VERY disappointed. LOTS of misinfo, cherry picking and just plain environmental ignorance in here to make a narrative that fits the ideology of conquest as the appropriate response of humans to our natural environment and planetary home. History as told from the vantage point of the conqueror, making the victims look like the troublemake…
VERY disappointed. LOTS of misinfo, cherry picking and just plain environmental ignorance in here to make a narrative that fits the ideology of conquest as the appropriate response of humans to our natural environment and planetary home. History as told from the vantage point of the conqueror, making the victims look like the troublemakers.
Let’s start with what you DON’T present. Evidently you’ve never actually witnessed the environmental damage done by mass removal of native species (ex, wolves, condors) or removal and replacement of native by non-native species (ex.- replacement of native bison with domestic cattle, who are descendants of European wood bison, and not suited to live in the American continental climate.). The degradation of waterways and vegetation by the elk proliferating in Yellowstone Park is a great example. Beavers, health and biodiversity actually returned to sections of the park heavily elk damaged, after wolves were returned. But we mustn’t question the image of the big, bad wolf so let’s keep his role in maintaining the balance without our “help”, a secret.
Let’s look at some of the other messes our “management” of the environment for ideology over facts and profit over sustainability has caused. How about showing the repeated mass deaths of native Pronghorn antelopes, starved and frozen when traditional migration routes to warmer pastures are blocked by barbed wire cattle fences? Are ranchers held responsible or mandated to change their management practices? Nope! How about the massive decline in ground squirrel colonies that once helped keep prairies aerated, seeds dispersed, and entire diverse ecosystems supported across our continent’s midsection? The ground squirrels were instrumental in building the rich prairie soils we’ve been strip mining. But ranchers and farmers wanted them gone because they’r “competitors” for grass and “a nuisance”. Are ranchers held responsible for mass multi-species (animal and plant) extinctions across vast stretches of prairie to make them “safe” and “more productive” for cattle and sheep? Nope! In fact, the government has a long history of helping ranchers destroy ground squirrels and the ecosystems they supported. The government, at the ranchers’ requests, also mass murdered bald eagles, golden eagles, hawks, bears, vultures and other types of wildlife over many decades in the process of enacting horrifying and indiscriminate killing campaigns against ground squirrels as well as predators large and small. Is anyone ever held responsible for such mass, indiscriminate killing of wildlife? Nope!
What do you think has caused the boom
in urban coyote populations? Wolf killing campaigns!! Wolves are natural competitors and predators of coyotes, and kept coyote populations in check for millennia. But with wolves eliminated from much of their wild habitat -to please the ranchers and give trappers and “sportsmen” somebody to murder - coyote populations boomed. Wily began colonizing new habitats, and found cities to be to his liking. So the next time a family loses its dog to a coyote, thank a rancher or a hunter. (BTW, at least three distinct subspecies of wolves became extinct decades ago. Yay. The world is such a better place now. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of a good, ego-satisfying conquistador narrative.)
While we’re at it, let’s roll some film footage of the last, small band of wild descendants of the Iberian war horses brought to America by the Spanish colonists, being brutally rounded up by the BLM and herded into captivity for the rest of their lives (or at least the survivors of the nasty process will be placed into captivity. Or quietly shipped off for execution to feed the gourmet horse meat trade.) Those horses, who re-colonized land left by their ancestors before the last Ice Age, have co-existed peacefully in their current habitat for approximately 500 years. But they’re being removed -on the taxpayers’ dime - because, you know, ranchers. The same folk crying about their terrible economic problems while being subbed vast amounts of tax dollars because they’re doing business in a completely unsustainable fashion. The horses they remove for “damaging the environment” aren’t the problem. The animals the ranchers raise and the way they raise them is the problem, but the horses, predators and every other form of life gets blamed because that’s just easier than admitting that you might be doing things the wrong way.
There are a small but significant handful of regenerative ranchers out there raising cattle AND re-creating wildlife-rich, abundant landscapes, but the hard-headed majority of ranchers won’t follow suit because, well , co-existing with nature just doesn’t fit with their ideology of human conquest and dominion. So they continue to degrade their lands, push nature into a dead end and prey on the taxpayers to stay alive while providing the insatiable public gut with “cheap” meat. Cheap, all right, because the losses are socialized while gains are privatized.
You want to see what welfare looks like? Go look into the income statements of some of the big ranch owners (hunt: their stalking the corridors of Washington and Wall Street, not out riding their ranges!) “Cheap meat” is a scam, and the animals ultimately pay. But what goes around always comes around, and we will bear the consequences in the forms of water shortages, changing climate (yes, I’ll debate you on that all day long, bring it on!), worsening human health, biodiversity loss, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the few, increased pollution and other diverse outcomes that are difficult for most people to associate with root causes. And we’ve got one heck of a bill coming due.
Two solutions? One: Stop subbing the meat industry (and the fossil fuel industry that makes it possible). Stop manipulating it altogether and let the ranchers who refuse to switch to regenerative methods go out of business. Two: exit the system yourself and become an ethical vegetarian. Get over all the cultural fear and hype about not having a slab of dead animal on your plate at dinner time. Hub and I made the exit over 35 years ago and we’re doing just fine. Will absolutely not be affected by the coming meat shortages because meat no longer controls us. If you can leave on your own terms, then what the elites are doing won’t hurt you.
So, in sum, the REAL issue here is one of ideologies, not one of actual limits. We COULD have (or could have HAD, if it’s too late for change), it all - grizzlies, wolves, wilderness, a thriving ecosystem, reasonable portions of meat on our plates for those who can’t get over it - and smaller, less intrusive government with fewer excuses to grab power, if we had but respected nature and followed her rules of sharing as the regenerative agriculturists do (the feminine path). Instead, we’ve followed the “conquer and dominate, winner takes all” ideology (the masculine path). Because it’s ALL ABOUT US, by god, and nature SHALL bend her will to us! (Sound like a spoiled, petulant teen screaming at his exhausted mom because she no longer has enough money in her purse to fund his dissolute life style?) And even the disappearance of the passenger pigeon and wild buffalo taught us nothing. The willfully blind cannot see. So, we’re going to experience the blowback from the unnatural environmental system and the political system that supports it, that our collective hubris and appetites created. And we’re not going to like it. Nor, like spoiled teenagers, will we learn anything from it.
They surely never let a crisis go to waste and invent new crises as they see fit. Furthermore their "solutions" always make things worse. But that`s okay. They just blame someone or something else and continue with even more unconstitutional bullshit.
Thank you for your intelligent and detailed exposure of the sensationalism and irrationality and hubris of this article. Much appreciated.
People are like very small children in adult bodies (YUCK) who want to eat cookies until they vomit and have a tummy ache and diarrhea and then blame the cookie. This article only reinforces that repulsive rejection of responsibility.
Which is fine. If you enjoy this kind of thing, but there are website that cater to the whole baby fetish thing-y and are much less harmful for others.
Whatever oil is is really immaterial, that’s just a rabbit hole distraction. The point is that it’s a fundamentally valuable but environmentally dangerous source of energy, so the powers that control it, and who believe they’re immune from any consequences of its use, have immense interest in crafting a narrative that prevents people from questioning or moving away from it. That’s the real issue, here.
Thanks for affirming the veg angle. When you live (and live well) without flesh or leather, the threat of these things disappearing causes no fear. I already went through all the stages of terror (yes, making the decision really WAS that intense, so I empathize!), arguing with myself and the cultural forces that shaped me, and marshaling my will when I made the transition in my early 20’s. So, I’m long done with it! Hub had it easier as he more or less just followed along. It’s not the solution to all the world’s problems, to be sure, and I’ve seen vegetarianism turn into an ideology that made people into, well, self-righteous prigs for that nobody wanted to know. So, keeping mental balance is key. My big emphasis is doing it for compassion and self-management. If humanity as a whole could achieve these two things, the earth would regenerate and the globalist problem would go away on its own. It’s really up to us, and always has been.
“The threat of an environmental crisis is the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Mikhail Gorbachev
"The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum
People getting rid of their refuse by throwing it out their car windows because the wind will blow it “away”. Therefore it’s no longer a problem.
Bees and fireflies disappear from suburban lawns.
The ivory billed woodpecker is declared extinct.
Pull tabs from pop and beer cans litter all the beaches, creating an unsightly mess and cutting people’s feet when they walk through the sand barefoot.
Remember all that?
I do.
These were among the catalysts for the environmental movement. There were many more, but these particular problems brought the issue to the public’s consciousness more than most.
Now consider that if you visit some areas of the country, like eastern Idaho and Washington, you’ll notice that most of the homes built before the mid-1980’s or so have no air conditioning. That was because the average climate was such that nobody needed it. Now, those same homes are harder to sell because it’s become so hot there that nobody wants to live without air conditioning. Do you think that’s because people have become really wimpy and more demanding, or because on average the mercury’s actually gone up a few degrees?
The statement you presented from Gorbachev, who was a new-generation, and much more reasonable, Russian leader, could be read in two ways: either as a threat, or a warning. It could be situated in the context of telegraphing actual globalist ambitions, or as advice on how to play into the hands of the globalists (or not, if we change our ways). I choose to view it as the latter because, as I explained in my last post, our own excesses and refusal to take responsibility for maintaining a balance with our planetary life support system (see my above list of disasters) created fertile ground for globalist overrrach.
We always talk about the evil environmental “agenda” and who’s behind it (Gates, Schwab, Soros, etc.) Strangely, we never talk about the anti-environmental agenda and who’s behind THAT (the Koch’s? The Cheneys? Who else? Big Everything is certainly on this bandwagon, so the banks and leadership must be funding it somehow.) We simply take it as a given, “Trust the anti-environmentalists” like the sheeple “trusted the science” The biocidal agenda must not be questioned!! If you DO dare challenge it, you must be a hater of liberty, free speech, property rights, our Consitution, God and The American Way. You couldn’t possibly be just a thoughtful person who supports the TRUE rebels who have figured out how to plow and ranch our way out of this, and are trying to point out how, in resisting transition to regenerative ag, and genuine environmental sustainability, we’ve helped deliver ourselves to the globalists.
I’m sure Gorbachev was no saint, and I would never accuse Russia of being a concerned friend of the environment or of humanity overall. But there is paranoia, greed, duplicity, ignorance, lack of insight and inability to listen on BOTH sides of the aisle. And in the middle are all sorts of people all over the world doing amazing work like replanting damaged forests, replenishing dwindling species, reclaiming deserts, cleaning up filthy waterways and, yes, raising food plants and animals while helping the earth to thrive instead of stripping her to her bones. What would have happened if we had been steadfastly following and supporting THOSE people all this time instead of letting our base appetites dictate that we blindly accept the degraded products and experience handed to us by those who profit from stripping the earth and then blaming and murdering or enslaving us?
It’s so frustrating to know that so many people saw thru the convid scam, but can’t apply the same skepticism and critical thinking to see thru the biocide scam.
The United Nations is exposed at http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-17/index.html and also provides the power to abolish it IF enough people learn why it was established in the first place. It's a small edition, because the thesis was so easy to prove.
VERY disappointed. LOTS of misinfo, cherry picking and just plain environmental ignorance in here to make a narrative that fits the ideology of conquest as the appropriate response of humans to our natural environment and planetary home. History as told from the vantage point of the conqueror, making the victims look like the troublemakers.
Let’s start with what you DON’T present. Evidently you’ve never actually witnessed the environmental damage done by mass removal of native species (ex, wolves, condors) or removal and replacement of native by non-native species (ex.- replacement of native bison with domestic cattle, who are descendants of European wood bison, and not suited to live in the American continental climate.). The degradation of waterways and vegetation by the elk proliferating in Yellowstone Park is a great example. Beavers, health and biodiversity actually returned to sections of the park heavily elk damaged, after wolves were returned. But we mustn’t question the image of the big, bad wolf so let’s keep his role in maintaining the balance without our “help”, a secret.
Let’s look at some of the other messes our “management” of the environment for ideology over facts and profit over sustainability has caused. How about showing the repeated mass deaths of native Pronghorn antelopes, starved and frozen when traditional migration routes to warmer pastures are blocked by barbed wire cattle fences? Are ranchers held responsible or mandated to change their management practices? Nope! How about the massive decline in ground squirrel colonies that once helped keep prairies aerated, seeds dispersed, and entire diverse ecosystems supported across our continent’s midsection? The ground squirrels were instrumental in building the rich prairie soils we’ve been strip mining. But ranchers and farmers wanted them gone because they’r “competitors” for grass and “a nuisance”. Are ranchers held responsible for mass multi-species (animal and plant) extinctions across vast stretches of prairie to make them “safe” and “more productive” for cattle and sheep? Nope! In fact, the government has a long history of helping ranchers destroy ground squirrels and the ecosystems they supported. The government, at the ranchers’ requests, also mass murdered bald eagles, golden eagles, hawks, bears, vultures and other types of wildlife over many decades in the process of enacting horrifying and indiscriminate killing campaigns against ground squirrels as well as predators large and small. Is anyone ever held responsible for such mass, indiscriminate killing of wildlife? Nope!
What do you think has caused the boom
in urban coyote populations? Wolf killing campaigns!! Wolves are natural competitors and predators of coyotes, and kept coyote populations in check for millennia. But with wolves eliminated from much of their wild habitat -to please the ranchers and give trappers and “sportsmen” somebody to murder - coyote populations boomed. Wily began colonizing new habitats, and found cities to be to his liking. So the next time a family loses its dog to a coyote, thank a rancher or a hunter. (BTW, at least three distinct subspecies of wolves became extinct decades ago. Yay. The world is such a better place now. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of a good, ego-satisfying conquistador narrative.)
While we’re at it, let’s roll some film footage of the last, small band of wild descendants of the Iberian war horses brought to America by the Spanish colonists, being brutally rounded up by the BLM and herded into captivity for the rest of their lives (or at least the survivors of the nasty process will be placed into captivity. Or quietly shipped off for execution to feed the gourmet horse meat trade.) Those horses, who re-colonized land left by their ancestors before the last Ice Age, have co-existed peacefully in their current habitat for approximately 500 years. But they’re being removed -on the taxpayers’ dime - because, you know, ranchers. The same folk crying about their terrible economic problems while being subbed vast amounts of tax dollars because they’re doing business in a completely unsustainable fashion. The horses they remove for “damaging the environment” aren’t the problem. The animals the ranchers raise and the way they raise them is the problem, but the horses, predators and every other form of life gets blamed because that’s just easier than admitting that you might be doing things the wrong way.
There are a small but significant handful of regenerative ranchers out there raising cattle AND re-creating wildlife-rich, abundant landscapes, but the hard-headed majority of ranchers won’t follow suit because, well , co-existing with nature just doesn’t fit with their ideology of human conquest and dominion. So they continue to degrade their lands, push nature into a dead end and prey on the taxpayers to stay alive while providing the insatiable public gut with “cheap” meat. Cheap, all right, because the losses are socialized while gains are privatized.
You want to see what welfare looks like? Go look into the income statements of some of the big ranch owners (hunt: their stalking the corridors of Washington and Wall Street, not out riding their ranges!) “Cheap meat” is a scam, and the animals ultimately pay. But what goes around always comes around, and we will bear the consequences in the forms of water shortages, changing climate (yes, I’ll debate you on that all day long, bring it on!), worsening human health, biodiversity loss, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the few, increased pollution and other diverse outcomes that are difficult for most people to associate with root causes. And we’ve got one heck of a bill coming due.
Two solutions? One: Stop subbing the meat industry (and the fossil fuel industry that makes it possible). Stop manipulating it altogether and let the ranchers who refuse to switch to regenerative methods go out of business. Two: exit the system yourself and become an ethical vegetarian. Get over all the cultural fear and hype about not having a slab of dead animal on your plate at dinner time. Hub and I made the exit over 35 years ago and we’re doing just fine. Will absolutely not be affected by the coming meat shortages because meat no longer controls us. If you can leave on your own terms, then what the elites are doing won’t hurt you.
So, in sum, the REAL issue here is one of ideologies, not one of actual limits. We COULD have (or could have HAD, if it’s too late for change), it all - grizzlies, wolves, wilderness, a thriving ecosystem, reasonable portions of meat on our plates for those who can’t get over it - and smaller, less intrusive government with fewer excuses to grab power, if we had but respected nature and followed her rules of sharing as the regenerative agriculturists do (the feminine path). Instead, we’ve followed the “conquer and dominate, winner takes all” ideology (the masculine path). Because it’s ALL ABOUT US, by god, and nature SHALL bend her will to us! (Sound like a spoiled, petulant teen screaming at his exhausted mom because she no longer has enough money in her purse to fund his dissolute life style?) And even the disappearance of the passenger pigeon and wild buffalo taught us nothing. The willfully blind cannot see. So, we’re going to experience the blowback from the unnatural environmental system and the political system that supports it, that our collective hubris and appetites created. And we’re not going to like it. Nor, like spoiled teenagers, will we learn anything from it.
They surely never let a crisis go to waste and invent new crises as they see fit. Furthermore their "solutions" always make things worse. But that`s okay. They just blame someone or something else and continue with even more unconstitutional bullshit.
Thank you for your intelligent and detailed exposure of the sensationalism and irrationality and hubris of this article. Much appreciated.
People are like very small children in adult bodies (YUCK) who want to eat cookies until they vomit and have a tummy ache and diarrhea and then blame the cookie. This article only reinforces that repulsive rejection of responsibility.
Which is fine. If you enjoy this kind of thing, but there are website that cater to the whole baby fetish thing-y and are much less harmful for others.
SHUT UP FFS
"...fossil fuel...." You need to realize that oil is not a fossil fuel. To do so read http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-19/index.html and/or listen to Jeff Berwick's latest podcast which is at https://vigilante.tv/w/x1osNnYzN1zApv2cYbtas4
Duration: 1:14:16
Your idea to go meatless is a good one.
Whatever oil is is really immaterial, that’s just a rabbit hole distraction. The point is that it’s a fundamentally valuable but environmentally dangerous source of energy, so the powers that control it, and who believe they’re immune from any consequences of its use, have immense interest in crafting a narrative that prevents people from questioning or moving away from it. That’s the real issue, here.
Thanks for affirming the veg angle. When you live (and live well) without flesh or leather, the threat of these things disappearing causes no fear. I already went through all the stages of terror (yes, making the decision really WAS that intense, so I empathize!), arguing with myself and the cultural forces that shaped me, and marshaling my will when I made the transition in my early 20’s. So, I’m long done with it! Hub had it easier as he more or less just followed along. It’s not the solution to all the world’s problems, to be sure, and I’ve seen vegetarianism turn into an ideology that made people into, well, self-righteous prigs for that nobody wanted to know. So, keeping mental balance is key. My big emphasis is doing it for compassion and self-management. If humanity as a whole could achieve these two things, the earth would regenerate and the globalist problem would go away on its own. It’s really up to us, and always has been.
“The threat of an environmental crisis is the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Mikhail Gorbachev
"The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum
So, hear me out.
Love canal.
Cuyahoga river catches on fire.
City streets awash in trash.
People getting rid of their refuse by throwing it out their car windows because the wind will blow it “away”. Therefore it’s no longer a problem.
Bees and fireflies disappear from suburban lawns.
The ivory billed woodpecker is declared extinct.
Pull tabs from pop and beer cans litter all the beaches, creating an unsightly mess and cutting people’s feet when they walk through the sand barefoot.
Remember all that?
I do.
These were among the catalysts for the environmental movement. There were many more, but these particular problems brought the issue to the public’s consciousness more than most.
Now consider that if you visit some areas of the country, like eastern Idaho and Washington, you’ll notice that most of the homes built before the mid-1980’s or so have no air conditioning. That was because the average climate was such that nobody needed it. Now, those same homes are harder to sell because it’s become so hot there that nobody wants to live without air conditioning. Do you think that’s because people have become really wimpy and more demanding, or because on average the mercury’s actually gone up a few degrees?
The statement you presented from Gorbachev, who was a new-generation, and much more reasonable, Russian leader, could be read in two ways: either as a threat, or a warning. It could be situated in the context of telegraphing actual globalist ambitions, or as advice on how to play into the hands of the globalists (or not, if we change our ways). I choose to view it as the latter because, as I explained in my last post, our own excesses and refusal to take responsibility for maintaining a balance with our planetary life support system (see my above list of disasters) created fertile ground for globalist overrrach.
We always talk about the evil environmental “agenda” and who’s behind it (Gates, Schwab, Soros, etc.) Strangely, we never talk about the anti-environmental agenda and who’s behind THAT (the Koch’s? The Cheneys? Who else? Big Everything is certainly on this bandwagon, so the banks and leadership must be funding it somehow.) We simply take it as a given, “Trust the anti-environmentalists” like the sheeple “trusted the science” The biocidal agenda must not be questioned!! If you DO dare challenge it, you must be a hater of liberty, free speech, property rights, our Consitution, God and The American Way. You couldn’t possibly be just a thoughtful person who supports the TRUE rebels who have figured out how to plow and ranch our way out of this, and are trying to point out how, in resisting transition to regenerative ag, and genuine environmental sustainability, we’ve helped deliver ourselves to the globalists.
I’m sure Gorbachev was no saint, and I would never accuse Russia of being a concerned friend of the environment or of humanity overall. But there is paranoia, greed, duplicity, ignorance, lack of insight and inability to listen on BOTH sides of the aisle. And in the middle are all sorts of people all over the world doing amazing work like replanting damaged forests, replenishing dwindling species, reclaiming deserts, cleaning up filthy waterways and, yes, raising food plants and animals while helping the earth to thrive instead of stripping her to her bones. What would have happened if we had been steadfastly following and supporting THOSE people all this time instead of letting our base appetites dictate that we blindly accept the degraded products and experience handed to us by those who profit from stripping the earth and then blaming and murdering or enslaving us?
It’s so frustrating to know that so many people saw thru the convid scam, but can’t apply the same skepticism and critical thinking to see thru the biocide scam.
People are so infantile they just want a side to choose in order to "belong".
No brains attached. They just get in the way.
Thank you for your comment.
Agreed. And thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.
The United Nations is exposed at http://www.truedemocracy.net/td-17/index.html and also provides the power to abolish it IF enough people learn why it was established in the first place. It's a small edition, because the thesis was so easy to prove.