Prince Harry

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.

 

Dark Green III: Eco-Nazi-Aristocracy

By M.K. Styllinski

UK-GermanFlag-

© infrakshun


The Nazis were the first radical environmentalists who, with a bit of help from Wall Street, happened to land themselves control of the State. The British monarchy and its aristocratic web of relations has continued a distinctly feudalistic version of nature conservation, hunting and ecology which has continued to the present day. It is common knowledge that a Germanic background has laid at the foundation of English royalty which has had a peculiar link to the development of ecological consciousness and its present inversion.

Jonathon Petropoulos’ Royals and the Reich shows exactly why German aristocrats were the most fascistic of the time:

270 German princes and princesses were Nazi Party members. A sampling of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Party members. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. A third of Nazi-aristocrats joined the Party before Hitler became Chancellor; a majority supported the Nazis, or like groups, before this date …. Royal Hohenzollern princes were high-profile Nazi campaigners during the Nazis’ struggle for power. Aristocrats occupied thousands of top government posts during the Third Reich.

King Edward VIII was a Nazi. He was definitely guilty of treason and possibly guilty of attempted regicide. Edward did not abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. He was forced from the throne by PM Baldwin because Edward was heading up a Nazi fifth column in the UK.

George V, George VI, the Duke of Kent and scores of British aristocrats promoted “appeasement.” This “peace movement” was an effort to steer Britain into the Axis.

Western Europe’s aristocracy, including most German princes, survived World War II. They retained, even supplemented, their land holdings. Over the past few decades they have engineered a remarkable renaissance. [1]

And that renaissance involved inherited land rights which underpinned the maintenance of an authoritarian class system, fed by a fear of civil unrest and anti-Bolshevism. The aristocracy wanted to play a part in leading the masses out of an old world in decline, a New Order that would be fiercely protected and re-packaged under National Socialism.  Futurism, synarchy and the eco-fascism that went with it, was dear to the hearts of much of the aristocracy and Establishment classes in the 1920s. By 1917, the aristocratic families of the Windsors, Romanovs, Habsburgs, Savoys and Hohenzollerns were “the original European Union,” all of whom: “… practised endogamy [marrying within one’s own social, ethic group] to such an extent that the entire Protestant caste could name Queen Victoria and/or Denmark’s Christian IX as an ancestor.” [2]

After the tyrannical Emperor Wilhelm was removed from power in 1918, the rural life continued to be worshipped by the Aristo-Elite in the Weimar Republic harking back to the good ole’ days which led to young aristocrats shunning the Republic and turning their attention to Nazi ideology and the rise of right-wing paramilitary groups. Despite considerable changes over the years the aristocracy and upper classes held onto their wealth and power. The revolution in the Weimar Republic was a political one and did nothing to change the Elite who were entrenched in the old economic order which obviously benefited their financial status and traditions. The aristocracy and the Nazis came to rely on each other as National Socialism gained support. Throughout the 1920s and 30s: a Nazi high society mingled with: “… Aristocrats, industrialists and movie stars [who] lounged in Goring’s and Goebbels’s parlours. Few from this scene bothered to read abstruse ideological screeds like Mein Kampf.” [3]

Though the party sold itself on grassroots support from the peasantry and a party for the workers and the disenfranchised in society, in reality they used the wealth of the German nobility and mixed freely with higher classes. Even though there was Brownshirt rhetoric against nobility and much distrust, this only boiled over when Hitler’s paranoia reached epic proportions and he began a rejection and imprisonment of many German princes in the latter years of the Second World War. Meantime, monarchists were courted and entertained. In return, Hitler made promises to restore monarchist families. [4] Even when there was resistance to Nazis and their pan-Germanism from families such as the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs, their fascism remained rock-solid.

The association of Nazism with nobility would only feed into the mythology of a New World Germanic Order that was somehow blessed by Royal Seal and noble blood, fitting for a Divinely ordained destiny. From this financial security the Nazis promised protection thus increasing the slow gravitation by the aristocracy toward Nazism.

Author William Walter Kay provides some interesting figures:

At least 270 members of princely families joined the Nazi Party. 50 percent of princes and princesses eligible to join the Party did so. Of the 270 card-carrying Nazi princes and princesses, 80 joined before January 30, 1933. One survey of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Nazi Party members; 962 of whom joined the Party before 1933. This is hardly an exhaustive list of aristocratic Nazis.

No one has ventured a guess as to what percentage of Germany’s 70,000 nobles were Nazi Party members; but this percentage was far higher than that for the general public. The nobility were probably the most Nazi-friendly demographically identifiable cohort. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. [5]

The family of Hessens or the House of Hesse had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Third Reich boasting 14 party members in its three family branches. Involved in selling mercenaries and land confiscation, owning shares in the notorious I.G. Farben and pursing investments in art, jewellery, furniture, porcelain and other durables, their influence was substantial. *

Princess Margaret’s mother was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her father was Kaiser Friedrich III. She married Landgrave Friedrich Karl of the Hesse-Kassel branch where she had six sons. The surviving children Prince Christoph von Hessen and Prince Philipp von Hessen are of particular note in that they embraced and perpetuated Nazism though their actions and subsequent families. When Prince Christoph married Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark in 1930, the ring bearer at the wedding was Sophia’s nine year old brother Philip – the future Duke of Edinburgh and according to Petropoulos: “Sophia’s mother was a Battenberg, a morganatic branch of the Hesse-Darmstadts. Sophia’s three sisters, Margarita, Theodora and Cecile, each married Nazi-aristocrats. Margarita married Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg – a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. He was a Nazi Party member in contact with Nazi leaders, and an Army commander during the 1938 occupation of Austria. Nazi Party Foreign Policy Office head, Alfred Rosenberg, turned to Gottfried to solicit British royals.” [6]

Christoph-phillppe

Prince Christoph von Hessen (left) and his brother Philpp von Hessen (right)

Prince Christoph began working for Herman Göering’s intelligence agency in 1933, the Reich Air Ministry Research Office (Forschungamt or “FA”) which was an extremely powerful Third Reich agency. He rose up the ranks of the SS to be inducted into Himmler’s personal staff in 1934 and by 1939 he had become an SS Oberfuhrer. Having joined the Luftwaffe in the same year: “The Luftwaffe awarded Christoph an Iron Cross for his assistance in planning the gratuitous bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940. 1,000 civilians were killed with 78,000 left homeless.” [7] Petropoulos’ evidence also points to Christoph’s involvement in planning attacks on Buckingham Palace. He died in a plane crash in 1943 flying from Rome to Germany.

His brother Prince Philipp von Hessen was quite a different character, being more of an arts-driven socialite. He joined the Hessian Dragoons just prior to World War I but never saw combat; studied art and architecture at Darmstadt University and became an interior designer in Rome, his family funding a flamboyant lifestyle. While there, he became attached to both Count Albrecht von Bismarck and his social circle which were part of the European intelligentsia. British writer Siegfried Sassoon was one of the lengthier homosexual relationships in Philipp’s life. [8]  However, true to tradition in September 1925, he married Princess Mafalda – daughter of Italian King Vittorio III. The marriage was well attended by Royalty and the Euro-Establishment. Living in Italy they were part of the fascist Italian royal inner circle and Phillip’s position allowed him to act as conduit for relations between Italian-German aristocrats. This is explains why Mussolini – a highly popular figure at the time – was seen posing in photos of the happy couple on their wedding day. It wasn’t long before they had four children with the youngest named “Adolph” as homage to his Godfather.

Philipp’s cousin Prince August Wilhelm, was the person who officially recruited him into the Nazis. He joined the Nazi Party in 1930, while Mafalda opted for the Nazi women’s auxiliary with their two eldest already in the Hitler Youth. After having joined the SA in 1931 Hitler personally promoted Philipp to General of the SA five years later with a seat at the Prussian Staatsrat and the Reichstag. As we know, the SA was a hot-bed of homosexual favouritism so it probably greased the wheels of the Prince’s success, eventually becoming one of Hitler’s closest confidents. Philipp himself is quoted as saying: “I always had access to Hitler if I wanted it.” [9]

Royal_Standard_of_the_Grand_Duke_of_Hesse_(1903–1918).svg

Royal Standard of the Grand Duke of Hesse (1903–1918) (wikipedia)

To understand how this aristo-fascism manifested on the ground, the following passage illustrates the deep-rooted nature of Philipp’s Nazi beliefs which was no different at all to ordinary card-carrying Nazis:

Philipp supported the Third Reich’s forced sterilization of 300,000 people. In 1935 he ordered a stifling of local clerical criticism of this program. Hadamar was the site of numerous sterilizations including one of an epileptic member of Hesse family who died after the operation.

Hadamar was one of six killing centres in the T-4 program to exterminate disabled persons. This program, launched in 1939, was co-managed by the Interior Ministry and the Chancellery (located at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin, hence “T-4”). 70,000 people were killed. T-4 executioners later figured prominently in the Holocaust. T-4 was officially halted in 1941 in response to clerical denunciation, but the killing continued. 5,000 were killed at Hadamar after T-4 program officially ended. In total 10,000 were killed at Hadamar. Philipp ignored letters from distraught citizens with relatives caught up in T-4; including a letter from one of his civil servants whose son perished at Hadamar.[10]

From 1934-1939 the prince accompanied Hitler on various travels including the 1938 appeasement deal by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He spent much of his time acting as liaison between Germany and Italy, procuring valuable pieces of looted art from wealthy citizens and Jews in Italy, Poland, Holland and France, a familiar practice among the aristocrats. By September 1943, Italy had fallen to the Allies and things were turning sour, which meant Philipp had to decide how he was going to save his skin. In order to make his options easier Hitler had him shipped off to Dachau concentration camp while his wife Mafalda was sent to Buchenwald camp where she eventually died. The Prince found himself in the Allies hands when camps were liberated by the US military.

Despite being the 53rd most wanted Nazi, Philipp was to survive and prosper as did so many other German royals who left their Nazi associations and crimes without even a prison sentence. [11]

At the Hadamar trial while Philip was declared to have “retained ultimate responsibility” for the sanatorium, and to have “played a decisive role in the killing,” he went unpunished. Three of his Hadamar co-defendants were sentenced to death.

For an attorney at his denazification trial Philipp hired Fabian von Schlabrendorff, a man with a sterling reputation as a member of the resistance who later assisted the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials.

Schlabrendorff recast Philipp as a victimized member of the resistance. Most of the 17 witnesses called were sympathetic to Philipp. The verdict, rendered December 1947, declared Philipp a Category II offender and sentenced him to two years forced labour and a 30 percent property forfeiture. As he had been incarcerated since 1945, he was released. [12] [Emphasis mine]

In 1968, Philipp succeeded as head of the entire House of Hesse, including grand ducal Hesse (Hesse and by Rhine/Hesse-Darmstadt) on account of the death of his relative Prince Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. He died in 1980 and remained friends with many fascists – including the Duke of Windsor.

While the House of Hessen was perhaps the most high profile aristo-fascists Walter William Kay highlights Jonathan Petropoulos’ research into the prevalence of other aristocrats involved with Nazism. It only represents a partial overview of members and their actions during the war, the whole picture of which may never be known.

He states:

The Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha family had 9 members in the Nazi Party; the Schaumburg-Lippes had 10; the Lippes had 18; and the Hohenlohes had 20.

The royal Hohenzollerns maintained good relations with the Nazi elite from 1929 to 1943. Their support was highly visible. In the early 1930s, as the Nazis struggled, Hohenzollerns appeared in Nazi advertisements and were seated at Nazi rallies where they could be seen by all.

Prince Auwi, the Kaiser’s fourth son, joined the Party on 1 April 1930 but his involvement clearly pre-dates that. He held Nazi membership card number 24. […]

Crown Prince Wilhelm (“Wilhelm”), long an admirer of Italian Fascism, enjoyed a successful meeting with Mussolini in 1928.

Wilhelm campaigned for the Nazis, in SA uniform, in the watershed 1932 Hitler-versus-Hindenburg election. He used his influence in 1932 to help rescind the government ban on the SA and SS. […]

Kaiser Wilhelm regularly contacted Hitler and penned letters praising him. He shared Hitler’s vision of a remilitarized Germany and he espoused anti-Semitic views. […]

Prince Friedrich Christian zu Schaumburg-Lippe worked for the Nazis for a year before joining the Party and becoming a “national speaker” in 1929. […]

[Josias, Hereditary Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont] joined the Nazi Party in 1929 and the SS in early 1930. He was close to Himmler who appointed him SS Chief of Staff and chief aide to the head of Hitler’s personal security team. Waldeck ran the SS equestrian club. He was an SS-General and a Foreign Office Councillor. He held a Reichstag seat from 1933 to 1945. To promote SS settlements in Eastern Europe Waldeck created the Bureau for Germanification of Eastern Peoples. [13]

And of course, we remember Prince Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld who was a member of the SA, SS and Nazi League of Air Sports and went on to found the Bilderberg group in the 1950s. Fascist tendencies seldom disappear but incubate in the aftermath of the chaos they create, waiting for the next batch of authoritarian and social dominators to gain ascendance. Monarchies, like their freemasonic counterparts, provide yet another hierarchical breeding ground for their manifestation.

That is not to say that this brand of ponerogenic-fascism was exclusively sourced from Germany. The British Royal family have a genetic bloodline and beliefs which were decidedly Germanic. The long history of Royalty and the Establishment and its love-affair with all things Synarchist extended beyond national boundaries. If anything, German Romanticism and National Socialism only mimicked what was already taking place in both Britain and later America, quickening the pace of ponerogenesis.

Queen_Victoria_1887

Queen Victoria,1887

When Queen Victoria married Prince Albert in 1840 it was the beginning of the House of Windsor. Albert was the son of Germany’s Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha though his real surname, Wettin had its roots in another one of the numerous dynastic German families which proliferated in the last few hundred years. By 1917, George the V had dumped Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for the thoroughly English-sounding “Windsor” so that their Royal German heritage wouldn’t get in the way of First World War propaganda. That was one irony which might just have caused problems for the perception managers of of the day, enough to threaten the needed fodder of the British Tommy whose death toll reached over 2 million and from which weapons manufacturers and international bankers divided the spoils. [14]

On the other side of the Royal coin the surname of the Queen and Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh is Mountbatten-Windsor the origins of which are drawn from the long-winded Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. (Which leaves you appreciating the English simplicity of “smith” or “Brown”). The young Philip was schooled at Schloss Salem, run by German-Jewish educator and philosopher Kurt Hahn. Though Hahn did his best to resist the development of Hitler youth within the school, it nevertheless became a bastion of Nazi teaching with race science becoming part of the school’s curricula. [15] Hahn went on to found Gordonstoun School in Scotland which has played a major role in rearing all the male children of Queen Elizabeth II and Philip.

Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh had four sisters all of whom were in Nazi Germany during WWII and were married either to SS-Obergruppenführers or Nazi Gauleiters. Margarita was married to the Czech-Austrian prince Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg whom we met previously, a great-grandson of England’s Queen Victoria; Theodora to Berthold, the margrave of Baden; Cecilia to Georg Donatus, grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Queen Victoria; and, Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse. Prince Christoph, Hermann Göering’s Chief of Intelligence whom we looked at briefly, was his brother-in-law and just one of numerous relatives who fell over themselves to snatch a piece of the Nazi pie. So many in fact that Philip’s invitation list was paired down to a handful on account of the surfeit of Nazis that made up his best pals. [16] Prince Henry Duke of Brunswick, real name: Heinrich von Braunschweig for example, or the father of Princess Michael of Kent: Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, an Austrian SS Obergruppenführer. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a forthright Nazi who said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job.” [17]

In response to Jonathan Petropoulos’ The Royals and the Reich (2004) Philip had to indulge in some uncomfortable damage limitation by a televised airing of a much sanitized version of the Royals’ anti-Semitic views. He described the House of Windsor as having ‘inhibitions about the Jews’ and remarked on how there was ‘jealousy of their success.’ [18] Never before seen photographs from the book featured: “… Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms. One row back in the cortege in Darmstadt, Western Germany, was his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, wearing a Royal Navy Bicorn hat. Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Göering.” In the interview, he said that the attraction of the Nazis was down to the “…great improvement in things like trains running on time and building. There was a sense of hope after the depressing chaos of the Weimar Republic.” [19]

princephilipatnazifuneral

Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh at the funeral of his elder sister Cecile in 1937. He is flanked by high ranking Nazis. The prince was a supporter of the new Nazi economics, but was his mind-set out of the same mold?

Prince Philip is representative of a belief that views humanity as a virus that must be wiped out in order that Nature can live in perfect equilibrium. Most of humanity that is, except the aristocracy and banking, corporate and occult Elite who consider themselves on level of racially and spiritual superiority far above ordinary folk. It seems that Prince Philip took his lead from Heinrich Himmler who described his victims in “language normally used for bacterial cultures. ” Nonetheless, Philip’s eco-fascist credentials were put to work for the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 holding hands with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

In his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Pruning back and uprooting the “weeds” in the population means that we are under heel of a group-mind that sees eugenics and animal husbandry of the Nazis as the best way to allow the spiritually ascended few to sit on the right hand of God. According to Philip while not claiming to have “… any special interest in natural history … as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.” [20]

We are in no doubt as to the imperative behind Philip’s final solution where he parrots the same script of the eugenicists explaining that the “conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs,” which the Duke believes is: “… largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. 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.” [21]
Now, consider whether the next passage From Prince Philip could have been written by Hitler, Himmler, or Darré:

What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding 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. [22] [Emphasis mine]

Prince Philip cites: “wars and terrorism [as] the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.” Now, given that we know that disease, general lack of public health, poverty and hunger cause the most deaths in the global population this is both factually wrong and oddly misleading. Why include terrorism as one of the principal means? Philip’s inference is that the culling of weaker and inferior element conforming to the natural homeostasis of Nature should be encouraged. False-flag terrorism and Kissinger’s Food as a Weapon comes back to haunt us in his words.

Consider too, the words of Hitler on the recognition that the “… Völkisch … separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality” and in conforming to “… the eternal Will that dominates the universe … the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker” is the inevitable outcome. And it is this “Will to Power” as drawn from the philosophy of Frederick Nietzsche and as a pillar of worship in Satanic lore that “…pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature’s operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism.” [23]

7272088Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh

Philip is not alone in his misanthropic sound-bites. The environmental movement is awash with the same anti-human sentiments drawn from a growing green fundamentalism. Journalist David M. Graber of the Los Angeles Times believes that: “We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth … Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” [24]Or from academic Paul W. Taylor: “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” [25]

King Edward VIII was touted as a hiccup in an otherwise flawless history of selfless Windsor rule. Contrary to popular belief, the Royal House of Windsor was fascist to the core, long before the Edward & Mrs Simpson pantomime. The Queen Mother and George VI’s birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland was simply due to the uncomfortable fact for some in British intelligence that they were sympathisers to the Nazi cause and appeasement was a natural course.

Wallis Simpson Edward VII Adolf Hitler Berghof 22 October 1937Wallis Simpson Edward VII Adolf Hitler Berghof 22 October 1937

Winston Churchill was the object of loathing for the Queen Mother which was why she was kept away from giving interviews due to her supremacist views. She was a PR nightmare, counter to the sweet little old granny image so (apparently) beloved of at least the older generations of the British public. [26] Britain’s “favourite granny” was actually described as extremely racist by former aides, an avid support of the South African Apartheid, anti-Semitic and opposed to all forms of immigration. In summary, as one British journalist and presenter of BBC’s Today programme once described her: “a ghastly old bigot”.

Rather than a personal aberration the Queen Mother’s attitudes and beliefs were a caricature of not only an obvious elitism – that is the nature of aristocracy after all – but a continuing brainwashing of an underlying fascist doctrine from which the younger members of the Royal family would no doubt recoil, despite the residual effects of its presence having inevitably become part of their worldview. Aristocracy, public school and British upper class system is replete with beliefs which blur the line between conservatism and fascism.

princeharry1The Duke of Edinburgh’s grandson, Prince Harry, provided a glimpse into Royal perceptions in a series of early gaffs which confirmed the results of brought up in an aristo-military milieu. In 2005, Prince Harry was forced to publicly apologise for his fancy dress attire which he donned for friend’s “colonial and native” party. His outfit comprised of full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German Wehrmacht and a swastika armband. A few years later he was forced to issue an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our little Paki friend” and joking with another that he “looks like a rag-head”, an offensive term for an Arab. [27] These may appear to be trivial points, but they provide a mirror of the British class and public schooling system and the elitist beliefs and privileges which define their existence.

Further embarrassment for the royal family in July 2015, came from a hitherto unknown film possibly from the Queen’s own archive which surfaced in tabloid Newspaper The Sun and its own youtube channel. Shot by the Queen’s father, George VI on the grounds of Balmoral, most likely between 1933 and 1934, after Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, the film depicts a veritable swarm of Nazi salutes featuring the young Princess Elizabeth with her arm raised, her mother and the Queen’s uncle Edward VIII all giving sieg heils to their hearts content. (Although nothing very shocking to most who know the roots of Royal fascism, it did serve as a nice distraction from the British government’s covert and illegal bombing of Syria as part of US-NATO alliance to oust Assad).

nazi-salute

Screen shot of group Nazi salute from “lost” home movie. “Say hello to Uncle Adolf back in Germany Children.” | See also: The Queen’s ‘Nazi Salute’ film leak triggers Royal inquiry


Royal documents which had been held in vaults at Windsor Castle were released in 2003. In the documents were details concerning Edward VIII’s relations with Hitler and the Nazis. Plans to restore Edward, the Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war were discussed. The documents also revealed that the Duke was: “no enemy to Germany,” and would be the: “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”. The 1936 abdication of former King Edward VIII, demoted to the Duke of Windsor had nothing to do with his relationship with Wallis Simpson but the fact they were both Hitler groupies.

By 1937 they were sharing cups of tea at his Obersalzberg retreat giving Edward a chance to practice his Nazi salute. [28]The cover-story was that British intelligence, worried at Edward’s propensity to cock up war propaganda, sent a British warship to hastily dispatched the Duke and Duchess as far away as possible, dumping them on the Bahamas, where, in Churchill’s view the least damage could be done to the war effort. By way of compensation the Duke donned the role of Governor of the Bahamas much to the bemusement of Bahamians whose country he referred to as “a third-class British colony”.

Even less likely to have endeared him to their hearts was the Duke’s authoritative statements on Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune whom the duke urged us to remember was: “more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium.” [29] Statements such as these were repeated by Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, down through the decades but Edward kept up the tradition even as late as 1970 in which he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.” [30]

Investigative journalist Martin Frost discovered that Prince Charles’ much loved uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten (originally Battenburg, a branch of the House of Hesse) may have played a key role as: “…one of the central figures in the 1930s Nazi-British back-channel …” In fact, until his abdication King Edward VIII had the full backing of ‘Dickie’ Mountbatten. Secret channels of communication were maintained as World War II progressed much of it between the British royal family and: “… their pro-Hitler cousins in Germany, by Lord Mountbatten, through his sister Louise, who was crown princess of pro-Nazi Sweden. Louise was Prince Philip’s aunt.” [31]

Martin Frost’s research peels back further layers of the story. Far from the Duke of Windsor cultivating chummy relations with Hitler for his desire for peace, Portuguese Secret Service files first published in the London Observer and reported in Washington Times Nov. 20, 1995, revealed that:>

… the Duke of Windsor had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, that would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne, with Queen Wallis [Simpson, the American divorcée, for whom he abdicated the throne] at his side. Portuguese surveillance revealed that Walter Schellenberg, head of Gestapo counterintelligence, was one point of contact in this plot. After Schellenberg met with the Spanish ambassador to Portugal, Nicolás Franco, brother of fascist Gen. Francisco Franco, Ambassador Franco told a Portuguese diplomat: “The Duke of Windsor, free from the responsibilities of the war, in disagreement with English politicians, could be the man to put at the head of the Empire. [32]

In essence, after this very brief snapshot of fascism in German and British Royal families perhaps the most important point to consider is that the British Royal family and elements of the British Empire acted as a two-way conduit for Nazi ideology and practice in Germany – not necessarily the other way around. This would lay the ground for the eco-fascism to come. Hitler’s National Socialism is a quintessentially British and aristocratic creation. As we have seen, once a Pathocracy had manifested in Germany its seeds were sown in post-war global structures and in the National Security State of the United States.

 


* The reader may also remember that House of Hesse had an illustrious history with the House of Rothschild and none other than the now iconic secret society of “Illuminati” via Illuminist Prince Karl of Hesse. Though Illuminism has since been all the rage in popular culture it was likely only a splinter group which served as a good cover for those to continue work undisturbed.


Notes

[1] From William Walter Kay’s review of Royals and the Reich by Jonathan Petroupoulos. http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
[2] op. cit. Walter Kay.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] p.67; Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany By Jonathan Petropoulos. Published by Oxford University Press, 2009. | ISBN-10: 0199212783
[9] op. cit. Walter Kay.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armaments Industry by Helmuth Carol Engelbrecht, Frank Cleary Hanighen. Published by Dodd, Mead, 1934.
[15] p.34; Evolution of Memory, Volume I: Historical Revisionism as Seen in the Words of George J. Jurgen Wittenstein. By Ruth Hanna Sachs, Excalmation! Publishers, 2011 | ISBN 0982298498.
[16] ‘German roots still a royal embarrassment’ by Richard Woods, Sunday Times 2005.
[17] Ibid.
[18] ‘Prince Philip pictured at Nazi funeral’by Andrew Levy, Daily Mail, March 2006.
[19] Ibid.
[20] p.8); Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
[21] HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, “Conflict Between Instinct and Reason” Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
[22] op. cit. Prince Philip (Introduction; 1988)
[23] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 13.
[24] David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989 (in Rodes and Odell, op. cit., (p. 149)
[25] p. 115; Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, By Paul W. Taylor Princeton University Press, 1986.
[26] ‘Queen Mum wanted peace with Hitler’ By Sophie Goodchild, Independent on Sunday, 2000.
[27] ‘Our little Paki friend’: MOD to investigate Harry after racial slurs on Asian colleague’ Daily Mail, 11 January 2009 | Ibid.
[28] Edward VIII By Frances Donaldson, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1974| ISBN 0-297-76787-9.
[29] King Edward VIII: The official biography By Philip Ziegler, New York: Alfred A. Knopf | ISBN 0-394-57730-2.
[30] Ibid. (p.67)
[31] ‘On Royal Nazis and the Scottish’ By Martin Frost 2007 |www.martinfrost.ws
[32] Ibid.