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.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Ecological Reformation in Consumption: Commodity Ecology and Other Points on Markets and Balanced Property Regimes Per Region
Ecological Reformation in Consumption
This is the first post of three on details toward the wider Ecological Reformationdiscussed previously.
The Ecological Reformation of the world has four parts: state, science/education, consumption, and finance. I've already published about one of these four parts, the state part about green constitutional engineering in Toward a Bioregional State (2005), so these three linked posts update the topic toward the wider Ecological Reformation required for sustainability.
Unsustainability is a form of corruption that denies us choices and represses upon us unrepresentative and unregionally sound arrangements in many areas of life--material, ideological, cultural, and institutional. Therefore, only institutional and material additions reflecting greater regionalized desires for wider sustainable choices, that fit many different particular situations and priorities (instead of a 'one size fits all arrangement'), will get us to sustainability. These additions are forms of checks and balances in many areas of our lives against those unrepresentative corrupt 'one size doesn't fit all' arrangements of gatekeepting and repressive arrangements in state politics, in material relations, in regional cultural durability, in education, and in financial relations (a post to come). Such more regionalized additions--balanced with larger conflict resolution in larger frameworks--will lead us innately to sustainability as a series of more well organized frameworks of greater ecological self-interest to have a plurality of more choices of regionally sound arrangements in materials, institutions, and cultures.
For background before talking about the other three parts in general, the book Toward a Bioregional State describes the green constitutional engineering issues: the required additional checks and balances against informal gatekeeping and against the political corruption that causes environmental degradation in poorly aligned formal institutions, districting[2], voting laws[2], and apportionment frameworks of districts to get to sustainability.
These suggestions for additions to formal democratic institutions throughout the world are all mentioned in the book. The book mentions over 60 different additional checks and balances in formal green constitutional engineering.
First, the bioregional state argues that what causes environmental degradation is political corruption, gatekeeping, and its interrelated bad institutional design created by such informal corruption and gatekeeping. Environmental degradation is caused by strategic, corrupt, informal uses of state institutions and policy in attempts to gatekeep and even repress against an already existing green majority in the world and some groups' attempt to have you accept the same degradative elites as the leaders of sustainability.
It is a "bait and switch" for people to insist that waiting is required for sustainability for the applications to "mature." Well, they have already matured and are lying ripe on the ground while they are being ignored. Removing political gatekeeping is thus the priority instead of simply material or technological introductions. It matters little if you spend your lives getting better technologies and materials to be in place when they can quickly be destroyed by unrepresentative, degradative crony politics in the pre-existing material relations. So politics is unavoidable. We have degradation because of gatekept unrepresentative politics that repress the already existing sustainable options, instead of because of a lack of sustainable materials and technologies.
This means there is a dual informal corruption creating environmental degradation: one in political/ideological gatekeeping and the other in gatekeeping against sustainable material/technological choices. This informal corruption overall has one formal element that maintains it: it requires a lack of democratically required additional checks and balances. Otherwise it would cease to exist and such dual informal corruptions would be solved. All three corruptions create degradation both
humanly and environmentally:
Toward A Bioregional State is a novel approach to development
and to sustainability. The book proposes that instead of sustainability being
an issue of population scale, managerial economics, or technocratic
planning, an overhaul of formal democratic institutions is required.
This is because environmental degradation has more to do with the biased
interactions of formal institutions and informal corruption. Because of
corruption, we have environmental degradation. Current formal
democratic institutions of states are forms of informal gatekeeping, and
as such, intentionally maintain democracy as ecologically “out of
sync”. The book argues that we are unable to reach sustainability without a
host of additional ecological checks and balances. These ecological
checks and balances would demote corrupt uses of formal institutions by
removing capacities for gatekeeping against democratic feedback.
Sustainability is a politics that is already here seen in global green majorities—only waiting to be
formally organized.
The Fourth Ring of Environmentalism in the Bioregional State is Different than the 'Four Kills'
Distinct from the bioregional state, these three rings are the other ways some people offer to 'help the environment' via support of one of 'the four kills':
kill people (the Malthusian view on policy and land--that doesn't work),
kill 'capitalism' for either purist decentralized leftist anarchy (that has its own degradation potential in history ignored by these people) or for purist leftist totalitarian states (that have their own even worse examples of human and environmental degradation ignored by these people as well). Decentralized frameworks by themselves are unable to handle cross-regional pollution or have conflict resolution of it. On the other hand, centralized frameworks when poorly designed are just as worse. The totalitarian USSR, by intentionally destroying most bioregional jurisdictional arenas inherited from an (accidentally) more bioregionally specific Russian Czardom (I'll post on that someday), demoted all regional and historically situated cultural feedback into its politics. Thus the USSR degraded its landscape and ignored citizen feedback in a far more unrepresentative development across its multiple regions, and had one gatekeeping party as well. There was far more environmental degradation in the USSR despite the assumption that it removed 'degrading capitalism' [sic]. To the contrary, the USSR created a degrading corrupt statism and degrading state economy. There was far more degradation in the USSR than the democratic United States ever politically created (even with the U.S.'s partial if gatekept democratic arrangements).
In other words, greening Marxist-Leninism or greening (Marxist-inspired) anarchism is the old wine in new bottles ploy as Marxists attempt to go green--the 'eco-Marxist' view--even though green is a completely different issue. Many eco-Marxists (particularly Eckersley) ignore how they plan repeat the mistakes of history by erecting another tyrannical equally degradative state (some want a global state like Eckersley!) through ignoring this state's own corruption in the solutions they proffer. Eco-marxists ignore as well as it's hardly all capitalism that is causing the issue of environmental degradation [Freudenberg] and it's only certain market actors and their institutions (instead of all market institutions) that choose to degrade and are politically protected in their degradation all out of "proportionality" to other more sustainable markets. Eco-Marxists by mystifying that all markets have difficulties (instead of just some of them) ignore that corrupted states themselves degrade the environment as political entities for their own rationales twisting the economy to their corrupt degradative designs (instead of being only victimized or pressured by economic forces) all out of proportion to markets as well.
However, it's hardly the other simplism that "all states degrade" that is the difficulty either. It's certain orientations of them that degrade--the same with markets. And poorly oriented states can destroy markets via their crony corruption in this way or via their militarism--the latter state militarism which is a massive direct cause of degradation in the world that is forced politically instead of merely economically.
So I disbelieve that abstract nouns like 'capitalism' or 'all states' are really the cause or even an issue in environmental degradation, when empirically particular raw material regimes cause environmental degradation. This is done via the two informal corruptions mentioned above, and then sealed in the third corruption of uses of formal institutions and formal policy against market competition and against consumer choice.
Therefore, I equally disbelieve that abstract nouns like 'the state' are categorically the cause either. It is all about particular market and particular orientations of states that are the issue: thus institutional changes are solutions--instead of totalizing ideologies are the solution that blame whole categories of human experience.
Wedding the particular bad markets and bad states, thus it is only the political primacy of some choices of materials--and the many interests connected to them (instead of just all economic interests)--that cause environmental degradation. The greater political primacy in particular bad choices of politicized materials/interests can do four things politically that mere 'capitalists' are unable to do: cause degradation, stop or hamper political feedback against it, politically remove other market material/technological sustainable options in the same material categories through corrupt legal and subsidization methods, and thus demote actual markets.
However, there is a great flaw in assuming that all orientations of markets can move toward sustainability as well. This is the supply versus demand issue, discussed below in its own section. It's an internal a difficulty to particular markets that cause environmental degradation--instead of categorically a problem in all markets.
kill one's own wider material and social relationships ('voluntary depoliticized simplicity'; 'voluntary zero population growth;' and much of 'single region bioregionalism'; voluntarily separating oneself by reducing any feedback politically to corrupt institutions. However, that only let's them be more corrupt in endangering you. Many in this ring support only a personally changed ethic of consumption and/or reduced consumption of bad things they still want--very different from some bioregionalists out in Gaviotas(more)wanting to expand wider material and social relationshipsin more socially shared consumption of sustainable good things. That is a different Gaviotan plan I prefer to this one of withdrawal. However, I see the motivation of this voluntary adopted solution as starting something toward this latter goal though it many end before it gets there, stillborn, if it is conceived as a mere personal solution to sustainability. Such individualized or mere single-regionalized solutions to sustainability is fine for a beginning for those who are trapped or who still choose to remain in wider degradative systems or are unable or unwilling to leave. However, it is a false idea to expect that that this by itself will lead anywhere beyond yourself or your region, automatically, without a wider plan for a multi-regional bioregionalism--i.e., how to join with others. Much about the bioregional state encourages both single-region bioregionalism combined with (instead of removing) multiple-region bioregionalism--like in the North American Bioregional Congress for example. Thus I feel that some in this ring are starting their group journey to sustainability though some people treat it as the end of their journey to sustainability--which leaves degradative frameworks to continue all around them, flowing into them.
kill regulation: this is a right-wing view of sustainability, seen in much Ecological Modernization. Such right-wing interpretations of Ecological Modernization only want to exclusively deals with reinterpreting neoliberalism with a green coat of paint instead of how Ecological Modernization was really meant to be an entirely transformative toward material flow arrangement instead of just being used as an privatized enticement for sustainable material uses. As only policy change however, it merely allows ongoing degradative entities of businesses to continue to use degradative materials/technologies voluntarily, to adapt (or do nothing) toward sustainability at the pace they want. This reintepreted neoliberalism under right-wing greens includes many current ideas for private 'global carbon markets/credits' as well. Both are views of most 'ecological modernization.'
Flame on: However wonderful and however much I support this idea in some part, I object to global carbon credit markets as a huge sham in ecological modernization non-regulation policies because [1] it does nothing for the environment while it makes billions of dollars for its dirty investors in fraudulently claimed pro-environment derivatives [2] while enshrining a globalist Malthusian police state, and [3] because any CO2 changes, up or down, are now known to be entirely unmoored to similar or recent temperature changes. In fact, the planet and the oceans (thanks to the knowledge from the JASON satellite) are cooling instead of heating up since the 1990s. Other readings of the actual climate record (instead of mere humanly (mis)programmed computer models) indicate that real temperature changes lead CO2 changes instead of visa versa, i.e., it's hard to find examples anywhere in the real historical record where CO2 changes directly cause the temperature changes instead of the temperature changes being merely associated with CO2 rises that has been twisted to sell carbon taxes. [4] Research Climategate and wake up: our compromised scientific establishment has to answer for its intentionally aired climatological lies for 20 years, exposed in part by tranches of their own emails that say the climate researchers themselves don't really see any global warming in their data, though their funding, their ideologies, and their political allies pushing for globalized jurisdictions make them want to believe something they are unable to find: planetary warming connected to anthropogenic CO2. [5] Moreover some governments like the U.K. are just turning the carbon
scare into a means to sugar-coat and to legitimate the raising of taxes
for themselves (as they scoff and deny sometimes or later, oops, actually admit such publicly claimed/legitimated 'green taxes' on second look are without any connection to improving the environment. The 'emperor always has no clothes' and particularly so "the carbon emperor has no clothes." Globalist state elites (like Al Gore) team with private globalists like bankers and corporations involved in oil companies (like Ken Lay of ENRON and like Goldman Sachs) to attempt to co-opt greenist thought to justify tightening their own group tyrannous jurisdictions over us that is perhaps nearing its scandalous conclusion. (on Al Gore, Ken Lay of ENRON, and Goldman Sachs CEOs as the ones writing up the globalized carbon credits/taxes/trading plans see: [1][2]) If you are unaware of all this that has been in the public realm for years, smarten up please because your future depends on more knowledgeable green supports than artificial green supports being manipulated to sell the same old degradative purposes. Flame off.
Anyway, in other words to allow ecological modernization's two major wings--mere non-regulatory markets, combined with mere voluntarily applied material/technological changes 'at the pace' degraders want (or in the marketized unregulated mechanisms they want)--means typically self-maintaining or even enhancing the legal jurisdictions of certain degradative arrangements instead of solving them. It means passing the leadership to the corrupt degraders themselves. Most governments are giving degradative suppliers carte blanche and the right to pollute, with their unfulfilled promise that they 'might' improve.
Meanwhile, on state versions of policies of ecological modernization, it is being justified to ramp up huge taxation on people in general. This is bad because instead of people in general as to blame for environmental degradation, it is the governmentally protected degradative raw material regimes that no one chooses in the market--oil, coal, nuclear, bio-toxic versions of plastics, GMO crops, etc.--perhaps an enemy in all 92 categories--that are [1] causing much biodiveristy loss, degradation and corruption, [2] at the same time they are gatekeeping many alternative materials and technologies already available and [3] gatekeeping political feedback against them that already exists. In other words, they [4] sell you artificial non-regulatory strategies for some supply-side degraders and call it ecological modernization; meanwhile, they additionally sell you mass taxation strategies of regulation for others and call it environmental degradation as well. Thus most supporters here enshrine the (clear lack of) principles to offer entirely voluntary corporate self-regulation on the one hand while offering increasingly tyrannous state regulation of masses of individuals. So on these four points I am skeptical that a voluntary privately introduced ecological modernization by itself will be allowed to create sustainability instead it will in these two policies only give more money and power to the economic supply-side degraders and the state-based degraders as well. It will be unable to create a materials revolution in ecological modernization--unlike how the commodity ecology frameworks can.
You notice that these other 'four kills' views are rather, um, negative and tyrannical? The bioregional state on the contrary is a positive addition of checks and balances on corruption, materials, culture, and finance--additions to the present to set up more regionalized and wider choices of sustainable cultures and institutions for our sustainability that subsequently work together as well.
Ecological Reformation: Featuring the Consumptive Issues
However back to the main point. In the foreword of Toward a Bioregional State, a wider Ecological Reformation was suggested as a requirement for sustainability, of which the bioregional state is just a part. The Ecological Reformation is the required changes
beyond statist green constitutional engineering to get to sustainability.
This was conceived via three other mixed cultural and institutional areas--i.e., institutional suggestions for maintaining cultural sustainability in the professions/sciences/education, consumption, and finance.
In other words, what would sustainability look like in a wider cultural sense--materially, educationally, and financially--instead of only as a framework of green constitutional engineering? What institutions would encourage feedback from the ecological self-interests of sustainable multi-regional culture with greater regional self-determination on priorities of sustainability along with common interactions across their regions? To summarize:
1. Toward a Bioregional State is the green constitutional engineering issues;
2.
Toward an Ecological Reformation is the other three nodes of cultural/institutional interactions with this green constitutional engineering in Toward a
Bioregional State.
When in connection with the state institutions, these areas of the wider Ecological Reformation would be a four-fold network of sustainable democratic changes of institutions and multiple choices. Within them, people could grow up from youth to old age in a sustainable society (instead of grow up in this). They can additionally choose different cultural arenas across multiple bioregions in which to act out our very different desires for subjective quality of life (that might change over time) each though within a regionally-aware, different ecological orientation of the same kind of desired, sustainable, objective quality of life. In order for sustainability to be adapted to different regions and different cultures' ecological self-interest worldwide, it is unlikely to ever have 'one great technology or material solution' as much as it is unlikely to have 'one great global ideology' that is suitable for all ecoregions equally, in other words. Why? Because such material or ideological consolidations promise sustainability in their mystification when all they historically have ever delivered is an even larger unadapted ecological tyranny.
Instead, sustainability requires ongoing integration into commodity ecology employing as a resource pre-existing regional cultural variations--or with the design of creating them if they have been destroyed. So it is best to set up arrangements and institutions in which already regionally embedded people can decide on an open-future of sustainability and ongoing adaptation for themselves as a learning process--sustainability adapted materially/technologically to different regions and adapted to their changing subjective cultural qualities of life in making these decisions and in the changing material/technological knowledge options.
Just as there will be multiple bioregionally-sensitive material/technological choices, why should people cling to the idea that there is only one ideologically or cultural possible form or version of sustainable culture?
This post is about the 'state-consumption' and material aspects of Ecological Reformation,
described elsewhere. In this section of Ecological Reformation, the bioregional state recommends:
1. The Commodity Ecology. I have written a three part post on this topic extensively elsewhere. One in all watersheds of the world.
2. Within this institution, two forms of major corruptions of markets and politics are removed. This institution builds a culture of expectations and a material arrangement where [1] particular categories of suppliers are shall be unable to purchase and destroy their own market competition (like oil companies buying up electric car technologies and refusing to use it, etc.--watch the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?) and [2] particular categories of suppliers are unable to cross-own in other material categories and thus bias the markets in other venues. All suppliers would have to establish a separate business for different applications. Only in that way are their material choices and offerings open to competition in that material category. This would be like oil companies in the energy category broken up from having any other applications in other material categories, so that they would more autonomously compete with other energy choices instead of drawing upon their financial capacities shifted from other material markets to force shakeout and monopolization and less choices and more supply side bias against consumers--all of which lead to human and environmental degradation. Another example would be how separate oil companies would have to compete in the ambient heat category as autonomous companies selling heating oil against other more sustainable options, so that they would be unable to draw upon their financial arrangements in other areas to destroy market choices and to lessen consumer options--forcing their products upon people simply because the corrupt supplier has been successful in repressively removing market competition yet not through market competition at all as how they do it. [3] With suppliers in a region more intentionally divided instead of consolidated against demand, markets, and democracy, all materials in the region would thus be more open to consumer feedback per application and per the choice, i.e., more likely to be under regionalized consumer and democratic pressures to be interlinked for sustainability in material and waste flows with each other in various categories in the Commodity Ecology (see the post above) or subject to being de-licensed if they persist in unsustainable behaviors. No business can be an island: it has to fit within a particularly regionally sound sustainable series of other business relations. A business that pollutes its fellow regional businesses is thus easily replaced with other options that are more sustainable for the region. Regions as a democratic pressure and a demand pressure can thus facilitate the material choices they want for sustainability without being gatekept by powerfully corrupt supply-side interests which is the main difficulty currently in any sustainable development of materials and technologies in attempting to fit a particular region.
5. There are other points I will add later--like issues of assuring a lack of domination in any singular hegemonic form of land tenure property relations in any regional land ownership/leases/rents in particular watersheds. This means a check in balance between different kinds of property relations: meaning simultaneously having [1] forms of 'bio'nationalization (regional collective ownership of a natural good or aspect of their economics--instead of a nationalization and removal of regional oversight); [2] forms of private property; and [3] forms of co-operative owned property. A major form of corruption and degradation (human and environmental) is distant unrepresentative state political primacy over the material relations of a region. To the contrary, a background of a thirded choice in property relations (to be maintained or adjusted based on ongoing regional issues) maintains a consumptive check and balance on material and cultural politics as well so that open ongoing choice and capacity to change with cultural, technological, and ecological changes can more readily remain the open-ended hegemonic force in a regions culture, materials, and politics. If it gets corrupted itself, there is appeal to a higher level outside of the bioregion/watershed to move toward some form of conflict resolution over it only if there is a bioregional commonwealth form of bioregional state. (Most people's ideas of secession for instance ignores the fact that secession may fail to make a moral environment either, environmentally or culturally. It it best to have the local people have a choice of regions to live within to avoid failing corrupt ones, as well as to have other jurisdictional frameworks that can check and balance their own regional corruption if it so occurs. For example, redisribution can take place when a particular category of the above any category becomes more than 49%-50% of a watershed. Thus a ration of 33/33/33 is the ideal, though there is an allowance for the real pragmatic world of different watersheds simply keeping any category from being 50% of a watershed. For example, if private property, 'bionationalized' property (regional oversight of common goods/property), and cooperative owned property were at the ratio of 45/25/30, this would be within the window of allowances. However, if one section became closer to 50/30/20, then redistribution of property would take place to balance out giving the watershed greater choices of property once more so that no singular form of property ever dominates the human and ecolgoical open future of the watershed. Only in this context will the people in a region be capable of making optimal decisions for themselves on ongoing changes instead of being gatekept in a certain direction by supply side or systemic interests in their region. Equally if there is "too much" bionationalization or co-operative ownership, then the forced sales go toward private property as well to balance it out back toward 33/33/33.
Markets don't create degradation categorically as an ideology. Degradation is something to do with particular materials, in particular markets, and in particular political relations. However, one issue that all the many particular cases of degradation have is a common supply-side gatekept arrangement creating degradation--whether from supply-side managerial states or supply-side managerial material suppliers. The corollary of this is that the many cases of sustainability have a common balanced supply, demand, and representative political arrangement. Thus more representative states and more balanced market relations of supply and demand (i.e., where demand has multiple choices of materials supplied instead of being locked into monoposonies or monopolies) can be conditions under more sustainable commodity relationships in a representative, open-ended system of ongoing adaptations, multiple consumer choices, and political choices.
In other words, if you see human or environmental degradation in materials in other words, expand other consumer choices in the category of material use of the degradative material. Or, if you have degradation due to corrupt politics, expand citizen choices for better forms of representation. You would be surprised how much corrupt politicans and the corrupt degradative material suppliers hate these simple options that widen your choices more than anything--because the base origin of their corruption is to cut out consumer/citizen choice so that consumer/citizens are 'forced' into their clientelsitic, degradative relationships against their will.
To begin this posts's "other points", I wanted to say something more on the similarities and differences between the bioregional state's view of the place of markets and Bookchin's views on the same. Only some of this has been already discussed elsewhere.
On the one hand, as Michael Sandel promotes, we might differentiate markets in material items (commodities, physical items) and markets in 'non-material' items (education, voting, human health). On the other hand, since we live in a world of interscientific mixtures, even in so called 'non-material' areas (for instance 'medicine/health' is a material relation; voting is a material relation to particular methods of counting votes; and education is a particular relation to particular educational materials), markets may have more material human/environmental degradation effects depending on their supply-biased relationships regardless of whether we semantically construct an artificial dichtomy between 'material' and 'non-material' markets. Moreover, this supply-side effect of coruption on markets can both delimit market choices and can damage the quality of the 'non-material' issues delivered as well.
So I am skeptical that it's fine to categorically promote totalizing markets "only in materials" as Sandel does and to merely to avoid them in non-material issues as he recommends, because his whole arguement is just a semantic one instead of a real world division, and second, because markets both categories can turn out bad outcomes--though only in certain supply-sided biased orientations.
This section describes what bad orientations of markets or states to avoid: the ones that encourage wider supply versus demand dynamics, where suppliers have greater powers over the consumers in the material or non-material goods provisioning dynamics.
These bad supply side biased situations damage a state's politics with corruption, and damage a people's health, ecologies, whole economies, the availability of alternative choices, and thus damage the capacity of open markets themselves.
I want instead to differentiate totalizing market reliance with politically regulated market reliance.
On the one hand then, totalizing markets are bad because they are mechanisms that create cultural and civic and political feudalism and corruption--turning out out bad material outcomes and bad non-material outcomes because of their supply-side bias against consumers and citizens. In such totalizing markets, the poor have all the risk and are more desperate to sell themselves while getting substandard material and non-material goods, while the people who already have everything are just given all the benefits.
On the other hand, markets are good if totalizing supply-side biased and corrupt situations can be avoided because markets may potentially set the elite against each other (instead of coordinating with each other) to fulfill public goods in materials supply.
However, these totalizing market 'solutions' are bad jurisdictions in your life to promote because any "market" fulfillment of public material goods or public non-material goods rarely happens. Instead it is merely postponed and promised over and over without delivery. Instead, totalizing market jurisdictions leads toward [1] totalizing markets of corrupt oligarchic cartels and [2] conspiracies of the bigger suppliers to set the prices and [3] to reduce the quality of what they provide against consumer wishes, [4] while corruptly politically removing other options materially from markets, forcing people to buy their substandard supply-side biased materials. In other words, [5] all supply-side relationships in 'material' or 'non-material' items create social triage instead of create a situation of supply equals demand. They promise and lie it will be "supply equals demand" though what happens is their triage of supply versus demand.
The larger the entities doing this, the more they defraud the consumers with bad supply-side versions of what they are selling (whether material or non-material goods) and they attempt more the political removal of other alternatives that consumers are more naturally seeking out. These supply-side challenging options are removed by corruption [1] whether by having their bought politicians overprice or overregulate alternatives to keep them out [2] while lowering regulation on the supply-side biased materials and by giving them more exclusive subsidies to allow them to perform 'market' (really a politically crony) economic shakeout, [3] or by simply banning consumer and citizen options of materials or other political parties from participation. In this way the corruption of supply-side materials and corruption of supply-side politicians work together.
Totalizing market jurisdiction is a vast way of saying "give the powerful private groups complete jurisdiction and triage over what comes to market, and let them set the politically manipulated prices to maintain this arrangement, and let them purchase all the politicians available to maintain their corruption." Totalizing market jurisdiction in the fake ideological world relies on their claims that it removes corruption and the 'supply equals demand' mantra. Both of these mantras are false and totalizing market jurisdiction instead only encourages even larger supply-side corruption as well as a greater 'supply versus demand' framework.
Therefore because of supply versus demand dynamics, such totalizing markets can be bad though when these supply-side dynamics are reduced in less totalizing circumstances at smaller scales, markets can be good and even useful in providing both material and non-material goods though only on the more power-equalized, regionalized smaller scales where suppliers and demand/consumers can get together and influence each other as equals and in conditions where there are multiple material and political choices so any supply-side clientelism of corruption can be checked against as well.
Market totalizing jurisdiction or state totalizing monopoly are basically the same supply-side biased arrangement. None of these are ever justifiable in totalizing frameworks, only in justifiable frameworks of supply under small scale frameworks of materials and non-material goods and under conditions of greater represeentative states where the political elites are actually competitive as well. This means that when they work on the local level, markets are both integrated into ecology and integrated into wider differentiated and stronger demand-side feedback over decisions of material supply and technology. This means that states as well can be integrated into ecology and wider differentiated multi-regional demand-side feedback over decisiosn of politics. This double regional integration is a regulation on totalizing suppliers in markets or in state power. It removes the supply versus demand corruptions of market dynamics that come with larger scales of their market mechanisms--the same supply-side bias in in state politics from larger jurisdictional scales that maintain this issue as well instead of this only being a market/economic issue. Totalizing markets are political policies and thus are biased state issues as much as biased material supplier issues.
Any larger supply-side dominated totalizing markets, instead of opposed to state frameworks are a state framework themselves for feudalism processes to start in society based on the supply versus demand contexts of markets in how triages begin in both material and non-material goods, how corruption in punishment and policy begins to reflect supply side consolidating issues whether public or private, and how wealth thus begins to politically flow to the top and be siphoned off from the multiple regions of the increasingly triaged poor and their ecological situations alike. Totalizing markets are a politically feudalist regime and should be analyzed as such.
In such a supply-side dominated context, markets allocate and only create health, ecological, and economic risks with (as?) their products by desiring to have their profits based partially on their externalities that are being politically allowed to be created and heaped upon consumers that cost them in other ways.
Markets as well if used as a totalizing mechanism only in state policy encourages supply-side biased policy. This tends to cheapen and to make shallow the result of markets when applied to human (non-material) issues or material issues alike. If they are totalizing and thus without competition, markets make a feudal process creating shallow products and shallow people and degraded environments, reducing the quality of all three and holding it together with corruption and violence.
The bioregional state believes there should be competition between 'state supply' (subsidizing the most desperate and private supply--though only on the regional level of accommodation of this). The actual 'market competition' is on the level of frameworks that are competing: totalizing supply versus regional state support in the same markets competing. To only have 'competition in [only] markets' is an oxymoron because it leads toward supply side triage, greater political economic feudalism, and a lack of competition.
If you rely on totalizing markets alone, you give people the right of triage over what you want and thus you give them the right to avoid supplying it to you. If you rely on a totalizing state, you give the sate the same powers to coordinate its triage with the supply side gatekeeping instead of against it. So a 'big state' is hardly a solution to 'big suppliers.' Instead, they are a team of triage against you. That is why there should be both market and multiple more regional state accommodations in balance.
Markets as policy in material goods and in non-material goods is thus only allowed if suppliers are politically required to internalize all their externalities, i.e., to produce it cleanly and to produce it to satisfy particular regional markets instead of triage across multiple regions. Markets without this dual political requirement are a recipe for human and environmental degradation and are markets without even supplying the consumers with what they want in the first place due to ever growing supply-side triage being allowed and kept in place by their corruptions of the state itself.
Totalizing markets thus by themselves over time reduce the quality of items within them, unless they are integrated into political feedback loops so they are required to integrate their externalities.
Markets only work in material goods or in non-material goods when they have actual competition on the level of systems of political preference that can provide the same materials in other ways that make up for their potential supply side biases and triage desires of suppliers that get so large as to demote the consumer interests.
Thus what works is a more 'bioregionalized' welfare state as a filler of the market triage and a reduction of equally 'totalizing state' welfare from that equally delocalized level: the reduction of totalizing market arrangements politically introduced means avoiding introducing states that do the same totalizing triage. Particularly for non-material goods, this more multi-regionalized decisions about material/non-material goods supply in a welfare state arrangement means greater regional jurisdictional issues on materials as well as non-material goods arrangements. This can work against the triage against common universal civil rights issues in elements that raise human quality--education, military, sports, voting--by keeping totalizing markets as 'payers only' games out of these areas and out of materials as well.
In real life degradative societies now, with their totalizing market political regimes, "markets" (really supply side triage decisions) do influence and buy people and other services of non-material goods, though it reduces the quality of the humans, yielding a rich class of empty people and psychopaths without redeeming qualities at all running the political economies that markets run as the outcome, since it allows the richer to buy everything and to be without any socially redeeming qualities entirely. There is equally a reduction in the quality of those who are made more poor and desperate as well. This dual reduction of human quality is part of the feudalism of culture that totalizing markets or totalizing state jurisdictions create when they are the only mechanism for material/non-material goods by putting empty rich people on top without virtuous qualities and only violence that keeps them there.
So What Can People Do?
First, to grow away from this dead tree, I encourage people to establish the roots of a fresh growth in commodity ecology. I encourage people to buy and to create all of their 92 materials without externalities and sustainable in their creation,
with sustainable materials as well. Only under these conditions are markets morally justifiable. Otherwise, they crate environmental and human degradation from their biased corrupt decisions on materials and non-material goods respectively.
'Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not affect
the goods they exchange. But this is untrue. Markets leave their mark.
Sometimes, market values crowd out nonmarket values worth caring about.'
He goes on to argue that there is something that 'money can't buy'--which is his claimed difference between non-material goods that are unable to be bought or delivered well by markets and material goods that he sees as perhaps more equitably working in the environment. To the contrary, I say that totalizing markets both make
materials qualitatively bad as well as making people qualitatively bad when left to only market devices. Totalizing markets by themselves turn out terrible societies just as totalizing states do the same by themselves. This is because instead of being run by 'markets' they are run by the largest market players--larger states and massive supply-side interests--both of which have the same principles of supply-side triage enshrined in political, material, and cultural form. Totalizing markets and totalizing states together perhaps turn out to be the worst dystopia imaginable--and this 'model' has been the enforced policy ideal of many U.S. state elites for over 100 years at least since Teddy Roosevelt, and that is why the U.S. is perhaps the most degradative political economic regime ever created on planet earth: it's so dominated by supply-side interests of state and massive economic suppliers that demand's politics and material interests (and its built in ecological concerns) get demoted.
Ecological Hubris Comes Before the Fall: "Our country is surrounded by more dead zones than any other country? Hey, it's just the rotting smell of success! Willie, stop tickling my pinkie! Someone will see this two party system is a degraders' one party club!"
To the contrary, in integrating materials and non-material goods
into more regionalized ecological relationships we solve the human degradation issue (from market-only externalities that only the rich can pay for adding quality to their lives) as well as the ecological degradation issue (that is the same externalities issue, and we solve the political corruption issue that everyone suffers from combined with the shared externalities materially, though some regionally suffer more than others:).
The [History of the] Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights (Dr. Bullard, Father of Environmental Racism Research) 52:01 min.
Uploaded by UCtelevision
on Feb 7, 2008: Robert D. Bullard has been described as
the nation's leading authority on race [ethnic based underclasses] and the environment. In this
presentation from UC Santa Barbara, Bullard takes a look at the
connection between human rights and the politics of pollution. Series:
Voices [8/2006] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 11878]
And when markets make materials of bad
and low quality on the level of removing our sustainable choices, they are simultaneously creating inequitable feudal social frameworks out of that as well by building our material choices on massive forms of gatekept, violent clientlism that encourages only the 'three degradations' (human, ecological, and economic--combined). So it is unlikely, analytically or in praxis, to separate in the real world the drive for sustainability and the drive for less inequality, just as it is unlikely to separate totalizing supplier's desires for reduction of (sustainable) choices and their hatred of actual market competition with causing as well the creation of environmental degradation and the creation of greater inequality.
So we require in the 'science' category, less professions, universities, and education in general caught up in totalizing marketized frameworks or totalizing state frameworks. I have suggestions for this, forthcoming.
So we require in the 'finance' category, financial frameworks that avoid contributing to the feudalism mentioned above, since finance can be a supply side gatekeeping on investment as well. I have suggestions for this, forthcoming.
Conclusion
In other words, all these claims of totalizing markets as the only policy, that claims to "remove politics from materials and non-material goods" and go to markets is just the mystification of a politics that is feudalistic.
There is nothing called an autonomous market equilibrium or that markets somehow 'get everything right.' These are mystification of supply side interests particular political ideology to arrange markets and states to suit them feudalistically--for their particular political supply side interests to dominate and feudalize whole societies with greater and greater supply-side political domination and lesser and lesser quality and virtue, and greater and greater corruption all the while and greater degradation and greater externalities, both human and environmental.
In other words, the bioregional state's critique is on the political corruption of markets, whether by larger suppliers or larger states. There is nothing 'wrong' with markets themselves or private property per se as long as it is within political checks and balances of regional communities capable of having input on the material and social organizational frameworks of the externalities and triages of suppliers--likely by a combination of the commodity ecology and the licensing issues of particular commodity ecology frameworks themselves. Read more about that elsewhere.
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 (2011) and the Silence of the Bilderberg Group
There was an interesting film I saw recently. That film was the Silence of the Panda, about the World Wildlife Fund's incredible Janus face: how poor its actual actions are toward the environment versus the spiel it sells us about 'caring for the environment' to make its money. It reminded me that there is a major ideological contention over the direction of environmentalist culture and leadership. It reminded me that there are many well funded attempts to greenwash green politics so that people follow the charlatans of environmentalism and get distracted instead of actually working for sustainability.
Before I talk about that film, it helps to relate what happened this week. I promise the introduction is very pertinent because the film may shock you how old is the is the rabbit hole of some wings of environmental charlatanism explored in this film.
This week saw the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group from May 31 to June 3, 2012. This year they turned the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia into their twilight zone police state compound. The Bilderberg Group is a globalist group with secretive membership, secretive annual meeting locations (they do their best--it leaks out), a membership extended by invitation only, no-media coverage for 60+ years please, and definitely no press releases--because it is "not a public organization" as they said this time in a rare admittance that the screaming protestors outside filming, blogging, standing in the rain might be interested in what they are doing in secret at all.
Why is the media silent? Why are people interested? It is because when from all over the world for 68 years your publicly elected leadership, your corporate/banking leadership (illegally according to the U.S. Logan Act), your educational/media flagship leadership, and even your military leadership get together in total secrecy with European royalty as hosts in emptied out hotels guarded by snipers in "closed private meetings" yet paid for by your taxes--and later they pretend they never did these things--it gets people talking. It's not the media talking about this because they have taken the Bilderberg omerta as a condition of their attendance. (See an Appendix below with filmed attempts at interviews with frightened media heads either running away in fear of saying anything about their unreported attendance at such conferences, or they sit stonily silent as if the question was not asked and hope people move on from the 'members-only' parallel universe that they belong to and which the questioner has touched upon. Some even admit their attendance, smiling like the Cheshire cat (where all that is left is the visible smile and an invisible body) as they make their escape from the interview.)
It additionally gets people talking--four separate witnesses talking in fact--that Mitt Romney secretly stole away from his public campaign for the Republican Party candidacy to President of the United States to meet with Bilderberg last weekend as well:
Four separate eyewitnesses inside the
Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly Virginia told London Guardian
writer Charlie Skelton that Mitt Romney was in attendance at Bilderberg
2012, suggesting the Republican candidate could be the elite’s pick for
the upcoming U.S. presidential election. “Four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff
told me Willard Mitt Romney was here at Bilderberg 2012. My four
eyewitnesses place him inside. That’s one more than Woodward and
Bernstein used. Romney’s office initially refused to confirm or deny his
attendance as Bilderberg is “not public”. They later said it was not
him,” writes BBC journalist Skelton.
Whether Romney was just being friendly, verified, or vetted with their approval, it it hard to say. That it was done completely in secret assuredly means it is "not a social call" and more likely a summons to appear and be eyed by major global decision makers before he is likely made the official Republican Party pick (despite little grass roots support at all). It's similar to past USA politics typically unreported for decades to keep you in the dark: the careers of many aspiring U.S. federal politicians seem arranged by or at Bilderberg. The same goes for many major European politicians. At least many strange doors open for such people only after they appear in secret there. There was Margaret Thatcher, run as U.K. Tory Prime Minister only immediately after her Bilderberg attendance. There was Bill Clinton, run as Democratic Party candidate only after his 1991 Bilderberg attendance. There was Johnathan Edwards (remember, Kerry's VP in 2008--and that long-empty VP spot was filled only after his Bilderberg attendance--that took place overseas in another country altogether. Joe Biden's VP position for Obama sees the similar pattern. Hillary Clinton dropped her campaign for President in 2008 only after her Bilderberg attendance--at which Obama was as well. There are videos at the end of this post about Bilderberg if you are interested.
I mention this because in politics, what happens on the surface is sometimes only a fraction of what is happening. The same principle can be applied to those who support the Malthusian ideological wing of environmentalism because there is a lot going on beyond the surface in this faction.
Malthusianism: the Bilderberg Side of Environmentalism
However, let's talk environmentalism. Since Bilderberg happened this week, it is perhaps appropriate to review the different wings of environmentalism
once more to see which pigs in it (or pandas) are claiming to fly. This time, I will concentrate on a critique of the neo-Malthusian and globalist versions of environmentalism--that come from Bilderberg itself. This wing is as distinct from the bioregional state versions of
environmentalism as night is day.
So this post begins two critiques of Malthusian views on environmentalism, both from the failure of its recommended policies to be translated (in three interlinked strategies) into meaningful environmental improvement where instead we see the cover-up of the facilitation of degradation by such Malthusian policies; as well as from the history of following the sponsors of the origins of Malthusianism in the 1800s as well as its redeployment from the 1960 as having little to do with environmental protection at all. In other words, just what kind of policies are created by Malthusianists, and just what kind of people and organizations are they who choose and popularize Malthusian policies in the real world? I'll concentrate on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as exhibiting both
this Malthusian policy failure as well as an insight into just who major
Malthusian elites are. I will touch on similar allied Malthusian peoples/organizations as well in the U.S. Nature Conservancy and in the ideas around the World Conservation Bank.
The Bilderberg connection to some wings of environmentalism you say? What am I talking about?
I am talking about the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). As of 1995, the Malthusian-policy oriented WWF controlled about 10% of the surface of planet Earth in this way. It takes in about $600,000,000 a year. However, its record of attempting to enforce its Malthusian style policies as environmental ones has been environmental failure and open corruption detailed below, while other environmental strategies different than Malthusian policy are successful in moving us toward sustainability.
Below is just one (big) area of Africa with WWF transnational jurisdiction from 2001:
The founding networks of the Bilderberg Group in 1954 were the same
founding networks of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961, six years
later. (More detailed analysis of personnel is in "Appendix One" below.)
This WWF global managerial version of environmentalism is a territorial empire--of and by the multinational corporate managers, the bankers, the military elites, the global media, select imperialist Dutch/British royalty (both frustrated in a 'post-colonial era'), and even Third World dictators getting a supporting role. This was an environmental strategy organized in response to the first years of many regional grass roots rebellions for decolonization against European empires--that were degradative to the environment and degradative to human rights. This was years before and distinct from the more civic, mass movement wings of environmentalism existed as a popular culture different from the WWF.
The history of 'environmentalism' in the world since the 1970s has been one of the clash of these different strategies of environmentalism.
So, were these earlier secretive groups interested in taking care of the environment, or just taking the environment--for themselves?
As banker J.P. Morgan said, "everyone has a reason they do things. And
then the real reason."
I suggest we keep this dissembling quality of
very powerful global interests in mind particularly for those that claim
to sponsor 'environmentalism' or 'care about the environment' as their 'reason' they build a global transnational territorial empire with a policy of rightless depopulation of both animals and people in the (mineral and resource rich) areas they want to keep controlling from afar. Is it the "real reason?" Are they sponsoring environmentalism in good faith, or are they attempting to
steer it and use it as a cloak to their own private advantage that is harder to express openly as legitimate in a post-colonial context? The larger an organization gets and the more toes it steps on around the world, the more it requires
legitimating itself within the current common cultural rubric to
survive. In other words, for certain global elites is 'caring for the
environment' actually "the real reason" they support their strange, ever-failing version of Malthusian 'environmentalism?'
Before I get into the WWF (and two other globally privatized land trust strategies that choose only Malthusian strategies in which to be "environmentally conscious" as they buy up the world--the equally globalized U.S. based Nature Conservancy (founded 1951) and the World Conservation Bank idea), it helps to frame and to compare what particular theories about environmentalism that these global strategies are exhibiting in their actions--and how different their version of environmentalism is from the bioregional state and other versions of environmentalism.
Into the Heart of Darkness, Revisited
Down the Throat of "Ring #3 of the Environmentalist Circus": Neo-Malthusianism and Its Globalist Allies and Strategies
In a previous post I have characterized political environmental as having a 'four ring circus' with the bioregional state as distinctly different in its solutions for sustainability as to be in a 'fourth ring' separate from the other 'three rings.'
The bioregional state overlaps with the ring of #1 and #2--described at that link or here--though it definitely is against #3 below.
I characterized these other three circus rings as [1] the voluntary
sustainable localism movement (most bioregionalism--autonomy, democracy,
materials change, identity change (voluntary simplicity, living and
merely 'eating locally' as a voluntary decision)--in other words,
voluntary depoliticized decentralization exclusively); [2] voluntary ecological modernization, biomimicry, industrial ecology, and the
bioneers (voluntary-only corporate or supplier forms of material
sustainability without any politics); and [3] sadly the ongoing
anti-humanist neo-Malthusianism of many who say they are "concerned with
the environment" though instead of acting to aid the environmental
conditions or to improve them for people, they exclusively concentrate
on blaming people--typically the most defenseless poor instead of the
more fortified rich--and hope to kill off the poor one way or another or steal their land from them for what they claim are the best intentions.
This idea of 'kill or remove the defenseless poor globally from their land in a racial eugenic
fashion and call it environmentalism' is seen in many globalist's
policies on depopulation. This neo-Malthusian adaption is the theory justifying (or at least attempting to justify) policies on massive private purchases of land by global interests after which they violently displace the population to "save the environment."
Unlike the bioregional state, it is Ring #3's neo-Malthusianism that motivates one particular policy wing of global environmentalism. Ring #3 tends to have three overlapping strategies: (1) demographic depopulation, (2) spatial depopulation (massive privatization and centralization in global ownership of territories that are then violently depopulated of their previously public or other person's private residence and use of the land; Agenda 21 inclusive in this), (3) and the encouragement of global jurisdictions and the demotion of local democratically representative ones (like in the climate change scares; the "wild lands project"; and in Agenda 21). This amounts to three different strategies of the same idea: the idea that killing people, shrinking populations, removing people's national political rights and even legal due process, and removing people from the land, is innately justified by the "reason" of 'saving the environment.' Is that the "real reason"?
And if it can be demonstrated that these three methods fail to save the environment over the past 50 years, what is the "real reason" for their durability as strategies then?
Moreover, are any of these three themes true or are they merely unexamined misanthropy or fear-mongering that is disastrously misleading and brainwashing people down the wrong path who are good-hearted environmentalists?
Who actually benefits from removing people from the land? Who actually benefits from global jurisdictions?
The environment? You think so?
What if I told you that just consolidated corporations and banks benefit, and that they have created their own version of environmentalism in this 'third ring' as a covert vehicle of much older delegitmated forms of crony corporate destructive and very martial imperialism?
"Watch Ring #3, Ladies and Gentlemen, Where We Have the Amazing Silence of the Panda!"
The film The Silence of the Panda argues the case that all who follow 'ring #3' and its neo-Malthusian ideas should at least reexamine their support of this wing based on its environmental failures and hypocrisies--and perhaps more hopefully reexamine how they came to believe globalist Malthusianists were an environmental leadership at all.
An interesting film was produced last year. Here's a link for the first 12 minutes. The remainder is linked at the conclusion of this post.
The Silence of the Panda: What the WWF Isn't Saying (2011: German
Documentary; English translation)
[Well, it was here a few days ago. Now this first two parts are gone though the other parts are available, below. I'll update this post if I find it elsewhere.]
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
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:
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.]
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
That link now reveals that Huismann's film, produced only in 2011, now has a defunct distributor called United Docs. However, within half a year of The Silence of the Pandas, this company United Docs was bought up [?] by January 1, 2012 by "Global Screen." The link above now relates the following text to you when you search for The Silence of the Panda at the previous valid link: "Since January 1st, 2012 United Docs [still the same company?] serves its international customers
under a new name: GLOBAL SCREEN will handle the worldwide
distribution of
programs outside the German-speaking European territories.
However, "The Silence of the Panda" is missing from the list of available titles from Global Screen. Global Screen does have five other films by Huismann though "The Silence of the Panda"--the most recent--is missing. Interesting--though that's the way media repression really works. See for yourself:
WWF as "Greenwashing Logo for Hire" in Industrial Salmon
Global Screen does have another earlier Huismann film that reflects badly on the WWF, called Salmonopoly (2009). It is in this film that Huismann probably started to get suspicious about the WWF? It is the film about Marine Harvest, the largest aqua-farming concern in the world. Turning out more than 100 million farmed salmon per year, it supplies consumers in Europe, the USA and Japan. But at what price? This global empire is run by John Fredriksen, a self-made man and one of the richest on Earth. In his Norwegian home, he is called the "Big Wolf"; he calls himself "green", "enduring" and "transparent". But reality contradicts the corporate philosophy, particularly in Chile where Marine Harvest is by far the largest producer with some 70 fish farms. Chile, with its barely-there environmental legislation, is a paradise for investors. Everything that is forbidden to salmon producers in Europe is allowed in Chile, with the result that after 18 months of rearing, the salmon are a chemically loaded product. In April 2008, in order to improve the intensive large-scale farming image, Marine Harvest entered into a partnership with the WWF. For a donation of €100,000 per year, Marine Harvest may use the WWF's panda logo to advertise its industrially produced farmed salmon.
Now, how are you going to react in the future when you hear this phrase: "Will you please donate to the WWF?"
----------------
APPENDIX ONE: Founder(s) of the WWF, Biographies Expanded:
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld: The Original "James Bond"and "SPECTRE" Rolled into One
[founder of the Bilderberg Group meetings in 1954; born a German; ex-Nazi Party; married the
only daughter of Netherlands royalty; originally worked for the German
chemical giant IG Farben that helped the Third Reich's war machine, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which
survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, he became
the rather important main secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935. The model for the fictional character "James Bond" seems to be him (see below). Perhaps his Bilderbergs Group's shenanigans were the storyline of SPECTRE? Because
he was a Protestant of royal rank (his family the Lippe-Biesterfelds were a
sovereign house in the German Empire), Bernhard was acceptable to widower Queen
Wilhelmina of the Netherlands as a suitable husband for her only daughter
Princess Juliana. Bernhard’s appropriateness as consort of the future
Queen of the Netherlands would later become a matter of some public debate.
Prince
Bernhard’s political affiliations with the Nazi regime have received
much attention. Various members of his family and acquaintances were
aligned with the Nazis prior to and during the war, and a number of them
joined the royal wedding party on 7 January 1937 in The Hague. Protocol
demanded that the prospective prince-consort be invited to an audience
with his head of state, who at the time was Adolf Hitler. Hitler himself
gives a rendering of the conversation he had with Bernhard in his Tisch
Gespräche (Table Conversations). Table Conversations was a collection of
monologues, remarks, and speeches Hitler gave during lunch or dinner to
those invited to the table by him....The Prince’s brother, Prince
Aschwin of Lippe-Biesterfeld, was an officer in the German army.
Although the secret services on both sides were interested in this
peculiar pair of brothers, [no one really was allowed to investigate?:]
no improper contacts or leaks of information were discovered.
The Prince
was known to be very fond of smart uniforms and medals (seen in the
documentary as well). He made a point of wearing his medals in the
English court style, even though members of the Dutch armed forces wear
their medals in the German/Prussian style....
In England, Prince Bernhard asked
to work in British Intelligence but the War Admiralty, and later in General
Eisenhower's Allied Command offices, did not trust him sufficiently to
allow him access to intelligence information. However, on the
recommendation of Bernhard's friend and admirer, King George VI (his brother (abdicated) British King Edward VIII was an ardent open Nazi), who was also of German aristocratic descent via his
great-grandfather Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and...[Prince Bernhard] was
later permitted to work in the Allied war planning councils.
From 1942
to 1944, Bernhard flew as a pilot with the [British] Royal Air Force. [Just like another Nazi family across the Big Water was doing in the U.S. Air Force, via airman George H. W. Bush who as pilot bailed out and killed his crew repeatedly at the first sign of trouble.] [Bernhard] also
helped organise the Dutch resistance movement and acted as personal
secretary for Queen Wilhelmina. [He certainly got a lot of important gatekeeping 'secretary' positions in his life.] By 1944, Prince Bernhard became
Commander of the Dutch armed forces.
After the war [WWII], the [Netherlands] position of
Inspector General was created for the Prince. He was made a member of
the boards of supervisors of Fokker Aircraft and KLM Royal Dutch
Airlines, and within a few years he had been invited to serve as an
adviser or non-executive director of numerous corporations and
institutions. There have been claims about KLM illegally helping to organize Nazis to leave
Germany after WWII for Argentina on KLM flights while Bernhard was on its board.
With his global [Nazi ratline] contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in
organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the
business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the
economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing
threat from Communism.[instead of from reconstructed Nazism--which was equally true given NATO's connections to the 'stay behinds' that conducted right-wing terrorism that killed hundreds of civilians in Europe so they could blame it on the left and move national politics to the right--read the book NATO's Secret Army]. This first "Bilderberg" meeting was successful, and it became
an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the
European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was
encouraged at Bilderberg. [No, the first idea of a European Union was the Third Reich, then later after WWII it appears in a synarchist document. "European Union" was the Nazi's idea all along of
course--more on that here.
In the middle of the 1950s, Prince Bernhard was involved in what
some considered a personal vendetta against Greet Hofmans, a medical
doctor whose pacifist leanings had convinced his wife the Princess. The
[militant, secretive] Prince had this doctor removed.
On 15 September 1964, (another German from the same family of
Saxe-Coberg-Gotha) Queen Elizabeth II appointed (her linked German relative) Prince
Bernhard of the Netherlands to the honorary rank of Air Marshal in her Royal Air Force.
Scandal rocked the Netherlands Royal Family in 1976 when it was revealed that Prince
Bernhard had accepted a US$1.1 million bribe from U.S. aircraft
manufacturer Lockheed Corporation to influence the Dutch government's
purchase of fighter aircraft. At the time he had served on more than 300
corporate boards and committees worldwide...On 26 August 1976, a
toned-down, but nonetheless devastating, report on Prince Bernhard's
activities was released to a shocked Dutch public. The Prince's own
letter of 1974, to Lockheed Corporation, demanding "commissions" be paid
to him on Dutch government aircraft purchases was very damaging evidence
of improper conduct by the inspector-general of the Dutch armed forces [and a clue into how the money flows in the WWF might work as well for certain powerful groups of the 1001 Club wanting "commissions" to steer privatized land the way of the WWF in different countries of the world.]
Criminal charges were not pressed by the government out of respect for
Queen Juliana, whose later abdication was tacitly understood to be
directly related to her husband's corrupt conduct. Prince Bernhard resigned as
inspector-general of the Dutch armed forces.
This meant that he was not allowed to wear a uniform in public, but it
did not stop him from attending the 1979 funeral of Lord Mountbatten in
London in full colours.
Prime Minister Joop den Uyl made a statement in parliament and told the
delegates that the Prince would also resign from his various
high-profile positions in businesses, charities, and other institutions.
[He kept his Chairmanship of his secret internationalist Bilderberg Group and its connections to the 1001 Club. He at this time resigned from the WWF, passing its chairman to his own family's German-British relative, Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II].
The Dutch states-general voted against criminal prosecution [and thus voted to reward his criminality: his crime paid him handsomely]. Prince
Bernhard turned over the presidency of the international World Wildlife
Fund to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The Dutch Royal family worked
hard to rehabilitate the Prince's name, though other corruption scandals were to be
revealed in later years.
WWF Corruption Continued with Bernhard
In 1988, Prince Bernhard and Princess Juliana sold two paintings from
their personal collection to raise money for the World Wildlife Fund.
The paintings sold for GBP700,000, which was deposited in a Swiss WWF
bank account. In 1989, however, Charles de Haes, director-general of the
WWF, transferred GBP500,000 back to Bernhard, [getting his "commission" once more for WWF work] for what De Haes called a
private project. In 1991, newspapers reported what this private project
was: Prince Bernhard had hired KAS International, owned by [British state terrorist/black operations] SAS founder
David Stirling, to use mercenaries—mostly British—to fight [i.e., kill]
poachers in nature reserves. [In the film above Namibia has a better idea what to do with poachers. Watch it.] The paramilitary group infiltrated
organisations profiting from illegal trade in ivory in order to arrest them [though as well decided to profit from the illegal ivory trade as well.].
This Project Lock seemed to have backfired enormously, however.
[Or succeeded if this was its "real reason":] Bernhard’s private army had not only infiltrated in the illegal trade,
they were also participating in it. To make things worse, Irish reporter
Kevin Dowling discovered that the South African army was also involved
in the trade, hinting at connections between the Bernhard’s army and the
WWF and the struggle for maintaining apartheid. Moreover, he claimed
members of the South African-run counterinsurgency unit Koevoet
(Afrikaans and Dutch for "crowbar") had been trained under [Bernhard's mercenary army] Project Lock.
In 1995, Nelson Mandela called upon the Kumleben Commission to
investigate, among other things, the role of the WWF in apartheid South
Africa. In the report that followed, it was suggested that mercenaries
from [Bernhard's] Project Lock had planned assassinations of ANC members and that
mercenaries had been running training camps in the wildlife reserves,
training fighters from the anti-communist groups UNITA and Renamo [that the CIA as well was funding as well to destabilize a country's domestic political peace that was hard won between factions--so they started up the factions once more to rule more readily over the war-ridden area (cite: The Praetorian Guard (1995) [whistle-blowing book about the CIA)]
Although Prince Bernhard was never accused of any crime in its context,
the Project Lock scandal dealt another damaging blow to the Prince's name.
["Scandal" is such a light word, let's recap exactly what he was doing: illegal ivory trading, half a
million pound fraud within the WWF, money laundering, extra-judicial murder by his private mercenaries operating in secret, repressive
support for apartheid South Africa and political assassinations of Black
South African leadership; what could be called 'state terrrorism' of intentionally destabalizing different black factions to fight each other and blame each other for violence via working with British SAS and the CIA in training African rebels--ALL WHILE BEING 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 (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member
of the World Wildlife Fund. He openly talked about population culling of
humans. In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in
the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a
prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from
1959–1962, resigning this position as he joined the WWF. Plus ca change? In 1957 Huxley coined the term "transhumanism" to describe
the view that man should better himself through science and technology,
including eugenics, but also, importantly, the improvement of the social
environment.]
Max Nicholson
[In 1947–1948, with Julian Huxley the then director general of the United Nations'
scientific and education organisation UNESCO (that came out of the Lucius Trust), Nicholson was involved in forming
the International Union for the Protection of Nature (IUPN) (now
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)).
The
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, Union
internationale pour la conservation de la nature (UICN), in French) is
an international organization dedicated to finding "pragmatic solutions
to our most pressing environment and development challenges."[1] The
organization publishes the IUCN Red List, compiling information from a
network of conservation organizations to rate which species are most
endangered.[2] The IUCN supports scientific research, manages field
projects all over the world and brings governments, non-government
organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities
together to develop and implement policy, laws and best practice. IUCN
is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network - a
membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member
organizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160
countries. IUCN’s work is supported by more than 1,000 professional
staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private
sectors around the world. The Union’s headquarters are located in Gland,
near Geneva, Switzerland--incidentally the place featured in the film as
the core area of much internatioanl agri-business market trades and of
course many global corporatist/financial governmentality. Geneva is additionally the headquarters of the WWF. [1]]
Peter Scott
[Sir Peter Markham Scott, CH, CBE, DSC and Bar, MID, FRS, FZS, (14
September 1909 – 29 August 1989) was a British ornithologist,
conservationist, painter, naval officer and sportsman; During World War
II, Scott served in the Royal Navy, emulating his father. He served
first in destroyers in the North Atlantic but later moved to commanding
the First (and only) Squadron of Steam Gun Boats against German E-boats
in the English Channel.[4] He is also partly credited with designing
'shadow camouflage', which disguised the look of ship superstructure. He
was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery. His BBC natural
history series, Look, ran from 1955 to 1981 and made him a household
name. He was one of the founders of the World Wide Fund for Nature
(formerly called the World Wildlife Fund in other countries still), and designed its panda logo.
He is also remembered for giving the scientific name of Nessiteras
rhombopteryx (based on a blurred underwater photograph of a supposed
fin) to the Loch Ness Monster so that it could be registered as an
endangered species.[10] The name was based on the Ancient Greek for "the
monster of Ness with the diamond shaped fin", but it was later pointed
out by The Daily Telegraph to be an anagram of "Monster hoax by Sir Peter
S." However, Nessie researcher Robert H. Rines, who took 2 supposed
pictures of the monster in the 1970s, responded to this by pointing out
that the letters could also be read as an anagram for, "Yes, both pix
are monsters, R.". [11] [After getting involved in the WWF] [i]n 1962, he co-founded the Loch Ness Phenomena
Investigation Bureau with the then Conservative MP David James, who had
previously been Polar Adviser on the classic 1948 movie based on his
late father's doomed polar expedition Scott of the Antarctic. [12] In
June 2004, Scott and Sir David Attenborough were jointly profiled in the
second of a three part BBC Two series, The Way We Went Wild, about
television wildlife presenters and ****were described as being largely
responsible for the way that the British and much of the world views
wildlife***.]
Guy Mountfort
[In 1972 he led the campaign to save the Bengal Tiger,
persuading Indira Gandhi to create nine tiger reserves in India, with
eight others in Nepal and Bangladesh--some of these degraded tiger areas are
featured in the film where they have done little to save the tiger at all and
instead concentrate on making massive ecotourism monies for the WWF (at $10,000 per person to visit the WWF eco-park to see the tigers, perhaps--the same amount of money that the 1001 Club members gave by the way, each; these ecoparks as well are good at only one thing; pushing thousand-year symbiotic people off the land into poverty into working for plantations organized by the WWF thus likely future criminal uses of the parks themselves in their poverty.]
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
Godfrey Anderson Rockefeller, Sr. (1924 – 22 January 2010) was the
eldest son of Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller and Helen Rockefeller née Gratz.
Like his father Godfrey Stillman, Godfrey Anderson Rockefeller was born
in New York City and grew up to attend Yale University, at the same time
as family friend George H. W. Bush,[1] this after first attending
Phillips Academy Andover. (His father? Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller (1
May 1899 - 23 Feb 1983) son of William Goodsell Rockefeller served as a
second lieutenant in World War One, was a member of the Skull and Bones
society graduating from Yale University in 1921, and served as a
lieutenant colonel during World War Two. He was partner in Clark, Dodge
& Company; stockholder in the Enterprise Development Corporation;
chairman of the Cranston Print Works; director of Benson & Hedges;
trustee of the Fairfield Foundation; and had been a director of
Freeport-McMoRan since December 1931. What about his father in turn, i.e., the
grandfather of the person in question? This was William Goodsell Rockefeller (May
21, 1870 – November 30, 1922) was a director of the Consolidated Textile
Company. He was the third child of Standard Oil co-founder William
Rockefeller (1841–1922) and his wife, Almira Geraldine Goodsell.
Rockefeller married Sarah Elizabeth Stillman, daughter of National City
Bank president James Jewett Stillman, on November 21, 1895. His father
had become a large shareholder of the National City Bank and his
alliance with the Stillman family was sealed by the marriage of his two
sons with two Stillman daughters. Rockefeller's brother, Percy Avery
Rockefeller (Bonesman), married Isabel Goodrich Stillman (who later committed suicide it is said out of neglect and cruelty of her highly connected husband). He
died on November 30, 1922.[1])
Godfrey Anderson Rockefeller, Sr. joined the United States Marine Corp,
and served in both World War II and the Korean War, achieving the rank
of Major Aviator Pilot.[2]
Godfrey then spent twenty five years in the commercial helicopter
industry, working for Bell Helicopters and being hired as Chief Pilot,
with Peter Wright, Sr. recalling him once landing a 32 foot Bell 47 on a
40 foot wide tennis court "because he did not want to ruin the lawn!"[2]
He was President and Chairman of the Helicopter Association of America,
now known as the Helicopter Association International, in 1968, and also
belonged to the American Helicopter Society, being a member since 1952
and belonging to its Gold Circle Club.[2]
He is best known, however, for his environmental interests and role in
the World Wildlife Fund. Rockefeller "played an important role in the
founding and creation" of the WWF organization, which included "hiring the
first staff and chief scientist",[3] and later served as its Executive
Director from 1972 to 1978. ****[As Prince Bernard, head of the WWF, destroyed himself in his corruption scandals, Rockefeller stepped from the background to take over the WWF]: [f]rom 1977 to 2006 he served on the Board
of Directors and the National Council of the WWF.[3]****
[In other words, Skull and Bones families were on the national council of the
WWF from 1977 to 2006, and this Skull and Bones grandson, who did go to
Yale as well, had both father and grandfather Skull and Bones. It was he who set up and funded the
actual first staff for the WWF.]
From 1981 to 1990 he was Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,[4]
and after that Chairman Emeritus. Rockefeller owned a home on Gibson
Island in Maryland and was keenly interested in the preservation of the
failing Chesapeake Bay. Following his unexpected death on January 22,
2010 at the St. Andrew's Club in Delray Beach, Florida, where he also
owned a home, the Gibson Island community honoured him by flying their
flag at half-mast.[2]
[Today, home prices on that island start at $US 1 million-plus, with the
median home price being $3,031,923 (according to Altos Research). This
makes Gibson Island the 12th most expensive zip code in the United States,[3]
just ahead of Snowmass, Colorado, and just behind Newport Beach,
California. Gibson island is a gated community, (and a gated community island with an oceanic moat) limiting access to the island and
its facilities to residents or those with a formal reason for visiting.]
Godfrey was first married to Constance Hamilton Wallace but this ended
in divorce. He was then married to Margaret "Margo" Kuhn Rockefeller for
fifty three years, she dying less than a year before him in 2009. [2] He
is survived by four children and numerous grandchildren.
--------------
APPENDIX TWO: The 1001 Club and its Founders Biographies, Expanded
The 1001 Club: A Nature Trust is a trust that helps fund the World Wide
Fund for Nature. It was established in 1970 by the then head of the WWF,
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with help from Anton Rupert, a South
African [billionaire drug and luxury trades] entrepreneur.[1] They persuaded 1001 individuals to join the
club, where each member would contribute US $10,000 to the trust.[2]
[($10,000 is exactly how much it costs per person as well to see one
of the WWF 'eco-tourism' tiger preserves (with no tigers!) in India to look for tigers every day in hoards of dozens of jeeps--some preserve)] In the
early 1970s, Charles de Haes took charge of the operation for reaching
$10 million goal,[3] becoming Director General of WWF-International from
1975. [So the secret 1001 Club organizer went from that to WWF director.] [4] The resulting $10 million fund helps to fund the WWF's basic
costs of administration.
The membership of the 1001 Club largely consists of managers of banks
and multinationals from around the world (see membership lists under
References).
[This leaked roster shows the kind of people you run with if you support the WWF.]
According to a 1993 Washington Monthly article, "The secret list of
members includes a disproportionate percentage of [unreconstructed
apartheid Dutch Afrikaans white] South Africans, all too happy in an era
of [their now] social banishment to be welcomed into a [novel global]
socially elite society. Other contributors include businessmen with
suspect connections, including organized crime, environmentally
destructive development, and corrupt African politics.
***Even an internal report called WWF's approach egocentric and
neocolonialist."[5]*** [cite: Ann O'Hanlon (1993), "At the Hand of Man:
Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife. - book reviews", Washington
Monthly 25 (5): 60]
Dr. Anthony Edward Rupert
(4 October 1916 – 18 January 2006); AfrikanerSouth African billionaire entrepreneur, businessman and conservationist. He was born and raised in the small town of Graaff-Reinet in the Eastern Cape. He studied in Pretoria and ultimately moved to Stellenbosch, where he established the Rembrandt Group[2]
and where it still has its headquarters. He died in his sleep at his
home in Thibault Street, Stellenbosch at the age of 89, and is survived
by a son Johann, a daughter Hanneli[3] and five grandchildren. His wife and his youngest son, Anthonij, pre-deceased him.
According to his biography, Rupert's business career spanned over
sixty years. He started his global empire with a personal investment of
just ₤10 in 1941 (equivalent to £1,270[1] or US$1900 (R14,500)[2] in 2010) becoming named on the Forbes list of 500 wealthiest families worldwide. At the time of his death his assets were estimated at $1.7 billion.
After dropping out of medical school due to a lack of funds, Rupert earned a chemistry degree at the University of Pretoria, where he also lectured for a short while. Subsequently, he started a dry-cleaning business.
Some time later, with an initial investment of GBP 10 and together with two fellow investors, he started manufacturing cigarettes in his garage, which he eventually built into the tobacco and industrial conglomerate Rembrandt Group, [that owns Cartier and other international luxury brands] overseeing its transition to the industrial and luxury branded goods sectors, with Rembrandt eventually splitting into Remgro (an investment company with financial, mining and industrial interests) and Richemont
(a Swiss-based luxury goods group). Currently, this business empire
encompasses hundreds of companies located in 35 countries on six
continents, with combined yearly net sales in the region of USD 10 billion.
Rupert had also been deeply involved in environmental conservation
and his companies have been prominent in funding the fine arts; since
1964 foundations established by Rembrandt have used a part of the
group's profits for the promotion of education, art, music and the
preservation of historical buildings.
He also played an important role in the South African Small Business Development Corporation
(SBDC), a non-profit company whose loans to small and medium-sized
businesses have created nearly half a million jobs since 1981. Being
openly critical of the apartheid
system during that era, both at home and abroad, he has recently been
quoted by President Thabo Mbeki as the man who called upon the Apartheid
leadership to "do something brave" and create partnership with the
black majority in the '80s. In 2004, he was voted 28th in the Top 100 Great South Africans.
Rupert established the tobacco company "Voorbrand" in the 1940s. He
soon renamed it Rembrandt Ltd., whose overseas tobacco interests were
consolidated into Rothmans in 1972. In 1988, the Rembrandt group founded the Swiss luxury goods company,
Richemont, which in turn acquired Rembrandt's shares in Rothmans.
Richemont also owns such luxury brands as Cartier (jewellery); Alfred Dunhill and Sulka (designer clothing); Seeger (leather bags); Piaget, Baume & Mercier and Vacheron Constantin (Swiss watches) and Montblanc (writing instruments).
In 1995, Rembrandt and Richemont consolidated their respective tobacco interests into Rothmans International, which was at the time the world's fourth largest cigarette manufacturer.
In 1999, Rothmans International merged with British American Tobacco (BAT), the world's second largest cigarette producer. Remgro held 10% and Richemont held 18.6% of BAT before unbundling.
Rupert's eldest son, Johann Rupert, is now the CEO of Richemont and chairman of Remgro.
The Rupert family is also deeply involved in the South African wine and liquor industry, owning the L'ormarins and La Motte Wine Estates and having a stake in Rupert & Rothschild Vignerons, the wine-making partnership between the Rupert and Rothschild families (at the time of his death due to a car crash in 2001, Rupert's youngest son, Anthonij [4], was head of Rupert & Rothschild Vignerons.)
The Ruperts also partially control two of South Africa's largest wine merchant houses, Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery (SFW) and Distillers Corporation,
who together produce one of every six bottles of wine in South Africa
and nearly eighty percent of the country's brandy. These two companies
have merged to form Distell.
Among other interests, the Rupert Group also owns South Africa's second-largest chain of private hospitals, the Medi-Clinic Corporation, with 5,500 beds.
Rupert was a founding member of the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and it was in his role as the president of the organisation's South African branch that he took a lead in the creation of trans-frontier parks (also known as trans-frontier conservation areas (TFCAs) or "peace parks" [that later served as bases for UK and US CIA funded destabilizing guerrilla warriors along with the funding received by Prince Bernhard's private army that trained the crack squads that assassinated Black civil rights leaders in South African apartheid in the 1970s-80s--see above]), such as the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area. He also established the 1001 Club: A Nature Trust in 1970 to fund the organisation.
With an initial grant of 1.2 million Rand (US$ 260,000) from [his own] Rupert Nature Foundation, the Peace Parks Foundation was established on 1 February 1997 in order to facilitate the establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa. Nelson Mandela, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Anton Rupert were the founding patrons of the Peace Parks Foundation. In 2000, the Cape Tercentenary Foundation awarded him the Molteno Medal for lifetime services to cultural and nature conservation.[3]
APPENDIX THREE: Additional Recommended Videos about Bilderberg
[coming soon]
APPENDIX FOUR:Other Global Land Trusts: the Nature Conservancy and the bank holding company that came from the "Earth Summit" in 1992.
You can compare other Malthusian
ideological claims of 'global interventions' via other major privatization land trusts. Though what's the "real reason" for those as well?
The U.S. Nature
Conservancy is similar to the WWF in two policies--both because it
operates globally in buying up "the environment" as well as because it
is closely connected to those corporate elites, financial elites (a
Goldman Sachs CEOs ran it for a long while), and to supposedly 'tree-hugging'TM
military elites who have done their best to destroy the environment--like Gulf War invader,
U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf. Yes, he has been simultaneously a leader of the
Nature Conservancy and a member of the Safari Club, the latter a
globalist men's club for the killing of the charismatic megafauna that
the Nature Conservancy is supposed to be protecting. Is it the same insiders deal?
Does the Nature Conservancy let the elites kill its 'protected' megafauna on its private global estates for the right price? YES, IT DOES. See the Sharon Beder article excerpt, below. That seems to be the arrangement with the WWF according to the above. So what is the
"real reason" for all these globalist land trusts, like the World
Wildlife Fund or the Nature Conservancy?
What about the "Global Conservation Bank" institution now coming to fruition by 2010 according to the UK Guardian newspaper? Differences in environmental 'reasons' and "real reasons" have been uncovered unwittingly by George Hunt,
who has made a name for himself by his detailed recordings of some of these international meetings supposedly convened on the conceit of 'saving the environment.' Instead the topics ranged from Rothschilds holding
corporations and the "Global Environmental Bank" interested in "swapping" debt of countries indebted to them for outright private, vast ownership of much
of previous public nation state territories worldwide--without any local jurisdictional oversight at all. Instead of via "non-profit" land trusts, this group--connected to Maurice Strong--worked through U.N. elites, the Aspen Conference, and the
UNCED-Rio Conference "Earth Summit" from 1992 to help seal such "public
land swap for debt forgiveness" agreements into reality. Hunt, who attended these meetings more as an accidental private citizen (hear his story below--and hear his recordings of the events) was amazed that no one really was talking about environmental protection policies, only real estate consolidation and control within a heady air of how to do it without democratic oversight and awareness.
Over the past 30 years, Hunt has discussed several massive global banks and institutions pushing this privatized policy since the "Earth Summit" in 1992--or from the even earlier Fourth Wilderness Conference of 1987 which he recorded.
George Hunt on Alex Jones TV, Part 1 of 9: The Inner Workings of A [Malthusian-Policy-Based] One World, New Age Government [Phony Strategies of Elite Global Environmentalism to Privatize and Own the World] 10:58 min
Jan 12, 2010: Alex welcomes to the show George
Washington Hunt, a former naval officer and an official host at the
UNCED 4th World Wilderness Congress. Hunt is educating the public on a
secret bank [set up for the same Malthusian-policy'ed lines of mass global land ownership, removal of local communities, and spatial depopulation--despite these Malthusian strategies elsewhere failing to save the environment as noted in the WWF data above, and instead only encouraging more politically possible degradation] set in motion by international financier Edmond de
Rothschild and Maurice Strong. Hunt discusses this in his recent 30
minute documentary, The Big Bad Bank. The rest of this interview begins here with part 2 of 9.
There are many major global interests, cloaked in environmentalism, more interested in the cloak than the environmentalism. Many want the benefits of buying up in neofeudalist fashion much of the world's land for themselves under false pretenses as they work on global standards for privatizing the world's land and debt to get their way. Instead of 'protecting' environmental conditions, such Malthusian inspired policies demoting the local people, the nations, the legal systems, and the wider environmental species that live there via their supply-side interest in destruction being less challenged.
This an an introduction to the real Nature Conservancy, by Sharon Beder:
Rather than lobbying governments to implement regulations [actually they do this as well now--though with corporations in secret], or
highlighting the activities of corporations in degrading the
environment, TNC seeks out solutions that do not threaten those
corporations. While TNC seeks to preserve areas of forest, for example,
it does not publicly speak out against practices such as clear-cutting.
It preserves areas of land for grizzly bears but it does not oppose
hunting or developments that endanger those bears and destroy their
habitat. Hunting is even allowed on some of its own land and TNC
officers may go hunting with potential donors [under the alibi that this is required] as part of the
negotiation process. [The WWF similarly has been known to be involved with letting its connected elites kill endangered megafauna on 'its own land' in Africa.]
This approach is attractive to donors because they know TNC
will not turn around and expose a corporation’s dirty record or
damaging activities. What is more, TNC will accept donations from any
company, no matter what its record, no questions asked. In return for
support, TNC promises donors publicity as corporations that care about
the environment.
TNC’s 1,900 corporate sponsors include ARCO, BHP, BP,
Chevron, Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric,
General Mills, General Motors, Georgia-Pacific, McDonald’s, Mobil, NBC,
Pepsi-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Toyota and Pfizer. Some of these
companies, including Monsanto, even get a say on how TNC is run by being
on its International Leadership Council.
Such an approach is very lucrative. TNC has 3,200 employees in 528 offices across the USand in 27 countries. In 2003/4 its revenue was $866 million. This
included over $350 million from dues and donations, $180 million from
investments, almost $100 million from government grants and another $101
million from sales of land. Its total assets – including nature
preserves – are now valued at over $4 billion.
TNC claims to have protected [a mere]...60,000 square kilometres in the US
and over 400,000 square kilometres in other parts of the world.
However, [it's much larger area effect is upon the] several hundred thousand square kilometres of ecologically
sensitive land that it is ‘protecting’ in the US [that is] now being grazed,
logged, farmed, drilled or put to work in some fashion.
Timber companies
such as Weyerhaeuser [another corporation with a huge Skull and Bones connected background] and Georgia-Pacific are allowed to log on TNC
preserves in several states. In some cases it is even paying ranchers
and farmers [with 'your' donation money] to continue working the land.
TNC’s aim is
to provide examples of private, multiple-use conservation where
forestry, ranching and drilling can be done in a sustainable way.
[However, they do not monitor it at all, so it's just TNC greenwashing.] However, its conservation efforts have many critics who argue that it is
too ready to compromise environmental values and that these activities
degrade and threaten the integrity of protected areas.
This was also
recognized by some of TNC’s own scientists. [And a 'coup against their own science personnel' by the TNC executives:]
[TNC] Science director Jerry Freilich recognized that the pounding hooves
of cattle degrade fragile environments. He claims that in 2000 he was
physically bullied by his boss to sign documents certifying that
specific cattle ranches, which he had never visited, were
environmentally sound. He signed, subsequently left and made a complaint
to the police, which led to a settlement with TNC
a year later. All but 3 of the remaining 95 scientific staff at
headquarters were subsequently dispersed to branch offices or reassigned
to a new organization that services TNC and sells its biological data.1
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. Paterson’s administration handed an enormously wealthy
environmental group a staggering 57 percent profit on a large tract of
wilderness land — even as property values collapsed across New York, a
probe by The Post has found.
The little-noticed green giveaway of taxpayer cash occurred in
October 2008, as the [New York] state Department of Environmental Conservation
paid The Nature Conservancy
nearly $10 million for 20,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness that the
group purchased for $6.3 million just a few years earlier.
Official state records examined by The Post and statements by local
officials show the purchase price was heavily inflated and relied on
outdated appraisals from a year earlier, when real-estate values in New
York and other parts of the nation were still skyrocketing.
GREEN FEES: Adirondack Park official Frederick Monroe said the state
“grossly overpaid” The Nature Conservancy for 20,000 acres of upstate
wilderness.
Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board Executive Director
Frederick Monroe said the state “grossly overpaid” for the property.
“I’ve suspected there’s some sort of close relationship between the
state and TNC that resulted in this price, because it didn’t reflect
the true market value,” Monroe said.
The price paid for the land was also out of line with property
values recorded at the state Office of Real Property Services. Records
for Clinton County show a mere 14.4 percent increase in value for
forest land from the time The Nature Conservancy bought the property in January 2005 to when it sold it to the state, for inclusion in the park, in October 2008.
Several county and town officials insisted the state paid far too high a price for the land.
“This price was not indicative of property values in the area
generally,” said James Gonyo, Clinton County’s director of real
property tax services.
“The price paid was higher than we would have assessed it at and, as
a result, we will not use it as a valid sale on which to base
assessments in the future.”
Saranac Councilman Jerry Delaney, in whose town the bulk of the land
is located, called the sale “a horrible deal all the way around. “Ten percent a year is a good return on land, but 57 percent in
three years? I think it’s clear the state has a cozy relationship with
The Nature Conservancy.”
Sources told The Post that Paterson — and former governors George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer,
in office when the appraisals were conducted — viewed the conservancy
as an influential organization whose support they wanted.
“Paterson, Spitzer and Pataki saw the ‘enviros’ as the good guys
with lots of influential friends, and their view was, ‘If they can give
them a few extra million dollars of public money, why not?’ ” said a
prominent New York official, who has had contact with The Nature
Conservancy.
Pataki selected prominent Manhattan lawyer Ira Millstein in 2004 — a
year after he was named to a special Nature Conservancy advisory panel
— to draft governance principles for state authorities.
The price paid to the preservation group also appears to contradict a
pledge made by TNC when it acquired the heavily wooded land from
Domtar, an international lumber and paper company.
A press release issued at the time said TNC promised to “hold the
land [instead of play the real estate market with it] on behalf of New York state” and quoted Pataki referring to the
environmental group as a “partner” with the state.
The statement suggested to many that New York intended to reimburse
TNC for the cost of acquisition, plus any expenses, once it had the
funds to complete the purchase.
TNC, which has $6 billion in assets and employs 3,500 people, has an
extremely close working relationship with the DEC and even has members
of its staff working in the agency’s Albany headquarters as part of a
natural heritage program.
Connie Prickett, a spokeswoman for TNC, said, “The question of why
the state paid that much is a question that needs to be directed to the
state.”
The practice appears to be continuing. The Post has learned that a Paterson-administration plan to buy a
large tract of land near the state-owned Belleayre Mountain in the
Catskills is being blocked by Comptroller Tom DiNapoli out of concern
that Albany is preparing to spend “millions more” than the property is
worth, said a source.
DEC spokesman Yancy Roy conceded the 2008 crash of the national
economy is a legitimate question,” but he insisted the wheels of state
government just turn too slowly for the falling property values of the
Adirondack land to have been addressed.
“Key elements of the transaction had occurred before then,” said Roy.
“The state process is much slower than, say, a private home sale. It takes months,” continued Roy. “The notion that the state wanted to ‘reward’ TNC is absurd.”
The group eschews political work in favor of the relatively
noncontroversial project of buying land.
Calling itself “Nature’s real
estate agent,” the Nature Conservancy purchases private land and then
sells it to state and federal agencies, often, according to its critics,
at a considerable mark-up.
Budget: $337 million [revenue in 2005: $866 million, thus this equals TNC is turning a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars?]
Staff: 1,200 [other updated sources give over 3,000 staff now];
Members: 720,000 individuals; 220
corporations
Salary of CEO: More than $196,000, including benefits.”
[1] The Washington Post has produced a Special Report titled BIG GREEN which as series of investigative articles exposes the corporate infestation of The Nature Conservancy and “documents on the organization’s transformation from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.”
3. (on Nature Conservancy and Conservation International working with military contractors like Lockheed--which WWF founder Prince Bernhard was caught in a scandal with in the 1970s as well!)
What’s the Fallout When Green Groups “Partner” with Arms Makers? | Conservation International & Nature Conservancy
admin May 01, 2012 Conservation International, Nature Conservancy
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.
Still, you’d think the critique, or at least the bad press coverage
it generated, would inspire reflection about the reputational damage
some corporate deals can bring down on a nonprofit organization. More
specifically, is a company that makes weapons of war an appropriate
partner for a group whose mission is saving the Earth’s biodiversity?
Well, if those questions were raised, they didn’t lead to change.
C.I. has just cranked up its P.R. machine in service of a new partnership with Northrop, “a unique and innovative professional development program for public middle and high school science teachers.”
In a nutshell: The Northrop Grumman Foundation will pay for 16 teachers from four U.S. public school systems to visit CI’s Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network’s Volcan Barva site inside La Selva Biological Station and Braulio Carrillo National Park in Costa Rica.
“We believe that supporting professional development
opportunities for teachers will have the greatest impact on engaging
students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.
We expect this program will help cultivate the next generation of
environmental stewards,” said Sandy Andelman, vice president at Conservation International in a press release the two partners issued April 19.
Whoa! That statement requires a reality check. According to the U.S. Department of Education,
there are 3.6 million K to 12 grade teachers in the United States
spread across 14,000 public school districts. The group selected for
this program doesn’t even come close to representing 1 percent of the
teachers in the country.
While they will surely have a rewarding time and may even return home
to inspire their students, the scale of the program is too small to
have the impact Andelman claims. Like so many of these
corporate-conservationist joint ventures they are more symbolic than
substantive.
They deliver real public relations boons for Northrop, however, which might explain why the Falls Church, Vir. -based company features the “ECO classroom” as a top story on its homepage.
Hat tip to Wiki Scraper for writing the search tool that brought this story to my attention.
While we’re on the subject of corporate-environmentalist ties, here’s another couple of recent stories that deserve mentions:
This upbeat Q & A featuring Wal-Mart chairman Rob Walton and C.I.’s CEO Peter Seligmann comes out as Wal-Mart as struggles to overcome awkward questions about its greening policies and a recent bribery scandal.
Many environmental groups, including C.I., don’t count donations from
corporate-tied foundations as “corporate” cash. Instead, they report
money from the likes of the Walton Family Foundation and
the Northrop foundation as foundation grants, which helps them claim
that only a fraction of their funding comes from corporate sources. For
that matter, C.I. doesn’t tally the money it receives from scions like Rob Walton
in the corporate column either. But Walton, in this article, doesn’t
talk like someone whose relationship to C.I. is detached from the
workings of the family firm, even if he does say he leaves the
day-to-day greening to “middle managers.”
Environmental Defense Fund was caught in a similar controversy last
week. The group claims to take zero corporate dollars but the Walton
Family Foundation granted EDF $16 million in 2009 and continuing support
equal to more than $7 million in 2010, among other support.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports this morning that an obscure private foundation threatened to pull funding from the Potomac Riverkeeper group unless it dropped its opposition to a trading scheme proposed as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
4. How Environmental Groups Gone Bad Greenwash Logging Earth’s Last Primary Old Forests
April 16, 2012 by Dr. Glen Barry | Rainforest Portal The world’s pre-eminent environmental
organizations, widely perceived as the leading advocates for rainforests
and old growth, have for decades been actively promoting primary forest
logging [search].
Groups like Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Environmental Defense Fund
actively promote industrially logging Earth’s last old forests.
Through
their support of the existing “Forest Stewardship Council” (FSC),
and/or planned compromised “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation” (REDD), they are at the forefront of destroying
ancient forests for disposable consumer items – claiming it is
“sustainable forest management” and “carbon forestry”.
Rainforest movement corruption is rampant as these big bureaucratic,
corporatist NGOs conspire to log Earth’s last primary rainforests and
other old growth forests. Collectively the “NGO Old Forest Sell-Outs”
are greenwashing
FSC’s destruction of over 300,000,000 acres of old forests, destroying
an area of primary rainforests and other old forests the size of South
Africa (two times the size of Texas)!
FSC and its members have built a
massive market for continued business as usual industrially harvested
primary forest timbers – with minor, cosmetic changes – certifying as
acceptable murdering old forests and their life for consumption of
products ranging from toilet paper to lawn furniture. Some 70% of FSC
products contain primary forest timbers, and as little as 10% of any
product must be from certified sources.
FSC has become a major driver of primary forest destruction and
forest ecological diminishment.
Despite certifying less than 10% of the
world’s forest lands, their rhetoric and marketing legitimizes the
entire tropical and old growth timber trade, and a host of even worse
certifiers of old forest logging. It is expecting far too much for
consumers to differentiate between the variety of competing and false
claims that old growth timbers are green and environmentally sustainable
– when in fact none are. While other certification schemes may be even
worse, this is not the issue, as industrial first-time primary forest
logging cannot be done ecologically sustainably and should not be
happening at all. FSC’s claims to being the best destroyer of primary
forests is like murdering someone most humanely, treating your slaves
the best while rejecting emancipation, or being half pregnant.
To varying degrees, most of the NGO Old Forest Sell-Outs also support
the United Nations’ new “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation” program (UNREDD, REDD, or REDD+), originally
intended to protect Earth’s remaining and rapidly diminishing primary
rainforests and other old forests, by making “avoided deforestation”
payments to local forest peoples as an international climate and
deforestation solution. Large areas of primary and old-growth forests
were to be fully protected from industrial development, local
communities were to both receive cash payments while continuing to
benefit from standing old forests, and existing and new carbon was to be
sequestered.
After years of industry, government and NGO forest sell-out pressure,
REDD+ will now fund first time industrial primary rainforest logging
and destruction under the veil of “sustainable forest management” and
“carbon forestry”. REDD+ is trying to be all things to everybody –
forest logging, protection, plantations, carbon, growth – when all we
need is local funding to preserve standing forests for local
advancement, and local and global ecology; and assurances provided REDD+
would not steal indigenous lands, or be funded by carbon markets,....
Sustainable forest management in old forests is a myth and
meaningless catchphrase to allow continued western market access to
primary rainforest logs. Both FSC and now REDD+ enable destruction of
ancient naturally evolved ecosystems – that are priceless and sacred –
for throw away consumption. Increasingly both FSC and REDD+ are moving
towards certifying and funding the conversion of natural primary forests
to be cleared and replanted as plantations. They call it carbon
forestry and claim it is a climate good. Even selective logging destroys
primary forests, and what remains is so greatly ecologically reduced
from first time industrial logging, that they are on their way to being
plantations.
Naturally evolved ancient forests are sacred and primeval life giving
shrines, and standing and intact, large and contiguous primary
rainforest and other old forests are a requirement for sustaining global
ecology and achieving local advancement. Old forests are a vital part
of the biosphere’s ecological infrastructure – and have a prominent,
central role in making the Earth habitable through their cycling of
carbon, energy, water, and nutrients. Planetary boundaries have been
exceeded, we have already lost too many intact terrestrial ecosystems,
and what remains is inadequate to sustain global ecology.
Primary rainforests cannot be logged in an ecologically sustainable
manner; once logged – selectively, certified, legally or not – for
throw-away consumer crap, their primary nature is destroyed, and
ecological composition and dynamics are lost forever. What remains is
permanently ecologically diminished in terms of composition, structure,
function, dynamics, and evolutionary potential. Logged primary forests’
carbon stores, biodiversity and ecosystems will never be the same in any
reasonable time-span. Selective, industrially logged primary
rainforests become fragmented, burn more and are prone to outright
deforestation.
Primary forest logging is a crime against Earth, the human family and
all life – and those doing the logging, profiting and greenwashing the
ecocide are dangerous criminals – who must be stopped and brought to
justice. There is a zero chance of protecting and ending first time
industrial logging of primary rainforests when the NGO Old Forest
Sell-Outs say it is sustainable, even desirable, and continue to
greenwash FSC old growth timber markets – now to be expanded with
potential REDD funding – providing crucial political cover and PR for
forest ecocide through their presence in the organizations.
Each of the named organizations’ forest campaigns are a corrupt shell
of their former selves – acting unethically and corruptly – destroying
global ecology and local options for advancement, for their own benefit.
The rainforest logging apologists have chosen power, prestige and money
coming from sitting at the old forest logging mafia’s table, gathering
the crumbs fallen from the table to enrich their empires, rather than
the difficult yet necessary job of working to fully protect rainforests
and other primary forests from industrial development.
WWF, Greenpeace, and RAN are particularly culpable. With rainforests
threatened as never before, RAN targets the Girl Scouts, Greenpeace
supports Kleenex’s clearcut of Canadian old growth boreal forests for
toilet paper, and WWF runs a bad-boy logger club who pay $50,000 to use
the panda logo while continuing to destroy primary forests.
The only way this NGO old forest greenwash logging machine will be
stopped is to make doing so too expensive to their corporate
bureaucracies in terms of lost donations, grants, and other support –
whose sources are usually unaware of the great rainforest heist.
Ecological Internet – the rainforest campaign organization I head – and
others feel strongly, based upon the urgency of emerging ecological
science, and our closeness to global ecological collapse, that it is
better to fight like hell in any way we can to fully protect and restore
standing old forests as the most desirable forest protection outcome.
Greenwash of first time industrial primary forest logging must be called
out wherever it is occurring, and resisted by those in the global
ecology movement committed to sustaining local advancement and
ecosystems from standing old forests. There is no value in unity around
such dangerous, ecocidal policy.
Despite tens of thousands of people from around the world asking
these pro-logging NGOs to stop their old forest logging greenwash, none
of the organizations (who routinely campaign against other forest
destroyers, making similar demands for transparency and accountability)
feel obligated to explain in detail – including based upon
ecological-science – how logging primary forests protects them. Nor can
they provide any detailed justification – or otherwise defend – the
ecology, strategy and tactics of continued prominent involvement in FSC
and REDD primary forest logging. They clearly have not been following
ecological science over the past few years, which has made it clear
there is no such thing as ecologically sustainable primary forest
logging, and that large, old, contiguous, un-fragmented and fully
ecologically intact natural forests are critical to biodiversity,
ecosystems, and environmental sustainability.
We must end primary and other old forest logging for full community
protection and restoration. The human family must protect and restore
old forests – starting by ending industrial-scale primary forest logging
– as a keystone response to biodiversity, ecosystem, climate, food,
water, poverty and rights crises that are pounding humanity, ecosystems,
plants and animals. There is no such thing as well-managed, sustainable
primary forest logging – first time industrial harvest always destroys
naturally evolved and intact ecosystems.
Humanity can, must and will – if it wishes to survive – meet wood
product demand from certified regenerating and aging secondary growth
and non-toxic, native species plantations. Humanity must meet market
demand for well-managed forest timbers by certifying only 1) small-scale
community eco-forestry practiced by local peoples in their primary
forests (at very low volumes for special purposes and mostly local
consumption), 2) regenerating and aging secondary forests regaining
old-growth characteristics, and 3) non-toxic and mixed species
plantations under local control. Further, reducing demand for all timber
and paper products is key to living ecologically sustainably with old
forests.
Local community development based upon standing old forests including
small scale eco-forestry is fine. Small scale community eco-forestry
has intact primary forests as its context for seed and animal sources,
and management that mimics natural disturbance and gap species
establishment. It is the industrial first time logging – selective
logging, defined as selecting all merchantable, mature trees and logging
them– turning primary forests into plantations, that is problematic.
The goal must remain to maximize the extent, size, and connectivity of
core primary forest ecosystems, to maximize global and local ecosystem
processes, and local advancement and maintained well-being from standing
old forests.
By dragging out the forest protection fight on a forest by forest
basis, until ecological collapse becomes publicly acknowledged and
society mobilizes, we can hold onto more ecosystems, biodiversity, and
carbon than logging them a tiny bit better now. Soon ...the human family will catch up with the ecological science and realize
old forest destruction and diminishment must end as we ramp up natural
regeneration and ecological restoration of large, connected natural
forests adequate to power the global ecosystem. As society awakens to
the need to sustain the biosphere, having as many intact ecosystems for
models and seed sources for restoration as possible will be key to any
sort of ecology and human recovery.
Rainforest protection groups engaged in greenwashing primary forest
logging (an oxymoron misnomer if ever there was one), particularly while
offering no defense of doing so, while raising enormous sums for
rainforest “protection”, must be stopped. We must continue to call upon
all big NGOs to resign from FSC and REDD, and join us in consistently
working to end primary forest logging, and protect and restore old
forests. Until they do, they must be boycotted and their funding cut off
– even if this impacts other good works they may do, as old forests are
such a fundamental ecological issue – until they stop greenwashing the
final destruction of primary forests. And it is past time for their
supporters to end their memberships as ultimately these big NGO
businesses are more concerned with their image and money than achieving
global forest policy that is ecologically sufficient, truthful, and
successful.
As a rainforest movement, we must return to the goal of a ban on
industrially harvested primary forest timbers. This means continuing to
resist and obstruct old forest harvest, businesses (including NGO
corporate sell-outs) involved, timber marketing, transportation,
storage, milling, product construction, product marketing, and
consumption. The entire supply chain for ecocidal primary forest timbers
must be destroyed. More of us must return to the forests to work with
local communities to build on-the-ground desire and capacity for
ecologically inspired advancement from standing old forests, and
physically obstructing old forest logging. We must make stolen,
ill-gotten old wood from life-giving ecosystems an unacceptable taboo,
like gorilla hand ash-trays, only worse. Together we must make old
forest revolution.
APPENDIX FIVE: Continued Quote about WWF Knowing Its Own Duplicity and Continuing It, pp. 208-214
Saving Animals?
Late in 1989, John Phillipson, professor at the University of Oxford, completed an internal
investigation ordered by the WWF about the organization´s effectiveness. "The Phillipson Report", a 252-page, highly detailed study, is a severe condemn to the incompetence, blunder and nonsense of the WWF. Professor Phillipson´s final conclusion is: the thing that the WWF least knew about, was precisely the mission it had chosen to accomplish: to save animals. The paradox is demonstrated by seeing that, after 23 years of collecting huge amounts of money on the adorable panda´s account, the WWF suddenly discovered that the cute animal was in imminent danger of extinction. Philip then launched a new campaign to collect more money to "save the panda".
Professor Phillipson noted that "the WWF had spent since 1980 more than 4,493,021 Swiss Francs in 8 projects, and "in spite of a 43 person team (23 of which were alleged scientists) , the reproduction of the panda had been unsuccessful, and the outcome of the research is insignificant . . . the laboratories, equipped at a cost of 530,000 Swiss Francs, are truly impractical. The absence of competent counselling, the lack of training for personnel, and bad management had produced a dying laboratory. The obvious conclusion is that the WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its large investments . . . and members of the WWF would be disheartened when they realise that the contributed capital has virtually disappeared." After more than 30 years of fund collecting on account of the panda, Prince Philip was forced to admit in 1990 that "the panda is probably doomed with extinction".
The Case of the Elephant
Regarding the elephant, the WWF made its very important contribution for attaining the extinction of the species. The famous ecologist E. Caughey, specialised in animal population, made a study in 1980 showing that at the beginning of 1950, in Africa were about 3,000,000 elephants. Later, in 1976, the first systematic elephant count made in Africa by Ian Douglas-Hamilton, a Scottish conservationist residing in Kenya, found 1,300,000 survivors.
During the whole 1970 decade and part of the 80s, the WWF stubbornly claimed that "there was not an elephant crisis", and fought every effort of many conservationists towards forbidding the trade of the valuable ivory of the animal.
In 1989, the WWF proclaimed "the Year of the Elephant", while stating there still were 750,000 animals. However, the census performed in 1988 by Pierre Pfeffer (former president of the WWF France) demonstrated that only 400,000 existed. Because of this revelation, Pfeffer was forced to resign.
Going back to 1963, it has been verified that sir Peter Scott, head of WWF International, recommended to the Uganda´s Natural Parks Administration Board the elimination of 2,500 animals, and for doing the job was hired the already known Ian Parker. In the same operation, Parker killed 4,000 hippopotamus. The recommendation was based on the Malthusian premise that "due to overpopulation, in order to save the species, it was necessary to kill many individuals." In fact, and as was later demonstrated, sir Scott only wanted to create a big estate for exploiting mahogany precisely in the woods where the elephants grazed, and they were a nuisance.
In 1975, The African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, created by Russel Train, WWF's president of the USA branch, hired Ian Parker for killing virtually all elephants in Rwanda, arguing that Rwandans couldn´t protect simultaneously the mountain gorillas and the elephants, so the elephants "had to die". One of world famous gorilla expert, Diane Fossey's assistants later denounced, the elephants were killed [by the WWF] because the land where they lived was ideal for [the creation of industrial cash crops, for] cultivating pyrethrum, from where pyrethrin is extracted, a natural and "non contaminating insecticide".
Few years later, a synthetic substitute was discovered and the pyrethrum production ended. Now without forests, the high hillsides where elephants lived lost its vegetal covering because hydraulic erosion, the rivers sedimented and resulted in floodings. Ironically, Mr. Russell Train was shortly after nominated chief of the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tell me about who are you mingling with, and I´ll tell you who you are...
Much more recent is the medal the WWF awarded in 1986 to Clem Coetze, a former Rhodesian mercenary (given by WWF´s General Director DeHaes), for supervising the campaign where more than 44,000 elephants were killed in Zimbabwe.
According to the WWF this was necessary "in order to protect the environment". When the WWF sounded the alarm in 1989 -when declared "The Year of the Elephant" [after the WWF had killed tens of thousands of elephants itself for industrial cash cropping of mahogany and pyrethrum production]- the help given was quite curious: with funds collected with dramatic campaigns "to save Nell, the elephant", the WWF mounted and installed a camp for rescuing the big animals, and air lifted there huge amounts of paramilitary equipment. The camp was in the border with Rwanda, in spite of the fact that all the elephants were in Park Murchinson, 1,000 miles away. But from this region, the Patriotic Rwandan Front launched its invasion against Rwanda, provoking one of the worst and most horrible manslaughter ever witnessed in History.
The unfortunate black rhinoceros also owes the WWF its near state of extinction.
The Rhinoceros Too
In 1961, the WWF began its "help" with the 45,000 Sterling Pounds collected thanks to
a Daily Mirror campaign inviting to contribute with donations for "saving Gertie, the adorably
ugly rhinoceros". However, the WWF spent virtually nothing on saving the rhinoceros during the first 10 years, and only sponsored two programs related with Gertie in the first
two decades.
In spite of the noisy propaganda campaigns related to the rhinoceros, from the 110 millions Sterling Pounds collected until 1980 "for saving the black rhinoceros", the WWF only spent 118,533 Swiss Francs in programs that had some relation with the subject.
Meanwhile, the rhinoceros population had decreased by 95,5%. And when finally the WWF decided to act, the rhinoceros died, or at the best, were sent to zoos or, more often, to private farms, Today, there are virtually no more black rhinoceros in the African jungles.
Professor Phillipson criticised very harshly the programs undertaken by the WWF for "saving" the rhinoceros. In 1965, a resident in Kenya gave the WWF 36,300 Swiss Francs for moving six white rhinoceros from Natal, South Africa, to Meru National Park in Kenya, that according to a WWF´s report "were thought to have the correct natural habitat" for those animals. "The project"- states Phillipson,-"was bad conceived from the beginning, and was unjustified from every conservationist viewpoint; the southern white rhinoceros never, at least on historical ages, lived in Kenya; moreover, there is no evidence that the white rhinoceros from the north had ever roamed the lands now comprising the 87,044 hectares of Meru National Park. It has to be assumed that at the mid 60s, the WWF was scientifically incompetent, or it was hungry of publicity, or anxious of getting money, or it was unduly influenced by important people, but scientifically naive."
If the WWF has not been protecting animal species from extinction, in what has it been spending his hundreds of millions of dollars?
When we examine Operation Stronhold and Operation Lock, another two programs launched with the excuse of "saving the rhinoceros", we´ll find some revealing clues that will let us assemble the complicated puzzle that constitutes the international environmental movement.
Operation Stronghold
Funded by one million Swiss Francs, this operation was supposed to allow the Department of National Parks and the Wildlife Administration of Zimbabwe to save 700 black rhinoceros in the Zambesi Valley. Glenn Tatham, head of park keepers made a tour in the United States announcing that, with the aid of the WWF, he and his subordinates "we´ll go to war" against poachers that crossed the borders from Zambia. On May 10th 1988, [WWF's] Tatham and two of his aids were processed in Zimbabwe for murder. They were accused of attracting poachers with deceit and executed them, without previous notice, in an ambush when the poachers arrived.
In a parliamentary meeting, it was denounced that Tatham and his group had murdered 70 poachers since the beginning of 1987. Under pressure by Great Britain, the Zimbabwe Parliament hurried to pass a law that gave civil and criminal immunity to the park guards ["license to kill"], for the murders and wounds committed during their work. Ten parliamentarians opposed this law arguing that "it would legalise murder". One of the opponents, Mica Bhebs, said: "We are giving them carte blanche for killing people".
Official figures show that, between July 1974 and September 1991, 145 poachers were murdered. The vast majority of the [WWF murdered] dead in the Zambesi Valley were attacked from an helicopter owned by the WWF, whose crew was at the service of the WWF. Form the investigation, serious doubts rose about the fact if the attacks were really aimed towards armed poachers. According to people interviewed by the film crew of the "Ten Pence of the Panda",
many of the [WWF murdered] dead belonged to the military wing of the African National Congress, (ANC) that was fighting against Apartheid in South Africa, while their leader, Nelson Mandela
was serving a 25-year sentence.
And, what about the rhinoceros?
Since the inception of Operation Stronghold in February 1987, WWF´s goal was "relocate the rhinoceros captured in the valley to other safer areas". Drugged and immobilised, the animals were sent to private farms in Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa, the U.S. and Australia. In other words, the WWF paid mercenaries to kill people and manage to destroy the last herd of black rhinoceros in the world.
The true reasons were made public shortly after: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that was "restructuring" Zimbabwe´s economy, had ordered the installation of a of cattle estates in the valley of Zimbabwe, right in the region inhabited by the black rhinoceros, for provision of meat for the European Union markets.
After rhinoceros were dispersed along the world, squads of exterminators entered the valley and killed hordes of elephants and at least 5,000 buffaloes, along with other smaller animals for making room for the cattle ranches ordered by the IMF. In July 1989, the cattle was showed at a fair in Bulawayo.
It was discovered that the animals had the foot-and-mouth disease, so the Europeans cancelled their contracts. Zimbabwe remained charging on its back (and their miserable people) the huge debt with the IMF and without rhinoceros. Operation Lock [the UK's covert war conducted through the WWF to maintain South African Apartheid, funded by UK Queen Mother]
At the beginning of 1990, a scandal broke in the European media that set the directives of the WWF in a serious tight spot. It was discovered the failure of one of the most secret joint operations between the WWF and the elite forces of the British Special Air Services (SAS), that had the mission of saving the rhinoceros by infiltrating "commandos" in order to dismantle the illegal ivory and rhinoceros horn trading network, and send the leaders to jail. [Though what was the "real reason"?]
The serious thing was not the failure of the operation itself, but the disappearance of one million Sterling Pounds during the process, while discovering that the SAS group had started trading with the ivory and rhinoceros produce, replacing the cartels they had gone to fight! As in the Operation Stronghold, there were a large number of poachers murdered, according to the accusations of the Mandela´s National African Congress.
It is really curious that the most detailed revelations about Operation Lock, obviously supported by internal documents of the WWF, were published in the pages of the Africa Confidential bulletin, considered an operation of the MI-5, founded in the apartment that David Stirling had in London. Striling was the creator--during the days of Second World War--of the now [in]famous SAS.
For those familiar with the subject of African national parks, the main poachers by general
rule are the same park wardens, often funded and armed by the WWF.
The special unit created by Sterling "for protecting the rhinoceros" was formed with elite personnel from the SAS:
Lt. Colonel Ian Crooke, awarded the Distinguished Service Order during the Malvinas/Falklands war, then chief of the SAS 23rd Regiment.
Nish Bruce, Crooke´s second in command in the operation, it is said to be the most awarded soldier in Malvinas.
Alastair Crooke, Ian´s brother, former consular official in Pakistan, was responsible for the rearming
of the muyajedins in Afghanistan.
Other members of the group were veterans in Northern Ireland operations, and specialists in capturing members of the IRA. All of the were specialists in "dirty warfare" -experience considered quite appropriate for "protecting the rhinoceros". It stands clear that Operation Lock was the official policy of the British government: the chain of command in the WWF leads directly to Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth´s husband; Stirling himself admitted to the press that he kept contact with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. A member of the SAS participating in Operation Lock asserted in writing
that the consortium which funded the project, had the participation of the Queen Mother.
Other character supporting the operation was Laurens van der Post, Prince Charles' tutor,
then first counselor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs.
The Illogics of Colonialism
Instead of employing zoologists and other scientists for "saving the rhinoceros", the [UK] government preferred to use experts in destruction and death. But seen from the geopolitics standpoint, the illogic of Prince Philip and his WWF is an impeccable logic. Sterling had strong links -among other African animal produce illegal traders- with the insurgent organization UNITA, led by Jonas Savimbi, who admitted in 1988 that his men had killed 100,000 elephants in order to finance his war against the government of the MPLA in Angola. Moreover, inner documents of the KAS Enterprises Ltd, the "cover" used by Stirling and Crooke, show they planned to get huge profits with the ivory and rhinoceros horn sales-activity they allegedly were supposed to fight.
In August 1991, Zimbabwe´s Minister of Security, Sidney Sekarayami, told the Dutch
newspaper de Volkrants that he "suspected that KAS was a cover for destabilise Southern Africa." Many officials in governments in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia refused to co-operate
with the SAS group led by Crooke.
But, why send expert commandos to the south of Africa, even with the excuse of
saving rhinoceros? Even more, if these commandos were not saving rhinoceros then, what
were they really doing? Since long before Mandela was set free in 1990 and until present
days, more than 100,000 South Africans have died as the result of act of violence [seeded by the WWF] "between blacks". Many observers and political analysts attributed this manslaughter to the actions provoked by a mysterious "third force" [the WWF] which is not the African National Congress nor his rival, the Inkata Party, of Zulu basis. Attacking these rival groups--that later accused each other mistakenly--the "third force" [of the WWF] keeps alive the flame of violence. "Divide and Rule" seems to be the philosophy applied by Prince Philip in this case, through the SAS hired by the WWF.
Crooke and his men were the tools . . . with the excuse of ecology.
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.)
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?
There is one less theory about environmental improvement--four to be exact--because ecoMarxism is without any solutions or rather its solutions look closer to Bookchin-ite solutions (see Schnaiberg for example).
The bioregional state is a synthesis view of much of comparative history and what has worked in environmental-human protection. It is a "fourth ring" in the "three ring" environmental circus of solutions at present: voluntary bioregional localism, voluntary ecological modernization/industrial ecology, and neo-Malthusianism--and the fourth ring of the bioregional state.
The bioregional state takes the best from two other rings (localism and ecological modernization--while rejecting Malthusianism) and merges them with a larger framework.
By the 21st century, update your science: the exclusively reliance on a single-variable populationist view of human-ecological relations (popularized as an ideology for running the British Empire in the early 1800s and nothing more--see Mike Davis) is seriously challenged by many ecological thinkers from Amartya Sen, to Elinor Ostrom, to Ester Boserup, to Mike Davis, to me:
Additional Critiques of Neo-Malthusianism
In addition to the historical critique of the use of Malthusianism above in the past 60 years, there is the historical critique of it over the past 200 years by Mike Davis. Check out that book: Late Victorian Holocausts. That's 'old fashioned' Malthusianism.
However, there is neo-Malthusianism, the attempt to update Malthus's frameworks that began in the 1960s. Works such as Hardin's the tragedy of the commons (1968) reformulated Malthusian
thought about abstract population increases causing famines into a
model of individual selfishness at larger scales causing degradation of common pool resources
such as the air, water, the oceans, or general environmental
conditions. Hardin offered dual unchecked supply-side solutions--privatization of resources or government
regulation--to environmental degradation caused by tragedy
of the commons conditions. However, we have seen that these 'solutions' are exacerbating the environmental degradation in the WWF case! Many other sociologists shared this view of
solutions well into the 1970s (see Ophuls). There have been many
critiques of this view, particularly political scientist Elinor Ostrom or economists Amartya Sen and Ester Boserup.
Even though much of mainstream journalism considers Malthusianism the
only view of environmentalism, most sociologists would disagree with
Malthusianism since social organizational issues of environmental
degradation are more demonstrated to cause environmental problems than
abstract population or selfishness per se. For examples of this
critique, Ostrom in her book Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(1990) argues that instead of self interest always causing degradation,
it can sometimes motivate people to take care of their common property
resources only if they are durable residents in particular ecological spaces. To do this they must change the basic organizational rules of
resource use. Her research provides evidence for sustainable regional resource
management systems around common pool resources that have lasted for centuries in some areas of the world.
Amartya Sen argues in his book Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation
(1980) that population expansion fails to cause famines or degradation
as Malthusians or Neo-Malthusians argue. Instead, in documented cases, a
lack of political entitlement to resources that exist in abundance
causes famines in some populations. (This is the basic idea that Mike Davis draws upon in his deeper history of the famines in Ireland and the Third World European empires in the 1700s onward: the more European supply-side control, the more commodities, and the more famines because people had less and less regional jurisdiction over the commodities in question that were simply moved out of the area instead of feeding the starving.) Sen documents how famines can occur
even in the midst of plenty and even in the context of low populations. He
argues that famines (and environmental degradation) would only occur in
non-functioning democracies or unrepresentative states.
Ester Boserup argues in her book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure
(1965) from inductive, empirical case analysis that Malthus's more
deductive conception of a presumed one-to-one relationship with
agricultural scale and population is actually reversed. Instead of
agricultural technology and scale determining and limiting population as
Malthus attempted to argue, Boserup argued the world is full of cases
of the direct opposite: that population changes and expands agricultural
methods.
Eco-Marxist scholar Allan Schnaiberg argues against Malthusianism with the rationale that under
larger capitalist economies, human degradation moved from localized,
population-based degradation to organizationally caused degradation of
capitalist political economies to blame. He gives the example of the
organized degradation of rainforest areas in which states and capitalists
push people off the land before it is degraded by organizational means.
(This is what we have seen in the case of the WWF.)
Thus, many authors are critical of Malthusianism—from sociologists
(Schnaiberg), to economists (Sen and Boserup), to political scientists
(Ostrom)--and all focus on how a country's social organization of its
extraction can degrade the environment independent of abstract
population. And many others have solutions for environmental degradation--that are innately solutions to Malthusian ideology.
Hopefully you will look into a more workable alternative for thinking both about environmental degradation and thinking about environmental improvement--the bioregional state.
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.
