I was looking for Henry's article on the Wildlands Project. He wrote it several years ago, and had it back on his site one day last week. The next time I checked you had to be a member to view it. It's a helluva article if you can get it. Also check out The New American - Battle for Sustainable Freedom - April 29, 1996. It's on the link above. I found it yesterday and have been studying it; IT IS A MUST READ. Use link above or link here: The New American - Battle for Sustainable Freedom
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no09/vo12no09_sustainable_freedom.htm They are using the Wildlands Project and all their various and other sundry and nefarious projects to steal NOT only our land, but to set up REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS, WHEREBY WE WOULD LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND BILL OF RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, AND WOULD COME UNDER THE RULE OF THE COMMUNIST UNITED NATIONS AND ITS UNELECTED NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGO'S)(the following from the New American article)........
Bioregional Approach
According to McDonnell, "All of the principles and objectives outlined in the Global Biodiversity Assessment" -- including the essentials of the Wildlands Project -- "have been embraced by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, circumventing the fact that we stopped the Senate from ratifying the treaty." Furthermore, through Vice President Gore's "reinventing government" initiative, the GBA's principles and objectives have been integrated into the mandates for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior.
One immediate result of this development is the Clinton Administration's adoption of the UN's "bioregional management" approach to environmental regulation. The PCSD report asserts: "Many scientists and resource managers now believe that biodiversity ... can only be protected through cooperative efforts across large landscapes that often cross ownership boundaries"; it recommends that "communities in a region work together to deal with issues that transcend jurisdictional and other boundaries."
Interior Secretary Babbitt also endorsed "bioregional management" in his address to the National Religious [!!!!] Partnership on the Environment, in which 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."
One example of the Clinton Administration's "bioregional" approach is the Northwest Forest Plan, which Babbitt proudly describes as "a holistic agreement" intended to preserve "critical habitat" across state borders. The Forest Plan was created in closed sessions by un elected bureaucrats in connivance with unaccountable eco-activists -- providing a preview of the fashion in which "bioregional councils" would operate under the UN's Biodiversity regime.
31 posted on 02/09/2002 4:49 PM PST by Ethan_Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Ethan_Allen
The Wildlands radicals are eagerly advancing the UN/Clinton Administration design, demanding the complete eradication of local and state jurisdictions -- and, eventually, national borders. "Over time, each regional planning group will develop a map-based program for their bioregion," explains Michael Soule. "Later, representatives of the bioregional groups will meet and integrate their plans into a national, then continental strategy."
Unaccountable "Consensus"
The "bioregional councils" under development would be governed by representatives of the "international civil society" -- UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGO), many of them taxpayer-funded and foundation-subsidized. From 1993-95, the U.S. Department of the Interior allocated more than $242 million to some 869 NGOs and activists, including the Nature Conservancy, which (as noted above) spearheads property acquisition efforts on behalf of the eco-regulatory apparat. Such groups, Henry Lamb explained, "are considered the authentic voice of public opinion because they always support the UN-defined 'consensus.' Public opinion that doesn't support the UN's 'consensus' is called 'populist action' and is discounted altogether."
Citing Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN-aligned Commission on Global Governance, Lamb suggested that the "bioregional councils" may eventually be used as administrative units of a UN-dominated world government. He pointed out that Our Global Neighborhood recommends that the UN's "Trusteeship Council," an obsolete organ which had been used to manage decolonization efforts, be entrusted with the management of the "global commons" -- that is, the regulation of the environment.
According to Lamb, "The report calls for the creation of a 'Petitions Council' composed of five to seven representatives of accredited NGOs. They would help direct funding decisions, define administrative duties, and authorize enforcement actions. The world would be divided up into bioregions administered by bioregional councils under direct supervision of the UN and with enforcement authority through the petitions council." In anticipation of this development, Lamb observed, "The map of the U.S. is being redrawn into 21 bio-regions, and current federal policy is to eradicate county and state boundaries by subsuming them into contiguous 'eco-systems.'"
Another indication of the Clinton Administration's subservience to the UN's environmental agenda was the President's decision to grant "the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit" to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) by Executive Order on January 18th. Lamb referred to the IUCN as "the grandaddy of environmental NGOs." Co-created by Julian Huxley, the devout eugenicist and social Darwinist who served as the founding director-general of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization,* In 1947 Huxley wrote that among UNESCO's most urgent tasks was "to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Accordingly, it is appropriate that the IUCN produced the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment, which suggests that the human population should be reduced to one billion.
the IUCN is the major umbrella for the environmental groups which are carrying out the mandates of the Biodiversity treaty and the Wildlands Project.*******
"When the IUCN was given the equivalent of diplomatic immunity by Bill Clinton, we just about jumped out of our skins," Lamb recalled. "We called the White House, the office of the Vice President, and leaders on Capitol Hill, and nobody was able to tell us why it was done. We've still got some requests for information in, and maybe, if we are lucky, by the year 2000 somebody will condescend to respond." Michael Coffman, expressing similar dismay over the Administration's decision, stated, "The only reason why such an order would be issued would be to allow IUCN -- an unelected group with no mandate or legal standing -- to create and implement policy in this country in ways that injure American citizens. It's simply outrageous."
32 posted on 02/09/2002 4:49 PM PST by Ethan_Allen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/621506/posts
consultant Joan Veon. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) addressed the meeting's closing banquet.
A Cancer on the Planet
As Dr. Michael Coffman warned, the premise of sustainable development is that "human society, particularly industrial society, is a cancer on the planet and must be eradicated." Panelists at the conference documented that the realization of the UN's designs would require the abolition of national sovereignty, central planning of the world economy, systematic disruption of the traditional family, a radical reduction in the human population, and the adoption of a pre-industrial standard of living for those allowed to inhabit the earth.
Dennis Avery, an agricultural economist with the Hudson Institute, pointed out that sustainable development advocates are pursuing mutually incompatible goals: They seek to "stabilize" the human population at nine billion by the year 2050 while simultaneously requiring a worldwide conversion to organic agriculture and preventing large-scale deforestation. "If we were to rely on organic farming to feed a population of nine billion, as Al Gore would require, we would have to plow down a land area equivalent to all of South America, North America, continental Europe, and half of Africa," Avery observed.
Organic farming -- that is, the abandonment of pesticides, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, and methods of high-yield agriculture -- could not support the present population, Avery maintained. "At best, it could support a population of about three billion -- roughly half of what we have now. We're not going to get -- humanely -- to a global population of three billion, as some environmentalists desire. We're not going to have a vegetarian world, and there aren't going to be happy Third World peoples living cheerfully in 15th-century peasant villages." Accordingly, Avery wryly observed, "We are left with the 'humane' choice between famine, bullets, and poison gas."
Professor Jacqueline Kasun presented a detailed analysis of key UN documents, including the global population plan created at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, the "Plan of Action" created at the 1995 UN women's conference in Beijing, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She described the UN's vision as that of "a world environmental zoo-park" in which human society would be radically realigned.
As a result of the UN's social initiatives, Kasun predicted, "The family as we know it will come under even greater pressures than ever before." In pursuit of UN-mandated "gender equity," more women will be driven from their homes, making it increasingly difficult for male heads of households to find adequate jobs in the labor market, and children will be separated from their families at ever-earlier ages and indoctrinated in the nostrums of population control.
Jim Sheehan, a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, described the "greening" of global trade through the NAFTA and GATT trade accords. "What the Greens mean by free trade is not what market advocates understand to be free trade, which increases the personal choices for consumers," Sheehan warned. "What they seek is the abolition of trade barriers and linking international trade to environmental regulation."
Through the NAFTA pact, according to Sheehan, regulators are "harmonizing" environmental regulations across North America "using UN environmental regulations as a baseline." Similar initiatives are underway using GATT's dispute settlement process -- which is now binding, thanks to the World Trade Organization. As a result, explained Sheehan, advocates of global central environmental planning are using international trade "in the same way that the federal government has used the interstate commerce clause to extend its jurisdiction into nearly every transaction or social interaction in this country."
Pagan Worldview
In her address to the conference, Representative Helen Chenoweth pointed out that the concept of "sustainable development" is inspired by a religious worldview -- "a cloudy mixture of earth worship, pagan mysticism, and folklore." That worldview was endorsed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt during a November 21st address to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, in which he condemned traditional Christianity and exalted pagan nature worship as the basis for a new social "covenant." Chenoweth noted that Babbitt "really believes nature and the natural landscape are literally holy and that anything we do on the landscape is sacrilegious -- that we're disturbing his temple."
Babbitt is not unique in his devotion to eco-paganism. Vice President Al Gore's soporific opus Earth in the Balance dismisses Christianity and other monotheistic religions as inadequate for the needs of contemporary society and urges the enshrinement of a "pan- religious perspective" as the basis of a world spiritual tradition. Furthermore, the UN Environmental Programme's Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), a 1,140-page document which provides the theoretical and conceptual basis for the world body's environmental agenda, maintains that sustainable development will require the abolition of biblical civilization and the adoption of the values of pre-Christian pagan societies.
In a chapter entitled "The Economic Value of Biodiversity," the GBA describes the pre- Christian world as a primitive utopia in which people perceived themselves to belong to "a community of beings -- living and non-living" joined in "relationships with other community members, be they trees, birds, or mountain peaks...." Inhabitants of such societies often worshiped "certain species as sacred, with elaborate myths and folk tales about how humans originated from such species, or how such species are incarnations of, or in some way associated with, gods and deities, or how they have magical powers."
Such paganism, according to the GBA, prevailed in the world "for most of human existence" -- Christian civilization being merely an unfortunate detour. The document contends that the Western worldview "is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that has its roots in Greek philosophy, and became firmly established about 2,000 years ago with the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions."
The triumph of biblical monotheism led to the emergence of "a new worldview, and a new value system":
This perspective, especially as elaborated in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, set humans not as part of a wider community of beings, but apart.... Societies dominated by Islam, and especially by Christianity, have gone the farthest in setting humans apart from nature and in embracing a value system that has converted the world into a warehouse of commodities for human enjoyment.
Some portions of the GBA read as if they had been composed by a coven of neo- Canaanites. The Old Testament records that the ancient pagan Canaanites worshiped in "sacred groves," in which they propitiated their deities and abandoned themselves to ritualized depravity. The GBA observes that pagan cultures which converted to Christianity "began to cut down the sacred groves, to bring the land under cultivation," and otherwise adopt the values of the West. However, in India, Myanmar, and elsewhere in the far east, "many of these people have ... re-established the sacred groves, although they are now termed safety forests instead." The preservation of sacred groves, according to the GBA, is a model to be followed by governments and non-governmental organizations that seek to protect endangered species and habitat.
Restoring "biodiversity" will also require radical population control, according to the GBA. The section of the document dealing with "growth in human population and natural resource consumption" suggests three possible population models for a "sustainable" global society. An agricultural society "in which most human beings are peasants ... should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people...." For "an industrialized world society at the present North American standard of living [the figure] would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
The UN's Global Diversity Assessment presents the choice of global peonage or mass genocide, and leaves the details of accomplishing either option to the ingenuity of national governments.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no09/vo12no09_sustainable_freedom.htm