April 25, 2018

When Totalitarians Steal Your Presumed Land Rights

Perhaps the first mistake of mind is a false understanding that you, as an individual, are part of “We the People” as found in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was constructed for “We the People”; that is owners or shareholders of the corporation called the United States and from that point passed on down to their posterity as is mentioned in that constitution. Individual states signed on to the corporation and became legal participants. Each time you sign your name to any legal document of the state, you are agreeing and willing to abide by the terms of that corporation. In short, you only have rights as are meted out by the corporation, including land ownership. The corporation permits you to carry out other functions as a benefit to them, not to you.

A tough pill to swallow.

Because from birth we are brainwashed to think we live in a free “democratic” country, where “We the People” are “you the people” you think you have power over others simply by finding more voters to go against their “freedoms.” Believing that a democratic rule is somehow American (being defined as the majority so desires) and serving as the useful idiots for the posterity of “We the People” corporate rulers, our mostly false understanding of democracy has quickly morphed into a totalitarian rule accomplished by years of mind manipulation. In layman’s terms – tying the noose that will ultimately hang you.

We live in a society that seems empowered to force the idealism of enough people onto others regardless of any perceived rights. What makes totalitarianism successful is the ability of the centralized system of government and their controllers to indoctrinate the masses into certain beliefs and attitudes. Once a dictatorial, centralized government has molded the minds of non-thinking people, those people are used to do the bidding for the government in power. It works marvelously!

We can see all this in action wherever we go if we understand the reality and look for it. Few do or care.

Yesterday I was reading an article, several actually, about how the Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) is considering modifying their controls and regulations that could allow for greater development of lands that fall under the government control of the LUPC, i.e. “unorganized townships.”

Useful idiots for a centralized government, ignorant totalitarians, one day decided what their ideal desires were for someone else’s private land. Yeah, that’s right. You see, nobody owns land. We may hold a “tenants in common” deed, that grants us the privilege to pay tribute to the governments in control, under their very strict regulations, but when push comes to shove we are helpless. There may come a time when the government decides they have need of your land and so take it with little recourse to you.

To help accomplish the wishes of centralized government, “education” programs are established that are designed to tell us what it is we want. So-called “change agents” of centralized government go out into the community and using powerful tactics designed from a firm understanding of man’s nature and ease of mind manipulation, convince other people of what society should be like and all aspects that make up our surroundings. With a majority support of the useful idiots, most anything can be accomplished while causing people to believe it is democracy in action.

One of those bits of idealism involves a “vision” of what communities and private land should be. And thus was born the Land Use Planning Commission, or whatever the name of your state’s dictatorial land use organization is called, in order that land use falls within the ideological bounds of brainwashed citizens.

I never hear anyone ask why there is such a commission…never. It also seems that the only time private citizens have much to say about the fascist form of dictatorial rule is when that rule directly effects them – if they can even recognize it. Aside from that, it is always the brainwashed, ignorant totalitarians who demand that you conform to the strict regulations of the LUPC in order that you can have your ideal, protected, isolated fantasy that someone else is paying for.

Ignorant totalitarians care not whether a person or a corporation has invested heavily in any property for purposes of providing a product to consumers, and yes, for profit, they have been convinced that it is imperative that all that land be locked up in order to fit their idealism.

This is totalitarianism at its best, carried out and perpetuated by non-thinkers who believe their democracy provides them the power to steal away the rights and lifestyle of all others.

I was reading another piece of work called, “Forging a Common Vision for Maine’s North Woods.” Think about that title for a moment. Why is it so important to these robotic destroyers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that they forge a “common vision” (communism) of what doesn’t even belong to them? Who do we think we are? What have we become?

Hidden within the disguise of protection, while never hinting at the perpetuation of one’s idealist social agenda, we can read about the effort of “forging a common vision.”

Efforts to protect the working landscapes and rural communities of northern Maine could benefit from a broader, more comprehensive view of the region and its challenges. Indeed, forest fragmentation, parcelization, sprawl, and rural economic development all transcend municipal and county jurisdictions, and suggest the need for a regional or landscape-level approach (Foster 2001). This approach should identify and strengthen the region’s ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets, and place these within the larger context of Maine, New England, the Maritime Provinces, and beyond.

Who says? Millions and millions of dollars of somebody’s money have been invested in millions of acres of land in Maine and these totalitarians, lying and hiding behind protection, feel entitled to dictate to those landowners just exactly what they can and cannot do with their land in order that it fits into their “ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets” so that it nicely fits within the totalitarian landscape of the broader region. Does that mean make Maine like Massachusetts or does that mean lock up all the land in Maine so that those in Massachusetts can have Maine as their idealistic playground?

But what of the future? It appears that the ignorant totalitarians bent on their own demise by placing full control over property in the hands of a centralized, socialistic government fail to realize the loss of that important monetary tribute the joint tenant is permitted to cede to government. That money serves to further carry out and perpetuate the power and control of the centralized government and yet once the landowners decide their tribute far exceeds the benefits they could realize from their investment, they will give up that land and into whose hands and control will in then fall? Will it become the full control of the corporate United States or the corporate state’s where the land is located? Perhaps it will be turned over to non-tax-paying land trusts or the like, always eager to do the bidding of central government.

Totalitarians want what they want. Do they really know what they are doing? I don’t think so, but the idealism behind the push is overwhelming to them.

There once was a day when land ownership was the creme del a creme. Today, with so little left that a person can do with land, is it any longer worth the investment?

Then what?

Share

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

When Democracy Sucks!

Share

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Void of sensible argument, let’s just say for the purposes of this discussion, that the corporate “citizens” of this corporation, the United States of America, live in a democracy. Might as well say it because most think we do and vehemently support it. A democracy sucks…especially when you are the sheep in a three-way discussion with two wolves deciding what’s for lunch. When you combine the ills of the so-called democratic process, with the ignorance of taking the high ground on all things democratic, scientific and wildlife management, spelled out for us in bold letters is HYPOCRISY.

To make my point, gander at the article written in the Kennebec Journal extolling the virtues of Maine’s Constitution and the democratic process in deciding who’s going to make the menu for lunch….er, well, kind of – until the promoter of the democratic process discovers she might be headlining the menu.

The article itself is garbage and so I will not waste my time with a step by step process refuting the endless claims of nonsense strewn through the blather of nonsensical words and hypocritical proclamations shouted from the position of the only one holding the high ground on all matters of what this person calls “rights,” science and the management of wildlife.

It would appear the letter writer assumes the position that rights are granted by governments and that those granted rights are how things should be, as in the rule of law, so long as they are the totalitarian rules of law she chooses to subscribe to that promote her ideology and choice of lifestyle.

The day we are born, our Creator gives us all our rights. It is only man in his sin that takes those rights away and/or doles them out as a means of controlling the population and presenting themselves as an “exceptional” government creating an “exceptional” nation. Sound familiar? Perhaps you don’t recognize it.

For each and every law that it enacted, one more aspect of our God-given rights is being chiseled away. We have reached a point in our uncivilized, greedy, nasty, hate-filled nation, where democracy, manipulated by money and power, is used to force the wills of only the most powerful and affluent among our society. There is a different name for this other than democracy…but, don’t go look.

In our own blind ignorance, created by the same powerful and affluent through essentially brainwashing (controlling all forms of education and media) once anyone assumes the high ground on any issue, of course the other side is wrong and need to be stopped, even to the point of wanting the oppositions rights removed. This IS but one of the nasty elements of democracy that you must like.

Aside from the blather of the letter writer, can anyone see the idiocy in the defense of what this person considers her choice in how democracy and the rule of law are applied? I see this most often but I wonder how many others do, especially those bent on forcing their idealism and totalitarian ways onto all others.

With but limited “rights” left, as most all “rights” are either taken away or have been limited to some degree, one can only employ the “democratic” process available in hopes of changing those laws.

In Maine there is but one more attempt at amending the constitution in order to establish what the promoters are calling a constitutional protection to hunt, fish and trap. Incidentally and most relevant to an honest discussion, since Maine became a state, there have been 172 approved amendments to its Constitution. Should it come as a shock to people that the process taken to adopt these amendments was the “democratic” process established within the original Constitution as defined in Article X, Section 4.? If you love this democracy so much, I hope you at least understand how it works.

How, then, is seeking approval from the Maine Legislature, to present to the voters of that state, a chance to consider, debate and vote on this or any other amendment, wrong as it applies to things a person doesn’t approve of?

The letter writer claims that a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap will destroy the rights of others and prohibit them from having any legal recourse in affairs concerning wildlife management. What nonsense. No constitutional amendment, unless so written, will supersede any and all other articles and amendments within a constitution.

Not that long ago, some in Maine were promoting a law that would remove a person’s right to petition the state in wildlife management issues of which I opposed. The proposed amendment, as written, would not do that.

It appears that in the letter writer’s enthusiasm and hatred toward all things hunting, trapping and fishing, she is skewing the lines between offering substantiated reasons to oppose an amendment for its content, and the actual democratic process established within the constitution.

I assure everyone that of the 172 amendments to Maine’s Constitution, not everyone liked and voted for them. However, as I have stated, democracy sucks, especially when you are on the short end of the stick.

The process is established and as much as some would like even to change that process, which can be done by implementation of the democratic and legal processes established within the Constitution, it is a process that shouldn’t be used to somehow demonize anyone’s or group of anyone’s right to petition the state and/or use the legal process to, in fact, let the voters decide. That is after all, what most American’s think is the best way to do things. It’s a classic Jeffersonian process.

The person who wrote this letter obviously does not understand the state’s legal processes, as well as the not so legal processes, that are presented as a right to assure a citizen the process to legally change the laws. It is not only ironic, buy of a double standard, that anyone would, while attempting to bless the Maine Constitution, out of the corner of their mouths, wish to limit those rights to anyone she does not agree with or that doesn’t agree with her.

The process is there, whether we like it or not. If you support this process and believe in it, then put your money where your mouth is and let the process work. In the meantime, if you oppose or support the proposed constitutional amendment then provide valid reasons for or against. Don’t pretend to understand the process while doing everything in your power to destroy the process.

Then again, all of this could be just a charade.

 

Share

Two Wolves and a Sheep

democracy

Share

Trust Your Elected Government Representative?

AHEM!

An op-ed found on the Maine Wire, says that making laws through the referendum process is not a good way to do it, and lists some of the reasons why this might be so. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t offer a precise solution but does intimate that placing trust in the representatives that got elected as being the best solution. “When we elect lawmakers, we expect them to weigh various proposals. Recognizing that a first draft isn’t always the best, we empower the Legislature to amend bills, sanding off rough edges and trying to fashion the best solution to the problem at hand. They don’t — or at least, shouldn’t — capitulate to an advocacy group simply because that group has a lot of money or yells the loudest.”

From my perspective, the entire process of electing representatives and making laws is flawed and corrupt. The author’s perspective also appears a bit idealistic and probably is rooted in his own connections to the political system. However, to think that wealthy political influencers can control the law making process through the referendum process and such corruption is immune via the legislative process is naive. It’s the only thing that drives all laws in this country.

A troubling part of this process is when political activists begin demanding changes to how the system works when things aren’t going their way or they are feeling threatened. Often overlooked in the emotional action and reaction is that changes to processes work in all directions and often comes round and bites you on the backside.

To suggest doing away with the referendum process, relying solely on elected officials, is both foolish and dangerous. Doing so would further eliminate the right of people to petition the government. Is that what we really want? When’s the last time you saw an elected politician refuse to “go along to get along” in order to carry out the majority wishes of his or her constituency?

It seems in Maine over the past few years, a lot of noise has arisen about the signature gathering process to get referendums onto a ballot. And now we hear suggestions that the process is a terrible way of making laws. Isn’t the real problem a matter of finding a way to keep the referendum process for Maine, or any other state, within the political processes of that state, as well as discovering, somehow, ways to control the flow of money?

Government is dangerous enough without handing them another free pass to disregard the wishes of the voters. Unfortunately, we live in a Socio-Democratic society where all it takes is 51% of the people to force the rest to live by their rules. This may be a terrible political system to live under but I assure you that having no recourse than to simply allow government officials to dictate terms more than they already do, is an even worse suggestion as a possible solution.

Share

James Lovelock: Gaia Guru Quote

From Wikiquote:

Dr James Ephraim Lovelock CH CBE FRS (born July 26, 1919) is a British independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist and futurologist. He is most famous for proposing and popularizing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a kind of superorganism (a term coined by w:Lynn Margulis).

A Lovelock quote:

“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share