April 12, 2002
The Green Holocaust Files #3: If Not You Then Who?
I urge you to read the following and take action in whichever way you can... for the sake of Mother Earth!
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
"The world's forests, which act as giant reservoirs of carbon, are the planet's only natural line of defense against global warming. Only 22 percent of the Earth's original great forests remain intact. These old growth forests are home to over 50 percent of the planet's plant and animal species and three-quarters of the world's traditional indigenous peoples. As the world's forests are destroyed, vast amounts of carbon are released into the air and the planet's ability to absorb carbon disappears."
- From Citigroup shareholders, #4 below
1. Will Saddam's Oily Scheme Help Save Bush's ANWR Dream?
2. Message from Pierce Brosnan to help save the whales
3. David Suzuki Deplores Scary GMO Science in John Robbins' latest book
4. Citigroup shareholders call for board to preserve old growth forests and address climate change
5. The Cost To You? Eventually, Everything!
6. World Bank to West Bank
Greenpeace Action Alert Urge U.S. Furniture Makers to Spare the Rainforests
Dear George, Are you an Eco-Terrorist? (April 9, 2002)
There are several issues this week that make me wonder if you are more dangerous to the future of our planet than Osama Bin Laden ever could be.
In Mexico, Greed Kills Fish by the Seaful (April 10, 2002)
(...) Greed and corruption are draining the gulf, also known as the Sea of Cortés. It is not dead yet, but it is exhausted. American and Japanese ships were the first to exploit it. Now fleets of Mexican fishermen, mostly unlicensed and ungoverned, are taking whatever they can, as fast as they can, for American and Asian markets. Every important species of fish in the sea is in sharp decline, fishermen and marine scientists say. Overfishing is a global problem. People are taking marine life faster than it can reproduce. The world's catch peaked at 86 million tons in 1989, up fourfold in 50 years. But many governments, including the United States, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and China, kept on pouring subsidies into commercial fishing fleets to keep them afloat. Crucial fisheries have collapsed worldwide. CLIP
Sent by "Mark Graffis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002
Will Saddam's Oily Scheme Help Save Bush's ANWR Dream?
By Arianna Huffington
The president, never shy about playing the increasingly dog-eared national security card for political gain, is now using the growing crisis in the Middle East to justify his renewed call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Adding fuel to the fire was Saddam Hussein's decision to cut off Iraqi oil exports for 30 days -- an economic scud that prompted the president to declare that the oil from ANWR "is needed more than ever".
"What more reason do we need," said the president, "than.to diversify away from somebody like him?" Do you hate Saddam? Are you a real American? Well then you must agree with me on drilling in ANWR. Only in the Bush administration would energy "diversification" mean drilling in a wildlife refuge.
For his part, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said that he planned to respond to this crisis by meeting with officials of the American Automobile Association to talk about ways drivers might cut down on oil consumption -- things like not leaving the engine of your SUV idling while waiting to pick up your Big Mac in the drive-thru lane. I can already hear the new Happy Meal jingle: "Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, Saddam's threats don't upset us."
Helpful hints like that are all well and good, and are what the Energy Secretary should presumably be doing all the time and without fanfare. But if Secretary Abraham really wants to make America less vulnerable to the oily schemes of someone like Hussein, he should put his AAA plans in neutral and shift into high gear on something that we all know will work: raising mileage standards.
But instead of supporting last month's modest effort by John Kerry and John McCain to gradually increase fuel standards over the next 13 years, the White House joined in an unholy alliance with carmakers and the auto-worker unions, and helped kill the plan which would have saved about 2.5 billion barrels of oil a day, roughly the amount we currently import from the Middle East. Apparently, the first casualties of this new crisis has been the administration's short-term memory and truth-telling skills.
So much for leading a charge to help us thumb our noses at Persian Gulf potentates. The White House would much rather pursue its now-clearly-bizarre obsession with drilling in ANWR -- a fixation which reached new heights this week with the Great Caribou Study Flip-Flop, a brazen example of media manipulation and political damage control.
After the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a fact-finding agency within the Department of the Interior, released a report maintaining that drilling in ANWR poses a serious hazard to wildlife, a dismayed Interior Secretary Gale Norton prodded the scientists to reevaluate their conclusions and report back within 10 days.
The initial USGS study had been twelve years in the making. Norton-quality science is obviously much speedier -- the amended analysis was delivered in seven days, just in time for this week's Senate debate on the energy bill. And, in two pages as opposed to the original's 78, the revised report conveniently concluded that Bush's drilling proposal would have little or no impact on wildlife, particularly the thousands of Porcupine caribou that populate the Arctic refuge.
The head-spinning reversal left ANWR opponents apoplectic: "There have been numerous government reports telling the Bush administration what they didn't want to hear," fumed Sen. Joe Lieberman. "Now they've rushed through a study telling them what they do want to hear."
But the highly expedient revision was never about the actual effect of drilling on caribou calving rates and the foraging patterns of Musk oxen. It was all about headlines -- and on that front the White House got exactly what it wanted. "Limited Arctic Drilling Won't Harm Caribou, Scientists Say," trumpeted newspapers after the dubious do-over. Just what the Spin Doctor ordered.
If the president were truly sincere about freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, he would forget about the very limited amounts of oil in ANWR -- which a new study by his own Department of Energy found would have a negligible effect on reducing oil imports -- and get serious about conservation and the promotion of alternative sources of energy.
But the president has not even delivered a single speech calling on all Americans to conserve as much energy as possible.
Indeed, all you really need to know about where the administration stands on the subject can be found in documents recently unearthed by a court order. It turns out the White House dipped into the Department of Energy's already meager funds for renewables and energy conservation -- budgets Team Bush is planning to slash by half -- to come up with over $135,000 for the printing of 10,000 copies of its industry-friendly energy plan.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Saddam's crude ploy "a reminder about the need for America to have an energy policy that is independent of such threats." But what we need even more urgently is an energy policy independent of the wishes, goals and manipulations of the oil industry, and their slick friends in the White House.
TAKE ACTION: Send a message opposing Arctic drilling to the U.S. Senate (the vote is imminent!)
Facts about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002
Special Message from actor Pierce Brosnan to help save the whales
Also available from http://www.ifaw.org/email/email_pierce.html
Dear IFAW Supporter,
I am urgently trying to reach as many concerned people as I can to seek your help in the campaign to save the great whales. Over the past several weeks, government officials in two countries have announced plans to hunt endangered whales and reopen the banned trade in whale meat.
I need your help to stop this madness before it's too late. Please forward this message to as many friends and contacts as you can. Then go to www.ifaw.org/actionforwhales to learn what else you can do to help.
Three decades ago, horrific images of industrial whaling operations first inspired a global movement to protect these magnificent creatures. Men and women of conscience across the planet joined together to end this cruel and outmoded practice and rescue threatened whale species from the brink of extinction. This global grass-roots effort achieved an important victory when, in 1986, a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling came into effect.
Since that time, millions of people around the world -- from schoolchildren to senior citizens -- have come to learn more about our neighbors from the deep. We've learned that whales are intelligent animals with close-knit family groups, that many are highly migratory, regularly traversing the depth and breadth of our ocean planet, that whales are social creatures, communicating across great distances with unique songs, clicks and calls, and that new threats such as pollution, ship strikes, entanglement in fishing nets, acoustic disturbance and loss of vital ocean habitat threaten their very survival.
Incredibly, at the dawn of the 21st century, government bureaucrats in two countries, Japan and Norway, want to return to full-scale commercial whaling. They are finalizing plans to kill more than 1,200 whales this year. Norway, which has long objected to the IWC moratorium, will kill more than 600 minke whales in the North Atlantic. Japan, which uses a scientific loophole to claim its whaling is for scientific research, will this year kill hundreds of endangered Pacific minke, sei, Bryde's and sperm whales. Once they are butchered and boxed up for shipment, these whales will make their way to market where choice cuts will be sold as delicacies.
How can you help? Go to http://www.ifaw.org/actionforwhales
Unfortunately a minority of government officials in Japan tries to cast the whaling issue in nationalist terms, claiming that those who would protect the whales are somehow "anti-Japan." These pro-whaling bureaucrats are clearly out of step with the majority of the Japanese people. Polls in Japan show support for whaling is dwindling among the mainstream public. Whaling is vocally opposed by leading Japanese environmental groups, and scientists have issued repeated warnings that whale meat is contaminated with high levels of marine pollutants and unsafe for human consumption. Much of Japan's whale hunting is conducted around Antarctica in the waters of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Japan, the lone nation to vote against this internationally recognized sanctuary when it was established, will this year again sail its whaling ships into the sanctuary and kill hundreds of protected whales. Meanwhile, back in Tokyo, Fisheries Agency bureaucrats are working diligently to revive the international trade in whale meat. Just last month, they announced Japan would defy an 11-year-old global ban and begin importing whale meat -- 100 tons of it per year -- from . . . you guessed it: Norway.
It is time for our generation to do its part. These audacious moves by Japanese and Norwegian bureaucrats threaten more than thirty years of hard won protections for whales. They must be stopped.
Here's what you can do: Go to http://www.ifaw.org/actionforwhales
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), one of the leading global conservation groups fighting to protect marine mammals and their habitats, has established this website to help people like you and me take immediate action to save the whales and learn more about what we all can do to help. I have worked very closely with IFAW for the past several years. Together we have spoken out and achieved important victories for whales around the world. And I am proud to join IFAW once again in this critical effort to protect these majestic creatures.
The Governments of Japan and Norway need to hear our voices now. It's time to save the whales again! Please help protect these endangered animals for future generations.
Thank you for your kind attention and support. If we all stand together we can turn the tide.
Calgary Herald March 28, 2002
By Mia Stainsby
Writer Deplores Scary Science
"It could have ended all plant life on this continent," geneticist David Suzuki says in the book. "The implications of this case are nothing short of terrifying."
A few years ago, a German biotech company genetically modified a common soil bacterium, Klebsiella planticula, to enable it to break down vegetative waste and produce ethanol.
It seemed like a huge accomplishment -- ethanol could be used as a gasoline alternative and the rest of the biomass as compost for farming. Hopes were high and it was field-tested at Oregon State University.
When the genetically modified bacterium was added to living soil, though, the seeds planted in the soil (to produce the vegetable matter to be broken down) sprouted, but then died. The genetically modified Klebsiella was a feisty little guy, knocking out a fungus that plants need to extract nutrients from the soil. Without it, plants can't survive.
More frightening, the genetically modified bacteria persisted in the soil. Had it been released, it could have become virtually impossible to eradicate, says author John Robbins in his newest book, The Food Revolution (Conari Press, $28.95). "It could have ended all plant life on this continent," geneticist David Suzuki says in the book. "The implications of this case are nothing short of terrifying."
"That's how close we came," Robbins says during a phone interview from his home in Santa Cruz, Calif. To him, genetic engineering in the food industry spells potential disaster to our health and environment.
His first book, Diet for a New America, made us aware of animal cruelty in factory farm and awakened us to the environmental and health impacts of eating meat and dairy products.
The Food Revolution addresses his concerns about food production. He writes about the problems of fish farming, declining wild fisheries, and the political, corporate, health and environmental intrigues of large-scale meat production in North America.
But his biggest worry is genetically modified food and its potential to alter our food supply and health.
"It's utterly in the hands of corporations seeking private profit," he says.
Globally, about 40 million hectares are planted with genetically modified crops: 72 per cent in the U.S.; 17 per cent in Argentina; 10 per cent in Canada.
"Basically, the rest of the world is saying they don't want to be guinea pigs. They're actively, specifically, directly, rejecting it." says Robbins.
According to Health Canada, 48 GM crops so far have been approved in Canada. One-third of the corn and two-thirds of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified.
Seventy per cent of modifications involve the Bacillus thuringiensis gene (Bt), which is spliced into the plant so it can withstand specific herbicides and resist insects.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture tripled the allowable residues of active ingredients in the herbicide Roundup to make the GM technique commercially viable with soy crops, says Robbins. It allows farmers to kill weeds with Roundup without killing the Roundup-resistant crop. "But people are eating weedkiller," he says.
The Vancouver office of Earthsave Canada says it's difficult to pin down how many GM foods end up on supermarket shelves. "Soy, canola and corn are widely genetically modified," says spokesman Dom Repta.
Robbins says Monsanto, which produces Roundup, has done tests that prove Roundup Ready soybeans have lower nutritional values.
Another problem is Monsanto's "terminator technology," in which seeds are rendered sterile after one planting. Eighty per cent of crops in developing countries use saved seeds, but with this technology, seeds must be purchased each year.
Robbins says another company has patented a genetic process that makes seed germination and growth dependent upon repeated doses of the company's own chemicals.
Experiments in the biotech food industry have included inserting flounder genes into tomatoes, human genes into salmon, and rat and bacteria genes into broccoli. Labs around the world are researching splicing genes into fish from chickens, humans, cattle and rats.
When genes shuttle between a wide variety of species, they can take with them genetic parasites such as viruses, usually kept in check by species barriers, Robbins says.
Many countries are saying no to GM foods. Europe, Robbins says, has been leading the charge in rejecting GM foods and embracing organic farming. By 2010, a third of farmed area in the European Union will be organic. Canada is lagging behind with 1.3 per cent (1999). The U.S. has 0.2 per cent.
Meanwhile, Brazil's largest soybean-growing state declared itself a GM-free zone. India has banned the testing of GM crops. The governments of France, Italy, Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg have moved to block new varieties of GM crops in the European Union. The union's seven largest grocery chains have made a public commitment to go GM-free.
Unlike Canada and the U.S., the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Mexico require mandatory labelling of GM foods. In October, a required mandatory labelling bill was defeated 126 to 91 in Canada.
"To me," says Robbins, "the measure of a great civilization is the quality of lives it leaves to future generations."
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002
From Rainforest Action
Momentum Builds in Citi Campaign
Citigroup shareholders call for board to preserve old growth forests and address climate change.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently rejected a request by Citigroup (Citi) to omit from its proxy statement a shareholders resolution proposing that Citigroup's Board of Directors issue a report that reflects its economic and environmental commitment to confronting climate change. This is the first time shareholders of a financial company have filed a resolution addressing climate change.
The resolution expresses shareholders' concern that Citigroup's (Citi) continued funding of environmentally and socially destructive fossil fuel projects around the world poses a risk to the company's business and reputation. Citigroup has come under increasingly intense criticism for failing to join European Bank ABN/AMRO in instituting a policy that prohibits investments that degrade primary forests.
Citi is currently one of the world's top funders of fossil fuel and logging industries, both of which play central roles in the global warming crisis. According to Bloomberg Analytics, Citi's loans and corporate bond underwriting secured its position as the number one financier of both the coal industry and the fossil fuel industry in the year 2001. Citi's investments in fossil fuels require financial relationships in politically unstable and biodiverse forest regions including Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Chad and Indonesia. Fearing loss of their lives and livelihoods, local and indigenous groups are resisting many of the projects, such as the Camisea Gas Project in Peru and the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. Specifically, the resolution requests that the report include: A publicly available audit of the carbon liability of Citi's projects.
A feasibility study and timeline for replacing projects that endanger ecosystems and negatively impact resident indigenous people with projects that advance renewable energy and sustainable development. An itemization of the replacement projects
In its request to the SEC, Citi claims that the proposal should be omitted based on Rule 14a-8(I)(7) - that it falls within the description of ordinary business and, "aims to micro-manage" the financial giant's risk evaluation process. Citi maintains that the proposal allows shareholders to probe too deeply into complex matters about which they are not in a position to make an informed judgement.
Citi has recommended the board reject the proposal, claiming that the process would be burdensome and would add little benefit to existing practices. According to Citi a carbon audit would be complex and prohibitively expensive. Citi also denies that it has the power to stop or replace environmentally and socially destructive projects it funds.
European banks have already begun to put policies in place to address the global warming crisis. Dutch bank ABN/AMRO instituted a policy last October that prohibits the financing of extractive industries and projects that clear or degrade old growth forests. This is a major first step toward shifting the world's financial sector toward ecological sustainability. The policy addresses all industries that clear or degrade old growth forests, helping to prevent large-scale forest fires and the devastation of local communities. Citi is the target of an ongoing international campaign to transform the funding practices of the corporate financial system. Through lending, underwriting, mutual funds and funding government polities, Citi profits from projects that destroy fragile ecosystems, violate human rights and displace communities.
The campaign is calling on Citi to join Europe's top banks in instituting policies that protect the world's remaining old growth forests. The campaign has included hundreds of demonstrations, a boycott of Citibank credit cards and non-violent direct actions.
Global warming is one of the most significant environmental problems facing the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations panel of 2,000 of the world's top climate scientists, agree that human activities are changing the climate. In 1998 alone, the hottest year in the last 1,200 years, "extreme weather" events killed an estimated 32,000 people, displaced 300 million people, and caused $89 billion in damages.
The world's forests, which act as giant reservoirs of carbon, are the planet's only natural line of defense against global warming. Only 22 percent of the Earth's original great forests remain intact. These old growth forests are home to over 50 percent of the planet's plant and animal species and three-quarters of the world's traditional indigenous peoples. As the world's forests are destroyed, vast amounts of carbon are released into the air and the planet's ability to absorb carbon disappears.
Send an email through our action center at the link below. http://action.ran.org/action_center.jsp
If you are a Citi stockholder, write your fund manager or send us your proxy. Contact Michael Brune <email@example.com> or Ilyse Hogue <firstname.lastname@example.org> or call 415-398-4404.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002
From: Peter Farley <email@example.com>
Subject: The Cost To You? Eventually, Everything!
The Real Story of the Money-Control Over America
In 1910 the U.S. Federal debt was only $1 billion, or $12.40 per citizen. State and local debts were practically non-existent.
By 1920, after only 6 years of Federal Reserve shenanigans, the Federal debt had jumped to $24 billion, or $228 per person.
In 1960 the Federal debt reached $284 billion, or $1,575 per citizen and State and local debts were mushrooming.
By 1981 the Federal debt passed $1 trillion and was growing exponentially as the Banker's tripled the interest rates. State and local debts are now MORE than the Federal, and with business and personal debts totalled over $6 trillion, 3 times the value of all land and buildings in America.
lf we signed over to the money-lenders all of America we would still owe them 2 more Americas (plus their usury, of course!)
However, they are too cunning to take title to everything. They will instead leave you with some "illusion of ownership" so you and your children will continue to work and pay the Bankers more of your earnings in ever-increasiag debts. The "establishment" has captured our people with their ungodly system of usury and debt as certainly as if they had marched in with a uniformed army.
CONSIDERABLY LOTS MORE ON THIS AT http://www.bbcoa.com/articles/debt_money.shtml
World Bank to West Bank
The movement written off after September 11 is demonstrating its worth in Palestine
George Monbiot Tuesday
April 9, 2002
Two sets of human shields are in use in the West Bank. The first is less than willing. The Israeli army, like some of the terrorist groups it has fought, has been taking hostages. Its soldiers have been propelling Palestinian civilians through the doors of suspect buildings, so that the gunmen they might harbour have to kill them first if they want to fight back.
The second set of human shields has deliberately placed itself in the line of fire. Since the army's offensive in the West Bank began, hundreds of Israeli peace campaigners and foreign activists have been seeking to put themselves in its way. At great personal risk, members of the International Solidarity Movement have sought to protect civilians by making hostages of themselves. It is a display of extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice. It is also the latest incarnation of a movement which just months ago was left for dead.
The movement to which many of the peace activists risking their lives in Ramallah and Bethlehem belong has no name. Some people have called it an anti-globalisation or anti-corporate or anti-capitalist campaign. Others prefer to emphasise its positive agenda, calling it a democracy or internationalist movement. But, because they have always put practice first and theory second, its members have proved impossible to categorise. Whenever it appears to have assumed an identity outsiders believe they can grasp, it morphs into something else. It is driven by a new, responsive politics, informed not by ideology but by need.
After September 11, this nameless thing appeared to vanish as swiftly as it had emerged. The huge demonstrations planned for the end of September against the World Bank and IMF in Washington became a small and rather timorous march for peace. Most US activists, cowed by the new McCarthyism which has dominated American discourse since the attack on New York, kept their heads down. Commentators dismissed the movement as a passing fad which had rippled through the world's youth, as widespread and as insubstantial as Diet Coke or the Nike swoosh.
But those who dismissed it had failed to grasp either the seriousness of its intent or the breadth of its support. The television cameras always focused on a few hundred young men dressed in black and running riot, intercut occasionally with the wider carnival of protest. But they seldom permitted its participants to explain the sense of purpose which propelled them. So most outsiders failed to see that the commitment of many of the people involved in these protests is non-negotiable. The movement is no more likely to go away than the governments and corporations it confronts. Its survival is assured by its ability to become whatever it needs to be.
Last month 250,000 protesters travelled to Barcelona to contest the assault on employment laws and the public sector being led by Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi and Jose Maria Aznar. This month some of them moved to Palestine. Among those in the British contingent are people who have helped to run campaigns against corporate power, genetic engineering and climate change. They were joined this week by members of the Italian organisation Ya Basta, which helped to coordinate the protests in Genoa. For the movement which came of age in Seattle, the World Bank and the West Bank belong to the same political territory.
If the protesters simply shifted as a mob from one location to another, their efforts would be worse than useless. But one of the key lessons this rapidly maturing movement has learned is that protest is effective only if it builds on the efforts of specialists. Like most of the Earth's people, the foreigners on the West Bank became visible when they began to bleed (five British campaigners were injured last week by the Israeli army's illegal fragmentation bullets), but some outsiders have been working there for decades. New arrivals join long-established networks and do what they are told. Among the bullets and the bulldozers, the movement is discovering a courage long suspected but seldom tried.
Protesters have moved into the homes of people threatened with bombardment by the Israeli army, ensuring that the soldiers cannot attack Palestinians without attacking foreigners too. They have been sitting in the ambulances taking sick or injured people to hospital, in the hope of speeding their passage through Israeli checkpoints and preventing the soldiers from beating up the occupants. They have been trying to run convoys of food and medicine into neighbourhoods deprived of supplies; and seeking to encourage both sides to lay down their arms in favour of non-violent solutions. They are becoming, in other words, a sort of grassroots United Nations, trying with their puny resources to keep the promises their governments have broken.
Perhaps most importantly, the peace campaigners are the only foreign witnesses in some places to the atrocities being committed. Using alternative news networks such as Indymedia and Allsorts, they have been able to draw attention to events most journalists have missed.
They have seen how Palestinians, told by the Israeli army that the curfew had been lifted, have been either shot dead when they stepped outside or seized and used as human shields. They have witnessed the sacking of homes and the deliberate destruction of people's food supplies. They have seen ambulances and aid trucks being stopped and crushed. On March 28 one peace protester watched Israeli soldiers in jeeps hunting women and children who were fleeing across the fields on the outskirts of Ramallah, trying to shoot them down in cold blood. And, by becoming the story themselves, as they are beaten and shot, the foreigners have brought it home to people who were dismissive of the murder and maiming of indigenous civilians.
The movement's arrival on the West Bank is an organic development of its activities elsewhere. For years it has been contesting the destructive foreign policies of the world's most powerful governments, and the corresponding failures of the multilateral institutions to contain them. Rather than echo the thunderous but effete demand of commentators on both sides of the Atlantic that Yasser Arafat (a man currently unable to use a flushing toilet) should stamp out the terror in the Middle East, the campaigners are, as ever, addressing those who wield real power: Israel and the governments who supply the money and weaponry which permit it to occupy the West Bank. The movement has always been a pragmatic one, as ready to protest against Burma's treatment of its tribal people or China's dispossession of the Tibetans as the IMF's handling of Argentina. In Palestine, as elsewhere, it is seeking to place itself between power and those whom power afflicts.
Everyone else is demanding that somebody should do something about the conflict in the Middle East. The peace campaigners are doing it.
GM food debate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/0,2759,178400,00.html
Debt relief: http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/0,2759,178197,00.html
Critical Mass: http://www.critical-mass.org/
Abolish the Bank: http://www.abolishthebank.org/wef2002.html
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE