December 10, 2018

Return to an Apologetic Savage Nation

Recently, Jim Beers, contributing writer for this website, wrote an article that concerned a piece found in the Wall Street Journal. The premise of the work is that with the ongoing promotion of “neo” ecological theory of hands-off “natural regulation,” wildlife and land management, and “rewilding,” the society is regressing from a civilized people back to a savage existence.

It prompted me to write my own article that first appeared in print in the Bethel Citizen (small Maine town) newspaper. Here is that article:

Return to a “Savage” State

Open Air with Tom Remington

James Beers, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee who spent considerable time in Washington, D.C., who became a whistleblower discovering as much as $60 million was stolen from Pittman-Robertson Federal Excise taxes to be used for reintroducing wolves to the Northern Rockies and other illegal activities, recently said that if we are not willing to put a stop to the current “Ecological Theory” that places man as equal to or lesser than that of plants and animals and “spiritual rewilding” our forests and plains, this lack of action will “…return all of us eventually into a “savage state.”

The definition of “civilize” is “to bring out of a savage state.” As our civilization advanced from what some have perceived as uncontrolled slaughter of many of our wild animals and destruction of the habitat that confronted the settlers, through responsible wildlife management which led to developing an understanding of the cooperation of both consumption and conservation, establishing the North American Model of Wildlife Management, we are now moving in a direction that is calling for a hands-off approach to plant and animal management; establishing wilderness and predator protection based somewhat on the belief that Nature produces a preferred outcome.

If the land was in a “natural” state when we found it, i.e. “savage state,” working to restore it to what it once was, or what we think it once was, surely must be a return to an uncivilized, savage state.

We have and are being misled that leaving things up to Nature, will provide for a stabilization of animal and plant existence, i.e. that Nature achieves a “balance” where everything is Nirvana. My very good friend, Dr. Valerius Giest, a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, says that the Utopian belief in nature, free from the hands of man, achieving balance is “intellectual rubbish.” Life consists of constant negative and positive feedback loops where everything is in constant change.

Leaving it to Nature will yield what Nature has to offer. Reality shows us that Nature’s results are not what most of us prefer. We prefer control and manipulation to achieve healthy plants and wildlife as best possible, while at the same time continuing to provide an opportunity for that long-held, civilized existence of regulated hunting, trapping, and fishing.

If we prefer a healthy existence for our wildlife, someone has to manage and control it. Nature will not, contrary to what some believe, give us what we want in this civilized society. Taking from the resource in a responsible, scientific approach is a cooperation that undertakes the task of managing wildlife for a healthy bounty and providing opportunities for those who wish to take sustenance from that resource. It’s a win-win.

It seems with each passing year, the grumbles and groans get louder and louder of the need to end hunting, fishing, and trapping. As it currently stands, we exist in a back scratching situation where licensed hunters, fishers, and trappers pay the costs of wildlife management in return for an opportunity to reap the rewards of taking from the resource. To deny that privilege, thinking wildlife will manage itself is wrong thinking. To steal it away with a belief that wildlife will control itself is uncivilized, returning us eventually to the previous savage state.

The next time you see a hunter, trapper, or fisherman, thank them for providing the means of responsible conservation so that all of us can enjoy a healthy wildlife.

********

Today, a friend sent me a link to an article published at National Review called “Friends of Elmer.” In this piece of work, the author points out how the existence of the (perhaps second) oldest profession, hunting, has morphed into an act of apologizing and calling on all hunters, as was requested by the long-held magazine of hunting and outdoor activities, Sports Afield, “…for the sake of the hunting community, please don’t say anything about it on social media, and please, please don’t post any pictures.” This in regards to whether anyone was able to obtain a license to hunt a grizzly bear.

Another hunting magazine was quoted as saying, “We need to be very, very careful and intentional about what we post and what are in those posts.”

The author of the referred-to article writes: “The problem with that line of argument is that dead animals are necessarily front-and-center when it comes to hunting. That is, ultimately, what hunting is about — and hunters should not apologize for that. Hunting is one of the most ancient of organized human undertakings: Hunting, and not that other thing, may very well be the world’s oldest profession. And whether one thinks of it as sport or ritual — or simply as gathering protein — it is part of an honorable tradition, and a pursuit that can be, at its best, profound.”

Aren’t these actions of apologizing for being a hunter and for hunting, and the fear we are instilled with driving us to feel the need to apologize, just another aspect of this society’s regression toward a savage state? If, as has been stated, our society brought itself out of an uncivilized existent, to return to that is savage.

I witness repeatedly, fish and wildlife departments across the country living in fear of lawsuits from environmentalists and animal rights groups. I understand the concern but not the fear (or apologies) but are we to shed our responsibilities to manage, control, protect where needed, etc. wildlife because we fear a lawsuit?

The author says that the protests from people are “aesthetic” – a set of idealistic false principles guiding one’s every move, an almost “Keeping up with the Joneses” kind of existence. It also sounds a lot like the changing of our “Foundational Libraries” – the Power Structure‘s efforts to rewrite the foundational principles and morals that are the driving force of our cultural existence.

Partly because of fear of lawsuits, but mostly due to Environmentalism’s powerful outreach to brainwash (change the foundational library) the masses, this very disease has reached epidemic proportions in this country, as can be witnessed at any time in our society; apologizing for being a hunter. I guess it holds more moralistic and cultural value to proclaim your sexual orientation and expose your immoral behavior, along with your hatred and complete disregard for your Creator, than to admit you are a hunter.

If you are ashamed to be a hunter, feel the need to apologize, and believe that the North American Model of Wildlife Management is wrong, before you apologize for being a hunter, destroy your guns and never buy a hunting license again. Don’t be an apologist as some of our traditional hunting magazines, as well as many hunters, are doing. They are only doing the bidding for those changing our foundational structures while at the same time putting a noose around the necks of themselves and the long-held heritage of hunting.

Share

The Basic Principle of Product and Process

I was a very young man the first time I heard any reference to the child-rearing principle of working and earning those things that become important to you. I recall, many times, my parents making comments like: “Nobody can ever truly appreciate things given to them. You must work for what you want. It makes you understand and appreciate it more.” Working and appreciating is part of a process once taught to children to make them better people. Is that process being lost? It must be as we have entered the generation of entitlement, where far too many young people believe they are entitled to the many things those of us of a different generation worked very hard to achieve.

If you examine the Scriptures, you’ll find in Genesis all about the Creation. You will also discover that in the Garden of Eden, where Yehwah placed Adam and Eve to live, Eve went against the only commandment given – they couldn’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let’s look a tiny bit closer.

Yehwah and Adam were very busy. Yehwah was making things faster than Adam could keep up, it would seem by today’s standards. We don’t know for sure how long Adam was the only man before Yehwah created Eve, but we know that after Adam was created, he became part of the process.Yehwah got him involved right from the get go. One of his jobs was in naming all the wild animals. We know there are and were a lot of animals so, it took some time for Adam to name them all. For those with any sort of work ethic and appreciation, imagine the sense of ownership and being a part of this new world. Adam was also tasked with caring for the Garden of Eden. What was Eve doing?

Not to pick on Eve, but consider that maybe Eve was given all the comforts of home. She was, after all, created as a companion for Adam. If we might subscribe to the theory that Eve was more easily tempted by that evil serpent because she wasn’t part of the process, lacking in a fundamental knowledge and appreciation of what was being done, then surely it should be readily acceptable to think that after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the “sin” became knowledge that being given the products without the process was not a good thing.

If this was one of the first acts of sin man committed, surely that same sin was passed on and embellished for every evil rotten purpose man could think of.

If you tend to agree with this idea of being spoiled rotten due to being left out of the process, you are probably old enough to know the difference. Just how vast and destructive is this wayward act of receiving handouts instead of earning them, some 6,000 years later?

I was reading an article on the Sultan Knish website, written by Daniel Greenfield, castigating Muslims who have immigrated to Sweden for burning cars as part of their protests. Greenfield asks why anyone would want to become part of a culture that, “makes you so weak and impotent that anyone can come and take what belongs to you?” He also describes the result of Western culture as, “the outcome of a historical process that is hard to explain to people who were never part of the process.”

There is an obvious clash of cultures that are separated by vast amounts of time, where one society sits on the cutting edge of technology (not necessarily better) and another that appears to the Cutting Edge as though it was mired two centuries behind “the times” – not necessarily better or worse either.

Perhaps some might remember when the United States took it upon themselves to invade Iraq “because there were weapons of mass destruction.” Bandied around in the mass propaganda establishments were brief discussions of how the Iraqi people would act and react if and when the U.S. forced it’s democratic ideals of “freedom” onto a people that had no experience in living in much of any degree of freedom. By the way, how is that giant culture clash proceeding?

At the end of his article, writer Greenfield states, “The Western ideal has been reduced to a personal technocratic utopia built on efficiency and it has collided in the night with an Eastern ideal of the clan and a theocratic utopia built on total purity.”

Perhaps the difference between myself and Greenfield is he might see this as the forcing together of cultures by happenstance and the misguidance of poor and biased political ideals. I see it as a planned event. One must understand the entire scope of this “planned event” in order to be able to grasp the true clash, much of which is false. It is people’s manipulated perception of things that causes many of the problems we face.

But then again, the author does describe the migration of the “Western Ideal” as being reduced to a “personal technocratic utopia,” as being something of less value. I agree, however, it is my opinion that most of Western culture embraces their personal technocratic utopia that has been forced upon them at such a rapid pace if makes impulse shopping look like child’s play. Oh, the addiction of cellphones and social media – the beast’s most powerful and progress tool for culture identity destruction that exists today. What will be next?

In 1970, world purveyor of evil, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his book, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” that, “Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.”

Some have come to see Brzezinski as some kind of prophet, but I wonder how can one be a prophet that creates so much they can control the outcome? It’s a bit like what the technetronic era has turned scientific research into – outcome bases Romance Biology and Voodoo Science. Few are aware of this event but have been programmed to enjoy its perceived rewards.

Recall that just recently I wrote about Brzezinski’s daughter Mika telling the world it was the job of Media to tell people what they SHOULD be hearing and seeing. She should know this to be true because I am sure she understands her father’s role in all of this planned division of cultures.

Dr. John Coleman has written many books on the topics of media, propaganda and the planned control of the masses. It is not merely coincidence that about the time Brzesinski was writing his book, organizations like the Tavistock Institute on Human Relations and their cloned global associates, deliberately and systematically, took control over all media and education in order that one day many in the world would see Muslims burning cars in Sweden and write about how cultures clash and there is no way that two or more cultures can exist together.

The controlled mass media has been a participant in the deliberate creation of the technocratic/technetronic society of Western Culture, if for no other reason than to severely collide with tribal Eastern theocratic idealism – to name but one example. This, of course, was enhanced greatly due to planned, worldwide immigration. We must remember too that all worldwide immigration issues are and have been the product of the Vatican. The only hope to their future is that one culture remains uneducated and poor and the other so ignorant, void of the process and full of the products, they know not what they do and will have no learned appreciation and respect, let alone any willingness to work hard and fight to keep it.

The ultimate goal of the Ruling Establishments (they are the Ruling Establishment because they rule. It’s all part of their posterity, of which the common man is ignorant of) is to own and control everything. This includes all natural and man-made resources. When the time comes, all that will be needed is a comparatively small number of slaves to provide for the posterity. Where are you?

I can think of no better way to move along this evil goal than to provide the young all the products they “need,” while avoiding any of the processes that grow knowledge, appreciation and understanding.

Planned dysfunction!

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Perhaps Not Such a Random Thought and Comment

I have, for the most part, stopped watching television news. Need I explain why? However, I think it was yesterday, as I was sitting at my computer writing, I could hear on the television in the next room a news story of how one Middle School, somewhere in America, was celebrating “culture day,” whatever that is. I think it is part of what is called “spirit week.” Probably the spirit is that of Satan, but I digress.

One student brought in a Confederate Flag for his representation of “culture.” The police were called immediately. The young man was arrested and suspended from school (I don’t know for how long). The next day all the black students skipped class and gathered in protest outside the school building. Their actions were applauded.

Share

“Bitter Clingers” A Reality?

Pat Buchanan writes of “The Great White Hope” as an explanation of why angry white men are following Donald Trump: “When our cultural and political elites celebrate “diversity” and clamor for more, what are they demanding, if not fewer white males in the work force and in the freshman classes at Annapolis and Harvard?

What is the moral argument for an affirmative action that justifies unending race discrimination against a declining white working class, who have become the expendables of our multicultural regime?

“Angry white male” is now an acceptable slur in culture and politics.”

bitterpeople

These are “The Bitter People”

“It’s not surprising,” Barack Obama volunteered to his San Francisco high-donors, that such folks, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…”

Did Barack Obama believe his racist statement at the time? Or, is this what he hoped to accomplish in the 8 years the Council on Foreign Relations gave him to carry out orders and etch his legacy into future fake history books?

Share

America’s “No-Go Zones”

The zones are enclaves where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, and law enforcement has lost some degree of control.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently told Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto that the zones are inevitable in America if the country doesn’t insist that immigrant Muslims assimilate.

He said Islamists are setting up their own culture within the United States “to overturn our culture.”

“We need to recognize that threat,” he insisted.

He said there are neighborhoods that could be defined as a no-go zone.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Day 59 – No Executive Orders

BARRATRY!

Day 59, just shy of two months, the American people have waited to see the details of what the majority of people thought were President Barack Obama’s signed 23 executive orders on gun control. The President presented his puppet press with 23 ideas that related to guns and gun rights and promised he would draft 23 orders to implement these Second Amendment violations. He even created a dog and pony show, perhaps better described as an act of prestidigitation, complete with smoke and mirrors.

There are no executive orders on gun control posted on the White House website as promised.

Timothy P. Carney had an article a couple of days ago about how liberals, specifically those who present themselves as being opposed to gun ownership, aren’t all that interested in attacking the real problems surrounding violence, gun violence and mass murders in this country. Instead their attacks are focused on destroying a culture, or a lifestyle, that they dislike or don’t agree with. Should this really come as a shock to any of us?

Carney writes:

Gun control efforts are largely a culture-war offensive by liberals who dislike the parts of America that own guns and love guns. This meddling motivation shines through in the rhetoric of gun control advocates and in the laws they push.

For many gun owners, the firearm is not merely a tool for the practical purpose of self-defense. Nor is it simply recreational equipment, like a golf club. It’s a cultural signifier, and a totem of a worldview.

How true, but lets not lose sight of the fact that this same method of attack happens at some level regardless of political ideals. We can’t help it. We have been trained to think this way. Involuntary labels and mind manipulation have us programmed to think that we must opposed an idea simply because it comes from “the enemy” or the other side of politics and culture.

I would suppose that many of us give lip service to the idea that proposed bills that aim to limit Second Amendment rights aren’t about guns and gun violence. What we have difficulty in doing is expressing then what it really is about.

This idea of attacking a lifestyle or a culture is nothing new and certainly is not confined to Second Amendment issues. Choose your poison and it’s there. Somehow in our society we have reached a point where we have foolishly patted ourselves on the back as being this better-than-thou people of diversity and tolerance, and yet little of it exists. I recall learning about this perhaps as far back as high school as it dealt with Americans’ “Puritanical” self perspective. Somehow it was once believed to be of value to live a life of moral decency and yet as we spoke of our decency, with blinders fitting snugly, the realities of our lifestyle told a different tale.

It is of course my belief that this need that people have in attacking a culture we don’t like is purposely created and begins pretty much from the day we are born. With each successive generation the task of programming the people becomes easier as we are now witnesses of.

SWAG

Yesterday I shared of how Fascist Feinstein got her assault weapons bill passed through the Senate Committee. Below is a video of the exchange between Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Fascist Feinstein. Note the politics as usual. Sen. Cruz asks a question in which Fascist Feinstein never answers, instead gives a pity party speech about how wonderful and smart she is. The discussion then turns toward books instead of guns and ends with a confessional of how Heller v. District of Columbia gives Fascist Feinstein the right to decide that Americans don’t NEED over 2,700 guns she wants to ban.

fascistfeinstein

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part II

It is not my intention to foist all the blame for terrible, ridiculous, confusing, misleading and down right poor wildlife management on wildlife science graduates of our universities because that is only part of the picture. It is imperative to keep in mind the entire picture, for the work the new-science scientists are doing would not be working – meaning they are getting away with it – if you and I had not been “trained” to accept it; much like preparing a great Thanksgiving dinner and having no table or guests prepared to eat it.

This concept is probably confusing to most because they cannot see themselves as not holding truth. Most all Americans have knowledge of varying degrees but what is the root of that knowledge? Recently in a mild discussion I had with a friend, I posed the following thought in order to catch a reaction: “Suppose for a moment, if you will, that most everything you have been taught since the day you were born was a lie.”

I got mostly a blank stare and that came as no surprise. After all, who wants to discover they are living a lie? Just think about what that would mean and soon you find how terrifying such an epiphany would be and you want to quickly retreat to the familiar comforts of the environment that’s been created for you.

Let’s return to the list I mentioned in Part I. That was the list of all the things that you believe made America great. That list will vary by generations as the younger our American citizens are, the less they know of what did make America great. If you’ve made a list, whether real or in you mind, on that list you may have included a few things that I talked about in Part I.

I briefly touched on the following:

1.) Our inalienable, God-given rights
2.) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
3.) A citizenry (sportsmen) who care enough to protect a resource

and to this list, as it pertains to hunting, trapping, fishing, etc., we can add:
4.) Outdoor heritage
5.) The increase in strength of the family unit for those in the outdoors together
6.) The freedom to access land for outdoor recreation
7.) Our access to game resources, i.e. management of wildlife to create a sustainable yield.

I am sure you can add to this list but let’s not miss the point. If these are some of the things that made America great, and I wanted to change and/or destroy that, I simply have to attack each one. If this American heritage and culture were deeply engrained into our society, one might expect it would be difficult to one day just say, “No more hunting, trapping and fishing!” That’s not how it’s done. It’s done one step at a time. A painstaking method of changing the thought processes of the people; all the people.

In looking at my list, I would need to teach people that our rights come from man, meaning governments and that there is no God; that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is only designed for evil men who like to kill things to prove their manhood; that the family unit is invaluable and the identity of that unit must be changed; that sportsmen are selfish, irrational killers of innocent animals; that times have changed and there is no need for a heritage grounded in the outdoors; that the family has better things to do, like go to movies, play computer games, cellphones, sex, drugs, etc.; that land belongs to the government and government decides who can access it and when.

Haven’t many of these things already taken place? And we wonder what is happening to our heritage? Unfortunately, because we are all products of the same education/indoctrination/brainwashing system, we fail to even ask why? Who? What? When? Where? How?

What things in this country have influence over you and your children? Again, along with your list of things that made America great, draft another list of the things in your life that have influence over you and your children/family and friends. It may look something like this:
1.) Parents
2.) Friends
3.) God/Church
4.) School/teachers
5.) Television
6.) Music
7.) Books
8.) Sports
9.) A mentor

Have you ever asked yourself who has control over each of these things? Is it you and I? Have you ever considered that perhaps someone or something has control over all of them and their plan is to change and/or destroy all of those things that made our nation great and along with it, the destruction of our heritage?

Many years ago, the world was very large. We and our children didn’t have access to instant information. Our children spent the majority of their time at home with family, having meals together, learning together, working together, playing together, etc. and the parents, having spent the most time with their kids, had the most influence over them. That no longer is the case. Schools, television, computer games, cellphones, music, etc. are the big influences. If you are willing to accept this premise, then if you care about your family, shouldn’t you know who controls what controls your kids and if there’s a plan behind it?

I do not intend to get into a parenting debate with readers but if we can’t get a grasp on this issue, we can never understand why our outdoor heritage, actually our heritage in general, is disappearing before our very eyes. We are losing our identity and this is because our children are having their identity created by someone else rather than mom and dad.

What if there was one entity with the power, money and influence to control nearly every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know it’s happening? Who decides on our children’s school curriculum and why? Are you aware of what your children are watching on television, who’s behind the programming and what they intend to accomplish by offering it to you and your family? The same can be asked about music, books, nearly every aspect of our lives. Why are we complacent and let it happen?

In Part III, I’ll begin to take a look at the actual people and entities that control our lives. It is that control that decides that our outdoor heritage will be destroyed and hopefully we can learn to recognize it and how it is being done. Then and only then, can we hope to stop it.

Share

If I Wanted To End Hunting, What Would I Do?

If I wanted to be the despot of the New World Order/One World Government, and one of the ways I believed imperative to control the people, those lovers of liberty, to achieve that goal, was to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing, how would I do it?

In it’s most simplistic form, I would have to take away the tools used to kill game or take away the game. But seriously, who is going to sit quietly by while one day I decide it’s time to destroy and ban ownership of guns, bows and arrows, traps, fishing poles, etc.? So far that hasn’t happened although there are efforts underway to slowly undermine the manufacture and possession of certain of these tools. But just keep believing it’s “reasonable” restrictions. “Nothing to see here! Move on, please!”

And would we as a people revolt if, one day, we woke up and were told all game species are now protected and cannot be hunted, trapped or fished? Probably not as well, but what if it was all just a slow death? Would we even take notice?

I’m not sure how we can put a timeline together as to when it started but in my judgement the birth of environmentalism in the 1970s was the onset of the end of our hunting, trapping and fishing culture and heritage. No, we didn’t wake up one morning and discover we couldn’t hunt and fish. A slow erosion has forever stripped away the identity of our hunting and fishing culture and heritage and replaced it with a socialistic architecture; the result of a war waged at winning the public’s trust first, then a systematic, unnoticeable (by most), dismantling of not only our culture and heritage, but the science that crafted the foundation of a wildlife management scheme of which was the envy of the world.

If it isn’t enough that most of us slept through the 70s, 80s, 90s and the early 2000s, we not only remain asleep but some that have woken up enough to get a first cup of coffee into them, don’t realize they are still being duped and at the same time thinking they have put a stop to, or at least slowed down, the onslaught against hunting and fishing and trapping. Quick! Drink another cup of coffee or six.

I have a case in point, which I will be forthright in saying it is my opinion based on years of reading, research, discovery and history. I have always said a person has met his match when he walks into, let’s say someone’s office, to demand their way and walks out with a big smile on his face believing he has won his demand, not knowing he was further taken advantage of. Being taken advantage of comes from ignorance and naivete.

In the Northern Rocky Mountains region, the citizens there were lied to and miserably misrepresented by government as to the realities of gray wolf reintroduction. Some have called the actions by the United States Government, staff and certain non governmental agencies and staff, criminal in nature and in need of legal prosecution.

Regardless, gray wolves were dumped onto the landscape and the result, in my opinion, has been a disaster; not in the sense that wolves didn’t make a biological recovery, but for whatever the reasons one chooses to point a finger at, it has turned into a social nightmare and a biological imbalance of wildlife species in those areas where wolves have been allowed to run rampant. However, the perpetrators of the wolf introduction aren’t suddenly going to roll over and play dead.

There’s a better way for them. In the original plans, such as they were, there was talk that one day there might be enough wolves in the forest to offer a hunting season on them. By doing such, even though many of the useful idiots who don’t understand the despot’s plan, the varmint dog is elevated to an equal social icon as other “big game” animals, i.e. elk, deer, moose, big horn sheep, grizzlies, etc. Now that the species is elevated to something it should never have been allowed to, more protections are put on the creature and value that is contemptible.

That one day came around and to appease the “sportsmen”, a hunting, and yes, even a trapping season in some places, was offered; a complete placation to the sportsmen. This should have been seen as an insult, a mockery of the tried and esteemed “model” of game management, and instead was hailed by some sportsmen as a victory.

History has proven that you can’t manage the gray wolf like you do other game animals. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation utilizes the hunting of game species to control populations and a controlling of predators to protect the game species; the key word being “control”. If wolves and other large predators aren’t controlled in order to produce consumptive use, then there will result in no game left to hunt. Oh wait! Isn’t that my despotic plan?

Nearly four years ago I warned that the plans being formulated by fish and game institutions would have no effect on the wolf populations. Around about that same time, I did a five-part series on the historic difficulties by civilizations in many countries, including the United States, to control wolves.

The short of it is, having limited tool and resource hunting and trapping seasons is only going to make the sportsmen think they have gotten their way, when in fact their opportunities will slowly diminish to nothing. Is there a smile on your face? Is that satisfactory to you?

As I write, Idaho and Montana have had wolf hunting seasons. Wyoming and Wisconsin are planning them this fall, although Wyoming’s may not happen because of lawsuits (what else is new?).

As the evil despot that I am, I believe I have mitigated the angst of many of the sportsmen. This will allow me more time to do things like Idaho is doing; lining up environmentalists, animal rights groups, predator protectors, etc. who will funnel the money I channel to them – through worldwide agencies all opposed to consumptive wildlife use, land ownership, liberty and rights – to fund wildlife departments nationwide that have now all been brainwashed into believing my hogwash I injected into the education institutions many years before. My plan is in place, so deeply rooted you’ll never change it. You might slow it down here and there, so go back to sleep.

Not that I think there’s a lot that can be done anymore to stop this giant steamroller, but at least don’t be shot with a black bag over your head. Knowing who killed your culture and heritage must have some kind of redeeming value. Doesn’t it? Snore!

Share

I Ate My Dog For Homework

Two things in play in our society today and one of them dominates all others. The second issue is that our society struggles to laugh at themselves and find humor in things where humor is intended to be found. The first and most dominant point of departure is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truth setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington

Share