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)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGhUniEYR3Y
best wishes to you all ;-)
Tony
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
http://biostate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-bioregional-state-can-save-pandas.html
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
elites 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. Thats one more than Woodward and
Bernstein used. Romneys 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:
Emacs!
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)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4909cf4IuY&feature=plcp
[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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSztqfLT3F0
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.
Timeline
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?
Conclusion
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.
FULL FILM LINKS:
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.]
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4909cf4IuY&feature=plcp
[removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]
2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGJnYF1ufs8&feature=plcp
[removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]
3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSztqfLT3F0
4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVEeX79mLd4&feature=plcp
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTfmyneFiBI
The German version of the documentary was once
said to be at this link though it is gone now:
http://bit.ly/WWFdoc
The English version 'Silence of the Panda' was
once available to purchase here though it is gone now as well:
http://www.united-docs.com/dokumentationen/2011/silence_of_pandas.phtml
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:
https://www.globalscreen.de/content/advanced_search?q=&formats=&topics=&director=Huismann&cast=&producer=&date[min_year]=&date[max_year]=&intended_audiences=&language=&duration_operator=lt&duration=&episodes_operator=lt&episodes=
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.
https://www.globalscreen.de/television.documentary.hd_content/content/show/108620
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 worlds 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. Bernhards
appropriateness as consort of the future Queen of
the Netherlands would later become a matter of some public debate.
Prince Bernhards 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 Princes 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 mercenariesmostly Britishto
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":] Bernhards 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
Bernhards 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
CHAIR OF THE BILDERBERG GROUP with his own
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
(19351942), 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 19591962, 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 19471948, 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 worlds 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.
IUCNs 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 Unions 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 (18411922) 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
corporations 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.
TNCs 1,900 corporate sponsors include ARCO, BHP,
BP, Chevron, Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical,
DuPont, General Electric, General Mills, General
Motors, Georgia-Pacific, McDonalds, 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.
TNCs 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 TNCs 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:
http://www.newint.org/features/2005/10/01/corporations/
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
EXCLUSIVE
ALBANY Gov. Patersons 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.
Ive suspected theres some sort of close
relationship between the state and TNC that
resulted in this price, because it didnt 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 Countys 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 its 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 agencys 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.
---
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_tung_dqC1aNOJsYGrDZov9t6v1I#ixzz0keF3KYp5
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 Natures 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 Homebuilders 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 organizations 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 EnvironmentStanford 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 CaliforniaSanta 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 CaliforniaSanta 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
Source
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.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Nature_Conservancy
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!)
Whats 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, youd 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
Earths biodiversity? Well, if those questions
were raised, they didnt 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 CIs Tropical Ecology
Assessment and Monitoring Networks 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 doesnt 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 were on the subject of
corporate-environmentalist ties, heres 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.,
dont 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. doesnt
tally the money it receives from scions like Rob
Walton in the corporate column either. But
Walton, in this article, doesnt 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 Agencys Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
4. How Environmental Groups Gone Bad Greenwash
Logging Earths 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 worlds 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 Earths 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 Earths last primary rainforests and other
old growth forests. Collectively the NGO Old
Forest Sell-Outs are greenwashing FSCs
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 worlds
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.
FSCs 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 Earths 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 biospheres 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 mafias 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 Kleenexs 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.
---
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/04/16/how-environmental-groups-gone-bad-greenwash-logging-earths-last-primary-old-forests/
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.
Conclusions
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?
References:
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
Malthusianismfrom 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
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home
About Me
Mark
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
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicEnquiry
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Diggers350/
http://www.reinvestigate911.org/
http://www.thisweek.org.uk/
http://www.911forum.org.uk/
http://groups.google.com/group/uk-911-truth
uk-911-truth+subscribe at googlegroups.com
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
_________________
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.globalresearch.ca
www.public-interest.co.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/series/Bristol+Broadband+Co-operative
www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1407615751783.2051663.1274106225&l=90330c0ba5&type=1
<http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf>http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which
alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
<https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/>https://217.72.179.7/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
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.
http://tinyurl.com/6ct7zh6
-------------- 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