Mother Gaia Gone Wild

Today the government, media, and education proclaim a constant gloom and doom narrative about the ecosystem.

Feb 05, 2024

We must not be indifferent or resigned to the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of ecosystems, often caused by our irresponsible and selfish behavior... Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence ... We have no such right.
pope Francis

Words, 2,492 ~ Read time 20 minutes

Originally published on April 5, 2021, this re-post and enhanced edition will be a blast to my past for many subscribers who have subsequently joined the Speaks Cadre. Enjoy!

Executive Summary

The increasing frequency of forest fires calls for sensible solutions. Yet, radical environmental groups oppose selective tree cutting, alleging it benefits corporations. Yet, uncut forests are more susceptible to fires. Some radical environmentalists hold pantheistic beliefs and oppose any disturbance to nature. The media often amplifies their views, neglecting genuine scientific evidence. They do this despite support for controlled logging.

The tragic deaths of firefighters in 2001 showed that environmental concerns can hinder firefighting. Responsible management can mitigate natural forest fires. The Endangered Species Act often prioritizes animal rights over human livelihoods. That raises ethical and constitutional concerns.

While environmentalists advocate for wildlife, they overlook the broader impact of uncontrolled fires. Selective cutting can reduce fires and sustainably provide essential resources. The movement’s inconsistencies highlight its duplicity. For example, it benefits from corporate subsidies while opposing them.

Despite opposition, allowing selective cutting can mitigate wildfires. It can also provide resources and support ecosystem health. The radical environmental zealots want to exclude humans from vast lands. That underscores their extreme agenda.

Foreword

Today, the government, media, and education proclaim a constant gloomy and doomed narrative about the ecosystem. Even some mainstream churches bloviate about the plight of Mother Gaia.1 Together, these entities engage in gaslighting to program this narrative into the brains of the citizenry.2 It is all about the environment and the plight of creatures, great and small.

With the above backdrop, we have lost the ability to remember and learn from our history. Scientists have discovered the “A1 Mutation,” a defect affecting people’s ability to know from the past.3 Therefore, we must take a trip from the 1970s to the turn of the century to see the roots of the current environmental/species movement.

Forest for the Trees

With forest fires increasing in recent years, we must apply common sense to reduce them. What is the solution? Selective cutting and harvesting. Yet, radical environmental zealots go ballistic when trees get selectively cut. The typical manta was and continues to be, “Fred is selling out to the corporations.” If indeed about the environment, it would, in a pure sense, be a noble thing. But uncut forests burn, plain and simple. So why do we keep our hands off the woods to let them burn?

Let us place this in another perspective by saying it is acceptable for nature to pollute. What else is the answer? One response is that a few radical environmental zealots are pantheists. They knowingly or unknowingly worship Mother Gaia. How dare we, the modern people (the scourge of the earth), defile mother planet to cut trees to make houses. Yet, do these worshippers even consider good programs to mitigate fire and save trees and animals? Nevertheless, most corporations that harvest trees plant more than they harvest. Currently, on an annual basis, growth outpaces harvesting.

People are free to worship the earth. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion or non-religion without government interference. With that as a background, let’s swing into the same game as those who invoke their beloved “Wall of Separation.” Remember, they work to stop people from expressing classic Christian religion. But of course, a woke Christian “religion” is an acceptable “risk” for the environmentalists. Regardless, using their wall of separation logic, people who worship the earth should not receive government aid. It is now appropriate to ask Thunberg’s followers how they like it when we say they cannot express their earthly worship on government property.

In 2002, radical environmental zealot William Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society, chided then-President W. Bush for an “irresponsible anti-environmental agenda ...The truth is that waiving environmental laws will not protect homes and lives from wildfire ... history, and science clearly demonstrate that clearing fuels away from the immediate area around homes is the best protection.” Mr. Meadows affirmed a truth - cutting does protect homes! It stops fires. Sound minds must conclude that selective cutting throughout the forest will help protect the rest of the woods.

The above shows some of the illogical spewing from some radical environmental zealots. Yet, it does not matter what this author, or those with a Ph.D. in science, say to counter the radical ecological zealots. The media offers nothing of what actual science has to offer about the environment. It is clear as a glass eyeball that the establishment will project the mantra of the silliest radical environmental zealots. Some years ago, a mainstream reporter said that Theodore Kazinski, the Unabomber, was a “nice guy.” He was a left-wing ecological zealot.

Does it get any worse? Indeed, your author remembers the reports about the four firefighters who lost their lives in 2001. At the Okanogan National Forest in Winthrop, Washington, firefighters perished because of the inability to pluck water from a river by aircraft. The environmental zealots said the firefighters “should not have been there.” Get that: “… not been there.” The real story is that the environmentalists delayed the water plucking to save the firefighters because of concerns about the fish. The fish in the water used to fight the fire may have suffered. So, the firefighters perished because the radical environmental zealots refused to allow selective logging.

Forest fires are natural occurrences and are nature’s way of thinning the underbrush. Enter humanity, a good steward of the earth, using nature’s bounty to make life better and healthier. Does using the material not make sense rather than letting it burn? Not to the radical environmental zealots. Of course, the abuse of natural resources can be destructive. It also can be unequivocally said that people can coexist with nature. With forests declared off-limits to people, intense fires occur. As a result, we get smoke (nature’s pollution) spewing into the atmosphere. In this author’s opinion, the radical environmental zealots fail to see the forest for the trees. Or could it be that they have another agenda?

Unquestionably, a good environment is an absolute necessity. However, rest assured we have a hijacked movement with feel-good platitudes for covert purposes (green on the outside and red on the inside). But for now, let us focus on another example of the duplicity of this movement. Many people criticizing “corporate welfare” for ranching, mining, logging, etc., contribute to the environmental movement. Some may say, “OK, Fred, what’s your point?” The same ones who cry about corporate welfare are active in a direction that receives a lot of subsidy from the coffers. They tout their environmental issues. Today, corporate welfare is a gold mine for woke causes such as the environmental movement.

The radical environmental zealots or their handlers aside, it is possible to allow selective cutting or thinning of trees to 1) reduce wildfires and 2) provide lumber to build such things as houses (the same places that environmental zealots live in most of the year). The environmental zealots believe that logging the dead burnt wood from the forests should not be allowed. They feel that Mother Nature should fend for itself. If so, let us stop all farming and let nature take care of itself to supply our food. Indeed, this would finally secure a Utopia by significantly reducing the population. Think this is a joke? Enter one Mr. Jaques Ives Cousteau (RIP), who once said, “In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day.”

Endangered Species Act Up

President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into law in 1973. The ESA gives the Federal government overarching power over “endangered” species, subspecies, or distinct regional populations of creatures, from four-legged mammals down to microscopic insects. How they choose particular creatures to be “extinct.” In addition to politically motivated scientists working for the government, private lawsuits occur to make the government include a specific animal on the endangered list. And, indeed, their motives are pure — it is all about the creatures. Just like it is “all about the children.” If so, then there is some swampland for sale in Texas.

As the government acts to protect a particular creature, it can and does limit the use of private property that may be “critical.” Our good “Little Wiley” friends are the quintessential critical habitat example. The ESA, a powerful act, takes precedence over the taking clause of the Constitution. There are many examples where people lost their jobs due to the halting of a construction project because of an accident that killed a particular garter snake (oh, the horrors).

The government spends billions under the ESA cult because the Commerce Clause makes it “Constitutional.” If not, how about the General Welfare Clause to address that unfortunate obstacle? This is another fine example of the living, breathing Constitution.

Remember the northern spotted owl? That creature is one of many ESA tools that the radical environmental zealots continue to invoke to thwart human rights. A particularly salient example from 2002 is the case of Marsha Seier from Linn County, Oregon. She lost $300,000 in marketable timber because of sightings of a particular critter on her property. This loss was solely due to a pair of owls named “Little Wiley” on her property nine years before the controversy and had been absent since. Because these two birds have the “potential” to come around again, the government prohibited Marsha from cutting good harvestable (renewable) timber on 40 acres of her property.

How about “Little Wiley” and the Fourth Amendment? Since the government must supply just compensation for taking property, should the government compensate Marsha? Some will say, how did the government take? Environmental laws prohibit people from “taking” an endangered species. Some will say: “So what, people should not be rewarded for cutting trees?” Excuse me, but this is property owned by a citizen; as such, it is Marsha’s for her use as desired. Does this mean she should destroy the environment? Good citizens will act accordingly; there is nothing wrong with selective cutting and keeping the property in good shape. Private property owners typically do this better than the government. Most forest fires occur on government property.

While it is unpopular to do it, we must consider some poignant questions concerning some radical environmental zealots. For example, do they live in houses? Virtually all homes have wood products. Do they read any printed material or distribute propaganda? Indeed, some will say that environmentally conscious people tout biodegradable packaging. But boxes and bags are paper products (trees!). That is like the campaign to demonize SUV owners, as the elitists who peddle this mantra have large homes, multiple vehicles, and private planes. That duplicity and the environmental-social-gospel constitute quintessential examples of hyper-hypocrisy.

Some will say, “Hold on, Fred, this is about the owls, as they need their trees!” While the argument is about giving the owls more rights than people, we must point out that there are plenty of trees for these critters and many others, even with harvesting. At this point in our history, we already know growth outpaces cutting. We must also ask our environmental friends about the plight of the critters when the forest burns due to a lack of selective harvesting. I can only imagine the answer to this puzzling quiz. The above aside, the radical environmental zealots still want a significant amount of the land in this country to be devoid of a particular creature that they believe to be detestable — humans.

Analysis

Do not expect today’s young people to grow up and reverse this totalitarian thought process. Our “excellent” schools indoctrinate the children in earth worship – plain and simple. How do we know? Here is a particularly poignant personal experience. Your author participated in a community walk to advance cancer research some years ago. Walking along the river in our community, my friend’s daughter vilified the anglers. They were enjoying a day out catching the newly stocked trout. She said, “Oh, those fishermen are destroying the environment.” That was from a girl in the second grade! Where did she get brainwashed? School. If you are still skeptical of Fred’s claims, check out Ark of Hope.

Friends, today, we are subjected to gaslighting (pun intended). A never-ending storyline framed in a 24-7 projection with a 1984-like setting proclaiming carbon dioxide gas (a necessary ingredient of life) is a pollutant.4 Do we raise a simple question about the necessity of carbon dioxide? Pavlov’s Dog response will likely be: “You’re a climate denier.” It is worse than a Holocaust denier who will face hate speech charges against the New Normal’s god, Mother Nature. That’s right; for example, when questioning the Covid doom narrative or environmental mania, you could face charges of hate speech, as the Center for Countering the Digital Hate demonstrated. After all, trust the science, SARS-Cov-2 is a “natural thing.”

We all know about the onslaught of environmental madness by the fruits of things such as the Green New Deal. Some called it socialism, but it is a new type of fascism (got that anal ANTIFA?). Specifically, it is an amalgamation of goofy government, (mis)education, not-so-free speech academia, fake religions, tell-u-vision media, nasty non-government organizations, and barf-bag big business. And, of course, we now have a woke military as part of that cadre of putrid, perverted Pavliovian puppets. It is all hidden in plain sight via the multi-trillion-dollar (and growing) congressional bills (and growing) that address Corona-doom and the supposed infrastructure rebuilding. Congress creates fiat money to fund this largess.5

Conclusion

In conclusion, the prevailing narrative of environmental issues is a stream of doom and gloom. Various institutions such as government, media, and education perpetuate this narrative. This narrative often overlooks historical context and scientific evidence. Instead, it opts for sensationalism and fearmongering.

One of the critical areas where this narrative needs to improve is managing forest fires. Researchers have proven that selective cutting reduces the risk of wildfires and protects homes. Yet, it is often opposed by radical environmental zealots. These individuals regurgitate an extreme ideology over practical solutions. This has resulted in losing lives and property, causing detrimental consequences.

Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act is well-intentioned. Yet, radical environmental groups have used it to hinder human activities and property rights. At times, they have done so to absurd extents. This demonstrates a disconnect between the genuine goal of conservation. Bureaucratic overreach can accompany it.

The indoctrination of young minds in schools perpetuates this narrative. A generation becomes detached from reality and critical thinking. The prevalence of gaslighting and censorship further compounds these issues. It stifles meaningful discourse and dissent.

Ultimately, environmental stewardship is essential. Approach it with nuance and pragmatism, not dogma and extremism. It’s crucial to challenge the status quo. Seek solutions that focus on both environmental conservation and human welfare. Refrain from succumbing to ideological fervor. 📕

Sources

I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!

Upgrade to Paid