November 21, 2017

The Ethics of Baiting Deer….or Any Other Game Animal

Maine has recently passed a law prohibiting the “feeding” of deer from August 15th to December 15. This Act was supported by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), which should be no surprise as we know MDIFW has tried for years to ban the act of feeding deer at anytime.

However, the real issue, I think, is the prevention of “baiting” deer for the purpose of improving your chances of taking a deer during the archery, rifle or muzzleloader seasons.

In V. Paul Reynolds article this week, he says that in this debate about baiting deer, ethics should be part of the discussion. But ethics of any kind, can be a very sticky wicket.

Who decides what is ethical? For years I have written about ethics as it may apply to hunting and still believe, within the written laws, ethics is a personal perspective.

I support the baiting of bear for harvest purposes because there is a need to limit or reduce the growth of the black bear populations in Maine. It is my understanding that the MDIFW mostly sees the bear baiting issue much the same way. In short, it is a necessary management tool, even if it perceived by some as ugly. Without this tool, the alternative may be even uglier.

Because most of Maine has few deer and historically the state has never really been overrun with deer, the need to call for the implementation of baiting as a management tool to reduce numbers, has never been necessary and is definitely not needed today.

But this really has little to do with ethics. I’m not a bear hunter but I can clearly say that if I was, I would NOT bait – unless, of course, I was very, very hungry. I am a deer hunter and I would NOT bait deer for much the same reasons. I don’t necessarily object to those who choose to bait their game, where legal, but I personally would not care to implement baiting regardless of how, if any, doing so effects the odds of bagging game.

I have often read those who define ethics as, “what you do when nobody’s watching.” While this may be partially true, personal ethics goes beyond whether or not someone chooses to stay within the bounds of regulations. Short of legitimate regulations to guide the scientific management of game animals, it should NEVER be left up to Government to attempt legislating ethics. When you consider the corrupt and unethical existence of Government at all levels, surely one cannot seriously ask such an entity to make the decisions as to what is ethical and not ethical.

We have been brainwashed and manipulated into a totalitarian form of existence in which one of the greatest problems in today’s society is that “useful idiots,” i.e. the totalitarian sheep, believe it is their right and their duty of conquest to tell others how to live.

To what degree ethics should be discussed in this debate about baiting deer, would be a crap shoot and more than likely would only serve to create more problems. Within the laws of man, whether or not we agree with them, my personal ethics should remain as such…personal. If I strongly believe in my own ethical practices, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, I might share that philosophy with friends…if they care to know. Besides that, I mind my own business and expect that same respect in return.

Here is a link to the story of how Maine’s record Boone and Crockett buck was shot over a pile of “bait” – culled potatoes.

Share

Undercover Maine Warden Seeks Legislative “Probe” Against Rep. Martin

ClearConscienceCan the entire episode of accusations by a newspaper and victims against the Maine Warden Service (MWS) get any more weird and childish? Today we learn that the undercover warden in the whole charade is seeking an investigation into the actions of Maine’s representative John Martin, claiming Martin used his political power to fabricate the original news story and to influence a judge in the case.

Rep. Martin suggested that the undercover warden, “… the best he could do is probably shut up.” I tend to agree, especially since it appears that the MWS Colonel is still AWOL and the FOIA documents have not been turned over to the newspaper.

The MWS has investigated itself and found they did nothing wrong when it appears the DID NOTHING!

One has to wonder if the MWS is advising their agent. If so, I’m thinking this is very poor advice, at least at this time. They should get their house in order first, that is if they have done nothing wrong. If there is strong evidence of political influencing by a representative, then by all means go for it.

These events have a way of resulting in a great big loss for all parties involved. In the meantime, the people laugh at these people and fail to develop any kind of respect for them.

 

Share

Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management

*Editor’s Note* – The below opinion piece is a classic example of ignorance as it pertains to wildlife management. That ignorance is driven by emotional nonsense of “ethics,” and “values.”

The author claims that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manages wildlife from the perspective of “the end justifies the means.” He bases this incomplete thought process on what appears to be a belief that the MDIFW manages game animals strictly for the purpose of harvest. Harvest is only one part of the North American Wildlife Management Model. This is reflected in the agency’s efforts in controlling and limiting harvest numbers in all game species when necessary. It is dishonest to lead people to believe MDIFW’s call for harvest of game is to appease the hunters because they buy licenses. I know of no hunters or trappers who would promote any fish and game agency to recklessly allow unrestricted harvest simply to pay the bills.

The author’s revelation of how he enjoys “hearing” coyotes and that hunting and trapping of coyotes is strictly for the purpose of protecting deer for hunters, is ignorant and dishonest.

It would appear that the author espouses to a “natural balance” – a false theory that if man would simply butt out of wildlife management all things would be in perfect balance. That simply is not true. I guarantee that if that practice was employed, it wouldn’t be long before people would realize the results are extremely undesirable.

Too many coyotes destroy far more than deer and they also carry and spread many diseases – many of them harmful and some deadly to humans.

The third complaint this author has is that managing wildlife makes wildlife less wild. I would concur that idea carries some merit depending upon the level to which such wildlife/habitat manipulation is taking place. However, if anyone is going to get on that wagon, then they must also stay on that wagon to argue against the introduction or reintroduction of all wildlife, in all locations, for all reasons.

If, for example, stocking Atlantic salmon fry in attempts to restore a robust salmon population, makes one believe the fish are no longer wild but farmed, then the Federal Government has no business introducing/reintroducing wolves or any other species or subspecies. It also should not be allowed to protect one species at the detriment of others, including the species of man.

Realism often gets in the way of idealism. While the author in question here certainly has the right to his opinions about wildlife management, that right doesn’t carry over in order to force another’s lifestyle and supposed “ethics” onto the others.

I see much of wildlife management within the MDIFW as a win/win trade-off. The author seems to take issue with the idea that hunters harvest game. I believe it’s a small price to pay for an idealist in order that the overwhelming costs of being good stewards of our wildlife, is taken up by those willing to cough up the money in exchange for some meat in the freezer or some extra cash to help pay the bills.

MDIFW is not infallible. As a matter of fact, I could present a real good argument that much of what MDIFW does is more in line with the desires of this opinion-piece author.

Bears and coyotes do destroy a lot of deer over the course of time and is partly responsible for a deer herd that is sparse and struggling to recover in some areas. If MDIFW’s only concern was providing deer for hunters, they would have killed a lot more bear and coyotes than is the case.

Game species (deer) trump non-game species (coyotes) because the sale of licenses is the agency’s primary source of income.  If the agency were funded out of the general fund and license fees were not dedicated revenues, the agency would obviously need to be responsive to a broader constituency than just consumptive users.  For economists, this is a phenomenon we see in the public sector termed regulatory capture.  An interest group (consumptive wildlife users in this case) employs some technique to “captur

Source: Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management | Stirring the Pot

Share

Has “High-Tech Hunting” Killed the Event?

*Editor’s Note* – I have stated before that, BY CHOICE, I prefer deer hunting in the fashion I grew up with, save one exception. I grew up with a gun (sometimes), open sights, and most times with one or two bullets – it was all we could afford. I learned the forest and to recognize deer signs and stalking methods. The one exception is that today I employ a scope for two reasons: 1). With antler restrictions, it aids in determining how large a set of antlers are, and 2). My eyesight isn’t what it used to be.

While the author of the article that I’ve linked to below doesn’t come right out and ask that these “modern” and “high-tech” instruments and equipment be banned, he has little good to say about them. And that’s just fine. I don’t either, but I don’t begrudge someone who does CHOOSE to use them……UNLESS….

The main question that might be needed asking here is, due to the onset of all this “high-tech” equipment, has the number of deer harvested increased because of it? And to go along with that, has it stolen “opportunity” away from other hunters?

I can’t link you to any data that shows one way or the other. I can tell you that game managers, who set the dates and duration of deer hunting seasons, do so based upon estimations of the total number of deer they want harvested for management purposes. If the high-tech equipment is causing more deer to be taken in shorter periods of time, then, unless your state has a problem with a large, rapidly expanding deer herd, the season will be shortened in order to limit the number of deer harvested.

In discussing the pros and cons of “high-tech” we could spend days attempting to decide what is good or bad for the sport, the economy, recruitment of new hunters (are younger “techie” kids more easily attracted to hunting because of the technology?) public safety, etc.

But, then the writer gets into a bit of ethics and that’s when things get kind of gray. Ethics, sometimes defined as what you do when nobody is looking, is more than that. Aside from staying within the bounds of the law, what a hunter does or does not do, is really a personal choice….isn’t it? And who am I, or who are you, to tell someone how they ought to hunt?

As I said, I like to hunt the “old fashioned” way and I will spend time telling others about how I enjoy it and why. If I touch something in them, they might find the interest as well. On the flip side, how does that same person feel if I tried to get a law passed condemning their choice of hunting equipment and methods, all within the law, of hunting? As I have already stated, that unless they are cutting into my hunting opportunities, how they really doesn’t have much bearing on me and how I hunt.

Here’s an example that I can show you that I’m positive the author did not think about when he wrote it.  It is what I have quoted from the article just below. The author approves of TU, DU, PF, IWL and MDHA and their promotion of habitat conservation and “art and ethics of hunting.”

That is the author’s choice, and he should have that choice. I respect that choice. Personally, I find much of what these groups stand for contrary to my way of thinking, but that’s my choice and should remain that way.

Just as this writer believes that these groups’ “ethics” are to his liking, he should continue to have that choice, just as much as the hunter has his/her choice of how to hunt, within the laws that govern it.

Groups such as Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the Izaak Walton League and the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association conscientiously promote habitat conservation along with the art and ethics of hunting. Kudos to them.

Source: How high-tech has killed real hunting – StarTribune.com

Share

Bear Baiting: “I Would Never Try to Dissuade Another Person From Doing So”

I recently submitted an article for my monthly column in the Bethel Citizen newspaper about bear hunting and ethics. It should be published in the next few weeks there. The basis of the article was an attempt to understand why other seem empowered or compelled to dictate another person’s moral and ethical beliefs within the existing laws.

A Letter to the Editor found in the Bangor Daily News today from 70-year-old Hank Hoskins says: “I am in my 70s and have hunted big game animals since my grade school days. The pursuits required efforts beyond sitting and waiting over baits; the activities were hunts, not “shoots.” My hunting days are about over and my ethical code would never allow me to attempt to shoot a bear over bait. That said, however, I would never try to dissuade another person from doing so if such shooting was a legal activity.

A glimpse into the rarity of raw honesty and what might be a solid understanding of individual rights and liberties.

Share

Just Say No to Welfare Bears

BearDreamingofDonutsConfucius once said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” And yet again George Bernard Shaw once said, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” What’s even worse is being ignorant and having the confidence to show it. Mark Twain said that you only need two things in life to be a success; “ignorance and confidence.” That is why for many who will read anything that I write will claim I am the one who is ignorant and their truth is the truth that will lead them to successes beyond their wildest dreams….with confidence. Wildest, yes, but never anything that they dreamed of.

I don’t believe it takes a political expert, whatever the hell that is, to come to the conclusion that the majority of people who would sell their souls to Satan for animal welfare, are members of the same group that like to call themselves liberal and progressive. And thus would support and defend the welfare state; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Let’s gander for a moment into animal welfare as it may pertain to black bears. In reality, it matters not the species of plant or animal. Environmentalists preach the “natural” and “balanced” way of doing things. These leftist, animal welfare, non thinkers harp to anyone who will listen that if man would just butt out of the equation of ecosystem (whatever that is) health and well-being, all would be Kumbaya.

Even after those who fabricated the theory of “natural balance” have since withdrew that claim, based of course on “best available science” (snickering here), the animal welfare activist and promoter of “let nature take its course and everything will be alright,” will cling confidently to their old-found supposition in order to show their own ignorance, confidently, but only to those intelligent enough to know the difference. For the majority, it has no meaning and that’s why it continues.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their grand followers of confident ignoramuses, are proudly showing the world that they want the citizens of Maine, and other states, to stop treating bears inhumanely – hunters shoot them and eat them. GASP! The same flock of parrots preach ethics. I’m reminded of the words of Jesus (that would be the real, one and only, Son of God, the Creator of all things) when He said to the mass of confident, ignoramuses, eager to throw stones at and kill a woman because she was a prostitute, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”(John 8:7) My thoughts here are that Jesus didn’t think the stone-throwing sinners were exercising good ethics.

Obviously, and it is a shame I have to explain this, I have my doubts that anyone mixed up with HSUS, is much interested in “stoning” a bear hunter, but then again……

Somewhere lost in this progressive paradigm of animal protection to extremes, people have determined to make humans second class citizens. Animals come first. And yet, out of one corner of their mouths they confidently believe themselves to be compassionate humans toward other humans by offering somebody’s money (tax dollars), not their own, to go to support humans who say they can’t take care of themselves. Can’t take care of themselves? Later.

A reader sent me the following statement found on the Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Facebook page. By the way there is nothing to do with Mainers in this group of Totalitarians as the entire group is funded by out-of-state interests and the HSUS.

The update pertains to a gathering of confident, ignorant, hypocrites to bring attention to the onset of Maine’s bear hunting season. In the update it says, “For 30 days, bears are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.” There are confident outcries among the masses. I’m sure the gatherers will be chanting, “No more welfare for bears!”

Perhaps I should take that statement and just change three words. I’ll delete “30 days” and replace it with “years” and change “bears” to “people.” The statement would read, “For years, people are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.”

On the one hand, God created man and gave him the brains and ability to take care of himself, i.e. work, grow and find food, shelter, etc. On the other hand, God created the beasts of field in order that man could have dominion over those beast, to care for and perpetuate growth for people to eat and use all the resources the animals can offer.

The confident cloud dwellers of the HSUS and other environmentalist movement groups demand that animals should be left alone, in their “natural” state (although their own ignorance don’t know what that means). Doing so will bring justice to the animal kingdom.

However, a man, a human, should have more ability to take care of himself than a damned bear and yet HSUS and others believe bears should be left to their own devices, without man’s interference (of course only when that interference involves hunting, fishing and trapping). Where is the outcry from those confident protestors toward those who spend years training others to “visit these sites for free food (health care, education, money and shelter), seemingly with no strings attached.”? What the hell is “natural” about that?

Isn’t there something seriously wrong with this?

Share

Maine Bear Hunting Poll Question

The Bangor Daily News has an article about the debate over the upcoming referendum to effectively end bear hunting in Maine. The article discusses science versus ethics. In addition there is a poll question that mimics the one that will appear on the ballot in November: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?”

Share

Bear Hunting is Maine Culture

And those who aim to remove that part of Maine’s culture do so for the purpose of destroying that culture by imposing their own totalitarian beliefs onto others. Perhaps it is best worded by Douglas Lawrence of Wilton, Maine in an editorial published in the Bangor Daily News(scroll down just a bit):

It is natural for people from away, with different cultures, to believe that their cultures are better and should replace the old ways of Maine people. When modern colonizers come with money, they can buy the land, dictate government policies and impose their new culture. Just as Europeans replaced 20,000 years of native culture here, so too do these new colonizers remake Maine culture.

Maine already suffers from an eroded culture. When a people whose traditions tell them to make a living as farmers, fishermen, loggers, hunters, trappers, or to make valuable things such as shoes or ships, are unable to live that life, they lose their direction, hope and self-worth. Anger, hopelessness, alcoholism, drug use and family abuse are all part of this downward spiral of a culture.

As Maine voters stare down the double barrel of a referendum, a fake one at that, shrouded behind all sorts of fake claims, mostly lies, about bears, bear hunting, humane treatment of animals and hunting ethics, they will be asked to make a decision as to whether or not they want to strip the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife of their tools necessary for the management of a healthy bear population. More importantly they will decide whether to destroy Maine culture and replace it with the perverted teachings of anti human, animal rights beliefs.

Most voters don’t understand bear hunting, never done it, and can only be persuaded by the propaganda and talking points spewed by both sides of the issue.

It has always amazed me at the degree of ignorance displayed by many who migrate to Maine from points south, many to escape the city life. Their claims are that they NEED to get away from the hustle and bustle, the noise, the regulations, the limitations and the overall “nastiness” of urban dwelling. They head for Maine, are here for a short time and then begin to work hard at making it exactly the way they left it behind them.

We all have our rights to opinions and beliefs. We think we have a right, brainwashed to believe in democracy as a means of protecting any rights, to force our own beliefs onto others. It is one of the very dark sides of democracy. The old saying is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what will be for lunch.

Minds have been twisted and demented to a point where perhaps a majority of people believe that animals have rights, feelings and the power to think and reason. We see this in everything in media today. Just last evening I was watching a program on television about an elephant and it was quite sad to listen to the perverse narration and talking points throughout the entire program. It was completely based on the humanization and rationalization of human nature projected onto and into an elephant’s life. What have we become?

Animals are an incredible thing but they are not human and do not have any human traits and yet we, as misled non thinkers, seem to think they are.

We have a responsibility to care for the resources God gave us – including the animals of the earth. Over the past near 100 years, here in the United States, we have done a remarkable job of caring for our wild animals, to a point now that we have too many of them in certain places. We have devised ways to fund the conservation of wild animals and created and protected habitat for them to live mostly healthy lives and yet these totalitarians want to change that. They lie to tell others it doesn’t work and that animals have rights and feelings, so blinded by this insanity that they are seemingly more willing to have too many animals starve to death or suffer from disease than to humanely die by the quick death of a hunter’s bullet. This tells us the effort is not about the welfare of animals but the destruction of culture and all that is good and traditional.

As part of the hunting culture, something that has been a part of the landscape since the first settlers who came to this land, for all of us there once was the personal choice, within the laws that govern wild game harvest, to decide our own ethic when it comes to the methods we choose to harvest game. Contrary to what some are being taught, wild animals, a resource for the American people, are crafty creatures and as such, since the beginning of time, man has had to devise ways to make the job of putting food on the table easier. In addition, wildlife managers, through implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, regulate hunting and hunting harvest and the tools that can be used in that pursuit for the purpose of maintaining a healthy population of game.

Ethics in the context of hunting then becomes a sticky subject. Remaining within the laws that govern the sport, we must all decide, on our own I wish, how we would like to hunt and not have some other do-gooder, who thinks he knows what’s better for me than himself, tell me what is an ethical way to hunt.

A reader sent to me a link to a discussion among hunters about the ethics of baiting bears. Posted below is a copy of some of those comments.

Number1

Number2

Number3

And for perhaps far too many, what they have been convinced to be “tradition” isn’t in the same neighborhood as the tradition that carries value with it.

FreakShow

Share

Opinions Are Like……….Well, Never Mind

Readers should ALWAYS be reminded that letters to the editor of newspapers are only opinions no matter how inaccurate a writers claims might be. It is quite astounding that some people can present seemingly continuous claims about Maine bear hunting while providing absolutely nothing of value to substantiate those claims. As a reader you are left with total disregard for what is contained in the opinion piece. It should be also noted that providing links to other’s opinions does not make for credible information to back claims.

This happened recently in the Bangor Daily News when a woman, passing herself off as someone who, “hunted as hard as any man for 30 years when I was younger,” states that people should support the upcoming bear hunting referendum to ban hunting bears with bait, hounds and trapping with snares.

I’ve addressed most all of these issues in the past. However, there is one issue that this author brought up that needs some attention as well; that of sportsmanship and hunting ethics.

The author says that Maine has a “time-honored principle of fair chase” and that game should have a “reasonable” chance to escape a hunter. I wonder if the 30-years of hunting “as hard as any man” can remember some of those “time-honored” principles when bears were slaughtered due to unregulated hunting? That the bear population had diminished to near unsustainable levels due to that “time-honored” tradition of fair chase? That heritage of “fair chase” might be more myth than reality.

The problem with discussing ethics in hunting is complex and too much of what is considered sportsmanlike and ethical is left to the individual beliefs and governed by laws crafted by fish and game authorities to provide a degree of public safety along with what becomes necessary to control populations of game species. The author makes the claim the Maine doesn’t “bait” for other species like moose and deer because “it’s not fair chase.” Maine has a very limited deer and moose population and so that while providing opportunities for all hunters to fill their freezers there must be limits on tools used in the “fair chase” to also limit harvest. If Maine was overrun with deer, it can be expected that laws would be changed to find ways to increase the harvest of deer and moose. If it then is an individual’s choice and belief system of what is and is not “fair chase” and decides to opt out of baiting, then more power to the individual. Perhaps to resort back to hunting with an atlatl would be ethical and fair chase enough. Then again there are those extremists who think any form of hunting at all is unethical. Who gets to decide what you believe? Legislating ethics and fair chase is something that should never happen.

When anyone inserts the word “reasonable” as a means of describing fair chase, then any definition is completely lost, as it should be. So, then, what is fair chase? Is hunting with a GPS fair chase? Using a rifle scope? Scent locked clothing? Buck lures and doe scents? Calling by mouth, with a hand-held device or electronic call? Every individual can draw their own line of ethics. Claiming bear hunting by hounds or baiting for hunting or trapping is not fair chase obviously in not to this writer but to many others, within the law, it is fair chase and they should have that right. I shouldn’t dictate to this writer what she should maintain for fair chase ethics and I expect the same in return.

Massing words together in a rant about other people’s perceptions of fair chase and ethics involving hunting does nothing to convince anyone that ending the current means of available hunting and trapping methods for black bears is a worthy goal.

Old Hunter says:

Language

Share

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

In 1914, a place called Wellington House opened for secret business in London. World War I had just commenced and Great Britain realized right away it could not compete with Germany’s propaganda machine. Wellington House was devised as the headquarters for Britain’s mass population brainwashing machine in order to influence public opinion in support of the war.

While the House may have officially opened on September 2, 1914, many of the brainwashing tactics and techniques already existed. It was only a matter of bringing together a group of people who could master the right kinds of propaganda that had the best effect on manipulating the minds of the people.

In August of that same year, Wellington House invited 25 of Britain’s leading writers to participate and swore them to secrecy. Why the need for secrecy? Some of the more prominent writers invited were, William Archer, Arthur Conan Doyle, Arnold Bennett, John Masefield, Ford Madox Ford, G. K. Chesterton, Henry Newbolt, John Galsworthy, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Gilbert Parker, G. M. Trevelyan and H. G. Wells. Working with Wellington House at a top level was American Edward Bernays; nephew of Sigmund Freud.

Anyone interested can research the real accounts that transpired during World War I – and all the rest of the wars – and discover some of the more sinister lies perpetrated by Wellington House.

War is hell as they say and mine is not to discuss the ethics of war but only to point out the methods and madness of mass propaganda brainwashing and the incredible results of this effort, as well as explain how it has continued and now plays a vital role in the destruction of what once made America the greatest nation on earth.

Wellington House was not to live forever and by 1946 the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations absorbed some of the people and many of the brainwashing tactics and methods to eventually become the world’s leader in everything brainwashing.

Through much of what I have already written, you may have become tired of being bombarded with, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

The reason I continued to make that statement prominent in what I was writing was to hopefully embed it into readers minds (brainwashing?) that this statement exemplifies the goal of Tavistock.

One of the early leaders of Tavistock was Dr. Kurt Lewin. If you will recall, Dr. Lewin was one of the founders of the National Training Laboratories. He was kicked out of Germany because his work had transformed into using his newly discovered techniques of helping mentally ill people better to a perverted reversal of making well people mentally ill. Nearly all of what Tavistock did and does today is based much on the baneful work of Dr. Kurt Lewin. In short, Tavistock has grown worldwide and controls effectively every facet of our life that we are exposed to: news, entertainment, education, politics, technology, religion, heritage, culture, science, environment, etc. They decide what you will see and hear; what you will eat and drink; who you will vote for; your television programming, cell phones, video games, computers, etc.

There exists an organization today called “The Committee of 300”; made up of the world leaders in wealth, power and a vision to be the leaders of the world at the expense of all others. The Committee of 300 controls virtually every aspect of our lives and the scary part is none of us know about it and the very shameful part few of us are interested in learning about it. I suppose it’s easier to cast it off as tin foil hat stuff and muddle along as usual. (recall the 8 veils)

I’ll not spend much time on The Committee of 300 only to provide a very brief list of some of the entities, organizations, think thanks and secret societies the Committee of 300 has control over that directly effect Americans, (in no particular order):

1.)American Civil Liberties Union
2.)American Council of Race Relations
3.)Aspen Institute
4.)Atlantic Richfield
5.)Bilderberg Group
6.)British Petroleum
7.)Cathedral of St. John the Divine (New York)
8.)CIA
9.)Club of Rome
10.)Council on Foreign Relations
11.)Fabian Society
12.)DeBeers Consolidated Mines
13.)Ford Foundation
14.)Fox News
15.)Harvard University
16.)Hewlett Packard
17.)Hudson Institute
18.)Knights of Malta
19.)MIT
20.)NAACP
21.)National Council of Churches
22.)National Training Laboratories
23.)NATO
24.)Order of St. John of Jerusalem
25.)Princeton University
26.)RCA
27.)Royal Institute of International Affairs
28.)Stanford Research Institute
29.)Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
30.)The London Times
31.)TIME
32.)Trilateral Commission
33.)Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania
34.)James P. Warburg and Family
35.)Warner Brothers
36.)World Council of Churches
37.)Oddfellows
38.)Rand Research
39.)Federal Reserve Bank
40.)International Monetary Fund
41.)Freemasonry

And many, many more.

In the United States alone, the major institutions controlled by Tavistock for the purpose of brainwashing, that is “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” , are:
1.)Aspen Institute
2.)Brookings Institute
3.)Institute for Policy Studies
4.)MIT
5.)National Training Laboratories
6.)Rand Research
7.)Stanford Research Institute
8.)Wharton School at Univ. of Pennsylvania

Here is a partial list of some interesting names who are current or past members of the Committee of 300.
1.)Astor, Waldorf successor
2.)William Bingham (worked with Baring Bros to help finance the Louisiana Purchase, as well as a monetary connection to NTL.)
3.)Warren Buffet
4.)George H.W. Bush
5.)John Cabot (family of)
6.)Winston Churchill
7.)Delano (Franklin “Delano” Roosevelt family)
8.)Aldous Huxley
9.)John Keynes
10.)Henry Kissinger
11.)Dr. Kurt Lewin
12.)John P. Morgan
13.)Price Waterhouse
14.)Joseph Rettinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
15.)Cecil John Rhodes (Rhodes Scholarship)
16.)David Rockfeller
17.)Rothschild
18.)George Schulz
19.)Alfred P. Sloan
20.)Maurice Strong
21.)Ted Turner
22.)Cyrus Vance
23.)S. C. Warburg
24.)Earl Warren
25.)Casper Weinberger
26.)H.G. Wells
27.)Olympia Snowe (Maine Senator)
28.)Arlen Spector
29.)George Soros
30.)Ben Bernanke
31.)Tony Blair
32.)Michael Bloomberg
33.)David Cameron
34.)Wesley Clark
35.)Bill Gates
36.)Al Gore
37.)Allen Gotlieb
38.)Alan Greenspan
39.)John Kerry
40.)Paul Krugman
41.)Joe Lieberman
42.)Rupert Murdoch
43.)Shimon Peres
44.)Susan Rice (will Obama nominate her for Secretary of State?)
45.)Nicholas Sarkozy
46.)Paul Volcker

Any surprises there?

I must point out for your own knowledge, the Aspen Institute here in the United States is the American headquarters for Tavistock. It is important to know that as we hear regularly of events taking place at the Aspen Institute.

We have learned that institutes such as Second Nature are determined to “change society”. National Training Laboratories function is “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” In other words NTL will craft their own “knowledge” and pass it off as fact to the masses of people. We have been molded, much like clay, to accept this. Through techniques in indoctrination, humans no longer think for themselves nor do they, as a whole, question doctrine. If one dare question it they are immediately demonized and scoffed for doing so; also part of the brainwashing.

With a robotic mass of flesh, feeding the blank mostly non functioning brains of the people, becomes an easy task. For those paying attention, the results of this work are present everyday in this country. In the context of these articles, examples of such would be the creation of new knowledge like, manufacturing wildlife species in order to control and manipulate land use, private property, hunting, fishing, trapping, destruction of American heritage, etc.; promotion of intellectual rubbish like nature balances itself.

Movements like environmentalism, animal rights, anti-hunting, etc. are not necessarily a happenstance but a planned event to destroy the heritage of what made America great.

Global warming, the man-made variety, is a classic example of how badly people have been brainwashed from all directions begetting a mass of people eager to hate on man to save Mother Earth. Even after the people have been shown that the supposed data to support man-made global warming is fake, they have been trained to disregard that information. How do we open eyes to this? The only hope of reversing this death spiral is to reverse this action; to expose every person and entity for what they are doing. That’s a start.

In a recent exchange of comments on Facebook, I played a bit of a devil’s advocate and pot stirrer. A known liberal thinking person made a comment lamenting why people didn’t just go spend some time to research and discover the “truth”. I asked how one can tell what the truth is. I was led then to several establishments (Factchecker, Huffington Post, etc.), all of which are controlled by Tavistock, along with government websites to substantiate certain claims. I asked how they are to know whether this information was truthful or not. Who was checking the fact checkers? They had no idea what I was talking about. And therein lies the problem.

The point of all this is that we have all become products of the same propaganda and brainwashing machine. One side, meaning right or left, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, is more right than the other we perceive. There exists brainwashing propaganda for both sides, arming each with false talking points, much for the purpose of ensuring disunity as a nation, creating fear, hatred and distrust. This accomplishes the decline of the United States of America. This is NOT to be confused with “finding common ground” in order to believe something is being accomplished. It is one of the biggest mind altering and destructive things bred into Americans today that we need to “find common ground”. Shouldn’t we all be seeking truth?

I’m not suggesting here that people should stop believing what they believe and follow me. Far from it. I’m asking that people somehow make an attempt to break this vicious complacency, this robotic and non thinking characteristic that has been bred into us; to stop believing that just because something sounds good to us, it is truth. But how can that be done?

It first requires that a person at least be willing to admit that maybe some or all of everything they have been taught is wrong; a lie. There’s a reason why young people today have less respect for older people and fail to listen to their words of wisdom. This kind of behavior is detrimental to the plans of the wicked in high places. With each successive generation the list of things that made this country the best changes and the list takes on a completely different look; all by design. One of the reasons being that there is no longer a solid moral foundation in our society to measure changes against for what is right and wrong. What was once wrong is now right because we have been brainwashed to accept it as so, instead of measuring it against what is morally right and morally wrong.

There must exist a measuring stick. Seeking truth in knowledge is a fruitless effort if there is nothing of actual value to compare it to. I believe it was James Madison who said that in order for our Constitution to work and remain effective was that there always had to remain a strong moral make up in this nation. How’s America’s moral make up treating us these days? If you think it is wonderful, you are a victim of brainwashing. If you think it is getting bad, there is hope.

I challenge readers to make that list. Go ahead. It may be the best thing you’ve ever done in your life. Try to go back to the very beginning and decide what made America great. If you struggle that’s okay. Try to make a simple list of what you honestly think is right and wrong. It requires honesty and thinking. Take that list based on the past and compare it to today to determine how much that list has changed and been destroyed. From that point then apply what I have shared and see if it makes sense. If you can see a tiny bit, there is hope.

For the more spiritual readers, perhaps all of this can be explained Biblically. We know from reading our Bibles that Satan was cast out of Heaven for the evil that he did. God basically gave him dominion over the earth for a time and all that was in it. While the Bible doesn’t specifically say this, at no time did Jesus deny it. For example, when Jesus went to the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, from a mountaintop Satan promised everything on earth, as far as could be seen, and more, if Jesus would just worship Satan. Jesus didn’t tell Satan he didn’t control the earth or that it wasn’t his to give.

If that be the case, then when we read Ephesians 6:12 – For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].”, and apply it to the rulers of this world, i.e. The Committee of 300, Tavistock and all, we can logically conclude that Satan has promised them all the earth and everything in it if they will just worship him.

From that perspective, for the Christian believer, all of this that I’ve shared makes a lot more sense.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, our world cannot function without a decent and solid moral foundation; it just cannot.

I began these articles in hopes of explaining to readers why, such simple things like wildlife science, has been hijacked and replaced with something unrecognizable, i.e. newly crafted “knowledge”. I hope I have helped to some degree. I challenge readers to explore the 8 veils and search for something outside of the spoon-fed comforts of the first veil.

Things are not as they appear. Those who you think are your leaders are not. It’s much larger, much more sinister. These powerful world leaders that take from you for themselves are the powers and principalities that we are really fighting each day, all for the purpose of a New World Order within a One World Government, headed by a dictator. This is necessary to ensure that you and I can never have more than the elites of this world who want it all and to control it all, at your expense. I wish you could believe that.

Ironically, everything that is good in this world, powers and principalities want to destroy. Yet they are so blinded they cannot see for themselves that they are destroying the essence of what they see as something worth controlling. How dark and sinister is that?

Addendum: Bring Low Class Element of Society Under Total Control

This addendum was actually supposed to be a part of my original work but got by me. Please consider reading this addendum as it shows the intent of the real world leaders, their perversion of the sanctity of life and that the United States of America accepted this premise as U.S. Policy under President Jimmy Carter.

Share