Government Plan To Burn Up California Exposed!
Deborah Tavarez broke a huge story on the government intentionally burning up California and now her neighborhood has been burned down! She was forced to evacuate by FBI agents brandishing rifles and pistols! The government is actually paying the Mendicino Redwood Company to gash trees and pour herbicide in the wounds to kill the trees! Then when these dead trees burn it puts the flames in the tree canopies where they can’t be put out! The company even admits what they were doing will cause massive fire and they offer to help with the evacuation routes! Outrageous! Tweet to Trump @potus @realdonaldtrump so it goes viral!
Government Plan To Burn Up California Exposed! from Truth Warriors on Vimeo.
No matter how difficult it appears it is all good.
It is important to be very careful when making connections between disparate kinds of activity.
Forest maintenance comes in many different guises and reflects the social and economic situation in the area. The redwood forests have gone from a vast hunting ground for a balanced human population to the current state of disconnected and entitled residents who have little understanding of either the risks of where they choose to live or the practices that were used in the past to minimize these risks.
The practice of thinning a dense forest can be done in a variety of ways. The ancient practice of annual small fires covered large areas that had minimal permanent structures that needed to be protected, and many people were or could have been involved in setting and controlling the burns. Today we have outsourced the production of items which we all feel entitled to and as a result those producers of some forest product from a particular area are faced with challenges that require balancing long term investment with “effectiveness”. The failure to minimize the flammability or remove the undesired material is directly connected with banker driven cost control.
I have no information regarding the plans of high level officials to burn the region, but suggest that you visit to get a sense of the plans in place to minimize the human population.
HATJ has addressed the cultural base from which all of these dysfunctions come. Pray for her and others who are working in parallel paths.
The true purpose of life on earth is a question that we all must address.
I suggest that living in an area of tall trees without any energetic connection either by human effort or reliance on external sources of polluting energy is unsustainable or even stupid.
Alan Page
The following is a draft (it is being changed from a previous erroneous basis) of a discussion of the cultural change that must happen for forests to be the necessary part of our sustainable future – REGARDLESS OF WHAT PLACE HUMANS EVENTUALLY TAKE IN THE COSMOS. Please feel free to critique any aspect of this text. I am trying to recognize that climate change may have multiple sources and that while forests can be involved in mitigation they probably are not the principle source of the problem.
——————-
A Guide for Successful Working Forest Maintenance
By Alan Page, Ph.D., Common Good Forestry,
Green Diamond Systems 125 Blue Meadow Road, Belchertown, MA 01007
Phone: 413-323-4401
Introduction:
This discussion comes from fifty years of observing the failure of all support systems that purport to be in place to enable humanity to maintain a sustainable environment for this and future generations. If you are happy with the condition of your forest or those of the communities that you frequent, then this discourse may be hard to understand. If so just drop it and go on about your business.
Working forests are different from most other human assets and require very different community and economic environments to survive for an appropriate period of time – multiple rotations, periods of time from 40 to 300 years each. Ideally, a working forest would be a permanent part of the community in which it resides. Thus the speculative environment that exists around all land today is one of the main issues, but not the only one which must be addressed by the throwaway society that has captured the attention of everyone.
The reasons that under-gird this topic may be different from what is normally associated with rationalization of keeping forests alive and healthy. The connection of people to and with the working forest is what makes it a “working” forest. In order to work there must be people connected reasons for maintaining the vibrant productive
First Principles:
1. Forests In temperate regions naturally regenerate: When land is left undisturbed for a period of 5 to 15 years, regardless of the prior condition it returns to the forest condition given adequate light water and temperature. This is a basic principle of sustainability that will only be altered by damage to the climate maintenance system. The damage that is ongoing (we have reached 400ppm CO2 in the atmospher as of May 10, 2013) must be reversed quickly!
2. Forests are an integral part of the global climate maintenance system:
• Healthy forests perform the functions needed for many facets of human well being and climatic regime maintenance better than weak forests do.
• Healthy forests are more stable in the face of major stress than are forests that are near death.
• Forest health can be enhanced by regular care by people with appropriate equipment and training.
• Forest damage is more likely where there is no reservoir of local skill and no financial system built to facilitate the regular care of large forest areas in a proactive manner.
3. Forest Economic Liquidity:
Trees in forest settings produce no income until they are harvested after growing for periods of at least 10 years and frequently five to twenty decades.
During that time maintenance of healthy trees requires regular inputs that involve human labor, equipment use, and the opportunity to remove useful but low value commodities. As climatic stressors increase this level of activity must increase or lose the value previously accumulated, possibly adding to the problem as well.
• “Normal” (contemporary) forest ownership today includes abrogation of responsibility that normally goes with ownership, but is also subject to increasing demands from an out of touch public. Today ownership involves appreciation of forest amenities and avoidance of many of the proactive steps needed to maintain forest health. This practice deficiency has become part of the forest protection system in both public and not-for-profit forest ownership. It has been publicly acknowledged that the NGO forest protection sector has used funds available to acquire land and left all other normal maintenance functions adrift. Both public and NGO groups are faced with a huge job of catch up and regular maintenance for which there is no funding source.
4. Forests Can Provide a Source of Stable Local Jobs:
Rural communities benefit from regular careful treatment of working forests in many ways:
• Reliable jobs
• Regular supplies of sustainable local energy
• Maintenance of rural infrastructure
• Provision of a source of material for construction and manufacture of other items
5. Forest Maintenance Funding is Essential:
Maintenance of this sustainable part of our common good requires a means of funding for: the care, training, and infrastructure needed by those engaged in these activities.
• All human media of exchange comes from the public trust and is ultimately based on the health and stability of the ecosystems that maintain the conditions for life as we know it. Without life there is no wealth. Without the trust by those who would limit or do control funding there is only death and degradation.
• Forest maintenance and other long term environmental and infrastructure maintenance investments are different from the normal human economy in that they frequently have either delayed or single payout style value or have regular (or periodic) non-monetary outputs. Further, in the case of forest maintenance, even though there are no regular payments from the forest to the owner from previous investments one must be able to put in more funds until the trees are mature. In the current system, forest conversion can be forced simply because one does not have the funds to pay taxes.
6. Forest Investment Facts:
Extensive forest ownership in an urban environment (all of MA forest is in an urban setting) is expensive and not something that a prudent investor would engage in unless it were coupled with the intent to convert that asset into cash in a relatively short time.
• Each investment in forest health causes the owner to be poorer for the investment (since there is no reliable output in terms of cash payments from forest investment).
• Each investment is the basis for continuation of the employment base in that area.
• Each investment is needed to maintain the ownership and maintenance of special equipment and skills needed for handling both the continued maintenance and the recovery from periodic powerful natural events.
• The economic stability of working forest ownerships relate directly to the maintenance of the provision of the public services that are being demanded from forests. Most of these services provide no direct payments to the owner of the forest, but may have significant effects to the community and the region. There is no effort to provide significant long term support to owners who make the commitment to maintain their forest so that that land may continue to provide those essential benefits.
• Where there are public needs that can be filled by local forests it is incumbent upon the locality and the region to help the forest owner identify how to better safe guard these outputs and to cover any costs of proactive steps that would not be part of a normal maintenance program on that property. This stands in stark contrast to the present system where these increasing requirements are seen as obligations of the owner to a frequently irresponsible public.
Proactive Steps:
1. Recognize working forests as a separate sector of the MA economy with special needs and special funding sources.
2. Construct a strong branch of public assistance that has the power to intervene on behalf of the owner with other agencies that seek to direct owner activity in ways that impact their stability.
3. Create a Statewide series of demonstration areas dedicated to the public good and forest health,
4. Create a series of regional strategic environmental funding entities that have sovereign ability to create credit for long term projects with terms that are appropriate to the outcomes from the projects.
5. Provide an operating environment where working forest owners are free from public intervention as long as there are no major errors committed, and within which there is the capability for sharing information about what is working and how to solve problems that seem to be occurring.
6. Recognize that there are no normal “best” management practices. There are only an array of acceptable practices and that a laboratory is needed where better management practices can be tested and demonstrated on an on going basis.
7. Authorize the creation of a new area of study within the existing forestry educational system for review and demonstration of long term site maintenance and enhancement practices.
8. Provide the mandate for forestry educators to explore the capability of forest management techniques to become a major component of climate change mitigation.
This is a very serious issue. Since before the turn of the 20th century (1900) powerful interests have worked to consolidate power, markets and dependence on the sources of support that they controlled. The N. Tesla story is a strong example of the success of organizers like J.P. Morgan in stopping the development and release of technologies that would undermine their control.
This site has documentation of government and corporate mind control. The expectation that one can live in near-desert conditions that still supports massive forest growth is a problem of a disconnect in perception of real world conditions. It is possible that the very well designed public and private programs such as the ongoing “Adaptive Program for Agriculture” which moved most of the agricultural and small town populations into city dependency spaces are well thought out mind control programs.
There may be much more that has been developed but kept from public use that is related to these perceptual problems. These dysfunctions will have to be addressed before the challenges that HATJ has so capably dealt with can bring us to a stable and sustainable future for those who choose to remain on earth.
The process of righting the wrongs that have led to the current situation may be rather difficult, but I find that I learn best when I need new information by making mistakes. Hopefully there is not a repeat of a mistake too many times before the lesson sinks in and change happens.
Alan Page
There may be agendas at work here other than those discussed in the video.
Well conceived commercially directed activity does not engage in counter productive activity. The action of large timber companies may be suspect for reasons other than growing of trees. The following link provides another analysis of how and why these fires are occurring:
If there are government sponsored local devastation planned and approved this is a much different problem from the one presented, a timber company doing things that will cause the region they are treating to burn up, which makes no economic sense at all unless there is another possible outcome.
The activity of HATJ documented on this site needs to be backed up with local efforts to remove or disable (cause to become moot) the outcomes that may come from greed and power based groups.
The provision of personal resources (through the TDA phenomena) to engage in unlimited consumption does nothing to lessen the pollution that has already been produced.
The Paradigm Report states that all levels of power have been corrupted in the recent past. I suggest that it is important to understand what HATJ has been able to cause to replace the Pierce County judicial system that she used to document the existence of the corruption claimed in her report? This discussion must happen as the results of her Praecipe – I learn from my mistakes. Please help me understand what is missing in this discussion.
Alan Page
On listening further to information coming out about these sorts of fires both in the form of comments by alleged public officials and observations by sensors that can detect possible ignition sources, it appears that these fires are very suspicious and that the timber companies are probably not involved except for one possible scenario.
I have no inside information regarding the scenario described so this is just a possibility:
If local and regional regulation is confiscatory enough that the timber company determines that there is no future in growing trees and that there is a significant volume of harvestable timber that is subject to a “taking” by regulation, then there is a possibility of them killing the crop in order to recover the unharvestable value as salvage. This can only happen where there is unutilized mill capacity and the timber is very large (large enough not to be consumed by the fire).
The claimed statements by fire officials in Santa Rosa are that these fires are not normal forest fires. So the question then is what des that mean?
Alan Page