Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:25 pm Post subject: Prince Philip's WWF & crooked Global Land 'Trusts'
|The Silence of the WWF - the film!
The Silence of the Panda
There was an interesting film I saw recently. That film was the Silence of the Panda, about the World Wildlife Fund's incredible Janus face: how poor its actual actions are toward the environment versus the spiel it sells us about 'caring for the environment' to make its money. It reminded me that there is a major ideological contention over the direction of environmentalist culture and leadership. It reminded me that there are many well funded attempts to greenwash green politics so that people follow the charlatans of environmentalism and get distracted instead of actually working for sustainability.
Before I talk about that film, it helps to relate what happened this week. I promise the introduction is very pertinent because the film may shock you how old is the is the rabbit hole of some wings of environmental charlatanism explored in this film.
This week saw the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group from May 31 to June 3, 2012. This year they turned the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia into their twilight zone police state compound. The Bilderberg Group is a globalist group with secretive membership, secretive annual meeting locations (they do their best--it leaks out), a membership extended by invitation only, no-media coverage for 60+ years please, and definitely no press releases--because it is "not a public organization" as they said this time in a rare admittance that the screaming protestors outside filming, blogging, standing in the rain might be interested in what they are doing in secret at all.
Why is the media silent? Why are people interested? It is because when from all over the world for 68 years your publicly elected leadership, your corporate/banking leadership (illegally according to the U.S. Logan Act), your educational/media flagship leadership, and even your military leadership get together in total secrecy with European royalty as hosts in emptied out hotels guarded by snipers in "closed private meetings" yet paid for by your taxes--and later they pretend they never did these things--it gets people talking. It's not the media talking about this because they have taken the Bilderberg omerta as a condition of their attendance. (See an Appendix below with filmed attempts at interviews with frightened media heads either running away in fear of saying anything about their unreported attendance at such conferences, or they sit stonily silent as if the question was not asked and hope people move on from the 'members-only' parallel universe that they belong to and which the questioner has touched upon. Some even admit their attendance, smiling like the Cheshire cat (where all that is left is the visible smile and an invisible body) as they make their escape from the interview.)
It additionally gets people talking--four separate witnesses talking in fact--that Mitt Romney secretly stole away from his public campaign for the Republican Party candidacy to President of the United States to meet with Bilderberg last weekend as well:
Four separate eyewitnesses inside the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly Virginia told London Guardian writer Charlie Skelton that Mitt Romney was in attendance at Bilderberg 2012, suggesting the Republican candidate could be the elite’s pick for the upcoming U.S. presidential election. “Four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff told me Willard Mitt Romney was here at Bilderberg 2012. My four eyewitnesses place him inside. That’s one more than Woodward and Bernstein used. Romney’s office initially refused to confirm or deny his attendance as Bilderberg is “not public”. They later said it was not him,” writes BBC journalist Skelton.
Whether Romney was just being friendly, verified, or vetted with their approval, it it hard to say. That it was done completely in secret assuredly means it is "not a social call" and more likely a summons to appear and be eyed by major global decision makers before he is likely made the official Republican Party pick (despite little grass roots support at all). It's similar to past USA politics typically unreported for decades to keep you in the dark: the careers of many aspiring U.S. federal politicians seem arranged by or at Bilderberg. The same goes for many major European politicians. At least many strange doors open for such people only after they appear in secret there. There was Margaret Thatcher, run as U.K. Tory Prime Minister only immediately after her Bilderberg attendance. There was Bill Clinton, run as Democratic Party candidate only after his 1991 Bilderberg attendance. There was Johnathan Edwards (remember, Kerry's VP in 2008--and that long-empty VP spot was filled only after his Bilderberg attendance--that took place overseas in another country altogether. Joe Biden's VP position for Obama sees the similar pattern. Hillary Clinton dropped her campaign for President in 2008 only after her Bilderberg attendance--at which Obama was as well. There are videos at the end of this post about Bilderberg if you are interested.
I mention this because in politics, what happens on the surface is sometimes only a fraction of what is happening. The same principle can be applied to those who support the Malthusian ideological wing of environmentalism because there is a lot going on beyond the surface in this faction.
Malthusianism: the Bilderberg Side of Environmentalism
However, let's talk environmentalism. Since Bilderberg happened this week, it is perhaps appropriate to review the different wings of environmentalism once more to see which pigs in it (or pandas) are claiming to fly. This time, I will concentrate on a critique of the neo-Malthusian and globalist versions of environmentalism--that come from Bilderberg itself. This wing is as distinct from the bioregional state versions of environmentalism as night is day.
So this post begins two critiques of Malthusian views on environmentalism, both from the failure of its recommended policies to be translated (in three interlinked strategies) into meaningful environmental improvement where instead we see the cover-up of the facilitation of degradation by such Malthusian policies; as well as from the history of following the sponsors of the origins of Malthusianism in the 1800s as well as its redeployment from the 1960 as having little to do with environmental protection at all. In other words, just what kind of policies are created by Malthusianists, and just what kind of people and organizations are they who choose and popularize Malthusian policies in the real world? I'll concentrate on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as exhibiting both this Malthusian policy failure as well as an insight into just who major Malthusian elites are. I will touch on similar allied Malthusian peoples/organizations as well in the U.S. Nature Conservancy and in the ideas around the World Conservation Bank.
The Bilderberg connection to some wings of environmentalism you say? What am I talking about?
I am talking about the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). As of 1995, the Malthusian-policy oriented WWF controlled about 10% of the surface of planet Earth in this way. It takes in about $600,000,000 a year. However, its record of attempting to enforce its Malthusian style policies as environmental ones has been environmental failure and open corruption detailed below, while other environmental strategies different than Malthusian policy are successful in moving us toward sustainability.
Below is just one (big) area of Africa with WWF transnational jurisdiction from 2001:
The founding networks of the Bilderberg Group in 1954 were the same founding networks of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961, six years later. (More detailed analysis of personnel is in "Appendix One" below.)
This WWF global managerial version of environmentalism is a territorial empire--of and by the multinational corporate managers, the bankers, the military elites, the global media, select imperialist Dutch/British royalty (both frustrated in a 'post-colonial era'), and even Third World dictators getting a supporting role. This was an environmental strategy organized in response to the first years of many regional grass roots rebellions for decolonization against European empires--that were degradative to the environment and degradative to human rights. This was years before and distinct from the more civic, mass movement wings of environmentalism existed as a popular culture different from the WWF.
The history of 'environmentalism' in the world since the 1970s has been one of the clash of these different strategies of environmentalism.
So, were these earlier secretive groups interested in taking care of the environment, or just taking the environment--for themselves?
As banker J.P. Morgan said, "everyone has a reason they do things. And then the real reason."
I suggest we keep this dissembling quality of very powerful global interests in mind particularly for those that claim to sponsor 'environmentalism' or 'care about the environment' as their 'reason' they build a global transnational territorial empire with a policy of rightless depopulation of both animals and people in the (mineral and resource rich) areas they want to keep controlling from afar. Is it the "real reason?" Are they sponsoring environmentalism in good faith, or are they attempting to steer it and use it as a cloak to their own private advantage that is harder to express openly as legitimate in a post-colonial context? The larger an organization gets and the more toes it steps on around the world, the more it requires legitimating itself within the current common cultural rubric to survive. In other words, for certain global elites is 'caring for the environment' actually "the real reason" they support their strange, ever-failing version of Malthusian 'environmentalism?'
Before I get into the WWF (and two other globally privatized land trust strategies that choose only Malthusian strategies in which to be "environmentally conscious" as they buy up the world--the equally globalized U.S. based Nature Conservancy (founded 1951) and the World Conservation Bank idea), it helps to frame and to compare what particular theories about environmentalism that these global strategies are exhibiting in their actions--and how different their version of environmentalism is from the bioregional state and other versions of environmentalism.
Into the Heart of Darkness, Revisited
Down the Throat of "Ring #3 of the Environmentalist Circus": Neo-Malthusianism and Its Globalist Allies and Strategies
In a previous post I have characterized political environmental as having a 'four ring circus' with the bioregional state as distinctly different in its solutions for sustainability as to be in a 'fourth ring' separate from the other 'three rings.'............................................................... ........................................
Toward a Bioregional State
Launched to provide an information service connected with _Toward a Bioregional State, the book; the blog is the commentary, your questions and my answers, and news from around the world related to the issues of sustainability and unsustainability in a running muse on various issues of concern or inspiration.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
How the Bioregional State Can Save the Pandas Better than the World Wildlife Fund and Other Global Neofeudal Ownership Regimes
A more accurate logo of the World Wildlife Fund, born 1961, b****** child of the Bilderberg Conference born 1954, and full of Skull and Bonesmen. The Panda's a clear-cutter. Why give it money? At this point for land protection schemes, I think the more decentralized, community riparian-based Waterkeeper Alliances are a better venue for your honest time and money.
"Everyone has their reason for doing things. And then the real reason." -- J. P. Morgan.
|TonyGosling wrote: |
|Just before Johann Hari was sacked from the Independent he penned this article
Johann Hari: Spare us the fawning over Prince Philip
When Elizabeth became the Queen, he was forced to quit his job in the Navy, and became depressed for months
Johann Hari - Friday 10 June 2011
Is there a more consistently hilarious sight in Britain than the endless parade of slavering monarchists trying to convince us the Windsor family is the embodiment of virtue and hard work? Today is the 90th birthday of Philip Mountbatten. Ordinarily, I would wish him a happy day, as I would any other 90-year-old, and then let the event pass in silence – if only the monarchists were not so relentlessly using the event as yet another propaganda tool for their snobbery-soaked institution. But we can't let yet another bout of their myth-making pass without answer.
Today, you are being encouraged to celebrate a man who merrily visited a genocidal dictator and used the occasion to sneer at British democracy. A man whose political interventions even prompted complaints from the far-right Enoch Powell. A man who, at the height of mass unemployment, mocked the unemployed, while complaining his own family of multi-millionaires was financially deprived. A man who has shot countless examples of endangered species – and then sought praise for his protection of wildlife.
But let's start with the myth. Monarchists feel the need to claim that the Windsors are somehow more worthy than the rest of us, but this is difficult, since they consist merely of whoever randomly emerges from a royal womb, and whoever that package of DNA and unearned privilege then chooses to marry. Windsors are thrown up by chance, and must have imaginary merits thrust upon them. You can see how hard this is by reading the moist panegyric written by the conservative commentator Peter Oborne last week. He said Philip is "colossally important" because... um... Well, he said, he represents continuity. That's true. If you gave my father a job for life from which he couldn't be fired and a slew of golden palaces to live in, he'd represent continuity too. So would yours. So would literally anyone in Britain.
The pickings then got even slimmer. Oborne claimed Philip should be lauded because he has "never once caused... embarrassment". And "there has never been the slightest hint of scandal". No, really. He wrote that. So let's look at the things Oborne and the monarchists believe are not embarrassing or scandalous in any way.
Alfredo Stroessner was one of the most vicious dictators of the 20th-century. He seized power in Paraguay in a coup d'état, and set about kidnapping and torturing anybody who objected, ending up facing charges of genocide from the UN. At the height of the terror, Philip visited the country – paid for by your taxes – and told the beaming tyrant: "It's a pleasant change to be in a country that isn't ruled by its people." The torture chambers were crammed and screaming less than a mile away. This wasn't seen as a joke by Stroessner. No wonder that – as Francis Wheen's fascinating history Strange Days Indeed shows – when far right-wingers and establishment grandees responded to instability in Britain in the 1970s by mooting a military coup, they intended Philip to be the figurehead of their junta. (Nothing is known of his feelings about this.)
Philip has his own taste for killing, although on a thankfully smaller scale. Throughout his life he has taken great pleasure in slaughtering endangered species with highly sophisticated nervous systems and a strong capacity to feel pain, just for fun. For example, on one shooting trip alone in the late 1960s, he personally killed a tiger, a crocodile and a rhinoceros. Before anybody writes in to say that standards were different then, look up the press clippings: people were disgusted at the time. Yet in their list of reasons to admire Philip, monarchists always list his "commitment to protecting wildlife" as symbolic head of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). It's enough to make a rhinocerous laugh – if only Philip hadn't shot it first.
Philip doesn't have much pity for the sentient beings he shoots, but he does have quite a lot for himself. In an interview in 1970, he complained that the Windsors were suffering unacceptable financial pressures, and warned of catastrophes to come. He might, he warned with a pained expression, have to give up polo. And – the agony only grows – "We may need to move into smaller premises, who knows?" He didn't say which of the four massive palaces he occupies might have had to be downsized, or whether he might have had to abandon the fully stocked barbers' shop reserved entirely for his personal use.
However Philip has also denied that anybody in Britain is poor. When unemployment surged in the early 1980s to levels not seen since the 1930s, he jeered: "Everyone was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed."
To be fair, in case anybody thinks this is snobbery, Philip extends this callousness to his own children. When Philip and Elizabeth's youngest son was five years old, they abandoned him to nannies so they could tour Australia for six months, and when they returned, the tiny child was forced to wait in line to shake his parents' hand.
But, wait. There is a sympathetic explanation for some of Philip's horrible behaviour. There are many good reasons to oppose the idea of monarchy in the 21st-century, and one is that, by stripping them of any ability to make their own choices, it curdles the family at its core.
In 1993, Philip said: "It wasn't my ambition to be President of the Mint Advisory Committee. I didn't want to be President of the WWF. I'd much rather have stayed in the Navy, frankly." When Elizabeth became the Queen, he had to quit his job, and became depressed for months. The "gaffes" that keep being wheeled out suggest a man angry at the position he is trapped in, and at all of us for putting him there. In the Republic of Britain, he could have achieved his real ambition of being an admiral and led a much happier life.
That brings us to the one real reason why Philip deserves our respect and gratitude. Before the Second World War, his sisters all married supporters of the Nazi tyranny, including an SS colonel – but there's no doubt which side Philip was on. He repeatedly risked his life in the Royal Navy fighting for the Allies, and took a heroic part in the Allied invasion of Sicily. People who glibly insult him today by calling him a "Nazi" are ignorant – he came close to dying to stop the Nazis. It's much more than they, or I, have ever done.
That should point us, though, to a wider and deeper form of gratitude. All across Britain, there are 90-year-old men who engaged in that incredible act of collective heroism. One was my former neighbour, Elbert Hutton, who died last month. He fought in France and Italy, then returned and worked hard his whole life. But nobody ever gave him a palace to live in, and nobody ever wrote fawning articles about him in the Daily Telegraph. He got a small council house and no garlands. Yet Elbert was much more deserving than Philip. He never fawned over any dictators, or shot any endangered species, or complained about his lot, even though he had unimaginably less. I'd like to see a Britain where we assess Elbert and Philip on their merits – and don't expect the better man to bow before the fool.
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung