Poor countries should hold Big Green groups and directors liable for deaths, ravage they cause
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Fossil fuel and insurance company executives “could face personal liability for funding climate denialism and opposing policies to fight climate change,” Greenpeace recently warned several corporations. In a letter co-signed by WWF International and the Center for International Environmental Law, the Rainbow Warriors ($155 million in 2013 global income) suggested that legal action might be possible.
Meanwhile, the WWF ($927 million in 2013 global income) filed a formal complaint against Peabody Energy for “misleading readers” in advertisements that say coal-based electricity can improve lives in developing countries. The ads are not “decent, honest and veracious,” as required by Belgian law, the World Wildlife ethicists sniffed. Other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make similar demands.
These are novel tactics. But the entire exercise might be little more than a clever attempt to distract people from developments that could create problems for thus far unaccountable Big Green organizations.
I don’t mean Greenpeace International’s $5.2 million loss a couple weeks ago, when a rogue employee (since fired) used company cash to conduct unauthorized trades on global currency markets. Other recent events portend far rougher legal and political waters ahead for radical eco-imperialists, especially if countries and companies take a few more pages out of the Big Green playbook.
India’s Intelligence Bureau recently identified Greenpeace as “a threat to national economic security,” noting that these and other groups have been “spawning” and funding internal protest movements and campaigns that have delayed or blocked numerous mines, electricity projects and other infrastructure programs vitally needed to create jobs and lift people out of poverty and disease. The anti-development NGOs are costing India’s economy 2-3% in lost GDP every year, the Bureau estimates.
The Indian government has now banned direct foreign funding of local campaign groups by foreign NGOs like Greenpeace, the WWF and US-based Center for Media and Democracy. India and other nations could do much more. Simply holding these über-wealthy nonprofit environmentalist corporations to the same ethical standards they demand of for-profit corporations could be a fascinating start.
Greenpeace, WWF and other Big Green campaigners constantly demand environmental and climate justice for poor families. They insist that for-profit corporations be socially responsible, honest, transparent, accountable, and liable for damages and injustices that the NGOs allege the companies have committed, by supposedly altering Earth’s climate and weather, for example.
Meanwhile, more than 300 million Indians (equal to the US population) still have no access to electricity, or only sporadic access. 700 million Africans likewise have no or only occasional access. Worldwide, almost 2.5 billion people (nearly a third of our Earth’s population) still lack electricity or must rely on little solar panels on their huts, a single wind turbine in their village or terribly unreliable networks, to charge a cell phone and power a few light bulbs or a tiny refrigerator.
These energy-deprived people do not merely suffer abject poverty. They must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking, which results in debilitating lung diseases that kill a million people every year. They lack refrigeration, safe water and decent hospitals, resulting in virulent intestinal diseases that send almost two million people to their graves annually. The vast majority of these victims are women and children.
The energy deprivation is due in large part to unrelenting, aggressive, deceitful eco-activist campaigns against coal-fired power plants, natural gas-fueled turbines, and nuclear and hydroelectric facilities in India, Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and elsewhere. The Obama Administration joined Big Greeen in refusing to support loans for these critically needed projects, citing climate change and other claims.
As American University adjunct professor Caleb Rossiter asked in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”
Where is the justice in Obama advisor John Holdren saying ultra-green elites in rich countries should define and dictate “ecologically feasible development” for poor countries? As the Indian government said in banning foreign NGO funding of anti-development groups, poor nations have “a right to grow.”
Imagine your life without abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and transportation fuels. Imagine living under conditions endured by impoverished, malnourished, diseased Indians and Africans whose life expectancy is 49 to 59 years. And then dare to object to their pleas and aspirations, especially on the basis of “dangerous manmade global warming” speculation and GIGO computer models. Real pollution from modern coal-fired power plants (particulates, sulfates, nitrates and so on) is a tiny fraction of what they emitted 40 years ago – and far less harmful than pollutants from zero-electricity wood fires.
Big Green activists say anything other than solar panels and bird-butchering wind turbines would not be “sustainable.” Like climate change, “sustainability” is infinitely elastic and malleable, making it a perfect weapon for anti-development activists. Whatever they support is sustainable. Whatever they oppose is unsustainable. To them, apparently, the diseases and death tolls are sustainable, just, ethical and moral.
Whatever they advocate also complies with the “precautionary principle.” Whatever they disdain violates it. Worse, their perverse guideline always focuses on the risks of using technologies – but never on the risks of not using them. It spotlights risks that a technology – coal-fired power plants, biotech foods or DDT, for example – might cause, but ignores risks the technology would reduce or prevent.
Genetically engineered Golden Rice incorporates a gene from corn (maize) to make it rich in beta-carotene, which humans can convert to Vitamin A, to prevent blindness and save lives. The rice would be made available at no cost to poor farmers. Just two ounces a day would virtually end the childhood malnutrition, blindness and deaths. But Greenpeace and its “ethical” collaborators have battled Golden Rice for years, while eight million children died from Vitamin A deficiency since the rice was invented.
In Uganda malnourished people depend as heavily on Vitamin A-deficient bananas, as their Asian counterparts do on minimally nutritious rice. A new banana incorporates genes from wild bananas, to boost the fruit’s Vitamin A levels tenfold. But anti-biotechnology activists repeatedly pressure legislators not to approve biotech crops for sale. Other crops are genetically engineered to resist insects, drought and diseases, reducing the need for pesticides and allowing farmers to grow more food on less land with less water. However, Big Green opposes them too, while millions die from malnutrition and starvation.
Sprayed in tiny amounts on walls of homes, DDT repels mosquitoes for six months or more. It kills any that land on the walls and irritates those it does not kill or repel, so they leave the house without biting anyone. No other chemical – at any price – can do all that. Where DDT and other insecticides are used, malaria cases and deaths plummet – by as much as 80 percent. Used this way, the chemical is safe for humans and animals, and malaria-carrying mosquitoes are far less likely to build immunities to DDT than to other pesticides, which are still used heavily in agriculture and do pose risks to humans.
But in another crime against humanity, Greenpeace, WWF and their ilk constantly battle DDT use – while half a billion people get malaria every year, making them unable to work for weeks on end, leaving millions with permanent brain damage, and killing a million people per year, mostly women and children.
India and other countries can fight back, by terminating the NGOs’ tax-exempt status, as Canada did with Greenpeace. They could hold the pressure groups to the same standards they demand of for-profit corporations: honesty, transparency, social responsibility, accountability and personal liability. They could excoriate the Big Green groups for their crimes against humanity – and penalize them for the malnutrition, disease, economic retractions and deaths they perpetrate or perpetuate.
Actions like these would improve billions of lives and bring some accountability to Big Green(backs).
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
John:
You have had complete freedom to make your case overnight and you have not. Instead you have repeatedly posted ignorant and wicked nonsense which ignores every point made to you by several people.
For example, at July 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm you write to say in total
As I explained in my first post to you, what you claim to “think we are talking about “ would kill most of the world’s poor when they get ill, infirm or old.
At July 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm I wrote to you saying
You have ignored that and said you want population control which would kill the poor by removing their ‘insurance’.
And my paragraph which immediately followed that ‘insurance’ paragraph said
So, you say you want population reduction and I told you the one certain, proven and repeatedly demonstrated method to obtain it: population reduces if you reduce poverty. You have ignored that and have advocated an exceptionally cruel method to cull the poor.
And to compound your evil, you have ignored my explanation of WHY population reduction would be a mistake. The explanation was my paragraph that followed my paragraph stating that rich countries need to import people from poor countries. It said
So, you have ignored that your call for genocide is not needed even if your desire for reduced population were acceptable.
John, you are an especially wicked and obnoxious troll who is advocating totalitarianism and genocide. Please crawl back under your bridge because your presence is befouling WUWT.
Richard
Third world countries want more population, but they do have a high mortality rate too. Not just from famine, but civil unrest, where farmers existing on subsistence farming get removed either by genocide or by being displaced. It sickens me John to hear what you have to say without any understanding of the cultural environments some countries have to endure. Women are baby bearers and work in the fields or sold into prostitution by their parents, AIDs killing parents, leaving a younger generation to thrive only in western organizations help or with increasing poverty on their grandparents. When they offered Indian men free vacsectomies they found the same men came back again to get money. China’s one baby law, favored male babies, not females. As far as asylum seekers or refugees, in Australia they are being turned back as they are mostly economic refugees not true asylum seekers. Rich countries do not generally offer poor people jobs, they want skilled people who are head hunted generally from other developed countries and are educated. Other than of course the ever growing illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico. But these undeveloped countries are undeveloped for a reason, and they want to keep the masses ignorant and uneducated while the elite live well on their labor. We have rules against exploitation of women, children and girls, so don’t blame us for other culture’s religious or even civil rights disputes. We didn’t cause them. Good on you, Richard.
@Alan Robertson
“That’s the third time you’ve tried to lay a trip on me.
I see you’re doing it to RC also. That’s all you’ve got,”
Thats really all I need, Anyone that reads this will see that you choose to see the worst possible outcome. I dont need to convince anyone of that
Also it seems to me that you are the troll here, I put my ideas out there, and instead of discussing them, Each of your posts attacked me on a personal level, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror, then come back and offer some usable information, or at the very least read up on proper edicate for holding a discussion with someone.
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
You have had complete freedom to make your case overnight and you have not. Instead you have repeatedly posted ignorant and wicked nonsense which ignores every point made to you by several people.
Richard this might come as a complete shock to your system, But I made my last post at 7:30 pm At that point I shut my computer off (yes some people do that) and turned my tv on and spent the rest of the night with my family, then I went to bed slept 7 1/2 hrs, got up went out to my shop and worked 4 hrs and then came in for lunch and turned my computer on…. so the fact that you’re upset that I didn’t respond immediately means that you are on WUWT 24/7?
“I think we are talking about birth control here not killing people, try to stay on track please.”
“As I explained in my first post to you, what you claim to “think we are talking about “ would kill most of the world’s poor when they get ill, infirm or old.”
I really don’t see how slowing population growth is going to kill old people, Again this is just as silly as global warming will cause global cooling, we really need to start somewhere, and as of yet, No one has offered any solutions in this conversation just personal attacks, The three of you have come at me like its a territorial thing, This is an open forum correct or am I wrong?
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
And richard so you don’t get upset with me again for not responding fast enough, I will be shutting my computer off AGAIN, and spending the rest of the day with my oldest son helping him replace the sink in his bathroom, so he can get his wife off his back ;0)
Have a great day ;0)
John:
I think you must be the most egregious troll to have crawled into WUWT so far this year.
You have spewed the most despicable evil, ignored all information from a variety of people who have corrected your errors, and pretended that my detailed post at July 8, 2014 at 12:29 am which is here was a complaint at your failure to make rapid reply.
In reality you made several replies and it was their content I objected to when I wrote
I can do no better than to repeat what I wrote as the conclusion of my post which you pretend to answer
Unfortunately you did not and have continued to pollute WUWT with your falsehoods and bile.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm
John:
“At July 7, 2014 at 11:59 am you write…”
Nice summary of the nature of humans vis a vis resources and trashing of the still grasping Malthusians. I would add one more word on resources. The combustible fuels, of course, are consumed (given some hundreds, thousands and millions of years, they are actually renewed but not quick enough for our purposes). However, virtually all the metals that have been mined are variously close at hand for re-use. It is said that nearly all the gold mined since antiquity is presently in bricks and products that are likely to be recycled. When with the Geological Survey of Nigeria in the 60s, I was invited out to see what a lease owner called native tin. I envisioned some natural smelter like a forest fire or lightning strike having reduced cassiterite to metallic tin, but it turned out that the tin miner working the stream began to concentrate amulets made of tin! An archeological survey revealed the bases of clay beehive furnaces used by early artisans and probably a flood picked up some jewellery in the process. Nevertheless, we recycle iron and steel, copper, aluminium, glass, plastic, etc. etc. One day we will manage this process with even more efficiency. The concept of recycling built right into product design has been under development and a Japanese group has designed a future sustainable society that will be continuously recycling resources. Obviously your human ingenuity clause covered this.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2008/aug/05/japan.recycling
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
Ya see there you go again richard with the name calling and rude behaviour, I’m starting to believe you’re not capable of having a polite conversation with someone that disagrees with your malarky on every level, The thought of someone that believes there is a never ending supply of resources and the population can go unchecked just boggles my mind ;0)
I do get to walk away with something of value however, I read the wiki page on Malthusianism, and I can tell you for a fact that has nothing to do with how I think, I had never even heard of Malthusianism before yesterday, I never once implied that we should force anything on anybody perhaps you should go back and reread what I have posted, Your tendency to jump to conclusions and try to put words in my mouth is distasteful
Also I didn’t ask you to comment on my original post, and looking back if anyone is a troll here its you, you have made several attempts to drag me down to you level of name calling and rude comments, you should just give up and move on, I have very thick skin and I find you mildly amusing at best
You have a great day
John
For a start, how about a $2B class action?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wivenhoe-classaction-eyeing-2bn/story-e6frg6n6 1226982216097?nk=14643e9bd2b96aa3e1bf4a89b173cc82
Operators of Wivenhoe dam were just adhering to the party line, of every government bureaucracy at the time. All had then bought into the Australian environmentalists’ scare: “It will never rain again”.
While local governments were squandering billions to construct desalination plants, to save the public from the delusion, operators of a dam full of irreplaceable water were hardly going to flush it.
The desalination plants are still costing the public billions per year – just to sit idle, because there’s now more water than there is place to store it. Yet the public has been locked into picking up the tab, whether or not the plants operate.
Who were the masterminds behind this debacle?
John says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm
” I never once implied that we should force anything on anybody perhaps you should go back and reread what I have posted, ”
_____________________
Maybe you should take your own advice…
—————–
John says:
July 7, 2014 at 7:23 pm
“This is simply my idea of what might work to keep this planet in good shape for future generations, limit couples to two children, stabilize the population at 7 billion, require birth control,..”
@ur momisugly Alan Robertson
Yep you got me on that one ;0) and two seconds after I hit the submit button I was kicking myself, if there was an edit option I would have changed “require” to “offer” before anyone had a chance to see it, but I have said offer in several other place during this exchange so we will stand on that
John, It doesn’t matter. Wouldn’t our thinking ultimately take you to the point where force would be necessary? Your ideas have been expressed here by others, many times and the road of that sentiment ultimately ends the same way, with dead people. Consider that the idea of global warming has been promoted by the same people who have long stated their desire to reduce human populations. Consider that the premature deaths of over 30 million people have already been attributed to efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions. Consider that for the past several years, at least 25, 000 people (mostly old, poor) have died annually in Great Britain, one of the most highly developed nations on the planet, because those citizens could no longer afford to heat their homes after their government drove energy costs beyond their reach. Now we see our US government following the same road. Where is the hue and cry? You won’t hear it, because the utopian statists/elitists have the upper hand, right now and they are implementing their policies. Do you honestly believe that those deaths are not by design?
When I told you that you have aligned your thinking with those whose implemented policies are causing the deaths of others, I meant it. It wasn’t a put down, it was a fact of which you continue to plead ignorance. That’s unfortunate. You did not invent the idea that too many humans exist, the idea has been pummeled into you from many sources, whether you are aware of them, or not and now, you are expressing those ideas as if they were your own. You have made yourself useful to them, through your willing acceptance of their ideas.
I’ll state again, that you can not present any sort of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that too many human beings exist now, or will in future. Here are some thoughts from some of the people whose ideas you have been expressing here. But first, some of the linked quotes are out of contest and do not reflect the speaker’s intent. and should not be included, but I didn’t make, not can I alter the list: http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
pimf… Wouldn’t your thinking
John it isn’t the western industrialized countries that have a population problem vs resources, and you don’t seem to understand that contraception is something developing countries don’t understand or wish it on themselves as a solution for population growth. More children means more workers. That’s why they have AIDS. But women who are not educated, how can they use the pill, and men wouldn’t be made sterile, it threatens their man hood. Your suggestions are naive and also a bit simplistic. These impoverished people are not in control of their own destinies unfortunately, and suffer the natural culling process of child deaths and disease. Look at 17th century and 18th century England particularly London. One in five children survived until they were 5, thankfully the powers of be made their futures a little brighter just!
John:
I write to ask a clarification.
At July 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm you write
No, I have polite conversations with people deserving of respect, and I learn most from those who disagree with me.
You are an especially obnoxious troll who refuses to go away. I would insult you if that were possible but it is not.
Please explain what you think to be the proper way to address an egregious, anonymous troll who (a) asserts desire for genocide
(b) which can only be enforced by totalitarianism
(c) and who states reasons for his/her/their/its assertions which are falsehoods
(d) while ignoring all evidence and argument which refutes the falsehoods
(e) and who misrepresents those who point out the lies he/she/they it is telling.
Richard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney
(f) none of the above ;0)
You see, There you go again trying to put words in my mouth, I would suggest you go back and learn a little more from those that you disagreed with, Only this time try to pick up some pointers on how the get your ideas across without being rude and obnoxious,
You could take a lesson or two from bushbuny and alan robertson, They both just put on a silk glove, gave me a noob slap and called me an uneducated buffoon, and I was ok with that, because they didn’t come across as coarse jack handles with narcissism issues.
Funny I never thought that a simple comment about handing out free birth control would inflate to this level…anyways, I think they are doing just that in many places combined with education, and it seems to be working, another thing that might improve the human condition would be to remove religion from the equation, and teach science instead of the idea that a big hairy arm came down out of the clouds and plopped a bear down on a mountain top ;0)
John says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:10 am
So, in your future world of apparently free choice and low energy costs and no government domination and free birth control.
What happens when 1 billion parents decide they want a third child.
And another 10,000,000 parents with one child find they are going to have twins.
And another 1,000,000 parents find they are going to have triplets.
And 1,000 parents find out they are going to have quads.
@RACookPE1978
Well if we are going to turn this into a “what would john do thread”.. ok ill play
we except what mother nature gives them, it can’t be predicted
And for the 1 billion wanting a third child, I say if you have to do it do it, but I would hope that the free education that is being handed out with the free birth control would have a growing effect and they would make a conscious decision not to have that third child, just like my wife and I decided to stop at 2
I’ve made no reference to energy or government control
John:
You really are incorrigible. Who is paying you to conduct this egregious trolling?
I asked you for clarification on how you think I should address so contemptible a troll as you and your response at July 9, 2014 at 9:10 am denies all of your repeated behaviours in this thread then adds this additional falsehood
I have not put any “words in your mouth” (which I would like to wash out with soap). You cannot quote or cite my having done that because I have not.
But you have repeatedly “put words in the mouths” of me and others. Indeed, my post at July 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm which is here consists solely of my corrections to your words you put in my mouth.
Troll posting as “John”, there is only one thing you can now inform to provide some input to this thread before you leave: say who is paying you.
Richard
richard
I’m mystified that you are unable to see what a bully you are, and now you are adding paranoia to the list by thinking i’m being paid, also I would point out that most of what you have thrown at me are tired old comments that were being thrown around back in 2007 when I started reading here, you seem to copy what people have said before you instead of coming up with something original
so to feed that burning curiosity you seem to have about me, I’m saying that because you have tossed out the very weak anonymity card a couple of times ;0)
I am here, my name is John, and I have my own opinions, I graduated high school in 1981, spent a few years working in residential construction, didn’t like the way things were ran, Quit my job with $7000 in the bank and started my own business, now I’m 52 running my own shop (not related to the building industry) and feel as though I have scratched a decent place for my self in this world
Before 2007 I didn’t know anything about climate and solar cycles and such, my world was much smaller back then, And looking back you could say I was blissfully ignorant, I have received my entire education on these matters from WUWT
Now one would think that because this is my sole source of information on these topics, That I would agree with every word you have said, but I don’t, life has taught me to conserve everything and not to live an extravagant life style even though I can afford too, all those years when I wanted to buy a big gas guzzling 4 wheel drive monster to fit in better with the other builders, I stuck with 6 cylinder mini cargo vans, consolidated all my trips for supplies to lower my fuel costs. At home I kept my thermostat turned down and made sure my home was airtight, made sure trips to the store were also organised to reduce fuel cost (to my wifes constant objections) no SUV’s or hummers in my driveway
So as you can see (hopefully) I am not a troll, I am a regular guy leading a regular life, who picked up an addiction 7 years ago… WUWT. I spend as big a portion of my free time as I can reading articles and then reading all the comments, sometimes skipping the article and going straight to the comments to see what some of my favorite posters are talking about, open threads are like a smorgasbord for me. I just love linkage.
So as you might well imagine that making what seemed like a legitimate post and then running into a tool box such as yourself, was a little discouraging, especially after years of reading so many well thought out replies and rebuttals on every topic, From posters that showed an endless supply of patience with people that have less world knowledge and have opposite views, you went from explanation to ticked off troll in 2 steps, so I played the narcissism card, because you seem to think that anything that flows out of that hole under your nose should be immediately accepted by all, and when it isnt, you go straight to name calling and banging your keyboard with clenched fists, so if you reread everything you have said about me, you should see that your magical clairvoyant powers have failed you, and you couldn’t be more wrong, I’m guessing that will be a tough pill for you to swallow ;0)
Ok enough about me who are you? ;0)
John:
STOP TROLLING! You claim you are not an employed troll, but that seems very improbable in the light of your series of blatant lies in this thread .
I replied to your original post with calm clear argument.
Your response was offensive drivel which distorted what I had said.
I continued trying to reason with you until it became clear that you are merely an egregious troll.
I am NOT “bullying” you. I am saying that I don’t want to have WUWT polluted by your despicable bile. Indeed, I do not know how I could have been more clear about this.
You have told nothing about you, not even your name. And you would have known who I am if your claim to have been a WUWT follower for 7 years were not yet another of your lies.
Richard
John:
At the end of your untrue diatribe at July 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm
you say
Yes! At last! I have been telling you that since yesterday. Act on it.
Richard
@ur momisugly richard
What makes you think I haven’t read your posts before? This seems to be your usual tack,and I have skimmed over you in favor of reading something interesting on more than one occasion
because you seem unwilling to talk about yourself, I did a google search and I believe this is you http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney
And I will say one thing for sure, If that is you, your credentials read like ONE LONG SLOW TRAIN WRECK, I’m actually upset with myself for giving you the time of day, especially after I read that you are an Accredited Methodist Preacher, coal activist, and affiliated with the tobacco industry, I simply will never listen to a “man of the cloth” LOL, religion has no place in the modern world, and certainly no place in any scientific discussion
I really can’t see any reason to continue chatting with you.
Have a great day
John
Bye John and forever hold your piece! So you think John, Greenpeace is faultless in its insistence that we humans are ruining the planet in our greed for money and energy supply. And the poorer and less affluent societies are the drudges in this world behest to ruthlessness of the richer countries? And we should share our money with them as compensation. We do give aid you know to help some countries, and when there is a disaster we actually send help. If you remember, Australian fire fighters were sent to America once to help fight fires. One thing you forget too, where there is a strong economy, countries have to have a good military defense system, to guard against others who wish to have our resources. We even lend our armed forces to countries who need help at the expense of our troops lives. No Utopia on this world unfortunately. If you honestly think we who are supporting those who are against alarmistism who are striving for a one world government, and unilateral income distribution, then give half your gross earnings from your business to those who have less, and offer them free condoms or free sterilization so this funding will go further. You think religion is worthless in this world, maybe for you of course, and that is your choice. You tell that to the Sunni Iraqies
who want to make it legal to follow Sharia laws. (Honor killings etc) and you will see that sometimes religion can be used as a weapon to serve ruthless despots. And that is why democratic countries separate religion from the State and give freedom to worship your dog if you wish. This thread is not for you to criticize people for their opinions and many religious people have scientific knowledge which is not your forte. So be a good lad and stop being rude to Richard. Thanks Anthony for being so patient.
John says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm
” I simply will never listen to a “man of the cloth” LOL, religion has no place in the modern world, and certainly no place in any scientific discussion”
_____________________
Of course, you won’t listen. That would cause you to have to think about the path you have chosen and direct your gaze at self- reflection, a dangerous path upon which you might stumble and betray your notion of yourself as a little god (little g,) influencing and controlling the fates of others, wielding the power of life and death, deciding who lives, who doesn’t.
You haven’t been able to defend your ideas and have not responded with any justification for your claims, because you can’t think of any proof or justification and it hasn’t occurred to you that you haven’t developed the ability to go that deep into yourself. You’ve never learned to think beyond your feel- good acceptance of the thoughts of others which you’ve come to believe were your own The very idea that there may be principles of universal consciousness which are beyond your shallow existence has never even crossed your mind. There can be no god higher than yourself, in your little mind, secure in its own little mirrored ball, reflective externally, but hollow inside. Step outside that ball and look into the mirror, if you dare.
Newton, Farraday- the list is long- devoutly religious, all.