September 23, 2020

Destruction by Moderation or The False Left/Right Paradigm

By definition, the Left/Right Paradigm, is nothing more than a model or a “typical” example of something. Linguistically, a paradigm is “items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.” In other words, most people are accepting of the Left/Right Paradigm because somebody has instructed/brainwashed them into believing, first of all, that there is a Left (by someone’s definition) and a Right (also by someone’s definition – not necessarily the same person), and that this existence of Left and Right is an acceptable model of something – in this case something considered “normal.” Within this paradigm we do see “mutually exclusive” choices or roles to play, devised by the formation of certain terms and phrases that either fit someone’s definition/narrative of Left or Right or the terms Left and Right fit a predetermined or wanted outcome.

Does it exist? Absolutely! But is it real? Not by a million miles! However, there is profit in establishing, maintaining, and growing the paradigm and clever tactics (I’m being kind here) are used in convincing participants of the paradigm to be eager in their actions.

Moderation means many things in the context of Left vs. Right. One thing it spells is destruction – depending, of course, on your perspective of things. First we must have honest understanding that “destruction” is something of weighted value. What I see as destruction, others see as progress perhaps.

Moderation can also be seen as fence sitting; for various reasons a person cannot and will not bring themselves to persuasively come down on one side or the other – as presented in the often unseen Hegelian Dialectic, psycho-babbled fanciful “crisis.” Such fence sitting can just as easily be construed as ignorance, i.e. not possessing enough knowledge of true or false facts to prompt their action toward placing a boot to an opposer’s neck and making them give in – the modern day technique of the promotion of political ideology.

Left vs. right suggests a continuum, with “moderates” ensuring each “side” remains isolated while acting as a convenient tool of destruction depending on which way the moderate can be persuaded to lean.

I don’t see a continuum. I see a circle. If a member of the Right goes far enough to the fabricated Right, eventually they find themselves in the land of the Left, and vice versa.

Our present culture is a model (paradigm) consisting of mutually exclusive terms (words, linguistics) to conveniently fit each manipulated role – i.e. Left/Right Paradigm. Everything we do is either Leftist or Rightist – there can be no in between and thus the moderate is a destroyer and an enabler.

When we examine the role playing of the false Left and the false Right, it doesn’t take an expert research analyst to discover that what was once considered Leftist is now adopted by and considered endemic to the Right and vice versa. This role reversal has become so prolific in political circles and parties that it is laughable…and should be laughed at. Unfortunately, it is not. It’s not even recognized…by design. All of this should be proof of the absurdity of the false paradigm of Left vs. Right.

Let’s look at some ways in which “finding middle ground” or “moderation” is destruction unawares.

Rogue government members, acting criminally, stole money from Pittman-Robertson excise taxes and, among other things, trapped wolves in Canada and released them in the Greater Yellowstone region after Congress had denied the action. That’s history.

These wolves were forced onto the landscape and has been costly in many ways to taxpayers. In recognition of the false Left/Right Paradigm, it would appear that the Left supports wolves in every backyard and the Right opposes this – at least that is how it is most often presented. As such, eager participants of the false paradigm line up on the side that represents their political ideal.

Instead of each side sticking to what they believe to be the “truth” or high ground in this matter, moderates begin a campaign to allow each state to assume the “management” of the wolves. These moderates believe it is a victory that they can assume the fascist role the government began accepting the costs and responsibilities that were once fought against to stop. This is destructive action and enables criminal actions to continue.

We see the same thing when it comes to the Second Amendment or even a person’s belief that their right to self-protection and of their property is unalienable – GOD given, never questioned. Instead of standing firmly on that belief and fighting for the pure existence of that right, the moderates begin a campaign for “reasonable limits” on this right. This, they believe, is a victory ignorant of what they are actually doing.

Recently, Jim Beers posted on this website an article that pretty well describes the false Left/Right Paradigm and how the contrasting powers of each side have resulted in middle ground or moderation which contributes to the erosion of rights and privileges on the one side and growing the opposition to those rights and privileges on the other.

In one section, Beers writes of how a diversion of funds (from excise taxes and license fees) are being used for purposes of which they were not intended. This diversion of funds is the result of a giving in from one side for various reasons without understanding of the long term effects and destruction of what was once a clear cut American heritage.

We know that Pittman-Robertson and Johnson-Dingell excise tax monies are collected and doled back out to the states using some form of an algorithm to allot those funds equitably according to licenses sold and equipment purchased (wink-wink). In the creation of both of these programs, certain criteria were established to make sure the money was being used as intended, i.e. for hunting and fishing.

Today we know that tens of thousands of these excise dollars are being used by organizations that directly are in opposition to the American Heritage of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Moderation, the belief that there is no harm in giving a little to get a little, is causing the destruction of hunting, trapping, and fishing in this toxic and violent culture we now live in.

Beers contends that limits or bans on the sale of guns and ammunition is another way of eliminating the amount of money that can be used to ensure a continued heritage of hunting, trapping, and fishing.

I was always taught that if you believe in something there is no reason to give into those who want to take that something away from you. But we are convinced in this culture of anger and hatred that if we give a little perhaps we can keep some. It doesn’t work that way.

We can argue that this false Left/Right Paradigm is designed specifically to create the situations in our culture that some of us can see. The designers of these paradigms have vast knowledge of human nature and how to manipulate and control it. They know they can’t just one day yank the carpet out from under our feet. They need to prompt us to move a little closer to the edge of the carpet until one day we find ourselves standing on bare ground wondering where the carpet went.

Beers also writes about how, as hunters, we have taken on the role of attempting to explain to those the good our license monies do in caring for wildlife species by funding wildlife management programs. Where once those license fees were used exclusively for fish and game, today it is used for fish and wildlife. This all came about when it was decided that it might be a good idea to give some of that money for non game programs to appease those grumbling against the hunting, trapping, and fishing heritage. What has this gotten us? Why can’t we stand up and shout out that hunting, trapping, and fishing are heritages we believe in and we want to keep…period. Why do we have to somehow apologize for it and then pay a tribute?

We opened the door and invited in the demons of environmentalism; powers and principalities that exist to destroy the heritage many of us have grown up enjoying.

Today, we find hunters trying to explain themselves away to environmentalists, animal rights groups, and any and all anti-hunting existences the good things that our tax dollars go toward. We do it almost apologetically, as though we were the bad guys, or at best a quasi Robin Hood where we are willing to pay tribute to Environmentalism so that we can maintain opportunities to dabble in the heritage we cling to, even at seriously limited chances.

If we believe that this quickly eroding heritage was and still can be a good thing, why do we insist on giving it away? We find ourselves being continually attacked, soon winding up in the middle, moderating our beliefs to appease hoping that somehow this giving attitude will rub off on the other side. Doing this shows our ignorance of the intents and purposes of those who want what we have enjoyed doing ended.

Show me a time when those of the Left have given anything. It’s what the Left is programmed to do. They may present an instance when they didn’t get all they were fighting for as giving but it is far from it.

I see it as a choice that we must decide what is going to happen. We can continue our moderation, giving in little by little to the opposition, or we can finally decide to take a firm stand, completely in support of what we believe in.

We are trapped in this false paradigm and until such time that the paradigm itself can be destroyed, we are relegated to operate within the confines of it. So, it’s either fight harder or understand the consequences for our actions, i.e. as Jim Beers says, “Night, Night Hunters.”

Share

The Sky Is Falling!….On You But Not On Me

skyfallingI am going to attempt to combine two different issues into one shared topic. My writing skills sometimes don’t match my brain’s ability to see things, sometimes much differently than others do, and at times I struggle to make my point clear and as concise as I see it.

Yesterday, I shared with readers some thoughts and a link to an article about “ecosystems” and the myth of “balance of nature.” Through the entirety of that process and beyond I devised a multitude of questions, the bulk of which were mired deeply in the foundation of hypocrisy, fueled by ignorance and perpetuated by, “a convenient approach to organizing thought.”

I’ll come back to more discussion and questions about the ecosystem and balance of nature paradigm in a bit. First, I’d like to pick a different topic that has a bit of a deeper and related subject matter as the convenience of “balance of nature.”

The Bangor Daily News, in Maine, today had a short opinion piece from a person mostly eulogizing the destruction of game animals due to “global warming.” It’s a hell of a way to have to go through life, believing, without giving it much thought, that the sky is falling, that it is the existence of man that is the fault of that falling sky, and calling on man to fix it.

Rational thinking causes some of us to understand that there is a distinct difference between global warming and climate change. Although the irrational “True Believers” of man-caused global warming have taken the bait, an even swap of the terms global warming and climate change, sold as the same, they are not. It is nothing more than a salesman’s tactic to garner support for a fraudulent, money-making scam. The shame in it all is that this scam is limiting the real science needed to truly understand what causes our planet’s actual climate change.

Few can see, or want to see, that little in this irrational debate makes honest sense. I suppose it’s much in a person’s ability, for lack of a better term, to think independently and not just do as you are told.

Therefore, global warming/climate change, as is used in its majority, perpetuates, “a convenient approach to organizing thought.” In other words it is used, conveniently, to explain everything. It all allows non thinkers to remain in some sort of comfort zone. It’s an explanation for them for everything. If it’s too rainy, it’s the fault of man-caused climate change. For them, the same explanation is used for cold, hot, storms, lack of storms, drought and floods, etc. What intellectual dishonesty!

One has to wonder if those non thinkers who perpetuate the myth of man-caused climate change also believe in the “balance of nature” paradigm. Which brings me back to “ecosystems.”

Whether the followers of man-caused global warming and “balance of nature” are one in the same people I don’t know. What I do think is that they have been programmed to react the same way. Invoking the balance of nature paradigm also becomes a convenient explanation for everything and, of course, man is to blame for all things bad and the one and only entity that screws up the balance.

As a believer of ecosystem self-regulation, the only thing that messes up this paradigm is the presence of man. Even though science places man in the middle of ecosystems, human haters want nothing more than to blame man for anything they perceive as bad happening to their favorite ecosystem. What lacks rational explanation is that while exclaiming the perfections of their balance of nature, more perfect if man is gotten rid of, man is always called upon to fix problems. What happened to self regulation? Isn’t man supposed to butt out?

In examining wolf introduction, or any other introduction for that matter, people, many of whom have become apparent “balance of nature” enthusiasts, called for wolves to be dropped into the Yellowstone ecosystem. Part of that argument in support of wolf introduction was the value a wolf places on “balancing” the ecosystem. This is the tired and worn out argument that is used for all predators and has caused the recent rise in predator worship.

If it was one hundred years ago, and longer, that wolves were extirpated from the Lower 48 States, then how did our fragile ecosystems survive this long without wolves? Was it because nature took over and regulated itself? Was it because wolves and predators in general aren’t necessary in an ecosystem? Did plants and animals react to the negative and positive feedback loops (a form of sustainable regulation)? Did man intercede with wildlife management and do the best job they could to provide a healthy environment?

In addition, if man and man’s existence messes up our ecosystems, and if man would be extirpated so that nature can “self-regulate”, then why is it that man is called upon to mess with what nature is doing? This sounds hypocritical to me. It would appear to me that being that man, arguably the most intelligent of all creatures in an ecosystem, being part of The Ecosystem, then everything that has happened since the beginning of time is “natural.” Is it not? So who is messing with what and why?

Doesn’t then all of this, i.e. the perpetuation of man-caused global warming and balance of nature, become nothing more than, “a convenient approach to organizing thought?” Once independent thinking was removed from this planet, the “organizing thought” becomes someone’s truth. It is not God’s truth. It is the antithesis of God’s truth whose foundation is rooted in evil, fraud, greed, power, etc.

If only we could return to the days when we humans were taught of the value of independent, critical thinking. In the meantime, some humans can only resort to exclamations that the sky is falling and, oh, by the way, I think it’s only falling on you over there and not on me over here.

Share