MI5

Dark Green V: Elephants & Tigers

By M.K. Styllinski

“… all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that ‘… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’ ”

– Mark Dowie, Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples


The same process of land ethic revivalism so favoured by the Nazis is alive and well under the Prince. WWF in partnership with Heineken Breweries and other environmental affiliates have paid for studies which conclude that a balkanisation of Europe and a dramatic increase in the creation of nature reserves, conservation areas and game parks all over Western Europe. [1]The Heineken study, sponsored by Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, “… 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.” John Loudon, International President of WWF from 1977-1981 and ex-chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell was a member of the Heineken board. [2]

Heineken8

“For a Fresher World” 2011 advertising artwork for Heineken brand

A long-time supporter of WWF, Heineken is one of the greenest businesses existing today with stakeholder activities focusing on sustainability, green commerce and a host of other ecologically sound initiatives. The 1994 IUCN study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” followed the same pattern, namely the four-fold increase in setting aside land in Western Europe. All industrialisation would cease including any new infrastructure projects from water to rail links so that millions of hectares of land for parks could be allowed to flourish. [3] Wealthy landowners, families and 1001 Club members have been busily buying up land previously designated as parks and protected areas.

Author Mark Dowie believes this policy was the result of a concept as old as the colonial forefathers called “fortress conservation,” and which is present in almost every large-scale Anglo-American environmental initiative from Agenda 21 to the Wild lands Network: expressly no humans allowed access within these hallowed conservation zones. Even though WWF does not advocate forced relocation it nevertheless firmly believes in the concept of conservation areas off limits to humans. So, how does it get around the fact that there will undoubtedly be families who do not want to leave? [4]

Dowie draws our attention to the November 2004 Third Congress of the World Conservation Union in Bangkok, Thailand, convened to explore new ways to halt the loss of global diversity. In the audience was the only black person in sea of white faces comprising of environmentalists, conservationists and eco-bureaucrats. Martin Saning’o, the Maassai leader from Tanzania was next in line. When it was his turn to comment he described: “… how nomadic pastoralists once protected the vast range in eastern Africa that they have lost over the past century to conservation projects,” and further:

“‘Our ways of farming pollinated diverse seed species and maintained corridors between ecosystems,” he explains to an audience he knows to be schooled in Western ecological sciences. Yet, in the interest of a relatively new vogue in conservation called “biodiversity,”1 he tells them, more than one hundred thousand Maasai pastoralists have been displaced from their traditional homeland, which once ranged from what is now northern Kenya to the savannah grasslands of the Serengeti plains in northern Tanzania. They called it Maasailand. ‘We were the original conservationists,’ Saning’o tells the room full of shocked white faces. ‘Now you have made us enemies of conservation.’” [5]

As Dowie understates, drily, not exactly “… what six thousand wildlife biologists and conservation activists from over one hundred countries had traveled to Bangkok to hear.”

A 2004, United Nations meeting pushed for the passing of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples read in part, “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible, with the option to return.” Later in the year another meeting of the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping, “all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that “… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’” [6]

02_wwf-horzWWF’s tasteful advertising campaign on species extinction with a nude black woman and man set against rainforest. I’m sure the Duke of Edinburgh would have got the joke…

Dowie describes other statements becoming increasingly common from the mouths of indigenous populations historically displaced from their homes and lands which now number in Africa alone, 14 million[7] “conservation refugees.” Since the colonial era: “conservation has become the number one threat to indigenous territories;” the “appropriation of common property for conservation,” or even at international and local meetings there was the ignoring “recommendations and interests” of indigenous members along with a general marginalization “… without opportunity to take the floor and express our views.” [8] It is no surprise that delegates have walked out of many conferences when the same neo-colonialism presented itself.

The author goes on to illustrate the experiences of transnational conservation with a wide range of indigenous peoples from the Miwok, Paiute, and Ahwahneechee of Yosemite Valley to the Pygmies of Uganda and Central Africa; the Karen of Thailand to the Adevasi of India; the Kayapo of Brazil and many others. The same story unfolds in each case though differing in response to the colonialism with: “the tendency of conservationists to ignore their basic rights, at times their very existence, in the course of protecting biological diversity.” [9]

As Dowie observes, it is the type of scientific conservationism that harks back to the “scientific technique” of Bertrand Russell and friends that we can see defining the rigid belief that humans cannot co-exist with nature – separation and segregation overseen by an Elite is the only way.

wwftigerSumatran Tiger|wwf.org

Sumatran tigers numbering no more than 500 in 2009 have been part of WWF fund-raising campaigns for many years. Many of the tigers are said to live in the Tesso Nilo, just a few hours from an WWF office. Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter of Der Spiegel take up the story:

Sunarto is a biologist who has long worked as a tiger researcher in the Tesso Nilo. But he has never seen a tiger there. ‘Tiger density is very low here, because of human economic activity,’ says Sunarto, who like some Indonesians goes by only one name. He also points out that there are still some woodland clearing concessions within the conservation area. To enable them to track down tigers, the WWF has provided the scientists with high-tech measuring equipment, including GPS devices, DNA analysis methods for tiger dung and 20 photo traps. During the last photography shoot, which lasted several weeks, the traps only photographed five tigers.

The WWF sees its work in Sumatra as an important achievement, arguing that the rainforest in the Tesso Nilo was successfully saved as a result of a ‘fire department approach.’ In reality, the conservation zone has grown while the forest inside has become smaller.

Companies like Asia Pacific Resources International, with which the WWF previously had a cooperative arrangement, cut down the virgin forest, says Sunarto. His colleague Ruswantu takes affluent eco-tourists on tours of the park on the backs of tamed elephants. The area is off-limits for the locals, and anti-poaching units funded by the Germans make sure that they stay out. ‘The WWF is in charge here, and that’s a problem,’ says Bahri, who owns a tiny shop and lives in a village near the entrance to the park. No one knows where the borders are, he says. ‘We used to have small fields of rubber trees, and suddenly we were no longer allowed to go there.’ ” [10]

The Der Spiegel investigation into WWF highlighted what many already knew: the organisation has overseen the dwindling of farms driven out of tribal lands and the decline of the species it appointed itself to protect. As one indigenous interviewee stated in the report, with the partnership between transnational corporations and the WWF, the organisation has helped to transform “… our world into plantations, monoculture and national parks.” [11] This also brings into relief the apparent contradiction between preserving wildlife and the predilection of aristocracy and Establishment for hunting animals. It seems they just can’t help themselves.

Back in 1961, the year that Prince Philip would inaugurate the creation of WWF to protect the endangered species of the world he was on a Royal tour of India with Queen Elizabeth. It was on this tour that the Prince decided he would blow away an Indian Tiger just for fun. Environmentalists, ecologists and just about everyone else didn’t share Prince Philip’s delight in bagging a 10ft tiger and no doubt confirming his manly virility to Lizzie.  Several tigers and a rare Indian rhino (a legacy given by British tea-planters) were killed for the Royal tour all recorded for posterity by the Queen. But Prince Phillip it seems wanted a bit more of the action. He later killed a female rhino which had got caught in the hunting party after many other members of the entourage had actively tried to assist the animal to leave. Her infant calf escaped though it is highly improbable it survived without its mother. With the launch of WWF months away the whole incident was covered up.

Killing for sport has continued to be a pleasure for royalty down through the ages. The only difference is in the past, they were not pretending to protect wildlife and preach on endangered species while taking great delight in blowing them out of the sky, skewering them with spears or hunting them to death. This sporting pleasure is endemic in so called “high society” and intimately tied up with rural traditions, though firmly divorced from anything approaching pest control or crop protection. The WWF finally had to dispense with King Juan Carlos I of Spain as The President of Honour of WWF after his blood-lust became a little too much of a PR problem. The King made no secret of his love affair for hunting big game in Africa and Eastern Europe. More recently, he took part in a hunt in Romania, killing a wolf and nine bears, one of which was pregnant.[12] A Russian official also claimed that a tame bear was plied with honey and vodka before being shot dead by the King. The bear (called Mitrofan) was killed during a private visit to Russia in 2006, though it was never proven that King Juan Carlos had pulled the trigger. [13]

royalhunt

The prelude to the launch of WWF. Prince Phillip (far left) The Queen is standing just behind the ex-tiger while Prince Jagat-Singh Has his foot on the animal’s head. The tiger was over 9ft long before it’s skin was sent to Windsor Castle as a trophy. Today – like so many animals championed by WWF – it is almost extinct.

Much like Prince Philip who is not one to let the hoi-polloi dictate his pleasures, in 2006 the Polish government allowed him to kill a European bison in Bialowieza forest, even when it is an endangered species. In April 2012, the patron of the WWF was still busy hunting elephants in Botswana.

Prince Charles, also deeply involved with environmental concerns and UK head of the WWF has followed in his father’s footsteps developing a love of fox hunting along with frequent bird shoots at Balmoral. His sons have not been spared the grand tradition either. Reports that William killed a young antelope with a 7ft spear on a trip to see the Maasai were unconfirmed but not surprising. William’s cultivated interest in shooting and stalking stopped his mother Diana from becoming president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though admittedly, hunting has always been a non-issue for the WWF.

Whether it is buying 250 pheasant, duck and partridge for his brother Harry to shoot at his 27th birthday on Queen Elizabeth’s Sandringham Estate, or boar-hunting on their rural estate in Cordoba, Spain, William is merely embracing normal pastime within the aristocracy, civil list and super-rich. In their last shoot the brothers bagged a staggering 740 partridges on a single day with help from “… Beaters and packs of dogs [who] were brought in to ensure that the princes did not return home without several ‘kills’ to their name.” [14]

Killing animals for sport under the guise of countryside traditions is nothing new and is an activity simultaneously bound up in ancient practices of survival where the animal is either venerated as a source of food or regarded as something to slaughter in a society bereft or meaning. Indigenous cultures – even peasantry in the not so distant past – took the death of their fellow creatures very seriously and afforded them the respect they deserved for providing them with nourishment. Living as we do in mostly urban environments and suburban “countryside” dotted with corporate outlets of factory farming the respect for the cycles of life and death doesn’t play much part in shooting or hunting animals since it is tied to the market place, where weekend shoots act as cathartic exercises in manliness and / or a break from the high-octane pressure of city rat-race. Deals can be done and echoes of the gentry can resurface.

Though dressed up in numerous rationalisations, the idea that hunting and killing animals for fun rather than survival in what we consider to be “civilised” societies seems to be a tradition we can eventually do without. But unless one has grown up in the “country” or is steeped in aristocratic customs one cannot possibly understand this essential “tradition” it seems … However, if we ever return to a full spectrum of true ecological awareness, self-sufficiency, respect for the natural world, a just economy and an inclusive social autonomy with a minimum of government interference, there may be a place in the world for hunting animals as part of a sacred survival, something indigenous peoples understood. Since how we treat animals in any given nation is fairly good reflection of how well we treat humans, then it maybe sometime before the view of animals as playthings or products may change.

Be that as it may, it’s all part of the normal life of so-called Royalty or “nobility” where the residues of feudalism strengthen the explicit understanding that elitism, class divisions and inherited privilege must be supported by the tax payer.

How else are we to keep the vast families and civil list in the manner to which they are accustomed?

bucket of green paint‘Green-washing’ © infrakshun

The issue is not about individual royals, rather it is the notion that we need such a structure of vastly expensive aristocracy when its continued existence only serves to buttress and maintain the status quo and its social divisions. Indeed, this must remain if monarchy, corporatism and Elite privilege is to thrive, tangled up as it is in complex ponerological webs of custom, status and wealth. The idea that we are all still subjects to a ruling King or Queen rather than citizens, has power, even if implicit. Societies at this time, need leaders but leaders with the highest principles which honour tradition as means to free the mind rather than to repeat destructive customs of power privilege and indulgence.

Similarly, organisations and agencies are following a PR image which has little to do with the values a truly progressive society would hope to encourage. WWF does not oppose hunting or situations that pose a threat to animal welfare. “Conservation” is its priority. So much so, that the following statement on the Canadian seal hunt, is illuminating: “As long as the commercial hunt for harp seals off the coast of Canada is of no threat to the population of over 5 million harp seals, there is no reason for WWF Canada to reconsider its current priorities and actively oppose the annual harvest of harp seals.” [15]

Supporting the fur industry is the type of conservation we are talking about here not least the barbarism that seal hunts entail. Clearly, as WWF has stated humane treatment of animals and animal welfare is not its concern. Nor it seems, does it view exploitation as something to be concerned about.

The Sumatran Orangutan in Indonesia, is under intense pressure from Palm oil companies causing massive deforestation. Ian Singleton, Director of the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program told journalist Elizabeth Batt that the Sumatran orangutan will be extinct by the end of 2012. WWF being concerned about endangered species would see this as an opportunity to protect this species, right? Wrong. WWF and other eco-groups are involved in a huge green washing deal which operates like this:

“ The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised ‘Rainforest Plus” label.’

The ‘world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse.’ And it’s being led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Through ‘a series of global bargains with international agribusiness, in exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.” [16]

Sumatra is home to a rich variety of wildlife some of which only exist in this mountainous paradise. Palm oil is used in biodiesel, toiletries and food products and is in high demand across the world. But the boom in palm oil means environmental degradation with high quantities of pesticides and “slash and burn” deforestation, despite WWF claims of sustainability. Corruption is rife. For example, RSPO stands for “Roundtable on Sustainable palm Oil,” yet as one former Indonesian WWF employee commented:

“Sustainable palm oil, is really non-existent” for the following reasons: “The certificate makes it possible to crank up production while simultaneously placating the consciences of customers. Henkel, the Düsseldorf-based consumer products company, advertises its Terra range of household cleaning products with the claim that it supports ‘the sustainable production of palm and palm kernel oil, together with the WWF.’ ” [17]

But WWF calls all this “market transformation” allowing corporations such as Unilever to process 1.3 million tons of palm oil a year a record that transforms it into the one of the world’s largest palm oil processors along with Wilmar, one of the world’s major palm oil producers. Now that they have completed their “accreditation” and taken into account “social criteria” then, all is well according to WWF. Though virgin forest continues to be cut down and environmental toxicity levels abound.

Charges of profits before principles have dogged WWF since its inception. The Cambodian government was none too pleased with the organisation and its handling of the Irrawaddy Dolphin in the Mekong river systems, listed as critically endangered by WWF since 2004. In June 2009, Touch Seang Tana, chairman of Cambodia’s Commission for Conservation and Development of the Mekong River Dolphins Eco-tourism Zone, accused WWF of misrepresenting the level of extinction danger concerning the Mekong Dolphin in order to increase fundraising. He stated: “The WWF’s report did not implement scientific research,” citing that: “Most dolphins died of fishing net from local fishermen and explosion devices for local people to catch fish. They did not die from pollution, DDT, pesticide or dams.” [18]

Heavy-Pollution-Leads-Mekong-Dolphins-to-Extinction-2

Mekong river Dolphins ‘almost extinct’

Cambodian government estimates between 155 and 175 Irrawaddy dolphins still remain in Cambodia’s stretch of the Mekong River, while WWF last year put the figure at just 85. Since 2012 Cambodia cabinet has agreed to implement a conservation area which will cover a 180-kilometer-long stretch of river from Eastern Kratie province to the border with Laos.

When WWF does do its professed job of protecting endangered species it doesn’t succeed there either, at least according to the 1989 Phillipson Report named after Oxford professor John Phillipson. He did as WWF asked and completed a commissioned internal audit to gauge the organization’s effectiveness. The 252 page report proved the charity had produced a litany of embarrassing failures. Not one endangered species project had been successful. After spending a fortune on “saving the panda” through “scientific breeding” which the fund proclaimed should be applied to all other species, it consequently “relocated” thousands of peasant Chinese so that they were out of the range of the panda’s habitat. In their bid to save the panda from extinction they squandered the millions accrued from donations.

Phillipson states:

“despite a staff of 43 (23 allegedly science-trained), panda breeding has not been a success and research output negligible…. The laboratories, equipped at a cost to WWF of SFr 0.53 million, are essentially non-functional. … A lack of proper advice, inadequately trained staff, and poor direction have resulted in a ‘moribund’ laboratory … The obvious conclusion must be that WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its massive investment … WWF subscribers would be dismayed to learn that the capital input has been virtually written off.” […]

“It must be accepted that WWF activities in China are largely in disarray … The policy of widening WWF involvement to cover other interests has, in my opinion, been counterproductive and, in view of the virtual cessation of support for all forms of panda research, amounts to an abrogation of responsibility for the much publicized ‘Panda Program.’” [19]

Furthermore, WWF had bribed Chinese officials with donated funds in order to preserve panda habitat but which also allowed the building of hydroelectric dams leading to ever increasing demands for bigger bribes. [20]

After decades of so called expertise in the field of conservation this is surely an odd state of affairs for an environmental institution which is regularly consulted on conservation issues despite having a dubious record on animal welfare and an appalling success rate in protecting species from extinction. Its bank balance is certainly something that could be termed “successful.”

In 2010, WWF proclaimed it the “Year of the Tiger” in keeping with its long tradition of campaigning on behalf of this endangered species. In the early 1970s, it managed to convince the Indian government under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Indian government to create some protected areas for the tigers. At the time it said there were roughly 4,000 tigers compared to just 1,700 today. Without WWF perhaps the tiger would be no more? It is hard to say. The issue of resettlement played out in India just as it would in China, with assurances by WWF staff that operations were handled properly. Given the magnitude of resettlement in India resulting 300,000 families being “persuaded” to leave their homes in order to create a conservation zone, it is hard to believe that such a mass displacement was willingly undertaken.

>WWF’s insistence that elephant populations were just fine underscored its preference for culling and hunting through much of the 1960s and 1970s. Though almost every environmental movement and nature conservation expert was saying that the elephant was in danger, WWF continued to support that line that estimates of sharp declines were exaggerated. In fact, from the results of various studies it was found that there were 3 million elephants in Africa in the early 1950s; 1.3 million elephants in the mid-70s when the ivory trade was at its height; 400,000 by 1988. Estimated populations of African elephants have recovered somewhat at between 490,000 or 65o, 000, with Asian elephants at only 60,000. [21]

International WWF chairman Sir Peter Scott also had a reputation for the option of culling animals regardless of whether numbers were dwindling or not. In 1963, in a report to the Ugandan Parks Board, Scott recommended the ‘culling’ of 2,500 elephants and according to EIR report by Allen Douglas “… game hunter Ian Parker, … massacred 4,000 hippos while he was at it.” It seems that the Chairman: “… had recommended the slaughter on the Malthusian premise that ‘overpopulation’ required the killing of many individuals in order to ‘save the species.’ In reality, as it later emerged, Scott wanted to create a valuable mahogany plantation in the forests where the elephants fed, and they were in the way.” [22]  If there was any truth to the notion that WWF was interested in preserving species then it was strongly called into question when it embraced the more lucrative idea of allowing only the privileged to kill endangered wildlife under the cover of that well-known term: “sustainable use”, which means the killing of animals in the most efficient way and which maximizes profits without damaging the long-term viability of the species.

An example of this strategy so common in nature conservation was discovered in 1994 where the Tufts Centre for Animals and Public Policy director Andrew Rowan found: “… a single difference in the responses of zoo and humane representatives to 12 hypothetical ethical problems he posed at the White Oak conference on zoos and animal protection. Most agreed that hunting is both ethically and pragmatically dubious as an alleged tool of wildlife management. Yet, endorsing the WWF view, the zoo people were virtually all willing to tolerate trophy hunting as a way to make wildlife lucrative for poor nations, and presumably therefore worth protecting.” [23]

Trophy-hunting and the neo-colonialism of the rich, white man pervades WWF philosophy and practice. In the context of “Sustainable use” this will actually speed up the likelihood of extinction when artificial practices based on blood sport and killing for pleasure wrapped up in rules and regulations replaces the natural balance of hunting for survival and necessity often sitting alongside a healthy wisdom and understanding of the natural world.  The same applies to the politics of “sustainable use” which have attracted the “change agent” doctrine that is seen in Agenda 21 and across the environmentalism movement. Such advocates within WWF and other groups have the gall to suggest to Africans and Asians living on the poverty line that they should allow rich Europeans and Americans to kill animals for sport as oppose to those who kill to survive and must be reduced to living on the scarcity of hand-outs to compensate. As one commentator reiterated: “ ‘Sustainable users’ argue that giving poor Africans and Asians a collective economic stock in wildlife will lead to the development of a collective ethic, whereby poachers will become pariahs. This ignores the history of collectivism wherever it has been attempted, from the failed USSR to Africa’s own overgrazed grasslands.” [24]

With the failure to save the Black Rhino in the 1960s and 70s as well as the declining populations of the White Rhino, John Phillipson stated:

“The project was ill-conceived and indefensible in conservation terms; the Southern White Rhino has never, at least in historic times, occurred in Kenya: Moreover, there is no evidence that the Northern White Rhino ever roamed the lands which now constitute the 87,044 hectare Meru National Park. The assumption must be that in the mid-1960s WWF was either scientifically incompetent, hungry for publicity, greedy for money, or unduly influenced by scientifically Naïve persons of stature.” […]

“The program came to an abrupt end in November 1988, perhaps mercifully in that it removed a constant source of embarrassment. Insurgent Somali poachers shot all the remaining white rhino in an act of defiance, an unfortunate end for the rhino but no doubt a welcome relief for concerned conservationists. Project 0195 is not a project that WWF should look back on with any pride.” [25]

Funded with 1 million Swiss francs Operation Stronghold was ostensibly conducted to save the Black Rhino in the Zambezi Valley from extinction. It soon became clear that this was something other than just Rhino protection and the transferral to safer regions. Taking a leaf out of the rise in private army outsourcing in countries such as America, Britain and Israel WWF paid Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham and his men to protect the Rhino it seems at any cost. But was the Rhino really the main objective here?

blk-rhino

Black Rhino, Zambezi Valley

In November 1988, When two of Tatham’s unit were charged with murder after allegedly shooting dead “poachers” in cold blood, more details of their activities began to surface. Notwithstanding that over 145 “poachers” had been killed since 1984 and 1991, many had been targeted from helicopters manned by WWF employees. [26] Yet, according to the Game department’s own 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.”  [27]

Rhinos were in fact, shipped off to countries with privately-owned game reserves not just in Africa but all over the world, an immensely lucrative project for WWF.  Following in the wake of WWF’s sleight of hand, the IMF did what it does best and embarked on a restructuring of Zimbabwe’s economy, which meant placing it in debt and cutting what was left of social services. Dumped into the middle of this Western-imposed chaos was the monoculture business of beef ranching for Europe, slap-bang in the Zambezi Valley, the exact position where the rhino’s once lived. A government and corporate-mandated extermination of wildlife then ensued to provide for the IMF beef factories.

Black Rhinos have made a dramatic comeback after private land use was brought into the picture which also utilised armed guards and private army protection. Ever on the look-out for profit, a Price Waterhouse study commissioned by conservancies and WWF-Zimbabwe/Beit Trust to explore the land-use options available to the conservancies concluded that: “from a financial perspective, wildlife is a more desirable land-use than cattle in these Conservancies.” [28]

WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1961 it gave WWF-UK £10,000 a considerable sum back in 1961. So, before green righteousness goes to far let it be remembered that WWF was actually founded on oil money. But it doesn’t stop there. Corporate sponsorship continues apace some of whom include Canon, Volvo, Nokia and HSBC – the latter having been recently fined more that $1.5 billion for financial corruption, a banking cartel that was found to be laundering money for drug barons and crime lords whilst engaging in the kind  of financial terrorism second only to Barclays Banks. Yet getting into bed with oppressive regimes and finding time to indoctrinate slum kids in Pakistan we shouldn’t be too surprised, especially when we nip back to 1988…

In that year, a large cache of paintings were sold for £700,000 to raise money for the World Wide Fund for Nature. The money was deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account by former head of the WWF, Prince Bernhard. In the following year £500,000 was transferred back to Bernhard by director-general of the WWF, Charles de Haes for what was described as “a private project.” In fact, Prince Bernhard had used the money for Operation Project Lock to hire mercenaries—mostly British to ostensibly fight poachers in nature reserves.[29]In 1990, WWF’s cosseted existence was placed under the media spotlight embroiling the organisation in a very public scandal. A joint operation between WWF and British Special Air Services (SAS) had been tasked with infiltrating “commandos” in a bid to save the Rhino and in the hope of dismantling the illegal ivory trade and Rhino horn trading network. That was the theory hatched in the WWF boardroom. It proved to be colossal failure.

Firstly, £1 million went missing. This may have had something to do with the fact that her Majesty’s respected SAS group had set up shop with Rhino products and gone into business for themselves. Far from stopping the illegal trade, they had muscled in on the action taking over the market and continuing the supply lines. Large numbers of poachers were murdered according to statements made by Nelson Mandela’s National African Congress. Further revelations came to light about the depth of British Intelligence involvement which was fully supported by WWF’s own documents and published in the Africa Confidential Bulletin. MI5 was said to have orchestrated Operation Lock with David Stirling, creator of the SAS.

The history of African National Parks is a history of collusion between park wardens funded and armed by WWF. The “poachers” are often phantoms in that such fabrications cover the truth that they are often the very same park wardens. The SAS unit officially sent in to stop the trade were drawn from the ranks of seasoned military professionals with black operational or “dirty warfare” experience. They were members of a mercenary unit created by Stirling called KAS International and just the ticket it seemed for WWF’s designs.

Though largely downplayed and covered up by the media, the trail of culpability led directly to the door of the British Establishment and most notably Prince Philip, the Queen Mother and author Laurens Van Der Post Prince Charles’ tutor, then first counsellor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs. (Incidentally, Van Der Post has been proven to have been a fraud who knew very little about the real Africa). Nevertheless, the Duke of Edinburgh is pleased with the legacy. And WWF’s present day “Market Transformation” team shows no sign of observing a distance between corporations and their cash. “Change agents” are at work where the big dealers and producers of commodities like soybeans, milk, palm oil, wood and meat can see the errors of their ways and be shown the righteousness of a sustainable lifestyle. As a result, Cargill and Monsanto, two of the most heinous polluters and human rights abusers on the planet, donate regularly to WWF and attend many of their meetings. Keeping the green spin turning is essential for such companies which have huge investments in genetically modified soybean.

Jobs for the boys continues in 2013 and not much has changed. Thanks to the European Union millions of pounds are being paid to green campaign groups so that they can effectively lobby themselves. The European Commission Environmental Fund and are giving grants to enable scores of green organisations to influence and promote EU policy. According to the Tax Payers’ Alliance which analyses organisations’ spending this special fund called Life+, has exceeded £90 million over the past fifteen years. Set up in the 1990s to fund non-profit initiatives at the European level but most importantly, it is in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation where Life+ is designed to be most effective. It would be a stretch to say that this money is being used to protect the environment, rather it seems this is another example of EU policies being routed through the back door of environmentalism without due consultation. Sure enough, the European Policy office of WWF (now based in Brussels) is up at the top of the grant listing having received £7.4 million. According to a Deccember 21st 2013 report from The Telegraph entitled: ‘European Union funding £90m green lobbying con’ By Robert Mendrick and Edward Malnick:

“In its most recent round of grants for 2013, Life+ awarded £7.5 million to 32 groups, including:

  • £290,000 to CEE Bankwatch Network, a Czech-based organisation which campaigns against “the activities of international financial institutions in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region that cause negative environmental and social impacts”;
  • £80,000 to Counter Balance, also based in Prague, which lobbies banks to ensure they “adhere to sustainable development goals, climate change mitigation policy, and the protection of biodiversity, in line with EU goals”;
  • £260,000 to Brussels-based Health Care Without Harm Europe, which campaigns to “address the environmental impact of the health-care sector in Europe … to make the health-care system more ecologically sustainable”;
  • £44,000 to Kyoto Club, based in Rome, whose main actions include “lobbying and advocacy for EU climate change mitigation policies, through policy recommendations and reports, information-sharing and campaigning, participation in EU events and stakeholder meetings, and contacts with relevant MEPs, Council and Commission officials”;
  • £350,000 to the Italian-based Slow Food, a group which campaigns to “reduce the impact of food production and consumption on the environment” and will achieve this by “participating in the international and EU debate about food through EU institution advisory committees, expert working groups and other high-level groups”.

At last, finally some cash is being used to implement a global green policy? Well, by now, it should be obvious that all this money flying about doesn’t actually alter the fundamental socio-economic structure but certainly lines the pockets of new “eco” industries and their bureaucracies. Greenpeace is possibly the only well-known environmental activist group who is acutely aware of green-washing having chosen not to take any EU or government funding. It perhaps the best known environmental campaigning organisation, has refused to take any EU or government funding. It should be commended for realising the nature of such compromise and what this really entails. Independence means it is much less likely to provide and open door to ponerisation. (It’s only a shame they don’t apply the same principles to their stance on climate change).

clip_image002.jpg

WWF “Business partners” 2012

The green charity Friends of the Earth (FoE) is another recipient of Life+ with over £2.1 million in funds in 2012 from: “… at least seven different departments of the European Commission. By contrast, the charity’s arm in Britain said it receives less than one per cent of its budget from the EU, with the vast majority of its funding coming from individuals and trusts.” The report goes on to state: “FoEE used its funding last year to produce a four-minute video to put pressure on the British and German governments to back a new EC directive which set a series of legally binding energy efficiency targets across Europe. The video was co-produced with Climate Action Network Europe, which has received £2.3 million from Life+ to ‘improve existing EU climate and energy policies’.”

In fact, the overwhelming drive to promote and lobby for EU directives under sustainable development alongside SMART society in a European setting. Higher tax bills, zero consultation on environmental policy and the new Eco-technocratic bias which goes with it blankets European perception. In the UK austerity measures, rising debt and a generation of older folk frequently have to ration their food in order to pay the electricity bills which have risen by 150 per cent in the last ten years. The German online newspaper deutschewelle.de. reported the figure of 31, 000 Britons, mostly the retired or on low incomes who died in 2012 as a result of the cold. The social and environmental costs are driving the prices sky high. SMART implementation and serious economic difficulties the funding of activist groups for measures and initiatives without due oversight and accountability is an open door to corruption and misappropriation of funds. Since most eco-activist organisations have little or no awareness of the macro-social objectives of those currently shaping European policy it means funding is generally being absorbed into the already centralised belief system inherent in Establishment support. The compromise arrives over time not necessarily in the short-term acceptance of funds. Rather, it contributes to a slow process of attrition where green policy is gradually contoured into a new socio-economic structure which may not be based on the freedom and independence those organisations and NGOs sincerely believe exists.

Employees within WWF and other organisations believe that allowing corporations to continue their natural state of plunder and exploitation while hoping for a change of face is a practical endeavour. For the multitude of good-hearted persons working in organisations like WWF whose patrons clearly have a different environmental and ideological agenda, they are in danger of becoming agents of a change that lead away from what they would sincerely like to see: the betterment of our environment and the human sphere. This will not come without a very different kind of compromise.

**

See also: Greenpeace Helps Corporations Destroy the Planet

 


Notes

[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Parks for life: Action for protected areas in Europe’ IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe. 1994.
[4]
Dowie, Mark; Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples Published by MIT Press, 2009. ISBN-10:0-262-01261-8.
[5] Ibid. (p.xvi intro.)
[6] Ibid.
[7] op. cit. Glüsing and Klawitter.
[8] op. cit. Dowie (p.xix)
[9] op. cit. (p. xx)
[10] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Romania: Elite Hunting Spree Sparks Calls For Better Animal’, rferl.org/ September 12, 2012.
[13] ‘Royal row over Russian bear fate’ BBC News, October 2006.
[14] ‘William and Harry fly to Spain to hunt wild boar to celebrate the end of Harry’s helicopter training’ By Rebecca English, Royal Correspondent, 17 January 2012.
[15] Op-Ed: King Juan Carlos not the only questionable association for WWF’ By Elizabeth Batt, http://www.digitaljournal.com April 2012.
[16] ‘Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?” by J. Latham, Independent Science News.org.
[17] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[18] ‘Cambodia Rejects CNN, WWF Reports about Mekong Dolphin’ June 24 2009. CRI English, Xinhua.
[19] op.cit. La Rouche et al.
[20] Ibid.
[21] IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2007 | ‘Asian Elephant distribution’. EleAid. 2007.
[22] ‘The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people’ by Allen Douglas, EIR.1994.
[23] ‘What’s Wrong with “Sustainable Use”?’ June 1994 Animal People http://www.animalpeople.org
[24] Ibid.
[25] op. cit. Phillipson.
[26]‘Can Mercenary Management stop poaching in Africa?’ Animal People, April 1999. http://www.animalpeople.org
[27] op. cit. Douglas.
[28] Private Conservation Case Study: Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zimbabwe: The Savé Valley and Bubiana Conservancies, by Michael De Alessi January 2000.
[29] “Pretoria inquiry confirms secret battle for the rhino”. The Independent. 18 January 1996.

 

Advertisements

The Z Factor V: Terror Tactics

 “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.

— Josef Stalin


“Terrorism” (Latin for terreō meaning “I frighten”) derives from the French word “terrorisme,” its origins drawn from the state terrorism practiced by the French government of Robespierre during and after the 1789 Revolution and its “Reign of terror.” Although many of us see these as a product of nationalistic, religious zealotry or anarchistic aggression, “terrorism” originally meant acts committed by a government but the origins became completely reversed now referring to the killing of innocent people by an external group outside government. The acts perpetrated were often shocking in their brutality, always ending in the respective government’s favour as the impeachable symbol of democracy and freedom. Sadly, the historical origins of these state dynamics have been continually altered and air-brushed away so that in the end, the truth is often the exact reverse of what we have been taught.

FlagjasperjohnsJasper Johns: “Flag”

A United Nations Secretary General report from November 2004, described terrorism as any act “… intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” [2] In fact, we can word this passage more accurately: “Terrorism are acts directly or indirectly instigated by governments intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act that is deemed counter to those governments, international banking cartels and corporate interests.”

Going hand in hand with this shock treatment is our beloved media searing the images into the public’s consciousness along with the requisite perception management comprising of a) a simplistic presentation either devoid of facts or the sins of omission and b) complete authoritative fabrications. This formula has been enormously successful reinforced by a legion of Hollywood films, all of which subtly or crudely reinforce the myth of Al-Qaeda/ISIL as the designated evil terrorist group bent on attacking America. Indeed, the FBI routinely hatches terrorists plots in order to keep the myth alive with “… undercover agents and informers pos[ing] as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training.”  Suspects naïvely play their parts until arrested. [1]

The Miami 7, the Fort Dix 6, the Newburgh 4, the Underwear Bomber, the Portland Car Bomber – all were set up with straw men so that they would be easily foiled, with the MSM singing the praises of brave intelligence men protecting the sanctity of the free world.  If the drama isn’t injected into the bloodstream of US consciousness on a regular basis then fear and ignorance begins to erode. You have to justify those devaluing tax dollars after all.

Something that must not be forgotten and which is already employed by the MOSSAD to great affect is the idea of double agents working within enemy organisations and terrorist groupings. Usually, agents act to promote the interests of the opposing side by carrying out acts of terror that serve to ostracise and de-legitimise both ethically and morally, the wider cause for which it is fighting, whether it is Irish or Iraqi freedom; Palestinian liberation or African independence. PSYOPS create lies and propaganda to bolster acts of terror in order to manage and contour public perception towards the idea that it is always the proponents of resistance who are fighting against the path of democracy, therefore to be mistrusted if not hated, which is easy if the terrorist atrocity is suitably shocking.

If the “terrorist” groups happen to conform to Anglo-American policy or have been paid or infiltrated sufficiently, they are “freedom fighters.” If however, they are counter to hegemonic designs then they are usually called “terrorists” or the more useful term of “insurgents” which allows for more invasive PR as and when needed.

Al-Qaeda (and now ISIL) are the main ingredients for the global “War on Terror” and the continuance of a “Strategy of Tension,” the forerunner of which were the stay behind,  anti-Communist terror teams of Europe, collectively known as Operation Gladio.[3] Its roots are drawn from a mixture of entirely fabricated justifications and a ruthless exploitation of underlying fears and grievances with roots in colonialism, Cold war and Empire building up to the present day. Islamic extremism is a prime pathology to foster as it widens the psychic wound in the mass mind still further after the trauma of war and generational socio-economic suffering. Manipulation of religious precepts based on centuries of genocide and war is a potent cocktail. It requires a keen knowledge of mass psychology, propaganda and the interlocking systems of finance, mafia, mercenaries and religious-political groupings to be able to apply this knowledge effectively. Fear is the only currency that routinely provides the best emotional exchange rate. The more fear is engendered, the better you can mould the perceptions and get away with mass murder and pass it off as a strictly homegrown act of terror set against the civilised West.

In the acclaimed UK documentary The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis Top CIA officials openly admit that the creation and history of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist network is a fabrication, though there are many other populist and academic sources that will prove the phony nature of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden as the root of all the terror nonsense equally well. [4]

As former French intelligence officer Major Pierre-Henry Bunel states:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” [5]

The CIA has used his ghost to buttress the fantasy that is Al-Qaeda, employing fake media reports and video appearances clearly from persons other than Bin Laden himself which all fed into the aftermath of the new pearl harbour that was 911. [6]

Even the name of Al-Qaeda has produced confusion and even dark amusement in Arab circles as one commentator wryly observed: “You have heard before that ‘Al-Qaeda’ roughly translates into ‘the base,’ but were you aware that ‘Ana raicha Al Qaeda’ is Arabic colloquial for ‘I’m going to the toilet’? Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a shit?” [7]

A fair point.

The common tactic that has been referred to before is known as the Hegelian Dialectic, (though in truth, Hegel described social changes rather than pointed manipulation in this context). However, it serves a suitable framework for the thinking behind state-sponsored terrorism which goes something like this:

  • The government creates or takes advantage of an opportunity to exploit a problem then blames it on a target “enemy”.
  • The public reacts with anger and outrage and demands the government take action in the form of assistance, protection or overt action against the “evil doers.”
  • The government happily offers the solution that was waiting in the wings and planned long before the crisis in question.
  • Conclusion: civil rights and liberties are willingly exchanged for the illusion of government assistance, protection and action. Unfortunately, it’s all a sham.

 “To prohibit free speech is the first act of terrorism.”

—Spinoza


This is the geo-political paradigm of our times largely unknown by the public, though hopefully this is slowly beginning to change for the younger generations of our Information Age. Government and military agencies at the mid to lower levels are also equally unaware of this old formula which writer G. Edward Griffin described as: “… not a war on terrorism to defend freedom, but a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism.” [8]

Flag_of_Israel.svg© infrakshun


For those still unconvinced that governments are incapable of killing their own citizens – en masse – for long and short-term political dividends, then please look at Washington’s Blog and their list of 42 admitted false flag attacks.


State-sponsored terror campaigns are not the exclusive domain of Zionists or Israeli extremists. However, the MOSSAD and Zionism have cornered the market in expertise having had a rich history in psychological operations, perception management and propaganda tactics. That being so, they have both the socio-political, ideological and professional passion to do what it takes to push through their singular agenda on the rest of the world.  That said, as I constantly reiterate, the only conspiracy worth paying attention to is that of the psychopaths in power. It matters little which political label he has temporarily created or hijacked. The Zionist Establishment is simply one facet of a overarching Global Establishment which has many psychopathic players. We’ll look at those dominant forces later in this series.

PSYOPS and false flag operations have been a specialty of the MOSSAD for some considerable time. These operations have created enormous pain and conflict the effects of which exist as social scars, warping perceptions, creating factional hatreds and civil wars. Though terrorist acts have extended back into biblical history the last fifty years has seen some of the worst with the MOSSAD either directly or indirectly involved. We will explore just a few of the more well-known operations.

In April 1950, a series of anti-Jewish bombings occurred in Iraq. At the time there were several thousand Jews living in the country who interestingly considered themselves “… as Arabs of the Jewish faith, rather than as a separate race or nationality.” [9] This integration would have been less than palatable to the Zionist underground which was already well established. During the intense exodus period that Zionist spellbinders were trying to encourage there was however, little enthusiasm for Jews to pack their bags to the recently colonised Palestine a repeating pattern in the Jewish diaspora generally. Despite the denaturalisation law due to expire in March 1951 and the growing fear by Iraqi Jews that large-scale pogroms were about to arrive, the attacks by many historians and commentators were later attributed to the MOSSAD. Despite a secret Israeli inquiry in 1960 which found no evidence that Israel was involved in the bombings, one always has to beg the question – the impartiality problem aside – who would gain the greatest benefit from such attacks?

InJuly 22, 1946 The King David hotel was ripped apart by a powerful bomb killing 92 British soldiers and wounding 58 who then initially blamed the atrocity on Arabs. Although members of the Jewish terror group Irgun Z’vai Leumi took responsibility for this crime, they also later made it public that they obtained the consent and approval of the Haganah Command (the forerunner of the Israeli Defence Force). The motive was to destroy all evidence the British had gathered proving that the terrorist crime waves in Palestine were not merely the actions of “fringe” groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang, but were committed in collusion with the Haganah and Palmach groups and under the direction of the highest political body of the Zionist establishment. Then Prime Minister Anthony Eden was asked for his opinion after the bombing: “… It appears that, after exploding a small bomb in the street, presumably as a diversionary measure … a lorry drove up to the tradesmen’s entrance of the King David Hotel and the occupants, after holding up the staff at pistol point, entered the kitchen premises carrying a number of milk cans. At some stage of the proceedings, they shot and seriously wounded a British soldier who attempted to interfere with them. All available information so far is to the effect that they were Jews.” [10]

The Chief Secretary for the Government of Palestine, Sir John Shaw, spoke of his personal friends and colleagues who died in the attack comprising of: “British, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Armenians; senior officers, police, my orderly, my chauffeur, messengers, guards, men and women – young and old – they were my friends. No man could wish to be served by a more industrious, loyal and honest group of ordinary decent people. Their only crime was their devoted, unselfish and impartial service to Palestine and its people. For this they have been rewarded by cold-blooded mass murder.” [11]

The failed 1954 Israeli Operation Savannah in Egypt where U.S. and U.K. targets were bombed and evidence left implicating the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was a textbook false flag operation. One of the bombs detonated prematurely allowing the Egyptians to capture one of the agents and an eventual breaking up of yet another Israeli spy ring. The assignment was “To undermine Western confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime by generating public insecurity and actions to bring about arrests, demonstrations, and acts of revenge, while totally concealing the Israeli factor. The team was accordingly urged to avoid detection, so that suspicion would fall on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, ‘unspecified malcontents’ or ‘’local nationalists’.” [12]

The Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign over the incident. Thereafter, the scandal became known as “The Lavon Affair”. In March 2005, Israeli President Moshe Katzav presided over a ceremony honouring the bombers who carried out the attack saying that the Israeli government has “decided now to express our respect for these heroes.” [13]

USS_Liberty

Damaged USS Liberty one day (9 June 1967) after attack. (wikipedia)

On June 6 1967 during the Arab-Israeli war six mirage jets, three torpedo boats and two assault helicopters initiated an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty killing 34 servicemen. Israel said its military had been confused by an out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier the El Quseir and thus a legitimate target, despite the fact that the vessel “was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty’s tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette.” Admiral Thomas H. Moorer was quoted in a 1991 Washington Post report that: “To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn’t identify the ship is … ridiculous. … Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument.” [14]

Another give away sign that this was a false flag came from the fact that the jets were unmarked. The only reason for such an anomaly was that Israel knew the ship was American, had planned to sink it and blame it on Egypt in the hope of pulling in US support for the Arab-Israeli war. Further evidence came 15 years later in the unlikely approach of an Israeli pilot to the Liberty survivors who then talked to former Congressman Paul N. McCloskey about his role.

The pilot said he had:

“… recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested. Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot’s radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot’s protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.” [15]

True to form, rather than admitting the truth, the US embarked on a cover-up.

Retired Capt. Ward Boston in a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, said that President Lyndon Johnson and Defence Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the Navy’s inquiry at the time to: “…conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ ” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. US crewman Phil Tourney in collaboration with journalist Mark Glenn’s wrote the 2005 book: What I saw that day – Israel’s June 8th 1967 holocaust of US Servicemen aboard the USS Liberty. Tourney is no doubt what happened and who was responsible: He states: “You have to remember,” … “our ship had been on fire with napalm, and Liberty’s fuel tanks were burning. I was filled with rage and anger. We’re the greatest nation on Earth, and no one came to help. . . At that point I realized: We’re going to have to do this on our own. My biggest fear, though, was that the Israelis would return and finish us off. Plus, let’s be clear, every crew member knew Israel was responsible, because we saw their flag on the torpedo boats.” [16]


 “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.

– Adolph Hitler


The Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro was apparently hi-jacked on October 7 1985 by “members of the Palestine Liberation Front as retaliation for the bombing of PLO headquarters by Israeli forces in ‘Operation Wooden Leg.’ However, Israeli Defence Force arms dealer Ari Ben-Menashe in his 1992 book, Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network, disclosed that the hijack had been organised and funded by MOSSAD. It was another attempt to cast Palestinians as the archetypal terrorist and to create a negative image of Arabs in the public.

Ben-Menashe wrote that the black operation was organised by Israeli agents via:

“… Abu-l-Abbas [or Mohammed Abbas Zaydan] who, to follow such orders was receiving millions from Israeli intelligence officers posing as Sicilian dons. Abbas . . . gathered a team to attack the cruise ship. The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands were not met. As the world knows, the group picked on an elderly American Jewish man in a wheelchair, killed him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But for Israel, it was the best kind of anti-Palestinian propaganda.”

Abbas later apologised for the killing of the Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer mentioning: “The hi-jacking was a mistake, and there were no orders to kill civilians.” Though he was sentenced to five life terms in Italy, and was wanted in the United States, Abbas remained a free man. Egyptian Prime-Minister Hosni Mubarak allowed Abbas and other terrorists to fly to Tunisia while President Ronald Reagan sent U.S. warplanes to intercept the flight, forcing it to land at a US-Italian air base in Sicily. An extradition battle ensued but Italians refused to extradite any of the men. Then, in a move that was even more bizarre, Abbas was allowed to go to Yugoslavia while an Italian court convicted the hijackers – including Abbas – in absentia and found them guilty. Since the Italian court ruling Abu Abbas was still wanted in Italy but Israel’s agents in both the former Yugoslavia and in Italy did not hand him over to authorities very possibly due to Israel’s complicity in the operation which would have been raised in court.[17] Abbas died on March 9, 2004, in while in Iraq and in U.S. custody which had become a hotbed of MOSSAD-CIA-MI5 actvities.

It was highly probable that Abbas was in fact a MOSSAD asset all along. As Middle East expert Patrick Seale wrote concerning Abu Nidal and Palestinian terrorism: “Israeli penetration of Palestinian organizations was common, but it was clearly not the whole story. Most intelligence sources I consulted agreed that it was standard practice to use penetration agents not simply to neutralize or destroy the enemy but to try to manipulate him so that he did one’s bidding without always being aware of doing.” [18]

Another Israeli false flag worth mentioning is the bombing of another American ship, the Navy destroyer USS Cole on the morning of October 12, 2000. While harbored at the Yemeni port of Aden, a small craft, approached the port side of the destroyer and minutes later an explosion occurred which resulted in the deaths of 17 American sailors with 39 injured. The blast hit the ship’s galley, where crew were lining up for lunch. [19] Al-Qaeda apparently claimed responsibility. Several points were anomalous regarding the incident.

clip_image004

The 40-foot-wide hole near the waterline of the USS Cole

Firstly, the damage to the engine room was extreme, “with a 20 x 40 foot hole in the hull, main engines destroyed, bulkheads torn apart, and severe damage inflicted on the keel. Significantly, although the strike was on the engine room(s), there was no fire. This particular point will make sense to explosives experts.” [20]Moreover, the pattern of the damage along with forensic evidence recovered from the scene: “… suggests the USS Cole was struck by a television guided Rafael Popeye 2. The Popeye 2 differs only slightly from the American AGM 142A Raptor, being a little shorter in overall length and with a slightly smaller warhead. Popeye 2 is designated AGM 142B by the US military, but has never been purchased by American forces. The only nations currently known to possess and use this missile are Israel, Turkey and North Korea.” [21]

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh saw MOSSAD’s involvement as “probable” and accused the Israel’s agency of planning the attack since 1997 due to the infiltration of Israeli intelligence agents in “… Islamic movements such as Islamic Jihad … during their stay in Afghanistan” in the 1980s …” [22]

The Zionist influence inside the US administration helps to ensure such false flag operations have zero coverage – only that which helps the Zionist cause. In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt’s personal diaries an excerpt from May of 1955 quotes Moshe Dayanstating: “[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge…And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.” [23]

There are many more well-known and less well-known examples of MOSSAD’s presence regarding so-called terrorist atrocities and suicide bombings of the past. The World Trade Centre attacks of September 11th may have been the mother of all operations to date, which comprehensively changed not only the geo-political landscape of the world but more importantly the perceptions of the global population. Evidence of Israeli complicity is compelling, the success of which would have been impossible without assistance from rogue factions within the US military and Bush-Cheney administration. Consequently, it would be wrong to infer that Israeli intelligence and its handlers – despite its enormous sayanim / spy network – are the only ones blowing up innocent civilians for geo-political strategies. State sponsored terrorism has flourished under America’s CIA, Britain’s MI6 and MI5 all of whom have a long tradition of atrocity, though never reaching the high standards of Israeli Intel.

map34According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches:

“From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

– The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan” By Israel Sharak.

(Source: Greater Israel – The Zionist Plan for the Middle East By Michel Chossudovky)

Sometimes all three agencies work together out of necessity rather than any idea of trust which is an anathema given the nature of their objectives. The use of double agents is essential for marketing the War on Terror as a viable cover story. There is always a mix of Intel agents; Jewish-Americans and outsourced mercenaries posing as Al-Qaeda operatives. [24]

Among the “jewels” of false flag history include the much documented facts of the Gladio terrorist teams whose task it was to instil fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities. The famous Operation Northwoods paper also showed how psychopathology could insinuate its way into American politics with relative ease. This document called for acts of mass terrorism such as hijackings and bombings against American citizens in United States cities which could then be blamed on Cuba as a prelude to invasion. In fact, in 2002, the US administration was handed yet more evidence that “… the Israeli Mossad and other Israeli intelligence services [had] been involved in a 13-month effort to ‘recruit’ an Israeli-run, phony ‘Al-Qaeda cell’ among Palestinians, so that Israel could achieve a frontline position in the U.S. war against terrorism and get a green light for a worldwide ‘revenge without borders’ policy.” [25]

(Revenge appears to be a very strong psychological facet for some Zionist and Jewish mentalities as we will discover as it seems to crop up a great deal as a justification for war crimes against Palestinians and actions of the Jewish Mafia. We will explore both of these in further detail later on).

Meanwhile, yet another botched attempt by British MI5 operatives aka “Special Forces” in Basra, Iraq in 2005 saw the capture by Iraqi police of two Caucasian men dressed as cartoon Arabs, and were found with Arab disguises and advanced weapons stashed in the boot of their car. They had been merrily carrying out fake ‘insurgent’ attacks, including ‘car suicide bombings’ against Iraqi policemen and Iraqi civilians.

This even led to the British army storming the Iraqi police prison where the two were held and forcibly removing them. Such was there concern that covert operations might be revealed. [26] Albeit unusual, this was all reported in the online pages of BBC News.

These terrorist acts have also focused on ordinary Shia and Sunni Iraqis where funerals, marriages, market places and civilian meetings were deemed legitimate targets since the US-led invasion several years ago. These tactics are designed to provide continued justification for the US, and British military presence so that they are able to carry out their plan of terrorizing the population and igniting religious hatred, the results of which will see the country descending into chaos and if necessary, civil war thus paving the way for the balkanisation of Iraq into more manageable states. Corporate “reconstruction” continues to make a (literal) killing for overseas share-holders. Anglo-American-Israeli interests will continue to mine Iraq’s resources, while a once sovereign country is stamped with: “Property of Zion’s Greater Israel.”

An objective of false flag operations in this context would be, as Zio-Con strategist Michael Ledeen mentioned: “instability in the Middle East,” which he believes: “… is the preferred political state because it facilitates U.S. control of the region.” Ledeen who has extensive ties to Israel mentions without a trace of embarrassment: “Stability is an unworthy American mission and a misleading concept to boot, the real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.” [27]  And false flag terror tactics fulfil that role precisely. (More on Leeden in a previous post)

With such a feeding frenzy of vested interests operating, a note of extreme caution must surely be directed at Israel and its MOSSAD. From such conscious drives to control others it might be said that an almighty fall usually results, the toxic effects of which return not only to the sender but a large proportion of humanity.  Victor Ostrovsky relates an eerie warning sign of one possible future:  “The one problem with the system is that the MOSSAD does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews?’ They’d all come to Israel – Great.”

And in the face of geopolitical manipulations and interference, religious extremism and economic disintegration that is exactly what is happening. The MOSSAD may well find itself outmanoeuvred on the global chess board with catastrophic results.  Just imagine what would happen if suddenly all the fingers pointed to Israel and MOSSAD as the masterminds of Global Terrorism?

In typical Machiavellian fashion, those that are experts in deceiving, may themselves deceived.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.’ By David K. Shipler New York Times, April 28 2012.
[2] ‘UN Reform’. United Nations. March 21 2005.
[3] “Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy.
The existence of Gladio was confirmed and admitted by the Italian government in 1990, after a judge, Felice Casson, discovered the network in the course of his investigations into right-wing terrorism. Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti admitted Gladio’s existence but tried to minimize its significance.
The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of “the strategy of tension,” including false-flag terrorism. … The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.” – Operation GladioNATO/CIA “Stay-Behind” Secret Armies/ Truth Move / International Truth Movement, http://www.truthmove.org/content/operation-gladio/
[4] A partial listing for your own research follows: The Power of Nightmares BBC documentary by Adam Curtis. This is freely available to watch from various sources on the internet. ‘Al Qaeda and the ‘War on Terrorism’’ By Michel Chossudovsky, January 20, 2008. The Centre for Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7718 and read the updated version of his 2005 book: America’s War on Terrorism by Michel Chossudovsky,| ISBN 0-9737147-1-9 2005. wwwglobalresearch.ca.: “…new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy. According to Chossudovsky, the ‘war on terrorism’ is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.” | See also: ‘Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project’ by Andrew G. Marshall, Global Research, July 10, 2008 and ‘The Myth Of The Palestinian Suicide Bomber’ By Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 29 Jan 2007.
[5] ‘Al Qaeda: The Database’ by Pierre-Henry Bunel, Wayne Masden report November 18 2005. “In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel’s case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel’s character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system “got him” for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group. It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of “Al Qaeda.” We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.”
[6] ‘Researcher: Bin Laden’s beard is real, video is not’ – Digital evidence supports the theory that Al-Qaida is recycling old footage to create new messages. Cnet.com September 12, 2007.
[7] ‘Existence of ‘Al-Qaeda’ Is Crap; Quite Literally’ – Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor or was it a computer database he used to chat with his CIA handlers? By Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com| October 6 2006: “The origins of the name “Al-Qaeda,” and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of ‘Al-Qaeda,’ as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.
An organization by the name of “Al-Qaeda” does not exist and has never existed outside a falsely coined collective term for offshoot loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, MI6 and the CIA, that were created in response to America’s actions after 9/11 – as the recent NIE report shows.
According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, the infamous footage of Bin Laden marching around with armed soldiers was a ruse on the part of Osama himself, graciously propagated by the lapdog press, in which actors were hired off the streets, given uniforms and guns and told to look aggressive.” […]
[8] ‘The Chasm: The Future Is Calling’ (Part One) by G. Edward Griffin 2003, Revised March 17, 2011.
[9] ‘The Forgotten Refugees: The causes of the post-1948 Jewish Exodus from Arab Countries,’ by Philip Mendes, Latrobe University. A paper presented at the 14 Jewish Studies Conference Melbourne March 2002.
[10] ‘The Bomb Outrage in Jerusalem’ HL Deb 23 July 1946 vol 142 cc801-4 801| http://www.hansard.millbanksystems.com/
[11] The Chief Secretary for the Government of Palestine, Sir John Shaw, quoted in a BBC Broadcast..
[12] p. 81; Ben-Gurion’s Spy, by Shabtai Teveth ,Columbia University Press, 1996.
[13] ‘Israel Honours nine Egyptian spies’ Reuters, March 30 2005.
[14] The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14.
[15] Ibid.
[16] BBC Documentary on the USS Liberty: ‘Dead in the Water’ 2002. By Christopher Mitchell.
[17] April 23, 1996, Associated Press.
[18] Abu Nidal : A Gun for Hire : The Secret Life of the World’s Most Notorious Arab TerroristBy Patrick Seale Published by Random House; 1st edition, 1992, ISBN-10: 0679400664.
[19] ‘I Survived a Terrorist Attack: Jennifer Kudrik talks about the attack on the USS Cole’. Cosmopolitan. September 1, 2001.
[20] ‘USS Cole in Aden – Another USS Liberty?’ By Joe Vialls, mail-archive.com, 15 October, 2000.
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘Yemeni Minister: USS Cole Blast in Planning Since 1997’ Middle East and Arab World Headlines: Albwaba News, December 12th, 2000.
[23] Israel’s Sacred Terrorism by Livia Rokach, Third Edition, University Graduates Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts. AAUG Press c1980, 1982, 1986 by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. ISBN 0-937694-70-3.
[24] ‘Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent’ The Sunday Times, “Allies say warnings were ignored. One of al-Qaeda’s most dangerous figures has been revealed as a double agent working for MI5, raising criticism from European governments, which repeatedly called for his arrest. Britain ignored warnings — which began before the September 11 attacks — from half a dozen friendly governments about Abu Qatada’s links with terrorist groups and refused to arrest him. Intelligence chiefs hid from European allies their intention to use the cleric as a key informer against Islamic militants in Britain. Abu Qatada boasted to MI5 that he could prevent terrorist attacks and offered to expose dangerous extremists, while all along he was setting up a haven for his terror organisation in Britain. […] | In Baguio City: Israeli terror suspect falls; cops eye link to al-Qaeda By Aris Ilagan, June 14, 2004. http://www.mb.com.ph/PROV2004061411759.htm |“Philippine National Police (PNP) operatives apprehended an Israeli suspected to be a member of the al-Qaeda terror network in in Baguio City on June 7.”
[25] “Mossad Exposed in Phony ‘Palestinian-Qaeda’ Caper by Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary, December 20, 2002, issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[26] ‘British soldiers arrested over alleged killing’ Staff and agencies, September 19, 2005. “The fighting broke out after two British soldiers, allegedly dressed as Arabs, opened fire on a police patrol killing one officer and wounding another.” / ‘British Smash Into Iraqi Jail To Free 2 Detained Soldiers’ By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Foreign Service, September 20, 2005. – “Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives.”
[27] Michael Leeden quoted in ‘The Zionist Occupation of Iraq – Is the ‘War in Iraq’’ by Christopher Bollyn, 10 January 2007.