The Environmentalist (Green) Movement of the 1960s ~ What Was The REAL Agenda?

This post may raise more questions than answers. I am taking a slightly different track, in that I am inserting bits and pieces that I’ve found today from various sources – some may be true, some may be half true; ALL made me question the true intent of the backers and investors of the green movement.

First of all, I will remind you that I am all for green movements: green energy, green living – organic, clean, healthy, and sustainable, with no underlying agenda or hidden negative backlashes.

It’s good to ask questions, it’s good to raise awareness, it’s good to wake up. Some of you may agree with what you read here, some may not. But I am not here to tell you what to believe, I am simply raising questions. I want answers. Do you? Perhaps you know more about these issues than I do. If so, please feel free to share, I’m a good student, I promise!

So, here goes!

Do you remember reading my post about the Rockefellers and their hand in hemp farming prohibition, their controlling interest in the AMA, and their agenda to push chemicals (pharmaceuticals and agriculture)? If not, you can read it here.  Well, this morning I came across this statement, “the entire “Environmental” Movement at the top, and increasingly at the local levels, is funded and controlled by the fossil fuel industry though the Pew Charitable Trusts (Sun Oil Co) and the Rockefeller Fund.” (

The environmental movement as we know it started in the 1960s. “The most prominent Republican environmen- talist was Nelson Rockefeller, who pressed for environmental legislation as governor of New York in the mid- 1960s.” (“Give Earth A Chance”) This sounds great, right? But let’s read on.

Where do the environmental groups get their money? Dues from members represent an average of 50 percent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foundation grants, corporate contributions, and U.S. government funds. Almost every one of today’s land-trust, environmental, animal-rights, and population-control groups was created with grants from one of the elite foundations, like the Ford foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation….Foundation grants in the range of $20 to $50 million for the environmental cause are no longer a novelty. In July 1990, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a $50 million global environmental program. The specific purpose of the program is to create an elite group of individuals in each country whose role is to implement and enforce the international environmental treaties now being negotiated.” (

From the Rockefeller Foundation 1960 annual report:

One of the items that jumped out at me on the above graphic was the mention of grants to world food supply.  Then I saw this:

My curiosity was piqued.  And then there was this:

Now, this all seems good, we want to have crops that are disease resistant, we WANT to eradicate hunger. However, the words that caught my eye were, “Breeding for Insect Resistance.” Hmmmmm. I still have questions, but instead of being in an accusatory state of mind, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. For now.

A quick note: I am not here to bash any family or investor or organization wanting to donate money or institute programs for the better of mankind. I do, however, see some signs that maybe all is not as it is shown to be. That is why I ask questions.

And what about this? “John D. Rockefeller used his oil wealth to acquire Equitable Trust, which had gobbled up several large banks and corporations by the 1920’s. The Great Depression helped consolidate Rockefeller’s power. His Chase Bank merged with Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan Bank to form Chase Manhattan, cementing a long-time family relationship. The Kuhn-Loeb’s had financed – along with Rothschilds – Rockefeller’s quest to become king of the oil patch. National City Bank of Cleveland provided John D. with the money needed to embark upon his monopolization of the US oil industry. The bank was identified in Congressional hearings as being one of three Rothschild-owned banks in the US during the 1870’s, when Rockefeller first incorporated as Standard Oil of Ohio. [17]

One Rockefeller Standard Oil partner was Edward Harkness, whose family came to control Chemical Bank. Another was James Stillman, whose family controlled Manufacturers Hanover Trust. Both banks have merged under the JP Morgan Chase umbrella. Two of James Stillman’s daughters married two of William Rockefeller’s sons. The two families control a big chunk of Citigroup as well. [18]

In the insurance business, the Rockefellers control Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, Prudential and New York Life. Rockefeller banks control 25% of all assets of the 50 largest US commercial banks and 30% of all assets of the 50 largest insurance companies. [19] Insurance companies- the first in the US was launched by Freemasons through their Woodman’s of America- play a key role in the Bermuda drug money shuffle.

Companies under Rockefeller control include Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco, Marathon Oil, Freeport McMoran, Quaker Oats, ASARCO, United, Delta, Northwest, ITT, International Harvester, Xerox, Boeing, Westinghouse, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, International Paper, Pfizer, Motorola, Monsanto, Union Carbide and General Foods.” (

Did you see it? Of course you did, I highlighted the key words in red.

I am a wholehearted proponent of multiple streams of income, and certainly there is nothing wrong with having a variety of financial interests.  But, does it make sense to implement a ‘green’ movement when your activities and funding go to destroy or do exactly opposite of what that ‘green movement’ means?

Is there a secret agenda of those who started the green movement, when clearly their actions dictate otherwise?

Why would someone fund environmentalist projects while at the same time reap huge financial benefits from products that clearly harm health and the environment (oil, chemicals)?

Why would someone donate money to help educate poor farmers, or help with programs to increase their farming in other countries, yet appear to be a backer, or even owner, of one of the most dangerous companies known to human health (Monsanto)?

Why not more focus on sustainability?

Like I said earlier, I am not strictly out to accuse, attack, or bash anyone. I am simply curious and want to know more. I want to know that when someone says they are dedicated to helping our environment, they mean it and take proper action to SHOW that they mean it.

So, show me the green. The TRUE green.

*I cannot swear that all of the above inserts are 100% true, I simply saw them and took them for face value. Are they true? Half true? I would suggest that if you question anything I have posted in this article, please do your own due diligence, perhaps you would find more information than I did.

I would never knowingly publish false information, this post is strictly educational and intended to raise questions and curiosity, and hopefully will open some eyes and minds.