Posted on 06/28/2002 2:17:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
It has been my practice for the past seven years to use the words and written material from any group or organization to try and show the American people that the blueprint for the destruction of our nation and our God-given rights is right in front of their eyes - if they would just look.
The following is a short excerpt taken from the web site of The Wildlands Project, http://www.wildlandsproject.org/
The Wildlands Project
The goal of the Wildlands Project is to set aside approximately 50% of the North American continent (Turtle Island) as "wild land" for the preservation of biological diversity(1).
The project seeks to do this by creating "reserve networks" across the continent. Reserves are made up of the following:
- Cores (2), created from public lands such as National Forest and Parks
- Buffers(3), often created from private land adjoining the cores to provide additional protection
- Corridors(4), a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and wildlife migration routes
The primary characteristics of core areas are that they are large (100,000 to 25 million acres), and allow for little, if any, human use.
The primary characteristics of buffers are that they allow for limited human use so long as they are "managed with native biodiversity as a preeminent concern."
Moral and ethical guidelines for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy of Deep Ecology(5).
The eight point platform of Deep Ecology can be summarized as follows:
- All life (human and non-human) has equal value.
- Resource consumption above what is needed to supply "vital" human needs is immoral.
- Human population must be reduced.
- Western civilization must radically change present economic, technological, and ideological structures.
- Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.
The Wildlands Project itself is supported by hundreds of groups working towards its long-term implementation. Implementation may take 100 years or more.
The Wildlands Project has received millions of dollars in support from wealthy private and corporate foundations such as the Turner Foundation, Patagonia, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Lyndhurst Foundation, etc.
Conclusion:
The Wildlands Project exist within legal boundaries, however that should not prevent us from being concerned. At the very least, it advocates an extreme manifestation of environmental and public policy. Therefore, any claim the Wildlands Project makes toward public policy must be debated, and ultimately decided, in the public arena. Yet to date it has existed almost anonymously; beyond the knowledge of the wider public. It must be examined out from behind the cover of more general environmental concerns, held up for public scrutiny, and either accepted or rejected by a public fully aware of its implications. Failing to do so could have dire consequences, for as John Adams once wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge by the people." End of propaganda.
Amen! John Adams would have dropped dead on the spot if he ever read such psycho- babble. Set aside 50% of the North American continent for the bugs, slugs and crud? The population must be reduced? All non-human life has equal value to human life? All? Well, we've already seen this theory turned into junk law where good, decent Americans have lost their business and their life savings fighting things like kangaroo rats and the unconstitutional EPA. What makes these people so dangerous, just like our tree-communing VP, Albert Gore.
Resource consumption above what's needed to supply "vital" human needs is immoral? And just who is to decide what is "resource consumption above vital" as it applies to any human? What do these terms I have numbered above mean according to the individuals who make up this group?
1. Biological diversity: The variety of life across all levels of organization from genetic diversity within populations, to species, which have to be regarded as the pivotal unit of classification, to ecosystems.
2. Core Areas: The central component of the wild land reserve program. Core areas are large, allow for little or no human use, and are taken mostly from public lands.
3. Buffer Zones: Areas of moderate, though restricted, use that surround core areas. Buffer zones are primarily drawn from private land. 4. Corridor: An area of land that connects core areas to other core areas. Corridors generally follow rivers and streams, and wildlife migration routes. They are taken from both public and private lands. [Note: This IS the American River Heritage Act and don't let anyone tell you different. Of course it's unconstitutional, but these people don't care about something so trivial as the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.]
5. Deep Ecology: Containing little of the science of ecology, deep ecology is a philosophy that gives equal value to human and non-human life. Deep ecologist believe that humans should use natural resources to satisfy only vital needs. [Note: That means no recreational areas - they don't fall under the category of vital. In other words, bugs, slugs and crud will have constitutional rights while you, the human, will have none.]
Their conclusion states that the public is unaware of their plans to drive Americans off our own land. Well, not many have read their sick web site since it went up about a year ago: 4300+. They state they have received millions of dollars from wealthy private and corporation foundations. Who would fund this drivel? The usual New World Order players: Ted Turner. Sadly, American women all across this country have enriched his Communist wife, Hanoi Jane Fonda by buying her "workout" videos in hopes they will have artificial bodies like Jane: breast implants and all the rest. If no one appears interested in this "deep ecology" malarkey, how come big corporations and foundations give millions of dollars to these people? For those of us who have done our homework, the why isn't difficult, it's just the agenda of the globalists.
Other supporters and affiliates of these dangerous zealots: Earth First! and listen to their own description: Self proclaimed eco-terror organization founded by Dave Foreman and others in 1980. Many active with the Wildlands Project are currently or formerly with Earth First! If I proclaimed my project as a "Fed-terror organization," I would have been arrested and charged long ago.
Human-i-Tees: They peddle tee-shirts at schools. Boycott them and send a clear message. Patagonia: Makers of outdoor clothing, long time financial supporters of Earth First! Boycott them and send a clear message.
Rockefeller Brother's Fund: a NYC based private foundation. EGA members and supporters of this bugs over humans group. I have said this before and I will say it again: Rockefeller fills his pockets from the sweat off YOUR back. He is a stockholder of the privately owned "Federal" Reserve Bank. His family are criminals, their history is quite well documented. He and his entire family are traitors and that includes Sen. Jay Rockefeller. Boycott the 500 companies and corporations that Rockefeller has a hand in - one of the biggest is Avon, the others are available in various public records.
Major Funders of SAFC who support this eco-terrorism: Pew Charitable Trust, Lyndhurst Foundation, Merck Family Fund, Moriah Fund, Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, Town Creek Foundation, Fred & Alice Stanback and Turner Foundation that has pledged $10 billion dollars to the Communist controlled United Nations.
A short list of the humans who run this Wildlands Project, who just might wake up some day to find they are part of the population "which must be reduced":
Barry Wendell: Popular author who frequently uses deep ecology themes in his writing.
John Davis, Editor of Wild Earth Magazine.
David Foreman: Former Wilderness Society lobbyist, co-founder and former leader of Earth First! Currently a board member of the Sierra Club.
These types of organizations that have crossed over the line between common sense and zealotry, chirp that people like me don't care about the environment. That is absolutely and patently false. I most certainly do. However, there is responsible environmental concerns that so work in harmony with personal property rights and there is The Wildlands Project. The idea that these people would quote John Adams is so preposterous, I almost can't find the words to describe the silliness of it. But, Americans should make no mistake: these people are dead serious with their bug-babble and are well funded.
If Americans want to join with a responsible organization that repudiates, as all Americans should, this drive towards a system of global governance that disavows private property and national sovereignty through mechanisms like the Wildlands Project, I highly recommend eco-logic. These intelligent, rational people approach environmental concerns and solutions in a constitutional fashion headed up by Henry Lamb and a great supporting board from people such as: Dr. John Cooper, Wichita Collegiate School, Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser, Lawrence Livermore Labs, Dr. S. Fred Singer, Science & Environmental Policy Project and Floy Lilley, J.D., University of Texas at Austin.
eco-logic can be reached in any of the following ways: 901-986-0099 (voice), 901-986-2299 (fax), e-mail: ecologic@freedom.org, P.O. Box 191, Hollow Rock, TN 38342. ECO stands for environmental conservation organization and their fabulous color magazine is worth the $35.00 per year subscription rate. I highly encourage you to become a supporter because as I said before, there is a sane, rational and constitutional way to preserve our environment for future generations. The Wildlands Project is dangerous and is just one of the many tentacles of this proposed world order coming at us like a freight train.
Of course, these people named above with eco-logic must all be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to oppose such things as described above. Are environmental wackos really wacky? You bet and one day they will come for your property. One day no humans will be allowed inside Yellowstone or Mt. Rushmore and one day in the near future and coming to a neighborhood near you: someone will make sure you don't "consume above what is needed to supply vital human needs." Remember, according to the good wackos at The Wildlands Project, that's immoral. America had better wake-up and wake-up today. Our tomorrows don't look too bright or promising.
The most extreme proponents of isolating humans from nature are the so-called “deep ecologists.” These people urge that humans adopt a “biocentric” per-spective (as opposed to an anthropocentric, or human-centered view-point). The purported goal of biocentricism is to incorporate all of nature into one’s perspective, to identify with all ecosystems in nature as one’s personal interest. Sadly, deep ecologists seem incapable of expressing that perspective themselves. The first three tenets of Deep Ecology, as articulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions, dialectically separate humans from nature, rendering a biocentric perspective, an impossible paradox:Source
- All life has value in itself, independent of its usefulness to humans.
- Richness and diversity contribute to life’s well-being and have value in themselves.
- Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs in a responsible way.
The principles of Deep Ecology (there are 8) fall afoul of several constraints. First, (as they constantly remind us) humans already are an interconnected part of nature, competing for our individual benefit in our own manner as a species. Second, “Richness and diversity” are perceptions of value, important only to humans (near monoculture is a common phenomena in nature). Third, the idea that humans are responsible for maintaining a status quo among populations of existing species as a matter of “rights” is imposing a human set of values onto the results of mortal competition among species. It is a denial of dynamic equilibrium in natural selection and antithetical to the cyclical ebb and flow of populations of predators and prey.
If humans are so inherently destructive that they must be separated from nature, how could it be possible for humans to have a biocentric view? There would certainly be no hands-on opportunity to learn one. Although that might save having to expend a lot of physical effort, how would it help?
Further, these same people believe that nature is so robust and so rugged that it is fully capable of recovery without intervention, but that it is too fragile to survive our attempts to help. To decide not to take action because of the view that nature will somehow “know better” what to do, is just as much a projection of human impressions onto nature, as is the conclusion that the situation demands the investment of time and money. There is no mechanism in the process of natural selection, that implies volition on the part of nature, much less prospective reversibility.
On the other hand, humans DO exhibit prospective volition. However, if we adhere to this perspective of doing nothing, what good is preventive intervention? How would we learn to exercise it effectively and benevolently? How would we learn to reduce the impact of urban technology if we did not interact? Such a process bias toward inaction precludes even the significant probability of constructive errors.
A biocentric perspective also presumes that humans are capable of anything other than human perception. If one is busily experiencing a totality, from what perspective does one notice that?
If humans cannot assume this pan-perspective, and are operating under the belief that they are inherently destructive, then why would they consider the effort to learn it of any redeeming value? Would that choice not also be corrupted by human desire? Why, then, act to prevent action?
Any humans action in a competitive system results in harm to something. Deep ecologists would feel distraught at the loss and guilty of the failure to prevent it. Thus, to actively seek collective dominance over people they disdain, politically forcing others into mandated inaction in order to protect themselves from risk to their personal feelings, is not only anthropocentric; it is an egocentric view.
Perhaps that is why it seems to be so popular!
BTTT!
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, enviro-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Stop the attacks by the wacko, extreme left-wing, enviro-nazis terrorist's on our Freedoms !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
"Equal opportunity for all. Special privilige for none." --Al Gore, Third Way summit, 2000
"If the protection of the environment is promoted as an end in itself, there is the risk that new modern forms of colonialism will come into being, which might injure the traditional rights of resident communities in a specific territory," the Holy Father explained.... as an end in itself ... is exactly where the watermelon enviralists and their enablers and minions are taking us. Agenda 21 is the guidebook they are using, and all too much of it has already been codified into current local, County, State, and Federal rules and regulations via the 'sounds good - feels right' acceptance of the composite boilerplate suggestions therefrom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.