April 20, 2018

Coyote Snaring and the Difference Between Fascism and Democracy

An opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News laments any notion that trapping of coyotes by snares should be reinstated. As the old saying goes, it might be a cold day in hell before…..But that doesn’t stop a good opportunity to opine emotional, outdated, clap-trap in hopes of influencing the public opinion poll, and for what purpose?

But this isn’t really about the pros and cons of snaring. It’s about credibility or the lack thereof, and a person’s failure, it appears to understand the difference between living in a democracy and under the ruling of fascist dictatorship.

Some may know that I’m no big fan of democratic rule and am certainly opposed to Fascism. It is always said that democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Fascism, in a similar regard, is one person or government forcing both the wolves and the sheep to eat what they are told to eat.

Another misconception that exists in this post-normal world is the idea that political ideology runs along a straight line, a continuum if you will. I disagree. If you follow extreme Leftism far enough, it ends up in fascism. If you follow the far Right far enough, you’ll run headlong into the Left and fascism.

In the Bangor News opinion piece, the author attempts to make the argument that the money spent killing coyotes for predator control could have been better spent, “…passing laws to protect deer yards.”

For those not intelligent enough to understand this concept, let me explain. Whether you or I like a democracy or not, there are ways to go about promoting your fascist ideals. However, some who understand a democracy realize that it is far less dictatorial to select a method of predator control to salvage a deer herd than to take land and property rights away from private landowners. Those that promote bigger, more centralized government couldn’t care less about your property rights. Those who understand the value of property ownership and property rights see such calls as a direct effort to suppress those rights…far from the democratic rule.

But to a fascist, they want what they want without any care to the private citizen, or soon to be subject-slave should such displays of fascism, promoted by totalitarians selfishly demanding their own way regardless of the cost to others. This book has been written many times throughout history.

To suggest “passing laws to protect deer yards” is to demand that a landowner should be stripped of their rights to their land. Maine has ample (far too many) fascist restrictions placed on landowners now, that it doesn’t need another prohibiting them from doing anything with their land in order to protect the whims of misguided animal perverts and environmentalists who think it’s better to allow the suffering of animals and the waste of good, natural food, because a person fails to understand the realities of taking a life to sustain another. Fascism is the author of waste.

Maine’s landowners have done a damned good job over the years doing all they can voluntarily to protect what land they can for the deer and they should be thanked instead of asked to give more while those asking do nothing but demand more and more. That’s the foundation of Fascism.

History has shown us that fascism is only a mechanism or a tool to bring a nation under the rule of communism.

Every time someone says, “There ought to be a law….” there goes your liberties and here comes their fascism. Fascism is enabled by totalitarians. Eager and ignorant useless eaters, programmed to believe centralized government forced upon everyone equitably is justice, but is but one step away from fascistic domination, forced obedience and complete control over everything.

Think about that before you open your mouth with your emotional Leftist, Progressive nonsense. I guarantee you will not like your servitude.

Share

Argue the Premise

By James Beers:

I am in agreement with those that say we are living in a “Dictatorship of Relativism”.

Relativism refers to the lack of agreement in any one truth and the embrace of unlimited alternatives that conflict with each other in any and all matters of the day.  Consider all the deeply held and conflicting beliefs surrounding such matters as:

–       Hunting is and should remain legal.

–       Grazing and logging on private and public property is beneficial and sustainable.

–       Private ownership of animals is a legal and beneficial tradition.

–       Prosecution and punishment of criminals should be the same for all races and sexes.

–       Churches should be subservient to government controls.

–       Gun ownership is a valuable right of all Americans interested in protecting themselves, their families and their community from criminals, terrorists and government factions determined to establish a dictatorship.

–       Government should never discriminate based on sex or race for any purpose.

–       Central government should be grown and lower levels made subservient to it.

–       Government should control sermons, healthcare, native/non-native species, water, land uses, life support decisions, etc.

–       Fetal (in the womb) humans should receive the total legal protection afforded federally-protected migratory birds.

–       Central government bureaucrats should decide bathroom use, education priorities, endangered species’ decrees, dam construction, energy development matters, whether to cooperate or not with State or Local officials, access roads and Local decisions affecting Local communities and their economies, etc.

*Note that I do not mention the Endangered Species Act or the US Forest Service or government regulations or some politician’s latest distraction disguised as some all-good proposal to solve some big problem he concocted in the first place.  What appear above are the PREMISES claimed to justify government allowing or prohibiting everything government controls or aims to control, as believed and supported by the most powerful among us.

dic-ta-tor-ship, n. 1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.  2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.

“Dictatorship of relativism” means the emergence of a ruling class with absolute power simply declaring under the auspices of what is in THEIR best interest what is right; what is wrong; what will be allowed; and what will be forbidden.  There is no “right” or “wrong” beyond what the dictator decrees.  There are no “rights” beyond what government allows or prohibits.  Regarding the PREMISES examples list; what government allows today, they may well prohibit tomorrow.  In other words, there is no truth or consistency guaranteed by government and the powerful that control it: there are only their individual interests served by such uncontrolled and unresponsive government.  It has always been so.

I must constantly remind myself of this.  While the day-to-day confrontation of the latest US Fish and Wildlife Service lies about government-imposed large predators; or the public refutation of the latest land closures to grazing or logging or hunting or trapping or access or beaches by government; etc., etc. are each and totally necessary: too often we limit ourselves to the minutiae of the problem at hand.  By that I mean we refute and argue the “study” or the “regulation” or the court precedent or the bureaucrat’s lie or the scientists misleading humbug and collapse in a heap either as winners emboldened to keep fighting or as losers mumbling “what’s the use, it is hopeless”.

Whether we are hunters, trappers, fishermen, wood cutters, ranchers, animal owners, small businessmen, rural residents, beach-goers, property owners, Local governments, State governments, or the foregoing’s Non-Government Organizations; we all are guilty of not arguing the PREMISES.  When we have numerous disagreements among ourselves we are like armies without discipline or any agreement about what we are fighting for.  Thus we avoid the conflict associated with taking on the PREMISES with government and those controlling them to savage our rights, our families, our culture, our traditions and our way of life.  As long as this persists, we will steadily diminish and ultimately vanish into the maw of a dictatorship like plankton disappearing into the gullet of a whale shark.

For instance, arguing about wolf/coyote hybrids and their “protection” is like arguing about how many angels can coexist on the head of a pin.  It is meaningless trivia to avoid reaching agreement that angels exist or not; just like the hybrid question avoids the resolution of the question that government either has or does not have the authority to introduce, protect, take property, reduce rural economies, or endanger rural residents on behalf of any animal not accepted or welcomed by those forced to accommodate them.

Is it “just” (i.e. “actuated by truth, justice, and lack of bias – to be just in one’s dealings”) for government to “prefer” certain “races” and “sexual designations” for everything from jobs and college admissions to housing and financial assistance?  What is the Constitutional and “just” role of US government?  What is the truth?

All of PREMISES underlying these matters are hidden and distorted by government and media propaganda as well as the schoolroom nonsense disguised as “education”.  Rationales from growing government power and the implementation of so many hidden agendas from gun control to elimination of hunting, ranching and timber management are all driving these “do-good” laws, regulations and policies.  We are reduced to arguing about these immediate issues based on things like:

–       Hunters and trappers are mean persons.

–       Ranchers destroy rural habitats.

–       Loggers kill animals, habitats, and precious vistas.

–       Federal experts are smarter than State or other “experts”.

–       “Scientists” (in the employ of or hoping to be favored by government fund administrators) say…

In short, we and “our” (mostly cowardly) organizations need to Argue the Premises of our interests loud and clear.  We need to stand firm about defending what we hold dear.  All the last 45 years of getting along, pretending to see the “wisdom” of radical government policies, and worrying about how neighbors or voters will see us and our interests has gotten us only deeper into the hole they are digging to bury us.  If the Founding Fathers had behaved like we do; we would have just had to vote about whether or not “we” (i.e. Great Britain) would leave the EU (BREXIT)?  If Britain was full of folks like us for that vote, they would probably still be in the EU and the papers would be full of pictures of boats full of refugees from not only Islamic war-torn lands but also from Terrorist-infested lands like Norway and Sweden.

Argue the Premise.  To do otherwise is like the Founding Fathers sending a Committee to London in 1776 to “appeal” tax and military policies of the King.  Lots of luck with that, just like our luck with all this arguing about meaningless things has been and will remain, all bad.  If we cannot agree on a common truth (the role of government; the responsibility for our surroundings; the very nature of our humanity; etc.) our fate will be dictatorship by a default we brought upon ourselves.

Jim Beers

10 August 2016

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

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

Share

Endangered Species Act is UnAmerican

“The decades of failure of the Endangered Species Act’s brand of centralized control disqualifies it as a solution for anything American. And no wonder. Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas of centralized control have likewise failed countries worldwide for the past 180 years or so.”<<<Read More>>>

Share