Copyright © Diane Alden
Visit her website

The "Complete"
Green Matrix

Diane Alden

This is a compilation of Diane's three-part exposé on the environmental movement's
infiltration of the government bureaucracy. It originally appeared on the website.


The Green Matrix
They Blinded Us With Science
Weird Science – Think Globally

The citizens of the United States need to decide whether to take the red pill or the blue pill, because the "green cure" may not be to their liking.

The Green Matrix – part 1
Feb. 21, 2002

In the sci-fi classic "The Matrix" there is a "green" world, the world inside the Matrix, and a "blue" world of dreamy illusion that feeds the Matrix.

The protagonist Neo, the seeker of truth and reality, must take a red pill or a blue pill to decide which future he will live in. The blue pill will let him stay in his dream world, while the red pill will bring him into the terrible reality of the green world of the Matrix.

The central problem facing humanity in the movie is delusion.

At one point in the film the rebel hero, Morpheus, tells the protagonist Neo that most people don't understand the illusory nature of the Matrix. Morpheus says: "The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. ... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

What the hero finds in his reality is a ruling elite of artificial intelligence beings who tell the hero finally what they think of mankind:

"There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern [as humanity]: a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."

The citizens of the United States need to decide whether to take the red pill or the blue pill, because the "green cure" may not be to their liking.

As a matter of fact, the United States has been experiencing a "green" cure for some time. What is at stake in the course we choose is our freedom, our way of life and our humanity.

Dot Matrix – The Missing Lynx

Last month I began to investigate the case of the "missing Canadian lynx." What turned up was that the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service bureaucracy admitted that data had been manipulated and that a falsification of a "scientific" survey did take place.

Whether it is outright fraud or incompetence depends on who you talk to. It also depends on how you read the heavily censored Forest Service investigation into into its own wrongdoing.

The investigation came about after I read articles in the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal that involved a retiring Forest Service employee who blew the whistle on what he thought was fraud in the handling of the "chain of evidence" in the lynx study.

It appears data on the lynx was manipulated by five U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service biologists and two Washington State Fish and Wildlife biologists.

But not even Congress can discover the names of the federal employees involved. The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife people continue to stonewall the investigation, saying it is a matter of "protecting their privacy." Were they punished in any way? NO.

After receiving a packet from Washington State Senator Robert Morton, I discovered that the only names not redacted from the Forest Service report were the two Washington state biologists. It appears that they may be the fall guys or sacrificial lambs in this deal.

One source told me that one of the biologists MAY have connections to several environmental groups active in seeking to shut down human activity in the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National Forests in Northeast Washington state.

It is much more difficult to ascertain the connection of the other biologist involved to any green group. In fact, my gut and the information in the report tell me his part in the survey may have been his own investigation into a previous fabrication and fraud of the lynx study under a Dr. John Weaver, hired by the Forest Service in 1999.

The earlier Weaver study showed that there were great numbers of Canadian lynx in an area that had never seen any, or very few if any, before. Later he had to confess that the chain of evidence had been contaminated and he withdrew the "study."

Sen. Robert Morton called for an investigation, which was held in January, on the recent case of falsification or manipulation of data by federal employees.

As I stated previously, the only testimony at the investigation came from ONE Forest Service supervisor (the federal Fish and Wildlife people never showed up), two Washington state Fish and Wildlife people and three representatives of activist environmental groups – groups whose goal is to SHUT THE FOREST DOWN.

The Senate committee seemed appeased, and the investigation went nowhere, completely frustrating Sen. Morton and other concerned legislators.

Does there seem to be a skewed investigation? It is mighty odd that the only testimony allowed came from members of the agencies involved in the scam and green advocates and agitators who want to close down the forest by declaring it a wilderness.

Does conflict of interest ring a bell? It did for Sen. Morton.

The Motive Behind the Fraud

Scientists tell me that the deceit involved in the Canadian lynx study is only one of many dots in the green matrix, as once again "science is put in service to a political agenda."

Trace the motive behind the fraud to an international agenda. An agenda adopted years ago when the U.N. and UNESCO were looking for ways to create a global economy and social structure – a collectivist utopian vision of the collective "good."

That ultimate "good," of course, is decided by the world's elites, the "good" of the collective as opposed to the welfare and primacy of the individual. What would be created is a despotic utopian world where where our lives, property, economics, education, jobs and the environment are centrally planned.

The cover for the collectivist vision is the environment – and environmental policy. In order to use the environment to achieve a centrally planned global economy and culture, various groups and individuals took the necessary step of inventing the "science" of biocentrism and conservation biology.

To legitimize this unproven science, the Society of Conservation Biology was created by the IUCN (World Conservation Union) in 1985 and was initially funded by various foundations. The true goal of conservation biology was made clear when the journal Conservation Biology began publication in 1987. Michael Soulé, founder and then president of the Society of Conservation Biology, outlined the radical purpose of conservation biology.

Soulé stated, when the Society was founded, "We assume implicitly that environmental wounds inflicted by ignorant humans and destructive technologies can be treated by wiser humans and by wholesome technologies."

I wonder if Soulé is pals with Agent Smith from the Matrix?

In modern conservation theory, the notion of man as a cancer on the land is a recurring theme. So the new "science" helps explain away the harsh implementation of environmental regulations that may indeed destroy individuals and communities.

In cases such as the Klamath farmers, for instance, and the destruction of an entire area by the bogus listing of a species of owl that was not endangered, we have "science" serving policy.

That science is called "biocentrism." It uses "conservation biology" and "ecosystem management" as tools to implement "managed" science. Like managed news, it is not about discovering the truth but rather about manipulating data to serve an agenda. In addition, the main screwdriver in the tool box of "biocentrism" is the concept known as the "precautionary principle."

The new science that came into being through the IUCN now gives cover to all kinds of preconceived nostrums, notions and plans for the environment and for our lives.

Over the last 30 years the underpinnings of the environmental movement are the international goals of the centrally planned concept of "sustainable development," "smart growth" U.N. Agenda 21, the Wildlands Project, biosphere reserves ad infinitum to accomplish preconceived and political ends.

But in fact it is the environment that has proven to be the most successful tool collectivists have ever used in order to achieve their agenda, an agenda that is basically the same one that Hegel, Marx and Lenin wanted.

The people who rule the green matrix seek to centrally plan our lives. They have adopted the same philosophy as those who drove the peasants off the land in Russia. They are of the same mind as the Red Guard in China.

They are willing to sacrifice science, the truth and freedom, as well as the well-being of humans and the environment, in order to promote their utopian vision for the world – a vision that considers man a cancer on the land.

Strangely, the term "green matrix" comes up in many of their studies, claims and policy papers. But this isn't a movie. It is the new totalitarian vision.

Scientists tell me that the deceit involved in the Canadian lynx study is only one of many dots in the green matrix, as once again "science is put in service to a political agenda."


The Green Matrix – Part 2:
They Blinded Us With Science
March 4, 2002

I don't think any story on any issue has been as frustrating to me as the investigation into the manipulation of data in "the case of the missing Canadian lynx."

It is frustrating because the dots are all there but the investigating agencies of the federal government – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Interior Department, Office of the Inspector General, Government Accounting Office, up to and including the Department of Justice – just can't put it all together.

The dots connect to a bigger scandal that involves how the federal green agencies like Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and BLM have been conducting business since the '70s.

The lynx hoax did not happen in a vacuum. Blaming some puny federal bureaucrats who fudged a study while ignoring the larger institutional problem is bogus.

The problem is not that federal "scientists" cooked the data on one aspect of listing the lynx as endangered in a specific "ecosystem," but rather that the entire premise of "ecosystem" is accepted as "science" in the first place.

We have a problem with the federal scientists, but we have an even bigger problem with whether or not they are in fact conducting anything approaching reputable and credible "science."

I repeat: Federal scientists are serving an agenda; they certainly are not serving science. (See The Case of the Missing Canadian Lynx and Connecting the Dots in the Case of the Missing Canadian Lynx.)

The Larger Agenda

The more serious problem, however, is that over the years agencies have been co-opted by those with a much larger agenda in mind. It is not just about listing one species and shutting down one or two forests for public use, i.e., "managing federal lands."

As the greens say, "Think globally and act locally." That mantra is at the core and heart of U.S. environmental policy.

It is fair to say that in the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service "science" got dumped years ago. It was a process that began in the '70s but received official imprimatur under Bill Clinton in 1993.

At that time, philosophy replaced "science." Conservation biology became the "science," and "ecosystem management" and "precautionary principle" the tools. The end game was to reconnect "ecosystems" from the Yukon to Mexico.

Probably not one doggone thing I have just written will matter to the federales investigating the lynx case. Most of them see only one small part of the picture; only a few of them see the big picture.

The House subcommittee meeting in March to look into the lynx case will hit a brick wall.

Investigating bodies and the committees only want to know whether or not federal and state scientists broke the law or cooked the books. They want to find out if this deserves some sort of punishment beyond the bonuses given to those biologists involved in the lynx study and the slap on the wrist that their agencies used as disciplinary action.

The feds, all of them, will run away from the fact that at its heart the fudging of data on the lynx study is the latest consequence of the implementation of very flawed laws known as the Endangered Species and Wilderness Acts.

According to the most recent article in the Washington Times, "The findings of a separate investigation by the General Accounting Office will be released at a March 7th congressional hearing. The investigation was requested by Republican Reps. James V. Hansen of Utah, House Resources chairman, and Scott McInnis of Colorado, Resources forest and forest health subcommittee chairman.

" 'I look forward to hearing the GAO's testimony next week, where they've investigated all three of the agencies involved. Certainly, there are parts of the IG's investigation that are very alarming,' " Mr. McInnis said.

The Times article by Audrey Hudson also states: "Interior investigators conducted more than 20 interviews and reviewed 'countless documents' in their inquiry, which was limited to the behavior of employees in their agency. " 'Examples of bad judgment ranged from unauthorized sample submissions by field biologists to the failure of regional and headquarters managers to recognize the significance of the incident and to execute timely and appropriate responses,' " Mr. Devaney said.

Personally, I think the specific scientists involved were just doing what they have been doing for decades and that is to use science in service to an agenda.

Therefore, the falsification or manipulation of data by federal and state conservation biologists in the recent "case of the missing Canadian lynx" should not be a big surprise.


In an article for the Seattle Times on Feb. 27, 2002, forestry and scientific consultant Brian Boyle used the term "biofraud" to describe what transpired in the lynx case, and the term applies to many other cases as well.

He wrote: "It's a case where scientists who are supposed to be committed to the rules of science are willing to violate them when facts contradict what they want to happen, like the 1998 contract survey purported to find the lynx in several forests. (Conducted by Dr. John Weaver for the Forest Service. Bobcat and housecat hair was sent to the lab and was listed by Weaver as lynx hair. That study was contaminated and he withdrew it.)"

Boyle was in charge of Washington forestry for 12 years as commissioner of Public Lands. In 1993-94 he did a national study of the Forest Service and states in the Times:

"We engaged over 600 Forest Service employees … we found significant disconnects between the 'ologists,' as they are known throughout the Forest Service, and other agency employees … wildlife and fish biologists feel driven to act as change agents … ologists stood out … they define results in terms of their own specialty and lack a clear commitment to the agency's mission."

Furthermore, "… it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in state and federal agencies that this happened. This problem has been brewing ever since the wildlife and fish people were 'forced' on the Forest Service by Congress in the mid-1970s. The lynx issue dispels any myth that agencies are using their science resources for the public good."

As I investigated the lynx case and many others as well, I found that there is massive fudging, falsification and manipulation of data. It is routine to change names and dates on maps to reflect favorably on the federal agency and its agenda.

It includes intimidation and threats to whistle-blowers and rurals who buck the system, commonplace to pay off radical green groups by giving them federal grants. No one notices as "scientists" with a philosophical and political agenda call the shots.

Meanwhile, billion-dollar tax exempt foundations lobby for legislation or pay to get guys like Bill Clinton to write up executive orders they prefer.

Who cares? It is part of the system, all part of the big "game." It is also part of the agenda to achieve the end game. So scientists "testing" the competence of a lab in the lynx study is small potatoes compared to the rest of it.

Act Locally

Mistrust of federal scientists and their agencies have been problematical since before the recent lynx flap. Politicized and philosophically driven "science" heavy on agenda and low on science is a huge part of the problem.

It comes out of the radicalization of the environmental movement in the '60s and '70s. Worse than that, and what Brian Boyle is really saying in the Seattle Times, activists have kidnapped federal land management policy and the science that goes with it.

A colleague, John Lankford, calls it "greennapping" and that is exactly what has happened.

Part of the problem and one of the dots in the matrix is that the 1968 Endangered Species Act ESA) has been taken far beyond its original intention. This has taken place primarily because of the courts being inundated by green activists listing petitions for thousands of species.

Having jurists making life-and-death scientific decisions based mostly on the testimony of agenda-driven greens means the ESA is a very spooky and dangerous law.

Courts are just one more group playing fast and loose with the fate of people and species. The law is desperately in need of reform, as is the entire system.

Along with the courts, Congress refuses to reform the ESA, fearing the wrath of the powerful environmental lobby and the sympathetic elite media that toe the green line.

Many of them know that the ESA has been "greennapped" far beyond the original intention of the law. Add the big money that runs the engine of the green juggernaut and there is a dangerous and noxious mix.

Of course, many "reputable" groups like The Nature Conservancy make it much easier for the various elements of the green matrix to hold power. I stick by my claim that The Nature Conservancy is a stalking horse for federal government.

Included in the mix are international organizations and treaties hell-bent on internationalizing American land management and ending all but nominal private property ownership. What you have is really "the green matrix."

The Dot Matrix Masters

Science rarely has anything to do with most listings. Merely fingering "scientists" involved in the lynx scam would be pointless. To be fair and balanced, Congress and the administration would have to bust the agencies up and fire 90 percent of federal "ologists" or retrain them.

Then Congress would have to take decisions on listings out of the hands of the courts and their implementation out of the agenda-driven Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service and BLM by reforming the flawed Endangered Species Act.

A listing under the ESA means hell to pay for entire economies and ways of life, usually the rural way. But it also impacts suburban areas from Maine to Florida.

The federal agencies that administer the ESA are the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. The fates of entire areas of the country as well as the lives and livelihoods and freedoms of millions, not to mention the fate of critters in some of their failed experiments, hang on their decisions regarding listing of species (

In the listing of the spotted owl, for instance, logging has dropped 89 percent, costing countless jobs.

The greens are not happy with that success, however. They are spreading the green terror into all areas of the United States. At the moment they are after ranchers who have permits to run cows on federal lands.

And they have moved on to listing species in the Southeastern United States, into Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida as the juggernaut rolls along. They are actively looking for species to list in order to end logging on private and state land in those areas.

The most recent high-profile case was the shut-off of water to farmers in the Klamath basin. In that case the federal scientists – as Brian Boyle calls them, the "ologists" – listed the trash sucker fish as endangered.

That sucker fish was supposed to need lots of water, which would otherwise go to the farmers. Just recently, however, the National Academy of Science advised that particular listing and the shut-off of water were probably totally unnecessary.

Now the federal "ologists" and their green buddies, along with some oddball opportunists in the Klamath area, are scurrying to come up with a way to get around the NAS report.

You can count on it. One hopes the Department of Interior Secretary Gale Norton will head them off at the pass. The dilemma is that they will be around after she has left office. You can count on that as well.

Another Fish to Fry

There is another fish fry happening at the moment – the case of the "endangered" coho salmon." This is one more in a string of cases as science serves an agenda, especially in the Pacific Northwest.

In the case of the salmon, federales and the greens are seeking to blow up dams, like the Condit. They do not want dams to impede the progress of the salmon upstream.

By blowing up dams the feds and greens will thereby be "repairing" fragmented "ecosystems" as man proves once again he is "a cancer on the land." Crafty and audacious humanity having the gall to build dams in the first place.

Meanwhile, in 2000, federal "ologists" killed thousands of salmon because they were hatchery salmon that had escaped into the rivers and streams of the Pacific Northwest. Thus, our godlike federal scientists decided that only "natural" fish should occupy "their" waterways.

Because the poor critters were not "wild," thousands and thousands of them were clubbed to death by the "ologists."

There is no mention made of cross-breeding of wild and unnatural salmon and which could be which and how you could tell the difference. Without DNA testing, who would know one from the other besides the godlike federal scientists?

What a country. As they move to blow up dams so "wild" salmon can live, the people impacted by such actions are considered "collateral damage" and thousands of fish and animals die because of bad decisions made by people who are nothing more than politicized bureaucrats linked to a green agenda.

Real scientists don't kill things to build an "ecosystem" or create "wild" conditions by killing animals to suit their weird science agenda. But playing games and playing god is what agenda-driven "scientists" do best. The fudging of the lynx study data was only one tiny dot, a rather unimportant dot, in the big green picture.

Check out what they did in the case of the reintroduction of the Colorado lynx at In addition, there is a complete rundown of the spotted owl listing and the adoption of "biocentrism" and "ecosystem management" in Dr. Robert G. Lee's book "Broken Land, Broken Trust" and in Dr. Alston Chase's book "In a Dark Wood."

 It is frustrating because the dots are all there but the investigating agencies of the federal government – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Interior Department, Office of the Inspector General, Government Accounting Office, up to and including the Department of Justice – just can't put it all together.


The Green Matrix – Part 3:
Weird Science – Think Globally
March 9, 2002

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

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 ( 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 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.

Diane J. Alden is a research analyst, writer, historian and political economist. She writes a column for ("pundit" section), Enterstageright, American Partisan and many other online publications. She also does occasional radio commentaries for Georgia Radio Inc.

Better known on the ezine circuit as the "prairie pontificator" Diane is a graduate of the University of Minnesota before it became PC–U offering degrees in hairy legged feminism and the cultural high lights of Rostaferianism. She has a degree in political science and economics and grad work in international economics and Eastern European studies. She also received a single credit for a course in writing articles under 10,000 words – she hopes to accomplish that feat within her lifetime.

Reach her at

BACK The Environment

TYSK eagle

News Depts Articles Library
Lite Stuff Links Credits Home

24 mar 2002