September 3, 2015

The Long-Linked Chain of New-Science Ignorance and Brainwashing

ChainEvery newspaper that I read, every television show or newscast I watch, books, music, blogs, Facebook (although I don’t use it anymore), etc., for the informed, self-reliant. self-determined person, with an eye for direction upon The Creator, can rivet a long chain of linked events that should, but doesn’t, stir the very inner soul of man. Because most men are followers of and fearful of the “rulers in dark places” (Ephesians 6:12) and are unaware, the chain exists to drown life and the willfully blind. It is a roadblock that prevents seeing the Truth that can set a man free.

Where to begin?

I’ll set the stage with this. Recently a group of people, seemingly much more interested in the welfare of animals, particularly wolves, than man, met to: “…discuss, strategize and unite in building a coalition to address the need to reform wildlife management in America.”(emboldening added) And, what is it that this reformation intends to do? “…integrate the science of the 21st century and the ever-changing demographics and values of our citizenry.”(emboldening added)

This is “Progress.” The “science of the 21st century” is fake and useless garbage. The “ever-changing demographics and values” are corrupt and evil. Because a person’s values change, does not mean that change should be forced onto all others. Morals and ethics should be determined from the Word of God not some environmental group being propped up by the rulers in dark places.

It must be understood the meaning of such statements. These statements are not unique to just one wolf lovers’ group. It is the mantra of everything, but more specifically everything environmentalism. And it just didn’t happen. Nothing “just happens.” It is planned. The Vatican owns Environmentalism. Thus, one reason for the Pope’s recent Encyclical on Climate Change. The Vatican owns everything that intends to distort reality for its benefit at our expense.

One example of such is an organization called the National Training Laboratories(NTL). NTL is a byproduct of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Both Tavistock and NTL are “owned” by the Vatican. The purpose of NTL is to create “change agents.” These manufactured (brainwashed) “change agents” are purposed to go about changing the way we think. An example I just gave above is one organization whose mission is to “reform wildlife management,” shows the results of NTL and other Vatican-owned, Environmentalist and media manipulating efforts.

NTL’s vision, as stated, is the: “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

I’ve simply scratched the surface here. In order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of statements they are subjected to throughout the media, they must understand the source of those statements.

At present, all Environmentalist groups are making every effort to co-opt what was once the truth and “create and disseminate” it into THEIR new knowledge, their reformation of how wildlife management is discussed and carried out. It no longer matters that real scientific study confirms or denies. “Twenty-First Science” creates its own results.

Those who read the Bible should understand that this is a trick of Evil. We have been warned that in the Last Days, as Satan is allowed his grip on this earth, what was once right is now wrong, what was wrong is right, black is white, white is black, etc. Hard working, honest science, geared toward the discovery of scientific truths, has been replaced with Scientism (21st century science) – fake theories presented as “peer-reviewed” science.

With strong knowledge of the realities of deception, we can begin to look into the utter nonsense that is bombarding the non-thinking minds of Internet browsers, and all media readers. This inane approach to life’s logic is bizarre to the uncluttered mind. Take for example a representative of the perverse organization called the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS attempted to get a referendum passed last year (2014) to effectively ban bear hunting in Maine. In response to a previous editorial, the representative of HSUS states that:

There’s a chance that some of the top-of-the-ticket Democrats who lost their races were adversely affected because they chose to oppose the ban on bear baiting. Large majorities of Democrats in the state favored the measure, and it didn’t help the candidates’ case that they supported an obviously inhumane and unsporting practice.

The actual editorial response makes as much sense as nothing. However, the point is here that this person, as with so many other people in this country, applaud the manipulation of the ballot box when it runs in their favor. When it does not, they scream for laws to stop “them” and not “us.” Somehow the bear referendum was defeated because democrats turned out in greater numbers but instead of voting HSUS’s way, did the typical, dishonest politician thing and lied to get votes. HSUS doesn’t do that? The idiocy is that this HSUS representative cannot see the difference. This is programmed idiocy by organizations founded on the principals of, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

Richard Fernandez, of Pajamas Media, tells us that Liberals control the media and those things that are “allowed” to be talked about.

“The significance of this asymmetry is that liberals have the power to legitimize the existence of problems. They can alone enter things into evidence, as it were. Max Ehrenfreund, writing in the Washington Post, has a gathered a list of discontents from various publications that are now being talked about even in liberal circles, which means the population at large can talk about them now. Liberals set the agenda, when they talk about things going down the tubes then it’s on the agenda.

This tactic is all part of the plan to, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” The only way for Environmentalism to work, is that the Environmentalists must control the media. With this control, it is much easier to control everything else.

Animal Rights and Environmentalism isn’t about saving animals, the air and water. It’s about control. And thus, this is why the Pope wrote his Climate Change Encyclical. He no more believes that man is causing the climate to change. What he does understand, because he is part of the creation of fake Climate Change, is that with a convincing of man-caused climate change, he, the Vatican, has more power to control the people, the land, and the water. It’s about control!

We have been warned before. Robert Fanning, author of “Yellowstone is Dying” warned us that Environmentalists with much money and power were taking over the fight to protect wolves and promote a “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice,” because “[his] goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands.”

The latest and most bizarre of all revelations of the coming out of brainwashed, perverted Environmentalists, has to be the media’s coverage of Cecil the Lion. Jimmy Kimmel crying over a lion being killed and death threats directed at hunters on Facebook, while Facebook claims saying things like, “I’ll come to your Dallas Safari Club with an AK47 and grenade and wipe the whole lot of you out!,” doesn’t violate their Community Standards – the point being because it isn’t part of the controlling liberal media agenda. (See Richard Fernandez’s article linked to above.)

They don’t talk about murdering unborn babies and evidently don’t talk about death threats when it involves a lion, any animal or the agenda of the Liberal Party. Here’s a world gone stark-raving mad!

Tyler O’Neil, of Pajamas Media, writes:

Those convinced the Inquisition died out hundreds of years ago may be surprised by the emergence of the all-powerful Twitter mob. While those found in violation of the tenets of the pope were rarely actually tortured or killed, death threats and career-ending protests now target our modern apostates, with a vehemence rarely seen since the Salem witch trials.

The elevation of “animal rights” to a semi-sacrosanct belief has taken many casualties, like the freedom and livelihood of a certain American dentist — but more on that later. Religious liberty, historic tradition, and even — ironically — the lives of animals have been taken hostage by this all-consuming movement.

It’s unfortunate this writer hasn’t a clue of reality and the Inquisition. Perhaps it would be a bit more politically correct, even for faux “conservatives,” to call it the neo-inquisition for it is alive and well. We are all so immersed into it, while we sleep, that we cannot see it.

All of this stuff is demented, evil crap. To think otherwise, means you’ve got it bad. Seriously, can people NOT see it is WRONG to believe an animal’s life is more valuable than that of man? Evidently it is so. How sad. Can people NOT see that “creating new science” to fit the 21st century is wrong? It’s flat out wrong, driven by greed, deception and the striving for power. This is NOT the work of God, my creator.

There is a long chain. The links have all been connected. The chain is so long and heavy, we can no longer do anything about it. Instead, we choose to step over it and around it, pretending it’s not there. Doing so will not make it go away. God’s knowledge can break those links.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Mountain lions are savage beasts

In the late 1980’s it was determined by a relatively small group of financially and politically biased scientists and their lobbyists, that the population of Mountain Lions (aka: Cougar, Puma) in California, was dangerously low. So they launched a massive media campaign to convince Californians there was a genuine problem, giving rise to the 1990 California State legislation that provided a ‘protected’ status for mountain lions. However, there was no overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting such a claim. And if there had been such credible evidence supported by a collective of unbiased and objective wildlife biologists, forming a majority opinion, mountain lions would have surely reached the benchmark for obtaining ‘endangered species’ status, and would be listed as such today. That was not the case.

Source: Mountain lions are savage beasts

In Washington, Some Mourn The Arrival Of New Fish and Game Director

UnsworthMore than forty years have passed since the real growth of environmentalism in this country began and as a result, we are now witness to the second and third generations of post-normal, conservation wildlife scientists, presenting little hope for sound or consumptive wild game use.

To rousing ovations of many in Idaho, their deputy director of the Fish and Game Department (IDFG), Dr. Jim Unsworth, departed the Gem State to take over the head seat at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). To many in Washington, who have been following the wolf introduction disaster, seeing Unsworth as their new director is worse than a Tippecanoe curse. But obviously to the committee that selected Unsworth, he was their match made in heaven.

Should Washington residents fear Unsworth’s selection by committee, “a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW”, because it was a terrible choice? There were eight candidates and that field was narrowed to four, ultimately opting for Unsworth. For some this makes their skin crawl.

More than likely there probably wasn’t anybody any better or with different values to choose from. A true “Manchurian Candidate” would have been trained specifically for one purpose. In this case and cases all across this nation, the “Manchurians” are products of a “Manchurian” education system. The rigged system was created to pump out candidates just like Unsworth. It’s nearly impossible to escape the result. The same rigged system was designed to produce members of committees that will select candidates from the rigged system. And finally, the rigged system forms the masses to follow blindly along. In truth, most people just don’t know what’s going on.

From the years that I have covered wolf and other wildlife issues in the state of Idaho, I’m not sure I recall a statement made in a government document that upset outdoor sportsmen any more than one that Jim Unsworth was a part of. In a 1993 document, Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions, a report completed by Unsworth and two other colleagues, it reads:

We recognize now that elk are part of a bigger picture and that elk habitat management must be placed within the context of ecosystem management, biodiversity, State management strategies and goals, and shifting public demand and interest that now embrace nonconsumptive and consumptive interests.

Sportsmen often pay lip service to such issues as fish and game departments catering to environmentalists and their desire to end hunting, trapping and fishing, but when we see it put to writing that the paradigm is and has shifted toward non consumptive wildlife management, it’s enough to make maggots climb a small, thin rope. Dr. Valerius Geist calls “ecosystem management” with the goal of “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity”, as “intellectual rubbish.”

The reality is that Dr. Jim Unsworth is perhaps a second generation product of post-normal wildlife management taught to him by such conservation romance biologists as Dr. James Peek. Yes, America is witness to the fruits of its labor. While outdoor sportsmen enjoyed time in the wild, away from the hustle and bustle of the nasty world now comprised of “changing the way we talk about wildlife”, the nasty world made the change that took place and it appears it has taken the introduction of wolves, forced onto the landscape of human settlement to give some pause to ask how that all happened. Isn’t it just a bit too late?

In my newest book, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I spend a great deal of time explaining how American citizens were sold the biggest con job until Obamacare was thrust upon us much in the same manner. I’ll talk more of that in a moment.

Jim Unsworth was a student of Dr. James Peek. If you want a greater understanding of what Unsworth was subjected to as a student of wildlife management, try reading this and this.

However, the likes of the new-science, wildlife scientist shouldn’t come as a surprise. We were warned about the coming destruction. In The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 47, Jan.-Mar. 2012 edition, editor George Dovel subtitled his central article as: “Review What Has Happened Since 1990 When the IAFWA Hired Bird-Watchers and Other Predator Preservationists to Replace Public Hunting in North America.

Dovel writes:

The Washington, D.C. – based international group that once represented the interests of state Fish and Game agencies by lobbying Congress and the President for them, is now their master. Although it chose to drop the word “International” from its name in order to sound “more friendly” to the North American hunters and fishermen it once supported, the “Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies” even added the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China to the long list of federal agency members it represents.

In 1990, IAFWA hired non-hunting bird watcher Naomi Edelson to establish non-consumptive wildlife
recreation as all state F&G agencies’ number one priority. This shocking violation of the law in many states was ignored by commissioners and biologists.

In July of 1990, IDFG Research Biologist (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth wrote a 1991-95 elk plan based on the IAFWA directive which blatantly violated Idaho Wildlife Policy in Idaho Code Sec 36-103. That 74-year-old law clearly states that wild animals, wild birds and fish within the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.

Yet the introduction to Unsworth’s Elk Plan said:

“Although this document is called an Elk Management Plan, it is really the plan of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (hereafter called the Department) for managing the many and varied impacts of people upon wildlife and wildlife habitat.

“…The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the
maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not
necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”

We also get a glimpse into a few things upon examination of an interview Unsworth did in 2009 for Idaho Public Television.

Based on information provided in this interview, Jim Unsworth must have been with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game around 15 years, when he told in his 2009 interview that:

The day they brought them [wolves] in, I was in the Middle Fork with some other Fish and Game folks. We were counting elk and deer, and we had just finished up for the day, and we were on the Thomas Creek airstrip, and getting ready to head back to the cabin and have dinner. All of a sudden a bunch of fixed wings started landing, and here they were, dropping wolves off. None of us that were there counting elk even knew that this was going to happen.

Seriously? As much national attention as was given the introduction of wolves into this region and a 15-year biologist, who eventually became deputy director, didn’t know this was going to happen? While champagne was being uncorked, employees of the IDFG knew nothing? There must have been some very big secret being kept under wraps. I wonder what that could have been? (wink – wink)

And there was this:

And so, I remember sitting there on the airstrip with some of the guys I was working with, and we’d just spent a week counting –- looking at one of the most remarkable elk herds in the world, and looking at these wolves that they had dropped off.

And as a biologist, I was thinking, Whoa, this will be interesting! I mean, we have an incredibly abundant food source here, and a new top predator, and I wonder what’s going to happen.

I’m guessing that as little as Unsworth claimed he was aware of wolf introduction and what was going to happen to the elk populations, those behind the introduction were lying like well-worn rugs in a house of ill repute, claiming they knew wolves wouldn’t have any impact on elk herds.

In this interview, Unsworth sounds as though he is pretty balanced in his outlook and perspective on wolves and wolf management and maybe even wildlife management in general. However, if you pay attention, you will read indications of his personal perspective of non consumptive wildlife management. It appears as though, even as he might be passing himself off as a hunter, he doesn’t really care if those hunting opportunities are taken away from hunters. He prefers to address the issue by stating that the elk moved and it’s up to the hunters to change their habits.

You will also read this:

Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life, for lots of people. That’s where they get their winter’s food. A lot of people don’t understand that, that are back east watching. They like the idea of wolves, and how everything’s happening out here, but I think they miss the people part of this whole equation. They miss the impact that these wolves are having just on local guys wanting to go out, recreate and feed their family for the winter. People miss that.

Which brings us back to the remarkable con job of wolf introduction. I’m sorry Mr. Unsworth but it wasn’t just those people “back east watching” that didn’t care one iota that, “Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life,” not one little bit. Again, in reference to my book, Wolf” What’s to Misunderstand? I point out that every human element in the discussion of the impact of wolves in the Environmental Impact Statement was deliberately left out. That was in 1994 and this interview was in 2009 and evidently in that 15-year period, he and others like him still haven’t caught on.

The only real important issue about wolf introduction and present wolf management IS the human element. As Unsworth even points out, why did officials in 1993 deliberately avoid having to seriously address those elements?

But that is the power of new-science, post normal, wildlife management, brainwashing. It matters not whether there exists any scientific evidence, all based upon the scientific model that once worked pretty darn good. No, it’s now all about outcome-based science, developed and passed on by “change agents” whose minds were filled with idealistic nonsense and they believe it. This is the rigged system. What we are seeing is nothing more than a product of that rigged system.

Perhaps Unsworth was the best choice for Washington; a clone with all the right talking points. Those who sit on the governor’s hand-selected committee to vet a new director, I’m sure were all selected with the same principles that George Dovel told us were underway; that wildlife management would be done by bird watchers and environmentalists who are more concerned about kicking us off our lands and “their” lands, while managing for scarcity, than they are about real wildlife conservation with abundance for all.

It will not be until we, as a society, figure out how the progression of these “propaganda fantasies” started and how to stop it, that we can once again find fish and game directors, and a staff full of real biologists, that understand the difference between truth and fantasy.

If you figure out how to stop it then the challenge will become how do you re manufacture the clogged mands?

Experience Vs. Romance Biology

A letter writer from Morristown, New Jersey, has a piece in MyCentralJersey.com in which he reluctantly says that the recent attack by a black bear on a Rutgers University student in a park/preserve, was predictable. He claims he has sent “at least” 12 letters since 2007 warning that this event would occur under present bear policy.

Bob Guinter brings up a few good points. The first is in response to a person from the Sierra Club continuing to claim that black bears are docile, timid and afraid of humans.

…after spending over 10,000 hours in the North woods of Maine at my uncle’s wilderness cabin…, My experience is different. Black bears are unpredictable and they are both scavengers and predators as circumstances allow. Perhaps those who believe they are docile and afraid of people simply choose to ignore behaviors they exhibit commonly in their indigenous environment where they are at the top of the food chain.

The second point is in response to a claim that bears become aggressive, slowly over time, because they learn that humans are a source for food.

During my time of hiking and fishing the East Branch of the Penobscot River, it was a rare event to see another human; sometimes not seeing anyone outside of camp for weeks at a time. Yet bear encounters with them exhibiting aggressive behavior toward humans were common. There, they only seemed afraid of anything in the fall when the hunting-dogs were running.

This is perhaps a very good example of romance biology versus actual experience. In this day and age where real science has been shown the door and replaced with computer models and romantic theories, rooted in nonsensical idealism, what we are seeing here is the fruit of that planting.

The masses of people have been propagandized. Some may think propaganda a harsh term in this instance but when you consider that the definition states that it’s bad information being used to promote a cause or belief, it surely fits nicely. The problem here is that this propagandizing has been taking place at all levels of society for a very long time. The result is too many people have never been taught the real truth. Nobody wants to admit they were lied to and that what they believe is false. It’s like admitting a weakness, like alcoholism or drug addiction.

The real loser in all of this nonsense of “new understandings” is the beneficial-to-all scientific community. A true scientific method involves the advancement of a hypothesis. Real scientists then choose to discover if such a hypothesis holds validity. Changes to the hypothesis begin and over time, what was once a mere theory, begins to have credibility – not the lie we have been fed that “the science is settled.” Such a statement, as has been used with climate change, is completely dishonest and borders on criminal.

Today’s new science, called by some “scientism” creates computer models based on an ideology or political agenda. Money is injected and what once was a tried system of peer review, has become a support system propped up with money and promises to arrive at a desired outcome.

Unfortunately for all of us, we are left having to decide who we should believe. The result being this divide pitting totalitarian-minded people, armed with propaganda, attempting to force the rest of society to follow their ideological beliefs, through such things as voter referendums. How does this at all resemble a credible scientific process?

In the letter written that I’ve linked to above, the writer wants to know how the person with the Sierra Club can state that, “bears are usually docile and are more afraid of people than we are of them.” He asks, “How does he know?” And therein lies the difference between knowledge and understanding, through real experience, and fabricated propaganda being used to promote an agenda.

It’s really not all the far away from the story of the two guys who had hiked back into the wilderness to do some fishing and are being chased out of the woods by an attacking bear. One man says, “I don’t think I can outrun this bear!” The other man replies, “I know I can’t. I just need to outrun you.”

Which man is dealing with truth?

EBranchPenobscot

New-Science Wildlife Scientists Available For Free Download

Dear Readers:

After composing the seven-part series, “New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House”, I took the time to neatly (with a little editing) put the seven parts into one 19-page document. It is now available at Tom Remington’s E-Book Library as a FREE download – available in 3 formats (PDF, TXT, and ODT).

Please visit this page and get your copy as well as share it with other people.

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.