The quotations shared in this article are so incredibly poignant to a cry for all of us to wake up!!! -A.M.
from Scribd Website
During the recent five years, approximately, the British press and book-publishing businesses have been occupied by an increasing intensity of scandals directed against the Royal Family, the House of Windsor.
The most recent of these appeals to the prurient interest of the gossiping public, former cavalry officer James Hewitt’s contributions to the authorship of Princess in Love,2 has carried this mounting scandal above the threshold of certain influential Britons’ reluctance to speak out.
Compare the opinion of that really high-minded Prince with the words of his intellectual forerunner, Bertrand Russell:
2. Anna Pasternak, Princess inLove (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, Ltd., 1994).
Brooks-Baker foresaw the likelihood that the Windsors might be ousted by no later than sometime early during the next century.
It is only in low-grade fiction, or in worse precincts, such as today’s major news-media, that an intimate affair with a lady (or, with a man less than a gentleman) is presented as the reason for the toppling of a throne.
In fact, how little concern the general public has for either the incompetence or outrageously perverse behavior of its preferred celebrities, is shown by such disgusting phenomena as the existence of Hollywood stars’ fan clubs, by the Soviet Central Committee’s selection of a man virtually dead to succeed General Secretary Yuri Andropov, or by the all-too-frequent behavior shown by a majority of American voters almost any election night.
The sexual scandals do not topple thrones, or members of the U.S. Congress; however, like assassinations, they are often dredged up, or, like judicial “railroads” of targeted public figures, concocted as pretexts employed in service of dynastic or other purely political motives.
After the facts presented in this Special Report are considered, the British establishment’s strategic, historical motives for dumping the Windsors should become obvious.
This report documents the fact, that for more than thirty years, Prince Philip has personally directed his World Wildlife Fund in genocide against the population of sub-saharan Africa.
For most of us, that Hitler-like behavior would be grounds to convict the monarchy.
However, the relevant strata of the British oligarchy are not like us; they are typified, as an institution, by the common inhumanity otherwise seen among the leading London, Geneva, and Wall Street bankers, financial houses, and the London Economist of today; for reasons to be supplied in the closing section of this report, most such persons probably would not consider genocide directed against darker-complexioned peoples of sub-saharan Africa sufficient grounds for annoying the Royal Family, let alone toppling it.
This report documents also the facts which do affright even the calloused consciences of London oligarchs.
The Windsors continue to spread that same mass-murderous, New Age policy which we witness in the World Wildlife Fund operations against Africans, also into the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Australia. This threatens the imminent downfall of a global civilization already racked by the worst financial instability which Europe has seen since the middle of the 14th Century.
A continuation of the policies of the Windsors, and also of the corruption-soaked former Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher,3 under such present financial and economic circumstances, can bring on a planet-wide plunge into chaos, taking the London-led international oligarchy down with the rest of us.
Think of the Windsors as like the bus driver of a vehicle, today’s remains of the British Empire.
Ordinarily, the spectacle of the terrified passengers in a public conveyance being operated by a besotted clown, would merely amuse those sadists ofglobalist financier oligarchy, were they themselves not among the passengers. In that view, one might better understand why, during the past five-odd years, the relevant portions of the British establishment at large have oozed into the opinion that that decadent dynasty, the Windsors, must go.
We present to you here the evidence, that for the past thirty-four years, since its founding in 1961, a wicked organization, calling itself by such names as the World Wildlife Fund, has engaged in willful genocide against the nations and peoples of the sub-Sahara regions of East, West, and South Africa.
We shall prove to you, that throughout all of this period, the “kingpin” of this criminal conspiracy has been Prince Philip, also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and as Consort to the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom.
We show you here, from his own public utterances, that not only has Prince Philip been the titular head of this criminal conspiracy.
You will discover that he has played this role with full consciousness of the criminal intent of his organization’s policies. We show you here, that he has repeatedly stated his desire to bring about the deaths of countless millions of people, to which monstrous crime he has professed to have been driven by the same quality of motive which impelled the Conservative Revolution’s Adolf Hitler:4 to the purpose of drastically reducing certain human populations of this planet.
We show you here the evidence, that he has advocated the policies by means of which this genocide, including that ongoing in Rwanda, has been brought about, In Her Majesty’s Service, through concerted action of the World Wildlife Fund and British Crown.
This evidence will show that he is personally responsible for this ongoing and attempted genocide against the peoples of sub-saharan Africa, and, also, of other parts of this planet.
The evidence shows that this Royal Consort is guilty of this crime not only in his own person, but in his capacity as the designated princely “kingpin” of this horrible undertaking.
There are many other culpable parties: the House of Windsor as an institution; many individual accomplices, simply on their own account; officials of governments such as the Major government’s British Overseas Development Minister, Lady Lynda Chalker; wealthy families, in addition to his own; powerful financier and other corporate interests; highly paid officials of well-financed and complicit charitable and other private organizations; and many others: the list reads, as it should, like a summary of the Nuremberg Trials’ categories of criminals under the rubric of crimes against humanity.
To catalog the number and variety of each and all of the accomplices known to us would require many volumes of documentation.
The authors and editors of this Special Report have limited ourselves to presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the global enormity of the ongoing crimes being committed by this London-directed cabal, and to bring to the bar of the public conscience’s justice those principal perpetrators and their leading accomplices whose assured complicity in this crime is shown beyond doubt by the evidence at hand.
In the earlier portion, the evidence presented to you will focus upon the manner in which genocide was planned and executed against the nations and populations of sub-saharan Africa. Thereafter, the focus of the evidence is shifted, to bring in facts which show that the Prince and his accomplices have used their genocide in Africa as a model for deploying the same roster of international institutions and policies in presently on-going operations against most of the world’s nations and peoples of this planet.
You will see the evidence of World Wildlife Fund’s key role in the efforts to ravish the sovereign existence of the world’s leading power, the United States of America, and the implicitly treasonous role of the Prince’s co-thinkers and other accomplices, as persons and as organizations, inside the United States.
You will see the impact of these same operations in other parts of the Americas, operations intended to destroy,
…all as part of the same global operation tested in genocide against Africans.
You will see the virtual obliteration of the industrial culture, the national sovereignty, and even the mortal existence of the nation called Australia. You will see exemplary evidence of the same operations being conducted against countries of Asia and continental Europe.
It is readily and fairly calculated, that the policy-measures which the Prince and his accomplices have adopted, and are implementing currently would, if allowed, reduce the population of this planet from a current level of about 5.3 billions persons, to much less than 1 billion within about two generations, chiefly through the hyperbolically self-accelerating impact of famine and epidemic diseases of persons, animals, and plants.
Under conditions produced as a byproduct of such concentrated shock to the collective immune-system of all higher forms of life, it is by no means assured that any human beings would exist at the close of the coming century, if the Prince and his accomplices were not stopped, and the policies reversed, now. We might hope such a holocaust were not certain, but we dare not risk that wish; in any case, the Prince, his accomplices, and their evil policies must be stopped now.
One must not overestimate the morality of those sections of the oligarchy which are working toward the ouster of the Windsors, of the Thatcherites, or both.
From the standpoint of such factions of the oligarchy, the essential crime of the Windsors and the Thatcherites (like the Bush-leaguers in the U.S.A.) is not that the oligarchy has strong objections to the Hitler-like immorality of the Windsors’ genocidal practices, but rather only the Windsors’ manifest fanatical stupidity, their decadence.
No doubt, many of the eugenicists of the oligarchy view this “fanatical stupidity” as the result of something like a flaw in the family’s genes, whether from Philip’s side of the family, or to be found already among Victoria’s brood.
Put summarily, the world seems headed toward Hell in the proverbial wheelbarrow, and the Windsors (and Thatcherites) won’t get off the track of their failed New Age experiments. They appear as a degenerate stage of a species, which is no longer capable of presenting, or tolerating new ideas, at a time that valid new conceptions of policy are desperately wanted.
In brief, if our adversary recognizes that his recent strategic reverses are caused by the fact that several of his generals are fanatically stupid commanders, one should acknowledge the fact that this probably correct perception has arisen, but should not fear that our reporting that truth renders EIR in any sense well-wishers of the adversary’s cause.
Rather, such developments on the adversary’s side as the recognition that the current basket of Windsors or Thatcherites may be the proverbial “runts of the litter,” should warn us not to be misled into any self-deluding scape-goating of Prince Philip. He has been but the defective instrument of a policy-interest which was defined millennia before he was born, and will be a continuing danger for at least the several decades immediately before us, after he is departed.
The crime documented in this report is by far the greatest crime perpetrated in all human history: the assured destruction of all civilized human life on this planet, and perhaps, possibly, also a set of wicked actions leading to the extinction of the human species.
Since 1961, Prince Philip has supplied a crucial leading role in heading up this global criminal conspiracy, but he did not originate the underlying policy. That policy we trace immediately to the nineteenth-century Darwin-Huxley circles and their role in creating the Eugenics network which, among its other productions, sponsored the Hitler dictatorship in Germany, and also its satellite, Margaret Sanger‘s Planned Parenthood organization.
Prince Philip’s role should be seen as continuing that same tradition which produced Hitler earlier, and to carry that criminal tradition to new extremes, of which some television fans might say,
Then, if you find them guilty…
That concluding section will provide you jurors a summary of what known human history has to tell us about the origins and nature of the specific quality of criminality which the Prince, the World Wildlife Fund, and their accomplices represent. When you decide how you must judge the perpetrators charged here, we ask that you not lose sight of the setting in which this case is being heard.
The evil permeating the criminality of the Prince and his accomplices is very old, as old as the dimly lit fringes of earliest known history. The ultimate enemy is not this unfortunate Prince, but rather that specific tradition of criminality fairly described as “oligarchism.”
That oligarchism is the specific infectious agent responsible for the moral and mental sickness shown by the accused Prince and his accomplices. In selecting a just and prudent course of action in the matter of the ongoing criminality documented here, we must rise above the prevailing decadence of most current international legal and related practice, to cure the problem, rather than, as the victors perverted the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, seeking to hide our own earlier negligence behind some conspicuous suffering imposed upon inculpated scapegoats.
It is shown to us, respecting the character of this moment of history, that the world has tolerated for more than three decades a criminal conspiracy of an enormity already vastly exceeding, in its toll upon humanity to date, the memorable atrocities of Hitler’s crew. We do not go so far as to suggest that this signals the onset of an Apocalypse; but, it does symptomize a crisis fairly seen as permeated with an apocalyptical quality.
This case expresses the threatened onset of a “new dark age,” global in scope, echoing, and exceeding in intensity the “new dark ages” attending the collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe, and the so-called “New Dark Age” of Europe’s 14th Century.
In brief, the enormity of the Prince’s crime, presently coinciding with the threatened imminent disintegration of the global monetary and financial systems, bespeaks the close of a five-hundred-odd-year cycle in the history of European civilization.
To the historian, such a spectacle is to be compared only with the numerous earlier, analogous cases of closing periods of dynastic collapse which have characterized the known history of every culture on this planet, prior to the Renaissance advent of modern European christian civilization. No dynasty, however ancient or powerful, of whatever culture, has ever survived the end of such a dynastic cycle.
The Windsors show no talent for becoming an exception to that rule.
Such evidence helps the jurors assembled better to understand that this Windsor dynasty were almost certainly turned into a pitied relic very soon, whatever we do or fail to do in this proceeding. Our task is not to punish the Windsors (although we may be hastening their retirement), but rather to act with greater prudence than any ruling culture has shown at the close of any earlier time or place of apocalyptical crisis.
Our work here will be rightly judged not by some silly “Nuremberg-style” sentence we might recommend for the Prince and his accomplices. It is relevant to this admonition, to recognize, from considering how many millions of onlookers have tolerated the nature and scope of the crimes which the Prince has conducted openly, how little enduring good was done, or personal political courage shown by the Nuremberg courts after World War II.
The nominally exonerated Schacht, and Auschwitz’s von Knierem had but recently departed the stage, and the benches at Nuremberg had scarcely grown cold, in 1961, when the Prince and his accomplices launched a scheme vaster and more evil than any yet known to have been conducted or conceived by Hitler’s crew.
The crimes of the House of Windsor must be seen rightly by this jury, by borrowing the eyes of history.
The Prince’s is a most monstrous crime, but yet, more significantly, the symptom of the terminal sickness of a civilization which has tolerated the conspicuous promotion of such evil policies and agencies.
Prince Philip (circled) at the Nazi funeral in 1937
The essence of the matter is that this Prince has been a cat’s-paw of the decadence of our age, and, in that way, a marker for the onrushing doom of ruling global institutions bereft of the moral fitness to survive. It is that latter sickness, not the mere symptom, to which our justice must address its curative powers.
We conclude these opening remarks thus: The challenge posed by the evidence set before you, is:
Can you, the jurors, be provoked by the horror of the fact that no solution for the collapse of this civilization exists under the presently generally accepted rules of conduct, into discovering the needed radical changes in axioms of policymaking, those changes which might enable humanity to rebuild a ruined society immediately from the ruins of the collapsed dynasty, without living through the intervening nightmare of yet another “New Dark Age” ?
To a summary of that purpose, we shall return in the concluding epilogue of this proceeding today.
Most citizens of the Americas believe that Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead with virtually no political or financial power.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
As the present head of the Windsor Dynasty, she is the sole sovereign head of state of the United Kingdom and 16 other states, and also exerts more subtle but equally deadly authority over the other 33 nations of the British Commonwealth.
But the power of the House of Windsor also derives from Queen Elizabeth IPs status as the “chief executive officer” of an informal body known to some as the Club of the Isles, which combines the political and financial clout of a far more extensive combine of intermarried European royal and princely families that extends from Scandinavia to Greece.
The estimated combined financial worth of the Club of the Isles is greater than $1 trillion and the holdings in which the club has controlling interest are believed to exceed $9 trillion.
The world petroleum supply is dominated by the British royal household, as is much of the world’s supply of precious metals and raw materials, through such “Crown jewels” as Rio Tinto Zinc, Lonrho, and DeBeers Anglo American Corp.
The Royal Consort, Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, plays a similar role in his capacity as “chief operations officer” for the Club of the Isles, and as the head of the World Wide Fund for Nature. What’s more, Prince Philip is the principal public spokesman for the number one priority policy of the club: to reduce the population of the world to below 1 billion people within several generations.
To accomplish this requires genocide on a global scale exceeding the slaughter that has been unleashed against Africa over the past 35 years.
To accomplish this, the executive agency directed by Prince Philip has created a powerful apparatus, an SS, made up of Royal Chartered trusts and corporations, propaganda fronts, assassination and terror agencies, etc. – the world’s most efficient Murder, Inc.
The modern multinationals typified by Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, and RTZ, which have done so much to strangle Africa and the rest of the world in the postwar period, are merely the modern, slightly disguised form of the Crown-chartered “merchant adventurer” companies of Elizabethan England and later.
Like their often Venetian-sponsored Elizabethan predecessors , some of which merged to become the British East India Company in the late sixteenth century, they are granted a “royal charter” to operate globally on behalf of the Crown and its associated families. The Anglo-Dutch firm Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, so prominent in Africa and in the World Wide Fund for Nature, dates from the financial arrangements established when William of the Dutch house of Orange took the British throne in 1688, with Venetian backing.
When Africa was colonized by the European powers in the 1880s and 1890s, that process, too, was under charter from the Crown, to such companies as the Royal Niger Company, the British East Africa Company, and Cecil Rhodes’s British South Africa Company.
Today’s WWF backers, particularly its “Africa division” listed below, as well as those in the flow chart on the following page, are the direct descendants of these late-nineteenth-century Crown companies, if not earlier ones, like Shell.
Tiny Rowland’s Lonrho Corp. is typical: As of 1990 the employer of over 100,000 people in Africa, it is the continent’s major private food producer, and a powerhouse in precious metals.
In 1961, at the time Lonrho was vastly upgraded in order to subvert and destroy the emerging independent African nations, it was a subsidiary of Cecil Rhodes’s still-existing British South Africa Company. And, as EIR has documented in its 1992 book, Tiny Rowland: The Ugly Face of Neocolonialism in Africa, the money and connections to launch this new British East India Co. for Africa came from City of London financier Harley Drayton and his 117 Old Broad Street Group, Crown Agents for the colonies and the managers of the private fortune of the queen.
Drayton’s longtime personal assistant was the Scottish aristocrat Angus Ogilvy, whose wife, Princess Alexandra of Kent, is presently the head of WWF-U.K.
From 1961 on, Rowland was the chief financier for the gangs whose genocidal wars have devastated Africa. He often financed both sides of a struggle at the same time, beginning with the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia and its black opposition around Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, continuing into his financing both the Frelimo government and its Renamo opposition in Mozambique, and both the MPLA government and its Unita opposition in Angola.
The queen is the world’s wealthiest woman, with an acknowledged fortune of $ 13 billion (Harpers and Queen magazine, January 1991). In reality it is far greater, but she is exempt from having to disclose her holdings.
The following entities, with major assets particularly in Africa, are politically directed by, and often substantially owned by, the Crown:
Prince Philip’s Corporate SS
The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trust
All members pay a $10,000 initiation fee which goes toward a $10 million trust to bankroll World Wildlife Fund operations. The club donated an office building in Gland, Switzerland, which currently houses the international headquarters of the WWF and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Initial members were handpicked by Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Membership includes representatives of the royal houses of Europe, officials of British Crown corporations, and prominent figures in international organized crime.
Below is a sample of current and past members with brief biographical data.
The WWF – race science and world government
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature), was founded in 1961 for one stated purpose: to raise money to drastically expand the operations of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Established in Gland, Switzerland in 1948 on a British Foreign Office-drafted constitution, the IUCN today boasts that it is the largest “professional” international conservation organization – as of 1994 comprising 68 states, 103 governmental agencies, and over 640 non-governmental organizations, “many of global reach.”
Under the cover of “conserving nature,” the WWF-IUCN has in fact dedicated itself to
These two goals, WWF-IUCN spokesmen have repeatedly stated, require a world government.
The WWF has been headed since its inception in 1961 by Prince Philip, the first head of the most important national-sector branch, the WWF-UK, who recruited Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to be the first head of the WWF-International. After the Lockheed scandals of the mid-1970s, in which Prince Bernhard was caught taking million-dollar bribes to sell airplanes, Philip replaced Bernhard as head of WWF-I. Philip was later replaced as WWF-UK head by Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the queen.
That the Crown has directly run the WWF from the outset is lawful.
The WWF-IUCN is a spin-off of two of Britain’s leading imperial institutions: the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (now the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, FFPS, whose patron is the queen), which laid the groundwork for the game parks throughout Africa; and the Eugenics Society.
The co-founder of both the IUCN and the WWF, Sir Julian Huxley, personally embodied these two currents. He was obsessed with population control, which he called “the problem of our age.” He served on the British government’s Population Investigation Commission between World War I and World War II, was vice president of the Eugenics Society from 1937-44, and was its president when he founded the WWF in 1961. He also served as a vice president of “the Fauna,” as its aristocratic members still fondly call it.
The ideology of both institutions, and of their WWF spawn, dates in its modern form from Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” and his first cousin, Charles Darwin, who in 1859 authored his infamous Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
Galton aimed to propagate the pseudo-scientific humbug of Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest” in the human arena, and so defined the aims of his “Race Betterment Movement” as:
The Darwin-Huxley tribe and its cousins have propagated this doctrine unceasingly over the past century and a half.
What became the WWF took shape in the pre-World War II period in the Political and Economic Planning satellite of a Rhodes-descended Foreign Office think-tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Its “planning” focused on eugenics, raw materials control, and world-government; its two top officials,Max Nicholson and Julian Huxley, later founded both the IUCN and the WWF.
Huxley continued his eugenics fixation after the war as the first head of the U.N. Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (Unesco).
As he said in its founding document,
World government was the answer, Huxley and Nicholson emphasized, and “wildlife conservation” was a pathway to this goal. Huxley said that “the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species.”
His coworker Nicholson, permanent secretary to five postwar British foreign ministers and one of Britain’s most powerful civil servants, said in his 1970 history of the world environmental movement, The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of the World, which he and Huxley had largely founded, that, given the migratory patterns of the world’s birds,
In 1960, as much of Africa was preparing for independence, the 74-year-old Huxley took an arduous three-month tour of Africa, preaching that the newly independent states could not be trusted to “conserve wildlife.”
Under that cover, and with the aim of subverting and destroying independence, Huxley and Nicholson linked up the following year with their royal soulmate Prince Philip.
The WWF was born.
John Train, a Wall Street banker and cousin of WWF U.S.A. President Russell Train, convened a series of meetings beginning in April 1983 which drew together a score of journalists, government agents, and officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL).
Out of the meetings came a barrage of slanders which appeared in such divergent news outlets as NBC-TV, the Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, and the Soviet magazine Literaturnaya Gazeta.
The Train-led propaganda effort, which was run on behalf of the George Bush-led “secret government” team that financed the narco-terrorist Nicaraguan Contras and sold arms to Ayatollah Khomeini, was instrumental in the December 1988 prosecution of LaRouche and a half-dozen associates. Evidence of the role of the Train salon was systematically suppressed during and after the trial. This evidence should have resulted in overturning the case altogether.
Train runs a New York investment counseling firm, Smith Train, which has been owned by Anglo-Swedish interests since the early 1980s. Two members of the Rothschild family sit on the board of the holding company that owns 50% of Smith Train, and Train’s chief associate in London is Steven Keynes, nephew of John Maynard Keynes, the British economist.
But Train’s deepest ties to Prince Philip come through his 45-year intimate collaboration with Teddy Goldsmith, the older brother of “green” industrialist Sir Jimmy Goldsmith and the publisher of the Ecologist, the house organ of the radical wing of the WWF apparatus. Train and Teddy Goldsmith first hooked up in Paris in the early 1950s, along with “Children of the Sun” literatus Stephen Spender, a “radical” asset of British royal intelligence, to co-found Paris Review.
Teddy Goldsmith was the founder of such key WWF instruments as Survival International and the green parties in Europe.
Sir James, along with Britain’s casino czar and leading environmentalist John Aspinall, bankrolled Friends of the Earth-U.K. when the group was first setting up shop in England, and have been consistent champions of Prince Philip’s WWF ventures.
We need to ‘cull’ the surplus
‘Conflict between instinct and reason’
The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless.
“Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.
‘Nicky’ Arundel and the ‘Get LaRouche’ task force
The Hunt Country of Middleburg, Virginia is the home-away-from-home for many of the British elite. Modeled on the mansions of the English countryside, the huge estates are home to some of the wealthiest and most powerful American families.
Middleburg residents welcomed the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1941, after he was forced to abdicate the throne for their unswerving allegiance to Adolf Hitler.
Support for the Windsors’ genocidal population policy is maintained today by numerous American members and financial activists in the 1001 Club and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) who make Middleburg and the surrounding countryside their home.
Prominent in this apparatus is Arthur Windsor “Nicky” Arundel, a newspaper publisher and key member of the task force that railroaded Lyndon LaRouche into prison on trumped-up charges. Trained as a propaganda specialist for the CIA in Vietnam in the 1950s, Arundel used the Loudoun Times-Mirror, one of several Hunt Country weeklies owned by him, to retail phony “evidence” against LaRouche and to propagandize for his prosecution.
Arundel founded the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation, of Nairobi, Kenya and Washington, D.C. along with former OSS and CIA hand Kermit Roosevelt and WWF Chairman Russell Train, whose cousin, investment banker John Train, ran the New York salon that targeted LaRouche for prosecution.
The Arundel family’s Wildcat Foundation funds the World Wide Fund for Nature and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Arundel’s sister Jocelyn Arundel Sladen, who was the IUCN liaison to the United States and an intimate of Sir Julian Huxley in the 1950s, is a member of its board of directors.
Marjorie S. Arundel, the mother of Arthur and Jocelyn, was a member of the National Council of the World Wildlife Fund, success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation – and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism – are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off.
Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.
The survival of the ‘most important’
On Aug. 31, as U. S. troops and relief workers were fighting a losing battle against cholera, dysentery, and starvation among 1 million Rwandan refugees – one half of them children – in eastern Zaire, the New York Times editorial called upon Americans to ponder the fate of Rwanda’s gorilla population:
This concern for 650 gorillas is one indication of the extent to which Prince Philip’s psychotic confusion of animals with human beings has permeated society.
The Times editorial failed to mention that the gorilla home, Virunga Mountain Park, also gave refuge to the guerrillas of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), who have been waging war on Rwanda since October 1990, with full financing and backing of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his puppet-mistress, Lady Lynda Chalker, British Minister of Overseas Development.
The double-use of the park as wild animal reserve and as sanctuary to a British-owned insurgency goes to the heart of the British royal family’s grand strategy for Africa. The segregation of large tracts of land as “national parks,” “game reserves,” “ecological reserves,” has led to untold slaughter of humans and animals throughout Africa.
Today, game reserves and national parks occupy 1,988,168 square kilometers of sub-Saharan Africa – 8.2% of the land area, an extent five times the size of California and eight times the size of the United Kingdom. Although some countries, like Mauritania, have been relatively unscathed by the park plague, Tanzania has 40% of its land locked in “parks” (not all shown on map).
As in Rwanda, the parks have multiple purposes:
The park system decreased the total energy throughput in the entire ecological system, leading to the proliferation of parasites and disease. This degradation of the human environment has aided in causing the conditions under which new diseases – such as AIDS – are now coursing through a depleted population.
The case of the tsetse fly proves the point. African tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly – which carries the deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness – in check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance. The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game, particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on hunting, as a threat to their herds.
In 1892, the Zulu protested that the rise of cattle sleeping sickness was due to the increase of large game under the protection afforded by the government.
This theory was proven in 1894 by Dr. David Bruce, who then fought for a change in policy, with limited success. In the area run by the British South Africa Company, colonial authorities suspended game laws and began the elimination of game in an effort to stop the disease. The change brought protest from the Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire.
Dr. George Prentice, a medical missionary, denounced the conservation movement to the British Colonial Office:
By 1925, some 22,000 square miles of southern Rhodesia were fly-infested. Panic forced a policy of game control in areas near colonial activity. In African-inhabited areas, the ban against hunting was enforced.
Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Center at Cambridge, England, an entity financed by the WWF,
The authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have rendered new areas tsetse-free.
Or, as Bruce Kinloch, chief park ranger for Tanzania, Malawi, and Uganda, mourns the decline of the tstse:
Vector spraying in the national parks is strictly forbidden.
Trypanosomiasis has been on the rise since the mid-1980s, especially in Lady Lynda Chalker’s Uganda.
The sheer size of these parks and park complexes is striking. South Africa’s Kruger park, for example, is the size of the state of Massachusetts, while the vast park complex of Zambia is larger than Great Britain. What is also striking is the fact that a high percentage of Africa’s parks and reserves are sited on national borders. In many cases, these parks come together to form binational and trinational parks that straddle these borders.
These parks are not located in such border regions for aesthetic purposes.
Unlike Europe, for example, where most borders are naturally demarcated by often beautiful mountain ranges and rivers, the boundaries of Africa’s states were arbitrarily drawn by the European powers at their imperial conferences. There is nothing particularly singular on the borders of these states that might not be found in the interior.
The placement of parks in such regions has a different purpose: mass murder and the destabilization of Africa.
In the first phase, the preservation phase, access to hunting was restricted to the white colonial elite, allegedly to preserve dwindling stocks of favored game. Colonial authorities often evicted native populations from their forest and pasture lands, in order to establish “game reserves,” while restricting the native populations from hunting. This policy was a parody of what had been the practice in medieval Europe.
As far back as 1130, the Norman lords of England had classified certain lands as forest reserves, where only the king and his delegated officers could hunt.
The second phase, which took off after World War II, was the conservation phase, in which hunting was increasingly forbidden to everyone and the ritualized hunting obsession of the colonial elite was gradually replaced by a Gaia-worshipping “ecological consciousness.”
The “national park” replaced the “game reserve,” and the camera largely replaced the carbine.
There were various regulations restricting access to game in Africa dating as far back as the Dutch colonial decrees in the Cape in 1657. But the movement to lock up vast tracts of land as reserves only began in earnest in 1896 under the leadership of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister the Marquess of Salisbury, when he called for the introduction of checks on hunting throughout British Africa. In 1900, Salisbury convened a conference of the European imperial powers on the issue in London.
The conference’s agreements virtually eliminated the native ability to hunt, even outside the reserves, by outlawing the use of traditional snares and pitfalls as “inhumane.” At the same time, it reaffirmed an earlier joint agreement among the British, French, German, and Portuguese colonies’ authorities banning the native use of the firearm.
The Society for the Preservation of Fauna in the Empire, which later spawned the World Wildlife Fund, was formed to ensure that the 1900 convention was implemented.
From the beginning, the society, affectionately known as “the Fauna,” was associated with the British Museum, specifically the Natural History division that had been created by Charles Darwin’s “bulldog,” Thomas H. Huxley.
In 1933, another conference, following up the 1900 conference, was convened in London. The British delegation was led by the Earl of Onslow, who was also the head of the Fauna. The most important result of the conference was a provision for the establishment of national parks in Africa. The enabling legislation of most countries’ game parks in Africa today, dates back to colonial decrees enacted in the aftermath of the 1933 conference.
The national parks and reserves constituted by the 1900 and 1933 agreements legally established internal frontiers within the African colonies that could not be crossed by the native population, on the pretext of protecting wildlife.
These internal frontiers, forming colonial enclaves, continued in effect after the colonies gained independence.
They were created by South African President Paul Kruger in 1889. One of the reserves was the Sabi reserve, now Kruger park, which was created along the border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique.
Kruger created the parks, but the Boer War between Britain and the Afrikaners intervened. In the process, the park region was subjected to a brutal campaign by Lord Kitchener in which crops were destroyed, cattle butchered, and wildlife killed, in order to deny the Boers food.
This “ecological warfare” left the region devastated.
In 1902, the park was reestablished by Britain’s Lord Milner, an associate of African empire-builder Cecil Rhodes, after South Africa became a British colony. The park’s first warden, Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton, had seen active duty in the Boer War in 6th Dragoon guards.
Lord Milner instructed him to clean up the park of “kaffirs” and white shareholders, and to “make himself thoroughly unpleasant to everyone.”
Over the next 45 years, until his retirement in 1946, Stevenson-Hamilton carried out these instructions ruthlessly, clearing 11,000 square miles of countryside of its original inhabitants and implementing a military “anti-poaching campaign.”
Even those natives who were not evicted had to leave, as hunting had been their major source of meat; they poured into the cities and mines, where they became virtual slave labor for the new British regime. As a result of this policy, the major earned the epithet “skukuza” (“he who sweeps clean”). The headquarters, Skukuza, of Kruger park today is named in his honor.
Stevenson-Hamilton’s system of warfare against the native population, in the guise of wildlife protection, in which he and his game wardens constituted themselves as virtual dictators, was explicitly cited as the basis of all subsequent national parks policy in Britain’s African colonies by Col. Mervyn Cowie, who created the first colonial park in Kenya in 1946. Cowie ran the parks system there for 20 years.
On his retirement, he reported how he had confiscated tens of thousands of square miles of land from the native inhabitants, implemented a mass-resettlement scheme, and turned native property into 30 parks.
The methods employed against the Kenyan people under the guise of combating this alleged revolution became the model for all subsequent British efforts to destabilize the continent, and, as in Kenya, these destabilization efforts continue to be run out of the game parks.
The supposed focus of this Kenyan revolutionary conspiracy was the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society within the Kikuyu tribe, the largest and then dominant tribe of the colony.
The existence of the Mau Mau had been discovered by anthropologist and British agent Louis Leakey. As far back as the 1930s, Leakey ad done a 1 million-word study of the Kikuyu for British intelligence.
Allegedly to combat this conspiracy, the colonial authorities forced the mass resettlement of Kikuyu and other peoples from their lands and, in their efforts to crush the conspiracy, burnt down whole forests. This assault was largely led by the paramilitary personnel of the game park system established by Cowie.
The Mau Mau conspiracy proved to be a strange one.
Whereas only 22 whites were killed in the insurrection, an estimated 18-30,000 natives were killed, primarily in fighting among Kikuyu factions and with other tribes. Agriculture in the white regions was untouched, and the Mau Mau failed to even attack the vulnerable transportation network or any key facility in the cities.
Col. Frank Kitson, in his 1960 book Gangs and Counter-gangs, revealed that the British were leading large-scale Mau Mau units, and that many (if not all) Mau Mau units were synthetically created by the colonial authorities. Through orchestrating violence between their “gangs” and “counter-gangs,” the British ensured that only native slaughter, and not revolution, would result.
The Mau Mau gangs and counter-gangs were directed by Gen. Sir George Erskine, who had been responsible for civilian food distribution in occupied postwar Germany. Erskine was aided by Colonel Cowie, the manager of the parks system, and Bill Woodley, his intelligence chief who largely developed the gang-countergang doctrine described by Kit-son and later systematically applied throughout Africa.
Cowie, Woodley, and Leakey were veterans of the World War II Kenya regiment, whose top intelligence officer, Charles Pittman, was the chief warden of the Ugandan park system.
The Kenyan regiment was an elite unit within the British Commonwealth Armies in Africa, commanded by Gen. Jan Smuts, who was also the President of the British Union of South Africa. Smuts had once called for creating a single park system stretching from Kenya to South Africa.
Several of Woodley’s subordinates later found work in Kenya’s game parks after the emergency, including Stan Bleazard, who took over the Marsabit National Reserve, and Maj. Temple Boreham, who became chief warden at Masai Mara park. David Sheldrick, a former Kenyan regiment intelligence officer who had served directly under Pittman, took over “anti-poaching” operations in Tsavo elephant park.
Woodley himself became chief warden at Aberdares Mountain park, while Cowie remained in charge of the entire Kenya park system until the 1960s.
Within five years, most of British Africa was nominally decolonized, and an often bewildered native comprador class was elevated to become the new governing elite.
But while the British flag was lowered in one colony after another, much of the old colonial apparatus remained, with key posts in the ministries continuing to be staffed by British nationals.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the parks system, which, by the time of independence, locked up upwards of 20% of the African colonies’ lands. The chief game wardens, park police chiefs, and the parks department staff largely continued to be British nationals.
Moreover, in a malicious innovation, increasingly large numbers of these parks, and in some cases the entire parks system, were put under the control of private non-governmental organizations, managed by international boards of trustees outside the oversight of the government.
Today, the parks systems of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zaire are privately managed by international boards of trustees. Until 1992, Louis Leakey’s son, Richard Leakey, was the chairman of the private “Kenya Wildlife Services” which runs Kenya’s parks.
When Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere proclaimed in his 1961 “Arusha Declaration” that the peoples of Africa would preserve the national parks bequeathed to them in perpetuity, he was admitting that the existence of these colonial enclaves would go unchallenged. Some 40%. of the land area of Tanzania today is locked up in its national park system, administered by the “Tanzania National Parks” nongovernmental organization.
These parks, following the Mau Mau precedent, continue to be the headquarters, training sites, and safe havens of the gang-counter-gangs. On the one hand, these parks have been the centers of nominally “anti-western” Warsaw Pact-linked subversion targeting white minority or colonial rule.
On the other hand, they have been the center of “pro-western” efforts to overthrow alleged Soviet client states radiating revolution throughout the continent.
The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people
In January 1961, a few months before he would launch the new “Noah’s Ark,” the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to save the world’s endangered animal species, Prince Philip accompanied Queen Elizabeth on a royal tour of India.
Among the attractions that one of his hosts, a local Rajah in Jaipur, put on for the royal party was a tiger hunt. From a platform high in the trees out of all danger, Philip shot one of the famed Indian tigers, which had been lured by the tethered goats which the rajah had staked out.
The photo of Philip standing proudly by his victim, nearly 10 feet long from nose to tail, caused a worldwide outcry.
Philip, president of the World Wildlife Fund, on the left,
looking after a tiger just killed.
Shaken, the royal consort continued his tour, arriving in Kathmandu with a conspicuous bandage on his trigger finger, explaining that an injury would prevent his participation in the king’s “traditional hunt,” which he would, nevertheless, accompany.
Philip and Elizabeth rode perched atop some of the 300 elephants which were used to flush the game, as the Queen whirred away with her camera. Several tigers were killed that day, none officially attributed to Philip. Nor did Philip receive official credit for another animal killed that day, an exceedingly rare Indian rhinoceros. Only 250 were then left in the world, after British tea planters had finished slaughtering them to make way for their crop.
As the elephants lumbered on, a female rhino with an infant calf became trapped within their closing circle. One of the royal party, Lord Alex Douglas-Home, known as one of the finest shots in England, fired near the animal in an attempt to scare it away.
But the rhino blundered on, into Philip’s path.
The dead rhino’s terrified calf escaped by darting away through the elephants’ legs.
The whole business was covered up, MacPhail explained, for plans were already afoot to found the World Wildlife Fund.
Reflecting on the WWF’s utter failure to do so over the three previous decades, he concluded:
Philip’s personal behavior has characterized that of his World Wildlife Fund as a whole.
From 1961 until the present, the WWF has presided over, and in many cases organized and financed, including the purchase of weapons, the systematic slaughter and near extinction of the most prominent species under its self-appointed control. And, under cover of concern for the animals, it used substantial portions of the several hundred million dollars it has raised to date, to finance the slaughter of human beings, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the account to follow, it must be understood that the WWF was, from the outset, the personal fiefdom of Philip, who oversaw its operations almost down to the smallest detail.
Sir Peter Scott, a WWF founder and longtime chairman, explained to EIR in an interview conducted in the early 1980s why Prince Bernhard, rather than Philip, became the WWFInternational’s first president:
But, Scott emphasized, it was Philip, not his friend Prince Bernhard, who was the driving force – testimony echoed by others in the WWF hierarchy.
Longtime Director General Charles de Haes told a journalist,
Added the WWF’s Dr. Anne Schiotz,
The WWF is best-known for its efforts to conserve four animal species, all of which were in vastly better condition in 1961 than they are today. Two of these, the panda and the African black rhinoceros, are near extinction, andtwoothers, the African elephant and the Indian tiger, are rapidly heading in that direction.
At numerous times during the past 33 years, the WWF has been made aware, often through reports it has itself commissioned, of the approaching extinction of various species. In each case, it has suppressed, sometimes brutally so, the information.
Three of the more notorious instances include:
In 1972, WWF founder Sir Peter Scott commissioned a Nairobi-based big game hunter, Ian Parker, to look into the lucrative and burgeoning illegal trade in animal products such as elephant tusks and rhino horn.
Among other things, Parker found that the family of Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta were notorious traders in illegal products, and that his daughter Margaret was the secretary of a company which sold rhino horns and elephant tusks to the Far East, a trade which had probably done more to decimate Kenya’s large animals than any other single cause. Parker also named many of Kenya’s most prominent “conservationists” as poachers.
Within hours of turning his report over to Scott, Parker was picked up, taken to the Kenyan Special Branch’s notorious Langatta Road station, beaten for three days and told to shut up about what he had written or his wife would be killed.
The report, then the most comprehensive inquiry into African wildlife slaughter ever conducted, remained suppressed until 17 years later, when Irish filmmaker Kevin Dowling unearthed it to use for his scathing expose of the WWF, “Tenpence in the Panda,” for Britain’s Independent Television network.
At almost the same time that Parker was being beaten, then WWF-International President Prince Bernhard bestowed on Kenyatta his specially created “Order of the Golden Ark,” for “saving the rhino.” Bernhard was well aware that vast numbers of animals had disappeared during Kenyatta’s tenure, because he had received – even signed for – a copy of the Black Ebur Report.
When word leaked out that Bernhard possessed this devastating report, WWF Director General de Haes claimed that this was not a WWF corporate affair, that it was merely Bernhard’s “private investigation.”
In late 1989, Oxford professor John Phillipson completed his internal audit, commissioned by the WWF, of the organization’s effectiveness.
Phillipson’s 252-page report, excerpts of which are made public here for the first time, was a scathing indictment of WWF’s outrageous incompetence and blundering, or worse. It concluded that what the WWF had adopted as its special mission – saving individual species – was what it was least good at.
Upon receiving a copy of the report, Philip immediately sent a secret memo to Director General de Haes, directing that Phillipson be urged to tone down his findings or, failing that, that the report’s key findings be suppressed.
Under this code name, in 1987, the WWF authorized a lavishly funded “emergency effort to save the rhino.” The premise of this extremely secret operation was to organize infiltration, from a base in South Africa, of the continent’s wildlife smuggling rings in order to stop the animal slaughter. By all accounts, a vast amount of information was gathered. Once again, nothing was done with it, except to suppress it.
Of course, as many conservationists noted at the time, trying to stop wildlife poaching “at the source” was a ridiculous proposition, akin to trying to stop the world’s drug trade by rounding up local pushers, while leaving the bankers who finance the trade and launder its hundreds of billions, untouched.
The center of trade in illegal wildlife products was, as with the drag trade, the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong.
Counter posing these efforts by what might seem at first to be merely a gang that can’t shoot straight, to the most sensitive mission WWF has ever launched, Operation Lock, lays bare WWF’s true purpose.
This was necessary, said the WWF, “to protect the environment” of Zimbabwe’s “overcrowded” national parks. De Haes lauded Coetzee’s work as “exemplary and a model for all Africa.”
While other conservation groups worldwide were screaming about the plight of the elephant and calling for an ivory trade ban, the WWF was still maintaining things were fine.
When the WWF belatedly rang the alarm bells in 1989, the “Year of the Elephant,” their assistance to the elephants of Uganda was most curious. With funds raised through tear-jerking campaigns “to save Nell the elephant,” the WWF set up a camp to rescue the beleaguered behemoths, into which the standard extensive paramilitary gear was flown.
This camp was near the Mountains on the Moon on the Rwandan border, despite the fact that virtually all of Uganda’s elephants were in Murchison Park, nearly 1,000 miles away.
But it was from precisely this area that the Rwandan Patriotic Front was to invade Rwanda a short time later.
From 1961 until the present, the
Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham toured the United States, announcing that, with WWF’s help, he and his rangers “were going to war” against the poachers allegedly coming over the border from Zambia.
On Nov. 10, 1988, Tatham and two of his assistants were brought before a court in Zimbabwe and charged with murder. It was alleged that they had set up a sting operation against poachers, who, when they approached the meeting place, had been shot dead from ambush without warning by the accused. It soon emerged in a parliamentary debate that Tatham and his men had killed 70 poachers since early 1987.
A law was rushed through parliament, the Protection of Wildlife (Indemnity) Act, which gave game guards immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for killings or woundings carried out in the course of their duties.
Ten parliamentarians opposed the bill on the grounds that it would “legalize murder.”
As one of them, Mica Bhebe, put it,
Official figures show that between July 1984 and September 1991, some 145 “poachers” were killed.
Of the 84 killed in the Zambezi Valley, most were shot from a helicopter paid for by WWF and manned by WWF contract employees. According to the Game Department’s figures, of the 228 people killed or taken prisoner, only 107 guns were recovered.
Given that another 202 individuals were recorded as having fled, some badly injured, some of whom would have lost or been unable to carry away their weapons, this means that Tatham et al. failed to recover weapons from three-quarters of those killed, taken prisoner, or driven away. This raises the question of whether those targeted by the guards were in fact armed poachers at all.
According to sources interviewed by the British film crew which made Ten Pence in the Panda, several of the dead were in fact associated with the military wing of the African National Congress.
Drugged and immobilized, the rhinos were shipped off to privately owned game farms in Zimbabwe, elsewhere in Africa, and to the United States and Australia. In other words, the WWF paid to slaughter human beings, in order to destroy the last living rhino herd in the world. The reason for the “relocation” became quickly clear – aside from the immense profits it generated for private, WWF-associated interests.
It emerged that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), then dictating a “restructuring” of Zimbabwe’s economy, had mandated that a beef ranching business be set up in the Zambezi Valley, in the rhino range, to provide beef to the European Commission.
After the rhino had been “relocated,” squads of animal exterminators moved into the valley and killed scores of elephants and 5,000 buffalo to make way for the IMF-mandated beef ranch, which soon collapsed into bankruptcy, leaving large debts and no rhinos.
One of WWF’s most secretive operations, code-named “Operation Lock,” ostensibly an aggressive attempt to save the endangered rhino by sending an elite squad of British Special Air Services (SAS) operatives into southern Africa to penetrate, expose, and neutralize the illegal wildlife smuggling cartels, had gone badly awry.
A million pounds sterling had disappeared, and it appeared that the SAS team had started dealing in the very products, in particular rhino horn and ivory, which it had been sent to stop. There were also, as in Operation Stronghold, whispers of rising death tolls of “poachers.”
WWF hastily prepared its own version of the matter. In 1986, they said, Prince Bernhard and the new head of the WWF’s Africa Program, John Hanks, became alarmed while on a tour of Africa, at the rapidly dwindling rhino numbers. The two cooked up the notion of sending a team of elite trained sabotage experts and killers, SAS men, to Africa to deal with the problem by unorthodox means.
Prince Bernhard, unbeknownst to WWF, put the £500,000 or more he received from the sale of a valuable painting into the project, and off it went. It was completely secret, so the story goes, from the WWF headquarters in Gland, Switzerland, even though Bernhard was at the time president of the Netherlands WWF and two other national WWF organizations.
The SAS team, which had been organized into a company named KAS Enterprises Ltd. for the purpose, was led by Col. David Stirling, the legendary founder of Britain’s SAS regiments during World War II, and the veteran of dozens, if not hundreds of special operations all over the Mideast and Africa in the postwar period.
Stirling chose the intials to echo those of his earlier Capricorn Africa Society (CAS), whose purpose had been to “preserve apartheid in a sugar coating,” in the words of Kenya governor Sir Philip Kerr.
Capricorn’s treasurer had been Mervyn Cowie, the architect of the Kenyan Park system and controller of the Mau Mau, while its chief propagandist was Elspeth Huxley, the wife of Julian Huxley’ s cousin Gervas.
Curiously, the most detailed revelations about Operation Lock, which obviously relied on internal WWF documents, came from the newsletter Africa Confidential, widely regarded in Africa and elsewhere as an MI-5 asset, and which had been founded in Stirling’s flat in London.
The issue, as defined by Africa Confidential and its editor, who left the newsletter at this time and authored a series of exposes on Operation Lock in the British and Dutch press, became:
It soon emerged, contrary to the lies that the WWF leadership and its Director General de Haes spread, that the entire operation from the beginning was official policy, and that a WWF project description – later called a “mistake” – explicitly called for the purchase of arms.
Files existed in the Gland international office titled “Anti-Poaching Units,” which operations had indeed been funded by WWF.
Though scandalous, the various exposes missed the point of Operation Lock.
First, as anyone familiar with Africa’s parks is well aware, the main “poachers” are usually the guards themselves, often financed and armed by the WWF. Second, the man whom Bernhard (again, according to the received version of events) approached to carry out this delicate “save the rhino” work, was a man who had not only founded the SAS and who had extensive covert operations experience in Africa, but who had been the “Gold Stick” at the coronation of Elizabeth II as queen in 1952.
Though an Anglo-Catholic educated at the Benedictine monastery at Ampleforth contemporaneously with Lord Buxton, Philip’s Extra Equerry, and with others of the WWF crowd, Stirling was chosen for the extraordinary honor, coveted among all British peerage,
Special Offprint 37 to be the personal defender of the body of the queen, the head of the Protestant Church of England. And, as do all the men of SAS as well as MI-5, MI-6, and the Life Guards, he had sworn his loyalty not to the British state, but to the person of the monarch.
Throughout the postwar period, Stirling had carried out dozens of the most sensitive political-military operations for the British Crown. A Scottish aristocrat, he was close personally to the Queen Mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, herself of the very cream of the Scottish aristocracy. The aging Stirling chose as the operational officer for his KAS company, Lt. Col. Ian Crooke. Crooke was also a legend.
Decorated with the rarefied Distinguished Service Order for his service during the Falklands campaign, he was the hooded “man on the balcony” who commanded the SAS team which stormed the Iranian Embassy in London in May 1980, and whose picture was flashed round the world. His brother Alastair was a British consular official in Islamabad, Pakistan, reportedly in charge of arming the Afghan mujahideen.
Crooke’s number two man in Operation Lock, Nish Bruce, was reportedly the most highly decorated British soldier in the Falklands fighting. (Curiously, WWF founder Lord Buxton’s daughter was in the Falkland Islands “birdwatching” just as the fighting broke out.) Others on the team had extensive service in Northern Ireland, and were specialists in hunting down IRA men.
Thus the unit pulled together to “stop poaching” comprised some of the very elite of the British special forces.
Crooke was the head at the time of the 23rd SAS Regiment, the part-time SAS unit which is used, as are dozens of “private” security firms in London such as Stirling’s, for operations sanctioned by Her Majesty’s Government, but ones which “HMG” prefers to deny.
That Operation Lock was official government policy is obvious:
One SAS member familiar with Operation Lock reported that there were regular toasts to the Queen Mother in SAS’s favorite pub, while another, himself a Lock participant, stated in writing that among Lock’s consortium of financial backers was the Queen Mother.
Another subscriber to Lock was Laurens van der Post, the tutor to Prince Charles and at the time Mrs. Thatcher’s chief adviser on Africa policy.
He was very close to, among other well-known traffickers in wildlife, the Unita organization of Jonas Savimbi, who in 1988 admitted that his men had killed some 100,000 elephants in order to finance their war against the MPLA government in Luanda.
Furthermore, internal KAS documents showed that Stirling’s company planned to make a profit out of trading in the very ivory, rhino horn, etc. which they had ostensibly been sent to Africa to stop.
Under Crook’s command, 25 SAS veterans set up a fortified headquarters in Pretoria with sophisticated computer equipment and imported (illegally, due to the embargo then on against South Africa) large amounts of highly sophisticated weaponry. But, if they weren’t saving the rhinos, what were they doing?
Zimbabwean Minister for National Security Sydney Sekerayami had an idea.
According to the Dutch paper de Volkrants of Aug. 24, 1991, he,
Numerous other governments, including wildlife officials in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia were suspicious of the Lock men, and refused to work with them.
Rowan Martin, director of research in Zimbabwe’s wildlife department, declined to cooperate with Crooke, who flew from Johannesburg to see him because Crooke was “vague about his sponsors and the objectives of his mission.”
It also seemed odd to Martin that,
South African Military Intelligence, evaluating the “antipoachers” as obviously an elite British intelligence unit, sent their own man in to infiltrate the Lock crew.
Crooke managed to work out liaisons with Namibia and Mozambique, and with elements of the South African special forces and intelligence community. Then in a war against the African National Congress (ANC), South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), and the majority-ruled front-line states, some South Africans viewed the paramilitary training capabilities of the British as an asset.
From an operational headquarters in Bophuthatswana’s Pilanesberg Park, and in numerous other parks such as Etosha in Namibia and in the game parks in the KaNgwana homeland on the South Africa-Mozambique border, the KAS crew turned out “anti-poaching units.”
One such unit which Crooke’ s men trained, and the political circumstances in which it operated, is of particular interest.
Observers have attributed much of this murder and mayhem to the agent provocateur actions of a mysterious “third force,” which is neither the ANC, nor its Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party rival. The third force, by attacking each of the rival groups in turn – which then blame each other – keeps the deadly violence going. Such activity must be gridded against the work of Crooke’s unit in Namibia.
After being taken from the Germans following World War I, South West Africa became a protectorate of South Africa.
In the 1980s, as the SWAPO guerilla force of Sam Nujoma waged war against the South African-backed, white-dominated government of the country, South African special forces trained the notorious “Koevoet,” Afrikaans for “crowbar,” black special warfare units, whose savagery was notorious. Crooke and his crew retrained the Koevoet men as “antipoaching units.”
Simultaneously, they set up liaison with the then-minuscule “stock theft unit” of the South African Police.
In late June 1992, shortly after the notorious Boipatong massacre of June 18, in which 39 were killed and many more injured by mysterious “third force” assassins, a joint task force of ANC intelligence, the Goldstone Commission (an inquiry into violence), and a special police unit raided the premises of theBritish-owned Gold Fields firm.
There, to their surprise, they discovered a “stock theft unit” of 40 men, mainly re-trained Koevoet veterans from Namibia.
According to the South African Weekly Mail of June 26-July 2, 1992,
Gold Fields was chaired by Robin Plumbridge, an Oxford graduate and a Trustee of the South African Nature Foundation, the WWF’s South African affiliate.
As the Weekly Mail put it,
Though £1 million had been spent,
His career and specialties help shed further light on the operation. Hanks had gotten his start in the conservation business cutting up elephants in an abattoir in Zambia, where elephants were butchered to feed the workers in southern Africa’s mines. He spent some time in Rhodesia where, according to his own account, he worked for military intelligence.
In the mid-1970s, he became the chief parks officer of the National Parks Board at Pietmaritzburg in Natal.
But his overwhelming preoccupation from 1976 on, was with human population control. In numerous speeches, he railed about how “Durban will [soon] be worse than Bombay.”
The problem, he said, was that,
With all these mouths to feed,
In 1977, he called for a “national population control policy,” and the liberal use of contraception, abortion, and sterilization.
In 1979, Hanks became the first director of the Institute of Natural Resources in KwaZulu, founded with a grant from the K.E. Taeubner Management Trust, named for a member of the 1001 Club. He continued to specialize in population matters, and became an executive member of the Family Planning Association of South Africa. In 1986, he became the head of the Africa Program of the WWF.
When Operation Lock was exposed in 1990 (at least certain aspects of it), it caused a bit of a stink, and Hanks was forced to leave the WWF.
He issued a statement on Jan. 4, 1990:
He took up the post of executive director of the WWF’s South African branch, the South African Nature Foundation, which Prince Philip called “an elegant solution” to the embarrassment of what to do with him.
However, the Dutch paper de Volksrant reported on Aug. 24, 1991,
Indeed, as an internal KAS situation report of Jan. 18May 31, 1989 marked “Secret” stated,
The document furthermore noted that “the experience gained so far in SWA/ Namibia has proved invaluable.”
In the late 1950s, WWF founder-to-be Dr. Bernard Grzimek of the Frankfurt Zoo took an animal census in the Ngorongoro Crater, claiming to find that wildlife was disappearing.
This Grzimek blamed on the Masai pastoralists, who herded their cattle across the area, but who rarely killed anything except the lions which attacked their flocks. As a result of the hysteria Grzimek and his allies kicked up, in particular around the associated Hollywood film “Serengeti Shall Not Die!” the Masai were banned from entering vast areas of the national park around the crater, their traditional territory.
In 1964, some 108 rhinos had been individually photographed and given an identity, the most carefully documented population in Africa. A WWF program was set up to “save” them.
Despite the WWF-financed game guard program, by 1981 there were only 20 left. Not one poacher had been caught by the three anti-poaching teams in years.
In that year, an eyewitness wrote to the offices of the African Wildlife Leadership Federation in Nairobi, shedding some light on the disappearing rhino herd. The WWF-financed game guards, she reported, had shot dead two large tame males and wounded a female, “all in broad daylight.”
Before April, Rwanda had an approximate population of 7.2 million.
As of September, up to 1 million people have been killed inside Rwanda.
According to estimates supplied by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), 2,576,000 people are displaced inside Rwanda, including 1.3 million in the former French Safe Zone in the southwest corner of the country. Another 2,223,000 people are refugees outside of Rwanda – 1,542,000 in Zaire, 210,000 in Burundi, 460,500 in Tanzania, and 10,500 in Uganda.
That is, 5,799,000 people, or 80.6% of the population, have been killed or uprooted.
The RPF is ruling from the capital city of Kigali over an emptied country. Water arid electricity systems are destroyed. Up to 50% of health employees and teachers have been killed. The Ugandan shilling is now the currency of choice. Food production is at 66% of the normal, with the country receiving less than 75% of its aid requirement.
Rwanda has been obliterated, torn to pieces, its traumatized and emaciated population scattered to the winds. As EIR has documented (Aug. 19, 1994), the destruction of Rwanda is the handiwork of Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and Lady Lynda Chalker. The destruction of Rwanda begins not with the April 6,1994 murder of President Juvenal Habyarimana, but with the British-backed invasion of Rwanda by the top echelons of the Uganda Army in October 1990.
According to one source in Kampala, 95% of the RPF was in the Uganda Army. And Museveni’s National Resistance Army (NRA), itself trained by the British, Americans, and North Koreans since Museveni took power in 1986, is the source of supplies and money for the RPF.
The leaders of the RPF are identical to the top echelons of the Ugandan Army: Ugandan minister of state for defense was the RPF’s David Tinyefuza; Paul Kagame, current defense minister of Rwanda Under the RPF, was head of intelligence and counterintelligence in the Ugandan Army; the RPF’s Chris Bunyenyezi was the former commanding officer of the NRA’s 306th Brigade, notorious for the atrocities committed against Uganda’sTeso.
Museveni also had a hand in the Oct. 23, 1993 coup against Burundi President Melchior Ndadaye, whose election had ended 31 years of Tutsi military rule in Burundi. According to some sources, Museveni planned the coup in a meeting in Entebbe which included the RPF’s Paul Kagame.
Two coup ringleaders, Major Bucokoza and Lt. Paul Kamana, were in Kampala, openly carousing with Ugandan officers, from late October 1993 to February 1994, and, according to Burundi sources, they are both now with the RPF. The attempted coup in Burundi resulted in the murder of President Ndadaye, and the mass slaughter of up to 100,000 Hutus and Tutsis in fratricidal warfare.
Museveni is not acting on his own. His links to the British royal family run through two interlinked personages: Lady Lynda Chalker, Minister of Overseas Development and a favorite of Lady Margaret Thatcher, and Tiny Rowland, chairman of Lonrho, who reportedly introduced Chalker to the higher echelons of London society.
The on-the-ground British case officer for Museveni is reportedly one William (Mike) Pike, editor of New Vision, a daily financed by Rowland. Pike is believed to report directly to Chalker.
Chalker was the first foreigner to meet Museveni once he took power in Kampala. Museveni and Chalker have been “very luwie-duvvie,” as one British source put it.
A British East Africa expert further complained that Lady Chalker,
Soon after the RPF victory in Rwanda, Chalker visited Uganda for a four-day tour hosted by Museveni, before tripping over to Goma, Zaire, to view the refugees.
On the latter experience, Chalker told the press,
The minutes showed that Ugandan President Museveni was prepared to give full logistical and political support to insurgencies aimed at the governments in Rwanda, Kenya, and Sudan. Attending the meeting were Museveni, Col. John Garang of the S udan People’ s Liberation Army, unidentified commanders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (Ugandan Army), and representatives of the armed wing of the Kenya Democratic Party opposition to Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi.
The meeting points to Museveni’s role as the British marcher lord in East and Central Africa. The immediate goal for the British royal family is to use Uganda, which was first leveled by the British-sponsored barbarian Idi Amin (1972-79) and has now become the major British financial and political outpost in the region, as the springboard for recolonization of the region.
The gameplan is: Destroy Rwanda and Burundi, turning the remains into satellites of Ugandan (British) domination; destroy Kenya by overthrowing President Moi and instigating tribal warfare; and seize mineral-rich eastern Zaire.
According to Africa Analysis,
That mission has now been accomplished.
On Kenya, Lady Chalker has worked to create a tribally based opposition to Moi, with the armed wings of these operations supplied by Museveni.
Chalker has repeatedly cut British aid to Kenya, and informed Moi in February 1992, in what she called,
Uganda is arming the rebels in Zaire. The British are now demanding that the troops of the former Rwandan government move deeper into the interior of Zaire, away from the mass of Rwandan refugees. According to an Oct. 2 report of
U.N. Special Representative to Rwanda Shahryar Khan, this may require “an international operation under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter – which allows for use of force” – on Zairean soil.
Strongman behind the SPLA
Uganda is the major source of supply for John Garang’s SPLA. The remaining SPLA stronghold in Sudan is Nimuli, near the Ugandan border, which is supplied from the Nimuli park on the border with Sudan and Kidepo Valley park in northern Uganda.
Kidepo is also the site for SPLA training and the SPLA headquarters. According to Ugandan sources, food, gasoline, and supplies are stored for Garang at the Mbuya military barracks, and the supplies are delivered by the NRA 4th Division.
Museveni has attempted to procure sophisticated weapons for Garang. In August 1992, Museveni’s private secretary, Innocent Bisangwa-Mbuguje, and Ugandan Ambassador to the United States Stephen Kapimpina Katenta-Apuuli were arrested in Orlando, Florida, for illegally attempting to buy 400 TOW anti-tank missiles and 34 TOW launchers for $18 million. The weapons were bound for the SPLA, through the border towns of Nimule or Kaya in northern Uganda.
In spring 1994, a Nigerian commercial plane developed engine trouble at Lanark, Cyprus, while carrying missiles reportedly from Israel to Uganda.
Tiny Rowland is a mutual friend. Speaking on a British Broadcasting Corp. newscast in Nairobi, Kenya in March 1993, Rowland declared that he is a member of Garang’s SPLA and had been since 1984, reported the South African Weekly Mail.
As the Weekly Mail explained,
The SPLA is advised by Dr. Mansur Khalid, a former foreign minister of Sudan, who is now employed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Nairobi, Kenya.
The UNDP officer in Uganda, who is also reportedly involved in support operations for Garang, is one Hans Farelius, a former Protestant missionary. Farelius is reported to have moved to Kampala in 1989 from Uppsala, Sweden. In Uppsala, he aided Museveni, who came to Sweden for retooling in 1985-86, before taking power in Entebbe.
Unlike the rest of Africa’s leaders, Museveni has not come under pressure to democratize. Says one London source: “The British are very much behind this government. You know there is no condition at all on democratization.
The President doesn’t even pretend [to be] for this, and he is still a darling of the West.
Among its “crimes,” Nigeria exercises full control over its own parks.
Nigeria also permits hunting with a license and agriculture in its parks. More to the point, Nigeria, under Gen. Sani Abacha, has drawn a line against the rapacious looting of the country by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Independent is promoting the former cash dispenser to Uganda’s Museveni, Mooshod Abiola:
The Independent was speaking for Minister of Overseas Development Lady Lynda Chalker.
In February, Chalker threatened Nigerian leaders that Britain would never lift its sanctions against Nigeria unless it restored “democracy” (put Abiola in power), and reduced its “enormous deficit” (bring back the IMF).
In Nigeria, the point man for the World Wide Fund for Nature is Chief Salay L. Edu. Chief Edu and his son Aboyamo are members of the 1001 Club. The Edus are from the Ibo tribe of southeastern Nigeria, whose attempt to secede from Nigeria in 1967 led to the Biafran war.
In 1989, Chief Edu hosted Prince Philip in a visit to the wetland area bordering Niger, a tour requiring a new airfield.
In 1990, Edu hosted Prince Charles in a visit to the site, to view migrating birds from Europe. The WWF wants to put a park in the area. Chief Edu also happens to be the point man in Nigeria for Royal Dutch Shell, a financial moneybag for the WWF. Shell runs 50% of Nigeria’s 2 million barrels per day oil production. Through this route, the Fund launched its provocations.
In a bid to cut off supplies of foreign exchange, Shell organized a strike of oil workers, who demanded the release of Abiola from jail and a government payout of $800 million in arrears Nigeria allegedly owes Royal Dutch Shell and other foreign companies.
The Abacha government, however, managed to settle the strike in September.
South Africa in the British crosshairs
On April 26, EIR received information of a plot to kill South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, soon to become the first black African President of South Africa.
According to a European-based source, the information, subsequently corroborated, was that “big, big money was coming out of Great Britain” to arrange the assassination.
Asked who specifically was providing the money, the source replied:
The objective of such a plot, the source stated, is to,
An EIR investigation showed that the operation against Mandela was centered in the Hollinger Corp., whose board of directors includes Lynda Chalker booster and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, 1001 Club member Conrad Black, and Peter Lord Carrington.
Both Kissinger and Carrington had been on the scene in South Africa to “negotiate” the pre-election deal with Zulu Inkatha Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi.
Although the murder did not proceed, the South African President remains in the crosshairs of British intelligence. Without his statesmanship and his unflinching commitment to a policy of reconciliation, it is likely that South Africa would be drowned in a civil war.
The corroborating signal that the plot against Mandela was live, was the terrorist car bombings in Johannesburg the week before the April 27 elections. The bombings were designed to create an environment of terror and violence, stoking the climate for a hit on the new President. Military intelligence sources in South Africa confirmed that the bombings were not by the Terreblanche group but were the work of professionals.
In addition, on April 29, the London Daily Telegraph reported that British S AS operatives were running a good deal of the South African “extreme right-wing” terrorist capability. Among the 32 bombing suspects held by the South African police was one Kevin Conroy, who claimed to have served with the SAS.
He suddenly emerged in 1993 as a leader of the AWB’s Iron Guard and a right-hand man of its leader Eugene Terreblanche.
Most of the Iron Guards, the Daily Telegraph noted,
The level of genocide carried out by Prince Philip’s World Wide Fund for Nature against the people of Africa is unprecedented in human history.
And to fulfill their goals of driving the world population below 1 billion over the next several decades and restoring a new global feudal order, the British Crown and the WWF are committed to the same genocide against the Americas, Eurasia, and Australia.
As the following maps and charts will show, every program that the WWF carried out against Africa since 1961 has now been set in place in the Americas.
For the moment, the body count is smaller; but some crucial elements of the WWF agenda are more advanced in North, Central, and South America than anywhere else on the globe:
MAPS 7 AND 8
The royal plot to splinter Australia
The cutting edge of the attempt to shatter the sovereignty of the Australian nation is the “aboriginal land rights” movement, the local arm of Prince Philip‘sinternational “indigenous peoples” apparat.
A glance at a map shows an almost unbroken swath of territory in the center of the country running from the continent’s northern coast to its southern one, in major portions of which one needs a permit from the local aboriginal lands council to even set foot.
Australia’s 250,000 aborigines, approximately 1.5% of the nation’s 17 million population, at present hold 15% of the nation’s land, and have filed claims for another 10%.
Such “sovereign aboriginal republics” were called for at the fourth and sixth conferences of the Communist International in the 1920s and have been standard leftist demands since then.
Added to lands set aside under various “wilderness” or conservation guises, the total land either now or in the near future to be taken out of circulation, not all of which is shown on the map, comprises at least 32% of the continent.
On June 3, 1992, the High Court of Australia ruled in the case of Eddie Mabo v. Queensland that Australia’s common law recognized native title to land. The previous legal doctrine, which went back to 1788 and which had declared Australia terra nullus (empty land) before the British arrived, was overturned, potentially throwing the entire continent up for grabs.
In addition to private funding by those Anglophile Australian bluebloods typified by the boards of the Australian Conservation Foundation and WWF-Australia, the government’s Aboriginal and Torres Straights Islanders Commission (ATSIC) pours $2.2 billion per year into “aboriginal rights,” little of which benefits aborigines.
In addition to the aboriginal-claimed land, vast chunks of Australia have been confiscated under a myriad of “conservation,” “world heritage,” or “wilderness” designations. Over 1.2 million square kilometers of Australia’s total of 7,682,427 have been so designated.
The federal Australian Heritage Commission, like the Australian Conservation Foundation a constituent body of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, reported 10,520 “conserved sites” in 1992; by the time of their annual report for 1992-93, they had 18,000 such listings, with 1,576 more awaiting consideration.
If Prince Philip and the WWF have their way, Europe in the early years of the twenty-first century will be a throwback to the feudal era of the Black Plague that preceded the Golden Renaissance of the fifteenth century.
In the last two years, the WWF and one of its corporate affiliates, the Heineken Breweries of The Netherlands, have produced a series of studies advocating the break-up of the nation-states of Europe and a four-fold increase in the number of nature preserves, game parks, and protected areas in continental western Europe.
The Heineken study calls for redrawing the map of Europe into 75 mini-states, with populations of 10 million people at the most. Each mini-state would be ruled by a member of one of the existing European Royal Houses.
Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, the sponsor of the plan, is a longtime booster of WWF and IUCN efforts. For many years, John Loudon, the former chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell and the international president of WWF from 1977 to 1981, had a seat on the Heineken board.
The plan has been embraced by Ecoropa, one of the important WWF affiliates in Europe, founded by the late self-described “universal fascist” Denis de Rougemont and Teddy Goldsmith.
This year, WWF and IUCN issued a study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” which called for quadrupling the set-aside land in western Europe.
The scheme would shut down all pending plans for new rail systems, water projects, and other vital East-West infrastructure projects, because all of these interlinks would be cut off by the parks. The blueprint is consistent with the Heineken proposal, and calls for the nation-state system to be replaced with a new political geography based on “bio-regions.”
To make sure that this re-feudalization scheme is successful, many of WWF’s wealthiest boosters, including a number of 1001 Club members, are reportedly buying up large tracts of land in areas designated as future parks and protected areas.
If Prince Philip and the WWF-IUCN apparatus run up against resistance to these schemes, they have a growing Green Party movement across the continent to turn to as goon squads.
Europe’s Green movement was created as the joint project of the WWF and the former secret police agencies of the Soviet bloc, particularly the East German Stasi (state security service).
During the Khmer Rouge’s brief four years in power in Cambodia, 1975-79, it is estimated that 3 million people out of a population of 7 million, were either murdered or died of starvation and exhaustion.
Writing in the London Guardian, journalist Patrick Wright noted that Teddy Goldsmith, whose brother James Goldsmith is a business partner of financier and LaRouche hater John Train, was pursuing a “hunter-gatherer ideal” in the early 1970s. This led to the publication in 1972 of the “influential” book Blueprint for Survival.
Teddy Goldsmith knew his man well. Territory in Cambodia under Khmer Rouge control in the 1990s has come under strict control of World Wide Fund for Nature mandates, led by Pol Pot himself.
In the Jan. 31, 1991 Bangkok Post, journalist James Pringle filed this story on the mass murderer:
Putting words into action, Pol Pot issued a directive calling on Cambodians not to poach birds and animals and refrain from killing them for any reason – presumably including for purposes of food consumption.
WWF’s eco-terrorist, eco-fascist legions
In addition to the extensive military and terrorist apparatus set up by the World Wildlife Fund in Africa, the WWF has directly spawned a global network of organizations to carry out terrorist and proto-terrorist operations that include everything from economic blockades and public demonstrations, to terrorist violence and sabotage.
Although WWF has attempted to remain at arms length from this eco-terrorist underground, public documents and eyewitness accounts show that every one of the overtly “eco-terrorist” groups that sprang up beginning in 1969 was directly bankrolled and steered by the WWF.
There are several phases to this operation. In the first phase, 1969-71, the WWF spawned Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to initiate “direet action” against targets pre-selected by the WWF. During this phase, the proto-terrorist activities did not usually involve the destruction of life and property.
Beginning in the late 1970s, during the height of the activities of such underground terrorist groups as the Weathermen, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and the Red Brigades, the first generation organizations spawned splinter groups to carry out far more violent “direct actions” that involved the destruction of property and, in some cases, murder.
Through the WWF’s enormous control over the free world media, each of these successive escalations in eco-terrorism was greeted with largely favorable press coverage.
Early Greenpeace membership was comprised of members of the Vancouver Liberation Front, an affiliate of the Weathermen in the United States, of Maoists, counter-culturalists, and operatives of the Cadbury family-sponsored Quaker action movement.
The principal source of early Greenpeace funding was the WWF, which purchased and Outfitted the original Greenpeace “navy.”
A series of more radical organizations was spawned from Greenpeace, including the Sea Shepherd Society, Earth First! and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals/Animal Liberation Front.
The leadership, funding, and logistical base of these organizations are interchangeable. Susan Pardee, for example, who is a member of the Greenpeace office in Seattle, Washington, is also a local leader of Earth First! and the Native Forest Network. The Seattle Earth First! office is located within the Greenpeace office.
As a result of this WWF effort, the United States and other nations have increasingly fallen victim to a low-intensity war being carried out by eco-terrorists. This war is rarely reported in the press.
Acts of terrorism take place in the United States on a daily basis, including fire-bombings of logging mills and livestock auction buildings; the destruction of farming, logging, mining, and fishing equipment; and the sabotage of biomedical research facilities.
Paul Watson, a member of the Vancouver Liberation Front who was involved in the 1973 shootout with U. S. federal agents at the Wounded Knee Indian Reservation and who is a founding member of Greenpeace, created a more radical splinter group in 1977 called the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
Watson was bankrolled from day one by WWF-U.S. activist Cleveland Amory, head of the Fund for Animals, and by Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This money was used to purchase a British fishing boat which was used to hunt down the Portuguese whaling vessel Sierra.
On July 17, 1979, Sea Shepherd rammed the Sierra off the coast of Portugal. Portuguese Coast Guard vessels captured the Sea Shepherd and were going to hold it as security until Watson paid for the damage caused to the Sierra. Instead of paying the $750,000 repair bill, Watson sank the Sea Shepherd in the Portuguese port of Leixoes on Dec. 31,1979.
Shortly afterward, on Feb. 5, 1980, a team of three eco-terrorists blew up the Sierra in Lisbon.
An unidentified woman called the Lisbon office of UPI from Spain and stated,
On April 27, 1980, the Isba I and Isba II, two of Spain’s five whalers, were blown up in the harbor of Marin, near Vigo, Spain. According to Watson, the Spanish whaling ships were blown up by the same three unidentified eco-terrorists who had blown up the Sierra two months earlier.
From this start, Watson’s Sea Shepherd has led a terror campaign against the fishing and whaling ships of many nations. Watson takes credit for the sinking of several Icelandic and Norwegian whaling vessels. In addition, Sea Shepherd has rammed dozens of vessels, cut nets, and otherwise carried out actions defined as piracy under international law.
Despite all of his actions and one criminal conviction in Norway, Watson is a free man, unhindered by U.S. law enforcement agencies.
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
To judge the criminality of the accused, the evidence which has now been presented to you should be sufficient. To decide what course of action must be chosen to cure this crime, we must focus now upon four additional, interconnected facts.
For many of you, these additional facts represent a difficulty which it is urgent that you surmount. That difficulty is that although each of those points is a matter of historical fact, it is a fact which conflicts with stubborn popular misconceptions. Insofar as literate people of good will must share some of the blame for the perilous situation in which humanity is presently situated, their ignorance or neglect of those four facts is a contribution to the influence of those evils which have caused the present global crisis of mankind.
The administration of justice in the case at hand depends upon your willingness to examine the relevance of this additional matter.
We have been mustered by the outcry from an urgent crisis, not to punish some selected scapegoats, but to craft a judgment which focuses upon curing the problem before us. The duty to which we have been called by circumstance requires, first, that the jurors understand the historical setting in which the crime has been committed: that these horrors have arisen during the closing phase of a “dynastic cycle” in European history, a cycle of approximately five centuries.
To understand the characteristics of the presently ongoing collapse of the global political, monetary, and financial order, one must situate the recent six centuries of European civilization’s rise to global domination within the longer span of similar, earlier cycles of rise and fall of formerly dominant cultures. None of these cycles, including the present one, can be understood without first conceptualizing the second and third facts and the mutual interaction of those two facts.
The second fact to be taken into account is the special nature of the human species, as the past six centuries of world history have made most plain the differences between human and animal demographies.
Mankind is the only species which can willfully increase its potential relative population density, a distinct power of the individual person shown most directly and simply by the impact of valid, axiomatic-revolutionary scientific discovery of principles of nature upon the productive powers of labor.
As the heritage of the Renaissance has shown, more brilliantly than in any earlier portion of history, the nature of mankind lies in the potential creative-mental powers of the individual person, a notion of man in axiomatic opposition to what the modern British oligarchical tradition has adopted as its empiricist definition of “human nature.”2
Only from the standpoint of that second fact, can the significance of the third fact, oligarchism, be understood in a practical fashion. It is the conflict between, on the one side, the Mosaic notion of man as in the image of God,3 and the bestial view of man, inherent in oligarchism, that the functional characteristics of history’s and pre-history’s “dynastic cycles” are rooted.
The anti-Renaissance “Enlightenment” is to be recognized as a consistent, if modern example of the same type of oligarchism which caused the fall of Babylon and Rome.
1. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics? (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984), passim. See also The Science of Christian Economy (Washington, D.C.: Schiller Institute, 1991), pp. 6-26, 241-256.
The fourth among these crucial historical facts to be considered, is the notion of what the achievements of modern European civilization might be, if the impulse supplied by the Renaissance were freed from the encumbrance of cohabitation with usury-based, venetian-style oligarchism.
To that purpose, one might focus initially upon the policy-changes, the “cultural-paradigm shift,” which have led the planet downward, especially during the past 30-odd years, to the present verge of a global “New Dark Age.”
The famous aphorism runs, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”, to rescue the accumulated achievements of the past six centuries, out from under the collapsed rubble of the London-dominated monetary and financial system, is precisely the image the jurors might consider, in seeking a practicable decision of that quality which is consistent with the curative principle of justice.
We now present a thumb-nail description of the present “dynastic cycle.”
That image supplies the benchmark conception to which the relevant facts of the matter are related thereafter.
This cycle began in the aftermath of the temporary rout of the vast maritime, political, and financial power of Venice, a rout caused by the mid-14th century disintegration of what is known to today’s historians as the “the Lombard debt-bubble,” a collapse which immediately plunged all of Europe into a “New Dark Age.”
The new cycle, which came to the surface during the 15th century, has been determined by the emerging conflict between the two leading forces within european culture during that century.
On the one side, there were the forces of the Golden Renaissance, centered around such figures as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa and the 1439-40 Council of Florence. On the opposing side, was the reemerging power of the Venice-centered European aristocratic and financier oligarchy.
From the time of that council, especially following the war of the League of Cambrai against Venice, at the beginning of the 16th century,5 all European history since the 15th century within Europe and globally has been dominated by the cultural conflict between the radiated influence of the Renaissance and the opposing, Venice-launched force of the so-called “Enlightenment.”
During the very early 16th century, when the present “dynastic cycle” was first defined, the strategic situation was as follows.
4. The following description of the current dynastic cycle is a summary of the facts presented in Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” Fidelio, Autumn 1994.
That influence is typified by the titanic intellects of Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Raffaello Sanzio. Through the failure to resolve the issues within Italy itself, the modern nation-state was established first in France, by and under King Louis XI (1461-83).
Louis XI’s success fostered movements for establishing similar forms of nation-state in England and in Spain, in which the Oratorian and other Renaissance networks of Leonardo, Erasmus, and Raphael contributed in important ways.
The ensuing, admittedly unstable alliance among Queen Isabella’ s Spain, Henry VII’s Tudor England, and the heritage of Louis XI in France,6 formed around the Vatican the backbone of the anti-Venice alliance, the League of Cambrai. At the very point in that war that Venice was about to be conquered by the allies, its vast and evil usurious power broken forever, Venice succeeded in corrupting some of the allies; the League of Cambrai was dissolved.
Venice used the breathing-space it obtained so, to use corruption once again, to break up the alliance among France, Spain, and Tudor England. This was accomplished by Venice’s use of the trollop Anne Boleyn to tease King Henry VIII, crazed by Anne’s persisting sexual harassment, into measures which created a virtual permanent state of warfare among France, Spain, and England, from 1527 until the British cultural subjugation of France in the aftermath of the 1814 Congress of Vienna.
Thus, the presently closing, 500-year cycle of history began.
Admittedly, throughout the history of its existence as a political and financial entity, Venice always attempted to take over as much as possible, especially of payments, from any nation into which it could sink its diplomatic and financial claws.
That consideration, and Venice’s intent to keep the European powers at each other’s throats, represent the only clear purposes behind the great influence which Venice exerted in England, from the time of Anne Boleyn’s flirtations with Henry VIII, until 1582.
A change in this relationship of Venice to London came in the aftermath of the 1582 victory of Paolo Sarpi’s radical faction (the giovani) over Venice’s traditionalists (the vecchi); Sarpi’s majority faction sought to shift the base of the Venetian oligarchy’s operations from the strategically vulnerable Venice itself, to a new Venetian maritime power in the northern protestant countries, while the minority concentrated upon operating from within the factions of the nominally Catholic Counter-Reformation regions, to the south.
Sarpi’s faction chose London as the future headquarters of a “new Venice of the North.”
6. For the edification of any carping critics: The differences in policy between Louis XI’s nationalism and Charles VIII’s (of France) reversion to pre-Renaissance dynastic games, need not be reviewed in the context of this summary.
Out of a bloody transitional struggle during the last two decades of Elizabethan England, the accession of the Sarpi (e.g., Cecil) faction’s candidate, James VI of Scotland, to the English throne as James I, was the first formal step toward developing a London-centered “new Venice” as a global maritime and financial power like the imperial maritime power which Venice itself had enjoyed in the Mediterranean littoral during most of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries.
By the late 17th and early 18th centuries, especially from the accession of William of Orange in 1688-89, the term “Venetian Party” was freely and widely used to describe the Liberal Party of England and the United Kingdom. This new form of British rule was not something autochthonously developed by the English people; it was imposed from the top down, by a combination of trickery, treason, and bloody force.
With the defeat of the Tory opposition to the Venetian Liberals, during the final years of Queen Anne, English sovereignty was crushed when the Mr. Welf also known as Georg Ludwig of Hanover, an asset of the Antonio Conti who was then Venice’s chief spy, ascended the newly established British throne as King George I.
From the 1760s rise to power by William Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne, the East India Company potentate placed immediately above the throne, Venice’s agents completed the intellectual retooling of the British Liberals for the tasks of creating a worldwide British Empire.
This retooling was represented chiefly by what is known today by the somewhat misleading term,
Typical exponents of this radical Venetian dogma are:
In 1814, Britain’s Venetian Party completed its immediate goal of France’s political subjugation.
It then prepared for its next imperial objectives: by the crushing of Britain’s former allies, Metterriich’s Holy Alliance, through subversion by British agent Mazzini’s radical terrorists, and by London’s reliance upon the treasonous corruption of certain factions within the United States for the reassimilation of the United States under British domination.
Except for the United States, the combined result of the revolutions and wars of the 19th century, and two world wars during the 20th century was: every one of the major transatlantic competitors of British power which had been standing proudly at the beginning of the 19th century, was either destroyed by war and revolution, or reduced to a servile state of political corruption, as was post-1918 France of the Third Republic.
Through U.S.A. political factions prominently associated with Theodore Roosevelt’s or Woodrow Wilson’s legacies, even the United States often played the part of an American dog on a British geopolitical and cultural leash.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), one of the leaders of the “Venetian Party” in Britain,
founded the British foreign intelligence service.
As we must recognize from the documented samplings of prominent persons and financier interests rallied around Prince Philip‘s “Allgemeine SS,” his World Wildlife Fund backers, the British monarchy is not a secretion of the people of the United Kingdom.
The current status of the Welf monarchy of Britain is that of “Primate among Parasites” for a truly international oligarchy, an oligarchy which knows no national loyalties, but which uses the British monarchy as its doge, much as the great princes of the so-called Habsburg Reich coddled or killed even members of the royal family through instruments such as the Geheimpolizei of von Kaunitz and Metternich.
Look at the physical evidence today: Britain’s imperial conquests manifestly have not been for the interest of the British people; the conquests have ultimately unified virtually all among the surviving royal, princely, aristocratic, and financial nobility of Europe (and beyond) into a single international oligarchy, a body of parasites which the currently reigning British doge serves as Primate.
As long as credible potentially contending powers existed, the London-centered international oligarchy did not dare suppress entirely the institutions of nation-state and scientific progress.
They hated those institutions, but they dared not evade them as long as potentially credible adversaries existed, lest the reigning Welf party’s feral oligarchs themselves become materially weak strategically in the face of then-intended prey.
It was only after the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis, about 30 years ago, when the Soviet Union signed on to the nuclear-weapons condominium prescribed by Bertrand Russell, that the oligarchy dared to unleash its desire to ruin, and then eradicate the institution of the nation-state, scientific progress, and reason itself, through such “New Age” ventures as “post-industrial,” anti-science utopianism and the rock-drug-sex counterculture.
The result of the introduction of that mass “cultural-paradigm shift” during the past 30 years, has been to bring the entire planet to the present verge of a collapse into large-scale economic and political disintegration.
Since 1964, following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the emergence of the ruinous Harold Wilson government in the United Kingdom, there has been an accelerating, global collapse of the rate of physical-economic growth in scale and productivity of output and essential basic economic infrastructure, per capita and per square kilometer.
For the United States itself, as measured in those physical units, negative growth has prevailed continuously since the early 1970s, accelerating rapidly since 1982. Meanwhile, post-Thatcher Britain is a rubble-heap of formerly industrialized ruins, where the activity of financier saprophytes is called “privatization.”
The delusion of “periods of prosperity” in North America and Europe during the past 20 years, is premised on a combination of out-rightly faked statistics and, more significant, the fact that the financial system, for which the data is reported, has been de-coupled increasingly from the real economy of production and trade.
The inevitability of the early collapse of the present global monetary and financial system is fairly summed up in the following three paragraphs.
The present terminal sickness of the global financial system is marked by the phenomena of highly leveraged, out-of-control markets in so-called “derivatives.” Marked by this lunatic speculation, the financial system is operating like a vast, play-money casino, operating from dusk to dawn according to a blending of “game theory” with those outer limits of lunacy known as “chaos theory.”
The bubble of speculation so devised hangs by the thread of an income-stream taken from the real economy, an income-stream which is a tiny fraction of the nominal financial income imputed to investments in the bubble itself. In a word, the system is already bankrupt, if any competent standards of audit-transparency were in force.
To postpone the implosive bursting of the bubble, an increase of the original income-stream taken out of the real economy must occur.
However, the very existence of the bubble is already contracting the real economy at an accelerating rate. To increase the rate of income-stream from the real economy, means to attempt to lessen this week’s instability of the bubble by measures which worsen that same instability during the immediately ensuing weeks.
There are ominous similarities to the popping of the Lombard debt-bubble during the middle of the 14th century. This is a system which is axiomatically designed to self-destruct.
The destruction will occur either because sensible governments step in to put the world’s present central banking system and financial markets into government-conducted financial bankruptcy reorganization, or, if governments lack the political will to take those rational measures, the bubble will burst inevitably in a manner which resembles, mathematically, a chemical, nuclear, or thermonuclear explosion, except that this will be an implosion defined functionally by a reversed-leverage chain-reaction.
The reason this situation has been permitted to develop, is that the most powerful of the ensconced political potencies of this planet, the international oligarchy, threatens to destroy anyone, any nation which is considered a threat to the continued growth of this financial bubble, or a threat to the continuation of the “New Age” cultural paradigms.
Thus, the likely course of events, is that matters will become worse until the point is reached, as was the case after the mid-14th century debt-bubble crash, that the oligarchy is perceived to have lost enough of its financial and political power that remedial actions are not altogether disallowed.
So, we may view the now-ending long-cycle in its proper, axiomatic political terms. On the one side, there is the upward impulse, the not-entropic impulse, supplied by the principles of nation-state and investment in fostering and employing scientific progress. On the opposing side, there is the anti-nation-state, anti-science, and pro-usury, entropic impulse, supplied by that international oligarchy which was formerly centered in Venice.
As the influence of the latter has increased, at the expense of the political power of the former, the entropic impulse within the society tends to predominate, increasing the power of the oligarchic faction by weakening the power of its opponent.
So1, the interaction of the opposing axioms of the two conflicting tendencies defines the cycle.
This cycle is now emerging in its end-phase as a prospective, imminent disintegration of that British “Venetian Party” dynasty which has reigned nearly five centuries, from the sex-crazed Henry VIII to the imminent fall of the House of Windsor.
As the case of the Delphi cult’s oligarchical Sparta illustrates the point, the prevailing state of actual or virtual serfdom paralleled, and all too often coincided with the evil of outright chattel slavery. Those forms of society, often described as the “Asian model,” are the paradigm for what we have identified here as oligarchism.
Consider one typical case of an oligarchical form of society: a state premised upon a configuration of four castes, estates, or classes. In this type, the households in a serf-like condition are at the bottom. At the top is a collection of ruling families, to such effect that the collective power of this oligarchy to govern the state lies in the relatively less mortal, corporate form of the family institution, rather than the highly mortal individual member of that household.7
Proximate to the oligarchy as such is a priest-caste, such as the early chaldean pagan priest-caste and its “magician” successors, or the priesthood of the Delphi cult of Gaia-Apollo-Python/Dionysius.
Below both of these, but above the serf-caste and slaves, the plebeians: craftsmen, merchants, and so on.
The most influential relatively recent codification of an oligarchical form of society is found in the notorious “socialist” Code of the pagan Roman emperor Diocletian, the model for the modern “eugenicists” and other radical “environmentalists.”
In contrast to modern platonic culture and christianity, oligarchism, such as that of the Darwins, Huxleys, and Harvard University’s B.F. Skinner and Herrnstein, allows no strict distinction between mankind and the beasts. The general tendency, often enough a codified practice of rigid oligarchical societies, is to treat the separation of the upper from lower classes as a distinction between an inferior and superior animal species.
The oligarchical division among ruling and inferior castes is defended, often explicitly, by the apology that these distinctions are the product of natural, biological, genetic distinctions.8
That is the so-called “Asiatic model” of oligarchism which was transmitted from Ishtar’s Mesopotamia and Moloch’s Tyre into the European forms of oligarchism echoed by the House of Windsor today.
With Solon’s reforms at Athens, the contrast between Solon‘s laws and Lycurgus‘s law for Sparta serves to the present-day as the best choice of benchmark of reference for the difference in principle between political good and political evil in European history to date.9
The chief precursor of modern science and also the modern alternative to the oligarchical model of society, is the writings and influence of Plato and his Academy at Athens.
The pre-foundations of the modern european nation-state are found in the Apostle Paul’s mission to the gentiles.
Although christianity was within the context defined by Moses worship, the Pauline mission broke from the ethnic bounds of Roman-captivity Judaism to practice Jesus-christ’s message, that all persons are in the image of God, and thus each and all set above all beasts, by virtue of that capacity for generating and receiving those qualities of valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle which are typified by great Classical forms of works of art and by physical scientific discovery in the tradition of Plato, Nicolaus of Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, and Leibniz today.
The same principle was reemphasized with great clarity by the Christian platonist Augustine, who is the central figure of the organization of a western european Christianity freed of the gnostic corruptions rampant in the eastern empire.
Although that principle was always embedded in Christian faith, it was not efficiently incorporated in the doctrine of statecraft until the work of Cusa and other key figures of the 1439-40 Council of Ferrara/Florence. Until that Renaissance, western European society was governed by an imperial, oligarchical notion of law.
Earlier christian efforts to change that were assaulted with infuriated great force by the feudal oligarchies which saw attempts to elevate the mental and political condition of the lower castes as a threat to the oligarchical order. Nowhere on this planet, until that Renaissance, did a nation-state exist, or was a society dedicated to the general promotion of increase of the productive powers of labor through a scientific culture.
The case of the young revolutionary United States of America is a crucial demonstration of the introduction of that Christian principle to the ordering of society’ s secular affairs.
The Federal U.S.A. of the 1790 Census shows that, even that recently, over 90% of the population subsisted from rural occupations. However, at that time, the literacy, the productivity, and the standard of living of the Americans were each already more than twice the level existing in the United Kingdom.
That American “Latin farmer,” is typified by his literacy in the political tracts of such writers as Tom Paine and Alexander Hamilton; those are texts beyond the capacity of the relatively less literate, typical present-day U.S. high-school graduate, even many university graduates. The potential basis, in morals and literacy, for a great upward transformation in the conditions of family and national life were already visible during the late 18th century.
The benefits are traceable in the changing composition of employment and real incomes of the U.S. workforce over the span from 1790 into the mid-1960s, until the pestilence known as the “New Age cultural-paradigm shift” was unleashed upon our society.
This U.S. example illustrates the unprecedented achievements of the Golden Renaissance’s establishment of the new norms of nation-state and scientific and artistic development for all of the population. We see the breaking-down of the oligarchical class-barriers which had kept mankind morally beneath its birthright for so long.
Plato‘s contribution to the principles of human knowledge was indispensable for making this possible.
In the exemplary case of his famous Parmenides dialogue, he presents a pedagogy for demonstrating a fully intelligible principle of human creativity lying outside and absolutely above the level of mere deductive arguments such as those of Parmenides, the sophists, and Aristotle.
This principle, which appears in Classical forms of poetry, drama, music, and painting as the principle of true metaphor, enables us to define the act of creativity as a mental object, an object not dependent upon the mere senses, an object rendering intelligible to us those forms of mental activity through which we are able willfully to generate, and to assimilate valid axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of principle respecting universal lawfulness of the universe.
This mental object, so defined, is the object to which we must refer when we describe the individual person as,
It is this power to receive and impart conceptions which are valid, axiomatic-revolutionary discoveries of natural principles which has enabled mankind to increase willfully the productive powers of labor, per capita, per household, and per square kilometer, in such a way as to increase the potential population-density of the human species by more than three decimal orders of magnitude above the level possible for “primitive hunting-and-gathering” modes.
In this and other expressions, this creative-mental practice of the individual is the source of the “not-entropy” of all relatively successful modes of society, as distinct from those cultures which are inherently doomed, dead-ends.
The demonstrated superiority of the culture flowing from the Golden Renaissance over any other culture which ever existed, expresses the power unleashed by forms of statecraft and scientific and cultural progress consistent with the understanding that human creativity is a fully intelligible conception, the only empirical basis for the notion of the person as in the living image of God the Creator,
In principle, we may look into the eyes of any child, of any parentage, and see that mental object existing behind those eyes, so to speak. That is seeing one’s fellow-human as “in the image of God.” Once we have seen that, we could tolerate no longer a policy which degrades any household into a state of beastly slavery or serfdom.
It must be our passion, that these children shall be developed in their minds to receive and impart valid conceptions of creative-mental discovery in art, in science, and in technology of productive practice. It must be our passion, that society must be organized to such effect that this right to live as a truly human being ought, is a universal right, around which society as a whole must be organized.
As Augustine shows, it is the method of Plato informed by Christianity, which is the basis for public morality: political, economic, and otherwise. The Christian is freed from the piggishness of racialism and class prejudice, freed from self-degradation to the likeness of a mere beast.
Whoever has glimpsed the evil of early history, should recognize as hateful and mass-murderous, anything like Prince Philip’s proposal: to return the world to a state of affairs in which any other view of man but as in the image of God’s creative nature were to prevail as the law among nations.
Bringing “fire,” the knowledge that the individual person’s gift of creative reason casts him in the living image of God, menaces the power of those olympian tyrants who would be considered immortal gods by foolish men and women. To bring the utmost rage to the features of a true oligarch, threaten to educate the cognitive potentials of his serf.
In the old oligarchical model, the peasant is regarded as just an animal. The oligarch puts the peasant in a field, in a stall, just as he keeps “other cattle.” The peasant-animal grows food, just as a cow produces meat and milk. So many cows (or peasants), so much food, as long as the pastures are not overcrowded!10
Just so, wild game is raised in forest preserves of the princes and dukes: The prince’s park rangers kill off the extra venison when the game-herd becomes too numerous. So, Prince Philip uses precisely that image to describe the methods he employs to manage the size of the human population, worldwide.11
To understand this issue of oligarchism adequately, one should compare experience within western Europe and the Americas with the problems which development faces from within the cultures of Asia.
10. What we have identified here are the philosophical assumptions underlying the anti-Colbert Physiocratic dogma of figures such as that asset of Abbot Antonio Conti’s salon, Dr. Francois Quesnay. Except as Adam Smith extended Quesnay’s dogma respecting agricultural labor to manufacturing labor, all of Smith’s notions of morality and political-economy were either copies of the views set forth by Quesnay by 1758, or copies of the influence of those members of Conti’s salon from which Quesnay derived his. With those modest qualifications, Smith was a Physiocrat, and a complete oligarchist. Quesnay’s views were informed by missionaries’ reports on the principles of China’s oligarchical model. In both Quesnay and Smith, and with all Venetians of the 15th through early 19th centuries, human creativity was flatly denied to exist at all, and excluded from consideration in respect to efficient factors of social change. Venice’ s oligarchical philosophy was, and remains, the bestialization of mankind.
At the same time that the European oligarchy represented by the House of Windsor does everything its tyrannical arrogance dares to venture, aided by theInternational Monetary Fund and World Bank, in virtually crushing out of existence any possibility of scientific and technological progress in developing of the so-called Third World, there is also a powerful internal resistance against progress from within the populations of the developing sector, as in Asia.
The success of oligarchies from within these developing nations in preventing the improvement of the quality of life of their poorer strata, depends to a large degree on strong resistance to change from within the ranks of those same poorer strata. Indeed, in all human history, few tyrannies could have persisted for as long as they did, but for such culturally determined complicity among the victims.
So, in the fight against chattel slavery within the pre-Civil War U. S. A., the African-American civil rights leaders adopted the expression, that literacy matching European Classical standards is the essential difference between the free man and the slave.
The mechanism by which the serf is motivated to defend the forms of enslavement he suffers, is more readily understood by examining similar forms of self-degradation commonplace among U.S. left-wingers, such as anarcho-syndicalists or other culturally illiterate populists. The oligarchical intelligentsia is aware of this mechanism and relies upon it as the chief means by which the victims of oligarchism are induced to assist in putting on one another’s chains each night.
To gain insight into the psychological origins of oligarchism, and to understand the tricks on which the modern oligarchy has most relied to control the serfs, one must muster insight into the self-degradation of the mind of the populists or analogous cases among the victims.
There is a profound principle involved here, but the point is of crucial relevance.
Insofar as the individual person’s world-outlook is more or less limited to emphasis upon an associative form of interaction between his or her emotions and sense-objects, that person tends to share the misanthropic misconception of “human nature” one meets in Zorzi, Sarpi, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, et al.
For those unfortunates, the reality of one’s own existence is imagined to begin with earliest recollections of sense-experiences, and to end when the senses go silent. Anything beyond that he attributes to an Orphic after-life in Hades. A poor wretch like that, if he is of an academic bent, readily accepts those disgusting 1759 utterances which Smith later resurrected for his 1776, Physiocratic dogma of the so-called “Invisible Hand”:
Nature has directed us… by original and immediate instincts.
Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply those means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of Nature intended to produce by them.12
12. Adam Smith, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, (1759).
Matters are entirely different with any person who is aware of the efficient use of his own and others’ creative-mental powers.
In mathematics, for example, our scientific knowledge of that subject-matter begins by our replicating the discoveries of such as Pythagoras and Plato, reliving in one’s own mind, as student, their mental experience of discoveries from thousands of years ago. It is the same with every other discovery mastered in a similar way.
The student whose mental powers are developed in that way, is keenly aware that the practical benefits of modern mathematics incorporate, as presently efficient principles of work, ideas generated by individuals now deceased many centuries, or even millennia. Such a student recognizes that the distinction which sets mankind above the beasts is the discovery and perpetuation of those valid ideas which are the accumulated sum-total of human knowledge to date, all acquired and transmitted through the agency of this mental-creative faculty.
Such a student has access to a realization that one’s own, brief mortal existence is an opportunity for a participation in all of human existence, taking from the distant past and giving to the far distant future.
This is the ground on which that student finds his vast moral superiority over the populist “practical man” who knows only the fruit of his sense-experience and blind passions.
When the oligarchs reduce a large portion of humanity to the status of talking cattle, as they did to slaves and serfs, they not merely suppress the human potentials of the victims. They also dehumanize them by transforming them into “regular guys” of the reduced status to which they are relegated.
The fate of peoples, nations, and the outcome of a personal mortal life is determined by processes which span, ultimately, the entirety of human existence, past and future. From the past, we inherit the accumulation of ideas developed by others before, and the condition of man-improved (or worsened) conditions of life. The outcome of our having lived as a person lies with our posterity.
The crux of the matter, on both accounts, is our self-governance by selection of those ideas which guide us to act upon the course of history, as we encounter all humanity, all history, while it passes through our mortal time.
The individual who lives with that awareness of ideas, and his or her relationship to such a realm of ideas, is the truly adult human being. The victim of oligarchical thinking is relatively infantile, or worse, morally as well as intellectually.
The person who is morally degraded from a person of ideas, to a mere “practical man” of “my personal experience,” flees from his or her contributing responsibility for the outcome of human history, for the general welfare of our posterity.13
13. On this, contrast the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution to oligarchical parody found in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The U.S. Constitution’s intent is thus shown, by the “general welfare clause,” to be the adoption of Gottfried Leibniz’s principle of natural law, and a rejection of the immorality of Locke’s oligarchical “social contract” dogma, which Locke embedded in the colonial law of the Carolinas. The Confederacy, like Locke, was an expression of oligarchy in the evil tradition of Lycurgan Sparta, in contrast to the tradition of Solon and George Washington represented by President Lincoln.
He or she flees into the virtual reality worshipped by the fan of “soap opera.”
For him or her, everything is a matter of an empiricist’ s pairwise interactions among persons in the “here and now.” The empiricist’s preoccupation with his or her personal affairs, so defined, rules him. He is too busy with such pairwise interactions in his pitiably tiny here and now to assume moral accountability for the outcome of his generation’s having lived.
He flees from the big issues into the microscopic realm of what he calls “my affairs,” and “my personal morality.” He can tolerate any great crime against humanity with self-assured moral self-satisfaction, as long as he is not caught in such personal offenses in the very small as stealing or adultery.
Thus, do such immoral persons smugly, and obscenely call themselves “Christians” while endorsing Adam Smith’s thieving, mass-murderous dogma of “free trade.”
The most commonplace evil practiced by small people is smug confidence in the moral-indifferentist practice of such small-mindedness. It is upon this consenting wickedness in the smugly self-righteous oppressed that oligarchical rule finds the democratic consent to the most monstrous tyrannies. So, until now, have oligarchs fooled most of the people most of the time, and some of the people all of the time.
So, victims of serfdom or the like may be induced to commit treason against their own humanity.
On the opposing side, whenever technological stagnation is imposed upon society for an extended period, the result must be an entropic collapse in the potential population-density. It is the interaction among the two contrary impulses, the not-entropic and entropic, which is the cause of dynastic cycles such as this one.
From approximately 1510 until the mass-recruitment to the oligarchical “cultural-paradigm shift” which surfaced during the 1964-68 interval, european civilization was fairly characterized as of a dual character. The successes of that civilization, as it spread throughout the world, were derived from the not-entropic impact of the combined principles of the nation-state and scientific progress.
At the same time, the civilization was being fatally corrupted, top-down, by the entropic, oligarchical element which came to be centered in the “Venetian Party’s” British monarchy.
Then, coinciding with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the oligarchy on top elected to begin the final phase of total destruction of the not-entropic institutions of nation-state and scientific progress. Under the impact of that latter, most recent phase of this long cycle, the global system as a whole has been brought to the verge of self-disintegration.
If we could resuscitate the heritage of the Renaissance, freed of the discarded encumbrance of the Venice-fostered Enlightenment, the result would be a unimodal, not-entropic form of cycle-free economic and related recovery.
The leading institutional problem is replacing the incurably bankrupt present global monetary and financial system.
The measures of physical-economic recovery required are either well-known or readily identified. The use of state credit to finance both governmental and private concerns in the development of urgently needed programs of repair and expansion of basic economic infrastructure, in the public sector, will provide, as it has done numerous times before, the stimulant for rapid growth of the entrepreneurial private sector in agriculture and industry.
The crux of the matter is to replace the existing monetary and financial systems, based on privately controlled central banking systems, by the kind of system of national banking which tradition associates with the name of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton.
The implied life-death struggle between private central banking systems and national banking, becomes now the key to whether civilization as a whole recovers from this crisis, or descends into the most menacing “New Dark Age” in history.
The oligarchy has brought about its own destruction.
The successful indoctrination of its own ranks in the cultural paradigm causing this present collapse, has produced, as the present generations of that oligarchy, a stratum bereft of the capacity to recognize its own folly, incapable of defining alternatives to the doom now threatening us all. For some portions of that oligarchy, it is nonetheless clear, that as long as the utter depravity represented by Prince Philip is allowed to continue to dominate the oligarchy as a whole, the imminent doom of civilization is assured.
So, the coming fall of the House of Windsor is inevitable, in one way or another.
For the rest of us, the task is simply to throw out the dirty, oligarchical bathwater, without losing the baby in the process. The point of the exercise is to know which is which.
The point, therefore, is not to permit oneself to be degraded into smallness of mind.