Green Fascism How Ecological Extremists Seek To Curtail Freedom

Green Fascism
How Ecological Extremists Seek To Curtail Freedom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By EDWARD ZEHR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crowd looked on expectantly. And then, over the crest of the ridge, the riders came, 140 or more, profiled against the sky, many of them carrying American flags, some of which were upside down. The national anthem boomed forth from a "sound system in the encampment on the opposite side of the A Canal, crowded with more than 300 spectators," according to a front page story in the Klamath Falls Herald and News.

One of the riders, I. F. Rodgers, was quoted by the paper as saying, "The anthem brought tears to my eyes, I couldn't talk. It was the most wonderful and thrilling ride I ever went on." Rodgers had lost everything in 1992, "the first year water cutbacks occurred in the Klamath Reclamation Project," says the Herald and News, and "was forced to sell off land and declare bankruptcy on a ranch and farm in the Poe Valley."

"Any time you lose water, it breaks you. The only ones that come out OK are the attorneys," said Rodgers. Another rider, Diane Mathies, said, "It made me proud to be an American, It was contradictory, but I was proud to stand up for what I believe in."

The Story Unfolds in Klamath Falls

The following day, Saturday, the federal gestapo dispatched to Klamath Falls to ensure that local farmers would not avail themselves of the water allocated to the eco-extremists' precious trash fish by our all-knowing, benevolent federal autocracy, were subjected to a bit of antic harassment. Livestock "wandered" into the federal "compound" and were shooed away by the troopers guarding the headgates. Then came a series of fence-jumpers, chased around in the Keystone tradition by harried federal mili-cops. "You're under arrest," snarled one of the feds at an interloper. "No I'm not," said the intruder, who promptly jumped into the nearby lake. The feds were reluctant to give chase and, noting that the water was more than a tad "slimy," implored the young man to come out and give himself up lest he become "infected", even as he dog-paddled off into the distance.

Shortly thereafter, the "Klamath Navy" made a demonstration of force majeur off the coast of the "compound." Jeff Head, a pro-farmer publicist, reported that, "2 boats full of people have entered the inlet at the headgates at Klamath Lake . The U.S. Park Police are attempting to surround them,
but they're having difficulty getting down to the water near them. The protesters in the boats are causing no problems, but evidently are too close to Federal 'property'. The crowd of over 500 patriotic Americans is cheering and chanting,"

Evidently the local farmers had not been overly impressed by Jeff McCracken of the Bureau of Reclamation, who had made an appearance to hand out calendars and offer hollow "explanations" for our all-caring, benevolent federal government's heartless decision to cut off their irrigation water, creating a man-made drought in the region. Jeff Head writes that, "When questioned he admitted that the water and the deeds to it belong to the people, the farmers, but that THEY (the government) built the dams for them. He stated he was sorry that the laws have no "conscience," but his charge is to enforce the law."

But what IS the law? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 forbids killing, harassing, or damaging habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of any species deemed to be in danger of going extinct, without explicit permission. Congress has the power to grant such permission, but the Senate recently voted 52-to-48 in favor of the "endangered" suckerfish, at the expense of drought-parched farmers in the Klamath Basin region of southwestern Oregon .

McCracken stumbled and stuttered "when asked about the fact that the water level is a foot higher than the top level set by the government," basically taking a 'so what' attitude," according to Head. A report by the Associated Press says that, "Even in a drought-dry summer, the lake is swelling. The agency had set a minimum lake elevation of 4,140 feet above sea level to protect endangered fish ..." Michael Milstein writes in The Oregonian that "preliminary calculations by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now suggest the lake's lowest level this year -- likely to be reached in September -- will be about a foot higher than what biologists ruled must stay in the lake to protect suckers through the drought."

Local authorities are disposed to weigh the interests of voters a little more heavily than those of trash fish. Later that evening Sheriff Evinger appeared at the headgates in Klamath Falls and read, to the plaudits of the crowd, a letter he had just dispatched to the Department of the Interior in Washington , DC . He was wearing a dark blue cap and jacket with "US FARMER" emblazoned on the back, similar to the raid jackets sported by the feds. In his letter, the Sheriff requested that the federal Park Police leave the headgates, saying that the necessary security would be provided locally.

The following Tuesday, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton announced that "between 70,000 and 75,000 acre-feet of water for crops and livestock could begin flowing as soon as Wednesday," according to an AP report. It was a victory for the farmers, albeit a modest one. As the AP noted, "the water to be released is less than 20 percent of the 450,000 acre-feet that would typically be released into the canals."

While welcoming Norton's decision, Farmers Against Regulatory Madness (FARM) note that, "Economically, this water delivery will not benefit the Klamath Basin farmers." Characterizing the Interior Department's decision as "an admission of error by the federal government," the FARM
statement concluded with the assertion that, "This water delivery is a battle won for this group, but...the war rages on."

Expressing concern about the farm families, Secretary Norton stressed that, "This is what we are allowed to do under the Endangered Species Act." The 75,000 acre-feet of water released represent the one foot of margin between the level of the lake and the figure specified as the minimum for the safety of the suckerfish. The Interior Department is constrained by the Endangered Species Act which delegates to bureaucrats the power to determine the guidelines for shutting off the water. Congress has the power to grant exceptions, but it recently voted not to afford relief to the farmers of the Klamath Basin region, a fact that was notably missing from the few sparse articles on this story that have appeared recently in the mainstream press.

Not that the federal government was always so concerned about the "endangered" suckerfish. Mark Hunter, writing in the Denver Post, blames the sad plight of the poor, imperiled fishies "on wildlife agencies that during the 1960s and '70s poisoned entire rivers to kill 'trash' fish that are now considered endangered."

One of the more striking aspects of the Klamath controversy is the paucity of evidence supporting the government's position. Yet few seem inclined to question the conclusions which serve as the rationale for this man-made disaster created by an authoritarian government, out of control. In an article titled " Klamath Basin Realities and Enviro-Myths," Dick Carleton examines the levels of Klamath Lake for the years '92,' 94 '95, '96 and '97 and the consequences for the indigenous fish":

Year      Min Lake Elev
1992       4137.37                 No fish kills
1994       4136.79                 No fish kills
1995       4138.60                 Fish kills
1996       4138.72                 Fish kills
1997       4140.10                 Fish kills
(Source: US Bureau of Reclamation)

Carleton comments: "Please notice that the higher lake levels in '95, '96, and '97 produced fish kills whereas the lower lake levels in '92 and '94 did not. Also notice that the lake level in '97 was almost 1 1/2 feet higher than in '96 and there were fewer fish reported in '97 by the Fish and Wildlife Service."

Even a cursory glance at the above table should suffice to convince the most ardent greenie (in theory, that is) that there is something terribly wrong with the government's rationale for creating an artificial dust bowl. Their stated conclusions are contradicted by their own figures, which are explained as follows by Carleton:

"Higher lake levels produce fish kills. Heavy algae blooms reduce oxygen levels at the bottom of the lake where we find sucker habitat. Higher lake levels prevent winds and currents from turning over lake water. Simply and factually, higher lake levels endanger the suckers."

Are even federal bureaucrats capable of such moronic incompetence?

Noting that, "Steve Lewis is the biologist who gave the biological opinion for the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommending that the minimum lake level be raised to its highest level in history," Carleton goes on to suggest that a hidden agenda may be involved. It seems that the biologist Lewis is also the Commodore of the Klamath Yacht Club. "In late summer when the lake levels drop, yachtsmen must take their boats out of the water because their keels are in the mud," writes Carleton. Noting that Lewis owns a boat on Upper Klamath Lake , Carleton can't help wonder if the biologist is "protecting the sucker, or is Mr. Lewis protecting himself and his real love, boating?"

This is an invidious insinuation, to be sure, but how is the glaring discrepancy between the facts and figures, on the one hand, and the government's decision, on the other, to be explained? It hardly seems credible that the flawed decision of a single biologist would be allowed to create a man-made disaster with nationwide political implications, yet this whole affair has a very unseemly smell, especially when you consider that the man-made drought is having a disastrous effect on the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge. Carlton writes that "an entire ecosystem is being destroyed. Habitat for ducks and geese, deer and antelope, muskrats, birds, insects and a myriad of other wildlife is being destroyed or severely limited." Is it possible that a much larger hidden agenda is involved in this tangled tale?

In order to answer this question it will first be necessary to consider the hidden ideological motives that underlie the "environmental" movement.

The Ideological Ambience

"Will we ever experience fascism in this country?" asked an inquiring reporter of "Kingfish" Huey Long, the depression era dictator of Louisiana . "Yes," said the Kingfish, "but we'll call it democracy."

The Kingfish had learned that hard times bring out the worst in people. Many are willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder, enabling the charlatans who pretend to represent us to buy us with our own money. This inherent flaw in political systems based on self-determination has been recognized for as long as such systems have existed. Socrates is said to have commented on this, but then he was always grumbling about something. In more recent times, the royalist, anti-democratic British historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay observed that "democracy will last until the populace learn that they can vote themselves emoluments from the public treasury."

Macaulay was a staunch opponent of independence for this country, insisting that our form of government would never work for the reason cited above. He may yet prove to be right -- the issue is far from settled. Every society has its quota of degenerate, weak-minded nitwits who are prepared to barter away their freedom (and ours) for the proverbial "mess of potage." (This archaic term refers to a thick stew of vegetables, such as was served up to inmates in institutions back in the bad old days. When their keepers were feeling well disposed -- which was not often -- they might even add a lump of meat or two).

Since the depression of the 1930s, the Democratic Party has been the chief advocate of programs contrived to buy up our liberties in exchange for government largess paid for with our money. Of course, the money gets redistributed just a little, horrible bit in the process, which is really what
makes it all seem worthwhile to underachievers. So what's wrong with that, ask the liberals in all apparent innocence. Too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands, so why not spread it around a little?

What's wrong with that, in a word, is positive feedback. Okay, that's two words, but it still describes with penetrating succinctness the fatal flaw in all political/economic systems based on Marxist ideology, including socialism, however well disguised. The characteristic of all self regulating systems subject to positive feedback is that the system's output stimulates more of the same input that produced it. Thus the output, free from all constraint, builds up and up and up – until something breaks. At least that's the theory. Such systems are said to be unstable.

A political system based on buying the acquiescence of the voters with emoluments from the public treasury is grossly unstable on the face of it -- each new freebie only whets the public's appetite for more. The more they get, the more they want -- the more they want, the more they get. Since
freebies are not inexhaustible, the feedback loop cannot go on diverging forever.

So why did it take the better part of the 20th century for the Soviet Union to collapse? The answer to that is obvious -- the Soviet economy was not self regulating. Nor was the political system. Both were run "open loop," that is to say, everything was done on command from higher authority -- there was typically no appreciable feedback. Such a political system is called despotism. Even so, the Soviet System lasted for less than a century -- just long enough for the younger members of the ruling class to realize that the game wasn't worth a candle. The system "worked", but very badly.

Democrats seem to envision a political/economic system based on a kind of watered-down Marxism, such as most European countries now have. Such systems are supposed to work because the Marxism is "moderate" (i.e. "socialist") and the politics are "democratic," which, in modern terms, means that public assent is bought with the public's money, while the truth about what is going on is dissembled with a massive smokescreen of propaganda provided by a compliant media.

But in truth, the economies of most European countries really don't work that well. That is partly because Europeans do not work all that hard -- I happen to know because I worked there for the better part of a decade. I'll admit that I found their laid-back ways appealing, but I can't say as much for their stagnant economies. The European living standard is noticeably lower than ours. And the demand for government freebies keeps building up, stimulated by the incitement of power-hungry politicians. The instability is undoubtedly there, but it is a slow one that could take a long time to diverge to unmanageable proportions, barring some unforeseen economic crisis.

Such a crisis might be induced artificially by an irrational act such as adopting the Kyoto Accords, designed to bleed off wealth from the developed countries for the enrichment of the corrupt Third World politicians who manipulate the U.N. to their advantage. Naturally, environmental idealists do not see it that way -- they live in a stylized wish-fulfillment fantasy world in which politicians do not act like politicians and people behave like cartoon characters of their imagining, totally subservient to their every whim.

In a desperate effort to save face, a number of countries reached agreement on a watered down version of the Kyoto accords last week. By giving industrialized countries extra credit for forests and farmlands, which absorb CO2, against their obligations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions the
conferees greatly reduced the liability of these countries, inducing stragglers such as Canada and Japan to go along with the sham. The greenies were not fooled – MSNBC reports that the World Wildlife Fund complained "the heavy allowance for these carbon sinks effectively reduced the commitment in the Kyoto accord to cut emissions by 5.2 percent from their 1990 levels. The real reduction would be closer to 1.8 percent ..." In other words, the new agreement reduces the commitment by 65 percent.

Philip Stott, a professor of biogeography at the University of London and one of Britain's leading climatologists says that, "Even if all the countries achieved all the cuts in emissions proposed [in the original Kyoto protocol], the effect would be a temperature change by 2100 of 0.07 to 0.2
[degrees Celsius] at best." Thus, if we assume a linear relationship between reduction in CO2 emissions and reduction of temperature change, all this huffing and puffing should suffice to impede global warming by 0.02 to 0.07 degrees Celsius. Even the greatly reduced commitments of the new agreement are largely cosmetic -- the conferees spent days haggling over the enforcement provisions until the agreement had been rendered exceedingly difficult to enforce. Even so, Australia has given indications that it is going to bail out of the new agreement unless all penalty provisions are removed from it. The effect of this will be a further delay in adoption of the agreement. The Sydney Morning Herald comments, "it is understood Australia had won support for its delaying tactics from the US , Canada , Russia and possibly Japan." All of which reinforces the impression that the real purpose of Kyoto is to provide European socialists and their pals in the American mainstream press with more hot air to blow at the Bush administration.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union , the Marxists have taken refuge in the environmental movement, their last, best hope for keeping alive the fantasy of a command economy. Since Marxist economics have proven useless as a means of providing for the wants and needs of the people, the new crypto-Marxists have resorted to an attempt to shock and terrify people with "scary scenarios" of global environmental disaster, whether it be an impending ice age or catastrophic global warming. (Eco-extremists are nothing if not flexible). The bottom line of their message is, "unless you do EXACTLY as we say, you are all doomed to utter ruin if not extinction. " Environmental catastrophe has replaced nuclear winter as the left's "kinder-schreck" (bogeyman) of preference. The object of the exercise is to frighten the public into accepting a much reduced standard of living.

That is not to say that all greenies are scoundrels. I've known a few and they all seemed like nice people to me. It's just that they are a bit naive about such things as economics and politics. I once worked for an early member of the Green Party in Germany . He spent hours lecturing me on the "lessons" of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island . But in most respects he was as nice as he could be and a very good supervisor. He was highly idealistic, however, which made it difficult for him to compromise once he had made up his mind about something. This can be awkward in a management environment where lots of give and take is involved -- consequently his tenure was a short one.

The people who guide and manipulate the environmental movement are another matter. Mark Vande Pol writes that "What was once a group of dedicated volunteers is now becoming a brutal phalanx of corporate foundations, government agencies, lawyers, and global power interests, all manipulating private resource value for ulterior purposes."

Rural Cleansing

If Vande Pol is correct, there may be more involved in the current confrontation at Klamath Falls than leftist ideology in green disguise. Since the big money boys have taken over the environmental movement, more than a hint of post-Marxist corruption has become evident. Vande Pol writes: "When government gains the power to control the use of private property, it becomes possible for the politically dominant to profit by high commodity prices using government regulation to constrain supply. One merely drives competitors out of business by manipulating the perception of risk to a land use preferred by a democratic majority."

What gives the decision by federal bureaucrats to shut off irrigation water to 1400 farm families in the Klamath Basin , on the pretext that they are attempting to protect "endangered" suckerfish, a particularly ugly smell is the fact that the reasons given by the feds for their action are so transparently contrived. Vande Pol notes that, "Federal action to protect suckerfish has been to retain water in the lake to keep the level as high as possible in a drought year." However, he goes on to explain: "Unfortunately for that rationale, suckerfish apparently prefer shallow water in what would have been a drying swamp but for construction of the lake. Bureau of Reclamation records reportedly document high water levels corresponding with suckerfish kills in 1995, 1996, and 1997 and no kills corresponding with lower levels in 1992 and 1994."

In other words, these wretched creatures thrive on flopping around in the mud and are most at risk when the lake is full. Odd that the Bureau of Reclamation didn't know about that, is it not? Here they are, prepared to destroy the livelihoods of 1400 hard working farm families in order to "save the suckerfish," yet they don't even know enough about the poor "endangered" fishies to realize that it is their own actions which place them in greatest danger.

This would be considered far enough beyond strange in any rational society to require a detailed explanation, but in our slapdash, anything goes culture, the protected bureaucratic species of fat-faced stone-wallers simply dummy up, while the foxes who stand tireless vigil at the chicken coop, our grand and glorious "free" press, primly avert their gaze and pretend not to notice anything out of the ordinary.

But wait, it gets better. Vande Pol informs us that, "In only 3 years, since 1991, has the lake elevation been higher than it is now." In short, this entire "crisis" was contrived out of thin air. Vande Pol notes that "Subsequent scientific evaluation of the study has indicated that it was deeply flawed. Agency action has been to deny review or just compensation to the OWNERS of the water. Federal Marshals have instead taken possession of private property by force."

What remains to be determined is the reason for the federal government's deception. Vande Pol asserts that, "The original goal of environmental health has been pushed aside in the aggressive pursuit of parochial interests." The parochial interest in this case would appear to be that of using the Endangered Species Act in a fraudulent manner as a means of driving down property values in an effort to force farm families to sell out for a fraction of what their land is worth.

But how could anyone hope to succeed at so blatant a scam? Vande Pol explains: "As democratic claims against the use of property proliferate, legislatures and courts are overwhelmed with cases that are technical and difficult to prove. Neither have the power to enforce a judgment. The demand for expediency seduces them into defaulting upon their constitutional responsibilities to the only remaining branch with relevant expertise and police power: the executive branch of government. Administrative agencies can then acquire power by effecting public claims on the use of private property. That process proceeds unchecked as agencies gain sufficient power to ignore the preferences of the democratic majority and instead use the asset to express their own interests."

No doubt the porcine bureaucrats would reply to any allegation of malfeasance by insisting, "You can't prove it." Of course not, the deck has been meticulously stacked and they hold all the high cards. The "environmental" movement has become a billion-dollar industry with unlimited funds at its disposal with which to disinform the public. They are staunchly supported in this endeavor by a "free" press worthy of a police state. And, most significantly, they have the "law" on their side -- a legal code subverted over a period of years by leftist autocrats in black robes.

The implications of this extend far beyond the Klamath Basin , for as Vande Pol notes, "Legal precedents sufficient to take control of individual property are sufficient to take control of ALL property. To socialize private property is a monstrous evil because control of the resource falls under an agent with no structural motive to prevent or eliminate ecological problems."

And if you have any doubts about that, consider the state of the land in an industrial park featured in a TV special some years ago. The park, which was the property of the People's Republic of Germany (a.k.a. communist East Germany), boasted such scenic features as a bubbling river of green slime that flowed from a fog shrouded chemical plant off in the distance. The "water" (or chemical waste) was topped here and there with patches of sickly, gray froth that seemed to emit noxious vapors. The "trees" in the park resembled telephone poles festooned with the stumps of branches long since rotted away. The overall impression was that of the Club Sierra's worst nightmare. If the Volksrepublik had any "structural motive" to eliminate these ecological horrors it had long since withered away, much as the state was supposed to do according to Marxist theory.

All of which supports Vande Pol's observation that "civic management of the environment not only doesn't work, it has every reason not to work. As ecological problems worsen and resulting economic crises deepen, the power acceded to government agencies expands while destroying the ability to finance solutions!"

That describes East German industry to perfection. It was being run to destruction with the safety valves tied down. The point that ecologists invariably miss when they paint glowing visions of their brave new world is that there is no way to get there from here. Their very existence is the
product of our excess affluence. The effect of their agenda would be to eliminate the economic cushion which made their program viable in the first place.

The net effect is that, "The agency instead serves the limited interests of the politically dominant, who use the power of government to gain de facto control of ALL factors of production. History teaches that this is not a good thing," writes Vande Pol. Indeed, this is the sort of thing against which we fought a Cold War extending over half-a-century.

"Private 'charitable' foundations of major corporations" have devised a nationwide strategy of promoting legislation and court decisions aimed at property owners. Vande Pol explains that, "Property owners gradually lose their ability to finance the cost of compliance or legal resistance. Lacking a profitable use of the property, the market value approaches zero. After repeated exercise of expensive regulations, purchase of the land then concludes any remaining claim by an owner."

It may be difficult to convince the public of this, and yet it goes a long way toward explaining why the "environmental" movement has become the favorite "charity" of so many foundations bankrolled by major corporations. The corporate power suits realized early on that they could not beat the environmental movement, which is promoted and protected by our left-leaning mainstream media, so they gradually bought it. They have pumped millions into the movement, which is why the main offices of the Club Sierra have come to resemble those of a Fortune-500 company.

The result of this subterfuge is a conundrum worthy of quantum physics -- it is a strange complementarity that resembles anti-corporatism when viewed by one observer and corporate venality run amuck, when viewed by another. It all depends upon the test which the observer applies.

At first glance all of this seems a bit far-fetched, and yet it goes far to explain certain anomalies which otherwise remain enormously puzzling -- why, for example, so many "conservative" commentators have been unable to bring the Klamath Basin crisis into focus. Many of these same commentators have been acerbic in their criticism of "environmental-whackos."

Another puzzle that might be explained by what I will call the Vande Pol paradigm is the strange silence of Republicans regarding this affair. After all, GOP senators voted overwhelmingly to grant an exception to the Endangered Species Act for the embattled Klamath Basin farmers. One might think that this would be the ideal cause with which to belabor their hypocritical liberal opponents who never cease to portray them as callous and indifferent to the needs of citizens. Could it be that they are inhibited by the knowledge that many of their largest campaign contributions come from the very sources that bankroll the "environmental" movement? Or is it just that they recognize they cannot win this battle with the mass media so overwhelmingly biased against them?

As for the media, they have a vested interest in supporting both agendas of the movement bankrolled by corporate behemoths that patronize them with millions in advertising revenue. Klamath Falls is a story made for TV, but the networks have all avoided it. Many liberals have been unable to believe that the mass media are biased in their favor, invariably citing those petty exceptions that prove the rule. "What about the McLaughlin Group?" they defiantly demand, ignoring the dozen or so similar TV hand-puppet shows that tilt the other way. They are simply unable to fathom that a broadcast industry so completely dependent on big business for its revenue could be inclined to favor liberal Democrats.

But wherein lies the problem? Do these same big corporations not bankroll the Democratic Party, perhaps not to the same extent as the GOP, but close? Do I mean that they work both sides of the street? Of course they do -- their business has to go on even when the Democrats are in control. The problem of those "follow the money" liberal skeptics is that the political machinations of large corporations and liberal politicians are a lot more subtle than they would have them. This leads them to break off their analysis when troubling contradictions arise.

Well then, if the paradigm is valid, what are these "parochial interests" that militate against the Klamath Basin farmers? Vande Pol names a few: "Residential development interests desire to purchase land at low prices to construct estate properties for the wealthy. Resource industries desire to raise prices by restricting access to land for mineral and food production. Activist groups want grant money to run the place. Agency personnel want to increase the scope of their authority and will do so at the expense of your freedom."

This scenario was made even more explicit in an article by Kimberley Strassel that appeared in Thursday's Wall Street Journal. Strassel writes that, although environmental groups used the "endangered" suckerfish as their pretext for cutting off irrigation water to Klamath, [they] revealed another motive when they submitted a polished proposal for the government to buy out the farmers and move them off their land."

Strassel has a term for "what's really happening in Klamath" -- she calls it "rural cleansing." What's more, "it's repeating itself in environmental battles across the country. Indeed, the goal of many environmental groups--from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Natural Resources Council--is no longer to protect nature. It's to expunge humans from the countryside."

"Environmental" groups use nearly identical tactics in every case to pursue their hidden agenda: first they "sue or lobby the government into declaring rural areas off-limits to people who live and work there." Their primary tool for accomplishing this is the Endangered Species Act, supplemented by "local preservation laws, most of which are so loosely crafted as to allow a wide leeway in their implementation." While some of the property owners lose their land straightaway, the more usual procedure is for the "environmentalists" to cause restrictions to be placed on the use of their land "that either render it unusable, or persuade owners to leave of their own accord," writes Strassel.

The application of these tactics in the Klamath Basin region began in 1983 when suckerfish were listed as an "endangered species." At first, the Bureau of Reclamation, which controls irrigation in the region, attempted to balance off the "needs" of the fish against those of the farmers. But when drought struck in 1991, the Fish and Wildlife people began to tilt more towards the fish. "That was the environmentalists' cue," writes Strassel. "Within two months, the Oregon Natural Resources Council--the pit bull of Oregon 's environmental groups--was announcing intentions to sue the Bureau of Reclamation for failure to protect the fish."

The eco-nazis' initial legal maneuvers did not meet with immediate success, "in part because of the farmers' undeniable water rights, established in 1907," but they persevered until, this spring, they found a federal judge sufficiently pliable to rule in their favor and order "an unwilling Interior Department to shut the water off," according to Strassel, who observes that, "The council had succeeded in denying farmers the ability to make a living." The result was swift and Draconian. "Since that decision, the average value of an acre of farm property in Klamath has dropped from $2,500 to about $35 Most owners have no other source of income," writes Strassel, who goes on to note that the "environmentalists" who created this man-made disaster submitted a proposal last month "urging the government to buy the farmers off." The Green Fascist Grand Council (a.k.a. Oregon Natural Resources Council) "suggested a price of $4,000 an acre, which makes it more likely owners will sell only to the government." While this would not be a bad price, Strassel points out that "it's nowhere near enough to compensate people for the loss of their livelihoods and their children's futures."

What on earth would motivate a mob of greenie-two-shoes mush-heads to commit such patently fraudulent and downright evil acts? Clearly their hidden agenda has nothing to do with "saving" the suckerfish. Nor do they seem to care about wildlife in the region -- as previously noted, their man-made drought has done enormous harm to the eco-system in the Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge. A clue to the real game plan was given by a journalist for the Rocky Mountain News who called attention to a claim posted on the Web site of the Club Sierra last June. According to the club, the "efficient" urban density would be about 500 households an acre. Strassel notes that this "is about three times the density of Manhattan 's most tightly packed areas."

It seems that the true agenda of Green Fascism envisions depopulation of rural areas and resettlement to urban centers which, in time, will come to resemble ant-hills. If this appears far-fetched it would be well to take note of the fact that the program is already underway and all but a tiny fraction of the population are still blissfully unaware of it.

The carefully planned swindle of the Klamath Basin farmers exudes the putrescent stench of corruption, from the lab-coated government prostitutes who faked the environmental "crisis" which serves as the pretext for cutting off irrigation water in the region, to the big money-boys who bankrolled the scam. But who stands to cash in once the farmers have been driven from their land?

The Klamath Falls Herald and News gives us a clue. Andy Kerr, former head of the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC), is now the President of the Larch Company LLC, a firm that lobbies in Washington for the ONRC. But as Becki Snow points out in the Herald and News article, "Kerr and
the ONRC are active business partners with a large and impressive list of investors who are willing to fund them in order to kick-start the industrial Hemp industry in the United States ." And where do these intrepid entrepreneurs have a keen interest in growing their hemp? You guessed it -- the Pacific Northwest . Of course, growing (or smoking) hemp is presently illegal in this country -- perhaps those Democrat senators who so callously refused to grant relief to the Klamath Basin farmers will seek to remedy this injustice at some future date. By merest coincidence, Mr. Kerr is also Treasurer for the North American Industrial Hemp Council.

The Audubon Society, another greenie-two-shoes outfit taken over by the extreme left, and bankrolled by big, bad industrialists, noted in its house organ: "Three years ago Oregon environmentalist Andy Kerr helped set up the North American Industrial Hemp Council, an alliance of farmers, scientists, industrialists, and environmentalists whose mission is decriminalizing hemp." Heaven forfend that anyone should get the idea they plan to abuse this controlled substance. The article goes on to say, "Members who even associate with advocates of marijuana decriminalization are summarily dismissed." These idealistic altruists see hemp as a means of "protecting and restoring the planet." Naturally, of course.

Picture it if you can: Andy Kerr, the former head of the ONRC is also a Washington lobbyist for a well organized campaign to bankrupt Klamath Valley farmers and force them to sell out at rock bottom prices. In addition, he plays a prominent role in an organization that seeks to legalize the growing of pot in the very same region. (For industrial purposes only, of course. This process would never be abused by drug dealers -- perish the thought; why, the very idea!)

Becki Snow draws the obvious conclusions. "It is possible that the Oregon Natural Resources Council has pursued the Klamath Valley farmers NOT for environmental purposes, but for the purposes of lining their own pockets. It is also possible that someone will expose these industrial shills who, masquerading as environmentalists, seek to destroy the Klamath Valley Farmers so Kerr and his business cronies can buy their land."

But if this be true, why would the ONRC lobby for the federal government to buy out the farmers at a substantial price? That may prove to be the acid test -- if Congress follows through on their proposal it will mean that they were serious about it. Otherwise it can be written off as a bit of protective camouflage. Such proposals are sometimes made with a wink and a nudge.

No doubt most environmentalists are very idealistic people, but this does not absolve them from responsibility for understanding what motivates those with hidden agendas who manipulate their cause for highly dubious purposes. The environmental movement has been protected from criticism
thus far by an intellectually corrupt and morally derelict mainstream press, but the utter vileness of what is happening to the Klamath Basin farmers will eventually work its way into the public's consciousness, as did Ruby Ridge and the Clinton scandals, despite the best efforts of our "free" press to spike these stories. If the greenies wish to avoid the opprobrium that goes with it they had better give some thought to cleaning up their act.

Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org