February 21, 2018

Book Review – “The Impact Of Science On Society”

By Bertrand Russell-1953 First Edition. The only way to accurately predict the future is to know that somebody intends to engineer it.. Falls right inline with the Iron Mountain Report, The First “Global” Revolution by The Club of Rome, Limits to Growth, The Origin Of Species, Our Global Neighborhood, Earth Summit Agenda 21{2100 conclusion date} And of course the United Nations “Environmental” Policies- Global Biodiversity Assessment.. Scientism is Eugenics on Steroids..

Pages 40-41

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology … Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part … It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship … The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

Pages 49-50

Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy … It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished … Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible …

The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia … If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method …

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

Page 54

After all, most civilised and semi-civilised countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship.

Pages 103-104

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s. However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia … Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

Page 105

The need for a world government, if the population problem is to be solved in any humane manner, is completely evident on Darwinian principles.

Page 110

A society is not stable unless it is on the whole satisfactory to the holders of power and the holders of power are not exposed to the risk of successful revolution.

Pages 110-111

First, as regards physical conditions. Soil and raw materials must not be used up so fast that scientific progress cannot continually make good the loss by means of new inventions and discoveries … If raw materials are not to be used up too fast, there must not be free competition for their acquisition and use but an international authority to ration them in – such quantities as may from time to time seem compatible with continued industrial prosperity. And similar considerations apply to soil conservation.

Second, as regards population … To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.

Share

Appeals to Emotions, Hormones And Controlled Thoughts

A wide range of scientific possibilities when it comes to messing about with folks thinking, and of course appeals to emotions.. Yep, I read this stuff too.. It’s fascinating.. They put it all out in plain sight and nobody wonders and nobody cares.. Besides looking up folks ought to be looking things up. But shucks, nobody would want to mind control everyone using these methods.. Just because the scientific possibility exists to do it doesn’t mean anyone would be doing it… Who would ever be so evil as to teach people what to think and destroy their capacity to think with lies backed up by endocrine physiology using drugs to mess with the psyche of say entire societies.. Who’d be so nefarious that they’d chemically alter people into being comfortably numb.. Maybe even causing a boy to have girlish emotions and girls to have boyish emotions.. They could do all kinds of science with this science.. They could get people to believe anything..

“The field of basic endocrine physiology has advanced considerably since Martin’s earlier Textbook of Endocrine Physiology was published, and the 95% new material in this volume reflects how the entire concept of the nature and function of hormones has changed. The book takes a biochemical approach to vertebrate and particularly human endocrine physiology, and emphasizes methods of hormone action.”

Share

As The Earth Turns

Share

Don’t Look Up?

This could be quite hilarious! A recent study, headlined with advice to “Not Look Up,” states that on a daily basis 800-million viruses float “up” into the atmosphere “where airplanes fly,” and then float back down onto us. Be very, very scared, we’re all gonna die and the world has gone insane.

There should be no caution to people to “don’t look up” because they don’t now. For decades the Federal Government has been dumping all kinds of crap on our heads being sprayed from airplanes. What makes this laughable is that now “a team of scientists” (wink-wink) wants us to think all that toxic waste the government is dumping on us, killing us and making us sick, is the result of our own existence where tiny viruses rise from the tops of our heads and out of our mouths ascending to “where airplanes fly” and fall back on us making us sick.

Isn’t it amazing what and how people are primed to believe and accept most anything? It’s so easy for duped people to unquestionably accept a premise that 800-million tiny viruses each day are falling on our heads, but the same programming has the multitude of animal perverts in complete denial that their precious little doggies carry enough viruses, diseases, and parasites to kill them. That’s how it’s designed to work.

This article warns “Don’t Look Up” but I always warn:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

You might discover something that makes you uncomfortable.

 

Share

A Psychological Meme On The Psychology Of The Modern Era Wolf Pimp

I bet if we used neuroscience, to better know the brains of pantheists who most often are psychopaths, a neurodevelopmental disorder, akin to autism, we’d then understand the pantheist wolf pimp mentality better. We know so much about the pathological psychopath mental state already, even reading these pantheists numerous comments advocating for wolves rights over mans rights and do a forensic analysis based on the psychopathy check list these disgusting comments they make in defense of wolves become self explanatory.. I see a need for more mental asylums in the U.S. and in Canada.. The Psychopathy Check List-Revised (PCL-R) was developed for researchers in 1980 and released publicly in 1991. It’s been the gold standard used by researchers ever since. Forensic clinicians and the justice system use it to identify the obvious hallmark traits and behaviors that make psychopaths chillingly unique. This research covers the ever growing population of ambulatory psychopaths as well, this is where the pantheist naturalist rights of trees dirt rocks even bugs are superior to mankind’s rights comes into recognition in the psychological world of this research. Thus wolf pimps can be a case study.. The term psychopath was coined in the mid- to late 1800s from its Greek roots psykhe and pathos, meaning “sick mind” or “suffering soul.” In that era, the condition was typically considered a type of moral insanity. An excellent book on the subject is The Mask of Sanity by psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley. The lack of empathy and callousness of the animals rights gurus speaks for itself.. In the case of the pantheist wolf pimp psychoanalysis perhaps using the method of semantic aphasia as an analogy could be useful. In semantic aphasia there is a loss of understanding of the meaning of words and terms, even though the pantheist wolf pimp subject can use words. Research professionals have used semantic aphasia to explain how psychopaths appear normal on the outside (the ‘Mask’) but inside have no comprehension of other people’s real experiences. This might explain why they claim wolf management rural advocates are not in touch with reality and obviously lie about everything , when in fact we’re telling them the truth.. This is certainly a fascinating research project I’m currently getting into… Essentially the psychology of scientism theories in relation to what pantheist wolf pimps are willing to believe meme is no less based on designing ‘experiments’ to test these ‘theories’ rather than simply advocating to enforce the theories, a ‘scientism theorist pantheist wolf pimp’ should be investigating and testing the assertions of these scientism narratives. And then also they should Psychoanalyze themselves__perhaps they can discover what makes THEM ALL tick?

Have a nice day psychos….

Share

Global Warming Science Settled, No Definitive Answers in Relationship Between Moose and Wolves

Is it money, politics, or stupidity that drives so-called science today? Dang!

It’s unfathomable that any scientist or group of scientists can make stark, unequivocal conclusions about “Climate Change” with basically no data to support it except computer modeling, and yet, when evidence that the presence and number of wolves in a region is directly proportional to the number of moose (or any large prey), today’s scientists claim they cannot make any definitive conclusions.

Just bizarre!

Dr. David Mech, a tool of Environmentalism, whose positions on wolves, blows in the direction the money is coming from, is part of a study in a portion of northeast Minnesota where he says, “We do not claim that wolf numbers only influence moose population during declines nor that wolves are the only factor affecting moose numbers.” And further claims that the recent data collected in this study is but “suggestive information.”

This study shows that since 2001, moose populations have been reduced from an estimated 9,000 to under 4,000 at the same time wolf numbers doubled. In addition, calf survival was cut from nearly one calf per cow to .24 calves per cow. Recent trends, according to the report, indicate wolf numbers have dropped some and at the same time moose numbers have increased. But, you know, it’s all about “Climate Change!”

To an idiot, this is merely “suggestive information.” Whereas, a computer model, less than suggestive, proven over and over and over to be inaccurate, faulty and a waste of time and money, allows many of these same scientists to conclude that global warming is real and “the science is settled.”

 

Share

Insistence on Global Warming As the Culprit of Increased Winter Ticks

There is no end to this and I suspect it will continue – the constant ignorant echo-chambering of global warming is going to kill all of us and everything that lives. Damn global warming and damn the computers people have become addicted to that creates fake “computer modeling” and then is plastered throughout cyberspace as an effective means of brainwashing the masses into believing that if man was simply killed off, Nirvana would take over.

A recent article in the Bangor Daily News (Maine) contained information about a Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont ongoing moose study. Any discussion of this study inevitably brings up the subject of moose ticks. It’s kind of a no-brainer that vast amounts of winter ticks, also called moose ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) are killing moose – perhaps too many moose.

The article states information they claim is what limits the growth of winter ticks: “Late summer drought, which kills tick eggs, and early snowfall, which kills larval ticks before they attach to a host like a moose.” Unfortunately, as always, this is misleading information but works well with selling news copies. Also, unfortunately, this nonsense is repeated incessantly throughout all media to a point where people, including wildlife biologists, believe only what they read in the Media.

If you believe the studies and quote information from those studies, then doesn’t it make sense that you should believe everything that’s in the studies?

Late summer drought CAN have an effect on tick larvae survival. It may also have an effect on tick egg survival. Regardless, that effect is quite minimal in the grand scheme of things…that is if you want to believe the studies where these quotes come from. In addition, “early snowfall” might kill tick larvae in a roundabout way, but most likely the event itself will not kill ticks in an all-of-a-sudden happening. That doesn’t stop the ignorance and dishonesty.

One such study tells about drought and snow and cold and its effects on the survival of the winter tick larvae. It has all the regurgitated echo-chamber scientism, graphs, bells, whistles and even information on the use of “computer modeling” in arriving at certain conclusions. I guess left out of these media echo-chamber discussions are important statements like: “While alterations in drought may influence distribution of the winter tick, climate conditions, especially temperature and snowfall in the spring and fall seasons, seem to be the major determinants of northern expansion of D. albipictus.”

Take notice that drought “MAY” influence tick distribution. However, what does this study say about temperatures? It says that the most influential factors in the destruction of winter tick larvae are high and low temperature exposures. For example, direct exposure of 6 hours to low temperatures of -13 F cause tick larvae to begin dying off. And, high temperatures over 114 F will do the same. Media doesn’t bother to read any of these studies and so they rely on what somebody else tells them who also never reads and examines the studies in their entirety.

What do these temperatures mean? When tick larvae are on the ground, prior to climbing vegetation as part of their “questing” event, they are commonly found in the leaves where temperatures effectively never reach 114 degrees F or -13 F, say nothing about doing so for 6 hours or more.

Once the tick larvae leave the protection of the leaf litter, they begin climbing vegetation where they search for a host, i.e the moose. Their “quest” is a host for the winter where they remain mostly protected from climate conditions hiding out in about a 100-degree climate until Spring.

In late Summer and early Fall, during the tick’s quest, they are exposed to the elements while waiting in the vegetation. It is during this time that the tick is vulnerable. What we are never told is that the tick at this stage is most vulnerable to wind. Yes, that’s right, wind. Wind can blow the ticks from the vegetation and return them to the ground. They must then begin their slow ascent back up the vegetation. They might miss their ride. It could kill them in the end.

They are also vulnerable to cold temperatures. In Maine, during September and October, if the tick larvae are exposed to temperatures at or below -13-degrees F for six hours or more, according to this one study, they will begin to die off. If early snow comes and remains on the ground, it will end the quest cycle which in turn will limit the number of ticks waiting to attach themselves to a passing moose. Obviously, a shortened or a lengthened quest cycle will alter the number of animals that take up a tick for the winter.

So, please leave your comments below with data that shows when and how often areas of Maine have seen these climatic conditions that will kill tick larvae in September and October. Hint: I won’t be holding my breath while waiting.

But it’s global warming that is causing the increase in winter ticks. That’s we hear perpetually. Okay, let’s play their game. If global warming, as spoken and written about in the Media, is real, then according to them the average temperature in a place like Maine will increase gradually anywhere from 1 – 5 degrees F over the next half-century. With the information I just gave, and the fact that more than likely the authors of this study are believers in global warming (they indicate as such in their study report) how can it pass the straight face test that small average temperature rises are what is causing ticks to increase in the proportions that they have?

Missing from this study, as we often find in about all studies rooted in global warming mythology, is any discussion about how the number of moose effect the number of ticks. We know from what has been learned that the winter tick could never survive if it didn’t have a host. This study indicates that riding on the back of a moose is the safest place in the world for tick larvae to be. When we examine the life cycle of the winter tick, you don’t have to be an over-paid scientist to understand that to kill the tick is to eliminate any one part of its life cycle. Not much we can do about climatic conditions…no, seriously, there isn’t. Get over it. Grow up! There is so much separation in reality between the conditions of drought, high and low temperatures (in Maine) and the survival of the tick larvae that it appears a waste of time trying to blame it all on global warming when perhaps the answer is really very simple.

I am thus reminded of what a veterinary scientist said not very long ago about moose and moose ticks: “Once (winter ticks are) introduced in a moose population in an area, the only known way to control it is to reduce the moose density, especially calves, so that there are no hosts available,” she said. “It would require an antler-less hunt or even a cull of calves and yearlings, which would not be something that would be easy to sell to the public.”

I have, and will continue to hear, all the nonsense about how, because I am a hunter, I just want to hunt and kill moose. Not exactly true. For example, I am a hunter. I hunt almost 100% only deer. I have never hunted moose, nor have I ever applied for a moose permit to do so. I have no plans for my future to do that either. I like moose meat. I like it a lot. I like deer venison more.

Consider, however, the ignorance of the statement that all I want to do is hunt moose or that all I want is for hunters to hunt moose. Once the moose herd was reduced to levels where events of winter ticks stop their epizoodic levels, hunting of moose will return to a level to maintain a moose herd. There might be a short burst of increased moose hunting to reduce the population, but certainly, it will not continue.

As far as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife managing moose numbers at levels to please the public to be able to see moose, it is time to end that dangerous practice. Growing moose so people can drive around in climate-controlled autos and view moose, needs to end and end now. Look what it is doing to our moose. Are we to allow 50% of our moose calves to suffer a slow death so someone in an SUV can gawk at a moose? Get off your lazy ass and walk in the woods to see moose the way some of the rest of us do.

But nothing will change. Obsessed with global warming and the money and convenient excuses that come with it, enables the creation of more and more useful idiots.

However I must say,

DON’T GO LOOK!

 

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

Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.

Nice!

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