The green matrix is the network of connections in a worldwide political and economic
agenda involving science in service to that agenda. It includes dabs of Eastern mysticism,
Hegel and Marx and venture capitalism, as well as various world elite playing masters of
the universe.
Their coda is that the ends justify the means – think globally, act locally.
Connecting ALL the dots in the green matrix is a challenge. One small dot is the recent
case of the missing Canadian lynx. In order show why and how the federal
"scientists" decided to send lynx samples to a lab in order to "test"
it, we have to understand how science in the green matrix works.
Science and environmentalism began to break down in the '60s and '70s. Under Bill
Clinton, however, science in service to an agenda finally received official approval.
In the late '60s, modern environmentalism became an ideology and a movement. One thing
it lacked was "science" to give it credibility and validation. At that time
almost every aspect of American society, from politics to culture, was radicalized and
swung to the left. Environmentalism was no different.
In fact, in the late '60s, the promising area of ecology was hijacked by radicals.
Along with much else in that era, what evolved was more philosophical and political than a
science using rigorous scientific inquiry.
Environmentalism became a movement in search of a science. The ultimate agenda was
international command and control, top down, and it covered everything from education to
the environment.
From the mid-1940s and into the late 1960s and beyond, the United Nations sought
legitimacy and status as a world governmental body.
In the cause of expanding its powers to "save mankind" from itself, various
plans and nostrums were adopted. One of the groups created to help in fixing the world's
problems was the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Out of the IUCN the science of conservation biology was created. Members of IUCN
include the EPA, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Society for
Conservation Biology, and many, many other NGOs and special interests.
The IUCN tasked Dr. Michael Soule to create the new discipline of conservation biology.
Soule was a University of California professor and a Zen Buddhist.
Out of conservation biology came new "scientific" buzzwords like biocentrism,
bioreserves, ecosystems and ecosystem management. But what gave these concepts wings was
the proactive implementation of the restoration of species and "repairing and
connecting" "ecosystems."
Between 1979 and 1987, conservation biology was in its infancy. In 1987 the first
copies of the Journal of Conservation Biology were published.
The most important tool that came out of conservation biology was the notion of the
"precautionary principle."
Using that tool and the ecosystem approach to land management, the new scientists had
entire areas and thousands of miles of land to "save" and "repair."
What didn't seem important to them, however, were the costs to people and to animals,
to private property, or to the Constitution of the United States.
Rather, they were concerned with the "whole" of nature. This
"holistic" viewpoint made the notion of the ends justifying the means more
palatable.
Thus, it was not so very important that their 'science' had an impact on individual
lives or livelihoods. What was important was the good of the 'whole,' the ecosystem, as
THEY defined, invented and implemented it.
Breaking a few human lives, destroying animals and land or eroding constitutional
principles along the way did not matter to them. It was the dream, the utopian vision,
that mattered.
Fox Is on the Case
Dr. Michael Fox has a doctorate in Physical Chemistry from the University of
Washington, was a National Member of the board of directors of the American Nuclear
Society (ANS) from 1987-89, and is a National Member of the Health Physics Society and
Member of the American Association of Engineering Societies.
He has written for many newspapers and publications and has been interviewed as an
expert by CBS News, "Good Morning America," "Firing Line" (W.F.
Buckley), National Public Radio, and "The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour."
Recently, I asked Dr. Fox to explain a few terms in the lexicon of the new green
science of conservation biology.
Fox explains: "Conservation biology is based on the unproven assumption that
nature knows best. That all human use and activity should follow natural patterns within
relatively homogenous soil-vegetation-hydrology landscapes called ecosystems."
He continues, "Since ecosystems cross man-made property lines, and since
conservation biology called for holistic management of entire ecosystems to ostensibly
protect the perceived fragile web of life, environmental law HAD to be superior to
property rights."
These scientists use the "precautionary principle," says Fox. "As a
theory, it is on shaky ground. In fact, it would be better geared [as a] tool in a witch
hunt than by scientists grounded in unpoliticized science."
Dr. Fox says the precautionary principle is "the antithesis of sound
science." But in fact, it was the use of the precautionary principle that got the
spotted owl listed, closed down the Klamath farmers for the sake of a trash fish, and is
closing down other areas from Maine to Florida and from sea to shining sea.
An example of use of the precautionary principle came during the episode involving the
Klamath farmers in 2001.
Journalist Kate Blanton relates in the Sierra Times: "Last year a 1998 memo
regarding 'No Net Loss' policy from Forest Service acting regional administrator Donna
Darm drew attacks from Washington irrigators. Because the agency lacked information about
critical salmon habitat, Darm wrote, 'We just designate everything as critical without
analysis of how much habitat a [salmon population] needs, what areas might be key, etc. We
just say we need it all.' "
The upshot of the ecosystem approach to land management and species restoration is more
than the fate of one species of fish or survival of old-growth trees. Rather, it is about
hundreds of millions of acres placed off-limits to both human enjoyment and human use.
Every species, salvageable or not, would be listed. Thus, land would end up restricted,
allowing little to NO human use.
There is absolutely NO balance in this approach. There is no balance, because humanity,
in conservation biologist's Soule's words, is a "cancer on the land." It is
implied that humanity counts for very little in the ecosystem scheme of things.
To this day, no one can pinpoint or define when, where, how and WHAT an ecosystem is.
It is, in fact, what Dr. Soule and federal and green organization conservation biologists
say it is.
This is science? Perhaps it comes from the same science that told Galileo he was nuts
or that informed Columbus that the earth was flat.
The Canadian Connection
The concepts of ecosystems and ecosystems management ultimately will become the
Wildlands Project, which involves closing off half the land mass of the U.S. and parts of
Canada and Mexico to human use. Ostensibly, it is to repair the damage done by man and to
relink ecosystems, using ecomanagement.
The "managers" begin in small ways to accomplish the ultimate goal. Small
ways like reintroducing the wolf, grizzlies, wolverines and lynx into the intermountain
West.
The little sister of the Wildlands Project is better known as Y2Y, Yukon to
Yellowstone. It is an intermediate step in creating systems that would be hospitable to
critters but not to human beings.
Wildlands and Y2Y amount to central planning of all the land and water that covers the
entire United States and parts of Canada and Mexico. The U.S. federal government is part
of it.
According to the International Wilderness Association, or WILD: On June 12, 2000, the
USGS Federal Geographic Data Committee and Geoconnections (of Canada's Geospatial Data
Infrastructure) announced funding for the Yellowstone to Yukon framework data project
– a pilot effort to overcome barriers like national boundaries and private property.
This is the first time these two federal agencies have cooperated on this kind of
funding proposal. A U.S. federal agency and a Canadian agency working together to create a
new territory within the two countries is what it amounts to.
The Los Angeles Times, not exactly a journal of right-wing extremism, describes the
Wildlands Project thusly: "Invisible to most Americans, the Wildlands Project already
is involved in conservation efforts from the Mexican border to Appalachia to Maine to
Canada. Among the 25 networks it envisions are plans that would link the wilderness of
Yellowstone to the Yukon, the British Columbia rain forests to the Rockies."
The "brains" behind the Wildlands Project is Dr. Soule. A graduate of San
Diego State University and Stanford, Soule studied closely with Mr. Population Bomb
himself, Paul Ehrlich.
Soule serves on the science advisory boards of several national and international
organizations, including La Sierra Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature
Conservancy. Soule was also co-author of the original draft of the biodiversity
convention.
If Congress had adopted the Treaty on Biodiversity during the Clinton reign, it would
have hog-tied the United States into implementing most of U.N. Agenda 21. Don't forget,
treaties (like U.N. Agenda 21) supersede the U.S. Constitution.
Without the efforts of Henry Lamb and Dr. Michael Coffman of Sovereignty International,
as well as dozens of grassroots groups, the U.S. Senate would have confirmed the treaty
and the United States would have been officially stuck. That treaty would have forced us
to implement Wildlands.
But it doesn't matter, because the treaty is being implemented anyway. Various
documents, statements and conferences promoted by U.S. "scientists" involved
with federal green bureaucracies indicate they have been implementing Wildlands for some
time.
Funding for this has come through side-tracking of monies meant to go to other areas.
Grants and studies, as well as funds for implementation, should be a national scandal.
Draft proposals to accomplish Wildlands are the outlines for federal bureaucrats to
proceed by. (Draft proposals may be found on www.aldenchronicles.com.)
Included in one of Henry Lamb's critiques on the collusion between the federal
government and the greens is a statement by former President Clinton's Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbitt. As a representative of the Clinton administration, his statement borders on
the pathological and certainly defies his oath to the Constitution of the United States:
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt endorsed "bioregional management" in
his address to the National Religious Partnership on the Environment. He stated that the
Clinton Administration's environmental vision "unites all state, county, and federal
workers under a common moral goal. It erases artificial borders" – such as
constitutional limitations on federal power and jurisdiction, for example – "so
we can see the full range of natural habitat. ... And it makes us see all the creatures
that are collectively rooted to one habitat, and how, by keeping that habitat intact, we
ensure the survival of the species.
Would a federal "biologist" or any federal bureaucrat not understand, after
Babbitt's statement, that they had carte blanche to promote a political agenda using
whatever means possible? Babbitt was telling them never mind the Constitution and the rule
of law – just DO IT.
Fudging the lynx study, in the scheme of things, went along very well with the Clinton
administration philosophy of the ends justifying the means.
Before 1993 and Bill Clinton, conservation biology, biocentrism and ecosystem
management were just so many unproven theories. But during Clinton and Babbitt's reign and
ever since, the policy and the "science" behind it have driven the agenda
forward.
Under Clinton, Gore and Babbitt the "bioregional" approach, Option 9, or the
Northwest Forest Plan, was adopted. It was ostensibly about spotted owl habitat and
old-growth forests.
But that was the cover for the political and philosophical agenda. Babbitt maintains
the new Clinton plan was "a holistic agreement" intended to preserve
"critical habitat" across state borders.
In fact, the Forest Plan was created in closed sessions by Clinton cronies as well as
unelected special interests in connivance with unaccountable environmentalists.
They saw themselves as people who would eventually be part of "bioregional
councils" that would operate under the U.N.'s Biodiversity regime. Dr. Robert G. Lee
in "Broken Trust, Broken Land" and Dr. Alston Chase relate this particular
Clinton scandal, which led to thousands of lost jobs and freedoms.
In this era of federal cooperation with a green agenda, getting rid of roads on
millions of acres of so-called public lands was part of the agenda. In addition,
bulldozing, burning or destroying any sign of man's habitation in the chosen areas was the
task at hand.
The destruction of hundreds of cabins and old home places all over the United States in
the last 20 years is testament to that fact. At least a half dozen Forest Service
personnel have confirmed that has happened and is still happening.
It is all part of creating the big green picture of man as a "cancer on the
land" and rewilding America to a time before Columbus.
The eco-scientists in the Forest Service, BLM and FWS did not even leave the American
Indian alone. The Timbasha tribe of Death Valley came back to their summer camping grounds
a few years ago to find their dwellings bulldozed by the Forest Service and BLM. A tribe
that had been in the area a thousand years was in the way of ecosystem management.
What Is Weird Science?
What is conservation biology? The "Primer for Conservation Biology" says:
"Conservation biology arose because none of the traditional applied disciplines are
comprehensive enough by themselves to address critical threats to biological
diversity."
In his most recent tome, "Conservation Biology and the Decades Ahead," Soule
relates what he considers the goals of conservation biology: "Conservation biologists
typically consider preservation of species to be an ETHICAL responsibility."
The kicker here is this statement, which in fact has become U.S. land management
policy: "Conservation science is employed in the service of an ETHICAL goal, the
maintenance of the earth's biodiversity."
Furthermore, "Conservation practitioners may seek to restore populations of an
endangered species or to reintroduce a species into parts of its range from which had been
exterminated."
What should bother us is that he also says that biologists "may try to
re-establish a complex ecological community in an area from which it has been
eliminated."
This is the father of conservation biology telling conservation practitioners to be
proactive in the name of the cause.
As Soule writes, "it will require the dedication of thousands of bioregional
activists. … [R]oad building in major sections of National Forest and BLM lands will
have to cease, and many existing logging roads closed, grazing, logging, mining,
recreation and some types of farming will have to go."
Voilà! In one of Bill Clinton's last major executive orders, roads on millions of
acres of federal lands were closed as green activists and federal green
"biologists" lent support to an approach to land management that is neither
scientific nor good for land nor animals and certainly not meant for people.
Such policy is neither scientifically based nor ethical. And people are surprised when
federal "scientists" fudge or manipulate data?
The job of science is not to re-establish anything. It is to objectively observe and
make recommendations, and that is ALL.
These guys make lousy doctors. The green cure they suggest usually ends up killing
animals, forests and people – e.g., the Colorado lynx debacle, the millions of acres
burned last summer from negligence, the deaths of four Forest Service employees because
the Forest Service was not allowed to use water to save them because an endangered fish
might be in the creek, not to mention the Klamath farmers nearly losing it all over a
phony baloney "science" being implemented by phony baloney
"scientists."
The Big Green Clinton Party
Multimillion-dollar outside help convinced Bill Clinton to make the legislation by
executive order. As Paul Begala would say, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land."
As the ancient pharaohs would say, "So it is written, so it is done."
In a propaganda blitzkrieg, the Pew Charitable Trust spent $4.5 million on one of the
most intense campaigns to influence policy in U.S. environmental history.
The success in getting Clinton to close roads on federal land included a glitzy and
very expensive party thrown by Pew at a D.C. hotel for White House staffers and others
involved in the effort.
The House Subcommittee on Forest Health investigated the conflict of interest and the
way the Clinton White House came to the "roadless" decision. The House summary
report was a scathing denunciation of the entire episode.
Pew claimed its actions were legitimate "free speech." Under Pew's 501(c) (3)
tax-exempt status, foundations are NOT supposed to be lobbying for legislation, and Pew
did not lobby for legislation. It merely lobbied for an executive order, thereby getting
around the prohibition.
Ends once more justify the means.
The House report stated, "A preliminary review of these documents reveals that the
Administration's decision was made improperly, in apparent violation of the due process
rights of affected parties, as well as applicable statutes enacted by Congress to protect
those rights, such as the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
It goes on, "This structured relationship between the Administration and
environmentalists is of serious concern, but more significant is the lack of any evidence
of even a token effort by the Administration to involve other interested parties. This
disregard for any balance in the advice being solicited is evidence of both the pretextual
nature of the decision, which had clearly already been made, and of a lack of concern for
any adverse consequences on the affected users of the forest lands in question."
Nothing ever came out the investigation, and the ends once again justified the means.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, the remedies coming out of green matrix, conservation biology
and ecosystem management are now part of federal policy. The formula has led to the
destruction of forests and animals.
It is the kind of activist science that Soule calls on his fellows to conduct. Activism
replaces science and implements a political and philosophical agenda.
The Big Green Partygoers
I received a copy of an invitation to a party and conference in conjunction with Earth
Day this year. It included some top guns in environmental groups that are on the shady
side of legitimacy.
Among the attendees, speakers, "scientists" and supervisors were top honchos
in the U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. They party hearty, plot the
strategy, and will make IT happen.
In this case IT refers to the reintroduction of the wolf, along with grizzly and large
carnivores. Billed as the Earth Day "wolf conference," it is really geared to
promote the cause of the scientists playing god from the Yukon to Mexico.
As whistle-blower and former Forest Service supervising biologist James Beers told me,
such meetings and parties between federal employees and environmental groups are
commonplace. They are conducted in public and in secret.
Some of the groups would be considered radical. Yet federal employees – i.e., the
"biologists" and top men in federal service – gather regularly and
routinely to concoct strategy and plan future agendas.
Beers blew the whistle on a Forest Service conflict of interest. When higher-ups in
Washington demanded he approve a federal grant for the Fund for Animals, he refused. He
considered that an inappropriate grant, as were many others that came to his attention.
He was hounded out of the service and recently won a settlement against Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service for the injustices and harassment they inflicted
on him.
By the way, good guys like Beers are leaving the service in droves.
Another former Forest Service budget analyst believes that the framework of the Forest
Service and Fish and Wildlife budgets are what ultimately led to unscrupulous behavior by
"ologists."
He states that "allocation of funds and the accountability in the form of target
reporting affected the overall management of an agency. Environmental lobbyists, during
the budget building process, caught the ear of politicians seeking voter blocs."
If I were a congressman, I would get my best soldiers out and investigate grant-making
by federal agencies. But then, who is going to investigate Congress? That is a scandal in
itself.
Think Globally
However, all of this is aimed at a broader agenda.
My friend and expert on the big picture that makes up the green matrix is Henry Lamb.
For nearly two decades Henry (www.eco.freedom.org) and Dr. Michael Coffman have studied
the interconnected aspects of modern environmentalism as it promotes and implements an
international agenda.
That agenda may be found in U.N. Agenda 21, the Wildlands Project, Y2Y, sustainable
development, Treaty on Biodiversity, plus tons of conferences and confabs where the
international set meet to create policy and set the agenda for the rest of the world.
According to U.N. Agenda 21, manipulation of science and events does not stop with the
environment but also includes population control, controlling education with such things
as Goals 2000 and School-to-Work, ad infinitum.
It also embraces a "unity" religion, in which there is no real standard. It
is instead a mushy mix of feel-good New Age claptrap. The ultimate goal is to dictate what
people can and cannot do, where they can and cannot work, where they live, what they eat,
what they say and what they OUGHT to believe. All of it is supposed to serve the
collective good as judged by an elite.
(U.N. Agenda 21 may be found on www.eco.freedom.org or on the United Nations website.)
Modern environmentalism has become the best single tool to fulfill the fondest wishes
of the international control freaks and central planners. It is the new ideological agenda
replacing communism and capitalism. It is, in fact, a lethal mix of both. Alan Caruba of
the National Anxiety Center calls it "fascilism."
In implementing the various environmental wish lists, we don't get cleaner air and
water. But we do get a new religion and a new economic system. In addition, the old time
religion is being replaced by a green Zen Buddhism on one hand, and tyranny and repression
on the other.
If you follow the logic of "ecosystem" management, that is where we're headed
as we wend our way through the holistic approach for the "collective good."
The process of connecting all the many dots has led me to a major decision. The entire
topic of environmentalism and all its subsets, from the scientific to the international to
the federal agent who screws up a critter study, all this information and intrigue needs a
book. That is what I am going to be doing for the next year. I will still write column,
but they may be shorter and pithier and be purely opinion columns with no research
involved.
Answer to the Green Matrix
In the movie "The Matrix" the rebel hero Morpheus says to protagonist Neo:
"It's the question, Neo. It's the question that drives us. It's the question that
brought you here. You know the question, just as I did."
Neo: "What is the Matrix?"
Trinity: "The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and it will find
you if you want it to."
The question drives me. It is the question that brought me here. I am looking for the
answers.
|
