Environmentalism and Aboriginal Supremacism (Part 2): The Mobilization of Aboriginal Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline

Environmentalism and Aboriginal Supremacism in Canada - Part 1 - Idle No More

Of Buffalo and Biofuel - More Tales of Environmentalism in Alberta

War on Coal

In Praise of the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38)

Environmentalism and Edmonton Land Use Politics

The "Tar Sands" Campaign and the Suppression of North America's Energy Potential

Desertec and Environmentalism's North African Campaign

The Environmental Movement in Alberta

Environmentalism 400 BC

Spirit of NAWAPA

Waldheim's Monster:
United Nations' Ecofascist Programme

Early 19th Century British "Environmentalism"

Environmentalism's Appropriation of Christianity

Environmentalism's Environment

The Continental Counter-Enlightenment

The American Eco-Oligarchy update

If Only This Were About Oil

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A HECTARE

Who is Affraid of The Big Green Wolf

The Gore Presidential Bid

The Groundbreaking Career of Doctor Science

The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming, and The Anglican Church

The Great Global Warming Hoax

The American Oligarchy's Economic Warfare Campaign on British Columbians





The American Eco-Oligarchy update


INTRODUCTION


The pamphlet: The American Oligarchy's Economic Warfare Campaign against British Columbians, being written at the turn of the millennium relied on reports now four years old. Revising that essay was over due both because of its dated information and because it was based on a narrow survey of the big US foundations. What I present here is merely an update and expansion of the earlier essay. A comprehensive explication of the relationship between the oligarchy and environmentalism would require volumes.

The money and guidance flowing from the foundations to Big Green is but a fraction of the support elite circles muster on behalf of environmentalism. In addition to the pro-green foundations there are currently over 1,000 commercial corporations affiliated with either the "World Business Council for Sustainable Development" or the "Business Environment Leadership Council"; including about 100 of the world's largest multinationals. These corporations now give money to environmental activists, lobby governments for specific, self-serving environmental regulations, and incorporate "green" messaging into their advertising and memoranda. As well, governments throughout the English-speaking world and Western Europe, since 1970, have established a myriad of state Environmental Ministries which, via their stringent imposition of regulatory green tape onto industry, have engendered a caste of professional environmentalists. These Eco-Ministries also quietly lavish funds upon environmental activist groups in sums comparable to the collective contributions of the major Green foundations. Then there are the great immeasurables. Immeasurable contributions such as the incalculable amount of free and slanted publicity given to eco-issues by the mass media or the equally priceless support environmentalism has received by virtue of changes to public education curricula, over the last 4 decades, which converted "Ecologism" and "Malthusianism" from obscure 19th century reactionary ideologies into mainstream courses with their own faculties and textbooks. Hence the foundations are but one pillar of support for environmentalism along side high schools, universities, certain industrial corporations, and the mass media.

top of the page

But the foundations are uniquely important. It is they, and the dynasties whose names they bear, who ushered environmentalism into North America. The major eco-foundations (Mellon, Ford, and Rockefeller) were promoting population control and land conservation decades before there was an EPA, an Environment Canada, or a United Nations Population Fund. As well, the big, old money controlling the foundations profoundly influences the media, big business, and the politicians hence the support for environmentalism coming from corporations and governments traces back to the "oligarchy". Moreover, the foundations have a freer hand than many of the other institutional actors within the environmental crusade and thus play a substantive leadership role within the movement. Without hyperbole it can be said these dynasties are at the center of an attempted socio-ideological engineering project profounder than the 4th century Roman conversion to Christianity and more massive than Mao's 1960s "cultural revolution".

The real environmentalists are a microscopic portion of North American society. While about a thousand independent incorporated foundations (also known as "trusts", "endowments" or "funds") give money to the North American environmental movement 90% of the cash comes from about forty huge, and uniquely environmentally focused, foundations. Please remember, among the public at large a philanthropist is a rare bird. Environmentalist-philanthropists are definitely a minority among philanthropists in general. And even among those who do donate substantial sums to environmentalism those who make eco-funding their primary social objective are a small percentage. Rare birds in deed.

(Just a few points before we go further. All dollar figures found below are in US currency. And, as the reader will no doubt quickly discern, I view the population control movement and the environmental movement as one indistinguishable whole, founded and funded by the same people and possessing mutually reinforcing and overlapping rhetoric and goals. For proof of the preceding assertion the reader will have to wait for an upcoming essay. And finally, the sources of information found in this essay are the web sites listed in the text.)

top of the page
The Foundations of Big Green


The Rockefeller Foundation (www.rockfound.org) currently values its assets at $3.1 billion. They've been averaging about $175 million per year in grants to various causes over the last several years. They no longer list "population control" and "environment" as distinct programs. They now deploy vague program headings such as "Working Communities", "Global Inclusion", "Food Security" etc., but searching deeper one discovers many of the grants allocated under these program headings are going to the usual neo-Malthusian, eco-activist NGOs.

How much actual control the Rockefeller clan maintains over the Rockefeller Foundation (their names no longer appear in the list of the Foundation's directors) is debatable but they presumably control it by proxy. The family is manifestly in control of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (www.rbf.org) which has a mere $622 million in assets and doles out a paltry $20 million a year to various charitable endeavors. The RBF gives about $5 million a year to environmentalists. There is also the small but influential Rockefeller Family Fund, firmly presided over by living Rockefellers, which doles out only a few million dollars a year but houses the Environmental Grantmakers Association (www.ega.org) - one of the central guiding agencies for the global green movement. There are other Rockefeller foundations such as the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, Geraldine Dodge Rockefeller Foundation etc., which donate to green activist causes and to eco-research in academia. And there are, no doubt, other substantial personal donations flowing from the Rockefellers to the green movement. All in, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the dynasty probably donates over $50 million per year to environmentalist/population control activity.

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (www.mellon.org) currently weighs in at $3.6 billion in assets and is handing out over $180 million per year to all causes with about $20 million going to third world population suppression and an equal amount to North American green groups. The related Richard K. Mellon Foundation had $1.4 billion in assets at the end of 2002, after having given grants that year totaling $77 million. The Richard K. Mellon Foundation gives many millions to the American Land Conservation Program.

By the end of 2002 the John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation (www.macfdn.org) owned $3.9 billion in assets. During that year they gave away $225.9 million in grants to over 657 different groups. They gave about $12 million to green groups, while $8 million was spent on population suppression.

It's hard to tell what's going on with Ted Turner and his foundations these days. He appears to have fallen into some distress, financially, and maybe even ideologically. Nevertheless the Turner Foundation (www.turnerfoundation.org) and the UN Foundation (www.unfoundation.org) have been powerhouses of support to global environmentalism over the last several years. Between 1991 and 2003 the Turner Foundation handed out $222 million in overall grants while Ted's UN Foundation handed out $575 million between 1997 and 2002. The bulk of this money went to environmentalist groups, including many extremist ones, and to Ted's other favorite cause - population control.

Declines in the value of certain US equities shrank the Ford Foundation's (www.fordfoundation.org) treasure to $9.1 billion by the end of 2002, down from $10.6 billion in the previous year. To accommodate this decline they reduced grant giving in 2002 to $598 million, down from $930 million in 2001. As with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation no longer neatly breaks out its environmentalism/population control budget. A new program category: "Asset Building and Community Development" now envelops the enviro-type funding. The "Asset Building and Community Development" portfolio received $202 million dollars during the last year of record and probably somewhere near 80% of that fell into the coffers of the great green crusaders.

The Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) had assets of $4.1 billion in 2003 - a year during which grants of $143 million were disbursed to 151 non-profit societies. The Pews do clearly lay out how much they give to the environmental movement ($42 million). Their population portfolio is now named "Health and Human Services" and receives a consistent 15%ish of Pew largesse. Pew funding also has been curtailed lately. Over the previous several years Pew grant giving has frequently exceeded $200 million per year. The portion of Pew funding devoted to environmentalism continues to increase relative to their other programs such as culture and religion.

The Mott Foundation (www.mott.org) had $2 billion in assets at the end of 2002. They gave $11.9 million to the environmental movement in 2001 and $14.4 million in 2002. Similar sums were given to population programs. Overall grant giving has been hovering around $50 to $70 million per year.

The Hewlett Foundation (www.hewlett.org) assessed its assets on December 31, 2002 to be worth $5.01 billion dollars (down $900 from the previous year). In 2002 they gave out $168 million in grants with environmental and population issues each receiving around $30 million.

More investigation is needed to determine how much wealth is owned the Moore Foundation (www.moore.org) but they are definitely a multi-billion dollar outfit. They recently gave $121 million in a single grant to Conservation International. A few other large grants, one for $25 million and another for $40 million, were also recently given for ecosystem preservation projects in the developing world.

The Heinz Family Philanthropies (www.hfp.heinz.org), which appear to be firmly in the grasp of Teresa Heinz Kerry, have assets worth over $1 billion. These funds annually dole out upwards of $60 million to various causes. The environment is clearly the primary obsession at HFP.

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (www.ddcf.org), named after the only child of tobacco tycoon James Duke, had assets of $1.5 billion on December 31, 2003. From 1997 to 2003 the Duke Foundation gave away a total of $343 million dollars of which $92 million was channeled to the Green groups.

The David and Lucille Packard Foundation (www.packard.org) valued its assets (mostly HP shares) at $6 billion on December 31, 2003. They handed out $175 million in grants in 2003 and were planning on upping that to $210 million in 2004. In 2003 they gave out $83 million to "conservation and science" and $36 million to "population".

The Goldman Fund (www.goldmanfund.org) gave out $46 million in grants in their most recent year on record of which $13.2 million went to environmentalism and $3.4 million went to population control.

W. Alton Jones Foundation has undergone a major transformation over the last few years. The most important change was the transferring of over 1/3 of billion dollars to a new trust: the Blue Moon Fund (www.bluemoonfund.org). The Blue Moon donates $30 to $40 million per annum almost exclusively to green issues. They have a peculiar obsession with suppressing energy consumption in China. The front web page of the Blue Moon Fund, in an act of shameless revisionism, portrays the original W. Alton Jones as an eco.

Hence, less than 20 "foundation-clusters" bankroll the green movement to the tune of about $700 million per year. Sums of this general magnitude have been pouring into this social movement, from these sources, for a generation.

There are scores of lesser foundations which have chosen to follow the lead of the above-mentioned institutions and presently donate to 'the cause'. For instance, environmentalism in definitely the number one priority at the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelly Foundation (www.gddf.org) - assets $70 million - total annual grants around $4 million. The same could be said of the Merck Family Foundation (www.merckff.org) - assets $55 million, annual grants around $3 million. Almost all the $4 to $6 million leaving the Beldon Foundation (www.beldon.org) goes to eco-groups. Both the Flintridge Foundation and the Charles Heller Foundation are giving about $500,000 per year to green groups. And there are many others. So the several hundred million dollar annual donation figure cited above has to be supplemented, by some indeterminable amount, to account for the contributions of these hundreds of lesser foundations.

But even this figure incompletely accounts for all direct elite patronage of environmentalism as there are many propertied citizens who donate to green groups but in lesser amounts; the parsimonious $10,000 to $100,000 per year crowd. But these gentlemen too are merely following the lead of the big dynasties by donating to groups founded, and subsidized, by the Fords, Rockefellers and Mellons etc.

Only one percent of North American society gives more than chump change to charities or causes. Only a fraction of this one per cent gives away tens of thousands of dollars per year. And those who give away these amounts specifically to the green movement are a fraction of this fraction. In reality, several thousand persons are bankrolling 98% of this social movement and even the bulk of these several thousand patrons are merely followers of the forty or so people who supervise the disbursement of over a billion dollars per year and who, by virtue of this, also indirectly ride herd over an equivalent amount of lesser donations.

top of the page

Big Green Foundations support for the British Columbia's Eco-Community


The following grants list is NOT a complete list of grants given to British Columbia-based environmental groups by the American eco-foundations. To compile such a list, and to keep it current, would require a research team. What follows is merely a wide sample of recent grants from known boosters of BC's eco-scene.

The US eco-foundations have grown increasingly sophisticated in their giving programs - the result, in part, of the coordinating work of the EGA. One example of this growing sophistication is a policy of geographically parceling out North America among the foundations so as to cover all areas while avoiding duplication. As such two lesser foundations, Brainerd and Bullitt, appear to have been chosen, or self-selected, as major patrons of BC environmentalism.

The Brainerd Foundation (www.brainerd.org) has assets worth around $40 million and hands out between $2 and $3 million per year. Some of Brainerd's notable recent grants (2002/3) to BC groups include:

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (BC) received 4 grants totaling $78,000 to "build a donor base" of their own and to write a document defining what "best practices" means within the BC context.

Cassiar Watch of Iskut, BC got $15,000 to "protect" three northern river systems and to "build strong relationships" with local "First Nations" people and groups.

Chandos Fund received $25,000 to help British Columbian environmental groups "conduct more effective civic engagement campaigns".

Chetwynd Environmental Society received $25,000 to "protect and conserve" areas in northern BC.

The David Suzuki Foundation was given $25,000 to conduct public opinion polls of British Columbians.

Dogwood Initiative was granted $25,000 to "build widespread community and First Nations support for the implementation of eco-system based management of BC's commercial forestry."

East Kootenay Environmental Society got $60,000 to conduct three separate preservation endeavors.

Environmental Mining Council of BC was granted $65,000 for a two-year program to seek to implement environmentalist sanctioned mining practices in the province.

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation got $15,000 to protect wild animals.

Sierra Club of BC was awarded $25,000 to protect the South Chilcotin Mountains and to "strengthen local grassroots conservation efforts" across the province.

The Sierra Legal Defense Fund was given $15,000 to investigate both BC oil and gas law and current oil and gas drilling activity in the province.

Tides Canada won a two-year $67,000 grant to search for potential Canadian eco-philanthropists.

There were a number of smaller grants, in the $1,500 range, given by Brainerd to smaller start-up eco-groups.

There are also grants given by Brainerd to US-based groups but specifically for work in BC. The Northwest Ecosystem Alliance of Bellingham, Washington got substantial sums to protect BC's forest "through leverage applied" by opportunities arising out of the breakdown of the Softwood Lumber Accord. And the Roundriver Society of Salt Lake City, Utah was given a two-year, $65,000 grant to develop a comprehensive conservation plan for northern BC.

The Bullitt Foundation (www.bullitt.org) is another smaller fund focusing on environmentalism in the Pacific Northwest. In 2002 they gave $659,000 to BC environmental groups and in 2003 they gave $673,000. Examples of recent (2002/3) Bullitt largesse include:

BC Spaces for Nature got $55,000 to conduct their "Jobs and Environment Campaign".

The pivotal BC Environment Network received $35,000 to "work on a strategic response to initiatives of the new Liberal government that threaten to undermine environmental gains of the previous decades."

Better Environmentally Sound Transit (BEST) was given $10,000 for anti-Olympics work and another $20,000 to establish links between health activists and local environmental groups.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (BC) got $40,000 for nature "protection" and to facilitate a vigilante Park Watch campaign to scrutinize activities in BC parks.

The David Suzuki Foundation was awarded $55,000 to conduct advocacy on behalf of the implementation of the Kyoto (global warming) Accord.

Earthlife Canada Fund was granted $25,000 to protect "the bio-region of the Haida Gwaii".

East Kootenay Environmental Society got $25,000 to "protect" the Columbia River system.

Ecotrust Canada received $40,000 to "assist the Haida in developing a conservation economy".

Environmental Mining Council of BC was awarded $20,000 "work to halt the negative impacts of mineral development".

The Environmental-Aboriginal Guardianship through Law and Education (EAGLE) received $30,000 "to empower Firsts Nations to protect the natural environment".

Farm Folk/City Folk got $12,000 to work on Farmland Watch, a group dedicated to preventing development on BC's colossal Agricultural Land Reserve.

Forest Ethics was given $25,000 to protect BC's "endangered inland temperate rain-forest".

Galiano Conservation Society was awarded $20,000 to complete a comprehensive plan for conserving Galliano Park.

Georgia Straight Alliance was given $35,000 for "overall operations".

Grasslands Conservation Council of BC got $20,000 for "organizational support."

The Labor-Environmental Alliance Society was given $20,000 to build a union-community alliance to reduce the threat of industrial toxins to the environment.

Land Trust Alliance of BC got $25,000 for overall operations.

Nature Conservancy of Canada (BC) received $25,000 to develop a comprehensive anti-urbanization, conservation plan for the Okanagan.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, of Bellingham, Wash. was granted $30,000 to capitalize on the ongoing softwood lumber trade dispute to reduce logging in BC.

IMPACS was granted $25,000 to provide communications training for BC's conservation community.

Raincoast Conservation Fund received $25,000 to use recent research results for a public education and advocacy fund to protect the habitat of rare wolves.

The Rivershed Society of BC was awarded to $35,000 to "protect" the Fraser River Basin.

Sage Foundation was given a small grant to provide leadership training for BC's environmental community.

The Seachange Marine Conservation Society was given grants totaling $41,800 to map and monitor "threatened" coastal areas and to work toward eelgrass habitat preservation.

Sierra Club of BC received for grants over two years totaling $105,000 for conservation work in Northern BC and for salmon restoration activism.

Sierra Legal Defense Fund received three grants totaling $140,000 for marine conservation activism, particularly anti-offshore oil and gas development.

Silva Forest Foundation got two grants, one for $25,000, and another for $20,000 to promote eco-forestry in collaboration with First Nations.

Smart Growth BC got $25,000 to work with Farm Watch.

Society Promoting Environmental Conservation got $8,000 for anti-pesticide activism.

San Francisco-based Tides Foundation's BC outpost was awarded $60,000 to work on the Trans-boundary Watershed Alliance.

The Land Conservancy of BC got $10,000 to establish an office in the Okanagan.

Valhalla Wilderness Society received $25,000 to protect the "trans-boundary" inland temperate rainforest.

Watershed Watch Salmon Society was granted $20,000 to seek the implementation of environmentalist water-use planning process in BC.

Western Canada Wilderness Society received $40,000 and $20,000 grants for wilderness protection and overall operations.

Westcoast Environmental Law Research Fund got $15,000 in both 2002 and 2003 to find ways to "take advantage of the ongoing Canada-US softwood lumber dispute" to suppress forestry in BC.

Some of the other foundations active in BC are:

The Hewlett Foundation recently gave Oceans Blue Foundation of Vancouver $375,000 for "general support" and the David Suzuki Foundation $250,000 for anti-forestry work. Tides Canada and Smart Growth BC, both of Vancouver, received $150,000 and $75,000, respectively.

In March 2003 the Moore Foundation gave $510,000 to Earthlife Canada (BC). A few months later they handed $400,000 to help the Haida natives develop their claim to the Queen Charlotte Islands. They had earlier given Raincoast Conservation Foundation a three-year $550,000 grant.

The Pew Trusts, in December 2000, allocated $2.2 million towards establishing a forestry regime in BC resulting in at least 15% of BC's being permanently taken out of development. In 2001, Tides Canada got $181,000 from the Pews to "publicize the risks of farmed salmon." Since 1999 the University of British Columbia (UBC) has been receiving about $1 million per year from the Pews to do academic and propaganda work in opposition to both farmed and conventional fisheries.

The Ford Foundation recently gave $200,000 to Ecotrust Canada (BC) to get First Nations more involved in forest certification. They also footed the $70,000 bill to hold a trans-boundary native elders conference on the Queen Charlottes (Haida Gwaii). Another $19,000 was given to Mining Watch Canada to oppose mining in BC. A further several hundred thousand dollars was spent by the Ford Foundation to hold academic orientated environmentalist conferences in Canada that no doubt attracted a sizable contingent from BC's regiment of eco-profs.

The Rockefeller Foundation is also active in BC. They have recently paid a number of local academics to write eco-manuscripts such as William Cullen's "Arsenic: Socio-chemistry of an Element" and Nancy J. Turner's "The Earth's Blanket: Cultural Teachings for Sustainable Living". Not all their grants to BC have been for eco-work and given the idiosyncratic gobbledygook they use to describe their activities it is not easy to determine exactly what some of the money is for. For instance, in late 2002, $200,000 was spent on 4 UBC conferences to help the "research group overcome controversies preventing them from influencing policy makers." As well, in late 2003, $500,000 was given to BC-based Communication Initiative Networks Corporation to once again bridge this gap between the "research community" and the "policymakers" so as to instill in the latter a "social change approach to development issues". They also gave $22,400 to Vancouver's China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development to send people from Myanmar to China to talk about the environment. Go figure.

top of the page

Supplemental Observations


It's hard to overestimate the full affect the foundations are having on culture. The amounts spent on the great green crusade are the iceberg's tip. The philanthropists also dominate the fine art and theological communities through their patronage and can use these synergies to develop an over-riding super-structural matrix. We are now treated to an assembly line of eco-plays, eco-paintings, and eco-sermons etc. Their corruption of academia and public officialdom is done in plain view. Many university professors and state-employed scientists line up for grants from eco-foundations yet continue to hold their day-jobs and freely lend their institutional reputation to the cause. For instance, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute, the man the global warming hoaxers habitually quote, recently took 250 grand from Teresa Heinz Kerry, no strings attached, yet gets to keep his position.

Determining how many people are employed by "big green" is difficult. Many groups are "sort of" in the environmental movement but have additional objectives. In any event, the correct number would not be arrived at simply by calculating the amount of money handed out by the big eco-foundations and dividing the average wage of an eco-activist because the foundations, as has been mentioned, are not the only source of eco-funding. And of course not all grant money, whatever the source, goes to wages.

As far as determining the number employed by Big Green in BC is concerned; the British Columbia Environmental Network (www.bcen.ca) claims to represent over five hundred environmentalist organizations in the province. However a closer examination of the list reveals a number of these organizations are not headquartered in BC. Other groups are union federations or neighborhood organizations etc whose eco-activity is a small part of their overall operations. Nevertheless there are hundreds of full-on eco-groups active in BC and virtually all are funded at least in part by wealthy foundations, large corporations and/or governments.

In terms of employment, most BC enviro-NGOs are small outfits with few paid staff or in some cases none at all i.e. entirely volunteer. On the other hand: the BC's Sustainable Development Research Institute employs 50 people; the Sierra Legal Defense Fund employs 24 in BC (and others in Ontario); Raincoast Conservation Society employs 16; the eco-media group IMPACS employs 25; The Land Conservancy employs over 30; the David Suzuki Foundation employs around 40 and has additional professionals on contract; Sierra Club of BC employs 24 people in Vancouver and additional staffers in smaller locales around the province; the nation-wide Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) has offices in 12 separate regions of the country and employs 10 in BC; BC-based Ecotrust Canada employs 32; Western Canada Wilderness Committee employs 21; Farm Folk City Folk employs about 8 people; and Smart Growth BC employs 5; and who knows how many green-shirts Greenpeace has on the sidewalks of Vancouver on any given day. In addition, there are a couple of hundred other eco-groups situated in BC with paid staff (albeit few with staffs as large the groups just mentioned).

BC only has a population of 4 million. There is within this province a green fifth column of mercenary activists numbering in the thousands - vastly more political workers than any political party in the province employs. (In fact, many of the employees of Big Green in the province are at the same time high ranking hacks within the mainstream political parties.) To this number add all the environmental educators at the secondary and post-secondary level in BC and the legion of students majoring in such studies. Then there are the volunteers. The eco-groups are specialists at offering many small contract jobs and drawing from their most loyal volunteers to fill those positions. CPAWS estimates nationally it is getting $1 million in free labor from volunteers but to many of those volunteers the free labor is being given in the hope of paid work to follow. Almost all BC eco-groups investigated for this essay had current job offers listed on their web pages frequently for part-time, short-term contract work. In an economy characterized by chronic under-employment those jobs are gold to the thousands of wannabe professional ecos. Terrorists used to say "kill one scare a thousand" now its "pay one bribe a thousand". There are probably over ten thousand Vancouverites with their resumes in at Big Green.

A few words need also be dropped about the inherently deceptive nature of 'nimbyism'. Not-in-my-back-yard has long been the placard behind which many green groups operate. There is a myth that environmental activism consists of groups of long time local residents provoked to activism by threats to a precious local eco-gem by some industrial mega-project. In reality Big Green has mapped out every square centimeter of North America and has paid professionals dedicated to opposing industrial development thereon. There are 17 "'Friends of' this-or-that-river-or-park" organizations on the BCEN membership list alone. The standard method of operation is for outside professional environmentalists to enter a community and seek out local malcontents to front the campaign to oppose development. Big Green's "back yard" is the whole continent. And every square centimeter is, yes, unique.

And finally, it is particularly troubling for anyone from Western Canada to witness the formation of this unholy alliance of Big Green and aboriginal officialdom. There is probably not a native village in Canada now that does not have a full-time paid eco-missionary in residence. There are currently scores of well-financed projects underway promoting environmentalism amongst natives. Big Green absolutely does not recognize provincial sovereignty over crown land and is using "native sovereignty" as a roadblock against development. Hinterland natives have the most to gain from rapid expansion of industry in Northern and Western Canada. Yet they are being steadily marshaled into a basically racist Cossack caste of anti-development goons. This has its roots in the suitcases of cash Big Green is shunting to some corrupt native Chiefs who are happily selling "their people" down the proverbial endangered river system.

top of the page

Conclusion


On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America. They have decreed development be slowed to a crawl and enlisted a vast 'army of the night' to implement this command. Here in the trenches we never engage the Kennedys, the Trudeaus or the Windsors. No, down here we get to argue with kids with daisy-counting diplomas from community colleges in their hands and grant applications to the Ford Foundation in their hip pockets; and good luck trying to change the minds of people like this. If not for environmentalist suppression of economic activity North America would be experiencing a tremendous and sustained boom that would reduce unemployment to a smidgeon of its current rate. The responsibility for all of the under-employment, all of the want of opportunity, the lack of housing, the scarcity of public funds, the poverty, the hardship, hard times and heartache people are experiencing shall be layeth upon the well-guarded doorsteps of Big Green. We smolder, we seethe and we type on.

top of the page


  

Gasman's The Scientific Origins of National Socialism

Darwall's The Age of Global Warming

Musser's Nazi Oaks

Biehl and Staudenmaier's Ecofascism Revisited

Nickson's Eco-fascists

Gasman's Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology

Delingpole's Watermelons

Dowie's Conservation Refugees

Macdonald's Green Inc.

Laframboise and McKitrick on the IPCC

Markham's "Environmental Organizations in Modern Germany"

Petropoulos' Royals and the Reich

Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science

Dominick's German Environmental Movement 1871 to 1971

Jacoby's Hidden History of American Conservation

Cahill's Who Owns The World

The Persistent Profundity of Professor Mayer

Fascism 101 (Oxford Handbook)

The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter's "Green and Brown"

US "Environmentalism" in the 1930s (Review of Phillips' "This Land, This Nation")

Gibson's Environmentalism

"The Deniers" Condensed
(Global Warming Hoax Part II)


Review of Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship

Review of Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature

Review of The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements

Bramwell's trilogy on The Hidden History of Environmentalism

Review of Degregori's Agriculture and Modern Technology

Review of Nichols Fox's Against the Machine

Review of Brian Masters' The Dukes

Review of Joel Bakan's The Corporation

Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear

Review of Paul Driessen's Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death

Review of Janet Beihl's Finding Our Way

Review of Bradley's Climate Alarmism Reconsidered

Review of Pennington's Liberating the Land

Precedents for the "Global Warming" campaign: A review of Richard Grove's Green Imperialism
Designed by W3Media. Hosted by W3Media