Extorting the Masses for “The Greater Good”

The inspiration for this article came from a Facebook conversation I was having with someone I very much admire and respect up in Canada, Merv Ritchie. As a die-hard advocate of the sovereign indigenous nations of Canada and a relentless truth seeker, I wished to engage his intellect with an alternative view of the climate change article he had shared. I was about to respond back to his well-considered response to my comment on his post with more information to support my original point of view. This is what I put into this blog post (much too large for a comment string). Specifically what I wanted to share was this article by Survival International concerning a hunting preserve in Africa that is using green-washing terminology and tactics to perpetuate the modern, Agenda 21/2030 inspired neo-colonial conquest. This article and the response to it by the African hunting preserve demonstrates how the specific greenwashing terms are being deployed as an affront to logic and reason and a method to justify crimes against indigenous people.

“Survival International has learned that an elephant-hunting safari operation jointly owned by a French billionaire has been implicated in human rights abuses against local Baka “Pygmies” and their neighbors, including illegal evictions and torture.
The operation is based in two “protected areas” in Cameroon, leased by Benjamin de Rothschild. It offers tourists the chance to pay €55,000 to shoot a forest elephant.”

Faro West’s response to this character attack is typical of what you would find in this situation. It is rich with conservation buzz words that are beyond public scrutiny. I think the lack of scrutiny would be due to the global communities/ UN campaign toward “Sustainable Development” that greenwashes the entire world and perpetuates a less than comprehensive, if not nonsensical, perception of the problems that are being promoted.

“Faro West Lobeke is a sustainable game reserve in one of the most fragile and challenged regions of Africa. We believe that managed, sustainable game reserves are critical to the survival of African wildlife.
We work in close partnership with the government of Cameroon, WWF International and our local communities to preserve endangered species. Our goal is to contribute to the survival of endangered habitats and wildlife, and to support the sustainable development of local communities.”

As a sport and subsistence hunting community and, more importantly, as human beings, I think we can do a much better job of promoting our cause for conservation and wildlife protection locally without outsourcing our efforts to psychopaths among the nations wildlife enterprises and their UN affiliated NGO’s; such as the WWF, Nature Conservancy and so many others.

Here is another series of articles,  “The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg”, that provides an interesting exposure of this environmental extortion manifestation and how it uses the most vulnerable sections of society. This looks deep into how toxic globalization uses greenwashing and extortion to centralize power and control while promoting toxic technologies and turning a blind eye to corporate take-overs of sovereign citizens.

“What’s infuriating about manipulations by the Non Profit Industrial Complex is that they harvest the goodwill of the people, especially young people. They target those who were not given the skills and knowledge to truly think for themselves by institutions which are designed to serve the ruling class. Capitalism operates systematically and structurally like a cage to raise domesticated animals. Those organizations and their projects which operate under false slogans of humanity in order to prop up the hierarchy of money and violence are fast becoming some of the most crucial elements of the invisible cage of corporatism, colonialism and militarism.” — Hiroyuki Hamada, artist

My Efforts

In my regular life, I work for a natural resource agency and it has been a great concern of mine to see how my organization and others have unwittingly used the religion of science as a tool of extortion. All we have to do to pass muster on a policy proposal is throw in a couple buzz words, like “sustainable” or “green” and all criticism ceases (internally and externally). (The criticism that doesn’t cease turns into anti-environmentalist utterances of the conservatives that draw on their puppet pundits who push the industrialist/ extraction industry narratives; that suggest people’s well-being is best served by the economic efficiencies of large corporate control structures and commodities markets). The same goes for extraction industry proposals that go through the government approval process. Pay a little lip-service to environmental causes and put a little of the proceeds toward the BiNGO (LINK) affiliated climate change mitigation efforts and the world is yours. Companies like Midas Gold,  , Hanford, Idaho National Laboratories & Monsanto who keep “green agendas” in the mix and sponsor collaborative UN “sustainable development” efforts to fight global warming, have managed to avoid a great deal of scrutiny by affiliating themselves with environmental groups and their causes.

It seems most are too brainwashed by bad science on both sides of this issue to know how to question the conclusions drawn by IPCC scientists and that of their detractors among the various industries cited as producing the largest “carbon footprint”. As well, most appear to be too naïve to consider the potential of collusion within their respective opposing communities; even though, often times, there is direct observation that contradicts their conclusions and clear evidence of conflict of interest or outright fraud.

On the side of climate change progressive community, the conclusions being drawn concerning climate change are being drawn from complex computer models that make weather predictions for policy makers without considering the limitations of the models that make predictions without including all the inputs. I haven’t seen any discussion on this, but weather modification is one contributing factor that is being universally omitted. This would include the undisputed deployment of cloud seeding. Cloud seeding, itself, is cited in universally ignored but compelling peer reviewed research that links cloud seeding or other aircraft deployed particles to Chronic Wasting Disease in Deer and Elk. Open research in this area might lead to recommendations to eliminate cloud seeding and blanket spraying of pesticides in forests. Instead, wildlife management agencies continue with the “scorched earth” policy of rounding up afflicted populations (or populations suspected of being afflicted) of animals and killing them; a solution strategy that has yet to solve the problem.

While I recognize the potential harm in the perpetuation of industrial development and its effect on this world (which goes way beyond the climate crisis) I realize I am surrounded in my professional capacity by those who uncritically accept the climate change agenda hook line and sinker and follow the “sustainable” development guidelines that trace back to UN mandates. It’s a difficult line to walk to press for more critical thought and awareness about the globalist conceived climate change agenda without being lumped into the minds of the masses as a capitalism promoting “conservative” or “conspiracy theorist”. Because of this autonomic reaction that guides the scientific community through dogma, it constantly requires a great deal of time consuming conversation to get even the most compelling alternative viewpoint across.
Much of my anonymous blog is dedicated to the effort of exploring the phenomenon of unscientific dogma around environmental issues and encouraging my readers (all two or three of them??) to consider these issues more openly and comprehensively. (My internal efforts to encourage this have proven to be ineffective and unappreciated). To this end, I have spent a great deal of time exploring how it is the case that the people I know, who are very kind people, very smart people and sensible in all other ways are able to turn a blind eye to so much contradictory evidence on so many environmental and other issues. It confounds me to see how much this situation has adversely influenced the relationship with resource agencies and their constituencies.

One of my blog posts, “Trickle-down Psychopathy in America” cites an article in a local paper where a wildlife officer is interviewed about his hunting trip to Africa. In that article he shares his experience watching a poacher being wired to a chair and beaten by game wardens in that hunting preserve. In my mind I recognize that this officer just witnessed an extrajudicial beating of a human being; an international human rights violation. This officer goes on to encourage his fellow citizens to take a trip to Africa and participate in this “sustainable” practice and perpetuate the myth of trophy hunting being a conservation strategy. A conscious response, in my opinion, would be for him to condemn such an act and distancing himself and his organization from this crime and this African enterprise; an enterprise that continues to be so ubiquitously involved with such crimes. (LINK) An appropriate response from the reporter and the readers would be to call this out and question the validity of the “sustainability” and “conservation” narratives that promote trophy hunting. No, not us ‘card carrying’ trophy hunters. We couldn’t possibly entertain such a notion that we are part of the problem. And that our precious Teddy Roosevelt and his romantic hunting adventures that we seek to emulate were anything but beneficial to the cause of “conservation” and “sustainable” forest practice.