Rewilding Gone Wild
BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 2 weeks ago
We’ve discussed here, here, here, here and here the United Nations-hatched idea of “rewilding.” This ridiculous notion of rewilding is popular in the U.S., but only in states like Colorado and Oregon who have proposed to ban all hunting.
The propaganda is so pervasive now that you can see it everywhere. We need to “save the planet” on a massive scale (TED talk). Why Britain needs a greener culture through rewilding. Punk rewilding, that has turned into a gigantic plant to rob farmers of their land, eat less meat, and a cash grab that creates pots of money from which underserving and lazy people can steal. Can Scotland become the world’s first rewilding nation?
They have big plans for this UN program. Oh, the UK is in love with this, but doesn’t that make sense to you? If you send your only real men out and neuter them by fighting over ball games and ignore the rape of little girls in grooming gangs, while you also invite savage Muslims into your country, it stands to reason that such a program would assuage the injured souls of the guilty. Even UK police officers used police cars to help traffic girls for Pakistani rape gangs – all for a salary and pension, plus a bit extra, I’m sure.
Learn to live and get along with disease spreading feral hogs. Learn to live with Coyotes who kill livestock, wait on deer to give birth and eat the young along with the placenta (every deer hunter knows this happens). Learn to live with having no children or pets when Coyotes or other predators take them away and eat them. Learn to live with bears that are a danger to humans.
All for make-believe problems that are better handled by humans.
It is as if the opponents of human management believe bears to be immortal, never to die except at the hands of human hunters. This is a false, emotional, irrational belief structure. All predators die. Death by human hunter is overwhelmingly less painful than death without human intervention.
[ … ]
Managed human hunting has evolved an ethos where a prime value is the “clean kill,” which minimizes the suffering of the animal. Compared to being torn apart by a bear, starving to death, or lingering death by accident, death by bullet is quick and painless.
[ … ]
Humans can manage wildlife populations to achieve greater productivity than when they are not managed. Non-Gmanagement results in horrific swings between environment-destroying maximum populations and ghastly minimum population deserts devoid of most large mammals. Most of North America was managed by humans with varying degrees of success long before Europeans were able to establish and maintain a presence. Human management aims for high, but not destructive, productivity.
There are more trees in America than when the settlers landed. The deer herd size is much larger now that wildlife biologists set tag limits to control the rate of expansion of the herd. Humans know how to do this. Let nature take its course, and herds starve to death, predators eat humans, and nature swings badly between the extrema as if on a pendulum. This is the same reasoning that fights forest fires when we should be doing controlled, managed or prescribed burns.
I see all of this as the logical successor to the lie of anthropogenic global warming. So, let’s rehearse what Professor Mann did. He wanted to prove AGW was real, but there isn’t enough historical temperature data to do that. Hence, he wanted a positive correlation between tree ring data and temperature data (for as long as we had it).
But there was just one problem. The so-called hockey stick. The temperatures went one way (down) and the tree ring data went the other (up). He couldn’t prove his point unless he hid the real data by renormalizing the data to be equivalent. The rewilders believe the same lie – the earth is dying and needs saving. They all need a religion, and the earth fits the bill.
Man is become God, and in order to save the planet, we need to suppress human activity and reintroduce predator animals. But you see the paradox, don’t you? Nature is king, but in order to pull that off, humans have to interact with it. The paradox doesn’t occur or maybe doesn’t matter to them.
The silliest thing is the “punks” who want to make beer and be rewilders. Can you imagine a worse waste of a life than drinking beer all the time and pushing UN programs? These little boys should be eating meat, farming, hunting, and learning to be protectors and providers. If they believed in having families maybe their little girls could use the help to stay safe from the Pakistani rape gangs in England. Instead, they sound like little junior high school girls who found something to believe in to fill the voids in their souls after thinking hard about the fact that little girls were raped on their watch and they did absolutely nothing about it.
It isn’t clear whether we should hurl insults at them or pity them.
On March 6, 2026 at 3:09 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “They have big plans for this UN program.”
The United Nations, so-called, was founded to uphold some lofty sounding principles way back in 1945, but it has degenerated into an anti-human racket, a grifting scheme on a planetary scale. Gangsters in expensive suits spouting humanist-sounding platitudes while enriching themselves at the public trough.
The globalist billionaires and the ruling class captured it years ago and it now serves as an incubator for many of their outrageous schemes. Back in the 1970s Maurice Strong was one of the principle architects of this nonsense and it continued in the wake of his death.
I am old-enough to remember the “Club of Rome” and their doomsday predictions that humanity would die off of mass starvation if something wasn’t done. The book was “Limits to Growth,” and its predictions ended up being almost completely wrong, embarrassingly wrong in fact. That same crew, more or less, transitioned seamlessly into the climate change racket, global warming, etc.
Herschel, you are absolutely that environmentalism is – has become – a surrogate religion. In my youth doing outdoor biology – forestry, conservation, etc. – I ran across a lot of those types, and many are – in their own way – as fanatical as any Islamic jihadist.
Re: “These little boys should be eating meat, farming, hunting, and learning to be protectors and providers. If they believed in having families maybe their little girls could use the help to stay safe from the Pakistani rape gangs in England.”
Hunters and traditional outdoorsmen are among the very best stewards of nature and wild-life that you will find anywhere. They are the real “conservationists” in the best sense of the word.
A lot of them grew up on the land and/or in nature, for example as farmers, ranchers, and others whose living depends on the earth. Many hardcore environmentalists, on the other hand, have never slept outdoors and have genuine knowledge of nature that would not fill a thimble.
As for the depredations of the rape gangs, it is to the eternal shame of the men of Britain and elsewhere that these barbarians are running amok and no one is moving to stop them. Churchill must be spinning in his grave, as he was the one who warned Britons of the dangers of Islam some 125 years ago, in his book “The River War.”
Russian President Putin, making reference to these attacks, commented some years ago, that “A nation which cannot or will not protect its children… has no future…”
On March 6, 2026 at 3:10 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Herschel, you are absolutely that environmentalism is – has become – a surrogate religion.”
Should read…
“Herschel, you are absolutely right that environmentalism is – has become – a surrogate religion.”
Apologies for the omission.
On March 6, 2026 at 3:24 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Getting back to “re-wilding” as an idea and proposal, it is just another globalist scheme to control people – but clothed in the language of concern for nature as camouflage.
One would have to be a simpleton to believe such crude propaganda and disinformatzia. The globalist billionaires don’t care about nature anymore than they do anything else.
The proof of that is visible every time these plutocrats get together at Davos or elsewhere for one of their conferences – and the skies are promptly blackened by hordes of private jets and helicopters ferrying the ultra-rich to-and-fro. The harbors are jammed with yachts the size of destroyers and the roads are filled with gigantic fuel-guzzling limousines and SUVs conveying them to their mansions and penthouses. The over-class obviously don’t care that they are leaving a carbon footprint the size of a small nation!
No, “re-wilding” is about something much simpler: Control.
This initiative is meant to solve a number of interlocking problems for the globalist billionaires. First, the self-reliance and stubborn independence of small town people threaten them in a variety of ways. And as long as significant numbers of people continue to live in the vast spaces of what they call “fly-over country,” it is difficult to bring America’s agricultural heartland completely under their control – which is the end goal.
The globalists want everyone concentrated in cities, where they can be surveilled 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, and controlled by a variety of means designed to limit their mobility and independence. Ultimately, they desire to end personally-owned autos and trucks, for example.
Once the great heartland of North America is mostly free of people, the oligarchs will control it and all of the vast mineral and other wealth contained in it.
Oh, and if “re-wilding” is the wave of the future, why are billionaire oligarchs and globalists like Bill Gates buying up farmland like it is going out of style?
Talk is cheap. What they say isn’t nearly as important as what they do, folks!