Posted on Freedom Advocates on June 27th 2005
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 ratified 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 it 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.”
Voila! 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.
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.
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 columns, 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.
The Green Matrix, Weird Science – Think Global by Diane Alden
About the author:
Diane Alden is a research analyst with a background in political science and economics. Her work has appeared in the Washington Times as well as NewsMax.com, Enterstageright, American Partisan and many other online publications. She also does radio commentaries for Steve Myers’ show on Liberty Works Monday and Friday mornings, and can be heard regularly on Mike Fleming, WREC in Memphis.
Copyright (C) 2002 Freedom.org, All rights reserved
This article contains links to outside sources not controlled by Freedom Advocates and therefore are subject to change.