SIGHTINGS </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="#A8A8FF"> <CENTER><P><B><FONT COLOR="#C603F3"><FONT SIZE=+4>SIGHTINGS <CENTER><PRE><B><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+3>Environmentalism: New World Order Socialism and Gigantic Profits for Big Business!</FONT></FONT></B><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+3> </FONT></FONT></PRE></CENTER> <CENTER><P> <HR width=450 noshade></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>This fascinating extract is taken from Chapter 3 of Larry Abram's excellent book, <U>The Greening</U>. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Larry Abrams is a highly-respected analyst and also the author of the <I>Insider Report</I> newsletter. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Read this extract with care - the future is unveiled here for you, and current trends and policies which seem to have just 'naturally arisen' suddenly take on a far more sinister and threatening aspect... </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>From <U>The Greening</U>, Chapter 3... </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P> <HR noshade width=450><BR> <FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2><B>Perception Versus Reality</B> </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Niccolo Machiavelli observed almost 500 years ago, &qot;Men in general make judgments more by appearances than by reality, for sight alone belongs to everyone, but understanding to a few." This keen theoretician of State power understood then what every smart political operative both before and since has recognized and applied. Machiavelli's 20th-Century counterpart, Henry Kissinger, put it this way: "Perceptions become reality." </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>As we observe the world around us, our constant struggle is to make the distinction between what the author of <U>The Prince</U> called 'appearances' and what events mandate as reality. This is no easy task under the best of circumstances. In modern times it has become almost impossible. When we pit our common sense against the tidal waves of misinformation flooding out of the major media, too often we capitulate to what appears to be an overwhelming consensus. Time and time again, on issue after issue, this mental surrender occurs. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>The 'creation of the appearance of popular support' is at the center of all contemporary political activity. This technique is so all-pervasive as to lead even the most rational among us to conclude even in the face of the most outlandish proposals, 'I must be the only one who feels this way.' Our opposition to some preposterous scheme seems to be unique, with the result that we shrug our shoulders and accept what we are told is 'the wisdom of the majority' or the all-conclusive, argument-ending 'world opinion.' </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Adding impetus to this emerging mindset is the innate desire to believe the best. We have been nurtured on happy endings and the vision of the 'good guy' riding off into the sunset, having righted all wrongs. It goes against our nature to believe the worst, to assume we are being deceived, or to be always on guard against such deception. And every power seeker from Sun Tsu to Gorbachev knows this implicitly. "Tell them what they want to hear," Lenin admonished Dzierzhinski. </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2>Clear And Present Danger</FONT></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1> </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>In more contemporary times, say the past eight or nine years, the soothing voice of the Great Communicator [Ronald Reagan] worked its magic on the unspoken concerns of the West, and the American people specifically. The ritual of keeping alive the Reagan rhetoric has become for Conservatives something akin to the custom of the Bunyoro tribesmen of Uganda. When the king died and his heir emerged, he would return to his father's corpse and remove the jawbone. The new king would then bury the jaw-bone with full ceremonies. Later, a house would be built over the spot for the dead king's regalia -- with the rest of his body being unceremoniously discarded. The tomb housing the royal jawbone would long be venerated. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Now don't judge me or Mr. Reagan too harshly by this amusing comparison. He did much to deserve our gratitude, just as, I am certain, did the late lamented Bunyoro king for his constituents. But the fact remains that venerated jawbones do little to cast the light of reality on our clear and present danger. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>And just what is that clear and present danger? It has been decades in the planning it and has been built on the corpses of millions of innocents. The ultimate goal has been described by the Insiders themselves as the creation of a New World Order. As I pointed out in the last chapter, the most important current strategy in that design can be summarized as "The Greening of the Reds." </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Let me cite a few recent news items and articles to illustrate my point. </FONT></FONT></P> <UL> <LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1><I>The New York Times</I>, December 8, 1989, text of Gorbachev's speech at the United Nations. </FONT></FONT></LI> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1>International economic security is inconceivable unless related not only to the world's environment but also to the elimination of the threat to the world's environment...Let us also think about setting up within the framework of the United Nations a center for emergency environmental assistance. </FONT></FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE> <LI><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1><I>Facts on File</I>, March 24, 1989, "Greens Emerge -- the Ecologists Party or Greens Won Over 1,800 City Council Seats Across France" </FONT></FONT></LI> <LI><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1><I>The New York Times</I>, June 18, 1989, Flora Lewis's column, headline: "Red-Green Tide in Germany" </FONT></FONT></LI> <LI><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1><I>Seattle Post-Intelligencer News Service</I>, June 20, 1989, headline: "The Green Parties Post Big Gains in Euro-Parliament" </FONT></FONT></LI> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Reuters, June 23, 1989, dateline: Stockholm, Sweden. </FONT></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Socialists indicated yesterday that their red flag of the future will have broad bands of green as left-wing parties embrace environmental politics. "Issues such as safeguarding our environment, international resource management and protection...are going to dominate our common future," Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitzky [NOTE: attendee at 1996 Bilderberg Conference] told the triennial meeting of Socialist International. The threat to the environment was the top theme at the three-day meeting of 81 socialist and Social Democratic parties. "This is our new mission," said Swedish Environment Minister Birgetta Dahl. Speaker after speaker stressed that left-wing parties <B>had to adapt to the new reality</B> [emphasis added] if socialism was to keep step with the times [I will have more to say about the 'new reality' shortly --Larry]. They also indicated that traditional concerns such as security and global disarmament were less compelling in an atmosphere of East-West rapprochement. "Conventional conflicts were no longer the main threat to humanity," said Hans-Jochen Vogel, Chairman of the West German Social Democratic Party. </FONT></FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE> <LI><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1><I>Seattle Post-Intelligencer</I>, July 12, 1989, editorial headline: "Greening of the Soviets" --<BR> "Bowing to environmentalists, the Soviet Parliament this week fired the timber minister Mikhail Busygin. It is seen as evidence of the governmental lobbies' growing strength in this new era of Soviet reform." </FONT></FONT></LI> <LI><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1>ABC News Special Report, July 13, 1989, Paris. Headline: "...Environment Takes Center Stage at Economic Summit Meeting." </FONT></FONT></LI> </UL> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Since I outlined these specific citations in the July 1989 issue of <I>Insider Report</I>, not a single day passes without some dispatch or news items carrying the same theme. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>An Op-Ed piece in <I>The New York Times</I> of March 27, 1990, is typical of this barrage. It was headlined, "From Red Menace to Green Threat." The writer, Michael Oppenheimer, co-author of <U>Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect</U>, writes, "Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse." He continues, "As the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern." My files are bulging with variations of this same theme and it is coming from every point on the compass. </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2>The "New Reality" </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Are you getting the impression that there may be a trend here? And just what is this 'new reality' to which the Reds themselves refer? This phrase keeps popping up in some very interesting and diverse places. In the Summer 1988 edition of <I>Foreign Affairs</I>, the quarterly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (the senior Insider organization in the United States), Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance co-authored a lengthy piece for the incoming and yet-to-be-determined president. It was called, <I>Bipartisan Objectives for American Foreign Policy.</I> </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Within this presumptuous 22-page epistle, Messrs. Kissinger and Vance used the phrase "new realities" three times -- without once defining what they mean. Mr. Gorbachev, in the aforementioned UN speech six months after the Kissinger- Vance article, used the phrase "newly emerging realities" -- again, without explanation. Now the same phrase appears in the June 1989 meetings of the Socialist International in Stockholm, Sweden. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Since these 'wise men' don't reveal what their 'new reality' is based on, let me tell you what it encompasses: </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>It means the abandonment of the old face of communism, and the embracing of the Corporate State. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>It means the merging of State Socialism and Corporate Marxism which, in turn, will build a New World Order [their phrase, not mine] of monetary and political establishments. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>It means the transfer of the major world resources to massive eco-holding companies (the working reality of what the architects of the policy call the World Conservation Bank). </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>All around the world the move is on to transfer the rain forests, the deserts, the jungles, the plains, and even private property to a consortium of foundations, international agencies and councils, all of which are interlocked through directorships and agenda. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>In almost every state of America -- I can think of no exception --local environmental groups are pushing ahead with their plans to seize ownership of some of the most productive and beautiful areas of our planet. The same thing is happening in other parts of the globe: Africa, South and Central America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and even Asia. And always and everywhere, there is some local crisis or pending catastrophe to justify their move. In my home state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, the beneficiary of this concern is the spotted owl. In Montana it is the timber wolf. In Nebraska the whooping crane. In Africa the elephant takes center stage. (In the case of the spotted owl, the leader of the Sierra Club was quoted as saying, "If the spotted owl did not exist, we would find it necessary to genetically engineer one.") </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Add to this the so-called threat to the ozone, the greenhouse effect, and countless other real or ersatz environmental concerns, and you have the prescription for a worldwide control mechanism which is awesome in its scope and power. </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2>The Plan Behind It All </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Standing astride this environmental juggernaut like a colossus is the same group of Insiders who have been playing God with people's lives since before World War I. Thanks to their 'internationalism' and 'balance of power' schemes, the 20th Century has proved to be the bloodiest in all human history. Yet these so-called 'wise men' finance tyranny, replace governments, elect Presidents and Prime Ministers, and, in general, act as the un-elected rulers for a world gone crazy. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Let me be specific. I am talking about the economic and political cartel represented in Britain by membership in the Royal Institute for International Affairs, in the United States within the Council on Foreign Relations, and internationally in such groups as The Bilderbergers, The Club of Rome, and most recently, The Trilateral Commission. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Now I know that to single out these organizations and the men or women who lead them is not viewed as 'responsible' in some circles. But where will an examination of reality take us if not there? Are we to believe that all of this 'greening' is the result of some overnight worldwide consensus? </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>As we examine such foundations as the World Wildlife Fund, the Heritage Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the World Wilderness Congress, Conservation International, the Center for Earth Resource Analysis, to name but a few, what do we find? Not so strangely, key members of the Insider institutions cited above are leading or directing every one of them. This doesn't take into consideration the UN organizations which are, at the very least, co-directed by representatives of Communist members. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Why is it that so many radical leftists, mega-bankers and Corporate Marxists are suddenly concerned about our environment? Could it be that there is another agenda afoot --a 'new reality?' </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Allow me to quote briefly from a letter I received in the mail June 1989. It starts: Dear Investor, </FONT></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+1>I'd like you to prepare yourself for a mild shock of a most rare and welcome kind. There is indeed a group that has quietly 'bought up' acres and acres of wild land in your state. But not for condominiums or shopping centers, golf courses or industrial parks, not for strip mining or highways or parking lots. Not for profit or private gain at all. For love, for life, for the preservation of this exquisitely beautiful planet of ours for the benefit of future generations of all its inhabitants. </FONT></FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>This letter goes on for four more pages, bragging about the various activities of the organization whose letterhead it bears, <I>The Nature Conservancy</I>. They boast, "We own and manage a national system of more than 1,000 sanctuaries." This is the very same group that, along with Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, and Bank of America, is up to its ears in debt-for -nature swaps in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and the state of California. (And let me add parenthetically, it is only one of the eco-groups involved in these debt-for-nature swaps which are now being played out throughout South and Central America.) </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Not long ago in <I>Insider Report</I> I cited two such deals that deserve a mention. One was a $9-million Ecuador foreign-debt exchange for such priority targets as part of the Ecuadorian Andes and Galapagos National Park. The World Wildlife Fund and Nature Conservancy bought this debt for twelve cents on the dollar. Earlier that same month, the ubiquitous Nature Conservancy announced a debt-swap deal with the Bank of America for a foreclosed property in California called the Dye Creek Ranch/Preserve. It includes 40,000 acres of redwoods and an option on another 2,900 acres. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>In April of 1989 I reported that Brazilian president Jose Sarney was up in arms over what was being planned for his country and the 1.9 million square miles of the Amazon Basin. An A.P. dispatch from Rio earlier that same month said that Sarney's speech was "...marked by a strongly nationalist tone [as] Sarney raised Brazil's century-old battle cry, 'A Amazonia e nossa [the Amazon is ours].'" The article went on to report that, concerned about "...national sovereignty, Sarney ruled out debt-for-nature swaps, financial arrangements under which Brazil would retire discounted dollar debt in return for contributing in local currency to Brazilian environmental projects." </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>Then comes the punch line, revealing who all joined the big banks in putting pressure on Sarney to do the deal. The article states, "Last Friday as Sarney presided over a meeting of Latin American environmentalists in Brasilia, Mostafa Tolba, an Egyptian diplomat representing the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, chided him for opposing the debt-for-nature swaps." </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>This is really getting hit by traffic going both ways. Here's a Brazilian president getting a dressing down from a Third World leader because he won't give up sovereignty within his own country to the big banks and their greenie front groups. Do you get the idea that maybe, just maybe, somebody in the United Nations also understands how this scam -- or should I say, 'new reality' -- works and expects to participate in the payoff downstream? This same Mostafa Tolba is now the Executive Director for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and was a featured speaker at Globe '90, the aforementioned conference held in Vancouver, B.C., in March of this year. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>In his speech Tolba said, "The Cold War is dwindling... Environment has rocketed to the top of the world political agenda...We need a global partnership -- dynamic, innovative and highly interconnected...We have no choice but to curb the wasteful consumption by the rich and lift the status of the poor...More bilateral and multilateral assistance is needed. Much more. We are talking hundreds of billions." </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>And then get a load of this as part of his conclusions. "We need shifting of resources from destruction to building -- from arms to protecting our environment. We need to think of new sources. I am advocating The Users Fee, a fee for using the environmental resources like air." [Emphasis added] Who says you can't raise big money out of thin air? </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P><FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2>Back In The U.S.A. </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>As I write this, House Resolution 876, titled the 'American Heritage Trust Act,' is being gently guided through Congress. This bill would appropriate in its first year alone a minimum of $1 billion to be used in the purchase of private tax-paying property and lock it away under the guise of preserving our heritage. Utilization of these funds would not so coincidentally be available to "private non-profit organizations...qualified for exemption from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code..." The Nature Conservancy, perhaps? These moneys will be extended as matching funds to the various states which are rushing to take advantage of such a windfall. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>I could continue for pages on this scheme alone. But before we move on, consider these few statistics. In just the 11 western states of the U.S., wilderness areas now account for 86,474,870 acres. Federal agencies have recommended another 20,256,780 acres for wilderness designation. And further 'studies' for possible inclusion would add up to 133,653,459 more acres. In countries like Brazil and Australia, the lockup numbers are not measured in acres, but in square miles. </FONT></FONT></P> <P><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1>[Extracted from Chapter 3 of Larry Abram's excellent book, <U>The Greening</U>, which we strongly recommend that you buy, read, and loan widely to your friends and co-workers!]</FONT></FONT></I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE=+1> </FONT></FONT></P> <CENTER><P> <HR noshade width=575><BR> <FONT COLOR="#006800"><FONT SIZE=+2>The New World Order Intelligence Update <BR> www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/ </FONT></FONT></P></CENTER> <P> <HR noshade width=575></P> <P><FONT SIZE=+1>Your article "Environmentalism:New World Order Socialism and Gigantic Profits for Big Business!" reprinted from Chapter 3 of Larry Abram's book, The Greening, is the second of two articles I have recently encountered (one being a pamphlet entitled "How The Leftists Are Infiltrating The Environmental Movement To Weaken And Destroy America's Economy" by A Voice of Americanism) that disturbs me and leaves me with the same conclusion -- that an orchestrated disinformation campaign is being initiated in order to cause dissention and mistrust between New World Order watchdog groups(i.e. chiefly the Patriot movement) and the U.S. environmental movement. Mr. Abram's article, although largely using statements and facts (albeit selectively and out-of-context), is heavily slanted to imply that the so called "greenie front groups" like the Sierra Group and The Nature Conservancy are run by the very agencies that they are spending most of their resources fighting to redirect destructive policies funded by the World Bank (curiously not mentioned in the article) and many multi-national corporations, any one of which's assests dwarfs the total dollar value of all the preserved acres of land purchased by these ecological groups. In a tactic culled from the "wise use" movement, Abrams implies that private citizens' rights are under attack by non-profit environmental organizations who somehow are tied into the U.N. whose leaders are in league with the Rockefellers, DuPonts, Rothchilds and other sinister Illuminati power brokers. Anyone who has been involved with environmental organizations knows that most of its members and leaders tend to be left leaning, but that hardly qualifies them as Communists, Marxists or socialists with world-domination goals, or does it? What I fear is the beginning of a kind of McCarthy like Red-baiting smear designed to alienate middle America from the environmental movement, just as was the case in the '60s when anti-war protestors were all painted as pro-Communist "pinkos". Naturally, Abrams doesn't offer any solution as to how we the People can take back our environment and keep our private property rights, and that's what fear-mongers always do -- leave the reader with a sense of hopelessness, or vague sense that we have to go back to the old way of doing things, like in this case expose all those nasty Communists and Socialists and drape ourselves in self-righteous flag-waving Capitalistic neo-Conservative nationalism. Please be careful how you use your power to inform us. The mainstream media is eager to paint both the Patriot Movement and the Environmental movement as extremists - don't give them a reason to continue this perception. </FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=+1>Chris Toussaint </FONT><BR> </P> <TABLE> <TR> <TD rowspan=2 width=250><B>Email <FONT COLOR="#C603F3"><A HREF="mailto:eotl@west.net">eotl@west.net</A></FONT></B> </TD> <TD align=right></TD> <TD> <UL> <UL> <UL> <UL> <UL> <P><A HREF="../index.htm"><IMG SRC="../b4.gif" HEIGHT=36 WIDTH=36></A><B><FONT COLOR="#C603F3"><FONT SIZE=+2><A HREF="../index.htm">Homepage</A></FONT></FONT></B> </P> </UL> </UL> </UL> </UL> </UL> </TD> </TR> <TR> <TD align=right></TD> <TD > <UL> <UL> <UL> <UL> <UL> <P><A HREF="politic.htm"><IMG SRC="../b4.gif" HEIGHT=36 WIDTH=36></A><B><FONT COLOR="#C603F3"><FONT SIZE=+2><A HREF="politic.htm">Political Intrigue</A></FONT></FONT></B> </P> </UL> </UL> </UL> </UL> </UL> </TD> </TR> </TABLE> <P><BR> </P> </BODY> </HTML>