From covici@ccs.covici.comThu Dec  8 04:55:44 1994
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 09:37:44 -0500
From: covici@ccs.covici.com
Reply to: LaRouche Issues Mailing List 
To: LaRouche Issues Mailing List 
Subject: Coming Fall of the House of Windsor: EIR Special issue

Editor's Note:  This electronic edition contains as much of the
text of this article as was possible to convert to a form
suitabl for transmission by Email and usenet news.  I could not
include the maps and charts which are a major feature of this
article.  Therefore, I urge you to write to Executive
Intelligence Review, P.O Box 17390, Washington DC 20041-0390 or
call 703-777-9451 for the printed copy.  It will be well worth
your while to do so if you are seriously interested in this
subject.


The coming fall  of the House of Windsor

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to
return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to
solve overpopulation.
    --{Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh}@s1

    During the recent five years, approximately, the
British press and book-publishing businesses have been
occupied by an increasing intensity of scandals directed
against the Royal Family, the House of Windsor.
    The most recent of these appeals to the prurient
interest of the gossiping public, former cavalry officer
James Hewitt's contributions to the authorship of {Princess
in Love,}@s2 has carried this mounting scandal above the
threshold of certain influential Britons' reluctance to
speak out. Exemplary is the statement early this month by
Harold Brooks-Baker, the publishing director of {Burke's
Peerage}: ``We are extremely close to the end of the House of
Windsor,'' adding that, among Britain's ``educated upper
classes,'' the view of the House of Windsor has become
``negative.'' Brooks-Baker foresaw the likelihood that the
Windsors might be ousted by no later than sometime early
during the next century.
    It is only in low-grade fiction, or in worse precincts,
such as today's major news-media, that an intimate affair
with a lady (or, with a man less than a gentleman) is
presented as the reason for the toppling of a throne. In
fact, how little concern the general public has for either
the incompetence or outrageously perverse behavior of its
preferred celebrities, is shown by such disgusting phenomena
as the existence of Hollywood stars' fan clubs, by the Soviet
Central Committee's selection of a man virtually dead to
succeed General Secretary Yuri Andropov, or by the
all-too-frequent behavior shown by a majority of American
voters almost any election night. The sexual scandals do not
topple thrones, or members of the U.S. Congress; however,
like assassinations, they are often dredged up, or, like
judicial ``railroads'' of targetted public figures, concocted
as pretexts employed in service of dynastic or other purely
political motives.
    After the facts presented in this Special Report are
considered, the British establishment's strategic, historical
motives for dumping the Windsors should become obvious.
    This report documents the fact, that for more than thirty
years, Prince Philip has personally directed his World
Wildlife Fund in genocide against the population of
sub-saharan Africa. For most of us, that Hitler-like behavior
would be grounds to convict the monarchy. However, the
relevant strata of the British oligarchy are not like us;
they are typified, as an institution, by the common
inhumanity otherwise seen among the leading London, Geneva,
and Wall Street bankers, financial houses, and the London
{Economist} of today; for reasons to be supplied in the
closing section of this report, most such persons probably
would not consider genocide directed against
darker-complexioned peoples of sub-saharan Africa sufficient
grounds for annoying the Royal Family, let alone toppling it.
    This report documents also the facts which do affright
even the calloused consciences of London oligarchs. The
Windsors continue to spread that same mass-murderous, New Age
policy which we witness in the World Wildlife Fund operations
against Africans, also into the Americas, Europe, Asia, and
Australia. This threatens the imminent downfall of a global
civilization already racked by the worst financial
instability which Europe has seen since the middle of the
14th Century. A continuation of the policies of the Windsors,
and also of the corruption-soaked former Prime Minister,
Baroness Margaret Thatcher,@s3 under such present
financial and economic circumstances, can bring on a
planet-wide plunge into chaos, taking the London-led
international oligarchy down with the rest of us.
    Think of the Windsors as like the bus driver of a
vehicle, today's remains of the British Empire. Ordinarily,
the spectacle of the terrified passengers in a public
conveyance being operated by a besotted clown, would merely
amuse those sadists of globalist financier oligarchy, were
they themselves not among the passengers. In that view, one
might better understand why, during the past five-odd years,
the relevant portions of the British establishment at large
have oozed into the opinion that that decadent dynasty, the
Windsors, must go.


             - The charges against the Royals -

    Ladies and gentlemen of the readership's international
jury, we have brought you to this court to hear charges
arising from one of the most monstrous crimes committed in
all known human history, a crime perpetrated on a vast scale.
We present to you here the evidence, that for the past
thirty-four years, since its founding in 1931, a wicked
organization, calling itself by such names as the World
Wildlife Fund, has engaged in willful genocide against the
nations and peoples of the sub-Sahara regions of East, West,
and South Africa. We shall prove to you, that throughout all
of this period, the ``kingpin'' of this criminal conspiracy has
been Prince Philip, also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, and
as Consort to the reigning Queen of the United Kingdom.
    We show you here, from his own public utterances, that
not only has Prince Philip been the titular head of this
criminal conspiracy. You will discover that he has played
this role with full consciousness of the criminal intent of
his organization's policies. We show you here, that he has
repeatedly stated his desire to bring about the deaths of
countless millions of people, to which monstrous crime he has
professed to have been driven by the same quality of motive
which impelled the Conservative Revolution's Adolf Hitler:@s4
to the purpose of drastically reducing certain human
populations of this planet. We show you here the evidence,
that he has advocated the policies by means of which this
genocide, including that ongoing in Rwanda, has been brought
about, In Her Majesty's Service, through concerted action of
the World Wildlife Fund and British Crown. We present to you
the evidence, that he, by the word of his own hand and mouth,
and with shameless braggadocio, has adopted publicly many of
those programs which the World Wildlife Fund and its
affiliates have deployed to bring about against Africans, and
also others, that genocide which was the Prince's explicit
standing instruction and documented intent.
    This evidence will show that he is personally
responsible for this ongoing and attempted genocide against
the peoples of sub-saharan Africa, and, also, of other parts
of this planet.
    The evidence shows that this Royal Consort is guilty of
this crime not only in his own person, but in his capacity as
the designated princely ``kingpin'' of this horrible
undertaking. There are many other culpable parties: the House
of Windsor as an institution; many individual accomplices,
simply on their own account; officials of governments such as
the Major government's British Overseas Development Minister,
Lady Lynda Chalker; wealthy families, in addition to his own;
powerful financier and other corporate interests; highly paid
officials of well-financed and complicit charitable and other
private organizations; and many others: the list reads, as it
should, like a summary of the Nuremberg Trials' categories of
criminals under the rubric of {crimes against humanity.}
    To catalog the number and variety of each and all of the
accomplices known to us would require many volumes of
documentation. The authors and editors of this Special Report
have limited ourselves to presenting sufficient evidence to
demonstrate the global enormity of the ongoing crimes being
committed by this London-directed cabal, and to bring to the
bar of the public conscience's justice those principal
perpetrators and their leading accomplices whose assured
complicity in this crime is shown beyond doubt by the
evidence at hand.
    In the earlier portion, the evidence presented to you
will focus upon the manner in which genocide was planned and
executed against the nations and populations of sub-saharan
Africa. Thereafter, the focus of the evidence is shifted, to
bring in facts which show that the Prince and his accomplices
have used their genocide in Africa as a model for deploying
the same roster of international institutions and policies in
presently on-going operations against most of the world's
nations and peoples of this planet.
    You will see the evidence of World Wildlife Fund's key
role in the efforts to ravish the sovereign existence of the
world's leading power, the United States of America, and the
implicitly treasonous role of the Prince's co-thinkers and
other accomplices, as persons and as organizations, inside
the United States. You will see the impact of these same
operations in other parts of the Americas, operations
intended to destroy Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru,
Bolivia, and Argentina, all as part of the same global
operation tested in genocide against Africans. You will see
the virtual obliteration of the industrial culture, the
national sovereignty, and even the mortal existence of the
nation called Australia. You will see exemplary evidence of
the same operations being conducted against countries of Asia
and continental Europe.
    It is readily and fairly calculated, that the
policy-measures which the Prince and his accomplices have
adopted, and are implementing currently would, if allowed,
reduce the population of this planet from a current level of
about 5.3 billions persons, to much less than 1 billion
within about two generations, chiefly through the
hyperbolically self-accelerating impact of famine and
epidemic diseases of persons, animals, and plants. Under
conditions produced as a by-product of such concentrated
shock to the collective immune-system of all higher forms of
life, it is by no means assured that any human beings would
exist at the close of the coming century, if the Prince and
his accomplices were not stopped, and the policies reversed,
now. We might hope such a holocaust were not certain, but we
dare not risk that wish; in any case, the Prince, his
accomplices, and their evil policies must be stopped now.
    One must not overestimate the morality of those sections
of the oligarchy which are working toward the ouster of the
Windsors, of the Thatcherites, or both. From the standpoint
of such factions of the oligarchy, the essential crime of the
Windsors and Thatcherites (like the Bush-leaguers in the
U.S.A.) is not that the oligarchy has strong objections to
the Hitler-like immorality of the Windsors' genocidal
practices, but rather only the Windsors' manifest fanatical
stupidity, their decadence. No doubt, many of the eugenicists
of the oligarchy view this ``fanatical stupidity'' as the
result of something like a flaw in the family's genes,
whether from Philip's side of the family, or to be found
already among Victoria's brood.
    Put summarily, the world seems headed toward Hell in the
proverbial wheelbarrow, and the Windsors (and Thatcherites)
won't get off the track of their failed New Age experiments.
They appear as a degenerate stage of a species, which is no
longer capable of presenting, or tolerating new ideas, at a
time that valid new conceptions of policy are desperately
wanted.
    In brief, if our adversary recognizes that his recent
strategic reverses are caused by the fact that several of his
generals are fanatically stupid commanders, one should
acknowledge the fact that this probably correct perception
has arisen, but should not fear that our reporting that truth
renders {EIR} in any sense well-wishers of the adversary's
cause.
    Rather, such developments on the adversary's side as the
recognition that the current basket of Windsors or
Thatcherites may be the proverbial ``runts of the litter,''
should warn us not to be misled into any self-deluding
scapegoating of Prince Philip. He has been but the defective
instrument of a policy-interest which was defined millennia
before he was born, and will be a continuing danger for at
least the several decades immediately before us, after he is
departed.
    The crime documented in this report is by far the
greatest crime perpetrated in all human history: the assured
destruction of all civilized human life on this planet, and
perhaps, possibly, also a set of wicked actions leading to
the extinction of the human species. Since 1961, Prince
Philip has supplied a crucial leading role in heading up this
global criminal conspiracy, but he did not originate the
underlying policy. That policy we trace immediately to the
nineteenth-century Darwin-Huxley circles and their role in
creating the Eugenics network which, among its other
productions, sponsored the Hitler dictatorship in Germany,
and also its satellite, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood
organization. Prince Philip's role should be seen as
continuing that same tradition which produced Hitler earlier,
and to carry that criminal tradition to new extremes, of
which some television fans might say, ``To boldly go where no
man has gone before.''


           - Then, if you find them guilty ... -

    Following our presentation of the evidence against the
culpable Prince and his more notable accomplices, we have
appended an appropriate ``sentencing report.'' That concluding
section will provide you jurors a summary of what known human
history has to tell us about the origins and nature of the
specific quality of criminality which the Prince, the World
Wildlife Fund, and their accomplices represent. When you
decide how you must judge the perpetrators charged here, we
ask that you not lose sight of the setting in which this case
is being heard.
    The evil permeating the criminality of the Prince and
his accomplices is very old, as old as the dimly lit fringes
of earliest known history. The ultimate enemy is not this
unfortunate Prince, but rather that specific tradition of
criminality fairly described as ``oligarchism.'' That
oligarchism is the specific infectious agent responsible for
the moral and mental sickness shown by the accused Prince and
his accomplices. In selecting a just and prudent course of
action in the matter of the ongoing criminality documented
here, we must rise above the prevailing decadence of most
current international legal and related practice, to cure the
problem, rather than, as the victors perverted the post-World
War II Nuremberg Trials, seeking to hide our own earlier
negligence behind some conspicuous suffering imposed upon
inculpated scapegoats.
    It is shown to us, respecting the character of this
moment of history, that the world has tolerated for more than
three decades a criminal conspiracy of an enormity already
vastly exceeding, in its toll upon humanity to date, the
memorable atrocities of Hitler's crew. We do not go so far as
to suggest that this signals the onset of an Apocalypse; but,
it does symptomize a crisis fairly seen as permeated with an
apocalyptical quality. This case expresses the threatened
onset of a ``new dark age,'' global in scope, echoing, and
exceeding in intensity the ``new dark ages'' attending the
collapse of the Roman Empire in western Europe, and the
so-called ``New Dark Age'' of Europe's 14th Century.
    In brief, the enormity of the Prince's crime, presently
coinciding with the threatened imminent disintegration of the
global monetary and financial systems, bespeaks the close of
a five-hundred-odd-year cycle in the history of European
civilization. To the historian, such a spectacle is to be
compared only with the numerous earlier, analogous cases of
closing periods of dynastic collapse which have characterized
the known history of every culture on this planet, prior to
the Renaissance advent of modern European Christian
civilization. No dynasty, however ancient or powerful, of
whatever culture, has ever survived the end of such a
dynastic cycle. The Windsors show no talent for becoming an
exception to that rule.
    Such evidence helps the jurors assembled better to
understand that this Windsor dynasty were almost certainly
turned into a pitied relic very soon, whatever we do or fail
to do in this proceeding. Our task is not to punish the
Windsors (although we may be hastening their retirement), but
rather to act with greater prudence than any ruling culture
has shown at the close of any earlier time or place of
apocalyptical crisis.
    Our work here will be rightly judged not by some silly
``Nuremberg-style'' sentence we might recommend for the Prince
and his accomplices. It is relevant to this admonition, to
recognize, from considering how many millions of onlookers have
tolerated the nature and scope of the crimes which the Prince
has conducted openly, how little enduring good was done, or
personal political courage shown by the Nuremberg courts
after World War II. The nominally exonerated Schacht, and
Auschwitz's von Knierem had but recently departed the stage,
and the benches at Nuremberg had scarcely grown cold, in
1961, when the Prince and his accomplices launched a scheme
vaster and more evil than any yet known to have been
conducted or conceived by Hitler's crew.
    The crimes of the House of Windsor must be seen rightly
by this jury, by borrowing the eyes of history. The Prince's
is a most monstrous crime, but yet, more significantly, the
symptom of the terminal sickness of a civilization which has
tolerated the conspicuous promotion of such evil policies and
agencies. The essence of the matter is that this Prince has
been a cat's-paw of the decadence of our age, and, in that
way, a marker for the onrushing doom of ruling global
institutions bereft of the moral fitness to survive. It is
that latter sickness, not the mere symptom, to which our
justice must address its curative powers.
    We conclude these opening remarks thus: The challenge
posed by the evidence set before you, is:
    {Can you, the jurors, be provoked by the horror of the
fact that no solution for the collapse of this civilization
exists under the presently generally accepted rules of
conduct, into discovering the needed radical changes in
axioms of policymaking, those changes which might enable
humanity to rebuild a ruined society immediately from the
ruins of the collapsed dynasty, without living through the
intervening nightmare of yet another ``New Dark Age''?}
    To a summary of that purpose, we shall return in the
concluding epilogue of this proceeding today.

    1. As reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA),
Aug. 1988. Compare this statement with the Prince's 1986
Foreword to {If I Were An Animal}: {``I just wonder what it
would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species
had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of
extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human
species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to
exist.... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for
reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.''} Fleur
Cowles, {People as Animals,} Foreword by HRH Prince Philip,
(United Kingdom: Robin Clark Ltd., 1986). Compare the opinion
of that really high-minded Prince with the words of his
intellectual forerunner, Bertrand Russell: ``But bad times,
you say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by
exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during
the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain
true unless the increase of population of the world is
enormously diminished.... War, so far, has had no very great
effect on this increase, which continued through each of the
world wars. [War] has been disappointing in this respect ...
but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If
a Black Death could spread through the world once in every
generation, survivors could procreate freely without making
the world too full.... The state of affairs may be somewhat
unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are
indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.''
Bertrand Russell, {The Impact of Science Upon Society} (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 102-104.
    2. Anna Pasternak, {Princess in Love} (London:
Bloomsbury Publishing, Ltd., 1994).
    3. A much-publicized, brewing legal action against her
son, Mark Thatcher, in Texas courts, has put the former Prime
Minister into the London press limelight as a foolishly
doting mother who resorted to the highest degree of
corruption in office for the purpose of elevating her
peculiarly unsuitable son to millionaire status. In addition
to this disgusting example of nepotism, Thatcher is
vulnerable to the airing of many other unpleasant truths,
should their muster be required. The bringing down of
Thatcher's influence, and, therefore, that of her former U.S.
toady, George Bush, accords with the same strategic motives
prompting a faction of the oligarchy to topple the decadent
Royals.
    4. Cf. Armin Mohler, {Die Konservative Revolution in
Deutschland, 1918-1932} (Darmstadt: 1972). The Nazi Party,
like Adolf Hitler a creation of the imperial princedom's
Thule Society, was but one variety of a populous species
known as the ``Conservative Revolution.'' This includes a
leading Nazi ideologue of the 1933-45 interval, Martin
Heidegger, also Friedrich von Hayek of Mont Pelerin Society
notoriety, and also many who fit into the ideological
category of {Universal Fascism}-advocate Michael Ledeen's
``neo-conservative'' fans of radical ``free trade'' and
socio-economic ``chaos theory'' today.
{Acknowledgement


Crucial background research for this Special
Report was provided by Irish filmmaker Kevin Dowling.
Dowling researched and produced ``The Elephant Man'' in
1989, a film which exposed the global empire of
Hongkong's most notorious ivory dealer, T.H. Poon. The
film was ``pivotal,'' said the WWF's Sadruddin Aga
Khan, in campaigns to save the elephant. WWF Director
General Charles de Haes called it ``a model of
conservation journalism.''
    However, while making that film, Dowling unearthed
some of the sordid reality of what the WWF was really
doing, leading to his next film, ``Tenpence in the
Panda,'' an explosive expose@aa of the WWF. In a
campaign called ``unprecedented'' in the history of
Britain's Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the
WWF spent a reported $350,000, and exerted enormous
political muscle on the IBA, in an attempt to kill or
censor the film. An enraged Prince Philip falsely
accused Dowling of stealing his top-secret memos, which
demonstrated Philip's attempts to cover up an internal
WWF audit, the Phillipson Report. Parts of that
suppressed report, which was devastatingly critical of
WWF policies and programs, are excerpted here for the
first time anywhere.
    Despite the pressure, ``Tenpence in the Panda''
aired on the widely watched British TV investigative
series ``The Cook Report,'' in July 1990. Dowling is
currently writing what he describes as ``a sensational
new history of the conservation industry.''

The Trial Begins

Prince Philip's Allgemeine SS

by Jeffrey Steinberg

Most citizens of the Americas believe that Queen
Elizabeth II is a figurehead with virtually no political
or financial power. Nothing could be further from the
truth. As the present head of the Windsor Dynasty, she is
the sole sovereign head of state of the United Kingdom and
15 other states, and also exerts more subtle but equally
deadly authority over the 50 nations of the British
Commonwealth.
    But the power of the House of Windsor also derives
from Queen Elizabeth II's status as the ``chief executive
officer'' of an informal body known to some as the Club of
the Isles, which combines the political and financial
clout of a far more extensive combine of intermarried
European royal and princely families that extends from
Scandinavia to Greece. The estimated combined financial
worth of the Club of the Isles is greater than $1 trillion
and the holdings in which the club has controlling
interest are believed to exceed $9 trillion. The world
petroleum supply is dominated by the British royal
household, as is much of the world's supply of precious
metals and raw materials, through such ``Crown jewels'' as
Rio Tinto Zinc, Lonrho, and DeBeers Anglo American Corp.
    The Royal Consort, Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of
Edinburgh, plays a similar role in his capacity as ``chief
operations officer'' for the Club of the Isles, and as the
head of the World Wide Fund for Nature. What's more,
Prince Philip is the principal public spokesman for the
number one priority policy of the club: to reduce the
population of the world to below 1 billion people within
several generations.
    To accomplish this requires genocide on a global
scale exceeding the slaughter that has been unleashed
against Africa over the past 35 years. To accomplish this,
the executive agency directed by Prince Philip has created
a powerful apparatus, an SS, made up of Royal Chartered
trusts and corporations, propaganda fronts, assassination
and terror agencies, etc.--the world's most efficient
Murder, Inc.

Who's Who in Prince  Philip's
allgemeine SS

1. {{Club of the Isles/House of Windsor:}}
Through the Club of the Isles (see p.|17), the Windsor
Dynasty functions as {primus inter pares} for an
extended royal family that claims the thrones of Russia,
Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, the
Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and scores of smaller
principalities.
    2. {{Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Baron
Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth, Duke of Edinburgh}:} Royal
Consort to Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip founded the
World Wildlife Fund in 1961, became its International
President in 1981. Former president, London Zoological
Society. See p.|28 for selected quotes from his writings.
    3. {{Zoological Society of London}:} Founded in 1826
by Sir Stamford Raffles, former Viceroy of India and
founder of Singapore. Inspired the New York and Frankfurt
Zoological Societies. Mother organization of the London
Zoo. {Royal Geographical Society} (RGS). Founded in 1830
as the Geographical Society of London; Royal Charter in
1859. Sponsored major colonial expeditions such as
Livingstone's and Sir Richard Burton's into Africa. The
boards of the ZSL and RGS are almost indistinguishable
from that of the WWF; Prince Philip was president of the
ZSL in the 1970s.
    The ZSL and RGS stand at the pinnacle of the British
intelligence establishment. Its recent chief executives:
Julian Huxley, 1935-42; Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke,
Senior Chief of Staff for the U.K., 1950-54; Lord Solly
Zuckerman, U.K. Government Chief Scientific Adviser,
1955-84; Sir Frank Chappell, the former General Commanding
Officer (GOC) of the British Army, present Director,
member of WWF-U.K. The ZSL and RGS share the WWF's
eugenics ideology, and the Darwin-Huxley tribe is
omnipresent in both. Eugenics ``founder'' Sir Francis
Galton was a major mid-19th century power in the RGS.
Michael Huxley, Julian's cousin, founded its {Geographical
Magazine.} RGS officials together with the WWF's Sir Peter
Scott founded Survival International.
    4. {{RTZ, Shell, Lonrho, ICI, Unilever, DeBeers,
AAC}:} See pp.|23-24.
    5. {{The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society:}}
Founded in 1903 as The Society for the Preservation of the
Wild Fauna of the Empire. Second oldest British
conservation organization after the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (1889). Has a panel of 108 ``honorary
overseas consultants'' in 70 countries. Maintains liaisons
with most other key conservation bodies. Mother
organization, with the Eugenics Society, of the IUCN and
the WWF. Housed since its founding in the London Zoo.
Patron: Her Majesty the Queen.
    ``The Fauna,'' as it is still nicknamed by its
oligarchical members, was founded as an arm of British
imperial policy under the guise of ``conservation.'' Its
founding vice presidents, Lords Milner, Grey, Cromer,
Curzon, and Minto, were all imperial proconsuls, chiefly
in India and Africa. As Sir Peter Scott, FFPS chairman for
most of the three decades from the 1960s until his death
in 1989, noted in his official history of the Fauna:
``Since the Empire at that time covered about a quarter of
the surface of the globe, it was a fair start on
internationalising the infant wildlife conservation
movement.''
    Chief aim of FFPS was to expand the national park
system worldwide. It convened international conferences in
1933, 1938, and 1953 to plan new national parks. Its
secretary, Colonel Stevenson-Hamilton, established the Kruger
National Park in South Africa. The architect of the Kenyan
National Park system, Col. Mervyn Cowie, is still an FFPS
board member today.
    FFPS personnel have dominated the WWF and the IUCN
since their founding, frequently chairing the IUCN's two
key committees, the Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas; and the Survival Service Commission,
concerned with WWF-style ``species preservation,'' chaired
for almost two decades starting in 1963 by Peter Scott.
    6. {{The Nature Conservancy}:} Founded by Royal
charter in 1949. One of the U.K.'s four official research
bodies under the Privy Council. Known as the ``world's
first statutory conservation body,'' it became one of the
most powerful postwar covert operations of the Crown. From
his influential post as permanent secretary to the Lord
President of the Council (the deputy prime minister), Max
Nicholson wrote the legislation for the Conservancy, then
left his government post to head it, 1952-66. Nicholson
personally developed most of the major strategies and
tactics of the world environmentalist movement for next
decades. He started the campaign against DDT later
popularized by Rachel Carson in {The Silent Spring};
drafted the constitution for the IUCN; set up and chaired
the committee which established the WWF in 1961; and chose
Sir Peter Scott as the WWF's first chairman, who held the
post for over two decades. The subtitle to his 1970
history of the postwar environmental movement is ``A Guide
for the New Masters of the Earth.''
    7. {{IUCN, Unesco, UNEP}:}
    {IUCN:} The Swiss-based International Union for the
Conservation of Nature was formed in 1948 by Sir Julian
Huxley; its constitution was written by the British
Foreign Office. Bringing together 60 nations, 95
government agencies, and 568 non-governmental
organizations, the IUCN is nominally tied to the United
Nations, but is outside of its oversight. The WWF was
originally formed to fund the IUCN; many of the IUCN's key
commissions are run by the Fauna Protection Society.
Together with the UNEP and the World Resources Institute,
the IUCN launched the ``Global Biodiversity Strategy,''
which guides the conservation planning of many nations.
Its staff directly plan the conservation strategies and
administer the national parks systems of many former
colonies today. It sees the preservation of biodiversity
as its main mission. The IUCN president is Sir Shridath
Ramphal, the former Secretary General of the British
Commonwealth 1975-90; its director general, Martin
Holdgate, was a senior offical of the United Kingdom's
Department of the Environment.
    {Unesco:} The United Nations Education, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization, is a Paris-based specialized U.N.
organization that was designed by Sir Julian Huxley, who
also was its first director general. In his founding 1946
document, Huxley defines Unesco's two main aims as
popularizing the need for eugenics, and protecting
wildlife through the creation of national parks,
especially in Africa. With a $550 million annual budget,
Unesco funds a vast network of conservation groups; it
defines protection of the environment as one of its three
main goals.
    {UNEP:} The United Nations Environment Program was
formed at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment which
was organized by WWF founder Maurice Strong. Based in
Kenya, the UNEP works closely with Unesco, the IUCN, and
the WWF in diverse ventures. Its World Conservation
Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, England, jointly sponsored
with the IUCN and the WWF, is the central intelligence
agency of the conservation movement.
    8. {{World Wildlife Fund}:} See p|26.
    9. {{1001 Club}:} See pp.|25.
    10. {{World Resources Institute}:} Founded in 1982
under the guidance of WWF U.S.A. president Russell E. Train
with generous grants from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
and the MacArthur Foundation. James Gustave Speth was
appointed president. Speth was a cofounder of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and formerly the chairman of the
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality and the director of
the Global 2000 project. After 11 years at WRI Speth was
made head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
in 1993. WRI is the main think tank for U.S. environmental
groups, putting forward study after study promoting the
New World Order and the global biodiversity strategy. WRI
is affiliated with the International Institute for
Environment and Development in London, formerly headed by
Lady Jackson (Barbara Ward).
    11. {{Goldsmith/The Ecologist}:} Sir James Goldsmith
and his older brother Edward are leading financiers of the
the WWF apparatus globally. Along with John Aspinall,
major funders of Survival International and Friends of the
Earth. In 1970 Edward Goldsmith founded {The Ecologist,}
magazine of the radical wing of the green movement. Edward
also launched the Green Party movement in the U.K. which
spawned Green parties in every European Community state.
    12. {{Sierra Club}:} The Sierra Club was founded in 1892
by preservationist John Muir with funding from the famous
robber baron E.H. Harriman. Mostly an outing club until
the 1950s, the Sierra Club became a radical environmental
lobbying organization under the leadership of David
Brower. In 1969, Brower left Sierra Club and to create the
more radical Friends of the Earth. Later on he also
founded the Earth Island Institute. Michael McCloskey
replaced Brower and proceeded to refocus the Sierra Club
into an organization dedicated to preventing all
commercial uses of public lands in the United States. In 1971
leaders of the Sierra Club in Canada created Greenpeace.
In 1979 the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society gave
David Foreman a 10-year contract to create and lead an
overtly terrorist environmental organization. That
organization became Earth First!
    13. {{Greenpeace}:} Founded in 1971 out of the Don't
Make a Wave Committee, to coopt drug-rock-sex
counterculture victims into WWF-sponsored ``direct
action.'' Now has branches in 24 countries, including
Russia, with headquarters in The Netherlands and an annual
budget of $157 million. Spawned eco-terrorist groups Sea
Shepherd, Lynx, Animal Liberation Front, and Earth First!
Current director is Lord Peter Melchett, heir to the
Imperial Chemical Industries fortune. Behind-the-scenes
controller from early years is David McTaggart, Canadian
confidence man, who received funding from WWF Executive
Director Sir Peter Scott to purchase a fleet of ships to
assault nuclear test ranges, whaling fleets, and seal
hunters.
    14. {{Friends of the Earth}:} Founded 1969 by David Ross
Brower, former Executive Director of Sierra Club. In 1990
merged with Environmental Policy Institute and Oceanic
Society and obtained tax-exempt status from the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service. Moved into England in 1970,
with financing from the Goldsmith and Rothschild interests
and John Aspinall. Engages in direct action and other
activities particularly targeting nuclear power plants.
Director of FOE U.K. during the 1980s was Jonathan Porritt,
son of ex-governor general of New Zealand. Founder of FOE
France, Brice LaLonde later appointed President
Franc@alois Mitterrand's environmental minister. FOE, like
Greenpeace, deployed personnel to found Earth First!
    15. {{Survival International}:} Founded in London
in 1969 with sponsorship of WWF chairman Sir Peter
Scott to provide funding to ``help tribal peoples protect
their lands, environment and way of life.'' Originally
named Primitive Peoples Fund. Continues close
collaboration with WWF and the Royal Geographic Society.
Other founding members include: Edward Goldsmith, John
Aspinall, Nicolas Guppy, Francis Huxley, and Royal
Geographic Society director John Hemming. South American
Indians, particularly Yanomami, were initial targets
of SI operations. In 1972, spawned Cultural Survival,
headed by British anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis
and chaired by Queen Margarethe of Denmark.
    16. {{Environmental Investigative Agency}:}
London-headquartered private eye unit spawned out of
Greenpeace U.K. Founder is Allan Thornton, an early
leader of Greenpeace. Financed by Animal Welfare
Institute and other WWF fronts to conduct ``muckraking''
investigations into environmental abuses.
    17. {{Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Rainforest, Earth First!
action network.}} See p|63.

Prince Philip's Corporate  SS

by Anthony K. Wikrent and Allen Douglas

The modern multinationals typified by Royal Dutch
Shell, Unilever, and RTZ, which have done so much to
strangle Africa and the rest of the world in the postwar
period, are merely the modern, slightly disguised form of
the Crown-chartered ``merchant adventurer'' companies of
Elizabethan England and later. Like their often
Venetian-sponsored Elizabethan predecessors, some of which
merged to become the British East India Company in the
late sixteenth century, they are granted a ``royal
charter'' to operate globally on behalf of the Crown and
its associated families. The Anglo-Dutch firm Royal Dutch
Shell, for instance, so prominent in Africa and in the
World Wide Fund for Nature, dates from the financial
arrangements established when William of the Dutch house
of Orange took the British throne in 1688, with Venetian
backing.
    When Africa was colonized by the European
powers in the 1880s and 1890s, that process, too, was
under charter from the Crown, to such companies as the
Royal Niger Company, the British East Africa Company, and
Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company.
    Today's WWF backers, particularly its ``Africa
division'' listed below, as well as those in the flow
chart on the following page, are the direct descendants of
these late-nineteenth-century Crown companies, if not
earlier ones, like Shell. Tiny Rowland's Lonrho Corp. is
typical: As of 1990 the employer of over 100,000 people in
Africa, it is the continent's major private food producer,
and a powerhouse in precious metals.
    In 1961, at the time Lonrho was vastly upgraded in
order to subvert and destroy the emerging independent
African nations, it was a subsidiary of Cecil Rhodes's
still-existing British South Africa Company. And, as {EIR}
has documented in its 1992 book, {Tiny Rowland: The Ugly
Face of Neocolonialism in Africa,} the money and
connections to launch this new British East India Co. for
Africa came from City of London financier Harley Drayton
and his 117 Old Broad Street Group, Crown Agents for the
colonies and {the managers of the private fortune of the
queen.} Drayton's longtime personal assistant was the
Scottish aristocrat Angus Ogilvy, whose wife, Princess
Alexandra of Kent, is presently the head of WWF-U.K.
    From 1961 on, Rowland was the chief financier for the
gangs whose genocidal wars have devastated Africa. He
often financed both sides of a struggle at the same time,
beginning with the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia and its
black opposition around Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe,
continuing into his financing both the Frelimo government
and its Renamo opposition in Mozambique, and both the MPLA
government and its Unita opposition in Angola.
    The queen is the world's wealthiest woman, with an
acknowledged fortune of $13 billion ({Harpers and Queen}
magazine, January 1991). In reality it is far greater, but
she is exempt from having to disclose her holdings. The
following entities, with major assets particularly in
Africa, are politically directed by, and often
substantially owned by, the Crown:
    {{RTZ Corp. PLC.}} Second-largest mining firm in the
world. Established in 1873 by Hugh Matheson of the Jardine
Matheson opium-trading firm. RTZ's third chairman, Sir
Auckland Geddes, worked with Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to
reorganize control of raw materials production in Africa
in the 1920s and 1930s.
    {{Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd.}}
Largest mining firm in the world; dominates the economy of
South Africa. Constitutes, together with the two De Beers
companies, the Oppenheimer empire. The Rothschilds and
J.P. Morgan and Co. provided Sir Ernest Oppenheimer the
financing to cartelize diamond and gold production in
South Africa between 1902 and 1929.
    {{De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd.}} (South Africa)
and {{De Beers Centenary AG}} (Switzerland). Control world
diamond production. Established by Cecil Rhodes in 1880;
by 1888, with Rothschild backing, controlled 90% of the
world's diamond production.
    {{Barclays PLC.}} Major banking power in Africa.
Tightly controlled by the Barclay, Freame, Bevan, and
Buxton families, the latter of which co-founded the WWF.
    {{Shell Trading & Transport PLC}} and {{Shell U.K.
Ltd.}} World's largest petrochemical producer. ST&T, a
British holding company, owns 40% of the Royal Dutch
Shell group of over 2,000 companies worldwide (the other
60% is owned by Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.); forged by Sir
Henri Deterding in 1903 with the French Rothschilds.
    {{N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd.}} Founded in 1803 with
the assistance of the Thurn und Taxis family, one of the
``princely families'' of the Hapsburg Empire, originally
the Venetian Torre e Tasso family. NMR&S historically
financed the expansion of the Venetian-modeled British
Empire, as they did by bankrolling Cecil Rhodes's gold and
diamonds empire.
    {{Imperial Chemical Industries PLC.}} Key part of
world chemical cartel. Formed in 1926 by Lord Melchett and
others by merging the four largest British chemical firms.
The present Lord Melchett, grandson of ICI's founder, is
head of Greenpeace, United Kingdom.
    {{Unilever.}} Owns vast plantations in Africa and the
continent's largest trading company (United Africa Co.);
key part of the world food cartel, particularly in fats
and edible oils. Formed by 1930s strategic merger of
English Lever Brothers firm, which owned the West African
heirs to the Royal Niger Co, with a Dutch company.



The WWF: race science and world government

by Allen Douglas

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide
Fund for Nature), was founded in 1961 for one stated
purpose: to raise money to drastically expand the
operations of the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN). Established in Gland, Switzerland in
1948 on a British Foreign Office-drafted constitution, the
IUCN today boasts that it is the largest ``professional''
international conservation organization--as of 1994
comprising 68 states, 103 governmental agencies, and over
640 non-governmental organizations, ``many of global
reach.''
    Under the cover of ``conserving nature,'' the WWF-IUCN
has in fact dedicated itself to 1) reduce the world's
population, particularly in the developing sector, and 2)
ensure that control of the world's raw materials remains
in the hands of a tiny handful of largely British (or
Anglo-Dutch) multinationals. These two goals, WWF-IUCN
spokesmen have repeatedly stated, require a world
government.
    The WWF has been headed since its inception in 1961
by Prince Philip, the first head of the most important
national-sector branch, the WWF-UK, who recruited Prince
Bernhard of the Netherlands to be the first head of the
WWF-International. After the Lockheed scandals of the
mid-1970s, in which Prince Bernhard was caught taking
million-dollar bribes to sell airplanes, Philip replaced
Bernhard as head of WWF-I. Philip was later replaced as
WWF-UK head by Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the
queen.
    That the Crown has directly run the WWF from the
outset is lawful. The WWF-IUCN is a spin-off of two of
Britain's leading imperial institutions: the Society for
the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (now the
Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, FFPS, whose patron
is the queen), which laid the groundwork for the game
parks throughout Africa; and the Eugenics Society.
    The co-founder of both the IUCN and the WWF, Sir
Julian Huxley, personally embodied these two currents. He
was obsessed throughout his life with population control,
which he called ``the problem of our age.'' He served on the
British government's Population Investigation Commission
between World War I and World War II, was vice president
of the Eugenics Society from 1937-44, and was its
president when he founded the WWF in 1961. He also served
for many years as a vice president of ``the Fauna,'' as its
aristocratic members still fondly call it.
    The ideology of both institutions, and of their WWF
spawn, dates in its modern form from Sir Francis Galton,
who coined the term ``eugenics,'' and his first cousin,
Charles Darwin, who in 1859 authored his infamous {Origin
of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.}
Galton aimed to propagate the pseudo-scientific humbug of
Darwinism's ``survival of the fittest'' in the human arena,
and so defined the aims of his ``Race Betterment Movement''
as: ``To create a new and superior race through eugenics,''
which would require the human race to be ``culled.'' The
Darwin-Huxley tribe and its cousins have propagated this
doctrine unceasingly over the past century and a half.
    What became the WWF took shape in the pre-World War
II period in the Political and Economic Planning satellite
of a Rhodes-descended Foreign Office think-tank, the Royal
Institute of International Affairs. Its ``planning'' focused
on eugenics, raw materials control, and world-government;
its two top officials, Max Nicholson and Julian Huxley,
later founded both the IUCN and the WWF.
    Huxley continued his eugenics fixation after the war
as the first head of the U.N. Educational, Social, and
Cultural Organization (Unesco). As he said in Unesco's
founding document, ``Thus even though it is quite true that
any radical eugenic policy will be for many years
politically and psychologically impossible, it will be
important for Unesco to see that the ... public mind is
informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is
unthinkable may at least become thinkable.''
    World government was the answer, Huxley and Nicholson
emphasized, and ``wildlife conservation'' was a key pathway
to this goal. Justifying his argument for various forms of
supranational controls, Huxley said that ``the spread of
man must take second place to the conservation of other
species.'' His co-worker Nicholson, permanent secretary to
five postwar British foreign ministers and one of
Britain's most powerful civil servants, said in his 1970
history of the world environmental movement, {The
Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of
the World,} which he and Huxley had largely founded, that,
given the migratory patterns of the world's birds, ``the
lesson has been learnt and unreservedly accepted that
Ducks Unlimited means Sovereignty Superseded. There are
many subjects besides ducks where the same lesson applies,
but few where it has been mastered.''
    In 1960, as much of Africa was preparing for
independence, the 74-year-old Huxley took an arduous
three-month tour of Africa, preaching that the newly
independent states could not be trusted to ``conserve
wildlife.'' Under that cover, and with the aim of
subverting and destroying independence, Huxley and
Nicholson linked up the following year with their royal
soulmate Prince Philip. The WWF was born.

FIGURE 4
    WWF International Advisory Council (1993-94)

    {{Chairman:}}
    HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

    {{Members:}}
    HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands
    Sir Kenneth Kleinwort, director, Kleinwort, Benson
Lonsdale plc
    Sir Edmund Hillary, former New Zealand High
Commissioner in India
    Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, KCMG, PC, former prime
minister, New Zealand
    Javier Pe@aarez de Cuellar, former secretary general,
United Nations, president of International Commission
for Culture and Development, UNESCO
    Lily Safra, wife of Edmond Safra, chairman, Safra
Bank and Republic National Bank of New York
    Dr. Giancarlo Ligabue, president of Museum of Natural
History of Venice
    George P. Livanos, president, Seres Shipping and
Ceres Hellenic Shipping
    Dr. Anis Mouasher, president, Royal Society for the
Conservation of Nature, Jordan
    Alhaji Chief S.L. Edu, Nigerian, chairman African
Alliance Insurance Co.
    Leo Tindemans, former prime minister of Belgium
    Baroness Mildred von Platen, Sweden
    Norman G. James, chairman, Canadian National
Sportsmen's Shows
    Patricia Koechlin-Smythe, president, British Show
Jumping Association
    Prof. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, chairman of PT
Indoconsult, Indonesia
    Jacques Pagot, former president, Velux-France


     {WWF national organizations, with date of
formation}
    1961 Switzerland
         United Kingdom
         U.S.A.
    1962 Netherlands
    1963 Germany
         Austria
    1966 Belgium
         Italy
    1967 Canada
    1968 South Africa
         Spain
    1969 India
    1970 Norway
         Pakistan
    1971 Japan
         Sweden
    1972 Denmark
         Finland
         Malaysia
    1973 France
    1978 Australia
    1981 Hong Kong
    1985 New Zealand
    1988 Thailand
         Colombia
         Argentina
    1989 Nigeria
    1990 Venezuela

    {Countries with WWF program offices}
    Mexico
    Guatamela
    El Salvador
    Costa Rica
    Honduros
    Panama
    Belize
    Brazil
    Latvia
    Greece
    Ghana
    Cameroon
    Guinea-Bissau
    Gabon
    Djibouti
    Sudan
    Ethiopia
    Somalia
    Uganda
    Rwanda
    Burundi
    Kenya
    Tanzania
    Malawi
    Zambia
    Madagascar
    China
    Afghanistan
    Nepal
    Bhutan
    Vietnam
    Philippines
    Indonesia



{`Nicky' Arundel and
the `Get LaRouche' task force

The Hunt Country of Middleburg, Virginia is
the home-away-from-home for many of the British elite.
Modeled on the mansions of the English countryside,
the huge estates are home to some of the wealthiest
and most powerful American families. Middleburg
residents welcomed the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in
1941, after they were forced to abdicate the throne
for their unswerving allegiance to Adolph Hitler.
Support for the Windsors' genocidal population policy
is maintained today by numerous American members and
financial activists in the 1001 Club and the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) who make Middleburg and the
surrounding countryside their home.
    Prominent in this apparatus is Arthur Windsor
``Nicky'' Arundel, a newspaper publisher and key
member of the task force that railroaded Lyndon
LaRouche into prison on trumped-up charges. Trained as
a propaganda specialist for the CIA in Vietnam in the
1950s, Arundel used the {Loudoun Times-Mirror,} one of
several Hunt Country weeklies owned by him, to retail
phony ``evidence'' against LaRouche and to
propagandize for his prosecution.
    Arundel founded the African Wildlife Leadership
Foundation, of Nairobi, Kenya and Washington, D.C.
along with former OSS and CIA hand Kermit Roosevelt
and WWF Chairman Russell Train, whose cousin,
investment banker John Train, ran the New York salon
that targeted LaRouche for prosecution.
    The Arundel family's Wildcat Foundation funds the
World Wide Fund for Nature and the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Arundel's sister Jocelyn Arundel Sladen, who was the
IUCN liaison to the United States and an intimate of
Sir Julian Huxley in the 1950s, is a member of its
board of directors.


{Prince Philip's friends ran
`Get LaRouche' plot

When Henry Kissinger, an asset of London's
Chatham House (Royal Institute for International
Affairs) and self-described British agent,
successfully lobbied officials of the Reagan
Department of Justice and the FBI to launch a
politically motivated witchhunt against U.S. economist
Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement in early
1983, it was a longtime activist in the Prince Philip
orbit who was given the job of running a global media
propaganda campaign to set the stage for the railroad
prosecution and possible assassination of LaRouche.
    John Train, a Wall Street banker and cousin of
WWF-U.S.A. President Russell Train, convened a series of
meetings beginning in April 1983 which drew together a
score of journalists, government agents, and officials
of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL).
Out of the meetings came a barrage of slanders which
appeared in such divergent news outlets as NBC-TV, the
{Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest,} and the Soviet
magazine {Literaturnaya Gazeta,} a house organ of
Soviet President Yuri Andropov and his eventual
successor, Mikhail Gorbachov.
    The Train-led propaganda effort, which was run on
behalf of the George Bush-led ``secret government''
team that financed the narco-terrorist Nicaraguan
Contras and sold arms to Ayatollah Khomeini, was
instrumental in the December 1988 prosecution of
LaRouche and a half-dozen associates. Evidence of the
role of the Train salon was systematically suppressed
during and after the trial. This evidence should have
resulted in overturning the case altogether.


            - Train's green connections -

    Train runs a New York investment counseling firm,
Smith Train, which has been owned by Anglo-Swedish
interests since the early 1980s. Two members of the
Rothschild family sit on the board of the holding
company that owns 50% of Smith Train, and Train's
chief associate in London is Steven Keynes, nephew of
John Maynard Keynes, the British economist.
    But Train's deepest ties to Prince Philip come
through his 45-year intimate collaboration with Teddy
Goldsmith, the older brother of ``green''
industrialist Sir Jimmy Goldsmith and the publisher of
the {Ecologist,} the house organ of the radical wing
of the WWF apparatus. Train and Teddy Goldsmith first
hooked up in Paris in the early 1950s, along with
``Children of the Sun'' literatus Stephen Spender, a
``radical'' asset of British royal intelligence, to
co-found {Paris Review.} Teddy Goldsmith was the
founder of such key WWF instruments as Survival
International and the green parties in Europe.
    Sir James, along with Britain's casino czar and
leading environmentalist John Aspinall, singlehandedly
bankrolled Friends of the Earth-U.K. when the group
was first setting up shop in England, and have been
consistent champions of Prince Philip's WWF ventures.

The ever quotable Prince Philip

We need to `cull' the surplus

    {Press conference at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the ``Caring for
Creation'' conference of the North American Conference on
Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.}
    It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of
the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the
American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian
Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of
conservation ethics than the more intellectual
monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.

  {Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the
University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983}
    For example, the World Health Organization Project,
designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the
postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is
that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find
three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing,
energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in
order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the
natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has
suffered. The fact [is] ... that the best-intentioned aid
programs are at least partially responsible for the
problems.

  {Preface to }Down to Earth{ by HRH Prince Philip,
Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.}
    I don't claim to have any special interest in natural
history, but 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.

  {Lecture to the European Council of International
Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.}
    The great difficulty about ``life'' is that we humans
are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to
study objectively.... It therefore tends to be
anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare
of all the other life-forms which share this planet with
us.

     ...|When the Bible says that man shall have
`dominion' over God's creation, the choice is between
understanding dominion as in ``having power over,'' or
dominion as ``having responsibility for.''

     A farmer ... is respecting the natural system and
practicing what ecologists refer to as maintaining a
sustainable yield. This is the basis of the economics of
nature. It is just as important as the economics of money,
since no human activity can be considered in isolation
from the natural world which is our life support system.

     In other words, once you have interfered with the
balance of nature it becomes necessary to maintain the
balance by artificial means. This means that some animals
have to be killed in the interest of maintaining the
health and viability of the species as a whole as well as
the benefit of other more vulnerable species.
Unfortunately there are many people who object to that
sort of thing.

     Ecology is not concerned with the fate of
individual animals. It accepts the concept of the
exploitation of surplus natural resources because that is
in the way the natural system works, but it must always be
done on the principle of maintaining a sustainable
yield.... The inexorable rule of nature is that if you
mess up your environment you will have to pay a heavy
price sooner or later.... Just look around the globe today
and you cannot fail to notice areas which at one time
supported highly successful and civilized populations are
either deserts or they have reverted to jungle. The reason
is quite simple: they over-exploited their natural
resources and they paid the price. It is naive to think
that we can escape the same fate for very much longer. We
are only managing to put off the evil hour by frantically
digging up and using mineral resources that can never be
renewed. As if that were not enough, we are polluting the
atmosphere, the land and the waters with every kind of
noxious substance. The ``greenhouse effect'' alone could
well have devastating consequences for all life on earth.

     This is a reflection of the duality of man's
brain. The left brain produces the reasonable answers
after objective scientific research, while the right brain
prefers the acceptable and the emotionally satisfactory
answers. How often do people say, ``That may be so, but I
prefer to `believe' or I like to believe ... this, that or
the other''?
    The duality of the brain has created great problems
for modern man.... It is ... significant that successful
engineering makes money. This is in stark contrast to the
supernatural, whether it is religious or mythological. In
the latter cases the truth may be equally certain, but it
is not verifiable, and the outcome of following rules is
seldom predictable. It is, of course, possible to exploit
magic and mythology commercially, but it could hardly be
described as a manufacturing industry....
    There is an understandable public pressure for
schools and colleges to concentrate on utilitarian
subjects to the exclusion of cultural and aesthetic
development. In other words, the development of the left
brain is given a great deal more attention than that of
the right brain.... The trouble is that neglect of the
development of the right brain leaves it in a state of
vacuum.... This means that the right brain is ready to
absorb the first plausible ideas it happens across. The
occult, obscure religious rites, parapsychology, astrology
and similar attractive but irrational notions are sucked
into the vacant space without any discrimination or
critical faculty.... I also suspect that the use of drugs
might be seen as a substitute, or short cut, to filling
the vacuum of the right brain....
    I mention all this because man's attitude to nature
is partly a function of the left brain and partly a
function of the right brain. It is easy enough to
encourage an emotional concern for nature and the living
world.... Everyone can comprehend the idea of cruelty, very
few can comprehend the extinction of a species.


       - `Conflict between instinct and reason' -

    {Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University,
Nov. 24, 1967.}
    The conflict between instinct and reason has reached
a critical stage in man's affairs, 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.

  {Introduction to ``Exploitation of the Natural
System'' section of }Down to Earth{ by HRH Prince Philip,
Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.}
    It took about three and a half billion years for life
on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity
that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It
has only taken industrial and scientific man those
200 years to put at risk the whole of the world's
natural system. It has been estimated that by the year
2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will
have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon
which all life depends, will have been seriously
disrupted.
    The paradox is that this will have been achieved with
the best possible intentions. The human population must be
properly fed, human life must be preserved and human
existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All
these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their
achievement means putting the survival of future
generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation
on present generations to apply some measure of
self-restraint.

  {Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24
1969.}
    We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I
think a more exact division might be between
underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there
are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage
there is, and therefore the more pollution.

  {The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1
1980.}
    If the world pollution situation is not critical at
the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the
situation will become increasingly intolerable within a
very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even
reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and
intensity beyond anything achieved so far.
    I realize that there are vital causes to be fought
for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate
concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity,
injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a
deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized,
the process of destroying our natural environment is
gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the
challenge, the other problems will pale into
insignificance.

  {Introduction to ``The Population Factor'' section
of }Down to Earth{ by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh, 1988.}
    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.


     - Humans are the greatest threat to survival -

    {Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh, in }People{ Dec. 21, 1981 titled ``Vanishing
Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as
Overpopulation.''}
    {{Q:^}}What do you consider the leading threat to the
environment?
    {{A:^}}Human population growth is probably the single
most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a
major disaster if it isn't curbed--not just for the
natural world, but for the human world. The more people
there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more
pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do.
We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it
will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in
disease, starvation and war.

  {Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group
on Population and Development and the All-Party
Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.}
    I do believe ... that human population pressure--the
sheer number of people on this planet--is the single most
important cause of the degradation of the natural
environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species
of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the
world's climatic and atmospheric systems.

     The simple fact is that the human population of
the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster
than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is
causing even further damage. If this is already happening
with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what
things will be like when the population reaches 6 and then
10 billion.... All this has been made possible by the
industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it
is spread around the world by the new economic religion of
development.

  {Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony,
July 16, 1973.}
    There may be disagreements about the time scale, but
in principle there can be little doubt that the population
cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently
being used will not last for ever and pollution in its
broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to
increase with population and industrial activity.

  {Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in
London, Feb. 18, 1981.}
    I suspect that the single most important gift of
progress to conservation has been the development of human
contraception techniques.


        - The survival of the `most important' -

 {Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh, in }People{ magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled
``Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as
Overpopulation.}
    {{Q:^}}Is birth control part of the solution?
    {{A:^}}Yes, but you can't legislate these problems
away. You've got to get people to understand the need for
it: the more important people, the ones who have
responsibilities have got to do it because they're at the
receiving end. They've got to accept the measures.

  {The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June
4, 1982.}
    As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens
when the factors limiting the increase in any population
are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that
all species are capable of producing vastly greater
populations than can be sustained by existing resources;
populations did not increase at the rate at which they are
capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by
Natural Selection.

     The relevance to natural selection of this
capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is
slightly different to all the others it is probable that
under natural conditions those individuals which happen to
be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a
better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a
look at the figures for the human population of this
world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000
million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then
took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took
30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to
reach today's total of 4.4 billion. With a present world
average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population
by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6
billion and in that and in subsequent years 100
million people will be added to the world population each
year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045.
As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone
will mean a third less farm land available and the
destruction of half of the present area of productive
tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of
non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of
growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people
consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and
transferring resources and standards from the richer to
the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in
the face of this massive increase in the world
population.

  {Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner
in London, Dec. 14 1983.}
    So long as they [birth control] ... remained taboo
subjects the chances of making any impression on the human
population explosion were that much more remote.

     In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books
which list all animals and plants under threat of
extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major
threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly
increasing human population requiring more space in order
to build villages and cities and grow more food. But
starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by
increased food and resources at the expense of what
remains of the natural world. Any increase in the
provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a
drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human
population.

  {Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the
University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.}
    The industrial revolution sparked the scientific
revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene,
better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture.
The consequence was a population explosion which still
continues today.

 ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G ^G umber
of people being very much better off, more than twice as
many people are just as badly off as they were before.
Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has
resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.

  {The Chancellor's Lecture, Salford University, June
4, 1982.}
    The object of the WWF is to ``conserve'' the system as
a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals.
Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature
accept that all species are prey to some other species.
They accept that most species produce a surplus that is
capable of being culled without in any way threatening the
survival of the species as a whole.

  A Question of Balance{ by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of
Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
    It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to
Keynes' time have believed in and advocated the control of
society by ``philosopher kings.'' According to Plato, ``its
kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in
philosophy,'' but--realistically--he added, ``and the
greatest aptitude for war.'' Such people may exist in the
imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary
qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but
it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that
such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary
powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their
situation.

Capital Offenses
World Wide Fund forNature commits genocide in Africa

by Linda de Hoyos

On Aug. 31, as U.S. troops and relief workers were
fighting a losing battle against cholera, dysentery, and
starvation, among 1 million Rwandan refugees--one half of
them children--in eastern Zaire, the {New York Times}
editorial called upon Americans to ponder the fate of
Rwanda's gorilla population: ``For the moment ... Rwanda's
gorillas have escaped harm, which is splendid news. Still,
the widespread sigh of relief will be muted. Amid so
ghastly a human catastrophe in Rwanda, one may feel an
uneasy twinge of guilt in worrying about the fate of
non-humans. In truth,'' says the {Times,} striking a
Darwinian posture, ``all living things are bound together
in this calamity, and gorillas are a small evolutionary
link away from Homo sapiens.... Fortunately, a census has
accounted for all but two of the creatures whose passing
would now be almost like a death in the family.''
    This concern for 650 gorillas is one indication of
the extent to which Prince Philip's psychotic confusion
of animals with human beings has permeated society.
    The {Times} editorial failed to mention that the
gorilla home, Virunga Mountain Park, also gave refuge to
the guerrillas of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), who have
been waging war on Rwanda since October 1990, with full
financing and backing of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni
and his puppet-mistress, Lady Lynda Chalker, British
Minister of Overseas Development.
    The double-use of the park as wild animal reserve and
as sanctuary to a British-owned insurgency is not
coincidental, but goes to the heart of the British Royal
Family's grand strategy for Africa. The segregation of
large tracts of land as ``national parks,'' ``game
reserves,'' ``ecological reserves,'' has led to untold
slaughter of humans and animals throughout Africa.
    Today, game reserves and national parks or regional
parks occupy 1,998,168 square kilometers of sub-Saharan
Africa--8.2% of the land area, an extent five times the
size of California and eight times the size of the United
Kingdom. Although some countries, like Mauritania, have
been relatively unscathed by the park plague, Tanzania has
40% of its land locked in ``parks.''
    As in Rwanda, the parks have multiple purposes:
    @sb^Taking huge tracts of land out of circulation for
economic productive purposes. Although the United Nations
magazine {Choices} predicts that ``by the year 2000 nearly
half the country of Zimbabwe will be raising its cash from
wildlife,'' the creation of such parks is one of the
biggest land-clearing operations since Genghis Khan
leveled Central Asia in the thirteenth century. As one British
source put it: ``When the British wished to keep people
{out} of an area, they tended to make it into a game
reserve, which gave them a raison d'e@aftre. `This is a
game reserve, so you can't be here.'|'' Over 17% of the
land of tiny Rwanda is locked up in such reserves.
    @sb^While taking land out of circulation for
development, the reserves often squat on land that has
potentially wealthy yields of strategic resources. For
example, the border-area parks of Niger cover an
undeveloped uranium field.
    @sb^Park administration by extra-national agencies
such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is a direct
assault on national sovereignty. Under the guise of
fighting poachers, administration often involves
paramilitary forces. ``The function of the national park
is to keep control of that land out of the hands of the
local government,'' one expert informed {EIR.} ``The
national park is governed by a board of trustees, at least
they originally were.... These were autarchies controlled
by white conservationists, all of whom were military
people.''
    In five countries in Africa--Cameroon, Zaire, the
Ivory Coast, Kenya, and Zambia--the WWF directly
administers at least one park. In five other countries,
the parks are administered by other international
agencies, such as the U.N. Development Program, the
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, or the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
    @sb^The parks are safe havens and staging grounds for
insurgencies of all stripes. As documented below, many
reserves and parks straddle borders, with the parks
functioning as ``militarized zones.'' Prince Philip's WWF
was administering the gorilla program in the Virunga Park,
while the RPF was using the Virunga to maraud Rwanda. In
fact, RPF-sponsor Uganda has been profiting from the
dislocation of the gorillas caused by the RPF operations.
According to {Africa Analysis,} the RPF invasion had sent
Rwanda's guerrillas running to Uganda, giving Museveni the
opportunity to launch his own ``eco-tourism program.''
Without the safe havens provided by the Royal Family's
park system, the protracted civil and border wars
afflicting Africa since the 1970s would have been impossible.


               - Mourning the tsetse fly -

    The parks have wreaked havoc with the economies and
ecologies of Africa. The park system decreased the total
energy throughput in the entire ecological system, leading
to the proliferation of parasites and disease. This
degradation of the human environment has aided in causing
the conditions under which new diseases--such as AIDS--are
now coursing through a depleted population.
    The case of the tsetse fly proves the point. African
tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly--which carries the
deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness--in
check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance.
The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game,
particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs
opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on
hunting, as a threat to their herds.
    In 1892, the Zulu protested that the rise of cattle
sleeping sickness was due to the increase of large game
under the protection afforded by the government. This
theory was proven in 1894 by Dr. David Bruce, who then
fought for a change in policy, with limited success. In
the area run by the British South Africa Company, colonial
authorities suspended game laws and began the elimination
of game in an effort to stop the disease. The change
brought howls of protest from the Society for the
Preservation of Fauna of the Empire. Dr. George Prentice,
a medical missionary, denounced the conservation movement
to the British Colonial Office: ``I hold that those who
are responsible for the game laws are responsible for the
presence of the tsetse, and that victims of
Trypanosomiasis are martyrs to the foolish policy of game
protection. Any official, high or low, or any member of
the Society for the Preservation of Fauna who, in the face
of known facts, asserts the contrary, may prove the
sincerity of his assertion by allowing us to experiment
upon him with our local forms of tsetse.''
    By 1925, some 22,000 square miles of southern
Rhodesia were fly-infested. Panic forced a policy of game
control in areas near colonial activity. In
African-inhabited areas, the ban against hunting was
enforced. In central east Africa, almost exclusively
occupied by Africans, there was no attempt to control the
tsetse.
    Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry
Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Centre at
Cambridge, England, an entity financed by Prince Philip's
WWF, ``blood-sucking tsetse flies inhabit 10 million
square kilometers of tropical Africa, in a wide band
across the continent that takes in 34 countries.'' The
authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have
rendered new areas tsetse-free. In fact, ``the tsetse-free
areas are growing so fast that ... there is a real
possibility that the spread of livestock onto marginal
land will become a threat to wildlife.... The eradication
of the tsetse fly may be Africa's misfortune.''
    Or, as Bruce Kinloch, chief park ranger for Tanzania,
Malawi, and Uganda, mourns the decline of the tsetse: ``The
tsetse had long discouraged the often destructive and
frequently wasteful use by humans of extensive regions of
scenically beautiful, unspoilt wilderness, the natural
home of the great game herds.''
    Vector spraying in the national parks is strictly
forbidden. Trypanosomiasis has been on the rise since the
mid-1980s, especially in Lady Lynda Chalker's Uganda.

Key to Map 4: southern Africa parks

{{Zambia:}}ambia was the forward base of
operations and safe haven for all the ``liberation
movements'' operating in southern Africa contesting white
minority or colonial rule in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s.
    The Angolan UNITA and the MPLA were both based in
the West Zambezi game management area {{1}} which
borders Angola. The park was used as a safe-haven and
point of infiltration of Angola. The MPLA took power in
1975. UNITA continued to use the park as the base for its
17-year civil war with the MPLA government.
    The Namibian SWAPO was based in the Sioma Ngwezi
national park {{2,}} contiguous with the West Zambezi game
management area.
    The ANC of South Africa was based just east of the
Sioma Ngwezi national park {{3.}} There was another ANC base
just east of the Mosi-pa-Tunya national park {{4,}} on the
border with Rhodesia.
    The ZANU and ZAPU (Zimbabwean liberation movements)
were also based just east of the Mosi-pa-Tunya park in the
same area as the ANC {{4.}} ZANU later set up a base over
the border in Mozambique, opposite Zambia's Lower Zambezi
park {{6.}}
    The Frelimo (of Mozambique) had a base of
operations in Zambia's Luana and West Petauke park,
contiguous with the Lower Zambezi park {{5.}}

     {{Rhodesia/Zimbabwe:^}}During the period of white
minority rule, Rhodesia's Ghonarezhou Game Reserve, which
borders Mozambique {{7,}} was the base from which the
Selous Scouts, an irregular formation put together by the
top ecologist of the Rhodesian park system, launched raids
into Zambia and Mozambique.
    Following the creation of Zimbabwe in 1980, the park
continued to be used as a military base, but this time to
block Renamo's raids. Renamo is an insurgent movement
operating primarily against Mozambique that was created by
the former head of Rhodesian intelligence.
    In 1984, the Zimbabwe parks department created
Operation Stronghold (with WWF funding), allegedly to stop
rhino poaching. A least 145 poachers were killed, many
reportedly officers of the ANC military wing.

     {{South Africa:}}^has given Renamo safe-haven, reportedly
with the sponsorship of the World Wildlife Fund's
Operation Lock. The same forces are now trying to create a
civil war in South Africa through ``black on black''
terrorism.
    Renamo's HQ is at Phalambora, one mile from the gate
of Kruger national park, which borders Mozambique {{8.}} The
park is also Renamo's training area.
    Kruger is bordered by several privately administered
game parks which have also reportedly been used for Renamo
training and safe-haven, including the Bongani Mountain
Lodge, the Kapama Game reserve, the Timbavati Nature
reserve, and the Sabi-Sand reserve.
    Renamo also has a base in Nduma park on the northern
border with Mozambique in the ``Kwazulu homeland'' {{9}}; in
the Muzuli reserve, in the adjacent South African province
of Natal; and in the parks of the ``KaNgwane homeland.''
    Reportedly, the Maputoland game reserve {{10}} and the
Mkuze game park {{11}} in Kwazulu, have also been used as
bases for launching ``black on black,'' so-called ``Third
force'' terrorism, intended to provoke tribal war
throughout South Africa.

     {{Namibia:^}}The ``Koevoet,'' ``crowbar squad,''
allegedly trained to counter poaching in Namibia Etosha
park {{12,}} was later used to run black-on-black killings
in South Africa.

     {{Angola:^}} The East Germans trained the Cubans
at the Bicuan and Mupa national parks during the late
1960s and early 1970s {{13,}} to help the MPLA government
counter UNITA forces. The East Germans also trained the
West German Baader Meinhof terrorists there.


                   - Expansion plans -

    The vast complex of parks straddling the borders of
southern African countries is growing. Already 30% of
Zambia; 13% of Zimbabwe; 17% of Botswana; 6% of Angola;
13% of Namibia; 9% of Mozambique; and 5% of South Africa
is locked up in national parks and game reserves. These
existing parks are arrayed in large complexes which often
cross several borders, constituting huge transnational
park complexes outside the control of any government. The
total land area of the contiguous park system of Zambia,
Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Angola is 259,000 sq|km,
slightly larger than the United Kingdom.
    Farther south we see the Kruger national park of
South Africa bordering Mozambique, 20,000 sq|km by itself,
about the size of Massachusetts.
    There are two vast new additions to this overall
system being planned: a huge complex in Mozambique across
the border from South Africa Kruger's park {{A,}} and a
massive expansion of Botswana's park system {{B.}} The
Republic of South Africa is now negotiating with
Mozambique to integrate their border park systems into a
single binational authority. The WWF is negotiating with
Mozambique to privatize its park system, making this South
African takeover easier.

Key to Map 5

{{Uganda/Sudan:}}^The only remaining
stronghold of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA)
in Sudan is in the town of Nimuli, on the border with
Uganda. This stronghold is supplied out of adjacent Nimuli
national park {{1}} on the Sudanese border with Uganda. It
is also supplied out of the Kidepo valley national park
{{2}} in nearby northern Uganda. Kidepo park is also the
SPLA command and training center. Ugandan army personnel
often serve as officers of the SPLA.
    Since at least the 1960s, several Uganda governments
have used Kidepo park as a base for subversive operations
in southern Sudan. The park was created in 1962, over the
protests of local conservationists who argued that the
siting of the park was unreasonable; some claim that the
only reason the park was created was to aid British
subversion of Sudan which became independent in 1956.
World Wildlife Fund founder Peter Scott was also the
long-time chairman of the Ugandan National Parks
department.

     {{Uganda and Zaire:^}}During the late 1960s and
1970s, the Soviet KGB trained various of the ``liberation
movements'' of southern Africa in national parks in Uganda
and Zaire. Among the movements were Zimbabwe People's Union
(ZAPU), and it split-away, the Zimbabwe African National
Union (ZANU); the South African National Congress
(ANC), and its split-away, the Pan-Africanist Congress
(PAC).
    The parks used for Soviet training were part of the
complex of contiguous national parks in western Uganda and
eastern Zaire including the Virunga park in Zaire {{3}},
the Queen Elizabeth park complex {{4}} in Uganda, and the
nearby Gorilla park {{5}} in Uganda--parks which were
later used in the Uganda invasion of Rwanda in 1990 and
1994.

     {{Tanzania:^}}The Chinese military carried out
extensive terrorist training projects in Tanzania in the
1960s and '70s, including the ZAPU, ANC, and PAC. Training
was conducted in the British-administered Serengeti
National Park, particularly in the Ngorongoro Crater area
{{6}} which is also a major site of World Wildlife Fund
operations. These same groups were also trained at the
British-administered Ruana National Park {{8}}.

     {{Kenya:^}}The Rhodesian, and then South
African-based, Renamo movement targetting Mozambique had
rest and training camps in the Galana area which abuts
Tsavo park {{7.}}

Key to Map 6:  Rwanda border parks

The 1990 RPF/Ugandan army invasion of Rwanda was
staged in the Gorilla park of Uganda on the border of
Rwanda and Zaire {{1.}} It proceeded through the Volcans
park in Rwanda {{2,}} directly opposite the Gorilla park
in Uganda.
    The Akagera park in Rwanda {{3,}} bordering Kenya and
within a few miles of the Ugandan border, was the other
invasion route.
    Although the 1990 invasion failed, the Uganda
military and RPF continued to control large areas of the
Volcans park of Rwanda, and used that park as a base for
raids farther into Rwanda. The RPF also held parts of the
Virunga park in Zaire {{4,}} which borders both the Volcans
park of Rwanda and the Gorilla park of Uganda. Periodic
efforts by the Rwandan military to flush out the Uganda
guerrillas through shelling both parks were unsuccessful,
and vehemently condemned by international conservation
agencies including the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF
manages the ``Gorilla protection program'' within the
tri-border Virunga, Gorilla, and Volcans parks. The WWF
program was initiated just months before the 1990 Ugandan
invasion.
    The Uganda/RPF invasion of April 1994 came entirely
through the Akagera park.

}FIGURE 3
    Countries of the British Commonwealth

    Antigua & Barbuda*
    Australia*
    Bahamas*
    Bangladesh
    Barbados*
    Belize*
    Botswana
    Britain*
    Brunei Darussalam
    Canada*
    Cyprus
    Dominica
    The Gambia
    Ghana
    Grenada*
    Guyana
    India
    Jamaica*
    Kenya
    Kiribati
    Lesotho
    Malawi
    Malaysia
    Maldives
    Malta
    Mauritius*
    Namibia
    Nauru
    New Zealand*
    Nigeria
    Pakistan
    Papua New Guinea*
    St. Kitts & Nevis*
    St. Lucia*
    St. Vincent-the Grenadines*
    Seychelles
    Sierra Leone
    Singapore
    Solomon Islands*
    Sri Lanka
    Swaziland
    Tanzania
    Tonga
    Trinidad & Tobago
    Tuvalu*
    Uganda
    Vanuatu
    Western Samoa
    Zambia
    Zimbabwe

     *Countries where Queen Elizabeth II is sovereign


The Africa parks were created as a
cover for destabilization

by Joe Brewda

Examining a map of Africa which outlines the
national park systems, is a most instructive experience.
The sheer size of these parks and park complexes is
striking. South Africa's Kruger park, for example, is the
size of the state of Massachusetts, while the vast park
complex of Zambia is larger than Great Britain. What is
also striking is the fact that a high percentage of
Africa's parks and reserves are sited on national borders.
In many cases, these parks come together to form
binational and trinational parks that straddle these
borders.
    These parks are not located in such border regions
for aesthetic purposes. Unlike Europe, for example, where
most borders are naturally demarcated by often beautiful
mountain ranges and rivers, the boundaries of Africa's
states were arbitrarily drawn by the European powers at
their imperial conferences. There is nothing particularly
singular on the borders of these states that might not be
found in the interior. The placement of parks in such
regions has a different purpose: mass murder and the
destabilization of Africa.


            - Who set up the park movement? -

    There were two distinct phases in the national park
and game reserve movement in imperial Africa. In the first
phase, the preservation phase, access to hunting was
restricted to the white colonial elite, allegedly to
preserve dwindling stocks of favored game. Colonial
authorities often evicted native populations from their
forest and pasture lands, in order to establish ``game
reserves,'' while restricting the native populations from
hunting. This policy was a parody of what had been the
practice in medieval Europe. As far back as 1130, the
Norman lords of England had classified certain lands as
forest reserves, where only the king and his delegated
officers could hunt.
    The second phase, which took off after World War II,
was the conservation phase, in which hunting was
increasingly forbidden to everyone and the ritualized
hunting obsession of the colonial elite was gradually
replaced by a Gaia-worshipping ``ecological
consciousness.'' The ``national park'' replaced the ``game
reserve,'' and the camera largely replaced the carbine.
    There were various regulations restricting access to
game in Africa dating as far back as the Dutch colonial
decrees in the Cape in 1657. But the movement to lock up
vast tracts of land as reserves only began in earnest in
1896 under the leadership of British Foreign Secretary and
Prime Minister the Marquess of Salisbury, when he called
for the introduction of checks on hunting throughout
British Africa. In 1900, Salisbury convened a conference
of the European imperial powers on the issue in London.
    The conference's agreements virtually eliminated the
native ability to hunt, even outside the reserves, by
outlawing the use of traditional snares and pitfalls as
``inhumane.'' At the same time, it reaffirmed an earlier
joint agreement among the British, French, German, and
Portuguese colonies' authorities banning the native use of
the firearm.
    The Society for the Preservation of Fauna in the
Empire, which later spawned the World Wildlife Fund, was
formed to ensure that the 1900 convention was implemented.
>From the beginning, the society, affectionately known as
``the Fauna,'' was associated with the British Museum,
specifically the Natural History division that had been
created by Charles Darwin's ``bulldog,'' Thomas H. Huxley.
    In 1933, another conference, following up the 1900
conference, was convened in London. The British delegation
was led by the Earl of Onslow, who was also the head of
the Fauna. The most important result of the conference was
a provision for the establishment of national parks in
Africa. The enabling legislation of most countries' game
parks in Africa today, dates back to colonial decrees
enacted in the aftermath of the 1933 conference.
    The national parks and reserves constituted by the
1900 and 1933 agreements legally established internal
frontiers within the African colonies that could not be
crossed by the native population, on the pretext of
protecting wildlife. These internal frontiers, forming
colonial enclaves, continued in effect after the colonies
gained independence.


                - The Kruger precedent -

    The first reserves in Africa predated the 1900 London
conference. They were created by South African President
Paul Kruger in 1889. One of the reserves was the Sabi
reserve, now Kruger park, which was created along the
border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique.
    Kruger created the parks, but the Boer War between
Britain and the Dutch South Africans intervened. In the
process, the park region was subjected to a brutal
campaign by Lord Kitchener in which crops were destroyed,
cattle butchered, and wildlife killed, in order to deny
the Boers food. This ``ecological warfare'' left the
region devastated.
    In 1902, the park was reestablished by Britain's Lord
Milner, an associate of African empire-builder Cecil
Rhodes, after South Africa became a British colony. The
park's first warden, Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton, had
seen active duty in the Boer War in 6th Dragoon guards.
Lord Milner instructed him to clean up the park of
``kaffirs'' and white shareholders, and to ``make himself
thoroughly unpleasant to everyone.''
    Over the next 45 years, until his retirement in 1946,
Stevenson-Hamilton carried out these instructions
ruthlessly, clearing 11,000 square miles of countryside of
its original inhabitants and implementing a military
``anti-poaching campaign.'' Even those natives who were
not evicted had to leave, as hunting had been their major
source of meat; they poured into the cities and mines,
where they became virtual slave labor for the new British
regime. As a result of this policy, the major earned the
epithet ``skukuza'' (``he who sweeps clean''). The
headquarters, Skukuza, of Kruger park today is named in
his honor.
    Stevenson-Hamilton's system of warfare against the
native population, in the guise of wildlife protection, in
which he and his game wardens constituted themselves as
virtual dictators, was explicitly cited as the basis of
all subsequent national parks policy in Britain's African
colonies by Col. Mervyn Cowie, who created the first
colonial park in Kenya in 1946. Cowie ran the parks system
there for 20 years. On his retirement, he reported how he
had confiscated tens of thousands of square miles of land
from the native inhabitants, implemented a
mass-resettlement scheme, and turned native property into
30 parks. ``I copied every idea in Stevenson-Hamilton's
book {South African Eden,}'' which lays out his system, he
reported.


           - The Mau Mau model for genocide -

    From 1952 to 1960, the British colonial authorities
in Kenya, led by park warden Colonel Cowie, oversaw a
state of emergency allegedly dedicated to combatting a
native revolution. The methods employed against the Kenyan
people under the guise of combatting this alleged
revolution became the model for all subsequent British
efforts to destabilize the continent, and, as in Kenya,
these destabilization efforts continue to be run out of
the game parks.
    The supposed focus of this Kenyan revolutionary
conspiracy was the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society
within the Kikuyu tribe, the largest and then dominant
tribe of the colony. The existence of the Mau Mau had been
discovered by anthropologist and British agent Louis
Leakey. As far back as the 1930s, Leakey had done a
1|million-word study of the Kikuyu for British
intelligence.
    Allegedly to combat this conspiracy, the colonial
authorities forced the mass resettlement of Kikuyu and
other peoples from their lands and, in their efforts to
crush the conspiracy, burnt down whole forests. This
assault was largely led by the paramilitary personnel of
the game park system established by Cowie.
    The Mau Mau conspiracy proved to be a strange one.
Whereas only 22 whites were killed in the insurrection, an
estimated 18-30,000 natives were killed, primarily in
fighting among Kikuyu factions and with other tribes.
Agriculture in the white regions was untouched, and the
Mau Mau failed to even attack the vulnerable
transportation network or any key facility in the cities.
    Col. Frank Kitson, in his 1960 book {Gangs and
Countergangs,} revealed that the British were leading
large-scale Mau Mau units, and that many (if not all) of
these units were synthetically created by the colonial
authorities. Through orchestrating violence between their
``gangs'' and ``countergangs,'' the British ensured that
only native slaughter, and not revolution, would result.
    The Mau Mau gangs and countergangs were directed by
Gen. Sir George Erskine, who had been responsible for
civilian food distribution in occupied postwar Germany.
Erskine was aided by Colonel Cowie, the manager of the
parks system, and Bill Woodley, his intelligence chief who
largely developed the gang-countergang doctrine described
by Kitson and later systematically applied throughout
Africa.
    Cowie, Woodley, and Leakey were veterans of the World
War II Kenya regiment, whose top intelligence officer,
Charles Pittman, was the chief warden of the Ugandan park
system. The Kenyan regiment was an elite unit within the
British Commonwealth Armies in Africa, commanded by Gen.
Jan Smuts, who was also the President of the British Union
of South Africa. Smuts had once called for creating a
single park system stretching from Kenya to South Africa.
    Several of Woodley's subordinates later found work in
Kenya's game parks after the emergency, including Stan
Bleazard, who took over the Marsabit National Reserve, and
Maj. Temple Boreham, who became chief warden at Masai Mara
park. David Sheldrick, a former Kenyan regiment
intelligence officer who had served directly under
Pittman, took over ``anti-poaching'' operations in Tsavo
elephant park. Woodley himself became chief warden at
Aberdares Mountain park, while Cowie remained in charge of
the entire Kenya park system until the 1960s.


               - Guerrillas in the mist -

    In the 1960s, the British initiated their ``winds of
change'' policy, whereby the peoples of Africa achieved
nominal independence. ``The wind of change is blowing
throughout the continent,'' visiting Prime Minister Harold
Macmillan said in Cape Town, South Africa in 1960.
``Whether we like it or not this growth of national
consciousness is a political fact. Our national policies
must take account of it.''
    Within five years, most of British Africa was
nominally decolonized, and an often bewildered native
comprador class was elevated to become the new governing
elite. But while the British flag was lowered in one
colony after another, much of the old colonial apparatus
remained, with key posts in the ministries continuing to
be staffed by British nationals.
    Nowhere was this more evident than in the parks
system, which, by the time of independence, locked up
upwards of 20% of the African colonies' lands. The chief
game wardens, park police chiefs, and the parks department
staff largely continued to be British nationals. Moreover,
in a malicious innovation, increasingly large numbers of
these parks, and in some cases the entire parks system,
were put under the control of private non-governmental
organizations, managed by international boards of trustees
outside the oversight of the government. Today, the parks
systems of Kenya, Tanzania, and Zaire are privately
managed by international boards of trustees. Until 1992,
Louis Leakey's son, Richard Leakey, was the chairman of
the private ``Kenya Wildlife Services'' which runs Kenya's
parks.
    When Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere proclaimed in
his 1961 ``Arusha Declaration'' that the peoples of Africa
would preserve the national parks bequeathed to them in
perpetuity, he was admitting that the existence of these
colonial enclaves would go unchallenged. Some 40% of the
land area of Tanzania today is locked up in its national
park system, administered by the ``Tanzania National
Parks'' non-governmental organization.
    These parks, following the Mau Mau precedent,
continue to be the headquarters, training sites, and
safe havens of the gang-countergangs. On the one hand,
these parks have been the centers of nominally
``anti-western'' Warsaw Pact-linked subversion targeting
white minority or colonial rule. On the other hand, they
have been the center of ``pro-western'' efforts to
overthrow alleged Soviet client states radiating
revolution throughout the continent. For example:
    {{Rhodesia-Zimbabwe.}} Beginning in 1961, the
Zimbabwe Peoples Union (ZAPU), and two years later, the
rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), conducted a
guerrilla war to overthrow the white minority-ruled
Rhodesian regime. The Rhodesian effort to crush the
insurgency was carried out by the Rhodesian Army, and its
irregular guerrilla formation, the Selous Scouts.
    ZANU and ZAPU cadre were trained by Russian KGB
instructors at the British-created Queen Elizabeth park
and Gorilla park in Uganda. ZAPU was also trained by
Chinese military instructors at the Serengeti and Ruana
national parks of Tanzania. The ZANU and ZAPU forward
bases of operation against Rhodesia were in Zambia, just
outside the Mosi-pa-Tunya park, and also in the Lower
Zambesi park. The decades-long President of Zambia,
Kenneth Kaunda, has been one of the more important British
agents in southern Africa.
    The Selous Scouts, the Rhodesian opponents of ZANU
and ZAPU, were mustered by the chief ecologist of the
Rhodesian park system, and were largely composed of park
guards.
    In 1980, ZANU chief Robert Mugabe became head of
state of the newly created Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia).
But even after black majority rule was established, the
civil war continued. The fleeing Rhodesian elite largely
emigrated to neighboring South Africa. The Mozambique
National Resistance (Renamo), which had earlier been
created by Rhodesian intelligence to destabilize
Mozambique after its independence from Portugal, was now
deployed against Zimbabwe. The headquarters of Renamo is
one mile from South Africa's Kruger park; it is trained in
South African regional parks in Natal, and in the parks of
the nearby KaNgwane homeland.
    In 1984, the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks
and Wildlife Management began an anti-poaching campaign
with WWF support, which has killed at least 145 poachers
since that time. At least some of these poachers are said
to have been leaders of the rival South African Congress
military wing.
    {{Angola.}} In 1956, the Popular Movement for the
Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was formed to overthrow
Portuguese colonial rule. In 1966, its rival, the National
Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), was
also formed. A civil war against foreign rule began.
Following the evacuation of Portuguese forces in 1975, the
conflict continued, but this time between the new MPLA
government and UNITA. The civil war continued for another
17 years.
    The MPLA and the UNITA were headquartered in the West
Zambesi game management area in Kaunda's Zambia during the
period of Portuguese Angolan rule.
    After the MPLA took over the Angolan government,
UNITA continued to be based in the same park. Meanwhile,
Cuban troops were invited into Angola to defend Angola
from UNITA. These Cuban troops, and the MPLA, were trained
by the East German Stasi at Bicuan and Mupa national
parks. (The West German Baader-Meinhof gang was also
trained in the same parks.)
    {{Mozambique.}} The Mozambique Liberation Front
(Frelimo) was formed in 1962 to overthrow Portuguese rule
in Mozambique. It was headquartered in Luana and West
Petauke national parks in Zambia; it also received
training from Russian instructors in the park systems of
Uganda. In 1975, the Portuguese left and Frelimo formed a
government. But the civil war continued, this time under
the guise of a struggle between the Frelimo government and
Renamo, now based in South Africa's Kruger park.
Reportedly, at least one of the major factions of Renamo
has been trained by WWF personnel with the aid of British
Special Air Services founder Col. David Stirling, who had
been a close associate of Mau Mau controller and Kenyan
Parks department director Col. Mervyn Cowie since the
1940s.

The park rangers' real game is hunting `indigenous peoples'

by Allen Douglas

{``Crack! The rifle shot hits its target, and a
mother rhino dies. Its little calf, now abandoned, is also
condemned to death. As another of our endangered species
is pushed nearer to extinction, the poachers' blood-lust
grows.''}--World Wildlife Fund circular of July 17, 1987
condemning the ``proud men of the Middle East'' for their
``criminal ignorant waste'' of the rhino, because they use
its carved horn as handles for their ceremonial knives.

    In January 1961, a few months before he would launch
the new ``Noah's Ark,'' the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to
save the world's endangered animal species, Prince Philip
accompanied Queen Elizabeth on a royal tour of India.
Among the attractions that one of his hosts, a local Rajah
in Jaipur, put on for the royal party was a tiger hunt.
>From a platform high in the trees out of all danger,
Philip shot one of the famed Indian tigers, which had been
lured by the tethered goats which the rajah had staked
out. The photo of Philip standing proudly by his victim,
nearly 10 feet long from nose to tail, caused a worldwide
outcry.
    Shaken, the royal consort continued his tour,
arriving in Kathmandu with a conspicuous bandage on his
trigger finger, explaining that an injury would prevent
his participation in the king's ``traditional hunt,''
which he would, nevertheless, accompany. Philip and
Elizabeth rode perched atop some of the 300 elephants
which were used to flush the game, as the Queen whirred
away with her camera. Several tigers were killed that
day, none officially attributed to Philip. Nor did Philip
receive official credit for another animal killed that
day, an exceedingly rare Indian rhinoceros. Only 250 were
then left in the world, after British tea planters had
finished slaughtering them to make way for their crop.
    As the elephants lumbered on, a female rhino with an
infant calf became trapped within their closing circle.
One of the royal party, Lord Alex Douglas-Home, known as
one of the finest shots in England, fired near the animal
in an attempt to scare it away. But the rhino blundered
on, into Philip's path. ``To everyone's horror, Philip
shot it,'' Ian MacPhail, the WWF's first international
appeals director, later told a British film crew. The dead
rhino's terrified calf escaped by darting away through the
elephants' legs. Said MacPhail, ``It must have died as
well. It was far too young to have managed on its own.''
    The whole business was covered up, MacPhail
explained, for plans were already afoot to found the World
Wildlife Fund. ``I was a party to the cover-up,'' he told
the film crew in 1990, believing that the greater good was
to save various animal species as a whole. Reflecting on
the WWF's utter failure to do so over the three previous
decades, he concluded: ``But with a heavy heart I have to
report to you that I was wrong. The rhino, the elephant,
and the panda missed the boat, and the new Noah's Ark
sailed on without them.''
    Philip's personal behavior has characterized that of
his World Wildlife Fund as a whole. From 1961 until the
present, the WWF has presided over, and in many cases
organized and financed, including the purchase of weapons,
the systematic slaughter and near extinction of the most
prominent species under its self-appointed control. And,
under cover of concern for the animals, it used
substantial portions of the several hundred million
dollars it has raised to date, to finance the slaughter of
human beings, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa.
    In the account to follow, it must be understood that
the WWF was, from the outset, the personal fiefdom of
Philip, who oversaw its operations almost down to the
smallest detail. Sir Peter Scott, a WWF founder and
longtime chairman, explained to {EIR} in an interview
conducted in the early 1980s why Prince Bernhard, rather
than Philip, became the WWF-International's first
president: ``When we started WWF, a British president
would have looked too colonial.'' But, Scott emphasized,
it was Philip, not his friend Prince Bernhard, who was the
driving force--testimony echoed by others in the WWF
hierarchy. Longtime Director General Charles de Haes told
a journalist, ``Prince Philip is brilliant, he has a
remarkable knowledge. He's been involved with WWF since
its founding in 1961. He's incredibly active. He chairs
all the executive committee meetings. He's involved right
down to every aspect of policy.'' Added the WWF's Dr. Anne
Schiotz, ``The Duke of Edinburgh devotes perhaps
one-fourth of his time to the WWF--he is remarkable.''
    The WWF is best-known for its efforts to conserve
four animal species, all of which were in vastly better
condition in 1961 than they are today. Two of these, the
panda and the African black rhinoceros, are near
extinction, and two others, the African elephant and the
Indian tiger, are rapidly heading in that direction.
    At numerous times during the past 33 years, the WWF
has been made aware, often through reports it has itself
commissioned, of the approaching extinction of various
species. In each case, it has suppressed, sometimes
brutally so, the information. Three of the more notorious
instances include:
    {{The ``Black Ebur Report.''}} In 1972, WWF founder
Sir Peter Scott commissioned a Nairobi-based big game
hunter, Ian Parker, to look into the lucrative and
burgeoning illegal trade in animal products such as
elephant tusks and rhino horn. Among other things,
Parker found that the family of Kenyan President Jomo
Kenyatta were notorious traders in illegal products, and
that his daughter Margaret was the secretary of a company
which sold rhino horns and elephant tusks to the Far East,
a trade which had probably done more to decimate Kenya's
large animals than any other single cause. Parker also
named many of Kenya's most prominent ``conservationists''
as poachers.
    Within hours of turning his report over to Scott,
Parker was picked up, taken to the Kenyan Special Branch's
notorious Langatta Road station, beaten for three days and
told to shut up about what he had written or his wife would
be killed. The report, then the most comprehensive inquiry
into African wildlife slaughter ever conducted, remained
suppressed until 17 years later, when Irish filmmaker
Kevin Dowling unearthed it to use for his scathing
expose@aa of the WWF, ``Tenpence in th