Now ‘They’ Want Our Dirt Too
Well, it makes sense, doesn’t it? Why wouldn’t they want to regulate our dirt? They are the government; they are here to help us by regulating our every thought and act, particularly as it affects our ‘environment’—air, food, water, weather, species, energy…and now the earth, literally, the soil itself.
Most private landowners have probably never heard of the National Resources Inventory (NRI), a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service. NRI is a statistical survey of land use and natural resource conditions on non-federal lands which includes privately owned land, tribal and trust land, and lands controlled by State and local governments. The survey is conducted in cooperation with Iowa State University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology.
The USDA claims “the NRI is unique because it:  Features data gathered and monitored since 1982 by thousands of technical and natural resource data collection experts;  Is directly linked to the NRCS Soil Survey database which permits analysis of resources in relation to soil resources and conditions;  Provides a nationally consistent database that can be used to statistically evaluate trends in natural resources over time for all non-Federal lands.”
The database “allows for manipulation of various parameters in order to make accurate assessments” and for “these manipulations and subsequent analyses to be useful for public policy considerations…The NRI plays a key role in development of conservation policy and programs for the Nation. It…provides a comprehensive nationally consistent source of data for researchers in many fields. Informed and valid decisions are best made when based upon scientifically derived data…The NRI database is powerful, credible, and scientifically constructed. The present NRI is the result of many decades of development.”
The average citizen is led to believe the NRI is a valuable government program—definitely a wise and benevolent use of taxpayer funds. After all, it is contended this type of scientific information is very important and only the federal government has the funds and know-how to do such an extensive study which benefits farmers, ranchers and, in fact, all citizens.
Ronald Amundson (Division of Ecosystem Sciences, UC Berkeley), in his study, Human Effects on Soil Diversity in California and the United States, states: “Over the past two centuries, we have reconfigured part of a continent to the point where today’s landscape is almost unrecognizable from its natural state…”
Professor Amundson goes on to say, “Soils are geological bodies that take thousands to millions of years to develop. And, unlike living species, they do not reproduce nor can they be recreated. It is therefore imperative that discussions of soil diversity and preservation begin in our government and educational institutions. We will need to learn from the biodiversity battles waged by our biologist colleagues as we enter the political and economic arenas where preservation debates of all types are ultimately staged.” (March, 1998, Geotimes)
Amundson and his fellow researcher, Peng Gong, professor of ecosystem sciences at UC Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources and co-author of the paper, “found 508 endangered soil series in the United States.” They “also found that 31 soils are effectively extinct because they have been nearly completely converted to agricultural or land use.”
Amundson and other researchers, “standing at the forefront of soil activism,” used data from digitized maps on soil types compiled by the National Resource Conservation Service and from maps of agricultural and urban growth provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“In essence,” said Amundson, “soil diversity is tied to biological diversity.” The researchers believe “rare and unique soils” must be preserved.
Gong also maintains, “Some of these soils developed over thousands to millions of years. We can destroy that in a few hours. It's a preservation issue. We need to save it for future generations.” (emphasis added)
While Amundson does not advocate doing away with agriculture in the U. S., at least not yet, he does “think it’d be fair to set aside modest areas of these remaining natural landscapes for study and contemplation.”
“Scienta est potentia.” (Knowledge is power.) Genius is not required to understand how and why information can be purposely used to control people and their property.
On May 14, 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) announced several program refinements to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) including critical software advancements that “will contribute to better administration of the CRP…The software incorporates several databases, including soils, Conservation Priority Areas and watersheds…”
“FSA also has developed a CRP Geographic Information System (GIS) tool to be used by county offices to calculate acreage and the maximum soil rental rate for land being offered. FSA has been working to transform all of its farmland maps to a digital or GIS format. This conversion allows for more accurate acreage calculations and for a more precise mapping of soil types. The GIS tool will also reduce many of the manual tracking and calculations done in the county offices and result in more efficient program administration.”
Modern Americans, living in the “information age”, in the “age of reason and scientific advancement”, are arguably the most pathetically ignorant and gullible generation in the history of western civilization. Common Sense has been replaced by apathy; individualism and rational thinking have been traded away for ‘security’ and creature comforts.
The vast majority of Americans are not paying attention, too busy working, or too busy playing. We have been mentally conditioned and swindled by the mass media and by con-artists posing as “scientific authorities.” Our children are being dumbed down in government indoctrination centers (called ‘public schools’) to accept and endorse authoritarian government.
Thomas Jefferson, concerned about the future, asked: “Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path to destruction.” “They” are “we.” We have lost or given away, in the past two generations, a large portion of the liberty secured for us by Jefferson and his contemporaries.
When one of the “thousands of technical and natural resource data collection experts” knocks on your door and declares, “I’m here to incorporate statistical data on your private soil and water resources into a national, computerized database,” how will you respond?