Our aim
Who we are
Brief explanation of veganism
Animal defenders, and amazing business
Differences beteween animal welfare and animal rights
False statements of the vegan vegetarianism
The vegan madness in its most disagreeble aspect
Evil Postulates of the veganism
“The animal research war" a fantastic book

Important questions for vegans

FBI website to know more about the vegan madness
Animal rights defenders or vegans and their lies
Phobia to man(Misanthropy)?
To demostrate how mad vegans are
Anima naturalis deceptive vegan language
How do they move
Vegan news

Vegan parents guilty in infant murder

Notice in "La Nacion" National newspaper
The nederlands government is against animal defenders
Article at "noticias" magazine
The truth about the outrageous anti-fur campaing headed by Marcela Kloosterboer and directes by animl naturalis
More vegan lies headed by Kloosterboer
Opinions we receive






 It is like a bomb has fallen.  It’s like telling a four-year-old child that the Magi do not exist. The ecological organizations, the defenders of the most innocent and defenseless  creatures  of the planet, are accused of acting for the benefit of interests far from life and close to business, politics and in some cases to racism.

That is the way the journalist Jorge Orduma presents it in his book “Ecofacism”, from Planeta Publishers; he analyses the links between environmentalists and power in the most developed countries and how they interfere with the sovereignty of poor countries like Argentina among some of them.  It starts tearing the reader’s confidence to pieces when he talks about those groups ties to the theory of eugenics: “the science that deals with the genetic improvement to give the most appropriate races a better and quick possibility to prevail over the less appropriate ones”.  Francis Galton (its creator) says that for the eugenicists, the great problem is that the population of the planet tends to grow quicker than the means to shelter and feed it. The solution? There must be less reproduction …in the underdeveloped countries.

If Orduma has to make a description of what he considers ecofascism, its characteristics would be a strong concept to protect the natural resources, to conserve biodiversity, to develop protected areas and to fight some types of energy. “Electricity generation is polluting, but one of the elements that less pollutes is nuclear energy, which these organizations combat.  If we start to condemn every form of industrial production that contaminates, we run out of energy. Without energy, there aren’t any industries. Without industries we will remain partly savages”.

 Bad company

 One of the organizations he mentions the most is World Wide Fund (WWF) (in Argentina World Wide Foundation, see “The Value of Work”. The WWF has annual revenue of u$s 398 million dollars that come from: 60%  private and  21.6% governmental donations,  United Nations (UN), International Union to Conserve Nature (IUCN), European Commission, United States Agency for the International Development (USAID) and  World Bank contributions. Among the private contributors are mainly: Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Exxon-Mobil, Shell International and Duke Energy … from ecologists, nothing.

Greenpeace, on the other hand, does not receive any contributions that are not personal (See “Facts, not Words”). Among its contributors is Ted Turner, the multimillionaire founder of CNN and ex Time Warner, who presently owns 70 thousand hectares in the Argentine Patagonia. It probably seems strange and at first sight it seems contradictory. But for Orduna, “one of the characteristics of these organizations is that they don’t separate the general from the particular: they neither take into account the country they are working in nor the general context of the situations.  The clearest example is to ban using pesticides in some places in Africa where the tzé tzé fly transmits trypanosomiasis, which causes “sleeping sickness” and a terrible death. The inhabitants of the continent have already noticed that virgin vegetation and savage fauna help the insect come off. But the European conservationists, worried about the extinction of the antelope (an animal to hunt certainly) made campaigns to ban the use of pesticides. The population started to get sick and die as … flies. Moreover, the DDT came also into sight and there it went the only protection against malaria, a disease that kills more people than AIDS and cancer together, in the poorest countries.

Marketing and animals

It is surprising the presence in the media of many strong environmental organizations.  Publicity spots in television, endless street banners, polemics, large manifestations in crowded streets and public “assaults” against the use of fur in fashion shows. Whoever talks about the existence of ecofascism sees something more behind all those actions: the marketing, the rivalry to get donations and the interest of the whole public.

“That is the reason why they stick to the advertising market laws that demand simple and sticking slogans. Many environmental problems involve matters of sovereignty, economy and even moving entire towns so they require complicated answers that cannot be explained with a slogan.

Noticias Magazine:  It is simpler and more productive to talk to people about saving seals than saving the Tasmanian devil…

Orduna:  Of course, the organizations begin to select the campaigns according to the telegenic potential in order to awake the most profitable passions; certain animals seem to sell better than others and consequently they receive more attention from the media. When you consult the list of endangered species, you realize many have a disagreeable appearance or are unpopular and that is the reason they don’t receive any attention.  In some way, the scientific objectivity of the ecological organizations is perverted.

Another subject that infuriates those talk about extreme conservationism is the creation of sanctuaries or natural protected areas that are made, they say, without taking into account the detriment caused to the inhabitants’ culture, customs and own way of surviving.

“Many of these defenders and buyers of sanctuaries are not scientists or biologists but come from other types of industries.  They buy extensive territories and give them to the State for it to preserve it as a protected area. The declaration of a National Park or a Protected Area concerns to the State and to its own necessities of human development and they should not be a gift of a foreigner”, says Orduna.

Noticias: But there are endangered species of fauna and flora. It would be risky to deny global warming as President George Bush did until recently…

Orduna: Certainly. But Deep ecology is the name of a philosophy inside traditional ecology which is closely related to the mystification of nature. It’s a concept no scientist would share: the projection of human qualities to the animal world. This is very good for poetry, art and philosophy but it is not right to determine which areas are to be protected and which not, from a scientific point of view.

Noticias: Then, what are the reasons for environmentalists to declare protected natural areas?

Orduna: Not every protected area is good, the World Bank and the urban planners know that human impact on the environment isn’t always negative, it depends on the concerning elements. Notwithstanding that, the population believes that every protected area which has been created is good. Which are the reasons to create the National Parks? They depend on the people, but they can be related to the paralyzation of the area: factories and roads are banned. The unavoidable consequence is to stop development. Whether it is intentional or not is something secondary, many things are done pretending not to be aware of what is being done.

Noticias: Do you think there might be ecological organizations that work well somewhere or do you think all of them have an ideological bias?

Orduna: No. There are serious organizations but as they depend on public or governmental funds, they end accepting the market laws. And they cannot count on reason or science as they have to stick to the style of massive products: they compete with imprudent NGOs that show beheaded animals to stimulate elemental emotions.

Noticias: What would be the characteristics of a group that serve the interests of our countries then?

Orduna: A group that takes into account the sovereignty of each nation, its long term interests and its human and scientific context.  The idea is not to defend a fundamental ecology but the ecology that takes into account endemic diseases and malnutrition, for example.

Noticias: I’m sorry to insist, but the climate change exists and the consequences are at sight.

Orduna: This subject has a unilateral side. It has certainly been five general extinctions on earth: some of them took 95% of aquatic species. They were produced by volcanism, meteorite fall and glaciations. There has been a moment of serious debate in the analysis about global warming: we can measure warming, but the problem is who is to blame for it:  the human beings or the planet itself. The right sectors see an opportunity when they see people that are afraid of factories, transgenic soy and development. But the other side must be seen:  scientists who give less relevance to the human presence and industrial development over global warming are given little press.



Written by Caudio Bertonatti

In our country, several public welfare associations are concerned about environmental matters. There are some very old ones like the Argentine Birds Association, created in 1916. Another case is the Argentine Association for Animal Protection. I think nobody daresay they represent foreign country interests and they perform  actions to fulfill their aims. However, in other countries there are several theories with respect to foreign environmental entities, especially the international ones. There are people who import these ideas for the sake of having press and establishing them in our society where reality is much more different.

In World Wide Foundation Argentina, a national public welfare association, we think that the prestige of an institution – or of a person – is reflected in its or his work. When we look backwards and see that we could buy the land and donate it to the State to create two National Parks for all Argentinians (as Monte León and recently Campos del Tuyú), we are deeply proud. It is the same when we defend the natural resources endangered by looting or destruction. We surely make mistakes, because whoever works makes mistakes, but it is demonstrated that a group of honest people   can organize to achieve objectives that will benefit society.  However, the level of environmental misinformation and the courage of “those who always have an opinion for everything”, who are trendy, can be so important that such achievements seem to be undervalued or even be unnoticed.



Written by Martín Prieto

Is there any contradiction between the environmental objectives of Greenpeace and the ones of our country?

The answer is a categorical denial. Our work consists in safeguarding what article 41 of the National Constitution states: all of us are obliged to preserve the environment and to satisfy our present necessities without endangering the necessities of future generations.

Evidence on the matter: we achieved, with the support of one million and a half Argentines, the enactment of the National Law of Environmental Protection of native forests. In this way we stopped the eviction of ten thousand miles of aborigines and creoles who live in and from the forest; additionally the forest mass that naturally prevents floods and climate change will be preserved. We also made a campaign against importing nuclear waste that came from a nuclear reactor and consequently violated article 41 of our Constitution. We could also save Pizarro Reserve (Salta), benefiting biodiversity and the wichi community that lived there; some weeks ago, the Supreme Court named us pro-controllers of the sanitary plan of watershed Matanza – Riachuelo and today we are intending Buenos Aires City Council to enforce the Zero Rubbish Law. 

Who pays the work Greenpeace does in Argentina? Seventy thousand inhabitants that donate a little sum of money (average $15.-), as donations are so small, they cannot deviate the course of our campaigns. We don’t receive donations from national or international firms or governments. These are publicly known data which we inform to AFIP (Federal Tax Bureau) by means of an annual balance sheet published in our website:

 In view

 The IUCN is the largest environmental net in the world. It is formed by more than 1.000 members, among them there are governments and NGO’s, and it is present in more than 160 countries.

Greenpeace was founded and financed by Quakers in Canada in the ‘70s. Today its headquarters are in Holland and receives donations of individuals (some of them like Ted Turner, the owner of more than 70.000 hectares in Argentina).

The Eugenics Society: it promotes the eugenics idea which many actual conservationist organizations are based on.

The WWF admits to have around 5million members and offices in more than 90 countr





ARRIBA                           | 2014 |