The film The Silence of the Pandas helps explain other points:

  (2) WWF globalized support for GMOs and 
agro-industrial plantation-ism that destroys the 
environment and people's health;

  (3) globalized versions of 
carbon-credits--another fraudulent 'financial 
bubble in the making'--that attempts to dominate 
development and to make money fraudulently for 
globalized interests on environmental derivatives 
in  futures markets in CO2, something you can't 
even measure and when you do you find lots of 
fraud in that that doesn't justify the massive 
amount of money made in carbon credits futures;

  (4) the WWF's contribution to popularizing the 
ideas of self-regulating industry despite its clear failures in the film;

  (5) unreconstructed Malthusianism ignoring 
organizational origins of much degradation in its 
mass projects that the WWF helps to maintain both 
the mass projects and thus mass degradation;

  (6) the 'usual suspects' of global governance 
from behind the scenes (listed above); the WWF 
was animated in Frankenstein-like foundation via 
a cash injection by one of William Rockefeller's 
sons--who had both his father and grandfather in 
Skull and Bones. Skull and Bones have already 
turned up in this blog once before in the 
Bonesman-based globalist agri-corporatism of ADM. 
Question: does ADM work with the WWF?


  The film is an interesting twist on the history 
of the present-day environmental movements. This 
globalized version of environmentalism started in 
royal, corporate, and banking dynasties in Europe 
and the USA--before Bookchin in 1962, before 
Carson's Silent Spring publication in 1962/3, and 
long before 1970's first Earth Day. The film's 
twist is is focusing on their dynastic 
shenanigans between 1961-1970 creating a 
political system of environmental 
transnationalism that served their own already 
extensive transnationalism. From the beginning, 
the founding of the WWF was and remains these 
global elite players attempting to have their own 
kind of environmentalist vehicle as very 
different--because of their support for 
demographic depopulation, spatial depopulation, 
destruction of human communities, and massive 
land privatization despite none of these four 
strategies really protecting the environment, and 
only enhancing their already egregious globalized 
private economic control into land management policy as well.

  Additionally, the film is an interesting way to 
introduce to audiences the highly contested 
leadership in environmentalism worldwide: how 
some (not all!) are just using environmentalism 
for rewashed Malthusianism as part of their 
larger larger jurisdictional strategy for their 
"real reason" of public/private planetary 
domination that involves de-democratization, 
destruction of local jurisdictions, inserted 
unrepresentative global privatization, and 
removal of all checks and balances on their global leadership power.


The Silence of the Panda: What the WWF Isn't 
Saying (2011: German Documentary; English translation)

  In the below links, each quarter section is about 12 minutes:
  [Now removed--that was fast! The film I guess 
really is "too close for comfort" on exposing 
global environmentalism versions as a sham. If it 
was really removed on "copyright" grounds, why 
only remove the secret society background of the 
WWF's history and leave the rest up? If other 
versions of the film come online somewhere I will post the links.]

  [removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]

  [removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]



Addendum: an 8-minute interview with the 
filmmaker Huismann on German TV in 2011, 
immediately before the station aired the film for the first time:

  The German version of the documentary was once 
said to be at this link though it is gone now:

  The English version 'Silence of the Panda' was 
once available to purchase here though it is gone now as well:

  That link now reveals that Huismann's film, 
produced only in 2011, now has a defunct 
distributor called United Docs. However, within 
half a year of The Silence of the Pandas, this 
company United Docs was bought up [?] by January 
1, 2012 by "Global Screen." The link above now 
relates the following text to you when you search 
for The Silence of the Panda at the previous 
valid link: "Since January 1st, 2012 United Docs 
[still the same company?] serves its 
international customers under a new name: GLOBAL 
SCREEN will handle the worldwide distribution of 
programs outside the German-speaking European territories.

  However, "The Silence of the Panda" is missing 
from the list of available titles from Global 
Screen. Global Screen does have five other films 
by Huismann though "The Silence of the 
Panda"--the most recent--is missing. 
Interesting--though that's the way media 
repression really works. See for yourself:


WWF as "Greenwashing Logo for Hire" in Industrial Salmon

  Global Screen does have another earlier 
Huismann film that reflects badly on the WWF, 
called Salmonopoly (2009). It is in this film 
that Huismann probably started to get suspicious 
about the WWF? It is the film about Marine 
Harvest, the largest aqua-farming concern in the 
world. Turning out more than 100 million farmed 
salmon per year, it supplies consumers in Europe, 
the USA and Japan. But at what price? This global 
empire is run by John Fredriksen, a self-made man 
and one of the richest on Earth. In his Norwegian 
home, he is called the "Big Wolf"; he calls 
himself "green", "enduring" and "transparent". 
But reality contradicts the corporate philosophy, 
particularly in Chile where Marine Harvest is by 
far the largest producer with some 70 fish farms. 
Chile, with its barely-there environmental 
legislation, is a paradise for investors. 
Everything that is forbidden to salmon producers 
in Europe is allowed in Chile, with the result 
that after 18 months of rearing, the salmon are a 
chemically loaded product. In April 2008, in 
order to improve the intensive large-scale 
farming image, Marine Harvest entered into a 
partnership with the WWF. For a donation of 
€100,000 per year, Marine Harvest may use the 
WWF's panda logo to advertise its industrially produced farmed salmon.


  Now, how are you going to react in the future 
when you hear this phrase: "Will you please donate to the WWF?"


APPENDIX ONE: Founder(s) of the WWF, Biographies Expanded:

Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld: The 
Original "James Bond"and "SPECTRE" Rolled into One

  [founder of the Bilderberg Group meetings in 
1954; born a German; ex-Nazi Party; married the 
only daughter of Netherlands royalty; originally 
worked for the German chemical giant IG Farben 
that helped the Third Reich's war machine, then 
the world’s fourth-largest company (which 
survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After 
training, he became the rather important main 
secretary to the board of directors at the Paris 
office in 1935. The model for the fictional 
character "James Bond" seems to be him (see 
below). Perhaps his Bilderbergs Group's 
shenanigans were the  storyline of SPECTRE? 
Because he was a Protestant of royal rank (his 
family the Lippe-Biesterfelds were a sovereign 
house in the German Empire), Bernhard was 
acceptable to widower Queen Wilhelmina of the 
Netherlands as a suitable husband for her only 
daughter Princess Juliana. Bernhard’s 
appropriateness as consort of the future Queen of 
the Netherlands would later become a matter of some public debate.

  Prince Bernhard’s political affiliations with 
the Nazi regime have received much attention. 
Various members of his family and acquaintances 
were aligned with the Nazis prior to and during 
the war, and a number of them joined the royal 
wedding party on 7 January 1937 in The Hague. 
Protocol demanded that the prospective 
prince-consort be invited to an audience with his 
head of state, who at the time was Adolf Hitler. 
Hitler himself gives a rendering of the 
conversation he had with Bernhard in his Tisch 
Gespräche (Table Conversations). Table 
Conversations was a collection of monologues, 
remarks, and speeches Hitler gave during lunch or 
dinner to those invited to the table by 
him....The Prince’s brother, Prince Aschwin of 
Lippe-Biesterfeld, was an officer in the German 
army. Although the secret services on both sides 
were interested in this peculiar pair of 
brothers, [no one really was allowed to 
investigate?:] no improper contacts or leaks of information were discovered.

  The Prince was known to be very fond of smart 
uniforms and medals (seen in the documentary as 
well). He made a point of wearing his medals in 
the English court style, even though members of 
the Dutch armed forces wear their medals in the German/Prussian style....

  In England, Prince Bernhard asked to work in 
British Intelligence but the War Admiralty, and 
later in General Eisenhower's Allied Command 
offices, did not trust him sufficiently to allow 
him access to intelligence information. However, 
on the recommendation of Bernhard's friend and 
admirer, King George VI (his brother (abdicated) 
British King Edward VIII was an ardent open 
Nazi), who was also of German aristocratic 
descent via his great-grandfather Prince Albert 
of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and...[Prince Bernhard] was 
later permitted to work in the Allied war planning councils.

  From 1942 to 1944, Bernhard flew as a pilot 
with the [British] Royal Air Force. [Just like 
another Nazi family across the Big Water was 
doing in the U.S. Air Force, via airman George H. 
W. Bush who as pilot bailed out and killed his 
crew repeatedly at the first sign of trouble.] 
[Bernhard] also helped organise the Dutch 
resistance movement and acted as personal 
secretary for Queen Wilhelmina. [He certainly got 
a lot of important gatekeeping 'secretary' 
positions in his life.] By 1944, Prince Bernhard 
became Commander of the Dutch armed forces.

  After the war [WWII], the [Netherlands] 
position of Inspector General was created for the 
Prince. He was made a member of the boards of 
supervisors of Fokker Aircraft and KLM Royal 
Dutch Airlines, and within a few years he had 
been invited to serve as an adviser or 
non-executive director of numerous corporations 
and institutions. There have been claims about 
KLM illegally helping to organize Nazis to leave 
Germany after WWII for Argentina on KLM flights 
while Bernhard was on its board.

  With his global [Nazi ratline] contacts, 
Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in 
organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in 
the Netherlands for the business elite and 
intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the 
economic problems in the face of what they 
characterized as the growing threat from 
Communism.[instead of from reconstructed 
Nazism--which was equally true given NATO's 
connections to the 'stay behinds' that conducted 
right-wing terrorism that killed hundreds of 
civilians in Europe so they could blame it on the 
left and move national politics to the 
right--read the book NATO's Secret Army]. This 
first "Bilderberg" meeting was successful, and it 
became an annual gathering known as the 
Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European 
Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 
1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg. [No, the 
first idea of a European Union was the Third 
Reich, then later after WWII it appears in a 
synarchist document. "European Union" was the 
Nazi's idea all along of course--more on that here.

  In the middle of the 1950s, Prince Bernhard was 
involved in what some considered a personal 
vendetta against Greet Hofmans, a medical doctor 
whose pacifist leanings had convinced his wife 
the Princess. The [militant, secretive] Prince had this doctor removed.

  On 15 September 1964, (another German from the 
same family of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha) Queen Elizabeth 
II appointed (her linked German relative) Prince 
Bernhard of the Netherlands to the honorary rank 
of Air Marshal in her Royal Air Force.

  Scandal rocked the Netherlands Royal Family in 
1976 when it was revealed that Prince Bernhard 
had accepted a US$1.1 million bribe from U.S. 
aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Corporation to 
influence the Dutch government's purchase of 
fighter aircraft. At the time he had served on 
more than 300 corporate boards and committees 
worldwide...On 26 August 1976, a toned-down, but 
nonetheless devastating, report on Prince 
Bernhard's activities was released to a shocked 
Dutch public. The Prince's own letter of 1974, to 
Lockheed Corporation, demanding "commissions" be 
paid to him on Dutch government aircraft 
purchases was very damaging evidence of improper 
conduct by the inspector-general of the Dutch 
armed forces [and a clue into how the money flows 
in the WWF might work as well for certain 
powerful groups of the 1001 Club wanting 
"commissions" to steer privatized land the way of 
the WWF in different countries of the world.]

  Criminal charges were not pressed by the 
government out of respect for Queen Juliana, 
whose later abdication was tacitly understood to 
be directly related to her husband's corrupt 
conduct. Prince Bernhard resigned as 
inspector-general of the Dutch armed forces.

  This meant that he was not allowed to wear a 
uniform in public, but it did not stop him from 
attending the 1979 funeral of Lord Mountbatten in London in full colours.

  Prime Minister Joop den Uyl made a statement in 
parliament and told the delegates that the Prince 
would also resign from his various high-profile 
positions in businesses, charities, and other 
institutions. [He kept his Chairmanship of his 
secret internationalist Bilderberg Group and its 
connections to the 1001 Club. He at this time 
resigned from the WWF, passing its chairman to 
his own family's German-British relative, Prince 
Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II].

  The Dutch states-general voted against criminal 
prosecution [and thus voted to reward his 
criminality: his crime paid him handsomely]. 
Prince Bernhard turned over the presidency of the 
international World Wildlife Fund to Prince 
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The Dutch Royal family 
worked hard to rehabilitate the Prince's name, 
though other corruption scandals were to be revealed in later years.

WWF Corruption Continued with Bernhard

  In 1988, Prince Bernhard and Princess Juliana 
sold two paintings from their personal collection 
to raise money for the World Wildlife Fund. The 
paintings sold for GBP700,000, which was 
deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account. In 1989, 
however, Charles de Haes, director-general of the 
WWF, transferred GBP500,000 back to Bernhard, 
[getting his "commission" once more for WWF work] 
for what De Haes called a private project. In 
1991, newspapers reported what this private 
project was: Prince Bernhard had hired KAS 
International, owned by [British state 
terrorist/black operations] SAS founder David 
Stirling, to use mercenaries—mostly British—to 
fight [i.e., kill] poachers in nature reserves. 
[In the film above Namibia has a better idea what 
to do with poachers. Watch it.] The paramilitary 
group infiltrated organisations profiting from 
illegal trade in ivory in order to arrest them 
[though as well decided to profit from the illegal ivory trade as well.].

  This Project Lock seemed to have backfired 
enormously, however. [Or succeeded if this was 
its "real reason":] Bernhard’s private army had 
not only infiltrated in the illegal trade, they 
were also participating in it. To make things 
worse, Irish reporter Kevin Dowling discovered 
that the South African army was also involved in 
the trade, hinting at connections between the 
Bernhard’s army and the WWF and the struggle for 
maintaining apartheid. Moreover, he claimed 
members of the South African-run 
counterinsurgency unit Koevoet (Afrikaans and 
Dutch for "crowbar") had been trained under 
[Bernhard's mercenary army] Project Lock.

In 1995, Nelson Mandela called upon the Kumleben 
Commission to investigate, among other things, 
the role of the WWF in apartheid South Africa. In 
the report that followed, it was suggested that 
mercenaries from [Bernhard's] Project Lock had 
planned assassinations of ANC members and that 
mercenaries had been running training camps in 
the wildlife reserves, training fighters from the 
anti-communist groups UNITA and Renamo [that the 
CIA as well was funding as well to destabilize a 
country's domestic political peace that was hard 
won between factions--so they started up the 
factions once more to rule more readily over the 
war-ridden area (cite: The Praetorian Guard 
(1995) [whistle-blowing book about the CIA)]

  Although Prince Bernhard was never accused of 
any crime in its context, the Project Lock 
scandal dealt another damaging blow to the Prince's name.

  ["Scandal" is such a light word, let's recap 
exactly what he was doing: illegal ivory trading, 
half a million pound fraud within the WWF, money 
laundering, extra-judicial murder by his private 
mercenaries operating in secret, repressive 
support for apartheid South Africa and political 
assassinations of Black South African leadership; 
what could be called 'state terrrorism' of 
intentionally destabalizing different black 
factions to fight each other and blame each other 
for violence via working with British SAS and the 
CIA in training African rebels--ALL WHILE BEING 
private army training rebels in war and 
destruction throughout Africa based in his 
private neofeudal 'nature preserves of the WWF.']

  Bernhard wearing his trademark carnation, 1999. 
[typically a sign of a secret society?]

  In an interview published after his death, on 
14 December 2004, Prince Bernhard admitted that 
he had accepted more than one million dollars 
(US) in bribes from Lockheed. He acknowledged it 
was a mistake and claimed [without evidence] that 
all of the money went to the WWF [did this mean 
there were other instances of this ploy in 
"giving money to the WWF" that always came back 
to him in some way after the WWF money laundered 
it for him? It is documented to have happened 
once.]. He said: "I have accepted that the word 
Lockheed will be carved on my tombstone."[11]

  He also admitted to having fathered two 
illegitimate daughters in the years following his [royal] marriage.[12]

  The 2009 publication HRH: High Stakes at the 
Court of His Royal Highness by historian Harry 
Veenendaal and journalist Jort Kelder alleges 
that the prince in 1950 attempted to oust the 
young government of the newly founded Republic of 
Indonesia (later to be ethnically/politically 
cleansed in a 1 million person bloodbath run by 
the CIA acting as the SS by providing Nazi-like 
'death lists' to the Indonesian military) to 
place himself at the head of a reborn Dutch 
Indonesian Empire as viceroy similar to Lord 
Mountbatten's role in British India. This was 
particularly contentious as in 1949 the 
Netherlands had already officially recognised 
Indonesia, its former colony, as an independent nation.[14]

His daughter Queen Beatrix, continues the 
parapolitical life of her father. It is she who 
hangs around the Bilderberg meetings every year.

  On 11 December 2004, he was interred in a 
lavish state funeral at the Nieuwe Kerk, Delft. 
Bernhard's funeral was different from those of 
Prince Claus and Queen Juliana in that Bernhard's 
coffin was transported on the undercarriage of a 
cannon instead of in the traditional carriage. As 
a final tribute to his former military role in 
the Royal Netherlands Air Force, three modern 
F-16 jet fighters and a World War II Spitfire 
plane performed a low fly-by during the funeral 
in a classic missing man formation.

  In the years after Bernhard died his life story 
still fascinates many and is the inspiration for 
literature, theatre, television and even comic 
books.[17] In 2010 fact and fiction of the life 
of Bernhard is portrayed in a Dutch television 
series.[18] In the series it is insinuated that 
writer Ian Fleming, who personally knew Bernhard 
from their war efforts in London (and 
investigated him for Churchill it is argued), 
based some features of his fictional character 
James Bond on Bernhard, who was for instance 
known to enjoy a vodka martini shaken and not 
stirred. Next to his reputation as a womanizer 
Prince Bernhard was also well known for his love 
for fast planes, fast cars and speeding. Among 
the villain's henchmen in the novel and film 
"Thunderball" one of them is named Count Lippe. 
He only knew of one person who was having a great 
time during World War II, and that it was Prince Bernhard.[19]

  In a biographical dissertation by Dutch 
journalist and historian Annejet van der Zijl 
published in March 2010, Bernhard was called a "a 
failure" in the history of the Dutch royal family 
and a "creature of his own myths". With his 
lifestyle and the "myths" that he created around 
his own person would have done "permanent damage 
to the integrity of the monarchy"]

Julian Huxley

  [big supporter of global government a racial 
eugenicist; Julian Huxley was British Army 
Intelligence Corps 1918; In 1925 Huxley moved to 
King's College London as Professor of Zoology, 
but in 1927, to the amazement of his colleagues, 
he resigned his chair to work full time with [NWO 
globalist] H.G. Wells and his son G.P. Wells on 
The Science of Life. In 1931 Huxley visited the 
USSR at the invitation of Intourist, where 
initially he admired the results of social and 
economic planning on a large scale. Later, back 
in the United Kingdom, he became a founding 
member of the think tank Political and Economic 
Planning. He later admired the depopulated areas 
(due to malaria) in Africa, and saw how their 
diseased/depopulated context was connected to the 
establishment of national parks there. He was 
Secretary of the Zoological Society of London 
(1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a 
founding member of the World Wildlife Fund. He 
openly talked about population culling of humans. 
In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker 
Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – 
World Population. Huxley was a prominent member 
of the British Eugenics Society and its president 
from 1959–1962, resigning this position as he 
joined the WWF. Plus ca change? In 1957 Huxley 
coined the term "transhumanism" to describe the 
view that man should better himself through 
science and technology, including eugenics, but 
also, importantly, the improvement of the social environment.]

Max Nicholson

  [In 1947–1948, with Julian Huxley the then 
director general of the United Nations' 
scientific and education organisation UNESCO 
(that came out of the Lucius Trust), Nicholson 
was involved in forming the International Union 
for the Protection of Nature (IUPN) (now 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)).

  The International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN, Union internationale pour la 
conservation de la nature (UICN), in French) is 
an international organization dedicated to 
finding "pragmatic solutions to our most pressing 
environment and development challenges."[1] The 
organization publishes the IUCN Red List, 
compiling information from a network of 
conservation organizations to rate which species 
are most endangered.[2] The IUCN supports 
scientific research, manages field projects all 
over the world and brings governments, 
non-government organizations, United Nations 
agencies, companies and local communities 
together to develop and implement policy, laws 
and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and 
largest global environmental network - a 
membership union with more than 1,000 government 
and NGO member organizations, and almost 11,000 
volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. 
IUCN’s work is supported by more than 1,000 
professional staff in 60 offices and hundreds of 
partners in public, NGO and private sectors 
around the world. The Union’s headquarters are 
located in Gland, near Geneva, 
Switzerland--incidentally the place featured in 
the film as the core area of much internatioanl 
agri-business market trades and of course many 
global corporatist/financial governmentality. 
Geneva is additionally the headquarters of the WWF. [1]]

Peter Scott

  [Sir Peter Markham Scott, CH, CBE, DSC and Bar, 
MID, FRS, FZS, (14 September 1909 – 29 August 
1989) was a British ornithologist, 
conservationist, painter, naval officer and 
sportsman; During World War II, Scott served in 
the Royal Navy, emulating his father. He served 
first in destroyers in the North Atlantic but 
later moved to commanding the First (and only) 
Squadron of Steam Gun Boats against German 
E-boats in the English Channel.[4] He is also 
partly credited with designing 'shadow 
camouflage', which disguised the look of ship 
superstructure. He was awarded the Distinguished 
Service Cross for bravery. His BBC natural 
history series, Look, ran from 1955 to 1981 and 
made him a household name. He was one of the 
founders of the World Wide Fund for Nature 
(formerly called the World Wildlife Fund in other 
countries still), and designed its panda logo. He 
is also remembered for giving the scientific name 
of Nessiteras rhombopteryx (based on a blurred 
underwater photograph of a supposed fin) to the 
Loch Ness Monster so that it could be registered 
as an endangered species.[10] The name was based 
on the Ancient Greek for "the monster of Ness 
with the diamond shaped fin", but it was later 
pointed out by The Daily Telegraph to be an 
anagram of "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S." 
However, Nessie researcher Robert H. Rines, who 
took 2 supposed pictures of the monster in the 
1970s, responded to this by pointing out that the 
letters could also be read as an anagram for, 
"Yes, both pix are monsters, R.". [11] [After 
getting involved in the WWF] [i]n 1962, he 
co-founded the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation 
Bureau with the then Conservative MP David James, 
who had previously been Polar Adviser on the 
classic 1948 movie based on his late father's 
doomed polar expedition Scott of the Antarctic. 
[12] In June 2004, Scott and Sir David 
Attenborough were jointly profiled in the second 
of a three part BBC Two series, The Way We Went 
Wild, about television wildlife presenters and 
****were described as being largely responsible 
for the way that the British and much of the world views wildlife***.]

Guy Mountfort
  [In 1972 he led the campaign to save the Bengal 
Tiger, persuading Indira Gandhi to create nine 
tiger reserves in India, with eight others in 
Nepal and Bangladesh--some of these degraded 
tiger areas are featured in the film where they 
have done little to save the tiger at all and 
instead concentrate on making massive ecotourism 
monies for the WWF (at $10,000 per person to 
visit the WWF eco-park to see the tigers, 
perhaps--the same amount of money that the 1001 
Club members gave by the way, each; these 
ecoparks as well are good at only one thing; 
pushing thousand-year symbiotic people off the 
land into poverty into working for plantations 
organized by the WWF thus likely future criminal 
uses of the parks themselves in their poverty.]

Godfrey A. Rockefeller

  Godfrey Anderson Rockefeller, Sr. (1924 – 22 
January 2010) was the eldest son of Godfrey 
Stillman Rockefeller and Helen Rockefeller née Gratz.

  Like his father Godfrey Stillman, Godfrey 
Anderson Rockefeller was born in New York City 
and grew up to attend Yale University, at the 
same time as family friend George H. W. Bush,[1] 
this after first attending Phillips Academy 
Andover. (His father? Godfrey Stillman 
Rockefeller (1 May 1899 - 23 Feb 1983) son of 
William Goodsell Rockefeller served as a second 
lieutenant in World War One, was a member of the 
Skull and Bones society graduating from Yale 
University in 1921, and served as a lieutenant 
colonel during World War Two. He was partner in 
Clark, Dodge & Company; stockholder in the 
Enterprise Development Corporation; chairman of 
the Cranston Print Works; director of Benson & 
Hedges; trustee of the Fairfield Foundation; and 
had been a director of Freeport-McMoRan since 
December 1931. What about his father in turn, 
i.e., the grandfather of the person in question? 
This was William Goodsell Rockefeller (May 21, 
1870 – November 30, 1922) was a director of the 
Consolidated Textile Company. He was the third 
child of Standard Oil co-founder William 
Rockefeller (1841–1922) and his wife, Almira 
Geraldine Goodsell. Rockefeller married Sarah 
Elizabeth Stillman, daughter of National City 
Bank president James Jewett Stillman, on November 
21, 1895. His father had become a large 
shareholder of the National City Bank and his 
alliance with the Stillman family was sealed by 
the marriage of his two sons with two Stillman 
daughters. Rockefeller's brother, Percy Avery 
Rockefeller (Bonesman), married Isabel Goodrich 
Stillman (who later committed suicide it is said 
out of neglect and cruelty of her highly 
connected husband). He died on November 30, 1922.[1])

  Godfrey Anderson Rockefeller, Sr. joined the 
United States Marine Corp, and served in both 
World War II and the Korean War, achieving the rank of Major Aviator Pilot.[2]

  Godfrey then spent twenty five years in the 
commercial helicopter industry, working for Bell 
Helicopters and being hired as Chief Pilot, with 
Peter Wright, Sr. recalling him once landing a 32 
foot Bell 47 on a 40 foot wide tennis court 
"because he did not want to ruin the lawn!"[2] He 
was President and Chairman of the Helicopter 
Association of America, now known as the 
Helicopter Association International, in 1968, 
and also belonged to the American Helicopter 
Society, being a member since 1952 and belonging to its Gold Circle Club.[2]

  He is best known, however, for his 
environmental interests and role in the World 
Wildlife Fund. Rockefeller "played an important 
role in the founding and creation" of the WWF 
organization, which included "hiring the first 
staff and chief scientist",[3] and later served 
as its Executive Director from 1972 to 1978. 
****[As Prince Bernard, head of the WWF, 
destroyed himself in his corruption scandals, 
Rockefeller stepped from the background to take 
over the WWF]: [f]rom 1977 to 2006 he served on 
the Board of Directors and the National Council of the WWF.[3]****

[In other words, Skull and Bones families were on 
the national council of the WWF from 1977 to 
2006, and this Skull and Bones grandson, who did 
go to Yale as well, had both father and 
grandfather Skull and Bones. It was he who set up 
and funded the actual first staff for the WWF.]

  From 1981 to 1990 he was Chairman of the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation,[4] and after that 
Chairman Emeritus. Rockefeller owned a home on 
Gibson Island in Maryland and was keenly 
interested in the preservation of the failing 
Chesapeake Bay. Following his unexpected death on 
January 22, 2010 at the St. Andrew's Club in 
Delray Beach, Florida, where he also owned a 
home, the Gibson Island community honoured him by 
flying their flag at half-mast.[2]

  [Today, home prices on that island start at $US 
1 million-plus, with the median home price being 
$3,031,923 (according to Altos Research). This 
makes Gibson Island the 12th most expensive zip 
code in the United States,[3] just ahead of 
Snowmass, Colorado, and just behind Newport 
Beach, California. Gibson island is a gated 
community, (and a gated community island with an 
oceanic moat) limiting access to the island and 
its facilities to residents or those with a formal reason for visiting.]

  Godfrey was first married to Constance Hamilton 
Wallace but this ended in divorce. He was then 
married to Margaret "Margo" Kuhn Rockefeller for 
fifty three years, she dying less than a year 
before him in 2009. [2] He is survived by four 
children and numerous grandchildren.


APPENDIX TWO: The 1001 Club and its Founders Biographies, Expanded

  The 1001 Club: A Nature Trust is a trust that 
helps fund the World Wide Fund for Nature. It was 
established in 1970 by the then head of the WWF, 
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with help 
from Anton Rupert, a South African [billionaire 
drug and luxury trades] entrepreneur.[1] They 
persuaded 1001 individuals to join the club, 
where each member would contribute US $10,000 to 
the trust.[2] [($10,000 is exactly how much it 
costs per person as well to see one of the WWF 
'eco-tourism' tiger preserves (with no tigers!) 
in India to look for tigers every day in hoards 
of dozens of jeeps--some preserve)] In the early 
1970s, Charles de Haes took charge of the 
operation for reaching $10 million goal,[3] 
becoming Director General of WWF-International 
from 1975. [So the secret 1001 Club organizer 
went from that to WWF director.] [4] The 
resulting $10 million fund helps to fund the 
WWF's basic costs of administration.

  The membership of the 1001 Club largely 
consists of managers of banks and multinationals 
from around the world (see membership lists under 
References). [This leaked roster shows the kind 
of people you run with if you support the WWF.]

  According to a 1993 Washington Monthly article, 
"The secret list of members includes a 
disproportionate percentage of [unreconstructed 
apartheid Dutch Afrikaans white] South Africans, 
all too happy in an era of [their now] social 
banishment to be welcomed into a [novel global] 
socially elite society. Other contributors 
include businessmen with suspect connections, 
including organized crime, environmentally 
destructive development, and corrupt African politics.

***Even an internal report called WWF's approach 
egocentric and neocolonialist."[5]*** [cite: Ann 
O'Hanlon (1993), "At the Hand of Man: Peril and 
Hope for Africa's Wildlife. - book reviews", Washington Monthly 25 (5): 60]

Dr. Anthony Edward Rupert

  (4 October 1916 – 18 January 2006); Afrikaner 
South African billionaire entrepreneur, 
businessman and conservationist. He was born and 
raised in the small town of Graaff-Reinet in the 
Eastern Cape. He studied in Pretoria and 
ultimately moved to Stellenbosch, where he 
established the Rembrandt Group [2] and where it 
still has its headquarters. He died in his sleep 
at his home in Thibault Street, Stellenbosch at 
the age of 89, and is survived by a son Johann, a 
daughter Hanneli[3] and five grandchildren. His 
wife and his youngest son, Anthonij, pre-deceased him.

  According to his biography, Rupert's business 
career spanned over sixty years. He started his 
global empire with a personal investment of just 
£10 in 1941 (equivalent to £1,270[1] or US$1900 
(R14,500)[2] in 2010) becoming named on the 
Forbes list of 500 wealthiest families worldwide. 
At the time of his death his assets were estimated at $1.7 billion.

  After dropping out of medical school due to a 
lack of funds, Rupert earned a chemistry degree 
at the University of Pretoria, where he also 
lectured for a short while. Subsequently, he started a dry-cleaning business.

  Some time later, with an initial investment of 
GBP 10 and together with two fellow investors, he 
started manufacturing cigarettes in his garage, 
which he eventually built into the tobacco and 
industrial conglomerate Rembrandt Group, [that 
owns Cartier and other international luxury 
brands] overseeing its transition to the 
industrial and luxury branded goods sectors, with 
Rembrandt eventually splitting into Remgro (an 
investment company with financial, mining and 
industrial interests) and Richemont (a 
Swiss-based luxury goods group). Currently, this 
business empire encompasses hundreds of companies 
located in 35 countries on six continents, with 
combined yearly net sales in the region of USD 10 billion.

  Rupert had also been deeply involved in 
environmental conservation and his companies have 
been prominent in funding the fine arts; since 
1964 foundations established by Rembrandt have 
used a part of the group's profits for the 
promotion of education, art, music and the 
preservation of historical buildings.

  He also played an important role in the South 
African Small Business Development Corporation 
(SBDC), a non-profit company whose loans to small 
and medium-sized businesses have created nearly 
half a million jobs since 1981. Being openly 
critical of the apartheid system during that era, 
both at home and abroad, he has recently been 
quoted by President Thabo Mbeki as the man who 
called upon the Apartheid leadership to "do 
something brave" and create partnership with the 
black majority in the '80s. In 2004, he was voted 
28th in the Top 100 Great South Africans.

  Rupert established the tobacco company 
"Voorbrand" in the 1940s. He soon renamed it 
Rembrandt Ltd., whose overseas tobacco interests 
were consolidated into Rothmans in 1972. In 1988, 
the Rembrandt group founded the Swiss luxury 
goods company, Richemont, which in turn acquired 
Rembrandt's shares in Rothmans. Richemont also 
owns such luxury brands as Cartier (jewellery); 
Alfred Dunhill and Sulka (designer clothing); 
Seeger (leather bags); Piaget, Baume & Mercier 
and Vacheron Constantin (Swiss watches) and Montblanc (writing instruments).

  In 1995, Rembrandt and Richemont consolidated 
their respective tobacco interests into Rothmans 
International, which was at the time the world's 
fourth largest cigarette manufacturer.

  In 1999, Rothmans International merged with 
British American Tobacco (BAT), the world's 
second largest cigarette producer. Remgro held 
10% and Richemont held 18.6% of BAT before unbundling.

  Rupert's eldest son, Johann Rupert, is now the 
CEO of Richemont and chairman of Remgro.
  The Rupert family is also deeply involved in 
the South African wine and liquor industry, 
owning the L'ormarins and La Motte Wine Estates 
and having a stake in Rupert & Rothschild 
Vignerons, the wine-making partnership between 
the Rupert and Rothschild families (at the time 
of his death due to a car crash in 2001, Rupert's 
youngest son, Anthonij [4], was head of Rupert & Rothschild Vignerons.)

  The Ruperts also partially control two of South 
Africa's largest wine merchant houses, 
Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery (SFW) and Distillers 
Corporation, who together produce one of every 
six bottles of wine in South Africa and nearly 
eighty percent of the country's brandy. These two 
companies have merged to form Distell.

  Among other interests, the Rupert Group also 
owns South Africa's second-largest chain of 
private hospitals, the Medi-Clinic Corporation, with 5,500 beds.

Rupert was a founding member of the WWF (World 
Wildlife Fund) and it was in his role as the 
president of the organisation's South African 
branch that he took a lead in the creation of 
trans-frontier parks (also known as 
trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCAs) or 
"peace parks" [that later served as bases for UK 
and US CIA funded destabilizing guerrilla 
warriors along with the funding received by 
Prince Bernhard's private army that trained the 
crack squads that assassinated Black civil rights 
leaders in South African apartheid in the 
1970s-80s--see above]), such as the Lubombo 
Transfrontier Conservation Area. He also 
established the 1001 Club: A Nature Trust in 1970 to fund the organisation.

  With an initial grant of 1.2 million Rand (US$ 
260,000) from [his own] Rupert Nature Foundation, 
the Peace Parks Foundation was established on 1 
February 1997 in order to facilitate the 
establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa. Nelson 
Mandela, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and 
Anton Rupert were the founding patrons of the 
Peace Parks Foundation. In 2000, the Cape 
Tercentenary Foundation awarded him the Molteno 
Medal for lifetime services to cultural and nature conservation.[3]

APPENDIX THREE: Additional Recommended Videos about Bilderberg

  [coming soon]

APPENDIX FOUR: Other Global Land Trusts: the 
Nature Conservancy and the bank holding company 
that came from the "Earth Summit" in 1992.

  You can compare other Malthusian ideological 
claims of 'global interventions' via other major 
privatization land trusts. Though what's the "real reason" for those as well?

  The U.S. Nature Conservancy is similar to the 
WWF in two policies--both because it operates 
globally in buying up "the environment" as well 
as because it is closely connected to those 
corporate elites, financial elites (a Goldman 
Sachs CEOs ran it for a long while), and to 
supposedly 'tree-hugging'TM military elites who 
have done their best to destroy the 
environment--like Gulf War invader, U.S. General 
Norman Schwarzkopf. Yes, he has been 
simultaneously a leader of the Nature Conservancy 
and a member of the Safari Club, the latter a 
globalist men's club for the killing of the 
charismatic megafauna that the Nature Conservancy 
is supposed to be protecting. Is it the same insiders deal?

Does the Nature Conservancy let the elites kill 
its 'protected' megafauna on its private global 
estates for the right price? YES, IT DOES. See 
the Sharon Beder article excerpt, below. That 
seems to be the arrangement with the WWF 
according to the above. So what is the "real 
reason" for all these globalist land trusts, like 
the World Wildlife Fund or the Nature Conservancy?

  What about the "Global Conservation Bank" 
institution now coming to fruition by 2010 
according to the UK Guardian newspaper? 
Differences in environmental 'reasons' and "real 
reasons" have been uncovered unwittingly by 
George Hunt, who has made a name for himself by 
his detailed recordings of some of these 
international meetings supposedly convened on the 
conceit of 'saving the environment.' Instead the 
topics ranged from Rothschilds holding 
corporations and the "Global Environmental Bank" 
interested in "swapping" debt of countries 
indebted to them for outright private, vast 
ownership of much of previous public nation state 
territories worldwide--without any local 
jurisdictional oversight at all. Instead of via 
"non-profit" land trusts, this group--connected 
to Maurice Strong--worked through U.N. elites, 
the Aspen Conference, and the UNCED-Rio 
Conference "Earth Summit" from 1992 to help seal 
such "public land swap for debt forgiveness" 
agreements into reality. Hunt, who attended these 
meetings more as an accidental private citizen 
(hear his story below--and hear his recordings of 
the events) was amazed that no one really was 
talking about environmental protection policies, 
only real estate consolidation and control within 
a heady air of how to do it without democratic 
oversight and awareness. Over the past 30 years, 
Hunt has discussed several massive global banks 
and institutions pushing this privatized policy 
since the "Earth Summit" in 1992--or from the 
even earlier Fourth Wilderness Conference of 1987 which he recorded.

George Hunt on Alex Jones TV, Part 1 of 9: The 
Inner Workings of A [Malthusian-Policy-Based] One 
World, New Age Government [Phony Strategies of 
Elite Global Environmentalism to Privatize and Own the World]
10:58 min

Jan 12, 2010: Alex welcomes to the show George 
Washington Hunt, a former naval officer and an 
official host at the UNCED 4th World Wilderness 
Congress. Hunt is educating the public on a 
secret bank [set up for the same 
Malthusian-policy'ed lines of mass global land 
ownership, removal of local communities, and 
spatial depopulation--despite these Malthusian 
strategies elsewhere failing to save the 
environment as noted in the WWF data above, and 
instead only encouraging more politically 
possible degradation] set in motion by 
international financier Edmond de Rothschild and 
Maurice Strong. Hunt discusses this in his recent 
30 minute documentary, The Big Bad Bank. The rest 
of this interview begins here with part 2 of 9.

  There are many major global interests, cloaked 
in environmentalism, more interested in the cloak 
than the environmentalism. Many want the benefits 
of buying up in neofeudalist fashion much of the 
world's land for themselves under false pretenses 
as they work on global standards for privatizing 
the world's land and debt to get their way. 
Instead of 'protecting' environmental conditions, 
such Malthusian inspired policies demoting the 
local people, the nations, the legal systems, and 
the wider environmental species that live there 
via their supply-side interest in destruction being less challenged.

  This an an introduction to the real Nature Conservancy, by Sharon Beder:
  Rather than lobbying governments to implement 
regulations [actually they do this as well 
now--though with corporations in secret], or 
highlighting the activities of corporations in 
degrading the environment, TNC seeks out 
solutions that do not threaten those 
corporations. While TNC seeks to preserve areas 
of forest, for example, it does not publicly 
speak out against practices such as 
clear-cutting. It preserves areas of land for 
grizzly bears but it does not oppose hunting or 
developments that endanger those bears and 
destroy their habitat. Hunting is even allowed on 
some of its own land and TNC officers may go 
hunting with potential donors [under the alibi 
that this is required] as part of the negotiation 
process. [The WWF similarly has been known to be 
involved with letting its connected elites kill 
endangered megafauna on 'its own land' in Africa.]

  This approach is attractive to donors because 
they know TNC will not turn around and expose a 
corporation’s dirty record or damaging 
activities. What is more, TNC will accept 
donations from any company, no matter what its 
record, no questions asked. In return for 
support, TNC promises donors publicity as 
corporations that care about the environment.

TNC’s 1,900 corporate sponsors include ARCO, BHP, 
BP, Chevron, Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, 
DuPont, General Electric, General Mills, General 
Motors, Georgia-Pacific, McDonald’s, Mobil, NBC, 
Pepsi-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Toyota and 
Pfizer. Some of these companies, including 
Monsanto, even get a say on how TNC is run by 
being on its International Leadership Council.

  Such an approach is very lucrative. TNC has 
3,200 employees in 528 offices across the US and 
in 27 countries. In 2003/4 its revenue was $866 
million. This included over $350 million from 
dues and donations, $180 million from 
investments, almost $100 million from government 
grants and another $101 million from sales of 
land. Its total assets – including nature 
preserves – are now valued at over $4 billion.

TNC claims to have protected [a mere]...60,000 
square kilometres in the US and over 400,000 
square kilometres in other parts of the world. 
However, [it's much larger area effect is upon 
the] several hundred thousand square kilometres 
of ecologically sensitive land that it is 
‘protecting’ in the US [that is] now being 
grazed, logged, farmed, drilled or put to work in some fashion.

Timber companies such as Weyerhaeuser [another 
corporation with a huge Skull and Bones connected 
background] and Georgia-Pacific are allowed to 
log on TNC preserves in several states. In some 
cases it is even paying ranchers and farmers 
[with 'your' donation money] to continue working the land.

TNC’s aim is to provide examples of private, 
multiple-use conservation where forestry, 
ranching and drilling can be done in a 
sustainable way. [However, they do not monitor it 
at all, so it's just TNC greenwashing.] However, 
its conservation efforts have many critics who 
argue that it is too ready to compromise 
environmental values and that these activities 
degrade and threaten the integrity of protected areas.

  This was also recognized by some of TNC’s own 
scientists. [And a 'coup against their own 
science personnel' by the TNC executives:]

[TNC] Science director Jerry Freilich recognized 
that the pounding hooves of cattle degrade 
fragile environments. He claims that in 2000 he 
was physically bullied by his boss to sign 
documents certifying that specific cattle 
ranches, which he had never visited, were 
environmentally sound. He signed, subsequently 
left and made a complaint to the police, which 
led to a settlement with TNC a year later. All 
but 3 of the remaining 95 scientific staff at 
headquarters were subsequently dispersed to 
branch offices or reassigned to a new 
organization that services TNC and sells its biological data.1

  the rest of the article:

  Next, several recent articles on the U.S. Nature Conservancy:

1. NY gave environmental organization absurd 
$3.7M profit for forest | Nature Conservancy
admin Apr 09, 2010 Nature Conservancy
  By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor
Last Updated: 11:08 AM, April 5, 2010
  ALBANY — Gov. Paterson’s administration handed 
an enormously wealthy environmental group a 
staggering 57 percent profit on a large tract of 
wilderness land — even as property values 
collapsed across New York, a probe by The Post has found.

  The little-noticed green giveaway of taxpayer 
cash occurred in October 2008, as the [New York] 
state Department of Environmental Conservation 
paid The Nature Conservancy nearly $10 million 
for 20,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness that 
the group purchased for $6.3 million just a few years earlier.

  Official state records examined by The Post and 
statements by local officials show the purchase 
price was heavily inflated and relied on outdated 
appraisals from a year earlier, when real-estate 
values in New York and other parts of the nation were still skyrocketing.

  GREEN FEES: Adirondack Park official Frederick 
Monroe said the state “grossly overpaid” The 
Nature Conservancy for 20,000 acres of upstate wilderness.

  Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board 
Executive Director Frederick Monroe said the 
state “grossly overpaid” for the property.

“I’ve suspected there’s some sort of close 
relationship between the state and TNC that 
resulted in this price, because it didn’t reflect 
the true market value,” Monroe said.

  The price paid for the land was also out of 
line with property values recorded at the state 
Office of Real Property Services. Records for 
Clinton County show a mere 14.4 percent increase 
in value for forest land from the time The Nature 
Conservancy bought the property in January 2005 
to when it sold it to the state, for inclusion in the park, in October 2008.

  Several county and town officials insisted the 
state paid far too high a price for the land.

  “This price was not indicative of property 
values in the area generally,” said James Gonyo, 
Clinton County’s director of real property tax services.

  “The price paid was higher than we would have 
assessed it at and, as a result, we will not use 
it as a valid sale on which to base assessments in the future.”

Saranac Councilman Jerry Delaney, in whose town 
the bulk of the land is located, called the sale 
“a horrible deal all the way around.
“Ten percent a year is a good return on land, but 
57 percent in three years? I think it’s clear the 
state has a cozy relationship with The Nature Conservancy.”

  Sources told The Post that Paterson — and 
former governors George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer, 
in office when the appraisals were conducted — 
viewed the conservancy as an influential 
organization whose support they wanted.

  “Paterson, Spitzer and Pataki saw the ‘enviros’ 
as the good guys with lots of influential 
friends, and their view was, ‘If they can give 
them a few extra million dollars of public money, 
why not?’ ” said a prominent New York official, 
who has had contact with The Nature Conservancy.

  Pataki selected prominent Manhattan lawyer Ira 
Millstein in 2004 — a year after he was named to 
a special Nature Conservancy advisory panel — to 
draft governance principles for state authorities.

  The price paid to the preservation group also 
appears to contradict a pledge made by TNC when 
it acquired the heavily wooded land from Domtar, 
an international lumber and paper company.

  A press release issued at the time said TNC 
promised to “hold the land [instead of play the 
real estate market with it] on behalf of New York 
state” and quoted Pataki referring to the 
environmental group as a “partner” with the state.

  The statement suggested to many that New York 
intended to reimburse TNC for the cost of 
acquisition, plus any expenses, once it had the funds to complete the purchase.

TNC, which has $6 billion in assets and employs 
3,500 people, has an extremely close working 
relationship with the DEC and even has members of 
its staff working in the agency’s Albany 
headquarters as part of a natural heritage program.

  Connie Prickett, a spokeswoman for TNC, said, 
“The question of why the state paid that much is 
a question that needs to be directed to the state.”

The practice appears to be continuing.
The Post has learned that a 
Paterson-administration plan to buy a large tract 
of land near the state-owned Belleayre Mountain 
in the Catskills is being blocked by Comptroller 
Tom DiNapoli out of concern that Albany is 
preparing to spend “millions more” than the property is worth, said a source.

  DEC spokesman Yancy Roy conceded the 2008 crash 
of the national economy is a legitimate 
question,” but he insisted the wheels of state 
government just turn too slowly for the falling 
property values of the Adirondack land to have been addressed.

  “Key elements of the transaction had occurred before then,” said Roy.

  “The state process is much slower than, say, a 
private home sale. It takes months,” continued 
Roy. “The notion that the state wanted to ‘reward’ TNC is absurd.”


2.  The Nature Conservancy, From SourceWatch [This is out of date from 2009]

  “The titan of green groups, the Nature 
Conservancy sits on nearly a billion dollars in 
assets and is awash in cash, thanks to a tidal 
wave of corporate donations, much of it from 
notorious polluters such as Arco, 
Archer-Daniels-Midland, British Petroleum, DuPont, Shell and Freeport-McMoRan.

  The group eschews political work in favor of 
the relatively noncontroversial project of buying land.

  Calling itself “Nature’s real estate agent,” 
the Nature Conservancy purchases private land and 
then sells it to state and federal agencies, 
often, according to its critics, at a considerable mark-up.

Last year, the group violated its apolitical 
policy to concoct the compromise rewrite of the 
Endangered Species Act with a secret coalition of 
corporations and trade associations, including 
the National Homebuilder’s Association and timber giant Georgie-Pacific.

The group is led by John Sawhill, former energy 
aide to Nixon and Ford and a fanatical proponent 
of nuclear power, who has enjoyed lucrative 
positions on the boards of Procter & Gamble, 
North American Coal Company and Pacific Gas & Electric.

  Budget: $337 million [revenue in 2005: $866 
million, thus this equals TNC is turning a profit 
of hundreds of millions of dollars?]

  Staff: 1,200 [other updated sources give over 3,000 staff now];

  Members: 720,000 individuals; 220 corporations

  Salary of CEO: More than $196,000, including benefits.”

[1] The Washington Post has produced a Special 
Report titled BIG GREEN which as series of 
investigative articles exposes the corporate 
infestation of The Nature Conservancy and 
“documents on the organization’s transformation 
from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.”
President – Mark R. Tercek (as of July 2008)
Former President – Steve McCormick (2001-07)
Former Acting President and CEO – Stephanie Meeks 
(She took over the top spot when Steve McCormick 
left to run the Moore Foundation) Contents
1 Directors
1.1 Former Board of directors
2 Executive Committee
3 Contact Details
4 Sourcewatch Resources
5 External links

  DirectorsAccessed June 2009: [1]
Chairman of the Board – Roger Milliken, Jr. – President, Baskahegan Company
President and Chief Executive Officer – Mark R. Tercek – The Nature Conservancy
Vice Chair – Gordon Crawford – Senior Vice 
President, Capital Research and Management Company
Vice Chair – Roberto Hernández Ramírez – Chairman, Banco Nacional de Mexico
Treasurer & Chair, Finance Committee – Muneer A. 
Satter – Managing Director, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Secretary – Georgia Welles – Conservationist
Chair, Audit Committee – John P. Sall – Executive 
Vice President, Director and Co-Founder, SAS Institute
Chair, Conservation Activities Review Committee – 
Teresa Beck – Former President, American Stores Co.
Chair, Governance, Nominating, and Human 
Resources Committee – Harry Groome – Author and Conservationist
Joel E. Cohen – Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor, 
Rockefeller University and Columbia University
Gretchen C. Daily – Department of Biological 
Sciences and Woods Institute for the Environment–Stanford University
Steven A. Denning – Chairman, General Atlantic LLC
Frank E. Loy – Former Undersecretary of State for 
Global Affairs United States Government
James C. Morgan – Chairman Emeritus, Applied Materials, Inc.
Thomas S. Middleton – Senior Managing Director, Blackstone Group
William W. Murdoch – Professor of Ecology, 
University of California–Santa Barbara
Stephen Polasky – Professor of 
Ecological/Environmental Economics, University of Minnesota
Cristián Samper – Director, National Museum of 
Natural History, Washington, D.C.
Christine M. Scott – Conservationist
Thomas J. Tierney – Chairman and Co-Founder, The Bridgespan Group, Inc.
Shirley Young – President, Shirley Young Associates

  Former Board of directors
Teresa Beck – Conservationist
Dr. Joel E. Cohen – Abby Rockefeller Mauze 
Professor Rockefeller University and Columbia University
Gretchen C. Daily – Department of Biological 
Sciences and Woods Institute for the Environment, 
Stanford University – Stanford, California
Harry Groome – Conservationist
Roberto Hernández-Ramírez – Chairman Banco 
Nacional de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
Dr. Frances C. James – Professor Emeritus Florida 
State University, Department of Biological Science, Tallahassee, Florida
Roger Milliken, Jr. – President Baskahegan Company, Cumberland, Maine
William W. Murdoch – Professor of Ecology, 
University of California–Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
John P. Sall – Executive Vice President, Director 
and Co-Founder SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina
Muneer A. Satter – Managing Director The Goldman 
Sachs Group, Inc., Chicago, Illinois
Christine M. Scott – Conservationist
Georgia Welles – Conservationist
Shirley A. Young – President Shirley Young 
Associates, New York, New York & Shanghai, China

  Executive Committee
John P. Morgridge – Chairman of the Board of 
Directors, Chairman Cisco Systems, Inc.
Steven J. McCormick – President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Chairman and Chief Executive 
Officer Georgia-Pacific Corporation
A. D. Correll, Jr. – Chair, Audit Committee
James C. Morgan – Chair, Governance, Nominating, 
and Human Resources Committee, Chairman Applied Materials, Inc.
Carol E. Dinkins – Vice Chair, Senior Partner Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
Gordon Crawford – Treasurer & Chair, Finance 
Committee, Senior Vice President Capital Research and Management Company
Jan V. Portman – Secretary, Conservationist

  Contact Details

  Worldwide Office
  The Nature Conservancy
  4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100
  Arlington, VA 22203-1606
  Web: http://www.nature.org/

  Sourcewatch Resources
Environmental organizations
Nongovernmental organizations
Kelvin H. Taketa
Christopher T. Bayley
Anthony Cavalieri – former advisor
Sanjayan Muttulingam – lead scientist

  External links
Jeffrey St. Clair and Bernardo Issel, “A field 
guide to the environmental movement“, In These Times, 28 July 1997.
Numerous authors, “The Nature Conservancy: The 
Big Green”, Washington Post, May 2003.
Sharon Beder, The stain in sustainability, New Internationalist, October 2005.

3. (on Nature Conservancy and Conservation 
International working with military contractors 
like Lockheed--which WWF founder Prince Bernhard 
was caught in a scandal with in the 1970s as well!)

  What’s the Fallout When Green Groups “Partner” 
with Arms Makers? | Conservation International & Nature Conservancy
  admin May 01, 2012 Conservation International, Nature Conservancy
Apr 30
Posted by greendistrict
About a year ago Conservation International was 
pilloried by a couple of British videographers 
posing as executives of the arms maker Lockheed 
Martin. They bamboozled a C.I. official in London 
into a meeting where she outlined several ways 
the nonprofit could “partner” with the arms maker 
under terms that looked a lot like greenwashing. 
You can watch the video here and judge for yourself if C.I. did anything wrong.

  I had a few issues with the “exposé;” chiefly 
that C.I. already had dealings with B2 bomber 
maker Northrop Grumman, whose chairman and CEO is 
a member of its board of directors.

And another big group, The Nature Conservancy, 
was already in the pay of Lockheed. These 
existing relationships undermined the shock value the scamsters were going for.

  Still, you’d think the critique, or at least 
the bad press coverage it generated, would 
inspire reflection about the reputational damage 
some corporate deals can bring down on a 
nonprofit organization. More specifically, is a 
company that makes weapons of war an appropriate 
partner for a group whose mission is saving the 
Earth’s biodiversity? Well, if those questions 
were raised, they didn’t lead to change.

  C.I. has just cranked up its P.R. machine in 
service of a new partnership with Northrop, “a 
unique and innovative professional development 
program for public middle and high school science teachers.”

  In a nutshell: The Northrop Grumman Foundation 
will pay for 16 teachers from four U.S. public 
school systems to visit CI’s Tropical Ecology 
Assessment and Monitoring Network’s Volcan Barva 
site inside La Selva Biological Station and 
Braulio Carrillo National Park in Costa Rica.
  “We believe that supporting professional 
development opportunities for teachers will have 
the greatest impact on engaging students in the 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics 
fields. We expect this program will help 
cultivate the next generation of environmental 
stewards,” said Sandy Andelman, vice president at 
Conservation International in a press release the two partners issued April 19.
  Whoa! That statement requires a reality check. 
According to the U.S. Department of Education, 
there are 3.6 million K to 12 grade teachers in 
the United States spread across 14,000 public 
school districts. The group selected for this 
program doesn’t even come close to representing 1 
percent of the teachers in the country.

  While they will surely have a rewarding time 
and may even return home to inspire their 
students, the scale of the program is too small 
to have the impact Andelman claims. Like so many 
of these corporate-conservationist joint ventures 
they are more symbolic than substantive.

  They deliver real public relations boons for 
Northrop, however, which might explain why the 
Falls Church, Vir. -based company features the 
“ECO classroom” as a top story on its homepage.

  Hat tip to Wiki Scraper for writing the search 
tool that brought this story to my attention.

  While we’re on the subject of 
corporate-environmentalist ties, here’s another 
couple of recent stories that deserve mentions:

  This upbeat Q & A featuring Wal-Mart chairman 
Rob Walton and C.I.’s CEO Peter Seligmann comes 
out as Wal-Mart as struggles to overcome awkward 
questions about its greening policies and a recent bribery scandal.

  Many environmental groups, including C.I., 
don’t count donations from corporate-tied 
foundations as “corporate” cash. Instead, they 
report money from the likes of the Walton Family 
Foundation and the Northrop foundation as 
foundation grants, which helps them claim that 
only a fraction of their funding comes from 
corporate sources.  For that matter, C.I. doesn’t 
tally the money it receives from scions like Rob 
Walton in the corporate column either. But 
Walton, in this article, doesn’t talk like 
someone whose relationship to C.I. is detached 
from the workings of the family firm, even if he 
does say he leaves the day-to-day greening to “middle managers.”

Environmental Defense Fund was caught in a 
similar controversy last week. The group claims 
to take zero corporate dollars but the Walton 
Family Foundation granted EDF $16 million in 2009 
and continuing support equal to more than $7 
million in 2010, among other support.

  Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports this 
morning that an obscure private foundation 
threatened to pull funding from the Potomac 
Riverkeeper group unless it dropped its 
opposition to a trading scheme proposed as part 
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

4. How Environmental Groups Gone Bad Greenwash 
Logging Earth’s Last Primary Old Forests

admin Apr 16, 2012 Carbon Markets | REDD, 
Conservation International, Environmental Defence 
Fund, Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Non-Profit 
Industrial Complex, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

  The Great Rainforest Heist
April 16, 2012

by Dr. Glen Barry | Rainforest Portal
The world’s pre-eminent environmental 
organizations, widely perceived as the leading 
advocates for rainforests and old growth, have 
for decades been actively promoting primary forest logging [search].

  Groups like Greenpeace, Rainforest Action 
Network (RAN), The Nature Conservancy, 
Conservation International, World Wide Fund for 
Nature/World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the 
Environmental Defense Fund actively promote 
industrially logging Earth’s last old forests.

  Through their support of the existing “Forest 
Stewardship Council” (FSC), and/or planned 
compromised “Reducing Emissions from 
Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD), 
they are at the forefront of destroying ancient 
forests for disposable consumer items – claiming 
it is “sustainable forest management” and “carbon forestry”.

  Rainforest movement corruption is rampant as 
these big bureaucratic, corporatist NGOs conspire 
to log Earth’s last primary rainforests and other 
old growth forests. Collectively the “NGO Old 
Forest Sell-Outs” are greenwashing FSC’s 
destruction of over 300,000,000 acres of old 
forests, destroying an area of primary 
rainforests and other old forests the size of 
South Africa (two times the size of Texas)!

  FSC and its members have built a massive market 
for continued business as usual industrially 
harvested primary forest timbers – with minor, 
cosmetic changes – certifying as acceptable 
murdering old forests and their life for 
consumption of products ranging from toilet paper 
to lawn furniture. Some 70% of FSC products 
contain primary forest timbers, and as little as 
10% of any product must be from certified sources.

  FSC has become a major driver of primary forest 
destruction and forest ecological diminishment.

Despite certifying less than 10% of the world’s 
forest lands, their rhetoric and marketing 
legitimizes the entire tropical and old growth 
timber trade, and a host of even worse certifiers 
of old forest logging. It is expecting far too 
much for consumers to differentiate between the 
variety of competing and false claims that old 
growth timbers are green and environmentally 
sustainable – when in fact none are. While other 
certification schemes may be even worse, this is 
not the issue, as industrial first-time primary 
forest logging cannot be done ecologically 
sustainably and should not be happening at all. 
FSC’s claims to being the best destroyer of 
primary forests is like murdering someone most 
humanely, treating your slaves the best while 
rejecting emancipation, or being half pregnant.

  To varying degrees, most of the NGO Old Forest 
Sell-Outs also support the United Nations’ new 
“Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest 
Degradation” program (UNREDD, REDD, or REDD+), 
originally intended to protect Earth’s remaining 
and rapidly diminishing primary rainforests and 
other old forests, by making “avoided 
deforestation” payments to local forest peoples 
as an international climate and deforestation 
solution. Large areas of primary and old-growth 
forests were to be fully protected from 
industrial development, local communities were to 
both receive cash payments while continuing to 
benefit from standing old forests, and existing 
and new carbon was to be sequestered.

  After years of industry, government and NGO 
forest sell-out pressure, REDD+ will now fund 
first time industrial primary rainforest logging 
and destruction under the veil of “sustainable 
forest management” and “carbon forestry”. REDD+ 
is trying to be all things to everybody – forest 
logging, protection, plantations, carbon, growth 
– when all we need is local funding to preserve 
standing forests for local advancement, and local 
and global ecology; and assurances provided REDD+ 
would not steal indigenous lands, or be funded by carbon markets,....

  Sustainable forest management in old forests is 
a myth and meaningless catchphrase to allow 
continued western market access to primary 
rainforest logs. Both FSC and now REDD+ enable 
destruction of ancient naturally evolved 
ecosystems – that are priceless and sacred – for 
throw away consumption. Increasingly both FSC and 
REDD+ are moving towards certifying and funding 
the conversion of natural primary forests to be 
cleared and replanted as plantations. They call 
it carbon forestry and claim it is a climate 
good. Even selective logging destroys primary 
forests, and what remains is so greatly 
ecologically reduced from first time industrial 
logging, that they are on their way to being plantations.

  Naturally evolved ancient forests are sacred 
and primeval life giving shrines, and standing 
and intact, large and contiguous primary 
rainforest and other old forests are a 
requirement for sustaining global ecology and 
achieving local advancement. Old forests are a 
vital part of the biosphere’s ecological 
infrastructure – and have a prominent, central 
role in making the Earth habitable through their 
cycling of carbon, energy, water, and nutrients. 
Planetary boundaries have been exceeded, we have 
already lost too many intact terrestrial 
ecosystems, and what remains is inadequate to sustain global ecology.

  Primary rainforests cannot be logged in an 
ecologically sustainable manner; once logged – 
selectively, certified, legally or not – for 
throw-away consumer crap, their primary nature is 
destroyed, and ecological composition and 
dynamics are lost forever. What remains is 
permanently ecologically diminished in terms of 
composition, structure, function, dynamics, and 
evolutionary potential. Logged primary forests’ 
carbon stores, biodiversity and ecosystems will 
never be the same in any reasonable time-span. 
Selective, industrially logged primary 
rainforests become fragmented, burn more and are 
prone to outright deforestation.

  Primary forest logging is a crime against 
Earth, the human family and all life – and those 
doing the logging, profiting and greenwashing the 
ecocide are dangerous criminals – who must be 
stopped and brought to justice. There is a zero 
chance of protecting and ending first time 
industrial logging of primary rainforests when 
the NGO Old Forest Sell-Outs say it is 
sustainable, even desirable, and continue to 
greenwash FSC old growth timber markets – now to 
be expanded with potential REDD funding – 
providing crucial political cover and PR for 
forest ecocide through their presence in the organizations.

  Each of the named organizations’ forest 
campaigns are a corrupt shell of their former 
selves – acting unethically and corruptly – 
destroying global ecology and local options for 
advancement, for their own benefit. The 
rainforest logging apologists have chosen power, 
prestige and money coming from sitting at the old 
forest logging mafia’s table, gathering the 
crumbs fallen from the table to enrich their 
empires, rather than the difficult yet necessary 
job of working to fully protect rainforests and 
other primary forests from industrial development.

  WWF, Greenpeace, and RAN are particularly 
culpable. With rainforests threatened as never 
before, RAN targets the Girl Scouts, Greenpeace 
supports Kleenex’s clearcut of Canadian old 
growth boreal forests for toilet paper, and WWF 
runs a bad-boy logger club who pay $50,000 to use 
the panda logo while continuing to destroy primary forests.

  The only way this NGO old forest greenwash 
logging machine will be stopped is to make doing 
so too expensive to their corporate bureaucracies 
in terms of lost donations, grants, and other 
support – whose sources are usually unaware of 
the great rainforest heist. Ecological Internet – 
the rainforest campaign organization I head – and 
others feel strongly, based upon the urgency of 
emerging ecological science, and our closeness to 
global ecological collapse, that it is better to 
fight like hell in any way we can to fully 
protect and restore standing old forests as the 
most desirable forest protection outcome. 
Greenwash of first time industrial primary forest 
logging must be called out wherever it is 
occurring, and resisted by those in the global 
ecology movement committed to sustaining local 
advancement and ecosystems from standing old 
forests. There is no value in unity around such dangerous, ecocidal policy.

Despite tens of thousands of people from around 
the world asking these pro-logging NGOs to stop 
their old forest logging greenwash, none of the 
organizations (who routinely campaign against 
other forest destroyers, making similar demands 
for transparency and accountability) feel 
obligated to explain in detail – including based 
upon ecological-science – how logging primary 
forests protects them. Nor can they provide any 
detailed justification – or otherwise defend – 
the ecology, strategy and tactics of continued 
prominent involvement in FSC and REDD primary 
forest logging. They clearly have not been 
following ecological science over the past few 
years, which has made it clear there is no such 
thing as ecologically sustainable primary forest 
logging, and that large, old, contiguous, 
un-fragmented and fully ecologically intact 
natural forests are critical to biodiversity, 
ecosystems, and environmental sustainability.

  We must end primary and other old forest 
logging for full community protection and 
restoration. The human family must protect and 
restore old forests – starting by ending 
industrial-scale primary forest logging – as a 
keystone response to biodiversity, ecosystem, 
climate, food, water, poverty and rights crises 
that are pounding humanity, ecosystems, plants 
and animals. There is no such thing as 
well-managed, sustainable primary forest logging 
– first time industrial harvest always destroys 
naturally evolved and intact ecosystems.

  Humanity can, must and will – if it wishes to 
survive – meet wood product demand from certified 
regenerating and aging secondary growth and 
non-toxic, native species plantations. Humanity 
must meet market demand for well-managed forest 
timbers by certifying only 1) small-scale 
community eco-forestry practiced by local peoples 
in their primary forests (at very low volumes for 
special purposes and mostly local consumption), 
2) regenerating and aging secondary forests 
regaining old-growth characteristics, and 3) 
non-toxic and mixed species plantations under 
local control. Further, reducing demand for all 
timber and paper products is key to living 
ecologically sustainably with old forests.

  Local community development based upon standing 
old forests including small scale eco-forestry is 
fine. Small scale community eco-forestry has 
intact primary forests as its context for seed 
and animal sources, and management that mimics 
natural disturbance and gap species 
establishment. It is the industrial first time 
logging – selective logging, defined as selecting 
all merchantable, mature trees and logging them– 
turning primary forests into plantations, that is 
problematic. The goal must remain to maximize the 
extent, size, and connectivity of core primary 
forest ecosystems, to maximize global and local 
ecosystem processes, and local advancement and 
maintained well-being from standing old forests.

  By dragging out the forest protection fight on 
a forest by forest basis, until ecological 
collapse becomes publicly acknowledged and 
society mobilizes, we can hold onto more 
ecosystems, biodiversity, and carbon than logging 
them a tiny bit better now. Soon ...the human 
family will catch up with the ecological science 
and realize old forest destruction and 
diminishment must end as we ramp up natural 
regeneration and ecological restoration of large, 
connected natural forests adequate to power the 
global ecosystem. As society awakens to the need 
to sustain the biosphere, having as many intact 
ecosystems for models and seed sources for 
restoration as possible will be key to any sort of ecology and human recovery.

Rainforest protection groups engaged in 
greenwashing primary forest logging (an oxymoron 
misnomer if ever there was one), particularly 
while offering no defense of doing so, while 
raising enormous sums for rainforest 
“protection”, must be stopped. We must continue 
to call upon all big NGOs to resign from FSC and 
REDD, and join us in consistently working to end 
primary forest logging, and protect and restore 
old forests. Until they do, they must be 
boycotted and their funding cut off – even if 
this impacts other good works they may do, as old 
forests are such a fundamental ecological issue – 
until they stop greenwashing the final 
destruction of primary forests. And it is past 
time for their supporters to end their 
memberships as ultimately these big NGO 
businesses are more concerned with their image 
and money than achieving global forest policy 
that is ecologically sufficient, truthful, and successful.

  As a rainforest movement, we must return to the 
goal of a ban on industrially harvested primary 
forest timbers. This means continuing to resist 
and obstruct old forest harvest, businesses 
(including NGO corporate sell-outs) involved, 
timber marketing, transportation, storage, 
milling, product construction, product marketing, 
and consumption. The entire supply chain for 
ecocidal primary forest timbers must be 
destroyed. More of us must return to the forests 
to work with local communities to build 
on-the-ground desire and capacity for 
ecologically inspired advancement from standing 
old forests, and physically obstructing old 
forest logging. We must make stolen, ill-gotten 
old wood from life-giving ecosystems an 
unacceptable taboo, like gorilla hand ash-trays, 
only worse. Together we must make old forest revolution.


APPENDIX FIVE: Continued Quote about WWF Knowing 
Its Own Duplicity and Continuing It, pp. 208-214

Saving Animals?

  Late in 1989, John Phillipson, professor at the 
University of Oxford, completed an internal
  investigation ordered by the WWF about the 
organization´s effectiveness. "The Phillipson 
Report", a 252-page, highly detailed study, is a 
severe condemn to the incompetence, blunder and 
nonsense of the WWF. Professor Phillipson´s final 
conclusion is: the thing that the WWF least knew 
about, was precisely the mission it had chosen to 
accomplish: to save animals. The paradox is 
demonstrated by seeing that, after 23 years of 
collecting huge amounts of money on the adorable 
panda´s account, the WWF suddenly discovered that 
the cute animal was in imminent danger of 
extinction. Philip then launched a new campaign 
to collect more money to "save the panda".

  Professor Phillipson noted that "the WWF had 
spent since 1980 more than 4,493,021 Swiss Francs 
in 8 projects, and "in spite of a 43 person team 
(23 of which were alleged scientists) , the 
reproduction of the panda had been unsuccessful, 
and the outcome of the research is insignificant 
. . . the laboratories, equipped at a cost of 
530,000 Swiss Francs, are truly impractical. The 
absence of competent counselling, the lack of 
training for personnel, and bad management had 
produced a dying laboratory. The obvious 
conclusion is that the WWF has not been effective 
or efficient in safeguarding its large 
investments . . . and members of the WWF would be 
disheartened when they realise that the 
contributed capital has virtually disappeared." 
After more than 30 years of fund collecting on 
account of the panda, Prince Philip was forced to 
admit in 1990 that "the panda is probably doomed with extinction".

The Case of the Elephant

  Regarding the elephant, the WWF made its very 
important contribution for attaining the 
extinction of the species. The famous ecologist 
E. Caughey, specialised in animal population, 
made a study in 1980 showing that at the 
beginning of 1950, in Africa were about 3,000,000 
elephants. Later, in 1976, the first systematic 
elephant count made in Africa by Ian 
Douglas-Hamilton, a Scottish conservationist 
residing in Kenya, found 1,300,000 survivors.

  During the whole 1970 decade and part of the 
80s, the WWF stubbornly claimed that "there was 
not an elephant crisis", and fought every effort 
of many conservationists towards forbidding the 
trade of the valuable ivory of the animal.

  In 1989, the WWF proclaimed "the Year of the 
Elephant", while stating there still were 750,000 
animals. However, the census performed in 1988 by 
Pierre Pfeffer (former president of the WWF 
France) demonstrated that only 400,000 existed. 
Because of this revelation, Pfeffer was forced to resign.

  Going back to 1963, it has been verified that 
sir Peter Scott, head of WWF International, 
recommended to the Uganda´s Natural Parks 
Administration Board the elimination of 2,500 
animals, and for doing the job was hired the 
already known Ian Parker. In the same operation, 
Parker killed 4,000 hippopotamus. The 
recommendation was based on the Malthusian 
premise that "due to overpopulation, in order to 
save the species, it was necessary to kill many 
individuals." In fact, and as was later 
demonstrated, sir Scott only wanted to create a 
big estate for exploiting mahogany precisely in 
the woods where the elephants grazed, and they were a nuisance.

In 1975, The African Wildlife Leadership 
Foundation, created by Russel Train, WWF's 
president of the USA branch, hired Ian Parker for 
killing virtually all elephants in Rwanda, 
arguing that Rwandans couldn´t protect 
simultaneously the mountain gorillas and the 
elephants, so the elephants "had to die". One of 
world famous gorilla expert, Diane Fossey's 
assistants later denounced, the elephants were 
killed [by the WWF] because the land where they 
lived was ideal for [the creation of industrial 
cash crops, for] cultivating pyrethrum, from 
where pyrethrin is extracted, a natural and "non contaminating insecticide".

  Few years later, a synthetic substitute was 
discovered and the pyrethrum production ended. 
Now without forests, the high hillsides where 
elephants lived lost its vegetal covering because 
hydraulic erosion, the rivers sedimented and 
resulted in floodings. Ironically, Mr. Russell 
Train was shortly after nominated chief of the 
EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Tell me about who are you mingling with, and I´ll tell you who you are...

  Much more recent is the medal the WWF awarded 
in 1986 to Clem Coetze, a former Rhodesian 
mercenary (given by WWF´s General Director 
DeHaes), for supervising the campaign where more 
than 44,000 elephants were killed in Zimbabwe.

  According to the WWF this was necessary "in 
order to protect the environment". When the WWF 
sounded the alarm in 1989 -when declared "The 
Year of the Elephant" [after the WWF had killed 
tens of thousands of elephants itself for 
industrial cash cropping of mahogany and 
pyrethrum production]- the help given was quite 
curious: with funds collected with dramatic 
campaigns "to save Nell, the elephant", the WWF 
mounted and installed a camp for rescuing the big 
animals, and air lifted there huge amounts of 
paramilitary equipment. The camp was in the 
border with Rwanda, in spite of the fact that all 
the elephants were in Park Murchinson, 1,000 
miles away. But from this region, the Patriotic 
Rwandan Front launched its invasion against 
Rwanda, provoking one of the worst and most 
horrible manslaughter ever witnessed in History.

  The unfortunate black rhinoceros also owes the 
WWF its near state of extinction.

The Rhinoceros Too

In 1961, the WWF began its "help" with the 45,000 
Sterling Pounds collected thanks to
  a Daily Mirror campaign inviting to contribute 
with donations for "saving Gertie, the adorably
  ugly rhinoceros". However, the WWF spent 
virtually nothing on saving the rhinoceros
during the first 10 years, and only sponsored two 
programs related with Gertie in the first
  two decades.

  In spite of the noisy propaganda campaigns 
related to the rhinoceros, from the 110 millions 
Sterling Pounds collected until 1980 "for saving 
the black rhinoceros", the WWF only spent 118,533 
Swiss Francs in programs that had some relation with the subject.

  Meanwhile, the rhinoceros population had 
decreased by 95,5%. And when finally the WWF 
decided to act, the rhinoceros died, or at the 
best, were sent to zoos or, more often, to 
private farms, Today, there are virtually no more 
black rhinoceros in the African jungles.

  Professor Phillipson criticised very harshly 
the programs undertaken by the WWF for "saving" 
the rhinoceros. In 1965, a resident in Kenya gave 
the WWF 36,300 Swiss Francs for moving six white 
rhinoceros from Natal, South Africa, to Meru 
National Park in Kenya, that according to a WWF´s 
report "were thought to have the correct natural 
habitat" for those animals. "The project"- states 
Phillipson,-"was bad conceived from the 
beginning, and was unjustified from every 
conservationist viewpoint; the southern white 
rhinoceros never, at least on historical ages, 
lived in Kenya; moreover, there is no evidence 
that the white rhinoceros from the north had ever 
roamed the lands now comprising the 87,044 
hectares of Meru National Park. It has to be 
assumed that at the mid 60s, the WWF was 
scientifically incompetent, or it was hungry of 
publicity, or anxious of getting money, or it was 
unduly influenced by important people, but scientifically naive."

If the WWF has not been protecting animal species 
from extinction, in what has it been spending his 
hundreds of millions of dollars?

  When we examine Operation Stronhold and 
Operation Lock, another two programs launched 
with the excuse of "saving the rhinoceros", we´ll 
find some revealing clues that will let us 
assemble the complicated puzzle that constitutes 
the international environmental movement.

Operation Stronghold

  Funded by one million Swiss Francs, this 
operation was supposed to allow the Department of 
National Parks and the Wildlife Administration of 
Zimbabwe to save 700 black rhinoceros in the 
Zambesi Valley. Glenn Tatham, head of park 
keepers made a tour in the United States 
announcing that, with the aid of the WWF, he and 
his subordinates "we´ll go to war" against 
poachers that crossed the borders from Zambia. On 
May 10th 1988, [WWF's] Tatham and two of his aids 
were processed in Zimbabwe for murder. They were 
accused of attracting poachers with deceit and 
executed them, without previous notice, in an ambush when the poachers arrived.

  In a parliamentary meeting, it was denounced 
that Tatham and his group had murdered 70 
poachers since the beginning of 1987. Under 
pressure by Great Britain, the Zimbabwe 
Parliament hurried to pass a law that gave civil 
and criminal immunity to the park guards 
["license to kill"], for the murders and wounds 
committed during their work. Ten parliamentarians 
opposed this law arguing that "it would legalise 
murder". One of the opponents, Mica Bhebs, said: 
"We are giving them carte blanche for killing people".

  Official figures show that, between July 1974 
and September 1991, 145 poachers were murdered. 
The vast majority of the [WWF murdered] dead in 
the Zambesi Valley were attacked from an 
helicopter owned by the WWF, whose crew was at 
the service of the WWF. Form the investigation, 
serious doubts rose about the fact if the attacks 
were really aimed towards armed poachers. 
According to people interviewed by the film crew 
of the "Ten Pence of the Panda",
  many of the [WWF murdered] dead belonged to the 
military wing of the African National Congress, 
(ANC) that was fighting against Apartheid in 
South Africa, while their leader, Nelson Mandela
  was serving a 25-year sentence.

And, what about the rhinoceros?

  Since the inception of Operation Stronghold in 
February 1987, WWF´s goal was "relocate the 
rhinoceros captured in the valley to other safer 
areas". Drugged and immobilised, the animals were 
sent to private farms in Zimbabwe and other parts 
of Africa, the U.S. and Australia. In other 
words, the WWF paid mercenaries to kill people 
and manage to destroy the last herd of black rhinoceros in the world.

The true reasons were made public shortly after: 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that was 
"restructuring" Zimbabwe´s economy, had ordered 
the installation of a of cattle estates in the 
valley of Zimbabwe, right in the region inhabited 
by the black rhinoceros, for provision of meat for the European Union markets.

After rhinoceros were dispersed along the world, 
squads of exterminators entered the valley and 
killed hordes of elephants and at least 5,000 
buffaloes, along with other smaller animals for 
making room for the cattle ranches ordered by the 
IMF. In July 1989, the cattle was showed at a fair in Bulawayo.

  It was discovered that the animals had the 
foot-and-mouth disease, so the Europeans 
cancelled their contracts. Zimbabwe remained 
charging on its back (and their miserable people) 
the huge debt with the IMF and without rhinoceros.

Operation Lock [the UK's covert war conducted 
through the WWF to maintain South African Apartheid, funded by UK Queen Mother]

  At the beginning of 1990, a scandal broke in 
the European media that set the directives of the 
WWF in a serious tight spot. It was discovered 
the failure of one of the most secret joint 
operations between the WWF and the elite forces 
of the British Special Air Services (SAS), that 
had the mission of saving the rhinoceros by 
infiltrating "commandos" in order to dismantle 
the illegal ivory and rhinoceros horn trading 
network, and send the leaders to jail. [Though what was the "real reason"?]

  The serious thing was not the failure of the 
operation itself, but the disappearance of one 
million Sterling Pounds during the process, while 
discovering that the SAS group had started 
trading with the ivory and rhinoceros produce, 
replacing the cartels they had gone to fight! As 
in the Operation Stronghold, there were a large 
number of poachers murdered, according to the 
accusations of the Mandela´s National African Congress.

  It is really curious that the most detailed 
revelations about Operation Lock, obviously 
supported by internal documents of the WWF, were 
published in the pages of the Africa Confidential 
bulletin, considered an operation of the MI-5, 
founded in the apartment that David Stirling had 
in London. Striling was the creator--during the 
days of Second World War--of the now [in]famous SAS.

  For those familiar with the subject of African 
national parks, the main poachers by general
  rule are the same park wardens, often funded and armed by the WWF.

  The special unit created by Sterling "for 
protecting the rhinoceros" was formed with elite personnel from the SAS:

  Lt. Colonel Ian Crooke, awarded the 
Distinguished Service Order during the 
Malvinas/Falklands war, then chief of the SAS 23rd Regiment.

  Nish Bruce, Crooke´s second in command in the 
operation, it is said to be the most awarded soldier in Malvinas.

  Alastair Crooke, Ian´s brother, former consular 
official in Pakistan, was responsible for the rearming
  of the muyajedins in Afghanistan.

  Other members of the group were veterans in 
Northern Ireland operations, and specialists in 
capturing members of the IRA. All of the were 
specialists in "dirty warfare" -experience 
considered quite appropriate for "protecting the rhinoceros".

It stands clear that Operation Lock was the 
official policy of the British government: the
chain of command in the WWF leads directly to 
Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth´s husband;
Stirling himself admitted to the press that he 
kept contact with the Ministry of Defence and
the Foreign Office. A member of the SAS 
participating in Operation Lock asserted in writing
  that the consortium which funded the project, 
had the participation of the Queen Mother.

  Other character supporting the operation was 
Laurens van der Post, Prince Charles' tutor,
  then first counselor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs.

The Illogics of Colonialism

Instead of employing zoologists and other 
scientists for "saving the rhinoceros", the [UK] 
government preferred to use experts in 
destruction and death. But seen from the 
geopolitics standpoint, the illogic of Prince 
Philip and his WWF is an impeccable logic. 
Sterling had strong links -among other African 
animal produce illegal traders- with the 
insurgent organization UNITA, led by Jonas 
Savimbi, who admitted in 1988 that his men had 
killed 100,000 elephants in order to finance his 
war against the government of the MPLA in Angola. 
Moreover, inner documents of the KAS Enterprises 
Ltd, the "cover" used by Stirling and Crooke, 
show they planned to get huge profits with the 
ivory and rhinoceros horn sales-activity they allegedly were supposed to fight.

  In August 1991, Zimbabwe´s Minister of 
Security, Sidney Sekarayami, told the Dutch
  newspaper de Volkrants that he "suspected that 
KAS was a cover for destabilise Southern
Africa." Many officials in governments in Kenya, 
Tanzania and Zambia refused to co-operate
  with the SAS group led by Crooke.

  But, why send expert commandos to the south of 
Africa, even with the excuse of
  saving rhinoceros? Even more, if these 
commandos were not saving rhinoceros then, what
  were they really doing? Since long before 
Mandela was set free in 1990 and until present
  days, more than 100,000 South Africans have 
died as the result of act of violence [seeded by 
the WWF] "between blacks". Many observers and 
political analysts attributed this manslaughter 
to the actions provoked by a mysterious "third 
force" [the WWF] which is not the African 
National Congress nor his rival, the Inkata 
Party, of Zulu basis. Attacking these rival 
groups--that later accused each other 
mistakenly--the "third force" [of the WWF] keeps 
alive the flame of violence. "Divide and Rule" 
seems to be the philosophy applied by Prince 
Philip in this case, through the SAS hired by the WWF.

  Crooke and his men were the tools . . . with the excuse of ecology.


  The stated purpose of the WWF and Operation 
Stronghold was "stopping poachers". But, as 
demonstrated by the case of the Ngorongoro crater 
-covering an area of 323 square kilometres in 
Tanzania, is the WWF itself who is paying the poachers!

  Dr. Bernhard Grzimek, one of the founding 
members of the WWF, made an animal census at the 
crater and scandalously denounced that animal 
life was disappearing in the crater. As a result, 
the Masai shepherds were driven out of a region 
that was their habitat for thousands of years.

  In 1964 was performed the best documented 
census ever made in Africa, and one by one, all 
108 rhinoceros in the crater were photographed 
and given a name [after the WWF killed tens of 
thousands of them in the preceding decade]. 
Immediately, the WWF launched a program for 
"saving" them, funding the park wardens. By 1980, 
only 20 rhinoceros were left. None of the three 
warden units ever captured a poacher in years. In 
that same year, a witness sent a letter to the 
offices in the African Wildlife Leadership 
Federation in Nairobi, that gives a clue to what 
happened to the rhinoceros in the crater. The 
witness reported in her letter that the wardens, funded by the WWF
money had killed two tame male rhinoceros and 
wounded a female, "everything in full
daylight". And concluded: "Isn´t quite clear what is going on in the crater?".

Revealing Report

  In October 1994, the Executive Intelligence 
Review (EIR), from Washington, D.C., published
  a long report about the origins and activities 
of the WWF in the world. Its lecture becomes 
obligatory for those who want to know more about 
ecology and how is being used for the 
continuation of British Royal House hegemonic 
policies. From there have been extracted many 
facts used in these chapter and, from its article 
"Philip´s Organization Commits Genocide in 
Africa", I will quote some paragraphs. This 
series begins mentioning a New York Times 
editorial (August 7th, 1994) asking their readers 
to assess the luck of the gorillas in Rwanda, at 
times when hundreds of thousands of refugees were 
starving to death, dysentery and cholera in sinister refugee camps.

  "For the time being ... the gorillas have been 
unharmed. Wonderful notice. Luckily, it has been 
possible to make a count of all creatures but 
two, whose disappearance would be equal to the death of a relative."

  This worrying for 650 gorillas is a symptom of 
at what extent the society is impregnated with 
the psychotic incapacity of Prince Philip from 
distinguishing between animals and human beings. 
The editorial does not mention that the home of 
the gorillas, the Mount Virunga Park, also was 
the home for the guerrilla force from the Rwandan 
Patriotic Front (RPF) that has been on arms since 
October 1990, with the funding by the Ugandan 
president Yoweni Museweni and his boss, Lady 
Lynda Chalker, British Minister of Overseas Promotion".

  "The use of the park at the same time for 
animal reserve and refuge of guerrillas was property
of the British, and [the WWF] has been a major 
part of the great strategy of the British royal 
family for Africa. The cutting out large pieces 
of territory for converting them in "national 
parks", "game preserves", and "ecological 
reserves" led to the indescribable butchery of men and animals
  that bleeds Africa."

  "National parks and game preserves occupy 
1,998,168 square kilometres from southern
  Africa to the Sahara, an extension equal to 
five times the size of California or eight times the
size of England. Although some countries like 
Mauritania have managed to escape the national
  park pest, Tanzania has converted in parks 40% 
of its territory. As in Rwanda, parks
  have various kind of uses:"

  • Eliminate for economic productive reasons 
large extensions of lands. Although the U.N. 
magazine "Choices" predicts that "in the year 
2,000 almost half of Zimbabwe income will come 
from its flora and fauna", the creation of these 
parks have been the largest eviction operation 
seen since Genghis Kahn devastated Central Asia 
in the 13th Century. As one English specialist 
said: "When the British want to get rid of people 
from a region, their tendency is to transform 
that region in a wildlife preserve, which gives 
its "raison d´etre": "This is a preserve, so you 
cannot stay here". Over 17% of small Rwanda are preserves of this kind."

  • "At the same time they prevent the 
development of those lands, the preserves are 
frequently located over strategic mineral fields. 
As an example, the parks on the bordering zones 
of Niger cover an uranium field."

  • "The fact that all parks are administered by 
international organizations as the World Wide 
Fund for Nature, is an attack to national 
sovereignty. Behind the excuse of fighting 
poachers, the administration frequently includes 
paramilitary forces. «The function of the park is 
to maintain those lands out of the local 
government dominion", an expert informed EIR. The 
park is administered by a directive Board, at 
least, originally was like that. They were autocracies in hands of white
conservationists, all of them military» [as 
noted, the ex-colonizer's military fill up the 
administration of most of the 'global land 
trusts' established in our post-colonial era.]

  • "The parks are refuge and parking zone for 
subversive groups of all kinds. As documented in 
this report, parks are located in borders between 
two countries and function as "militarised" 
zones. Prince Philip´s WWF administered the 
gorilla program in the Virunga Parkm when the 
Rwandan Patriotic Front was using the park for 
incursions in Rwanda. Uganda, sponsor of the RPF, came out winning
  when the gorillas were moved because the 
warfare operations there. According to Africa 
Analysis, the RPF invasion made the gorillas 
escape to Uganda and Museweni had the chance of 
starting an "eco-tourism program". Without the 
refuge zones provided by the network of national 
parks of the Royal familiy, the long civil wars 
afflicting Africa since the 70s would have been impossible."
  We have seen just a few of thousands of facts 
that interlock perfectly to show a very clear 
image of the subject: "It is not sufficiently 
clear what´s behind the environmentalism pushed 
by the WWF of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh?

  1. "La Caída Venidera de la Casa de Windsor", 
EIR, Resumen Ejecutivo, Octubre-Noviembre 1994, 
Vol. XI, No. 20-21, EIR News Service, 3331/2 
Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., 2nd. Floor, Washington, DC 20003.


APPENDIX SIX: Prince Bernhard's Legacy: Highly 
Connected Bilderberg Elites Across the World, 
Running Away from Questions about their Organization

Rand Paul Tries to Intimidate and Harass 
Journalist After A Youtube Video about Romney's Bilderberg Connections
  13:16 min

Rand Paul Confronted on Bilderberg - runs away no comment (2:19 min)

Lord Jacob Rothschild gets confronted about Bilderberg (1:48 min)

WeAreChange: Twelve Confrontations of Bilderberg 2012 (30:31 min.)
  1. Tony Blair (10am) WeAreChange Proves Tony 
Blair Lied To Parliament About Bilderberg
  2. Lawrence O'Donnell (11am) MSNBC Lawrence 
ODonnell Too Lazy To Research Bilderberg
  3. Alan Greenspan (12pm) Former Fed Chairman 
Alan Greenspan Confronted on Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove
  4. George Pataki (1pm) Former NY Governor 
Pataki Lies About Attending Bilderberg with Rockefeller
  5. Charlie Rose (2pm) PBSs Charlie Rose Runs Away From Bilderberg Questions
  6. Ted Turner (3pm) CNN Founder Ted Turner 
Supports Population Reduction To 2 Billion
  7. Henry Kissinger (4pm) War Criminal Henry 
Kissinger confronted on Bilderberg and Mass Murder
  8. Jill Abramson (5pm) NY Times Editor-in-Chief 
Jill Abramson Runs From Bilderberg Question
  9. Vernon Jordan (6pm) Clinton Adviser Vernon Jordan on Bilderberg
  10. Paul Wolfensohn (7pm) Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn
  11. Lou Dobbs and Paula Zahn (8pm) FOXs Lou 
Dobbs on Bilderberg, New World Order
  12. Lord Jacob Rothschild (9pm) Lord Jacob Rothschild

Confronted NY Times Editor-in-Chief Jill Abramson 
Runs From Bilderberg Question (3:26 min.)

PBS's Charlie Rose Runs Away From Bilderberg Question (2:40 min.)

Clinton Adviser Vernon Jordan on Bilderberg: "We 
Don't Want Any Press" (2:20 min.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnfInzaP2LQ


Conclusion: The Two Levels of Ignorance that Help 
Cause Environmental Degradation

  You know why the WWF continues to be run like 
like other land grant trusts--run by banks, 
corporations, colonial paramilitaries, secret 
services, and secret societies and casuists?

  It is because they have fooled you on two levels.

  The first level of ignorance is hopefully over 
now. It is the basic knowledge that a Malthusian 
strategy (arranging human demographic 
depopulation, of spatial depopulation, and of 
global jurisdictions) creating 'emptied' land 
grant/trusts is a failure in environmentalism.

  It is a failure because it removes integrated 
people and commodity production from the land 
that have the only potential direct ecological 
self-interests to maintain it--leaving it open 
instead for those groups that only have zero 
self-interest in maintaining it against 
supply-side destruction from the outside which 
the WWF is institutionally enabling.

Then more readily these kind of supply-side 
interests (absentee imperial states, 
corporations, banks) are given full reign, in the 
emptiness of their Malthusian land trusts without 
checks and balances and with their complete 
jurisdiction, it can only be a failure in 
protecting the environment in these areas and 
only be successful in destroying it.

  Because of this knowledge, hopefully you will 
help to shut down the WWF and other neo-colonial 
land grant frameworks--by directing your beliefs, 
money, and time in environmentalism to other 
strategies for environmental improvement, toward 
strategies that work instead of fail.

  However, there is a second level of ignorance: 
some people are still trapped in these casuists' 
employment of a Malthusian conceit that served as 
a legitimation for their desired demographic 
depopulation, spatial depopulation, and global 
jurisdictions. It is desired by these supply side 
globalists for very different rationales than the 
environmental ones that motivate many naive 
others who just take these global land trusts at 
their word that they are 'working to save the 
environment' when every independent audit of the 
WWF for over 60 years says their (Malthusian) 
strategies they are actors in setting up the 
destruction of the environment. However, people 
say to themselves, "well the WWF versions of 
strategies are corrupt and self-defeating 
obviously, though the methods of Malthusianism 
are still sound, or really, there are no other 
theories of why degradation occurs so we are left 
with supporting demographic depopulation, spatial 
depopulation, and global jurisdictions anyway."

  In other words, the second level of ignorance 
is an impediment that any amount of knowledge 
about its bad effects is unable to remove because 
it is held as an ideology: that many really 
believe in the ideological conceit of 
Malthusianism as a "scientific" theory and merely 
see it being perverted by particular ecological 
criminals as the cover for their "real reasons" 
of empire instead of seeing it as a difficulty 
with the theory and its recommendations in the 
first place. Such thinking reveals that many 
helplessly believe that Malthusianism is the only 
form of environmentalism available.

  However, if you now know that Malthusianism was 
not invented (or resurrected) as a scientific 
theory of human-ecological relations and was only 
invented as the cover for empire in the first 
place whether 200 years or or only 60 years ago, 
you might expect now that Malthusianism has 
little other purpose than to protect empires' 
tyrannous activities and displace blame, past and 
present, upon the victims, and distract from the 
guilty ones perpetrating human and environmental degradation.

  Malthusianism originally was a British Empire 
ideology and mystification never scientifically 
demonstrable--and only used in politics instead. 
Later, Malthusianism was a Bilderberg land trust 
empire ideology and mystification. Plus ca change?

  On this second point of ideological ignorance 
(really ideological entrapment in Malthusianism), 
hopefully you are more aware now that there are 
many other theories of environmental 
degradation--five to be exact: neo-Malthusianism, 
eco-Marxism, ecological modernization, 
Bookchin-ite anti-statism, and my own (somewhat 
similar to Bookchin--read about that here.)

  There is one less theory about environmental 
improvement--four to be exact--because ecoMarxism 
is without any solutions or rather its solutions 
look closer to Bookchin-ite solutions (see Schnaiberg for example).

  The bioregional state is a synthesis view of 
much of comparative history and what has worked 
in environmental-human protection. It is a 
"fourth ring" in the "three ring" environmental 
circus of solutions at present: voluntary 
bioregional localism, voluntary ecological 
modernization/industrial ecology, and 
neo-Malthusianism--and the fourth ring of the bioregional state.

  The bioregional state takes the best from two 
other rings (localism and ecological 
modernization--while rejecting Malthusianism) and 
merges them with a larger framework.

  By the 21st century, update your science: the 
exclusively reliance on a single-variable 
populationist view of human-ecological relations 
(popularized as an ideology for running the 
British Empire in the early 1800s and nothing 
more--see Mike Davis) is seriously challenged by 
many ecological thinkers from Amartya Sen, to 
Elinor Ostrom, to Ester Boserup, to Mike Davis, to me:
Additional Critiques of Neo-Malthusianism
  In addition to the historical critique of the 
use of Malthusianism above in the past 60 years, 
there is the historical critique of it over the 
past 200 years by Mike Davis. Check out that 
book: Late Victorian Holocausts. That's 'old fashioned' Malthusianism.
  However, there is neo-Malthusianism, the 
attempt to update Malthus's frameworks that began 
in the 1960s. Works such as Hardin's the tragedy 
of the commons (1968) reformulated Malthusian 
thought about abstract population increases 
causing famines into a model of individual 
selfishness at larger scales causing degradation 
of common pool resources such as the air, water, 
the oceans, or general environmental conditions. 
Hardin offered dual unchecked supply-side 
solutions--privatization of resources or 
government regulation--to environmental 
degradation caused by tragedy of the commons 
conditions. However, we have seen that these 
'solutions' are exacerbating the environmental 
degradation in the WWF case! Many other 
sociologists shared this view of solutions well 
into the 1970s (see Ophuls). There have been many 
critiques of this view, particularly political 
scientist Elinor Ostrom or economists Amartya Sen and Ester Boserup.

  Even though much of mainstream journalism 
considers Malthusianism the only view of 
environmentalism, most sociologists would 
disagree with Malthusianism since social 
organizational issues of environmental 
degradation are more demonstrated to cause 
environmental problems than abstract population 
or selfishness per se. For examples of this 
critique, Ostrom in her book Governing the 
Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for 
Collective Action (1990) argues that instead of 
self interest always causing degradation, it can 
sometimes motivate people to take care of their 
common property resources only if they are 
durable residents in particular ecological 
spaces. To do this they must change the basic 
organizational rules of resource use. Her 
research provides evidence for sustainable 
regional resource management systems around 
common pool resources that have lasted for 
centuries in some areas of the world.

  Amartya Sen argues in his book Poverty and 
Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation 
(1980) that population expansion fails to cause 
famines or degradation as Malthusians or 
Neo-Malthusians argue. Instead, in documented 
cases, a lack of political entitlement to 
resources that exist in abundance causes famines 
in some populations. (This is the basic idea that 
Mike Davis draws upon in his deeper history of 
the famines in Ireland and the Third World 
European empires in the 1700s onward: the more 
European supply-side control, the more 
commodities, and the more famines because people 
had less and less regional jurisdiction over the 
commodities in question that were simply moved 
out of the area instead of feeding the starving.) 
Sen documents how famines can occur even in the 
midst of plenty and even in the context of low 
populations. He argues that famines (and 
environmental degradation) would only occur in 
non-functioning democracies or unrepresentative states.

  Ester Boserup argues in her book The Conditions 
of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian 
Change under Population Pressure (1965) from 
inductive, empirical case analysis that Malthus's 
more deductive conception of a presumed 
one-to-one relationship with agricultural scale 
and population is actually reversed. Instead of 
agricultural technology and scale determining and 
limiting population as Malthus attempted to 
argue, Boserup argued the world is full of cases 
of the direct opposite: that population changes 
and expands agricultural methods.

  Eco-Marxist scholar Allan Schnaiberg argues 
against Malthusianism with the rationale that 
under larger capitalist economies, human 
degradation moved from localized, 
population-based degradation to organizationally 
caused degradation of capitalist political 
economies to blame. He gives the example of the 
organized degradation of rainforest areas in 
which states and capitalists push people off the 
land before it is degraded by organizational 
means. (This is what we have seen in the case of the WWF.)
  Thus, many authors are critical of 
Malthusianism—from sociologists (Schnaiberg), to 
economists (Sen and Boserup), to political 
scientists (Ostrom)--and all focus on how a 
country's social organization of its extraction 
can degrade the environment independent of 
abstract population. And many others have 
solutions for environmental degradation--that are 
innately solutions to Malthusian ideology.
  Hopefully you will look into a more workable 
alternative for thinking both about environmental 
degradation and thinking about environmental 
improvement--the bioregional state.

posted by Mark at 3:46 PM

Post a Comment
Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home
About Me

A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an 
environmental sociologist interested in 
establishing material and organizational 
sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for 
interesting materials/technologies, inspiring 
ideas, or institutional examples of 
sustainability to inspire others to recognize 
their choices now. To be fatalistic about an 
unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, 
given all our options. *(If "earth" is defined in 
a planetary sense, concerning comparative 
historical knowledge and interest in the past 
10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.

View my complete profile
Previous Posts
California's "Independent" Redistricting Commissio...
Inventing the Bioregional State in Bolivia: Region...
Differences of the Bioregional State Compared to B...
Whitaker On Trialectics: The Comparative History o...
Is the Future of Korean Democracy Sustainable? Two...
Quotes from Toward a Bioregional State, the Book
In the Bioregional State, Nuclear Power Would Have...
The Raw Material Regime: How Politics Demotes Gree...
Bioregional Videos: Savouring Europe, Severing the...
On Trends and Questions of Individually "Voting Fr...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20131115/e6138e29/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20131115/e6138e29/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
+44 (0)7786 952037
Twitter: @TonyGosling http://twitter.com/tonygosling
uk-911-truth+subscribe at googlegroups.com
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."


"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which 
alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be 
revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell 
you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the 
ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20131115/e6138e29/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list