November 13, 2018

The Heresy Destroying Western Civilization

*Editor’s Note* – As I have continuously pointed out, all guest articles are the intellectual work and opinions of the author. This article contains many excellent points to consider. However, I feel it imperative to point out my own difficulty in accepting any philosophical renderings from a Jesuit trained at the Jesuit Georgetown University.

It is a known fact that many of the accusations made by the Jesuit author referenced below are, in fact, part of the existing Hegelian Dialectic – crisis, embellishment of reactions, presentation of a solution – constructed by the very Vatican institution of which any Jesuit is sworn to loyalty. Because it is known that the Vatican is behind and controls this “environmental” movement and the “ecological theory” discussed in this article, it becomes difficult to accept at face value the philosophical embellishments of this problem in which the end game is to construct a solution, which includes obtaining the power presented as a negative political object below.

Perhaps the real takeaway from this is that if you want to do something to stop this “ecological theory” or “Heresy Destroying Western Civilization” then we need to go back to the roots of where it all began, understand the evil that exists there, and refuse to be a part of it.

But that will never happen. It is too big and too powerful and thus, as this article states, man’s purpose becomes service to the Cosmos.

Article by James Beers:

Civilization, n. 1. An advanced state of human society, in which a high level of art, science, religion and government has been reached.

Civilized, adj. 1. Having an advanced culture, society, etc.

Civilize, v.t.  1. To make civil; bring out of a savage state; elevate in social and individual life; enlighten; refine.

Civil, adj.  1Of or consisting of citizenscivil life, civil society, civil law.  2. Of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or the ordinary life and affairs of citizens.  3. Of the citizen as an individual, Civil Liberty.

Heresy, n. 1Opinion or doctrine at variance with orthodox or accepted doctrine.  2. The maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.

Europe and North America are often described as “Advanced”, “First World” or “Western” Civilization.  They think of themselves as “Leaders” in everything from UN/One-World Government movements to seeing and striving toward a future where science and a handful of very “enlightened” individuals will organize and rule the rest of us.  Their hubris in this regard knows no bounds.

Over the past century, and particularly in the last 50 years, social turbulence throughout Western Civilization has spread to every corner of society. Rural communities, natural resource management and use, and wild plants and animals (my own areas of interest) have experienced a growing and dramatic societal reversal of centuries-old norms and values. Government politicians and bureaucrats in league with numberless, wealthy Non-Government Organizations purporting to “represent’ and advocate for everything from deadly animals that kill people and imagined animal and plant communities to replace human-settled landscapes; to civil laws stripping individual citizens of their liberties and rights in the name of “native” (actually “preferred”) animals and plants.  Every manifestation of maintaining or further advancing the “civilizing” of human communities’ welfare and beneficial traditions, utilizing science and historic experience, from tree-cutting, hunting, animal husbandry, fishing and energy development to power generation, national defense, policing, immigration, incarceration, and education is either under attack or has been so restricted or eliminated as to be forgotten and unrecognizable in another decade.

In a very real sense, our civilized society is like our lifetime savings.  If we fail to protect it both physically and value-wise; we and our children not only become poor, we lose all ability to control our own destinies.  Unless we remove the robbers that stole our civilization or prevent the inflation of our rights by government decrees that make them worthless; we cannot work to replace our rights and traditions or their value because they will simply disappear again.  Our civilized society depends on many things from just laws to agreements among ourselves on common values and virtues.  When laws are passed (think Endangered Species Act, Race and Sex Preferences and Gun Possession and Travel Restrictions) that pervert our Constitutional guarantees and change our cultural, historic and traditional norms from religious practices to the education of our children and how we live our lives: the forces driving such change can fairly be described as heretical attacks, or a heresy, aimed at our civilization and our individual civil liberties.

This heresy and its quasi-religious make-up came to my attention recently in a Wall Street Journal titled Back to Nature.  The author opined about “restoring” the “countryside” by converting government lands and land bought by wealthy sponsors and Non-Government Organizations “back to its savage state”.  The “movement” is named “rewilding” and it claims millions of acres from Kenya and Britain to Los Angeles, Wisconsin and Montana.  All manner of “Conservation Projects” welcome select, paying visitors to “Wolves and Wine Pairings” in Sweden, Italy and Portugal to a Kenyan “Retreat” complete with “lectures from an expert on ‘hands-on healing’”.  A Wisconsin Wilderness offers “one to four-month training to be a ‘forest monk’” “all the while inviting their own spiritual awakening”, and all for only “$10,000 per person”.

In addition to all this quasi-religious justification, I noted the recent releases and “scientific” twaddle about the latest wild animal being introduced into the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States– the buffalo. There were many very good reasons that free-roaming buffalo were eliminated on the Great Plains at great effort and expense 150+ years ago.  Total incompatibility with farming, grazing livestock, homes, roads, towns are but a few.  The recent myths about killing buffalo to starve Native people or for Sport hunting are merely propaganda about an ancillary effect meant to engender sympathy and support for the reintroduction of buffalo and “savage” landscapes while vilifying hunting and hunters, merely one of many means that effected the elimination of buffalo.

Like Government Issue wolves and grizzly bears spreading today throughout western and upper midwestern settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States under government force: buffalo will likewise cause unbearable expenses to ranchers, farmers and other rural residents.  Buffalo will multiply and roam wider and wider areas and rural people will be told to not harm them when they ruin crops and fences and gardens; when they roam into towns in winter; when they attack hunting dogs or hunters after other animals; when they (dark-coated and all 1400 lbs. of one) stand on dark roads at night as rural people drive home at night or go to work early in the morning; or when they are startled and run wildly where children and elderly resident are in harm’s way.  Buffalo introductions are actually meant to do these things, and more, in ever-widening arcs and circles around these “rewilded” locations that are not fenced or inadequately fenced (very expensive) or poorly maintained to keep these rural life decimators out of civilized, settled landscapes. Why, you might ask is this being done?  To, according to the article, “turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest” is why!  What they call, “spiritual rewilding” is the goal.  Note that this is the opposite of the #1 definition of “civilize”, “To make civil; bring out of a savage state.”  Buffalo and large predators like wolves and grizzly bears destroy civilization; and in the process return all of us eventually into a “savage state”.

When Dutch rewilders introduced “deer and Konik horses to a 12,300-acre parcel of marshland outside Amsterdam but failed to cull the herd in winter or introduce predators, the animals began to starve, and distraught citizens found themselves pitching hay over the fence”.  Note the “need” for predators and the aversion to “culling”; just like the advocates for introduced GI wolves and grizzly bears in The Lower 48 States.  The spreading and protection of wolves, grizzly bears and cougars with the added and continual call for an end to “culling” by anyone of any animal at any time now gets a new character in this play; buffalo herds!

Driving it all is an heretical philosophy called “spiritual” rewilding that purports to have “spiritual” roots and to train “monks” to ““turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest”.

Quite by accident, when I read the WSJ article on Back to Nature, I was in the midst of reading a book, Docilitas,by a favorite philosopher of mine, Fr. James V. Schall, a retired Jesuit from Georgetown University (not one of my favorite Universities).  He has a PhD in Political Philosophy, taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is On Islam: A Chronological Record, 2002-2018 (Ignatius Press, 2018).

I had only just read Chapter 2 of Docilitas, INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES, when this “monk”, “spiritual”, “back to its savage state”, “rewilding” business came to my attention.  The opening sentence of the Chapter began, “We are familiar with the expression ‘natural resources’.”  It went on from there for 8 pages to make some very apt and incisive observations about “man”, “why totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory” and “the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.”  I would like to list some quotes from Chapter 2 that I believe any American, regardless of religious background, should find beneficial in understanding the true nature of this modern heresy of “ecological theory”.  The first step in opposing or supporting any such theory is to understand it.  I will follow these select quotes with one last comment regarding how this environmental movement has, is and will continue to affect; like buffalo, predators, et al; a wider area and every nook and cranny of our governance and society if not reoriented into a human-friendly and rural-supported system of wild plant and animal management in Western Civilization.

Quotes from Chapter 2 of Docilitas, by Fr. James V. Schall –

“Natural Resources” refers to the myriads of things in the universe that are simply there without any added human intervention.  The Epistle to the Hebrews uses the memorable expression, “things not made by human hands.” 

“Man, himself, is a ‘natural resource.’”

“Whenever and wherever he appears, he is already completely what he is(My Bolding. Jim B) though, unlike the rest of material creation, not always as he finally ought to be, which latter also depends on his own freedom, if not grace.”

“Our ‘second’ human creation, whereby we decide what we make ourselves to be, will depend on no one other than ourselves.”

“Human beings, who are evidently themselves ‘by nature’, can in turn ‘use’ what is there for their own purposes.  They can also think about why they are there, something nothing else in the physical cosmos can do.”

“Probably, we can find no more obvious division of existing things than between those beings that think about things and those which are thought about”. “And because we can think about things, evidently, we can use them or relate to them to our own purposes. Most people most of the time have thought this connection of mind and things simply made sense.”

“Recent ecological theory has sought to reverse this ‘primacy of man’ relationship.  The world, it is claimed, is superior to man.  He does not transcend it.  Instead of the cosmos being ‘for man’, we now want to instruct ourselves that man is for the cosmos.  He is subordinate to it, a mere miniscule part of it.  It is greater than he.  The ‘health’ of the cosmos subsumes man into itself, not vice versa.  Or even more graphically, man is a threat to the cosmos.  Evil does not come into the world through man’s free will, as was the case in Genesis.  It comes because of his very existence in the world and his exigencies.” 

“This ‘higher’ status of the world to man, of course, is itself an idea that does not reside in the cosmos but in some human minds.  Ecology and environmentalism as they are explained become a new faith, a new system.  It is by no means obvious that the cosmos is more important than the intelligent beings within it.  Even more, theories that subordinate man to the cosmos become a new politics of control.  Such theories in fact are more political than they are scientific.  What the world or universe can ‘support’ is itself subject to theories that purport to know what the capacity of the world is.  If man is the real threat to the world, then, obviously, those who control politics in its name will control man.  This is why classical totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory.” 

“Since man and his desires are said to be the cause of disorder, they can be reduced to order and enforced by coercion to what our theory allows.  Man, in this view, is in the universe.  He is to make as little dent on it as possible.  He has no transcendent purpose other than keeping the world in steady existence down the ages.” 

“The individual human beings who, at one time or another, inhabit the world have no significance in themselves.  Each merely keeps the species alive down the ages. The cosmos is a ‘success’ to the extent that it looks like it did before man appeared, however he appeared.”

“Since, it is said, resources are finite, every generation is responsible for distributing them to every other generation on the basis of what it estimates these resources are.  No generation is allowed to use more than its share.  Just how this ‘share’ is to be calculated becomes itself a basis of political power.” 

“Some higher inner-world entity, the cosmos itself, becomes what is superior to man.  This force is the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.  Now eternity comes to mean not the personal destiny of finite rational persons with God, but the unending cycles of keeping the earth as it was in the beginning.” 

“In any case, man must be restricted, for as long as the earth supports life, so that he does not ‘deprive’ future generations.  Thus, future generations become more important than present generations.  By this logic, we are all now deprived of what we need by the actions of billions who went before us on this earth, by what they took and did on this earth while they were here.  All of this, no doubt, assumes there have been or will be no discoveries or developments that render the worries of the parsimonious earth out of date. The ecological world is a world without the human mind except as a tool to guarantee no changes in the world.” (My Bolding, Jim B) 

“We hear complaints that the soil under the freeways and roads of this world protests its subjection to man.  But again we ask, just who is doing this protesting?  The only answer is not the stone or the soil but human beings imbued with a certain theory that wants to leave the stones in the ground and the roads unpaved.” 

“The ‘intellectual resources’ of the beings that are not God include this understanding of themselves that they are finite.  They are indeed not God.  We are open to receive what is not ourselves.  We can be taught.  This conclusion, I think, is what Goethe meant when he said: ‘Often we are not quite sure whether in the end, we are seeing, looking, thinking, remembering, fantasizing, or believing.’  What we are sure of is that we are doing one or the other of these things in our efforts to know what is. (My Bolding. Jim B) Here is the final source of all both ‘natural and intellectual resources’.” 

Two suggested takeaways –

1.We must restore the “primacy of man” in the cosmos and recognize that man has a transcendent purpose.  Today we see how treating man as just another animal in the cosmos and rejecting the understanding of an afterlife with an all-powerful Creator leads us to far more than “astray”.  I do not see how we can reject this ecological theory or heresy by simply rejecting it and those that propound it.  If we do not accept and value the traditional mores, cultures and beliefs that have underpinned millenniums of civilizing societies how can we defend them from avid proponents of this “ecological theory” or convince others to do so?  We would be like the soldier once described by GK Chesterton as fighting to the death not because of what lay before him but because of what lay behind him like his home, family and friends: except we would have nothing behind us to spur us on to fight and prevail.

2.The political power being created by this “ecological theory” and its view of man as just another animal is seeping throughout society and destroying everything it contacts like Carolina rivers after Florence.  When we accept this theory and vision of man: why is it wrong to declare disparate rights to persons based on sex or race?  Why is it wrong to prefer certain animals over humans?   Why is it wrong for government to seize control of or abolish religious practices?  Why is it wrong to protect deadly animals attacking humans?  Why is it wrong to kill humans in the womb while harshly punishing humans that kill wolf pups or manufacture or sell fur products?  Why is it wrong to steal, cheat, take property, have laws for the rich but not the poor?  Why is anything right or wrong?

The answer is, when you accept the “ecological theory” and the power it creates like some atomic reactor; you accept the totalitarian rule that such power breeds and you will have no choice but to watch it seep into everything we do and everywhere we go.

Either we restore what once inhabited all these empty churches to give us the courage to stamp out this heresy, or we will watch things get worse for our descendants in a nasty world we soon won’t recognize.

Jim Beers

26 Sep. 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Who Needs Enemies When You Have Nutso Trump?

For those who had some grand notion that Trump was on “their side” in the realm of Environmentalism, think again. What’s he doing? Has he actually gone insane? Or is his seemingly insane tactic nothing more than a plan to ensure that windmills will continue to go up everywhere, subsidized by the government – a means of continued payback to the supporters of political campaigns?

It is a known fact that windmills, including noise pollution and the obvious total destruction of the environment in which these mammoth eyesores sit, kill birds that fly into the path of the rotor blades. These deaths have included eagles and other “protected” bird species.

So much of the rational attempt to educate people about the dangers against wildlife these wind turbines cost. With insane comments from Trump: “You can blow up a pipeline, you can blow up the windmills. You know, the windmills. Boom, boom, boom. Bing. That’s the end of that one. If the birds don’t kill it first. The birds could kill it first. They kill so many birds. You look under those windmills, it’s a killing field, the birds.”

Another case of animal crackers!!

Share

Bishop Statement on Department of the Interior’s Proposed ESA Changes

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 19, 2018 –

Today, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) issued the following statement in response to the Department of the Interior (DOI) releasing three proposed rules to modernize the Endangered Species Act:

“It’s no secret that modernizing the Endangered Species Act is long overdue. DOI’s proposed rules incorporate public input, innovative science and best practices to improve efficiency and certainty for federal agencies and the public. I commend Secretary Zinke and Deputy Secretary Bernhardt for their excellent leadership on this issue and look forward to working with my colleagues to enshrine these actions into law.”

Background:

DOI’s proposed rules focus on Sections four and seven of the Endangered Species Act, and would address improved consultation processes, changes to critical habitat designations, and issues within the criteria for listing and delisting species. They also incorporate public input and best practices to improve reliability, regulatory efficiency, and environmental stewardship.

Share

The “…devolution of environmentalism into political gaming…”

Those who have followed the devolution of environmentalism into political gaming know that pseudo-environmentalism, as it should be called, is a cult.  Its doctrines have more to do with a suppressive “new world order” than with a world order that is free and humane.  The followers of this cult must believe that it is smart to restrict human activity instead of encouraging it.  Given the vast possibilities inherent in the natural forces, I’d say that the one thing pseudo-­environmentalists got right is calling themselves green.

Green cultists follow the old tradition of peddling whatever one can get away with as solutions to problems.  In the past, those who peddled elixirs and quack remedies were responding to actual needs.  Today’s green peddlers respond to “needs” that are as phony as the remedies.  Yesterday’s charlatans had to make a living on their own.  Today’s hustlers earn a living with corporate, state, and federal money.  In time, the scientific facts that blew the game of the earlier quacks will blow theirs, too.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maurice Strong Global Policy on Climate Change, UNEP, and “Green” Energy Bankrupting Ontario

To fix the province’s woes, Ford and his advisers must first understand the primary causes of the problems. A major issue has been crippling energy and environmental policies. It began when, in 1992, then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be chairman of Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario was a prosperous, economically sound province. Strong changed that when he applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world. In 1992, he introduced them through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the conference he chaired in Rio de Janeiro.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine Transmission Line Proposal Bringing Out the Best In Excuse Du Jour

This morning I was reading an article online at MainePublic.org about Central Maine Power Company’s proposal to run a 145-mile transmission line from Quebec, Canada through Central Maine eventually providing electricity to Massachusetts.

Environmentalists claim that the project is not a “green” one and thus would do nothing to stop the world from coming to an end due to global warming. Proposers of the project are confused wanting to know how much greener can you get than producing electricity from moving water.

Others don’t want to see more forest cut down to build a new and ugly transmission line or widen existing ones.

I’m reminded of an old story and have a suggestion of my own to help the cause.

First the story (which I have told on this website a million times). A man goes next door to his neighbor’s house and asks if he can borrow his ax. The neighbor, with a smile on his face, of course, says, “No, you can’t borrow my ax because it’s Tuesday.”

The man, acting very confused, like the representatives of CMP, asks, “What’s Tuesday got to do with it?”

“Nothing,” said the neighbor, “but if I don’t want to loan you my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

The other is this. If you’ve ever been in the vicinity of Disney World in Orlando, Florida you might have noticed these somewhat unique transmission towers.

Simply beautiful aren’t they????

My suggestion would be to demand (wink-wink) that CMP constructs transmission towers in the form of a bull moose. This would be representative of Maine and it would solve part of the problem with reducing gases that cause global warming (we’re all gonna die). You see these moose don’t need to poop and thus no methane gases released. The project now becomes “GREEN!” THE WORLD IS SAVED and Massachusettes gets their electricity so they can further destroy the planet with everything else they do with it.

Oh, Lord! It’s hard to be humble.

Share

Reasonable Assessment of Quebec Hydro Transmission Line Through Maine if the Ridiculous Climate Change Nonsense Was Left Out

One will have to decide for themselves about whether widening and cutting another electric power transmission line through Maine is an eyesore and/or whether it is in anyway actually beneficial to the Maine people.

In a Bangor News opinion piece, Steve Bien, a board member of the Western Maine Audubon society, a totalitarian environmentalist group, fills readers full of climate change balderdash and toxic waste from rotting plants and vegetation from flooded lands caused by Quebec hydro dam building.

Please, give us all a break from the BS.

Nothing in this proposal has anything to do with climate change and “green” energy and how we are going to save the planet. Save the planet, save the planet, save the planet. I’m not the only intelligent person in this world who tires from the endless clap-trap about Climate Change.

This writer tells us of how important it is that we replace carbon-heavy energy with “green” energy so as not to cause more global warming. Horsepucky!

In addition, we’re all going to die from mercury poisoning as the author states that mercury levels have been in the blood of the Cree and Innu for 50 years. What is not said is that mercury levels were in their ancestor’s blood as well because it is naturally occurring.

However, the nonsense about the dangers from “Plant decomposition on a massive scale produces toxic amounts of mercury” and this “massive” amount of toxic mercury is “…far beyond the cleaning capacity of natural systems” – Oh my God, we’re ALL GONNA DIE!! And if that isn’t enough the “major source of carbon dioxide and methane” from flooded plants will surely do us all in. Poor Mother Gaia can’t keep up with the scrubbing.

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! PREPARE FOR THE DOOM!!!

The amount of land flooded in Quebec amounts to about the same as adding an eyedropper of pee-pee to an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Leave out all the lying BS about “clean” energy and “green” energy and how Climate Change is killing us, and make your decisions based upon actual facts that lay in front of you. What’s in the proposal for Maine? It should be obvious what’s in it for Quebec Hydro, CMP, and Massachusetts. But what’s in it for Maine besides a few quick bucks?

Is it really an environmental disaster? Is it really a blight on the land? Is the exchange for a few dollars worth it? Will this event bring lower electric rates to Maine?

Forget Climate Change. It’s nothing more than an environmentalist’s midsummer nights’ dream.

Share

When Money Talks and Shit Walks

According to the Boston Globe, Central Maine Power Company (a Spanish-owned company) wants to run an electric transmission line from the Canadian border, through the North Woods, crossing the Kennebec Gorge, and wending its way to a substation in Lewiston. The purpose of the proposed transmission line is to sell electricity to no other place than Massachusetts.

This same trick was attempted in New Hampshire with a project called Northern Pass, where residents and ultimately the state government said no thank you and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

With this proposal, it seems the energy supplier intends to bribe their way to victory offering millions of dollars to poor struggling communities that rely mostly on tourism, outdoor recreation, and the lumbering industry, all of which are a dying breeds thanks to environmentalism and a decaying social structure which thinks it has no use for any of this.

But the money sounds good and several individuals and towns in the path of the 150-foot wide clear cut appear eager to have the eyesore that Massachusetts wants and doesn’t have to live with in exchange for money, some jobs during construction, that more than likely will be meted out to out-of-state and/or out-of-country workers, and funded with money that comes from anywhere but Maine.

But even with all that, consider the utter nonsense the sellers of the project are spewing.

They first want people to believe that this project will save the planet, by producing “clean” energy from hydro-power locations which will cut down on carbon emissions to curb Global Warming. Anyone with a brain knows this is utter nonsense that cannot and will never be supported by real science.

Consider the statement…Please! There is ample room for discussing how building a dam smack dab in the middle of a perfectly good river is harmful to the environment.

And then, millions and millions of board-feet of trees are going to be removed from the forest. Last time I checked trees feed off absorbed carbon dioxide giving off oxygen for all of us to breath. Can removing all the trees save the planet?

During construction of the transmission line, carbon-burning equipment will pollute the environment, erosion will happen, wildlife will be disrupted, vernal pools destroyed, brooks and rivers will be dirtied and upset, more roads built to gain access, and the list is endless. How is any of this good for the environment and how will it have any effect on fake global warming? It’s “clean” energy from water power, therefore it is good?

Seriously!

I know I mostly waste my time talking about Global Warming because the masses are now completely sold on its validity and all that is measured these days is how ga-ga the zombies are at the moment about how it might affect their self-gratifying lives and their love affairs with cell phones and social media. Nothing else matters.

Some of the environmentalists are saying they aren’t sold on the idea that hydropower sent over a new transmission line will reduce the effects of global warming and instead suggest that CMP (a Spanish-owned company – oh, did I already mention that?) should take the money and put it to work building more solar and wind energy projects.

Consider this suggestion for a moment. Think of the environmental destruction that takes place when solar fields and windmill projects are built. Massive amounts of forests are forever destroyed and still transmission lines must be built in order to get power from point A to point B.

In the proposed new transmission line, it would pass the Appalachian Trail 3 times and cross directly over the Kennebec Gorge. Some find this an atrocity that cannot happen because environmentalists use the trails and consider the Gorge as untouchable. And yet, they think nothing of raping mountain tops and erecting the ugliest of all uglies – windmills towering well over 200 feet placing a blight on the skyline, especially when one catches on fire after it has killed hundreds of birds and changed the habitats and habits of all sorts of wildlife. But, but, but… we’re saving the planet.

And all of this will save the planet?

But saving the planet be damned, it appears money will talk and shit will walk. Here’s some of what CMP is promising the residents that will be impacted by this project.

It will create 1,700 temporary jobs and bring in $18 million a year in new property taxes. (Sounds like a lot of money but when you spread it out through numerous towns the length of the transmission line, it’s not that sizable that it would matter much.

CMP is pledging to spend $50 million over 40 years on “programs” to “assist” low-income families and to reroute the Appalachian Trail. Gobbledee-Gook!!! A million a year…until nobody keeps count anymore and then what? Pledge be damned!

You will have to decide for yourself about whether you think the project is a good one. The real issue here is the continued lying and hypocrisy that still exists and always will from two-faced environmentalists who swear to save the planet with one breath while something else is destroyed that is more destructive than what is attempted to be saved. It is utter insanity.

The world won’t come to an end if power lines are strung across the Kennebec Gorge. But don’t think for a minute that swapping that proposal for another super ugly, environmentally destructive windmill project will save the day. Give me a break!

However, it appears that the enticement of some temporary money will win out. Some in Maine will see effects of bribe money but most won’t, all for the prospect of delivering electricity to Massachusetts. As was suggested to me, if Massachusetts needs the electricity, let it be their problem and not Maine’s. Serious thought should be given about what happens to Maine that will only benefit Massachusetts and to hell with dirty bribe money.

If Massachusetts insists on “clean” energy, I’m sure there are many great locations to put up a nuclear power plant and be done with it. GASP!!!!

Share

Wind Energy Blows! It’s a Racket Paid For By You and I

Share

To Ask If Fighting Climate Change is “Worth It” Admits Climate Change Exists

I just finished reading the Shake, Rattle, and Troll newsletter. One item in the newsletter was an Op-Ed titled, “Is Fighting Climate Change Worth Sacrificing Modern Civilization.” To be forthcoming, I consider Don McDowell and John Kolezar of Shake, Rattle, and Troll (not the authors) to be my friends and I have been a guest on their Sunday morning radio broadcast in Arizona once or twice. Having said all this, by this place in time Don and John have probably already figured out that am not an echo-chamber of the fake dichotomy of political bias. I am my own man, but there’s another name for what that some might prefer to call me. Let me explain briefly.

Just this past Fall I was asked a question by someone that I have known for many years. This was his question: “Were you born an asshole or did you grow into it?” Once I figured out the question was more serious than in jest, I couldn’t really come up with a quick reply. I didn’t know! The best I can do now is to say it has been a little of both.

Perhaps I am burying my head in the sand a bit…or not…but I choose to think that most people who think me an asshole do so because they disagree with what I say and do. Because most people disagree with what I say and do, I’m readily known as an asshole. I accept that.

I will have to digress from this topic and reenter the realm of Climate Change before you click away!

The author of the Op-Ed wants to know if “fighting climate change” is worth destroying or sacrificing “modern civilization.” With this comment, I have no fewer than three questions.

Question 1: In this article, outside of titles, the term “climate change” is used 7 times and all seven times it is in lower case letters. For those who may not know there is a difference between “Climate Change” and “climate change.” I am not alone when I say that Climate Change refers to the Al Gore variety of make-believe – a political creation for many sinister reasons, the main ones being profit, people control, and genocide.

When used in the context of natural climate change, I would stick with lower case. If, as a reader, you don’t know in what context the author is using this term, it makes it impossible to understand or to have a rational discussion. Distinct lines immediately become crossed and confusion takes over.

I will, for the sake of discussion, assume that the author, when he writes “climate change” and not “Climate Change” he is referring to the natural form of climate change.

Question 2: What does the author mean by “fighting?” The piece certainly lets us know those things Environmentalism is forcing civilization to do to “save the planet,” but how do you “fight” that? I guess you just write Op-Eds and express your dislike? If you don’t understand what is really going on, what’s to fight? God?

Question 3: What is “modern civilization?” Isn’t this too broad a term when discussing a more specific subject like “climate change,” or “Climate Change?” From my perspective, a whole bunch of this “modern civilization” I would like to see destroyed.

My real attempt here is not to try to ridicule the author. It’s to get readers to think beyond overused expressions and platitudes about the environmental, Environmentalism, climate change, and Climate Change.

The author writes of how environmentalists make statements about the climate and the environment in general and present their theories and rationale from the position that man is screwing everything up. Never, ever discussed in any of this is the most important part of all – that our Creator, who made all of this, is far greater than any of us, which includes Climate Change. Yahweh did create it all and that includes you and me as distinct, alpha dogs of the environment. In that plan is perfection. His perfection may not resemble our plans and that’s one of the biggest reasons nobody wants to discuss it. Sorry!

I’m not going to try to guess whether or not Yahweh’s Great Plan includes any kind of Climate Change. I am sure He has and will continue to instruct his angels on what to do about our climate that is always changing and that we have no control over and therefore cannot “fight.”

Also never brought up in discussions about climate change or even Climate Change, is the deliberate man-caused changes in our atmosphere, resulting in weather phenomenon, toxic poisoning of the populace, earthquakes, fires, etc. Ignorant people never look up and if you point it out to them they are not at all interested even though it is killing them. It’s easier to deny. This topic is unending and so I’ll leave it alone.

So, when someone asks if fighting climate change is worth anything, I have to say no. No, because climate change is Yahweh’s call and I can’t tell Him what to do, and, no, because Climate Change is a sinister, political plot that the people are being used to their deaths for. Join it if you wish and you will because you fail to recognize what’s really going on.

One thing is for certain. When someone asks if fighting climate change or Climate Change is worth it, is to admit and recognize that it actually does exist. I’m here to tell you that climate change is natural, that Climate Change is an evil hoax designed for profit and control and that technology, not the kind you think, is behind Climate Change.

Take the easy road and…

DON’T GO LOOK!

 

 

Share