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.|
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.
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  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);  voluntary ecological modernization, biomimicry, industrial ecology, and the bioneers (voluntary-only corporate or supplier forms of material sustainability without any politics); and  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)
This is part 3:
The film helps demonstrate  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:  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;  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. They persuaded 1001 individuals to join the club, where each member would contribute US $10,000 to the trust. [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, becoming Director General of WWF-International from 1975. The resulting $10 million fund helps to fund the WWF's basic costs of administration.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:
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."
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?" 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 . 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.  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 .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:
The "Black Ivory" Report: WWF Covering up Illegal Ivory Trading When It Found It; WWF Let Its Own Staff Who Found It Get TorturedAlthough 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:
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.  [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:
- 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 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." 
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. 
More detail on "Ten Pence in the Panda" and the WWF can be found here:
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]." 
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." 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. 
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 . 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 . 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. 
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." 
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." 
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 . Years later, I made a call to Mr. Wilgers, who stated that the 1001 Club is directed by the Privy Council and MI6. This now turns out to be similar to the leadership of Le Cercle. All British chairmen of Le Cercle were deeply involved with British and foreign intelligence, and the last three were members of the Privy Council.
It may be possible that these so called 'strategic parks' might not be limited to Southern Africa. For instance, if you take a look at Pakistan, the "ally" of the United States in the War on Terror (and significantly represented in the 1001 Club, in part through the Bhutto family), you'll see five major national parks in the north of the country. One is located at the border with India, another at the border with China, and yet another one at the border with northern Afghanistan. The management of these parks works closely with the IUCN and the WWF. The Aga Khan Rural Support Program (AKRSP) of 1001 Club member Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan is another partner in many of the same projects in that area. It's hard to say if these parks are used for some type of military operations, but they certainly are conveniently located."
Back to the Silence of the Panda. The film really is a good segway into just some of the above: the disingenuousness of some branches of environmentalism that are global, or that claim the WWF global leadership is different than past degradative, anti-human, absentee-landlord imperialisms of the past.
The film argues that the global agro-business relationships of the WWF certification were designed to provide quid pro quo benefits to the 1001 Club (and thus with Bilderberg--though the film fails to mention Bilderberg) instead of innately be a vehicle of environmental protection primarily as the "real reason." At least that is the interpretation in the filmmaker's mind: that you are unable to disentangle the intrinsic covert 1001 Club for industrial degradation greenwashing from the extrinsic overt spin of the WWF.
Bernhard and a South African branch President of the WWF recruited the original 1001 Club for funding (and networking) the WWF cover vehicle into wider existence. As a cover vehicle design to do what is is doing well, the WWF was pro-industry more than pro-environment from the start. The film even shows the WWF support of the oil industry. The WWF helped to cover up an oil spill off France in the early 1960s to keep its corporate oil funding.
This support of oil corporations by the WWF was several years before mass public environmentalism was launched, as some try to argue, from only 1963 with the publication of Silent Spring. Carson's book was a proponent of an anti-degradative, anti-industrial critique of such private jurisdictions over chemical and land, particularly when linked to a government that was protecting them. From 1963, a grass roots decentralization version of green culture got more independent culturally and out of elite control throughout the 1960s through the inspiring work of both Carson and Bookchin I would argue.
My Analysis of WWF Founders
First, for me, it's an interesting twist to the WWF as just a branch of the 1001 Club (and of course thus just a branch of the Bilderberg Group). It is a fascinating angle to think about in the real world that has spun the framing of what ideologies and policies that 'environmentalism' operates within in some group's minds. It is well worth watching.
Politically, the documentary is a well required (re)start into delegitimating the WWF as a monstrosity of an organization, a task pioneered over 20 decades ago by Kevin Dowling. Nothing has changed since then. The WWF's own record continues to damn it. The WWF elites help themselves to the environment materially and as an ideological cloak, more than they help the environment. Because of this angle, it's a novel twist on the WWF explaining global empire origins from the start as very important in its opeation instead of really environmentalism--very different than other more honest environmentalist leadership vehicles that came later and had different environmental policy ideas.
I felt that there are other disingenuous elements to the WWF that could have been stressed to make the film's case even stronger: like how if it is connected to Prince Bernhard, it is connected to Bilderberg; like how the WWF is involved in many other scandals involving carbon-credits fraud to make money in South America that the film fails to discuss; or like how its founders were the usual globalist jurisdiction ("NWO") suspects as follows:
Founder(s) of the WWF (Expanded Later in Appendix One's Biographies)
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld [a son of a sovereign royal house of the Second German Reich; the Bilderberg spider; co-founded Bilderberg in 1954; founded WWF in 1961 (with money from the Rockefeller family originally); with South African billionaire Rupert, Bernhard founded another secret society, the 1001 Club ('for nature') in 1970: full of bankers, South African apartheid leadership, global corporate fascists, global dictators worldwide; Prince Bernhard himself is ex-Nazi and his brother was in the Nazi Reich's Air Force; married into Netherland's royalty]
Julian Huxley [WWI spy for UK in intelligence; big racist eugenicist; popularized old depopulation of Malthusianism; witnessed and loved 'USSR style big project' ideas and linked it to environmentalism; admired and learned how diseased-areas of depopulated Africa were connected to large nature park creation...]
Max Nicholson [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]
Peter Scott [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]
Guy Mountfort [useful fronts for the others; see Appendix One]
Godfrey A. Rockefeller; U.S. military background; both his father and grandfather were Skull and Bones--some of the few Rockefellers inducted into Skull and Bones; Godfrey was not in Bones though he went to Yale. He put the actual WWF original staff together in 1961 and used his money to fund them.)
Now, who is the world would accept these people's backgrounds as environmentalists? Have you believed in the WWF before? Do you still?
The film helps people see (if they keep their eyes open) how certain already powerful players in the global sense plotted to use the WWF and environmentalism from the very beginning disingenuously to manage a novel global corporate and military integration openly (and secretly) as a form of empire in an era increasingly rejecting open colonialism--instead of them doing this to really save ecological relations.
So the royalty of Bernhard founded two secret societies and the WWF in this order (and in the WWF worked with the financial royalty of Rockefellers spiced up with Skull and Bones memberships):
- 1954: Bilderberg, secret society, global integration, "anti-Communist" (Fourth Reich corporatism across the U.S. and Europe?)
- 1961: WWF, ostensibly open society for global integration of environmentalism, though funded originally from secretive Rockefeller families with a history of military intelligence and Skull and Bones memberships who were later more open in administrating the WWF by 1977 when founder Prince Bernhard was pushed out because of his military corruption scandals in the Netherlands.
- 1970: 1001 Club for Nature (for WWF funding), secret society, global integration of the previous corporatism for global environmental management across U.S., Europe, and adding elites from Third World areas now
Six Points: The WWF's Policies Now Make Sense
Six public aspects of the WWF make more sense with this inside secret society view of it: (1) its globalized versions of environmentalism intentionally destroying required local jurisdictions and local communities for industrial monocultures--when it is these localized jurisidictional solutions of people integrated into the environment that are the only ones that work:
Local jurisdictional dominance in nested court decisions and commodity ecology resource use is how people and environments together creates a durable local political feedback against degradative ecological tyrannies of state politics and can preserve biodiversity politically as well (noted in another previous post).
Here is a short film about the expansion of local jurisdictional power in Namibia, Africa as the country sees its first political stability, finances for education and livelihood combined with wildlife protection--in its 50 year postcolonial history. In other words provide for stable people, and you provide for stable ecological protection. Undermine people and local jurisdictions like the WWF does, and you provide for ecological destruction and corruption in development policy.
Community Sponsored Conservation is the Financial Infrastructure in Namibia: John Kasaona: How poachers became caretakers, and created a sustainable developmental, financial, and consumptive framework
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.
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
Another example of local community jurisdictions getting stronger and facilitating ecological restoration better than the WWF in that area, comes from Indonesia:
Willie Smits restores a rainforest
By piecing together a complex ecological puzzle, [a] biologist [forced to become a local community developer to preserve the environment] Willie Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans and local communities -- and creating a thrilling blueprint for restoring fragile ecosystems.See? The same mixing of environmental protection and community security and local jurisdictional maintenance. Why stop there? Go global with the bioregional state: the same recovery of local jurisdictional dominance in material decisions can occur in more 'developed' areas that have historically been core to the ecological tyrannies of the current extensive global system (including the WWF) that encourages environmental degradation. It seems 'core' areas are finding their ecological voice once more if they can reject "ring #3's" Malthusian form of environmental charlatanism.
The film The Silence of the Pandas helps explain other points:
(2) WWF globalized support for GMOs and agro-industrial plantation-ism that destroys the environment and people's health;
(3) globalized versions of carbon-credits--another fraudulent 'financial bubble in the making'--that attempts to dominate development and to make money fraudulently for globalized interests on environmental derivatives in futures markets in CO2, something you can't even measure and when you do you find lots of fraud in that that doesn't justify the massive amount of money made in carbon credits futures;
(4) the WWF's contribution to popularizing the ideas of self-regulating industry despite its clear failures in the film;
(5) unreconstructed Malthusianism ignoring organizational origins of much degradation in its mass projects that the WWF helps to maintain both the mass projects and thus mass degradation;
(6) the 'usual suspects' of global governance from behind the scenes (listed above); the WWF was animated in Frankenstein-like foundation via a cash injection by one of William Rockefeller's sons--who had both his father and grandfather in Skull and Bones. Skull and Bones have already turned up in this blog once before in the Bonesman-based globalist agri-corporatism of ADM. Question: does ADM work with the WWF?
The film is an interesting twist on the history of the present-day environmental movements. This globalized version of environmentalism started in royal, corporate, and banking dynasties in Europe and the USA--before Bookchin in 1962, before Carson's Silent Spring publication in 1962/3, and long before 1970's first Earth Day. The film's twist is is focusing on their dynastic shenanigans between 1961-1970 creating a political system of environmental transnationalism that served their own already extensive transnationalism. From the beginning, the founding of the WWF was and remains these global elite players attempting to have their own kind of environmentalist vehicle as very different--because of their support for demographic depopulation, spatial depopulation, destruction of human communities, and massive land privatization despite none of these four strategies really protecting the environment, and only enhancing their already egregious globalized private economic control into land management policy as well.
Additionally, the film is an interesting way to introduce to audiences the highly contested leadership in environmentalism worldwide: how some (not all!) are just using environmentalism for rewashed Malthusianism as part of their larger larger jurisdictional strategy for their "real reason" of public/private planetary domination that involves de-democratization, destruction of local jurisdictions, inserted unrepresentative global privatization, and removal of all checks and balances on their global leadership power.
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.]
[removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]
[removed by YouTube.com; I'll update if I find it later.]
Addendum: an 8-minute interview with the filmmaker Huismann on German TV in 2011, immediately before the station aired the film for the first time:
The German version of the documentary was once said to be at this link though it is gone now:
The English version 'Silence of the Panda' was once available to purchase here though it is gone now as well:
That link now reveals that Huismann's film, produced only in 2011, now has a defunct distributor called United Docs. However, within half a year of The Silence of the Pandas, this company United Docs was bought up [?] by January 1, 2012 by "Global Screen." The link above now relates the following text to you when you search for The Silence of the Panda at the previous valid link: "Since January 1st, 2012 United Docs [still the same company?] serves its international customers under a new name: GLOBAL SCREEN will handle the worldwide distribution of programs outside the German-speaking European territories.
However, "The Silence of the Panda" is missing from the list of available titles from Global Screen. Global Screen does have five other films by Huismann though "The Silence of the Panda"--the most recent--is missing. Interesting--though that's the way media repression really works. See for yourself:
WWF as "Greenwashing Logo for Hire" in Industrial Salmon
Global Screen does have another earlier Huismann film that reflects badly on the WWF, called Salmonopoly (2009). It is in this film that Huismann probably started to get suspicious about the WWF? It is the film about Marine Harvest, the largest aqua-farming concern in the world. Turning out more than 100 million farmed salmon per year, it supplies consumers in Europe, the USA and Japan. But at what price? This global empire is run by John Fredriksen, a self-made man and one of the richest on Earth. In his Norwegian home, he is called the "Big Wolf"; he calls himself "green", "enduring" and "transparent". But reality contradicts the corporate philosophy, particularly in Chile where Marine Harvest is by far the largest producer with some 70 fish farms. Chile, with its barely-there environmental legislation, is a paradise for investors. Everything that is forbidden to salmon producers in Europe is allowed in Chile, with the result that after 18 months of rearing, the salmon are a chemically loaded product. In April 2008, in order to improve the intensive large-scale farming image, Marine Harvest entered into a partnership with the WWF. For a donation of €100,000 per year, Marine Harvest may use the WWF's panda logo to advertise its industrially produced farmed salmon.
Now, how are you going to react in the future when you hear this phrase: "Will you please donate to the WWF?"
APPENDIX ONE: Founder(s) of the WWF, Biographies Expanded:
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld: The Original "James Bond"and "SPECTRE" Rolled into One
[founder of the Bilderberg Group meetings in 1954; born a German; ex-Nazi Party; married the only daughter of Netherlands royalty; originally worked for the German chemical giant IG Farben that helped the Third Reich's war machine, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, he became the rather important main secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935. The model for the fictional character "James Bond" seems to be him (see below). Perhaps his Bilderbergs Group's shenanigans were the storyline of SPECTRE? Because he was a Protestant of royal rank (his family the Lippe-Biesterfelds were a sovereign house in the German Empire), Bernhard was acceptable to widower Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands as a suitable husband for her only daughter Princess Juliana. Bernhard’s appropriateness as consort of the future Queen of the Netherlands would later become a matter of some public debate.
Prince Bernhard’s political affiliations with the Nazi regime have received much attention. Various members of his family and acquaintances were aligned with the Nazis prior to and during the war, and a number of them joined the royal wedding party on 7 January 1937 in The Hague. Protocol demanded that the prospective prince-consort be invited to an audience with his head of state, who at the time was Adolf Hitler. Hitler himself gives a rendering of the conversation he had with Bernhard in his Tisch Gespräche (Table Conversations). Table Conversations was a collection of monologues, remarks, and speeches Hitler gave during lunch or dinner to those invited to the table by him....The Prince’s brother, Prince Aschwin of Lippe-Biesterfeld, was an officer in the German army. Although the secret services on both sides were interested in this peculiar pair of brothers, [no one really was allowed to investigate?:] no improper contacts or leaks of information were discovered.
The Prince was known to be very fond of smart uniforms and medals (seen in the documentary as well). He made a point of wearing his medals in the English court style, even though members of the Dutch armed forces wear their medals in the German/Prussian style....
In England, Prince Bernhard asked to work in British Intelligence but the War Admiralty, and later in General Eisenhower's Allied Command offices, did not trust him sufficiently to allow him access to intelligence information. However, on the recommendation of Bernhard's friend and admirer, King George VI (his brother (abdicated) British King Edward VIII was an ardent open Nazi), who was also of German aristocratic descent via his great-grandfather Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and...[Prince Bernhard] was later permitted to work in the Allied war planning councils.
From 1942 to 1944, Bernhard flew as a pilot with the [British] Royal Air Force. [Just like another Nazi family across the Big Water was doing in the U.S. Air Force, via airman George H. W. Bush who as pilot bailed out and killed his crew repeatedly at the first sign of trouble.] [Bernhard] also helped organise the Dutch resistance movement and acted as personal secretary for Queen Wilhelmina. [He certainly got a lot of important gatekeeping 'secretary' positions in his life.] By 1944, Prince Bernhard became Commander of the Dutch armed forces.
After the war [WWII], the [Netherlands] position of Inspector General was created for the Prince. He was made a member of the boards of supervisors of Fokker Aircraft and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and within a few years he had been invited to serve as an adviser or non-executive director of numerous corporations and institutions. There have been claims about KLM illegally helping to organize Nazis to leave Germany after WWII for Argentina on KLM flights while Bernhard was on its board.
With his global [Nazi ratline] contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing threat from Communism.[instead of from reconstructed Nazism--which was equally true given NATO's connections to the 'stay behinds' that conducted right-wing terrorism that killed hundreds of civilians in Europe so they could blame it on the left and move national politics to the right--read the book NATO's Secret Army]. This first "Bilderberg" meeting was successful, and it became an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg. [No, the first idea of a European Union was the Third Reich, then later after WWII it appears in a synarchist document. "European Union" was the Nazi's idea all along of course--more on that here.
In the middle of the 1950s, Prince Bernhard was involved in what some considered a personal vendetta against Greet Hofmans, a medical doctor whose pacifist leanings had convinced his wife the Princess. The [militant, secretive] Prince had this doctor removed.
On 15 September 1964, (another German from the same family of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha) Queen Elizabeth II appointed (her linked German relative) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to the honorary rank of Air Marshal in her Royal Air Force.
Scandal rocked the Netherlands Royal Family in 1976 when it was revealed that Prince Bernhard had accepted a US$1.1 million bribe from U.S. aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Corporation to influence the Dutch government's purchase of fighter aircraft. At the time he had served on more than 300 corporate boards and committees worldwide...On 26 August 1976, a toned-down, but nonetheless devastating, report on Prince Bernhard's activities was released to a shocked Dutch public. The Prince's own letter of 1974, to Lockheed Corporation, demanding "commissions" be paid to him on Dutch government aircraft purchases was very damaging evidence of improper conduct by the inspector-general of the Dutch armed forces [and a clue into how the money flows in the WWF might work as well for certain powerful groups of the 1001 Club wanting "commissions" to steer privatized land the way of the WWF in different countries of the world.]
Criminal charges were not pressed by the government out of respect for Queen Juliana, whose later abdication was tacitly understood to be directly related to her husband's corrupt conduct. Prince Bernhard resigned as inspector-general of the Dutch armed forces.
This meant that he was not allowed to wear a uniform in public, but it did not stop him from attending the 1979 funeral of Lord Mountbatten in London in full colours.
Prime Minister Joop den Uyl made a statement in parliament and told the delegates that the Prince would also resign from his various high-profile positions in businesses, charities, and other institutions. [He kept his Chairmanship of his secret internationalist Bilderberg Group and its connections to the 1001 Club. He at this time resigned from the WWF, passing its chairman to his own family's German-British relative, Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II].
The Dutch states-general voted against criminal prosecution [and thus voted to reward his criminality: his crime paid him handsomely]. Prince Bernhard turned over the presidency of the international World Wildlife Fund to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The Dutch Royal family worked hard to rehabilitate the Prince's name, though other corruption scandals were to be revealed in later years.
WWF Corruption Continued with Bernhard
In 1988, Prince Bernhard and Princess Juliana sold two paintings from their personal collection to raise money for the World Wildlife Fund. The paintings sold for GBP700,000, which was deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account. In 1989, however, Charles de Haes, director-general of the WWF, transferred GBP500,000 back to Bernhard, [getting his "commission" once more for WWF work] for what De Haes called a private project. In 1991, newspapers reported what this private project was: Prince Bernhard had hired KAS International, owned by [British state terrorist/black operations] SAS founder David Stirling, to use mercenaries—mostly British—to fight [i.e., kill] poachers in nature reserves. [In the film above Namibia has a better idea what to do with poachers. Watch it.] The paramilitary group infiltrated organisations profiting from illegal trade in ivory in order to arrest them [though as well decided to profit from the illegal ivory trade as well.].
This Project Lock seemed to have backfired enormously, however. [Or succeeded if this was its "real reason":] Bernhard’s private army had not only infiltrated in the illegal trade, they were also participating in it. To make things worse, Irish reporter Kevin Dowling discovered that the South African army was also involved in the trade, hinting at connections between the Bernhard’s army and the WWF and the struggle for maintaining apartheid. Moreover, he claimed members of the South African-run counterinsurgency unit Koevoet (Afrikaans and Dutch for "crowbar") had been trained under [Bernhard's mercenary army] Project Lock.
In 1995, Nelson Mandela called upon the Kumleben Commission to investigate, among other things, the role of the WWF in apartheid South Africa. In the report that followed, it was suggested that mercenaries from [Bernhard's] Project Lock had planned assassinations of ANC members and that mercenaries had been running training camps in the wildlife reserves, training fighters from the anti-communist groups UNITA and Renamo [that the CIA as well was funding as well to destabilize a country's domestic political peace that was hard won between factions--so they started up the factions once more to rule more readily over the war-ridden area (cite: The Praetorian Guard (1995) [whistle-blowing book about the CIA)]
Although Prince Bernhard was never accused of any crime in its context, the Project Lock scandal dealt another damaging blow to the Prince's name.
["Scandal" is such a light word, let's recap exactly what he was doing: illegal ivory trading, half a million pound fraud within the WWF, money laundering, extra-judicial murder by his private mercenaries operating in secret, repressive support for apartheid South Africa and political assassinations of Black South African leadership; what could be called 'state terrrorism' of intentionally destabalizing different black factions to fight each other and blame each other for violence via working with British SAS and the CIA in training African rebels--ALL WHILE BEING 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."
He also admitted to having fathered two illegitimate daughters in the years following his [royal] marriage.
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.
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. In 2010 fact and fiction of the life of Bernhard is portrayed in a Dutch television series. 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.
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"]
[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.]
[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." The organization publishes the IUCN Red List, compiling information from a network of conservation organizations to rate which species are most endangered. 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. ]
[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. 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. 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.".  [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.  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***.]
[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, 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.)
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.
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!" 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.
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", 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.****
[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, 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.
[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, 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.  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. They persuaded 1001 individuals to join the club, where each member would contribute US $10,000 to the trust. [($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, becoming Director General of WWF-International from 1975. [So the secret 1001 Club organizer went from that to WWF director.]  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."*** [cite: Ann O'Hanlon (1993), "At the Hand of Man: Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife. - book reviews", Washington Monthly 25 (5): 60]
Dr. Anthony Edward Rupert
(4 October 1916 – 18 January 2006); Afrikaner South African billionaire entrepreneur, businessman and conservationist. He was born and raised in the small town of Graaff-Reinet in the Eastern Cape. He studied in Pretoria and ultimately moved to Stellenbosch, where he established the Rembrandt Group  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 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 or US$1900 (R14,500) 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 , 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.
APPENDIX THREE: Additional Recommended Videos about Bilderberg
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]
Jan 12, 2010: Alex welcomes to the show George Washington Hunt, a former naval officer and an official host at the UNCED 4th World Wilderness Congress. Hunt is educating the public on a secret bank [set up for the same Malthusian-policy'ed lines of mass global land ownership, removal of local communities, and spatial depopulation--despite these Malthusian strategies elsewhere failing to save the environment as noted in the WWF data above, and instead only encouraging more politically possible degradation] set in motion by international financier Edmond de Rothschild and Maurice Strong. Hunt discusses this in his recent 30 minute documentary, The Big Bad Bank. The rest of this interview begins here with part 2 of 9.
There are many major global interests, cloaked in environmentalism, more interested in the cloak than the environmentalism. Many want the benefits of buying up in neofeudalist fashion much of the world's land for themselves under false pretenses as they work on global standards for privatizing the world's land and debt to get their way. Instead of 'protecting' environmental conditions, such Malthusian inspired policies demoting the local people, the nations, the legal systems, and the wider environmental species that live there via their supply-side interest in destruction being less challenged.
This an an introduction to the real Nature Conservancy, by Sharon Beder:
Rather than lobbying governments to implement regulations [actually they do this as well now--though with corporations in secret], or highlighting the activities of corporations in degrading the environment, TNC seeks out solutions that do not threaten those corporations. While TNC seeks to preserve areas of forest, for example, it does not publicly speak out against practices such as clear-cutting. It preserves areas of land for grizzly bears but it does not oppose hunting or developments that endanger those bears and destroy their habitat. Hunting is even allowed on some of its own land and TNC officers may go hunting with potential donors [under the alibi that this is required] as part of the negotiation process. [The WWF similarly has been known to be involved with letting its connected elites kill endangered megafauna on 'its own land' in Africa.]
This approach is attractive to donors because they know TNC will not turn around and expose a corporation’s dirty record or damaging activities. What is more, TNC will accept donations from any company, no matter what its record, no questions asked. In return for support, TNC promises donors publicity as corporations that care about the environment.
TNC’s 1,900 corporate sponsors include ARCO, BHP, BP, Chevron, Chrysler, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, General Mills, General Motors, Georgia-Pacific, McDonald’s, Mobil, NBC, Pepsi-Cola, Procter and Gamble, Toyota and Pfizer. Some of these companies, including Monsanto, even get a say on how TNC is run by being on its International Leadership Council.
Such an approach is very lucrative. TNC has 3,200 employees in 528 offices across the US and in 27 countries. In 2003/4 its revenue was $866 million. This included over $350 million from dues and donations, $180 million from investments, almost $100 million from government grants and another $101 million from sales of land. Its total assets – including nature preserves – are now valued at over $4 billion.
TNC claims to have protected [a mere]...60,000 square kilometres in the US and over 400,000 square kilometres in other parts of the world. However, [it's much larger area effect is upon the] several hundred thousand square kilometres of ecologically sensitive land that it is ‘protecting’ in the US [that is] now being grazed, logged, farmed, drilled or put to work in some fashion.
Timber companies such as Weyerhaeuser [another corporation with a huge Skull and Bones connected background] and Georgia-Pacific are allowed to log on TNC preserves in several states. In some cases it is even paying ranchers and farmers [with 'your' donation money] to continue working the land.
TNC’s aim is to provide examples of private, multiple-use conservation where forestry, ranching and drilling can be done in a sustainable way. [However, they do not monitor it at all, so it's just TNC greenwashing.] However, its conservation efforts have many critics who argue that it is too ready to compromise environmental values and that these activities degrade and threaten the integrity of protected areas.
This was also recognized by some of TNC’s own scientists. [And a 'coup against their own science personnel' by the TNC executives:]
[TNC] Science director Jerry Freilich recognized that the pounding hooves of cattle degrade fragile environments. He claims that in 2000 he was physically bullied by his boss to sign documents certifying that specific cattle ranches, which he had never visited, were environmentally sound. He signed, subsequently left and made a complaint to the police, which led to a settlement with TNC a year later. All but 3 of the remaining 95 scientific staff at headquarters were subsequently dispersed to branch offices or reassigned to a new organization that services TNC and sells its biological data.1
the rest of the article:
Next, several recent articles on the U.S. Nature Conservancy:
1. NY gave environmental organization absurd $3.7M profit for forest | Nature Conservancyadmin Apr 09, 2010 Nature Conservancy
By FREDRIC U. DICKER State Editor
ALBANY — Gov. Paterson’s administration handed an enormously wealthy environmental group a staggering 57 percent profit on a large tract of wilderness land — even as property values collapsed across New York, a probe by The Post has found.
The little-noticed green giveaway of taxpayer cash occurred in October 2008, as the [New York] state Department of Environmental Conservation paid The Nature Conservancy nearly $10 million for 20,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness that the group purchased for $6.3 million just a few years earlier.
Official state records examined by The Post and statements by local officials show the purchase price was heavily inflated and relied on outdated appraisals from a year earlier, when real-estate values in New York and other parts of the nation were still skyrocketing.
GREEN FEES: Adirondack Park official Frederick Monroe said the state “grossly overpaid” The Nature Conservancy for 20,000 acres of upstate wilderness.
Adirondack Park Local Government Review Board Executive Director Frederick Monroe said the state “grossly overpaid” for the property.
“I’ve suspected there’s some sort of close relationship between the state and TNC that resulted in this price, because it didn’t reflect the true market value,” Monroe said.
The price paid for the land was also out of line with property values recorded at the state Office of Real Property Services. Records for Clinton County show a mere 14.4 percent increase in value for forest land from the time The Nature Conservancy bought the property in January 2005 to when it sold it to the state, for inclusion in the park, in October 2008.
Several county and town officials insisted the state paid far too high a price for the land.
“This price was not indicative of property values in the area generally,” said James Gonyo, Clinton County’s director of real property tax services.
“The price paid was higher than we would have assessed it at and, as a result, we will not use it as a valid sale on which to base assessments in the future.”
Saranac Councilman Jerry Delaney, in whose town the bulk of the land is located, called the sale “a horrible deal all the way around.
“Ten percent a year is a good return on land, but 57 percent in three years? I think it’s clear the state has a cozy relationship with The Nature Conservancy.”
Sources told The Post that Paterson — and former governors George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer, in office when the appraisals were conducted — viewed the conservancy as an influential organization whose support they wanted.
“Paterson, Spitzer and Pataki saw the ‘enviros’ as the good guys with lots of influential friends, and their view was, ‘If they can give them a few extra million dollars of public money, why not?’ ” said a prominent New York official, who has had contact with The Nature Conservancy.
Pataki selected prominent Manhattan lawyer Ira Millstein in 2004 — a year after he was named to a special Nature Conservancy advisory panel — to draft governance principles for state authorities.
The price paid to the preservation group also appears to contradict a pledge made by TNC when it acquired the heavily wooded land from Domtar, an international lumber and paper company.
A press release issued at the time said TNC promised to “hold the land [instead of play the real estate market with it] on behalf of New York state” and quoted Pataki referring to the environmental group as a “partner” with the state.
The statement suggested to many that New York intended to reimburse TNC for the cost of acquisition, plus any expenses, once it had the funds to complete the purchase.
TNC, which has $6 billion in assets and employs 3,500 people, has an extremely close working relationship with the DEC and even has members of its staff working in the agency’s Albany headquarters as part of a natural heritage program.
Connie Prickett, a spokeswoman for TNC, said, “The question of why the state paid that much is a question that needs to be directed to the state.”
The practice appears to be continuing.
The Post has learned that a Paterson-administration plan to buy a large tract of land near the state-owned Belleayre Mountain in the Catskills is being blocked by Comptroller Tom DiNapoli out of concern that Albany is preparing to spend “millions more” than the property is worth, said a source.
DEC spokesman Yancy Roy conceded the 2008 crash of the national economy is a legitimate question,” but he insisted the wheels of state government just turn too slowly for the falling property values of the Adirondack land to have been addressed.
“Key elements of the transaction had occurred before then,” said Roy.
“The state process is much slower than, say, a private home sale. It takes months,” continued Roy. “The notion that the state wanted to ‘reward’ TNC is absurd.”
2. The Nature Conservancy, From SourceWatch [This is out of date from 2009]
“The titan of green groups, the Nature Conservancy sits on nearly a billion dollars in assets and is awash in cash, thanks to a tidal wave of corporate donations, much of it from notorious polluters such as Arco, Archer-Daniels-Midland, British Petroleum, DuPont, Shell and Freeport-McMoRan.
The group eschews political work in favor of the relatively noncontroversial project of buying land.
Calling itself “Nature’s real estate agent,” the Nature Conservancy purchases private land and then sells it to state and federal agencies, often, according to its critics, at a considerable mark-up.
Last year, the group violated its apolitical policy to concoct the compromise rewrite of the Endangered Species Act with a secret coalition of corporations and trade associations, including the National Homebuilder’s Association and timber giant Georgie-Pacific.
The group is led by John Sawhill, former energy aide to Nixon and Ford and a fanatical proponent of nuclear power, who has enjoyed lucrative positions on the boards of Procter & Gamble, North American Coal Company and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Budget: $337 million [revenue in 2005: $866 million, thus this equals TNC is turning a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars?]
Staff: 1,200 [other updated sources give over 3,000 staff now];
Members: 720,000 individuals; 220 corporations
Salary of CEO: More than $196,000, including benefits.”
 The Washington Post has produced a Special Report titled BIG GREEN which as series of investigative articles exposes the corporate infestation of The Nature Conservancy and “documents on the organization’s transformation from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.”
- President – Mark R. Tercek (as of July 2008)
- Former President – Steve McCormick (2001-07)
- Former Acting President and CEO – Stephanie Meeks (She took over the top spot when Steve McCormick left to run the Moore Foundation)
DirectorsAccessed June 2009: 
- Chairman of the Board – Roger Milliken, Jr. – President, Baskahegan Company
- President and Chief Executive Officer – Mark R. Tercek – The Nature Conservancy
- Vice Chair – Gordon Crawford – Senior Vice President, Capital Research and Management Company
- Vice Chair – Roberto Hernández Ramírez – Chairman, Banco Nacional de Mexico
- Treasurer & Chair, Finance Committee – Muneer A. Satter – Managing Director, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
- Secretary – Georgia Welles – Conservationist
- Chair, Audit Committee – John P. Sall – Executive Vice President, Director and Co-Founder, SAS Institute
- Chair, Conservation Activities Review Committee – Teresa Beck – Former President, American Stores Co.
- Chair, Governance, Nominating, and Human Resources Committee – Harry Groome – Author and Conservationist
- Joel E. Cohen – Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor, Rockefeller University and Columbia University
- Gretchen C. Daily – Department of Biological Sciences and Woods Institute for the Environment–Stanford University
- Steven A. Denning – Chairman, General Atlantic LLC
- Frank E. Loy – Former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs United States Government
- James C. Morgan – Chairman Emeritus, Applied Materials, Inc.
- Thomas S. Middleton – Senior Managing Director, Blackstone Group
- William W. Murdoch – Professor of Ecology, University of California–Santa Barbara
- Stephen Polasky – Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics, University of Minnesota
- Cristián Samper – Director, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
- Christine M. Scott – Conservationist
- Thomas J. Tierney – Chairman and Co-Founder, The Bridgespan Group, Inc.
- Shirley Young – President, Shirley Young Associates
Former Board of directors
- Teresa Beck – Conservationist
- Dr. Joel E. Cohen – Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor Rockefeller University and Columbia University
- Gretchen C. Daily – Department of Biological Sciences and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University – Stanford, California
- Harry Groome – Conservationist
- Roberto Hernández-Ramírez – Chairman Banco Nacional de Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
- Dr. Frances C. James – Professor Emeritus Florida State University, Department of Biological Science, Tallahassee, Florida
- Roger Milliken, Jr. – President Baskahegan Company, Cumberland, Maine
- William W. Murdoch – Professor of Ecology, University of California–Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
- John P. Sall – Executive Vice President, Director and Co-Founder SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina
- Muneer A. Satter – Managing Director The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Chicago, Illinois
- Christine M. Scott – Conservationist
- Georgia Welles – Conservationist
- Shirley A. Young – President Shirley Young Associates, New York, New York & Shanghai, China
- John P. Morgridge – Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chairman Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Steven J. McCormick – President and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Georgia-Pacific Corporation
- A. D. Correll, Jr. – Chair, Audit Committee
- James C. Morgan – Chair, Governance, Nominating, and Human Resources Committee, Chairman Applied Materials, Inc.
- Carol E. Dinkins – Vice Chair, Senior Partner Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
- Gordon Crawford – Treasurer & Chair, Finance Committee, Senior Vice President Capital Research and Management Company
- Jan V. Portman – Secretary, Conservationist
The Nature Conservancy
4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100
Arlington, VA 22203-1606
- Environmental organizations
- Nongovernmental organizations
- Kelvin H. Taketa
- Christopher T. Bayley
- Anthony Cavalieri – former advisor
- Sanjayan Muttulingam – lead scientist
- Jeffrey St. Clair and Bernardo Issel, “A field guide to the environmental movement“, In These Times, 28 July 1997.
- Numerous authors, “The Nature Conservancy: The Big Green”, Washington Post, May 2003.
- Sharon Beder, The stain in sustainability, New Internationalist, October 2005.
3. (on Nature Conservancy and Conservation International working with military contractors like Lockheed--which WWF founder Prince Bernhard was caught in a scandal with in the 1970s as well!)
What’s the Fallout When Green Groups “Partner” with Arms Makers? | Conservation International & Nature Conservancy
admin May 01, 2012 Conservation International, Nature Conservancy
I had a few issues with the “exposé;” chiefly that C.I. already had dealings with B2 bomber maker Northrop Grumman, whose chairman and CEO is a member of its board of directors.
And another big group, The Nature Conservancy, was already in the pay of Lockheed. These existing relationships undermined the shock value the scamsters were going for.
Still, you’d think the critique, or at least the bad press coverage it generated, would inspire reflection about the reputational damage some corporate deals can bring down on a nonprofit organization. More specifically, is a company that makes weapons of war an appropriate partner for a group whose mission is saving the Earth’s biodiversity? Well, if those questions were raised, they didn’t lead to change.
C.I. has just cranked up its P.R. machine in service of a new partnership with Northrop, “a unique and innovative professional development program for public middle and high school science teachers.”
In a nutshell: The Northrop Grumman Foundation will pay for 16 teachers from four U.S. public school systems to visit CI’s Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network’s Volcan Barva site inside La Selva Biological Station and Braulio Carrillo National Park in Costa Rica.
“We believe that supporting professional development opportunities for teachers will have the greatest impact on engaging students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. We expect this program will help cultivate the next generation of environmental stewards,” said Sandy Andelman, vice president at Conservation International in a press release the two partners issued April 19.Whoa! That statement requires a reality check. According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 3.6 million K to 12 grade teachers in the United States spread across 14,000 public school districts. The group selected for this program doesn’t even come close to representing 1 percent of the teachers in the country.
While they will surely have a rewarding time and may even return home to inspire their students, the scale of the program is too small to have the impact Andelman claims. Like so many of these corporate-conservationist joint ventures they are more symbolic than substantive.
They deliver real public relations boons for Northrop, however, which might explain why the Falls Church, Vir. -based company features the “ECO classroom” as a top story on its homepage.
Hat tip to Wiki Scraper for writing the search tool that brought this story to my attention.
While we’re on the subject of corporate-environmentalist ties, here’s another couple of recent stories that deserve mentions:
This upbeat Q & A featuring Wal-Mart chairman Rob Walton and C.I.’s CEO Peter Seligmann comes out as Wal-Mart as struggles to overcome awkward questions about its greening policies and a recent bribery scandal.
Many environmental groups, including C.I., don’t count donations from corporate-tied foundations as “corporate” cash. Instead, they report money from the likes of the Walton Family Foundation and the Northrop foundation as foundation grants, which helps them claim that only a fraction of their funding comes from corporate sources. For that matter, C.I. doesn’t tally the money it receives from scions like Rob Walton in the corporate column either. But Walton, in this article, doesn’t talk like someone whose relationship to C.I. is detached from the workings of the family firm, even if he does say he leaves the day-to-day greening to “middle managers.”
Environmental Defense Fund was caught in a similar controversy last week. The group claims to take zero corporate dollars but the Walton Family Foundation granted EDF $16 million in 2009 and continuing support equal to more than $7 million in 2010, among other support.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports this morning that an obscure private foundation threatened to pull funding from the Potomac Riverkeeper group unless it dropped its opposition to a trading scheme proposed as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
4. How Environmental Groups Gone Bad Greenwash Logging Earth’s Last Primary Old Forests
admin Apr 16, 2012 Carbon Markets | REDD, Conservation International, Environmental Defence Fund, Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
The Great Rainforest Heist
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.
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
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
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.
Funded by one million Swiss Francs, this operation was supposed to allow the Department of National Parks and the Wildlife Administration of Zimbabwe to save 700 black rhinoceros in the Zambesi Valley. Glenn Tatham, head of park keepers made a tour in the United States announcing that, with the aid of the WWF, he and his subordinates "we´ll go to war" against poachers that crossed the borders from Zambia. On May 10th 1988, [WWF's] Tatham and two of his aids were processed in Zimbabwe for murder. They were accused of attracting poachers with deceit and executed them, without previous notice, in an ambush when the poachers arrived.
In a parliamentary meeting, it was denounced that Tatham and his group had murdered 70 poachers since the beginning of 1987. Under pressure by Great Britain, the Zimbabwe Parliament hurried to pass a law that gave civil and criminal immunity to the park guards ["license to kill"], for the murders and wounds committed during their work. Ten parliamentarians opposed this law arguing that "it would legalise murder". One of the opponents, Mica Bhebs, said: "We are giving them carte blanche for killing people".
Official figures show that, between July 1974 and September 1991, 145 poachers were murdered. The vast majority of the [WWF murdered] dead in the Zambesi Valley were attacked from an helicopter owned by the WWF, whose crew was at the service of the WWF. Form the investigation, serious doubts rose about the fact if the attacks were really aimed towards armed poachers. According to people interviewed by the film crew of the "Ten Pence of the Panda",
many of the [WWF murdered] dead belonged to the military wing of the African National Congress, (ANC) that was fighting against Apartheid in South Africa, while their leader, Nelson Mandela
was serving a 25-year sentence.
And, what about the rhinoceros?
Since the inception of Operation Stronghold in February 1987, WWF´s goal was "relocate the rhinoceros captured in the valley to other safer areas". Drugged and immobilised, the animals were sent to private farms in Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa, the U.S. and Australia. In other words, the WWF paid mercenaries to kill people and manage to destroy the last herd of black rhinoceros in the world.
The true reasons were made public shortly after: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that was "restructuring" Zimbabwe´s economy, had ordered the installation of a of cattle estates in the valley of Zimbabwe, right in the region inhabited by the black rhinoceros, for provision of meat for the European Union markets.
After rhinoceros were dispersed along the world, squads of exterminators entered the valley and killed hordes of elephants and at least 5,000 buffaloes, along with other smaller animals for making room for the cattle ranches ordered by the IMF. In July 1989, the cattle was showed at a fair in Bulawayo.
It was discovered that the animals had the foot-and-mouth disease, so the Europeans cancelled their contracts. Zimbabwe remained charging on its back (and their miserable people) the huge debt with the IMF and without rhinoceros.
Operation Lock [the UK's covert war conducted through the WWF to maintain South African Apartheid, funded by UK Queen Mother]
At the beginning of 1990, a scandal broke in the European media that set the directives of the WWF in a serious tight spot. It was discovered the failure of one of the most secret joint operations between the WWF and the elite forces of the British Special Air Services (SAS), that had the mission of saving the rhinoceros by infiltrating "commandos" in order to dismantle the illegal ivory and rhinoceros horn trading network, and send the leaders to jail. [Though what was the "real reason"?]
The serious thing was not the failure of the operation itself, but the disappearance of one million Sterling Pounds during the process, while discovering that the SAS group had started trading with the ivory and rhinoceros produce, replacing the cartels they had gone to fight! As in the Operation Stronghold, there were a large number of poachers murdered, according to the accusations of the Mandela´s National African Congress.
It is really curious that the most detailed revelations about Operation Lock, obviously supported by internal documents of the WWF, were published in the pages of the Africa Confidential bulletin, considered an operation of the MI-5, founded in the apartment that David Stirling had in London. Striling was the creator--during the days of Second World War--of the now [in]famous SAS.
For those familiar with the subject of African national parks, the main poachers by general
rule are the same park wardens, often funded and armed by the WWF.
The special unit created by Sterling "for protecting the rhinoceros" was formed with elite personnel from the SAS:
Lt. Colonel Ian Crooke, awarded the Distinguished Service Order during the Malvinas/Falklands war, then chief of the SAS 23rd Regiment.
Nish Bruce, Crooke´s second in command in the operation, it is said to be the most awarded soldier in Malvinas.
Alastair Crooke, Ian´s brother, former consular official in Pakistan, was responsible for the rearming
of the muyajedins in Afghanistan.
Other members of the group were veterans in Northern Ireland operations, and specialists in capturing members of the IRA. All of the were specialists in "dirty warfare" -experience considered quite appropriate for "protecting the rhinoceros".
It stands clear that Operation Lock was the official policy of the British government: the
chain of command in the WWF leads directly to Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth´s husband;
Stirling himself admitted to the press that he kept contact with the Ministry of Defence and
the Foreign Office. A member of the SAS participating in Operation Lock asserted in writing
that the consortium which funded the project, had the participation of the Queen Mother.
Other character supporting the operation was Laurens van der Post, Prince Charles' tutor,
then first counselor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs.
The Illogics of Colonialism
Instead of employing zoologists and other scientists for "saving the rhinoceros", the [UK] government preferred to use experts in destruction and death. But seen from the geopolitics standpoint, the illogic of Prince Philip and his WWF is an impeccable logic. Sterling had strong links -among other African animal produce illegal traders- with the insurgent organization UNITA, led by Jonas Savimbi, who admitted in 1988 that his men had killed 100,000 elephants in order to finance his war against the government of the MPLA in Angola. Moreover, inner documents of the KAS Enterprises Ltd, the "cover" used by Stirling and Crooke, show they planned to get huge profits with the ivory and rhinoceros horn sales-activity they allegedly were supposed to fight.
In August 1991, Zimbabwe´s Minister of Security, Sidney Sekarayami, told the Dutch
newspaper de Volkrants that he "suspected that KAS was a cover for destabilise Southern
Africa." Many officials in governments in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia refused to co-operate
with the SAS group led by Crooke.
But, why send expert commandos to the south of Africa, even with the excuse of
saving rhinoceros? Even more, if these commandos were not saving rhinoceros then, what
were they really doing? Since long before Mandela was set free in 1990 and until present
days, more than 100,000 South Africans have died as the result of act of violence [seeded by the WWF] "between blacks". Many observers and political analysts attributed this manslaughter to the actions provoked by a mysterious "third force" [the WWF] which is not the African National Congress nor his rival, the Inkata Party, of Zulu basis. Attacking these rival groups--that later accused each other mistakenly--the "third force" [of the WWF] keeps alive the flame of violence. "Divide and Rule" seems to be the philosophy applied by Prince Philip in this case, through the SAS hired by the WWF.
Crooke and his men were the tools . . . with the excuse of ecology.
The stated purpose of the WWF and Operation Stronghold was "stopping poachers". But, as demonstrated by the case of the Ngorongoro crater -covering an area of 323 square kilometres in Tanzania, is the WWF itself who is paying the poachers!
Dr. Bernhard Grzimek, one of the founding members of the WWF, made an animal census at the crater and scandalously denounced that animal life was disappearing in the crater. As a result, the Masai shepherds were driven out of a region that was their habitat for thousands of years.
In 1964 was performed the best documented census ever made in Africa, and one by one, all 108 rhinoceros in the crater were photographed and given a name [after the WWF killed tens of thousands of them in the preceding decade]. Immediately, the WWF launched a program for "saving" them, funding the park wardens. By 1980, only 20 rhinoceros were left. None of the three warden units ever captured a poacher in years. In that same year, a witness sent a letter to the offices in the African Wildlife Leadership Federation in Nairobi, that gives a clue to what happened to the rhinoceros in the crater. The witness reported in her letter that the wardens, funded by the WWF
money had killed two tame male rhinoceros and wounded a female, "everything in full
daylight". And concluded: "Isn´t quite clear what is going on in the crater?".
In October 1994, the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), from Washington, D.C., published
a long report about the origins and activities of the WWF in the world. Its lecture becomes obligatory for those who want to know more about ecology and how is being used for the continuation of British Royal House hegemonic policies. From there have been extracted many facts used in these chapter and, from its article "Philip´s Organization Commits Genocide in Africa", I will quote some paragraphs. This series begins mentioning a New York Times editorial (August 7th, 1994) asking their readers to assess the luck of the gorillas in Rwanda, at times when hundreds of thousands of refugees were starving to death, dysentery and cholera in sinister refugee camps.
"For the time being ... the gorillas have been unharmed. Wonderful notice. Luckily, it has been possible to make a count of all creatures but two, whose disappearance would be equal to the death of a relative."
This worrying for 650 gorillas is a symptom of at what extent the society is impregnated with the psychotic incapacity of Prince Philip from distinguishing between animals and human beings. The editorial does not mention that the home of the gorillas, the Mount Virunga Park, also was the home for the guerrilla force from the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that has been on arms since October 1990, with the funding by the Ugandan president Yoweni Museweni and his boss, Lady Lynda Chalker, British Minister of Overseas Promotion".
"The use of the park at the same time for animal reserve and refuge of guerrillas was property
of the British, and [the WWF] has been a major part of the great strategy of the British royal family for Africa. The cutting out large pieces of territory for converting them in "national parks", "game preserves", and "ecological reserves" led to the indescribable butchery of men and animals
that bleeds Africa."
"National parks and game preserves occupy 1,998,168 square kilometres from southern
Africa to the Sahara, an extension equal to five times the size of California or eight times the
size of England. Although some countries like Mauritania have managed to escape the national
park pest, Tanzania has converted in parks 40% of its territory. As in Rwanda, parks
have various kind of uses:"
• Eliminate for economic productive reasons large extensions of lands. Although the U.N. magazine "Choices" predicts that "in the year 2,000 almost half of Zimbabwe income will come from its flora and fauna", the creation of these parks have been the largest eviction operation seen since Genghis Kahn devastated Central Asia in the 13th Century. As one English specialist said: "When the British want to get rid of people from a region, their tendency is to transform that region in a wildlife preserve, which gives its "raison d´etre": "This is a preserve, so you cannot stay here". Over 17% of small Rwanda are preserves of this kind."
• "At the same time they prevent the development of those lands, the preserves are frequently located over strategic mineral fields. As an example, the parks on the bordering zones of Niger cover an uranium field."
• "The fact that all parks are administered by international organizations as the World Wide Fund for Nature, is an attack to national sovereignty. Behind the excuse of fighting poachers, the administration frequently includes paramilitary forces. «The function of the park is to maintain those lands out of the local government dominion", an expert informed EIR. The park is administered by a directive Board, at least, originally was like that. They were autocracies in hands of white
conservationists, all of them military» [as noted, the ex-colonizer's military fill up the administration of most of the 'global land trusts' established in our post-colonial era.]
• "The parks are refuge and parking zone for subversive groups of all kinds. As documented in this report, parks are located in borders between two countries and function as "militarised" zones. Prince Philip´s WWF administered the gorilla program in the Virunga Parkm when the Rwandan Patriotic Front was using the park for incursions in Rwanda. Uganda, sponsor of the RPF, came out winning
when the gorillas were moved because the warfare operations there. According to Africa Analysis, the RPF invasion made the gorillas escape to Uganda and Museweni had the chance of starting an "eco-tourism program". Without the refuge zones provided by the network of national parks of the Royal familiy, the long civil wars afflicting Africa since the 70s would have been impossible."
We have seen just a few of thousands of facts that interlock perfectly to show a very clear image of the subject: "It is not sufficiently clear what´s behind the environmentalism pushed by the WWF of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh?
1. "La Caída Venidera de la Casa de Windsor", EIR, Resumen Ejecutivo, Octubre-Noviembre 1994, Vol. XI, No. 20-21, EIR News Service, 3331/2 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., 2nd. Floor, Washington, DC 20003.
APPENDIX SIX: Prince Bernhard's Legacy: Highly Connected Bilderberg Elites Across the World, Running Away from Questions about their Organization
Rand Paul Tries to Intimidate and Harass Journalist After A Youtube Video about Romney's Bilderberg Connections
Rand Paul Confronted on Bilderberg - runs away no comment (2:19 min)
Lord Jacob Rothschild gets confronted about Bilderberg (1:48 min)
WeAreChange: Twelve Confrontations of Bilderberg 2012 (30:31 min.)
1. Tony Blair (10am) WeAreChange Proves Tony Blair Lied To Parliament About Bilderberg
2. Lawrence O'Donnell (11am) MSNBC Lawrence ODonnell Too Lazy To Research Bilderberg
3. Alan Greenspan (12pm) Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan Confronted on Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove
4. George Pataki (1pm) Former NY Governor Pataki Lies About Attending Bilderberg with Rockefeller
5. Charlie Rose (2pm) PBSs Charlie Rose Runs Away From Bilderberg Questions
6. Ted Turner (3pm) CNN Founder Ted Turner Supports Population Reduction To 2 Billion
7. Henry Kissinger (4pm) War Criminal Henry Kissinger confronted on Bilderberg and Mass Murder
8. Jill Abramson (5pm) NY Times Editor-in-Chief Jill Abramson Runs From Bilderberg Question
9. Vernon Jordan (6pm) Clinton Adviser Vernon Jordan on Bilderberg
10. Paul Wolfensohn (7pm) Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn
11. Lou Dobbs and Paula Zahn (8pm) FOXs Lou Dobbs on Bilderberg, New World Order
12. Lord Jacob Rothschild (9pm) Lord Jacob Rothschild
Confronted NY Times Editor-in-Chief Jill Abramson Runs From Bilderberg Question (3:26 min.)
PBS's Charlie Rose Runs Away From Bilderberg Question (2:40 min.)
Clinton Adviser Vernon Jordan on Bilderberg: "We Don't Want Any Press" (2:20 min.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnfInzaP2LQ
Conclusion: The Two Levels of Ignorance that Help Cause Environmental Degradation
You know why the WWF continues to be run like like other land grant trusts--run by banks, corporations, colonial paramilitaries, secret services, and secret societies and casuists?
It is because they have fooled you on two levels.
The first level of ignorance is hopefully over now. It is the basic knowledge that a Malthusian strategy (arranging human demographic depopulation, of spatial depopulation, and of global jurisdictions) creating 'emptied' land grant/trusts is a failure in environmentalism.
It is a failure because it removes integrated people and commodity production from the land that have the only potential direct ecological self-interests to maintain it--leaving it open instead for those groups that only have zero self-interest in maintaining it against supply-side destruction from the outside which the WWF is institutionally enabling.
Then more readily these kind of supply-side interests (absentee imperial states, corporations, banks) are given full reign, in the emptiness of their Malthusian land trusts without checks and balances and with their complete jurisdiction, it can only be a failure in protecting the environment in these areas and only be successful in destroying it.
Because of this knowledge, hopefully you will help to shut down the WWF and other neo-colonial land grant frameworks--by directing your beliefs, money, and time in environmentalism to other strategies for environmental improvement, toward strategies that work instead of fail.
However, there is a second level of ignorance: some people are still trapped in these casuists' employment of a Malthusian conceit that served as a legitimation for their desired demographic depopulation, spatial depopulation, and global jurisdictions. It is desired by these supply side globalists for very different rationales than the environmental ones that motivate many naive others who just take these global land trusts at their word that they are 'working to save the environment' when every independent audit of the WWF for over 60 years says their (Malthusian) strategies they are actors in setting up the destruction of the environment. However, people say to themselves, "well the WWF versions of strategies are corrupt and self-defeating obviously, though the methods of Malthusianism are still sound, or really, there are no other theories of why degradation occurs so we are left with supporting demographic depopulation, spatial depopulation, and global jurisdictions anyway."
In other words, the second level of ignorance is an impediment that any amount of knowledge about its bad effects is unable to remove because it is held as an ideology: that many really believe in the ideological conceit of Malthusianism as a "scientific" theory and merely see it being perverted by particular ecological criminals as the cover for their "real reasons" of empire instead of seeing it as a difficulty with the theory and its recommendations in the first place. Such thinking reveals that many helplessly believe that Malthusianism is the only form of environmentalism available.
However, if you now know that Malthusianism was not invented (or resurrected) as a scientific theory of human-ecological relations and was only invented as the cover for empire in the first place whether 200 years or or only 60 years ago, you might expect now that Malthusianism has little other purpose than to protect empires' tyrannous activities and displace blame, past and present, upon the victims, and distract from the guilty ones perpetrating human and environmental degradation.
Malthusianism originally was a British Empire ideology and mystification never scientifically demonstrable--and only used in politics instead. Later, Malthusianism was a Bilderberg land trust empire ideology and mystification. Plus ca change?
On this second point of ideological ignorance (really ideological entrapment in Malthusianism), hopefully you are more aware now that there are many other theories of environmental degradation--five to be exact: neo-Malthusianism, eco-Marxism, ecological modernization, Bookchin-ite anti-statism, and my own (somewhat similar to Bookchin--read about that here.)
There is one less theory about environmental improvement--four to be exact--because ecoMarxism is without any solutions or rather its solutions look closer to Bookchin-ite solutions (see Schnaiberg for example).
The bioregional state is a synthesis view of much of comparative history and what has worked in environmental-human protection. It is a "fourth ring" in the "three ring" environmental circus of solutions at present: voluntary bioregional localism, voluntary ecological modernization/industrial ecology, and neo-Malthusianism--and the fourth ring of the bioregional state.
The bioregional state takes the best from two other rings (localism and ecological modernization--while rejecting Malthusianism) and merges them with a larger framework.
By the 21st century, update your science: the exclusively reliance on a single-variable populationist view of human-ecological relations (popularized as an ideology for running the British Empire in the early 1800s and nothing more--see Mike Davis) is seriously challenged by many ecological thinkers from Amartya Sen, to Elinor Ostrom, to Ester Boserup, to Mike Davis, to me:
Additional Critiques of Neo-MalthusianismIn 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.