August 17, 2018

By Whom is “Due Process of the Law” Administered?

Pulling the “Due Process” card is about as effective as whipping out the old adage…”I have a right…” I’m guilty as are most all others, only due to ignorance I suppose.

I got thinking more about this Due Process issue after reading an article this morning by Maine Senator Eric Brakey published in the Maine Wire. The foundation of Brakey’s piece is rooted in a proposed “Community Protection Order” legislation that effectively would allow for the “unconstitutional” confiscation of “weapons” from anyone the “court” deems as a possible “problem” and/or suspect to violent behavior. What could possibly go wrong?

What’s wrong with this political ideology rolled into a bill proposal is that it smells terribly of what many of us like to refer to as the violation of “Due Process.”

Brakey writes: “…a gun confiscation order may be issued “ex-parte,” which means without any notice. No due process. No opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law.

With gun confiscation orders, you are only entitled to learn your rights have been stripped away when the SWAT team comes to your door to “collect” your guns.”

What is Due Process? Is this some magic protection act that ensures that nothing will ever go wrong? Is Due Process as effective as any other element of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

According to Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Due Process is as defined in brevity: “The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.” (emboldening added)

Written by James Hirby and published at the Black’s Law Dictionary website, we read: “Law Enforcement & Protection American criminal justice, a powerful engine of public safety and social control, operates under a balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive. The three aims of government stated in the preamble are relevant to criminal justice: (1) ‘establish justice’ – establish courts of law and other means to allow individuals to pursue justice when conflicts arise; (2) ‘insure domestic tranquility’ – create the means to suppress riots, prevent crime and secure public safety or order; and (3) ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’  Order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society yet often conflict with one another.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this all simply subjective idealism open to abuse by anyone with money and power to upset this “balanced constitutional system?” If order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society, then what happens to order and liberty when those two subjective terms no longer fit some or all of our political narratives or social ideals? Due Process be damned!!

While it is easy to claim the rights to Due Process, it is equally easy to claim the rights to keep and bear arms and the freedom of choice as to how to defend me, my family, and my property.

Due Process of the Law is nothing more than precisely what it says. Subjective idealism pounded into our brains from birth wants to incorrectly tell us that Due Process protects us from tyrannical laws (oppression) and that some mythical “balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive” guarantees us that we are protected.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

Due Process is nothing more than carrying out the laws created by our governments. We have so many terrible arguments and excuses of how the governmental entities have no right to make unconstitutional laws, yet we ignorantly cherry-pick only those bits and pieces of the Constitution that fit our own narratives, failing to understand that Congress can “make all laws which are necessary and proper” (Article I Section 8) in order to exercise the power they gave themselves when they wrote the Constitution. Congress will and does simply craft yet another law because they have the power to do so and as such render Due Process useless. It is THEIR Due Process, not yours or mine.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

What may have been your grandfather’s “Due Process” doesn’t even carry the same DNA as today’s Due Process and at the rate things are changing and that “balanced constitutional system” gets more and more out of whack – to those with sense enough to see it – we have as much hope remaining to cling to Due Process as we do the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional article that might stand in the way of the Global Power Structure.

Due Process is a subjective matter and was designed as such. Due Process is as much as society will tolerate and the government can get away with. Even though society believes that the Constitution gives them Due Process and that this “balanced constitutional system” works, they are wrong. We even constantly hear of those screaming to get out and vote in order to get those wanting to upset that “balanced constitutional system” (rigged) out of office and replaced with another clone/drone and yet, nothing ever changes. Oppression and tyranny march forward in a slow and methodical pace, hidden behind a shroud of watered-down constitutional rights and due process.

Invoking Due Process is a worthless instrument. So long as Congress “makes all laws which are necessary and proper” and voting in new blood doesn’t change anything, then we are left with but one choice – continue to convince ourselves that we are guaranteed Due Process, along with all those other “rights” meted out by men for slaves.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!

 

 

Share

Moose Ticks: When Evidentiary Truth Is Pounding In Your Face

Yankee Magazine has another article on the Climate Change blame game as to why the winter/moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) is so numerous and killing so many moose. Provided that ignorance continues to rule and all honest evidence is ignored because of a romantic obsession with man-caused climate change, no answers will be found with the exception of those sought after, i.e. new-science scientism.

I am not alone in my contention that the reason that Maine has so many moose ticks, killing so many animals, is because there are simply too many moose.

In this edition of Yankee Magazine, the author and many of those interviewed for the article provide an honest person with all the evidence that supports the substantial theory that the population of moose in Maine is too high and has been in other states.

That population in Maine is coming down as we speak because the ticks have done the job that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) could have done mitigating the unnecessary suffering of the animals and waste of good food by refusing the opportunity for Maine residents to hunt them, while artificially ballooning the moose population to satisfy the misled social demands.

Let me take the time for you to present the statements made throughout this article (it is in written form and not digital) that only a blind person (or one with an agenda) cannot or will not see that points a big fat finger at the fact that the number of moose ticks is proportional to the number of moose. (Note: I have emboldened the precise statements that clearly support moose population as the regulating factor of winter/moose ticks.)

“In the late 1990s, they [moose] numbered around 7,500 in New Hampshire; now the state’s population is estimated at 3,500. In Vermont, a high of 5,000 just over a decade ago has fallen by nearly two-thirds to the current estimate, 1,750. And while biologists are working on the updated numbers for Maine – which in 2012 was home to an estimated 76,000 – ‘there are definitely fewer moose,’ said Lee Kantar.”

It must be said that the author of this article linked to, as all others that come before, in pointing out the substantial decreases in the number of moose in New England, blame it squarely on the moose tick. However, the blame then goes to Climate Change rather than seeking the truth as to the reason for the increase in moose ticks.

Throughout the article, there are numerous references to moose ticks and climate change and it is clear that neither the author nor the information provided by those interviewed, indicates to us that they have any honest knowledge of the winter tick. I have stated before that the studies continue in numerous states about the moose and what’s killing it. It appears the general consensus is that it is the moose tick and yet any association of the moose tick and moose mortality is ONLY discussed concerning false conclusions based on myths perpetuated by climate alarmists who want only to blame Climate Change for everything, including their shortcomings of honest scientific processing.

There are several studies about the moose tick but nobody in this article has knowledge of them evidently. All the garbage that is written as to how and why global warming is the cause of moose tick growth, is not true and contradicts those studies that show those factors that cause growth and decline of the tick. Please read this article!

But let’s not let any facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction based on global warming.

Let me continue with the statements found in the article.

(It was in 1992) “At the time, ‘bad tick years were infrequent, and the moose population was still increasing.”

“It wasn’t until five years later, though, that she [Kristine Rines N.H. moose biologist] spotted her first tick-infested moose in New Hampshire. ‘Then we started noticing slight declines in our moose population, and I assume it was probably related to ticks.'” 

“Winter ticks were the primary cause of moose mortality in Northern New Hampshire, where moose density (and therefore tick density) is highest.”

The denial of the obvious continues as the author wallows in global warming and how slight variations in climate/weather is the only cause of more ticks. Burying one’s head in the sand is the mark of today’s scientists as well as writers.

“In parts of New Hampshire…the calf mortality numbers have been sobering. In 2014, more than 60 percent of the collared calves died; by 2016, it was up to 80 percent. (Toward the end of the year, though, Pekins will send me a bit of good news: The mortality rate among New Hampshire’s moose calves last Spring was only 30 percent).”

The author explains the reasoning for this as due to weather/climate issues and nothing to do with the fact the moose population has been cut in half.

“As biologists see it, there are just two strategies, both difficult. ‘We can put the brakes on climate change,…or we decrease the numbers of moose by letting winter ticks run their course or by increasing hunting to bring down moose densities.'”

Strange isn’t it? We read of a biologist offering two strategies, one of which is the ONLY thing that we can change, and yet, the focus is always on Climate Change. Are we brainwashed or what?

“Studies have indeed shown that with fewer animals to feed on…tick numbers begin to fall.”

But still, let’s focus on global warming!

In Massachusettes, where moose numbers have remained stable at around 1,000, according to this article, “…winter ticks are present, but don’t seem to be having a big effect.”

Perhaps Massachusettes has outlawed global warming?

Need I remind readers of the difference between 76,000 moose in Maine and 1,000 moose in Massachusettes? And yet it’s still global warming that is the cause. You can put a square peg in a round hole I guess.

The article states that in the Adirondacks of New York, where there are somewhere between 500 and 1,000 moose, the animals are; “virtually tick free.” “You can count the number of winter ticks on an Adirondack moose on less than one hand, probably because there aren’t enough moose to get the tick cycle going.

What is most ignorant – caused by the insistence of attributing everything to Climate Change – is that the author, even though he/she may perhaps see that the numbers of moose attribute to the number of ticks directly, makes the following statement: “The trouble is, nobody really knows how far the moose populations in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine must drop before they reach the ‘sweet spot,’ and the comeback can begin.”

Nothing is learned here. The blinders are on. Climate Change is the controlling factor regardless of what actual evidence tells us about moose ticks. The author, even after sharing what others have said about how moose numbers and ticks correlate, believes that if we reduce the number of moose so ticks abate, then we can grow more moose again and the moose ticks will magically disappear and not come back. How do you correct this circular thinking?

Share

Selective Blindness, Changing Perceptions and the Growing Cultural Divide

Today I laughed. I actually laughed or at least grinned several times. Why? Mostly because I do not willingly exist in what most would consider this “normal” world – normal being whatever each individual and group of individuals has determined to be correct and thus normal. Because of my sometimes “out-of-planet” experiences, witnessing the normal, but to me, abnormal, events of the day must cause laughter. Without it, I’m not sure the results.

Most entertaining is when intellectuals(?) wander down roads of philosophical bliss, pointing out the obvious, created by the obvious, for the obvious, but pause in confusion, not understanding such creations, or better yet, intimating that the answer must lie in some unexplored human psyche beyond mortal comprehension. Yikes!

At the root of this laughter, sometimes contrasted with anger and disgust, was a long, sometimes rambling essay of what, in part, was the transformation of human attitudes and perspectives about life in general and living with predators more specifically. The author writes:

We have become tame in Europe, and that is a good thing. Europeans are on the whole no longer wild or savage, as we certainly were a thousand, five hundred, or for that matter sixty-seven years ago. The potential for savagery and bloodthirstiness remains within us, as shown with such dreadful clarity during the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991?1999. But we are for the most part tame and prefer that state-sanctioned bloodletting on a large scale happen outside the borders of the European Union. And that is, all things considered, a good thing. No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers. The same can be said about our relationship to animals. Most aspects of the living conditions of pets and farm animals are regulated by law in the EU. For wild animals, there are special habitat directives.

My initial reaction to reading this was to ask, what world does this person live in? But then, I realized it wasn’t what world he lived in but my own existence shuns the false world he displays. While what he writes certainly may reflect his perceptions of things, I believe it only substantiates the success of the work of those who control this world and all that is in it. There must be considered the absurdity or insanity that, “state-sanctioned bloodletting” is acceptable beyond the bounds of the newly perceived “tameness.” Talk about living a life of blinded ignorance. To accept the premise of, “No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers,” is to accept a lie and live it. More people would live in fear if they realized that all of this still exists today but is well-hidden. Media control and manipulation, outright lies and deceit, propaganda and control prohibits us from seeing the terrible things that are going on all around us.

The author admits, and accurately so, that this same attitude of blissful blindness and the denial of existing savagery, carries over into how people want to distinguish themselves and their coexistence with animals, both wild and domestic.

To this the writer states:

But something has been lost in the advance of civilization. In pace with the introduction of the refrigerator, hot running water, bathrooms with subfloor heating, and cable TV, our relationship to things wild has changed, especially our attitudes towards the predators among us. The bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx: all have been transformed in our minds into symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions. It is human nature to do so, and in a way, one could argue that this has been the case for much longer than since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, the already simplified traits have become more starkly black and white in modern, highly urbanized societies.

From the perspective of one suffering from “out-of-planet” syndrome, a serious argument could and should be made about whether or not civilization has advanced or regressed. There is no arguing the claim that “attitudes toward predators,” has changed, certainly, that man has established most animals as “symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions” to a point where animals are given equal or superior rights to man and are always discussed with terms using human identification.

We know that out of World Wars I and II, the rapid growth of understanding the human mind and how to control and manipulate it, was exploited, for all the wrong reasons. How did it become possible that our minds see things in a completely different way than how our parents taught us and their parents taught them?

But is this really human nature to see animals from this perverse perspective? I don’t think so. It is learned or probably, in this case, planned programming of our minds in order that changes forced onto people for sinister reasons by perverts with more to gain and without one care for the welfare of any animal…or even you for that matter.

The author touches on one of the reasons for the changes in attitude when he writes:

Out in the country, that argument does not hold full sway, at least not in the areas where the predators are actually found. Country people’s empirical knowledge runs deeper and is often — though not always — more complex and objective than city people’s. The problem with European attitudes towards “our” predators, however, is that most Europeans live in cities and not in the countryside.

And the plan, as it appears to me, is to work toward changing the dynamics of human population densities so that urban dwellers surpass in numbers those of the rural world. For certainly their exists differing attitudes and perspectives between the two cultures. It would make perfect sense that if someone or group of someones was interested in control they would work using whatever means possible to grow the numbers of whichever side was ideologically prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This may sound a bit extreme, but is it in reality? When you consider the words, the attitudes, the hate and the anger being perpetuated throughout, often targeted or presented as urban against suburban, somebody must have an important task to undertake.

We are but duped pawns!

Share

A Year in Review Might More Resemble Simply a Look to the Future Which Is No More Than the Past

When I began blogging, about 15 years ago, I used to pen a piece in which I would take another look at what I thought to be the important issues of the preceding year. Much of that subject matter was about hunting, fishing, wildlife and the outdoors.

I thought about doing something like that again but decided against it, and instead present one item of this past year that points to our future, which is our present, which is our past. Things sometimes really don’t change that much if you open your eyes.

It seems everywhere we turn today there is some form of “Artificial Intelligence” (AI). This should be no surprise to a person of awareness, but to many, they see AI as innovative, modern and even incomprehensible; something of the future and futuristically advanced beyond comprehension – our older generation.

IBM’s version of AI comes in the identity of “Watson.” Google has their’s and of course, Amazon has Alexa and Echo. We see ads on television for face recognition software to access your cell phone, “eye” pad, laptop, etc. Perhaps you’ll not be able to buy or sell unless you have all this stuff?

The only thing that’s really new about this so-called artificial intelligence, is the way in which we are being brainwashed and mind controlled. The propaganda – some call it facts, history, data, information – is controlled and fed to us in doses and by means in which we are programmed to handle. Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than the same written information that has always been available to us but proportioned out in desired bits that us lazy automatons can get by simply asking a machine a question. Can you imagine, short of manipulation of our physical bodies, any better way to ensure that what can be learned, heard or read is what is intended for us, is control-fed to us by Watson, Google, and Alexa?

I learned a long time ago that history is written by the victors of war. History, it seems, only knows war. History, which also includes all information (yes that’s difficult to conceive), is controlled by the ruling powers (the Victors of wars) from the beginning until the end. In short, what we learn, hear, and read, specifically in our modern eras, is what is intended for us to learn, hear, and read. When ruling powers decide that the known existence of written documents (much more difficult to control) is undesirable, every effort is made to rid the world of that information, or at least control it. Perhaps I can give you two examples.

The Library of Alexandria, in Egypt, was considered the largest collection of documents, recorded history and writings amassed throughout ancient history. According to some historians, prior to its burning, the library was dwindling away over a period of 800 years. We can only guess as to whether this action was deliberate or not in order to rid the world of unwanted documents to control what was learned, heard and read, in order that we might be fed “artificial intelligence.” This might be reinforced by the fact that we are told, that certain “intellectuals,” numbering as many as 150, were kicked out of the country.

Some historians state that when Julius Ceasar was in Alexandria in 48 BCE, during his battles there the library was “accidentally” burned. Reassurance? Completion of a task? Who ruled most of the world then? And, yes, Ceasar sent his own people to the Library in Alexandria to “copy” and “rewrite” as many documents as they could. Hail Ceasar!

Another example might be the War of 1812. This was the war in which Washington, D.C. was burned. It is believed by some that the act of burning Washington was to rid the world of documents in which the King of Great Britain, as well as certain members of the U.S. Government, did not want the rest of the world to see and to never be passed down through history.

Many scholars and intellects of this world have read such documents as James Ussher’s “Annals of the World,” or A.T. Jones’ “The Two Republics,” the comparison of the United States and Rome, and “The Works of Josephus” by Flavius Josephus, a Jerusalem-born writer and historian. These are all essential historical writings of accounts of events that took place throughout history. There are many, many more writings available as well.

In reading and studying The Annals of the World, the reader gets to examine the accounts of more than just one historian and the writings of the victors of all the wars. You soon see that braggadocio behavior embellishes the events and thus with the knowledge that the victors write the history, we can never be certain how accurate anything is that we read. That is why it is important to be very well-read, for without vast knowledge of events who are we to claim the high ground when it comes to truth?

Not that any of these writings aren’t important, but I wonder how many have never heard of these works?

In our education factories of today that have run their course, what our children learn is lacking in historical truth. With each rapidly passing generation of technology, are we to soon see school buildings becoming dinosaurs? After all, simply ask Alexa what it is you need to know. That’s easy! Alexa in every home! Alexa on every wrist!

When I was a child, I was taught how to count or “make” change. We all buy goods and still use fiat currency as a means of exchanging the currency for those goods. Today when you make a purchase with cash, if there is change due, the clerk looks at the computer screen (cash register) and it tells them how much change should be returned to the customer. This computer display is, in fact, artificial intelligence. It just didn’t have a good name until now. One has to wonder if the computer gave the wrong amount of change, would the clerk or the customer know the difference?

In fact, isn’t just about everything put before our eyes artificial intelligence? Would we know if it wasn’t?

Our future is headed for more of the same. As eager, pre-programmed appliances that we have become, persons are being replaced with gadgets loaded with “Artificial Intelligence” – that is ONLY the stuff THEY want you to learn, hear and read.

Welcome to your future. What will you do about this?

I think I already know the answer.

Share

The Strength of Individualism, The Weakness of Collectivism

I contend that there is no greater strength and power than that of combined individualism and independence. Most of all the greatest accomplishments of men came from those true individuals allowed to carry out their independent thoughts. Governments, on the other hand, thrive in the collective where manipulative actions toward the people are necessary in order to maintain the masses into a near hypnotic state of silent acquiescence, stripping them of any sort of power to push back against the governments that threaten them.

Imagine how things would be if the majority of people were a collection of true individuals and independent thinkers. What power would lie in their hands? Can a collective exist of independents? In theory, yes! Governments and those who promote governmental collectivism must fear the thought for it threatens their very existence. Sounds like war to me.

Perhaps the greatest example of the power and strength of individualism can be found in Bible history. We may have head knowledge of the existence of Yahweh’s “Church,” but do we truly understand its composition? Some would argue that the congregations of churches, making up the “Church,” is similar to the collective existence of governments. This may be true in some cases, but the true Church of Christ is made up of real individuals, each with their independent, spirit-filled relationship with their Savior. There can be no other everlasting existence even though so many are caught up in the collective of the church instead of the individual salvation of their Savior.

It is a rare commodity these days to find actual individuals with independent thoughts and ideas. Media so heavily influences and controls us that it seems impossible to escape the onslaught. Life in the United States exists between two enemy collectives – Republican and Democrat. Absent independent thought, each person eventually acquiesces to one side or the other, eager to become automatonic True Believers, participants in each party’s form of Romanistic Bread and Circuses.

If it’s not the false paradigm of Republican and Democrat, groups and mass movements are countless within our society, each bent on achieving their selfish agendas at the expense of ostracising anyone and everyone who doesn’t eagerly conform to their dogma.

Remembering that the collective can only exist by controlling the minds and thoughts of the masses, we see the need for groups and movements to make enemies out of those who don’t conform. I’m reminded of the Star Trek enemy of the United Starship Federation – The Borg. The Borg, a combination of human and robot, is a collective. They call themselves the Collective. None have independent thought. On the contrary, they all share their thoughts in a continual bombardment of back and forth, never-ending, noise. One of the missions of the Borg is to “assimilate” anyone who is not like them. To “assimilate,” people are turned into half human, half robot creatures who almost never stray from the collective as it would mean certain death. Are the Borg that much unlike what we are seeing today with our collectives in American Society?

Eric Hoffer, the author of “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements,” writes: “The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivity of a mass movement.”

He also states: “The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

As I have repeatedly stated, collectives can only exist absent the individual with independent thoughts and ideas. To ensure that absence, Hoffer says that what must exist within the collective, “is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

This exists everywhere!!!

From the outside of each collective looking in, most often “quality of ideas” is missing. It is replaced by the importance of “sticking together” and “remaining united” while echoing the propaganda crafted by the collective – a real “defiance of the world.”

Straying from, or at least presenting independent thought and individualism, within a collective, in our society, often does not end in death to that brave soul truth seeker, but they are truly ostracised, kicked out of the gang for failure to assimilate and remain the robotic servant it is intended for them to be, thus removing any hope of achieving another of man’s great accomplishments.

Perhaps you, too, have been a victim of being expelled from a collective. Being a part of a group for the purpose of educating and bringing to the forefront important and truthful information pertaining to the subject of that collective, is not a bad thing. Should one dare disagree with the collective, or present truth that might be contrary to the collective’s talking points, you are removed from further communication – essentially black-balled.

If the most important accomplishments of men have come from individuals with independent thoughts and the freedom to exercise their freedoms, why then is it that our society seems bent on ensuring that never happens. An independent thinker might wonder if this act isn’t part of the intentions of another collective, threatened by the existence of those of us who honestly cherish their individuality. To them, we must assimilate.

If we are so much assimilated into the myriad of collectives, how can we have any hope of individuality and independence?

And isn’t that the entire premise of which I am attempting to convey? Being in this state, it is a near impossibility, short a miracle, for anyone to recognize they have no real independence, no real freedom, and certainly no respect for being an individual other than the one dictated by the collective.

Come out of her my people.

Share

Wildlife Management: Scientism, Abstraction, Encapsulation, Interface

Today, I was reading Wretchard’s “The Case of the Missing Catastrophe,” over and over several times, as it contains some pretty heady stuff. As invigorating as the words may be, or perhaps mind-blowing, depending on one’s perspective and mental prowess, I believe it to be worthy of additional, relevant, thoughts, perhaps knocked down a peg or two into more understandable terms for common brains like mine.

What Fernandez is describing can be broken down into two distinct realities – deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. Maybe I can make a bit more sense out of this.

Although Wretchard is discussing the predictions made by most media that we’re all gonna die because Donald Trump first became president and then endorsed recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the GOP is planning a tax reduction. Because prophecied catastrophes have failed to meet the cries of the media, and others, Fernandez suggests that the “models” which drive the predictions of death and destruction at the hands of liberals are being found out to be failures of the biggest kind. Some, not many, can actually recognize these failed predictions, based on “modeling,” and it is growing tiresome. Others lay claim that this is the reason “outsiders,” like Trump, got elected and why most people barely lifted a match, club or rock in protest of the Jerusalem capital decision. I think it safe to say that modeling, designed for outcome-based results, plays a vital part in our everyday lives.

Hidden behind intellectual topics of centralization, globalization, “integration with nature and society,” and such things as evolution and “intertemporal coordination,” what is being discussed is ideology. Idealism always begins with an idea. Where once “models” were the ideas of man to manipulate society, in today’s power and control institutions that more closely resemble technocracies than democracies, employment of computers to sort over ideas and information, hiding what is not wanted and fronting that which fits a narrative, is commonplace. Are we to now understand that somehow a person is exempt from a dishonest promotion of idealism because the “computer modeling” made them do it?

The intentions of modelers remain the same. Because of our love affair with technology and how it has been sold to the public, mentally programs us to believe the computer modeling is a better result than simply the ideas of a man. Strange isn’t it? The stage is set.

Computer modeling is common practice these days. It also works as a major tool of destruction in the ripping apart of society and politics (they go hand in hand as has been designed). The dishonest practice has caused major failures in the scientific world, even though those failures are the means to justify social and political perversion, to achieve agendas. It is a contributor to the injection of anger and hatred into our society as well.

For several years I studied computers and programming. I know enough to be dangerous. I do know how programming works – called coding today. I know how to hide and manipulate data to achieve desired results. That was one of the most basic instruments to learn in programming. Coding today requires knowledge of what end result one desires and writing a program to accomplish that. Imagine when this is placed in the hands of corrupt individuals, groups, corporations, 501 C3 Non Profits, etc. with something other than completely honest dissemination in mind.

I have often said that we live in a Post-Normal world today – up is down, right is left, right is wrong, black is white, etc. With enough money, anyone can pay a computer-literate technician to model anything. It has worked so well government agencies, along with our court system, eagerly rely on faulty and dishonest computer modeling in rendering decisions and crafting legislation.

In the case referenced in the linked-to article, the masses rely so heavily on a heavily manipulated Media, they are unaware that they are being propagandized by only those things they want you to know.

This same process is at play pertaining t0 wildlife management at every level in this country.

In the article referenced, I was taken by and it was pointed out to me, a quote that came from someone commenting on how computer programmers/modelers dealt with complex issues. “Encapsulation enables programmers to avoid conflicts … the code of each object still manipulates data, but the data it manipulates is now private to that object. … This discipline enables programmers to create systems in which a massive number of plans can make use of a massive number of resources without needing to resolve a massive number of conflicting assumptions. Each object is responsible for performing a specialized job; the data required to perform the job is encapsulated within the object

“Abstraction provides stable points of connection while accommodating a wide-range of change on either side of the abstraction boundary. … The abstract purpose is represented by an interface … multiple concrete providers can implement the same abstract service in different concrete ways.”

This is a pretty fancy way of stating that programmers can and are conning the rest of the world with their false manipulation of twisted and perverted data to achieve whatever they or anybody wants.

I have serious doubts that complexity is the issue when it comes to computer modeling. When the modeling is driven by corruption, for corrupt purposes, complexity is irrelevant only to the extent of the desired outcome and perhaps the need to present some kind of distraction or coverup by creating a fake controversy.

In computer modeling – bearing in mind that wildlife management today relies heavily on modeling whether they do it themselves or utilize someone else’s work – it is pointed out above that programmers deal with issues such as “encapsulation,” “abstraction,” and “interface,” to name a few. Combine these headings with corruption and we have new-science Scientism, i.e. “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge [real of false] and techniques [for corrupt reasons].”

First, a “programmer” (I placed programmer in quotes because that group or individual could vary from one lone programmer to accomplices of varying numbers.) collects data (what begins as useless information until placed in the desired order) and enters it into the computer. Then, someone must decide what data is useful, for what purposes it is useful and how to “encapsulate” that information, i.e. hiding information or using it to drive the outcome.

Encapsulating data is necessary for achieving desired results while hiding information that may cause conflicts or controversy. Politicians are masters at encapsulating information. That’s why they never answer the questions asked them. They hide what they don’t want you to know and sell you on what they do.

In today’s computer modeling, “abstraction” may be the single biggest mode of corruption, especially depending upon the chosen “interface.”

Abstraction, “the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events,” is where the real scientific process gets deliberately lost. Abstraction is necessary to promote ideas (idealism/environmentalism) rather than actual and honest scientific data. Several ideas/events can be contained within “boundaries,” including hidden data, and meted out through “interfaces” to only those listed (concrete providers) as in need (who are paying the money) of the results.

There is a common, tire-kicker expression used to describe the worthless computer-generated outcomes – “garbage in and garbage out.” In many of these cases that is precisely what is taking place. To some of us, the outcome is garbage because the input is garbage. It spells lots of dollars and cents to those dishonest people manipulating the truth. They are gaming the system for political or monetary gain.

Early on I said there were two distinct realities we are dealing with here; deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. I would suppose that there is some overlap at varying degrees.

We must first understand that modeling and the effects of this method do not happen only inside a computer. Know that the “modeling” began in someone’s brain. It’s a process and yes, it can be a deceitful one as well. While the computer models yield results, often sought after results, the mind process is taught and carried down through many avenues of brainwashing and propagandizing. In short, we become programmed to think and operate as a computer modeling program in order to reach the desired end.

I have attended seminars in which the goal of the administrators is to manipulate attendees into becoming “change agents.” In other words, they want to brainwash (I know people don’t like that expression, however…) you to accept their propaganda (false modeling) and then go back to where you came from and change everyone’s thoughts to be like theirs. This is all a part of the “modeling” enterprise ruling our world.

Computer modeling is not always bad when used within the context of how it is achieved. It is almost never done that way and that is why my focus seems to be on the criminal aspect of deliberate and dishonest manipulation of the truth. The deliberate manipulators are those whose bent it is to deceive for monetary or political gain. We see computer modeling with such open-to-the-public exchanges involving climate change and wildlife management. Applying the methods I’ve described above, it is easy to see that dishonest encapsulation, abstraction, and interfacing can reap huge monetary windfalls as well as political gain and control.

Dishonest environmental and animal rights groups and there are thousands of them, pay lots of money to get computer models to promote their agendas. With an ignorant populace, who themselves rely upon computer modeled propaganda from multiple media sources, are quick to accept a model presented as a scientific finding. It is a part of our rigged system.

A book could be written citing all the cases where modeling is used as scientific fact for all the wrong reasons. The act is criminal, carried out by criminals.

And so, with those powerful enough to control the way wildlife management is discussed employing modeling as the foundation, is it any wonder that our fish and wildlife employees are nothing more than propagandized automatons, spoon-fed computer modeling as useful scientific data? These become the “useful idiots” who empower those corrupt purveyors of dishonest modeling as science.

When you combine the actual computer modeling with the “education” of the mental version of modeling, together, as change agents, we march into a dishonest world fraught with false knowledge and deception. Many within our fish and wildlife agencies across this land have been reared on modeling and taught the process resulting in a way of thinking that accomplishes the same thing.

Can this be reversed?

Share

So, Just What Exactly is Maine IFW Trying to Communicate?

First thing this morning I opened a link to a news story about how a major land owner in Maine, J.D. Irving, has been awarded a conservation award from Sustainable Forest Initiative. In gleaning the report, I read this: “JDI is supporting a large study of white-tailed deer through collaboration with six scientists as well as partners in government across New Brunswick and Maine. The deer research is using GPS tracking and extremely accurate forest inventory mapping to look at how deer are using different forest types during summer and winter months. This long-term study will monitor 140 deer and the habitats they choose over the next four years.”

Did I know this? Did you know this? Without knowing what exactly “supporting a large study” means, one might think that activity deserving of recognition might be worthy information to openly and eagerly share with the Maine people. Evidently it’s not.

In my work with this website, part of that includes a pretty close monitoring of the things that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) does….or doesn’t do. I am signed up to receive press notices, email notifications and Twitter Updates, although I suspect strongly that I don’t receive all that go out…for whatever the reasons.

It wasn’t until long after MDIFW had begun their deer study, that I and the rest of the public learned of it. It wasn’t until today, that I learned that J.D. Irving was “supporting a large study” with Maine and New Brunswick. If I, as someone who spends probably more time and effort than the majority of Maine residents keeping track of such things, don’t know these things, one has to suspect the general population isn’t either.

To date, MDIFW has been very stingy with any information about the study. Other than an occasional “release” to a “safe zone” propaganda outlet, the public would know nothing about the study or that it even existed.

However, this really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, as MDIFW does a very poor job of “communicating” with the public and and even worse job “communicating” with the license-buying sportsmen who pay their salaries. One example of terrible communicating is the department’s relentless tardiness in making available deer, bear, moose and turkey harvest reports and data. Seriously, I wonder why that is?

I also wonder why it is that a better effort can’t be made to share information about the ongoing studies of deer and moose in the state? Is it that the department really hasn’t the time or the money?

Following the revelation that J.D. Irving was awarded for “supporting a large study” of deer, I found out that the MDIFW has decided that the T.V. show, North Woods Law wasn’t embarrassing enough for them and the Governor’s office, so as part of what is being expressed as a campaign to “better communicate their mission with the general public,” they have teamed up with a professional actor to make “funny” videos.

The article I just finished reading says these videos are to share with the public and to “get our message out.” It appears to me that the message MDIFW wants to get out is void of deer and moose studies, or anything to do with hunting, trapping or fishing, even though, as I have repeatedly stated, it is these sportsmen who fund a great part of MDIFW’s budget…a budget that evidently allows them to hire a professional actor and spend their time recording “funny” videos for the “new” website and to publish on YouTube.

I also learned that: “The videos, produced by a professional ad agency [how much did this cost license holders?], are quick hits on three outdoorsy topics: hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species. (emboldening added)

If J.D. Irving’s “supporting a large study” is great enough that it actually made the study possible (and I don’t know what “supporting” means – maybe MDIFW should tell us?) maybe it would make a whole lot of sense to get J.D. Irving into one of those videos, if they are all that important to “getting the message out.” But maybe this is more telling than we realize. Perhaps the “message” is more about hiking, birding and invasive species, than deer, moose, trout or roughed grouse because the department has changed their focus to side dishes while disregarding the meat and potatoes.

But here I am again saying, this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Maine’s fish and game department – even fisheries and wildlife is an inaccurate title for the message it appears they want to send – is no different than all the rest of this country’s environmentalism-driven departments based on Scientism and the relationships of people and animals, far exceeding the relationships between person and person, as is obvious in our violent, angry and hate-filled society.

What I want to know is what plans the State of Maine, and the MDIFW, have in place to fund the future department of natural resources, animal rights and protectionism, when hunting, trapping, and fishing, along with the closing down of access to forests, effectively stopping ATV riding and snowmobiling, are eliminated in about 10 years?

The MDIFW evidently doesn’t have the time or resources to get game harvests reported online until the start of the following hunting seasons, or later, but they have time to make “funny” videos and resources to hire an ad agency, with a professional actor, to send out the message that hiking, birding, and invasive species are far more important than hunting, fishing and trapping.

I think the message is very clear and that MDIFW has been advertising that message loud and clear for several years now. MDIFW is NOT about getting the message out that hunting, trapping and fishing are the very backbone of this entire industry that has brought Maine and the rest of this nation to a point were responsible wildlife management has become the norm. Because we live in a post-normal age, all that has proven to work and has been successful and effective, must be destroyed and replaced with Romance Biology and VooDoo Scientism.

Maine, and the rest of the nation should say goodbye to our traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping and prepare for the “message” MDIFW and others are trying to get out.

From my perspective, it’s a real shame. I also feel bad for J.D. Irving that MDIFW cannot even take the time to acknowledge their support for their ongoing deer study. It is terrible public relations like this that next time MDIFW wants to have a study, they will be left on their own to figure it out.

Good work people!

As I see it, the choice now becomes mine. I can either hope that hunting and fishing are around until I drop dead, or I can become part of the “New Science” Scientism that is driving it all. Answer? I will NOT be signing up for “Keeper of the Maine Outdoors.”

Share

Are We Good Stewards of Our Environment?

During a radio interview with my friends at Shake, Rattle and Troll, I was asked a few questions, some of which I don’t think I answered succinctly or expressed myself to the specifics of what was on my mind at the time of the interview. It is one of the difficulties one might face when doing radio interviews, live and without foreknowledge of what questions would be asked. Any problems that might have happened were not the fault of anyone at Shake, Rattle and Troll.

One specific question I was asked, I would like to clear up any misconceptions and better explain my answer. I was asked if I thought that in this country man has been a good steward of our environment. I answered yes, which might have caught some off guard. Not to make excuses but my mind was focused on wolves…after all, my book about wolves was what I was asked to talk about and answer questions.

I did answer the question as it might pertain to whether or not man has been a good steward concerning our attempts to sustain populations of wildlife. Over all, I think we have. There are exceptions, as always, and what is never honestly considered in such discussions is how much natural occurrences contribute to loss of wildlife. The finger is always and quickly pointed to the evils of man.

We are only kidding ourselves to think it’s an easy task to find some kind of equilibrium of happiness and satisfaction between consumptive users of our natural resources and the environmentalists who want nothing touched.

I stated that I believe people want clean water and clean air but that I didn’t think they knew how to achieve that. I didn’t have time to further explain. It’s easy to talk about having clean water and clean air, but what are those? Who gets to define clean air and clean water and by what standards do they go by. Leaving it up to governments is a huge mistake, however, too many trust their government. Yikes!

We may all be convinced that we have clean water, land and air, but in many cases we have been lied to. We talk about “clean” drinking water only to find out it may be clean by someone’s standards while the water is laced with harmful chemicals. But, we don’t talk about that. We see pretty parks and pretty flowers and plants and to our uneducated eye, it must all be clean. We briefly look to the sky and if we see haze, we are conditioned to believe it is pollution and yet if we see chemical trails from aerosol spraying, we are told it is condensation even though the trail lingers for the duration of the day and into the night.

We want clean air and clean water but we are not getting it. We are told of the strides we have made to “scrub” our smoke stacks and clean up exhaust emissions, while at the same time corporate America is given a free pass and Americans foot the bill.

I could go on and on. If I were to answer the question posed in a more general fashion, then I would have to say that man has not been good stewards of our environment because those who take charge of that mission are lying, stealing, cheating thieves. If a problem surfaces it’s blamed on “man,” that is the common man, i.e. you and I. And we are forced to pay because we are citizen slaves to a corporate constitution that says we will pay all the debt….period.

A second question I was asked was about whether I thought wolf (re)introduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Desert Southwest and the Southeast were good things. I answered no and further stated that it was a criminal enterprise. If we had had the entire day on the radio we could have discussed this issue and would still have only scratched the surface. That’s why you should by my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?”

Beyond the criminal enterprise, what makes the (re)introduction bad can be assessed in two simple observations. 1.) The opportunity for citizens to hunt for game and food has been seriously reduced in many places, due to wolves tearing hell out of the elk, deer and moose herds. This should be unacceptable. 2.) The unnecessary loss of livestock (private property) and a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Yehwah’s given right not man’s). It is a testimony to the direction this country has gone that shows that any animal should be given priority over the well-being of man.

Another point I wished I had the time to discuss was the section in my book all about how the process of devising the Environmental Impact Statement was rooted in fraud and ignorance. Every item listed for consideration in the drafting of the EIS that was of concern to the people and property was blatantly disregarded. As a matter of fact, officials who wrote the EIS came right out and said it was only considering those things that positively benefited the wolf or placed the wolf in a positive light. In other words, man did not matter.

One blatant example of this can be seen when it was asked of the Government’s wolf officials, if they intended to vaccinate the wolf to prevent the spread of disease (to humans), etc. the answer went directly to their point: They would do everything necessary to protect the wolf from any harm or illness.

Since the drafting of the EIS, every item disregarded because the Government said it was not worthy of consideration, are the only issues that remain unsolved and pose the biggest challenges to the public’s health and safety and the protection of game herds.

The last thing I wanted to better explain had to do with my comments about the perverse nature Americans have been manipulated into when it comes to animals. It was agreed upon by those conducting the interview, and myself, that it is a serious problem in this country when people place any animal, wild or domestic, on a plain of existence equal to or greater than man. I tried to explain that doing such was in contradiction to the Scriptures and our Creators intention for the role that animals would play in consideration of His creation of Man.

I went so far as to state that these actions were an abomination to the Creator. And it is. It is because playing gOD and attempting to change His order of Existence is making a mockery of Yehwah and His work. That is an abomination. Abominations directed at Yehwah will never go unpunished.

If your basic belief system is not focused on the Scriptures and the Creation of the Almighty, I would not expect you to agree with or even understand this position.

But now you better understand mine.

Share

By Funding Trophy Wolf Hunts, We’re Destroying Real Game Hunts

wolfutah*Editor’s Note* – This post first appeared on this website on October 8, 2014. It was requested of me to republish it as a means of updating the importance of the article as a prediction of the future.

It seems just a short while ago that wolf (re)introduction happened – 1995 and 1996. A lot of water has passed under the bridge and as the water moved downstream, it has blended in with a lot of other water, not becoming lost but perhaps unrecognizable.

As most of you know, I’m writing a book about wolves. Actually it’s really not about wolves other than to point out the obvious behaviors of the animal. The book is more about the corruption. However, in working to put all this information together, I’ve come across some things that I had written about in which I had actually forgotten.

It really began in early 2009, when there was a glimmer of hope that wolves might come off the Endangered list and residents in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could begin killing the animal to get it back down to 100 wolves as promised in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. What? Had you forgotten?

Around about that same time, I began reading about the plans Idaho was going to begin formulating in preparation for wolf hunts. I said then that utilizing a season for “trophy” wolf hunting would not work.

I wrote a five-part series that I know some of you have read, perhaps more than once, called “To Catch a Wolf” – an historical account of the extreme difficulty people had throughout history trying to control wolves to stop them from killing livestock and attacking people.

The real joke was when Idaho officials, in a fraudulent attempt to convince anyone who would blindly listen, that trophy hunting wolves, was going to protect the elk, deer and moose herds. This did not happen. As a matter of fact, it so much did not happen, that Idaho Fish and Game took to helicopters to gun down wolves in the Lolo Region because officials were willing to admit there was a wolf problem….or maybe they were just placating the sportsmen. They killed 5 wolves and yet somehow they want sportsmen to believe that a trophy hunting season will protect the game herds?

The myth here is that increasing or decreasing wolf tags will grow or shrink elk, deer and moose herds. Sorry, but controlling elk, deer and moose tags controls elk, deer and moose herds. Select-harvesting a handful of wolves does nothing to protect game herds.

Why, then, are Idaho sportsmen continuing to fund a fraudulent trophy wolf hunting season that may actually be causing the further destruction of the elk, deer and moose they so much wish to protect and grow?

On November 30, 2012, I wrote and published the following article. I took the liberty to embolden some statements I wish to now more fully draw your attention to.

Trophy Hunting Season on Wolves Destroying More Elk, Moose and Deer?

Recently I read a comment made by Bob Ream, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Commission, state that:

We [MFWP] have implemented more and more aggressive wolf harvests. We also increased lion harvests considerably this year.

The word aggressive is certainly an overused adjective used much in the same fashion as say a male peacock when he displays his tail feathers. In the context used in the quote above, I’m assuming Mr. Ream intended his use of the word aggressive to mean something to be proud of, a feat of accomplishment or something related. But when talking about wolves, killing, attacks, predation, hunting, trapping, disease and every aspect associated with gray wolves, “implementing[ed] more and more aggressive wolf harvests” kind of rings a bit hollow.

In its simplest form, wolves, at least under the existing conditions in most of Montana, Idaho and Wildlife, grow and expand at a rate of anywhere between 20% and 30%, I am told and have read as well. Estimates of wolf populations mean little except in political and emotional battles because nobody knows how many there are and they are lying if they tell you otherwise. For the sake of argument, I have read that the tri-state region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have at least 6,000 wolves. On the top end I’ve heard 15,000 but I’m going to guess that might be high but then again I don’t live there and spend time in the woods.

If there were 6,000 wolves then math tells us that 1200 – 1800 wolves should be killed each year just to sustain the population at 6,000; and states like Montana, who according to Bob Ream, are aggressively killing more wolves.

But now the question has been brought up that perhaps states offering hunting and trapping seasons, based on the principle of “trophy” and “big game” hunting and trapping, might be causing even more game animals, like elk, moose and deer, to be killed. Is this possible?

It was nearly 4 years ago that I wrote a series, “To Catch a Wolf“. Much of the purpose of that series and other related articles, was to explain how difficult it is to kill a wolf; historically and globally. It’s one of the hardest things to do over a prolonged period of time and that’s why I chuckle at comments like Bob Ream’s when he describes the MFWP actions toward killing wolves as aggressive. There is NOTHING aggressive about trophy hunting wolves.

The process was long and mostly wrought with illegal actions and corruption, but eventually, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming got the infamous and controversial gray wolf removed from protections of the Endangered Species Act and trophy hunting seasons commenced; after all, wasn’t that the target goals of each of the states’ fish and game departments?

And so how’s that “aggressive” hunting and trapping going to reduce wolf populations?

If any of this isn’t complicated and wrought with emotion and irrational thinking enough already, in an email exchange I received today, the idea was presented that hunting a token number of wolves, in other words, managing them as a game species and classified as a trophy animal, might actually be only amounting to breeding a healthier, less stressful wolf that will eat more elk, deer and moose and become an even larger creature than it already is, further capable of killing more and bigger prey.

This idea is based in science, although those who don’t like the science disregard it. The science is the topic of wolf size. Most people are of the thought that a wolf’s size is determined by the species or subspecies the wolf comes from. I’m not going to pretend I have a full grasp of this science but will pass on that the essence of wolf size is determined mostly by food supply.

Consider then this premise to manage wolves as a big game species, which is what is being done in Montana and Idaho. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes managing game for surplus harvest, has worked marvelously well over the years, producing in places too many of certain game species. We certainly don’t want that for wolves as the proportion of wolves to prey/game species will soon get all out of whack. Our only hope then, is that the fish and game departments will fail as miserably managing wolves as they have elk, moose and mule/whitetail deer.

There is a reason why honest wildlife managers classify bona fide game animals as such and coyotes (and it should be also wolves) varmints to be shot and killed on site. It’s the only way to keep them at bay. This would be considered an aggressive move toward wolf control. Anything, short of an all out organized program to extirpate the wolf, would work just dandy and would never danger the future existence of this animal.
End

In the years that I have written about wolves, wolf “management” and the political nonsense that goes hand in hand with it, it certainly appears to me that there has become quite an effort among sportsmen to protect THEIR “trophy” wolf hunts. Is that in the best interest of actually regaining a vibrant elk, deer and moose population, that is supposed to be managed for surplus harvest, according to Idaho code?

In its most basic form, at least ask yourself how that “aggressive” trophy wolf hunting is effecting the elk, deer and moose herds? At the same time, what has become and continues to become of those elk tags? There just aren’t enough “trophy” wolf hunters to be effective and supporting the farce perpetuated by Idaho Fish and Game isn’t helping. It’s the same as buying a fifth of gin for a gin-soaked homeless fool.

As was relayed to me today, it seems the, “participants are in a race for the final bull elk or big buck in various units.” That’s the direction it seems we are headed.

Here’s a mini refresher course in promised wolf management. When the Final Environmental Impact Statement was approved, leading to the Final Rule on Wolf Reintroduction, the citizens of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region, where wolves were to be (re)introduced, were promised several things. First, we were promised that wolves would be “recovered,” a viable, self-sustaining population, when 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves existed in three separate wolf management zones for three consecutive years. Those numbers were achieved by 2003. What happened? Nothing but lawsuits and wolves didn’t finally get delisted until 2011 due to legislative action.

All promises made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were based on 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. They lied!

Second, citizens of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were promised that wolves would have no measurable impact on wild game herds. The only thing that might possibly be needed was a slight 10% or less reduction in cow elk tags should the occasion arise for the need to boost elk production in exceptional cases.

So, I ask. How many elk tags have been lost since those promises were made? As a matter of fact, all promises made were reneged on. There is no reason to believe or support anything promised us by government. Stop giving government money to run their con game. At this rate game animals will all be gone soon enough and no hunting opportunities will prevail….except possibly trophy wolf tags.

What will it be. As the old saying goes, “Pay me now or pay me later.”

Share

Can We Stop the “Social Justice” of Wildlife Management?

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor.  The Left hits a wall.  Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down.  But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally  blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

 

 

Share