As a result of the statement of the facts who clearly were ignored by almost everyone Greenpeace Norway President, Björn Oekern, resigned (and the director of Greenpeace International) for disagreeing with the tactics and methods of the organization to raise funds, charging that "nothing of the money raised was used by Greenpeace for environmental protection," adding that it considered that Greenpeace was in fact a group of "eco-fascist".

These findings, coming from someone who comes from the "kidney itself" Greenpeace constitute a precedent that should be considered for political assessments on the ecological validity of their claims.

In the same way that took into account that Greenpeace had 15,000 members in Norway who resigned after the scandal continue to belong to an organization of this type. Here you can talk about people who "saw the light" on time, and preferred to separate from the 35 activists who still records the operation of Greenpeace Norway. However, the lack of popular support (which translates into dollars at the time of the accounts), has motivated the intention to close the subsidiary in Norway.

If ends justify such means Greenpeace, what are these noble ends? When it comes to murderous extremes to which Greenpeace unconsciousness came to the issue of plutonium carried by the ship Akatsuki Maru from France to Japan, you can expect anything from an organization of this type. Until Goebbels use techniques to achieve their goals. Or those of his great master, Adolf Hitler. The absolutely stupid and unconscious attitude that Greenpeace ordered to their boats chasing and stood in the path of the Japanese ship, could actually result in ecological catastrophe that the same Greenpeace denounces as possible. Had an accident that provoked that plutonium is lost in the sea, Greenpeace had had the chance to shout triumphantly: Did you see? We had already warned that nuclear power is dangerous! Especially with a bunch of unbalanced nearby which have self-appointed guardians and custodians of our health, safety, and other things (among them also want to note that where our money).

What are repeat these noble ends? It is impossible to test accurately, but we can imagine. One of his passions is the hatred of industry, trade and free markets. Peter Bahouth, director of Greenpeace USA, told the newspaper In These Times, April 11, 1991: "I believe in the idea of ​​the market ... It results in treating toxic or pollution as consumer goods ... when companies have a base line of profitability, we do not see the environment in mind. "

Meanwhile, a German consultant on the environment, Josef Huber, talking about the militants of Greenpeace Germany, makes a clear analysis of the subject, and really matches our vision is known on similar topics Viktor Frankl: "These Greenpeacers not really know what they crave. But they feel a strong need to protest the destruction of Earth perceived by the industry and capitalism. The elements of Marxism are intermingled with a new kind of romanticism and anarchism. "

Another co-founder of Greenpeace, Robert Hunter (for many it was their spiritual leader) and now independent producer of films in Toronto, wrote a chronicle of Greenpeace in 1979, entitled The Rainbow Warriors (Warriors of the Rainbow), which says, " Machiavellianism and mysticism played equal roles in the formation of consciousness that Greenpeace expressed. Corporizaba sometimes a religious fervor, sometimes bordering on cruel savagery. Corruption and greatness each played their parts, and each picked their crop ... "Cruelty and Religion is a highly explosive fuel mixture, especially if mixed with absolute certainty and violent intolerance. These were the basic ingredients of the Holy Inquisition, which seems to rise again from the ashes of the millions of people sent to the stake.

Greenpeace awards scholarships to some research, but does not fund research related to the removal and cleanup of hazardous waste, toxic or nuclear. Why? Greenpeace says its role is to prevent pollution, not cleaning. It seems that finding solutions to these problems undermine the objectives of Greenpeace to eliminate industrial processes generate waste or cause "health problems". Some analysts say it would be suicidal to fund research that would wipe the grounds of being of Greenpeace and, above all, excuses for their fundraising campaigns. Greenpeace is not the elimination of toxins is the elimination of the industry.

In their literature to raise funds, Greenpeace frequently cites Mahatma Gandhi and his rhetoric of nonviolence. But Gandhi believed passionately that good ends do not justify evil means. Greenpeace's devotion to this ideal is, however, highly questionable on account of their numerous precedents. His support organizations "eco-terrorists" as Earth First! (Using methods that would have horrified Gandhi), whose founder, Michael Roselle, besides being now the payroll of Greenpeace, has recommended capture by Interpol at the request of the Norwegian government, to undermine a Norwegian whaler anchored in the port. These eco-terrorists became famous for introducing thick steel spikes into the trunks of trees, which caused horrific and disabling injuries to workers in the sawmills.

Because of his extremist statements, Greenpeace sees less and less as an organization dedicated to saving endangered species, and more as a policy driver of Orwell's Big Brother, who would rule the world of form that Greenpeace managers would like to be. A dictatorship destined to continue the colonial policies of industrial nations on the Third World.

The Crack in the Rainbow

Perhaps the most impressive of Greenpeace, in his life of 23 years, has been having managed to sell their image, not only as a significant ultra-environmentalist, but as a global green consciousness (whose activities autodescriptas as non-violent were boosted by an annual budget of nearly $ 200 million), are beyond reproach. This explains both the Greenpeace reaction to the broadcast on state television of Denmark (TV-2) of a documentary showing how the organization has diverted millions of dollars to secret bank accounts, has bribed officials and politicians, and has rubbed shoulders with eco-terrorists.

Although Greenpeace spokespeople have denied what is stated in the documentary called The Crack in the Rainbow (The Crack in the Rainbow), the charges were well founded, which in Europe have cast shadows on Greenpeace scandal, shadows became darker because the documentary's claims are supported by previous stories reporting on ethical and financial irregularities within the organization, including a long and comprehensive article published by the prestigious U.S. magazine Forbes, in November, 1991.

This documentary of one hour was produced by a team from the TV-2, with the assistance of Magnus Gudmundsson filmmaker. It begins with a comet-river made by the co-founder of Greenpeace, E. Bennet Metcalfe, a veteran writer of British Columbia, Canada, which says: "The way we started then and the way it is now, I often see as a kind of Dr. Frankenstein who created a monster that is now own life. "The documentary follows the former head of Greenpeace counters, Frans Kotte, which describes the existence of private bank accounts containing more than 20 million dollars" squeezed "from public contributions to Greenpeace campaigns such as Save the rainforests, the ozone layer, and Whales. According to Kotte, companies such accounts were "holding" secret, accessible only to top leaders of Greenpeace, especially by David McTaggart, the native of Vancouver who helped organize Greenpeace International in 1979.

It also documents how (we saw how) Greenpeace bribed government officials in the International Whaling Commission (nothing easier to bribe a government official) during the 80's. The program tells how Greenpeace and other environmental groups set up a fund for bribes of $ s 5 billion to buy enough votes to ensure that the Commission imposed a total ban on commercial hunting of the whale.

Eco-Terrorist Connection

We saw as the private investigator Barry Clausen who had been hired to infiltrate the eco-terrorist group Earth First! to expose their illegal activities, connections and ended up discovering the financial, legal and political Greenpeace was paying and lends even the activists of Earth First! Clausen finished his year of intense infiltration within Earth First! publishing a book called Walking on the Edge (Walking on the Edge), published in April 1994. Clausen's message in this book is simple: "Environmentalists have found no earthly interests, only a need to destroy. In the United States has reached the point of anarchy, and British Columbia goes straight to sink us all. "Earth First! is a clandestine organization that is outlawed. Vandalism and criminal openly committed by its members forced into hiding. So how do you communicate with the "outside world"? How to receive their subsidies and financial support?

The mail box is Earth First! suspect is a block away from Greenpeace offices on Commercial Drive in Vancouver. Barry Clausen led a colorful envelope to that box, and found that "was picked up by a young employee of Greenpeace and taken to the office", he says. When the documentary tells Uta Bellion, President of Greenpeace International, the organization has connections with terrorists Earth First!, She denies it calmly.

But when camera is presented with documentation to prove all the operation, Ms. Bellion stutters, gets so nervous she can barely connect ideas, and finally on the verge of hysteria, terminating the interview. Greenpeace's response to the issue of TV-2 Denmark was immediate. Its international office attempted to block the sale of other television documentary in the world, without success. The documentary aired on February 93 in Germany, one of the strongest bastions of Greenpeace. And in South America, are encouraged to show someone?

From the inside

Unable to prevent the sale and issue of The Crack in the Rainbow, Greenpeace launched a campaign to defame those who were taking their dirty laundry. In this direction, tried to ridicule the journal 21st Century Science & Technology, North American organization that had used Internet service to inform the American people about "The Rift", accusing its editors to be connected with Lyndon LaRouche Democrat , Jr., accusing them of being "anti-Semitic"!

In addition to the waivers and scandalous revelations Oekern Bjorn, former chairman of Greenpeace Norway and Frans Kotte, head of Greenpeace International counters, already mentioned, are those of Stan Gray and Gord Perks, "campaigners" Greenpeace in June 1993 told the press in Ottawa, Canada, that only 5% of the annual budget of $ s 7 million provided by more than 325,000 Canadian donors went directly to the campaigns for the environment, the rest is consumed by administrative costs and expenses not specified . As this was contrary to the claims of Greenpeace Canada that 70% of its budget goes to work on the environment, both employees were dismissed immediately. Trudie Richards, a member of the panel of "management" of the organization explains that "were fired for having unfairly distorted the image of the organization." However, the same Trudie Richards, at its meeting last year with the other directors of Greenpeace had admitted that "the money going to the campaign [of Greenpeace] directly has dropped from 17% in 1992, the current 5% for 1993, not including our international campaigns."

Perhaps already made public the revelations of two "sorry" for Greenpeace Brazil, which were made Magnus Gudmundsson when he traveled to Rio de Janeiro in preparation for his new documentary about how environmentalists support the drug dealers in the Amazon jungle, and how the products from the processing of "pasta base" cocaine are polluting and destroying Amazonian rivers ictícola life. And that I can attest, since I have lived in full "red zone" of the Amazon rainforest in Bolivia. Did you know that to produce a kilo of "cocaine base" are used about 1400 liters of acetone, ether, kerosene, sulfuric acid and other macerantes after being dumped into rivers in the region? Multiply this figure by the number of tons of coca paste produced (some tens of thousands of tons) and imagine the effect that these chemicals are doing in the jungle environment. And does anyone has heard any environmental organization raise their voices to warn of this fact? Have you ever Greenpeace protested against the activities of traffickers sought government intervention to end the destruction of forests that are producing the drug? Does anyone know anything about the connections between ultraecologismo, drug traffickers, Sendero Luminoso, the Zapatistas of Chiapas, the worthy foundations, the State Department and the British Crown? No?

Read on, you may be aware of things that even the imagination of Ian Fleming was able to develop his character James Bond and the machinations of Spectre organizations, Trash and the evil Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Do you remember?

At the time of writing (January 1997) Gudmundsson told me by telephone from Rio to tell his documentary project and to ask me that, in addition to operating one of the Sony M3, your guide and interpreter, not only in the jungle Amazon, but in the bureaucratic jungle of the various governments in the region. In that conversation he told me the "defection" of the two former "Greenpeacers" he told me he had been given important documentation on upcoming campaigns that Greenpeace has planned for South America, related to its intention to ban the use of chlorine for purification city ​​water (cholera ... what?!) and other actions that I do not want to reveal the phone, but they assured me they were very serious for the implications on the economies and health of the population.

The Pseudo-Science of Greenpeace

Greenpeace has invested millions of dollars from the appointment in 1988 as geologist Jeremy Leggett First Director of Science (for Greenpeace England), to legitimize their apocalyptic ecological statements. The amount of money actually spent on scientific studies, however, remains a secret. There are allegations that in this field, the money from donations has also been diverted. Greenpeace USA recently commissioned Randal O'Toole forester to prepare a report on the timber industry in the U.S.. After a very thorough study, O'Toole concluded that eliminating government subsidies to U.S. Forest Service and allowing COBRASE fees for recreation and tourism, the service would be less inclined to sobrecortar trees, and could industrialization achieve "sustainable" forest.

Immediately, Greenpeace expert forbade the publication of the recommendations of the study using the name of the organization. "I had the impression that someone high up in Greenpeace, did not like my conclusions," said O'Toole.

Another example: in February 1992, Kyrn Stevens in charge of the campaigns of "Pulp and Paper" Greenpeace Australia, mailed the report of an investigation into the construction unions, timber and mining, outlining the risks of cancer faced by workers in the paper industry in Canada (presumably to cause concern about chlorine bleach). The letter warned that it was an official report of the University of Exeter. This caused a scandal at the prestigious English university. The Vice-Chancellor Dr David Harrison was quick to inform all concerned that Greenpeace had simply rented a room in the "campus" and any reference to the University of Exeter report should be considered only as a mailbox. Greenpeace ends justify any means. . .

Science and "Scientists"

The argument of Greenpeace and other environmental groups are based, as they claim, on scientific research that drive them to Save the World, no matter what and whoever dies! For every three real scientists (those who love science because it is a challenge of the unknown), there is a scientist for that science is only a means to achieve wealth, figuration, fame and honor. And it must resort to propaganda for their actions and their discoveries to attract attention. The yellow press comes in handy. Scientists engaged in the hyper-environmentalism are in this category. The more astute have also discovered the great business which means the management of funds received as grants and subsidies of the Famous and Foundations. It is a way of life that allows them to accumulate wealth, appear in newspapers, magazines and newsletters environmentalists and, of course, to satisfy their craving for life miserable for the poor man who has the audacity to want to be happy. Never! That is the worst and largest Hyper-ecological sin.

It is therefore necessary stir in the ancestral background of superstition and to surface the terrors of the unknown, to the imminent disaster, the Apocalypse. It is necessary to frighten people by telling them that everything it produces progress is carcinogenic, or you will father children deformed, and that we are surrounded by invisible and deadly enemies that we are eating slowly.

Greenpeace attempts to legitimize their eco-consciousness on several occasions I have been shot in the foot. In a survey made in 1991 Greenpeace among members of the Panel on Climate Change UN, only 13% of respondents believed that maintenance of current energy consumption would result in a runaway Global Warming. However, Greenpeace goes on the offensive while trying to discredit its critics. A recent example is the publication of The Greenpeace Guide Antiecologistas Organizations, a compendium of 54 Canadian and U.S. organizations that "have declared war on all proposals for environmentalists" and therefore not to be believed. The booklet sells for $ s 5.00. Organizations "non-sanctas" include Keep America Beautiful (Keep America Beautiful), the Society for Environmental Truth; Consumer Alert (Consumer Alert), the Heritage Foundation and Accuracy in the Media (Accuracy in Media).

But the only publication draws attention to the problems of Greenpeace. On January 10, 94, the Washington Times ridiculed the group for their book. "Greenpeace is right to worry" - the newspaper editorialized, "but not by the size of his opponents but by the truth of their messages." Added the Times that Greenpeace was winning in the 54 expenditure groups together: u $ s 65 million against u $ s 62 million.

One of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is contained in the black book because it is now director of the Forest Alliance of British Columbia. According to Moore, "I think the book is hate literature. There is no doubt that Greenpeace has changed to distribute disinformation spread hatred. "Twenty years ago, Moore saw Greenpeace (as many of us saw it) as an institution similar to the Red Cross, dedicated to solving environmental problems through science and no guerrilla action. But he admits that there were problems from the start: "We always realized that there was a stream of anti-humanitarianism within the organization, members who believed that people are a cancer on the face of the earth." As for Greenpeace more and more branches opened and became more and more militant in the '80s, Moore saw the advent of what he calls the "ecofascism" and did what he could to drive the misanthropes who hate humanity. Their efforts were in vain: "Greenpeace has lost his humanity because he has turned his back on people and put the environment first."

Although Moore thinks there is reason to hope that a real jolt within Greenpeace to switch to the organization for improvement thereof, may not deny a tendency to fundamentalism in the ecology that can lead to the disbanding of green organizations, including Greenpeace. Moore says that "instead of following the Judeo-Christian concept that man is good or bad and that nature is indifferent, these crusaders preach that nature is good and that man is evil." But the truth is we are all interdependent and therefore can not be ignored. No wonder that people are beginning to question Greenpeace. "It is not my idea, then, that Greenpeace is just a set of nihilistic destruction thrown into the bases of mankind (and a set of quickened, senior leaders) profiting so shameless with the credulity of the people and their most sincere and the noblest of feelings: to improve their lives and those of his neighbor.

The argument is directed specifically hiperecologista stir within us atavistic fears. And as the monster closet, always handled in the shadows of doubt and distorted scientific data, taken out of context, distorted, and often mixed directly falsified. In truth, they have sown doubt. And when you add the question of ignorance, fear of the unknown hazards and abundant waters it with Catastrophic Prophecy, despair grows quickly and the crops are abundant. The apocalyptic prophecies touch the sensitive fiber of terror and have been used to exploit the superstition of men and help keep them subjugated throughout history.

The Collection

How is raising money for an environmental group? It's good to hear the advice of William Dodd, a director of the San Francisco office of the consulting firm Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co, fund-raisers used by Greenpeace in 1985: "You need a sense of urgency and need an enemy, "The firm has been a key factor in the financial success of Greenpeace. Does the emergency? "We have already killed 94% of the whales!" Says one ad. "Nuclear plants Atucha and Reservoir should be closed NOW!" Or "The government should cancel the laying of high voltage lines or Neighborhood children will die of leukemia Poet Lugones" Exaggeration works. In fact, the only thing that works. Science has no power against environmentalist exaggerations and distortions. Greenpeace USA raised in 1990 u $ s 64 million, of which 60% came from the 43 million letters sent by Craver, Mathews, etc.. Today, Greenpeace raises more than $ 1 million per day by direct debit to their "sympathizers."

According to Dodds, the "mailing" or letter-writing campaign is successful if it just gets to recover costs, the silver fat just comes with the renovations. Say Greenpeace sends 1 million circular calling for "cooperation" to save the whales and get checks in response of 1.6% or 16,000 people are. With an average donation of $ s 25, the income is about $ s 400 000. How much did the mailing? Subsidized postage for nonprofit organizations (?) Costs 11 cents a piece, or a total of $ 110,000. Art, and printing can cost about $ s 250,000 and the rental of the mailing list (address of potential donors) is $ 65,000.

As far as cash is concerned, Greenpeace has come to hand, for the moment. The organization now has the address and the goodwill of 16,000 new believers who respond to spending the next mailing with a return rate of 50% rather than 1.6%. Through repetition of this mechanism, the money continues to enter and can be used for programs Greenpeace save the whales, mosquitoes, penguins, buy rubber boats, offices in Rome, "vilas" in Perugia, Caribbean vacation, bribes to ministers, judges, etc.. (Atomic bombs lag in Russia, perhaps?)

Although it seems an inefficient way to raise money, it is nevertheless a good deal. Greenpeace Greenpeace USA and its affiliate Action in 1989 they invested about $ 19 million to raise 31 million. It falls short of a return of 100% annually. Within the environmental business, this is a very low rate of return.

Other environmental organizations are not stingy with the revelations of their balance and handling. For example, the Nature Conservancy, dedicated to the purchase and preservation of undeveloped land (to avoid any kind of improvements) spends 52% of their income on the purchase and protection of land and only 2% in "mailing" to ask donations. "Owever, we saw that the Nature Conservancy has annual revenues of more than 250 million dollars, mostly come from" grants and donations "from corporations, foundations and industry, without relying heavily on techniques mailing.

But the techniques that work for Greenpeace, also work for many organizations that have "compelling emergency" to prevent "imminent catastrophe." The client base of Craver, Mathews include more than 30 environmental groups "progressive" as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. This consulting firm is not concerned about the causes he represents. NRDC made the mailing campaign and totally unfounded alarmist insecticide Alar, which caused the collapse and disappearance of thousands of fruit growers of apples and caused an unnecessary evil and paranoia in the U.S. population of mothers that their babies were already poisoned with applesauce and deadly pesticide. . . Make no mistake: the same as the most important environmental organizations in the world, Craver, Mathews give a damn Salvation of the Planet. It is a charitable organization or charity. Since charity begins at home, in 1989, Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co, I went to Greenpeace a bill for fees of $ 1,100,000. If more than 30 NGOs advising, how much revenue will amount Craver, Mathews from the "eco-business." . . ?

But even more disturbing are the questions: How much will the income from all organizations dedicated to "saving the planet"?, How do I manage these huge sums of money? Or, are actually used for the purpose alleged, or simply a delicious resource exploited by unscrupulous leaders environmentalists? Either way it is, the duck wedding (and the festival, the musicians and the wedding trip) we are paying us. . . 6 including atomic bombs - according to the German Secret Service - Greenpeace have bought on the black market in Russia and plans to use as an argument of coercion for future demands in pursuit of the salvation of the planet. Curious is this philosophy that considers ethical exterminate a large portion of humanity to "save" the seals, whales, wetlands, biodiversity, ozone and other similar nonsense.

If you "collaborate" with a donation to Greenpeace, it is safe to say you are paying for someone (or several million) will be killed as a result of regulations and prohibitions that the organization promotes. Sólo recuerde que en 1991, el gobierno peruano, oyendo los consejos de los ecologistas, detuvo la cloración del agua potable de Lima, capital del Perú. A los dos meses se desató la epidemia de cólera que todos recordamos y que me excusa de seguir aportando argumentos.

References

1. John Dyson, “Sink the Rainbow!” (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1986), p. 58
2. Fritjof Capra y Randy Hayes, “Green and Peace: A Visionary Link”, Greenpeace Examiner (Oct-Dec. 1986), p. 14
3. “Green and Peace: A Visionary Link”, p. 15, op. cit.
4. “The Not So Peacefull World of Greenpeace”, FORBES, 11 de Noviembre de 1991, pp. 174-180