DTN.ORG Home DTN.ORG User's Guide Search DTN.ORG Complete Database Contact DTN.ORG Officials Moonbat Central


NEW-LAND FOUNDATION Printer Friendly Page

1114 Avenue of the Americas - 46th Floor
New York, NY

Phone :(212) 479-6086
Fax :(212) 841-6275

New-Land Foundation's Visual Map

  • Assets: $28,565,672 (2014)
  • Grants Received: $0 (2014)
  • Grants Awarded: $1,541,115 (2014)

Incorporated in New York in 1941, the New-Land Foundation identifies its five grantmaking program areas as: Civil Rights/Justice; Population Control; Peace/Arms Control; Leadership Development; and Environment. 

A survey of the New-Land Foundation's grantmaking activities in this latter area reveals its strong support for the anti-capitalist agendas of radical environmentalism. In recent years, the leading recipients of New-Land environmental grants have been: Earth Day Network; Earth Island Institute; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense; the Environmental Working Group; the League of Conservation Voters; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Rainforest Alliance; the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center; and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

To view a list of additional noteworthy grantees of the New-Land Foundation, click here.

Another high priority for the New-Land Foundation is the effort to shrink, and to alter the nature of, the American military, which the Foundation views as a provocateur of much international strife. In an effort to help make this priority a reality, the New-Land Foundation has become a member organization of the Peace and Security Funders Group.

Hal Harvey is the President of the New-Land Foundation's Board of Directors. He also sits on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation and the MB Financial Bank of Chicago. Moreover, he has been a member of the Environment Committee of the Heinz Endowments; a Chairman of the Environment Jury for the Heinz Awards; and Environment Program Director for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. He founded the Energy Foundation in 1991 and was its President for a decade.

Mr. Harvey's perspectives on military and defense issues are reflected vividly in the New-Land Foundation's analysis of such matters.  In 1989, for instance, Harvey co-authored the article "Alternative Security" with Michael Shuman and Daniel Arbess. In that piece, Harvey advocated "a policy known as 'non-provocative defense'" as a means by which "to reduce military tensions and budgets." "[A]ll security policies," he explained, "should aim to increase the security of other nations, including our adversaries -- a concept sometimes called 'common security' . . . It is insecurity that drives nations to accumulate arms and seriously consider launching their missiles." This perspective, upon which the New-Land Foundation bases its grantmaking priorities in the areas of defense and disarmament, exhorts the U.S. military to dispose of all weaponry designed for offensive, or attack, purposes, and to "restructure U.S. military capabilities so that they are unambiguously defensive, and at the same time to persuade other nations to do likewise."

Harvey lamented that the United States "spends roughly twenty-one times more on military defense and military foreign assistance than on all nonmilitary international programs put together, thus spending the most on those policies that are probably the riskiest and least effective." A more effective approach, he explained, "would focus on causes, not symptoms . . . [and] give greater priority to eliminating the economic and political roots of conflict through non-provocative forms of persuasion and cooperation."

To help compensate for the absence of an offensive arsenal, and to supplement the approved defensive weaponry in the event of an attack, Harvey also advocated a strategy called "civilian-based defense" (CBD), which he described as follows: "Populations would be trained to make their country ungovernable in the face of an attack. They would be taught, for example, how to resist military occupation (or, for that matter, domestic tyranny) through strikes, boycotts, noncooperation, and obstruction which would make takeover a more costly goal for any attacker. . . . Frontal barriers would stop or slow advancing forces. Forces breaking through would then face techno-commando units. Then enemy occupiers would have to cope with civilian-based defense units."

(Information on grantees and monetary amounts courtesy of The Foundation Center, GuideStar, ActivistCash, the Capital Research Center and Undue Influence)



Since Feb 14, 2005 --Hits: 61,630,061 --Visitors: 7,024,052

Copyright 2003-2015 : DiscoverTheNetworks.org