September 24, 2019

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

It is my hope that by now readers might at least be scratching their heads and questioning their “normal” lifestyles and if nothing else have a grain of suspicion that maybe things aren’t quite as they appear.

I have only helped to expose a handful of entities as being responsible for the “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” In Part IV I asked that you might consider how many NTL-trained “change agents” must now exist world wide and specifically in the United States of America. In addition, in Part V, we have now seen the role played by our own Department of Education to brainwash the people. Now, let’s take a brief look at just a handful of other organizations with the same basic dream “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

In much of my work, I have to deal with a mass movement that is called environmentalism. By definition an environmentalist is “any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.”

If it was only that simple. Who can seriously argue that the majority of people are environmentalists by definition. Most everybody wants clean air, non polluted water, as well as a sensible approach to protecting animals, plants, etc.

However, the environmentalist movement isn’t about any of these things except for the brainwashed who have, without questioning, accepted new-science/new-education propaganda used to promote the conspiracy. The mind controlled believe they are doing good things and sometimes they do but fail miserably in lack of understanding as to what the bigger picture is.

Many of us are willing to recognize events such as someone appearing on national television or in the media expressing concerns over a shortage of toilet paper, or sugar, rice, gasoline, etc. Most people see the result of what happens and often are willing to believe that it is a hoax to drive up prices for quick profits. Are you aware that the basic premise of these con jobs is rooted in fear and the media are simply “change agents” themselves?

Recall again that in Part IV I spoke of new-science scientists being trained by the Science Policy Research Unit in “Future Shocks”. Delivering false statements to be distributed by the media of shortages, is a “Future Shock” tactic with the prime goal of creating fear. Fear in people leaves them open to mind control and brainwashing.

Before I get into more specifics about the environmental movement, let’s try to gain a better understanding of its roots. According to Dr. John Coleman, Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the U.S. Forest Service and close friend of Teddy Roosevelt, coined or invented, if you will, the term “environmentalism”. It all went downhill from there. The founders of the modern day environmentalism just so happened to be the heirs to the great petroleum and pharmaceutical fortunes of the world, with the purpose of seriously stifling industrial growth in order that they have full control of any and all growth for their own fortunes.

A once active and now defunct Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, helped to define and set the stage of the environmental movement. One of the purposes of the CSDI was to rewrite the United States Constitution and in that rewrite to amend the Constitution to include a guarantee of environmental rights. I’m not sure exactly what that means, as is the case with just about all this social rewriting and brainwashing, but consider what could go wrong with such a constitutional amendment.

Consider the mindset of those involved in this environmental movement, especially one U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell, who served six terms from 1961 to 1997. In addition to expressing his support for human population “culling”, Pell believed that NATO should be the enforcers of environmental standards worldwide. What could possibly go wrong with that?

The real environmentalism uses tactics I’ve written about and others “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” These plans are carried out through organizations, i.e., non governmental agencies, non profits, institutions of education, think tanks, state and local governments, as well as our own Federal Government through their varied overreaching, rights trampling departments.

When you see our very youngest of children attending school each day, where no time is spent teaching history, our heritage and everything that made America the greatest nation of earth, and they are being taught that the globe “has a fever”, that humans are evil, wasteful people, that animals have rights, that people shouldn’t eat meat, that “truth” about our environment is “inconvenient”, brainwashing is in full effect; Al Gore being a master at fear mongering for profit. The people say nothing. Why? Because, as I described in Part I and Part II, we are all products of the same brainwashing, having been made to accept the same crap being fed to our children.

So, can we point a finger at the United Nations, National Training Laboratories, Department of Education and others for this environmentalism brainwashing? Of course but there are hundreds more that eagerly participate as well. Most all of the above mentioned organizations, their founders and leaders, are more than likely a part of the conspiracy “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Many readers of this blog are quite familiar with groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, Audubon, Nature Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Earth First!, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, etc. This list of national organizations numbers in access of 100 and when you add in all the others, including those at the local level, we are bombarded with thousands of them; all trained by the trained, by the trained, etc.

Chances are probably 100% that with each organization, if you did a biography on all the leaders and/or founders of these organizations, you will discover they are all “trained” by the same group of people that are products of Dr. Kurt Lewin’s mind altering “science” used to make mentally healthy people ill.

Let’s look at some more. Second Nature should be remembered by readers and avoided like the plague. Second Nature, subtitled, “Education for Sustainability” (there’s that word again), has a mission statement. I’ll only post part of it; that says enough:

Second Nature’s mission is to create a sustainable society by transforming higher education. We accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making healthy, just, and sustainable living the foundation of all learning and practice in higher education.(emboldening added)

I’ve highlighted the keywords, that if you’ve been following along, should be ringing bells and blowing whistles in your mind. Doesn’t that paragraph just sound wonderful? I’m sure people like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews would say it sends shivers up and down his leg.

However, consider honestly the keywords and ask yourself how, who and for what real purpose. We’ve covered some of “sustainability” but just what is it and at what expense is it achievable, as well as who decides what defines sustainability? Are you aware that often when “change agents” talk about a “sustainable society” that means killing off the “useless eaters” the non enlightened as well as killing off of let’s say about 5 billion people by the year 2050?

And what is a “just” living? Is that determined by my standards and those I choose for my family? Or does someone I’ve never met and couldn’t care less about me, going to decide my education, my way of life, where I live, what I eat and where I die according to his/her standards? Are you a “useless eater”? How do you know?

By the way, Second Nature does define “sustainability” – as determined by the United Nation. SURPRISE!

I suggest you get to know your local, state and national brainwashers. And did I mention the founders of Second Nature?

Second Nature was founded in Boston in 1993 by a small group of forward-thinking leaders that included Dr. Anthony D. Cortese, Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA), Teresa Heinz Kerry, Bruce Droste, and others. This group sought to establish an organization dedicated to bringing about the change in society that is vital to the success and livelihood of every current and future living being: a change for a just and sustainable future.(emboldening added)

I wanted to point out Senator John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as Mr. Kerry’s name will come up again as we continue to climb up the ladder in discovery of who’s behind it all.

In addition, I highlighted “change in society”. This should trigger uncontrolled regurgitation. If it hasn’t you’re not getting it. If you will recall some of President Obama’s famous words during his first campaign heading into the 2008 election. I’ll paraphrase and say that he referred to the United States as one of the greatest nations on earth and then urged everybody to help him “change it”. Does that make sense to you? I hope not because if it troubles you, you might be starting to get it. This is the same as what I wrote about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation being the best and we now see “change agents” looking to destroy it. Refresh your memory of that list of everything that made America great and people like Barack Obama and John Kerry want to change it. Why? More importantly, why do we let them?

Why does John Kerry and Second Nature want to dedicate themselves to “change society”. I don’t believe he is one who recognizes the wrong direction society has gone in and wants to bring it back. It must be that John Kerry and his band of brainwashers want “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

The very tiny number of organizations that I have brought to your attention, have the only purpose of brainwashing Americans. But there are hundreds perhaps thousands more that I haven’t even mentioned. In addition to the organizations themselves, consider the “trained” change agents by the hundreds of thousands that have taken over our society; the destruction, fear, chaos, anger, division, loss of morals they are responsible for and we let them do it.

In Part VII, I will examine the Aspen Institute and link it further up the ladder to the Tavistock Institute and beyond.

Share

Protecting the Fish and Game Biologist Brotherhood

Once again, Outcome Based Education, political bias and perpetuated myths are on display in Maine. A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist and a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologist, says that politicians are the cause of Maine’s depleted(ing) deer herd, not coyotes.

Politicians are to blame for many things and readers know I would be the last in line to stand up for one unless I knew them personally and could trust them. As far as whether politicians are the sole blame for Maine’s vanishing deer herd, I don’t think, as much as I would like to, I could put all the blame on them.

The author was a wildlife biologist and worked for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), so I doubt he would dare place any of the blame for a terrible deer management execution on his “brotherhood” at MDIFW.

Getting beyond the political bias and nonsense, let’s examine a few things that the retired biologist had to say.

Since the early 1900s, expensive and barbaric coyote bounties have failed miserably in western states, but that knowledge carries no weight in Augusta.

History is full of accounts of how “barbaric bounties” very effectively controlled predator populations. Maybe the author needed to rewind his history clock a few more years to discover that….or maybe the seeming failure was intentional.

One has to simply reread many of the journals and accounts from years ago in the West to learn what actually happened. A favorite account of mine is that of C. Gordon Hewitt.

It always amazes me how that the evils of hunting swing in both directions, when convenient. While wolves and coyotes were virtually wiped out in the West as the settlers moved in, hunters were blamed. When there is talk of killing predators, such as coyotes and wolves, those same people who blamed the destruction of coyotes and wolves on hunters, swing the door in the other direction and tell us as did the opinion piece in question:

It seems counterintuitive, but the war on coyotes has actually increased their numbers and breeding range. The Colorado Division of Wildlife reports that coyotes are more numerous today than when the state was first settled by trappers. Colorado and other western states no longer waste taxpayer money on futile coyote control programs.

There exists no scientific evidence that killing coyotes causes them to automatically breed more of themselves. There are just too many factors that come into play when examining reproductive habits of any wild animal. And is the author of this opinion piece actually suggesting here that all those coyotes now in Colorado are solely to blame on hunters and trappers? Once again, a reading and studying of the history of settling the West shows that aside from certain pockets, this nirvana of the West was not so Disneyesque as many would like to believe. Man’s expansion created a vast habitat to support coyotes and all other wildlife. In time, the implementation of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation allowed for the growth and health of our wildlife systems.

The retired biologist intimates that Maine plans to implement a one year program to kill coyotes, saying it wouldn’t be effective. Agreed, and I know of no honest person who has indicated that it would. I happen to know explicitly that both MDIFW Commissioner Woodcock and Governor LePage have been told and I believe understand that predator control is an ongoing part of wildlife management and this should have been taking place years ago. The MDIFW fell flat on their faces in this regard.

The article shows us the author’s real colors when he begins his rant about how the Maine politicians failed because they did not steal land rights away from American taxpayers. The crying and gnashing of teeth is about the State Legislature failing to tell landowners they can’t use the resources on their own land; an unconstitutional land grab straight from the pages of the United Nations Agenda 21 program, whose goal it is to take all land and resources worldwide and forbid you and I from owning or having access to any of it, saving it instead for them. I’m all for protecting our wildlife, but never at the expense of man’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are better ways than forceful takeovers.

We are then treated to what appears to be an expert on the deer management in Minnesota and Michigan stating:

If you remain unconvinced that lack of winter shelter is the primary reason northern Maine supports few deer, please consider this: Minnesota and Michigan deer herds are much healthier than Maine’s. Minnesota and Michigan winters are as difficult as Maine’s. Deer in both of those states must also avoid being eaten by coyotes and wolves.

So the logical question LePage, Woodcock, Martin and deer hunters should ask is this: What are Minnesota and Michigan doing differently to maintain healthy deer populations? The answer: Both states prioritize protecting deer wintering areas through land purchases, conservation easements and regulating excessive timber harvests.

The proof is in the pudding they say, and with the help of a reader, we have been able to provide a couple of graphs that show that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, both Minnesota and Michigan have seriously reduced deer harvest numbers, dropping over 30% and more.

You don’t suppose that one of the reasons that Minnesota and Michigan have a declining harvest of deer, an indication of a declining deer population, has anything at all to do with the years of over protecting predators and now the results of that over protection are showing up? In addition, I have yet to get anyone that pretends to have all the answers explain to me why, if there are no more deer wintering areas left in Maine to support more deer, the ones we have are not being used?

It appears that the basis for the author’s opinion piece in the paper is mostly wrapped around his dislike of Gov. LePage and his republican administration, while at the same time blaming politicians in general for a deer demise, the fate of which was left in the hands of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a department that the biologist was an employee of. Surely we couldn’t expect someone to point a finger at their brotherhood of hoodwinked biologists….or even perhaps at themselves.

Share