Exploitation of Environment and Climate for Political Agenda Reverses Education and Research Processes

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

While preparing a list of witnesses for my upcoming trial in February 2017, I was reminded of a pattern that contradicts the natural order of education and research. The issue was triggered by a comment by Mark Steyn.

~Climate mullah Michael E Mann’s lawsuit against me has been stalled in the clogged latrine of DC justice for four years – indeed, it’s stalled so long that a key witness has died. So this month I filed a “Renewed Request for Expedited Hearing and to Lift Stay of Discovery” to get the buggers moving again.

The natural and necessary order is that students are urged to question. They should follow the advice of Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Of course, this is a doctrine that a totalitarian government or one pushing a false doctrine will oppose. It takes a very strong, self-assured, government to allow such a doctrine.

Students asking questions results in a necessary sequence of education. The older professors are the guardians of the prevailing wisdom, while the new students challenge the prevailing order with fresh new perspectives. Steyn’s comment about witnesses dying underscores what I learned about how this has changed. Now the students come in to universities or the world fully indoctrinated into the environmental view created by the exploiters. In this brave new world, the derisively labelled skeptics and deniers are the old experienced academics and scientists; as Steyn notes, they are dying.

The decision to create a scientific outcome to justify a political agenda required rejection of traditional procedures and proven methods. It resulted in a complete overturning of the natural and logical sequence of creating and advancing new ideas and understanding, especially in climate research. It was achieved by cloaking it in the traditional process of change, a paradigm shift

The climate agenda is part of the larger environmental agenda that currently directs, determines, and dictates western societies socio-economic and science. It began with the new paradigm of environmentalism that took hold in the 1960s. American physicist Thomas Kuhn defines a paradigm shift as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.”

The major new paradigm of environmentalism was necessary because it is logical to live within and not despoil natural limits. Self-inflicted wounds are stupid. However, like all shifts, it was initially hijacked for profit or politics or both. Chief among these exploiters were the members of the Club of Rome including Maurice Strong.

The ideas of environmentalism are not new. Almost all hunter-gatherer and pastoral societies practiced animism, a religious form of pseudo-environmentalism. Animism is defined in two parts;

1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.

2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.

It is based on fear like all blind belief systems. If you don’t respect the supernatural powers of nature, they will kill you. The concept of animism translated in the environmental movement into the Victorian and modern myth of the noble savage. It fuelled the anti-development and anti-human belief that lies deep in the movement.

David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, summarized the thinking.

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

He starts with a challenge to the US Constitution’s determination of a right to happiness. Only his definition is acceptable. He finishes with the likely source of Prince Philip’s idea of reincarnation as a killer virus, but apparently Philip decides who dies.

Environmentalism is also built into most religions, with the major difference being the amount of personal and group responsibility for the Earth. The modern Western scientific idea of environmentalism has roots in the works of Gilbert White, George Perkins Marsh, and John Muir. However, these were all idealists who never considered the impact of their ideas on most people. As a result, they are only heroes in retrospect.

A more practical approach began in 1958 with a conference and a book of the same title, Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. This was organized by William Thomas as a growing acknowledgment of the change of humans from a passive to an active agent in nature. The change is not problematic unless you consider humans the problem. This was the view of Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who said,

“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”

Less extreme forms of those sentiments took hold in the works of Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and others. However, the most insidious insertion in society came with its inclusion in government policy. Here it is in Section 3.1 of the 1994 conference on population,

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, adopted by the international community at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, call for patterns of development that reflect the new understanding of these and other intersectoral linkages.

There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement of social inequities and of poverty with the above-mentioned consequences for demographic parameters.

It was a short, well orchestrated, jump from this to the textbooks and curricula of the education system in Western countries. The indoctrination of the youth was underway. Now they graduate from high school fully immersed in all the propaganda of environmental and climate science. They go to higher levels of education as the conservative, planet saving warriors, who only take courses from professors who say what they want to hear. It falls to the older classically trained, and through that, open-minded professors and academics, to fight for sanity, reason and the truth. Sadly, they are dying off as Steyn and I discovered as we try to test facts and logic in the last refuge where reason might prevail. This hope was tested and proven in the judgment of Justice Burton in the demand for balance beyond propaganda in the classroom by parent Stuart Dimmock.

The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to “political indoctrination” and to the “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986.

Justice Burton did not ban showing Gore’s movie but did comment

I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.

Instead, he recommended showing a documentary presenting the other view, in this case, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and providing a list of scientific errors for the teachers to inform the students.

This underscores the point that alarmists and overlook. Skeptics and deniers are not asking people to believe their view. They simply want people to know there is another side. To hear what they are not learning from government, media or environmental groups for a variety of reasons, including deliberate suppression. As the judge ruled, let people hear both sides, then they can make up their minds.

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “Exploitation of Environment and Climate for Political Agenda Reverses Education and Research Processes

  1. David Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, summarized the thinking………….
    “Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. ” ?
    Anyone that thinks Humans have been around for a billion years should not be allowed around children…IMHO..

    • Last time I looked, “research biologist with the National Park Service” wasn’t a real high pay grade. So we’re quoting this silly crock WHY??!

      • Totally nutso conspiracy-theory, trigger-warning “ideation” alert:
        The spirits beckon…I’m channelling…I’m channelling…”Graber” is a surname of German origin that means “grave digger”. “Virus” is lefty, dog-whistle lingo for “Killing Fields”. “Nature” is hive-speak for a certain type of “Lord-of-the Flies” dystopia, in which us “good-guy” lovers of Liberty and ethical science…sziit-siss…just…[garbled]…just so many “Piggies”…buzz-crackle…”Gun-confiscation”….sorry, lost the connection.
        Jeez…I can’t believe anyone believes any of that phony-baloney spiritualism business!

      • I guess there people are more concerned about the last 1000 years, and what comes to anthropogenic warming, last 100 years.
        What’s funny is that AGW is an opportunity to these people. Opportunity to get rid of the cancer.

      • Off the top of my head, I do not remember which human ancestors were strolling the Savannah about a million years ago, but the rise of Homo Sapiens Sapiens was less than 100K years ago.

    • One other point about Graber. In his position with the National Park Service, he works for me. I am his boss as a citizen of the US and a taxpayer. It amazes me that someone can call their boss a cancer and still keep his job. How can someone serve in that role and have that kind of public stance? Double standard. If I walk into work tomorrow and call my boss a cancer, I’m very confident that my employment would be adversely affected.
      You can be an enviro-terrorist, socialist, a-hole whacko and work for the government, but you can’t be a conservative and protect the US Constitution as written, ratified and amended.

    • For his sake I have to assume his “billion years ago” was a flippant way of saying “a long time ago”. The “billion” should probably not be taken literally.

    • A research biologist who gives the existence of human(oids) ~3 orders of magnitude more time to their existence should be drummed out of the profession. Probably, in this amoral age, no one is outraged. I think amorality is our biggest looming crisis. Another generation and it will be the dominant paradigm for a thousand years or more – another dark age.

  2. “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
    If these people truly believe what they say, why are THEY still existing ?

    • Because they think they’ll be important in the New World Order, and recognized as heroes for seeing the danger early. They’re like the intellectuals who help bring about Marxist revolutions, and then are the first stood up against the wall because Hey — people who foment revolutions are people who foment revolutions.

    • It’s always someone else’s responsibility to die for the brave new world these guys wish to create.

    • My guess is that they feel they are the ones needed to see the rest of us through the gate. After that, of course, with the masses gone, the “problem” will be solved and they themselves won’t need to make the ultimate sacrifice.
      It’s the human-haters that are the cancer and the rot. That’s why I call them Gang-Green.

  3. Agenda 21 is in my city and country and probably in yours!
    I researched this for a number of years now, initially by examining the web site of my government and my city council.
    Then I found Agenda 21 in the official school curriculum!
    Then when we had some devastating earthquakes I recognised the both the national and local governments were using this as an excuse to implement Agenda 21 policies!
    Now we have the Rockefeller Bros pumping money into my city in order to extend this “sustainability” and believe me they are not talking about the difference between income and exenditure!
    It is difficult to believe that this money is given freely, I believe there will be a time when the Rockefellers will want some return on their investment.
    Please read my blog, I have documented much of it there.
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
    I believe that Agenda 21 will still be around when AGW is completely demolished.
    The Agenda 21 paper itself looks reasonable enough, as one assumes that it will only be implemented to a reasonable degree.
    Ancillary papers authorised by the UN tell us otherwise.
    Here is an example.
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf
    Look up D. Land (Agenda item 10) on page 8 – the high lighting is mine.
    Anything that has Agenda 21, “Our Common Future” or “The Brundtland Report” is part of ths “Movement”
    Please take advantage of the links on my site to learn more.
    Please also leave a message if you need to know more about what I am saying.
    Cheers
    Roger
    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  4. Another great essay Dr. Ball…One little correction……”This underscores the point that alarmists and overlook. “…AND ??

  5. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.
    What’s impressive about warmist science is how thoroughly validated all their sources of information are – this author must truly be a disciple of Steven Mosher,
    /sarc off
    BTW one billion years ago there were no multicellular organisms, let alone anything resembling a human. But these charlatans are just writers of cheap sci-fi which they make up without any concern about facts even crossing their minds.

    • “But these charlatans are just writers of cheap sci-fi…”
      These radical “environmentalists” think they’re the machines from “The Matrix”:

    • Not only were humans around one billion years ago but the temperature of the earth below our feet is millions of degrees. This suggests that all numbers from environmentalists should be divided by ten thousand.

  6. Hear Hear! This was very informative, Dr. Ball. I greatly appreciated the blanks in my understanding that were filled for me with regards to the roots of environmentalism, which you make plain. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

  7. Environmentalism is socialistic in that its economics are dominated by tax and redistribute, central control of the means of production (government permits), even hints that a government permit will be required before a child may be conceived. It is a religion even if it has no deity, at least as secular people would admit to. Others would claim that they worship and protect Gaia, the earth goddess.
    Environmentalism is motivated by the same totalitarian spirit that motivated Pol Pot: that the humans who are allowed to live by the State must be purified by being forced to revert to a pristine natural organic state. When the Khmer Rouge attempted this, the result was the murder and the starvation of between 1 and 3 million of Cambodia’s 8 million citizens.
    My grandfather, who lived in the first half of the 20th century. He was a farmer who believed that it was his duty to use the earth productively and to pass it on to the next generation in better shape than when it came into his possession. That is the spirit of productive conservation. This of course is distinctly opposite of environmentalism.

  8. Don’t know any details of Dr. Ball’s case but isn’t hearsay involved in this? Someone/some people heard Dr.Ball make a remark about someone?

      • Then Mann was not present when said remarks/statements was said to have occurred?
        So case based on what someone/some persons who are said to have been there heard?
        So anyone who heard said remarks/statements will have to appear in court?

  9. One nit, the US Constitution does not guarantee a right to happiness (nor should it). The Declaration of Independence does speak of a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but it has no legal weight and is pretty explicit in that happiness itself is not a right.
    The belief that we have a right to happiness is precisely what has created the entitlement culture that is destroying our country.

  10. “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
    I’m not one to drag out stupid laws, but I would like to call attention to the fact this is, by just about every definition of the term I’ve ever come across, hate speech.

    • Speciesism, or Domainism, since it favors viruses over humans. Viruses don’t even have a domain, since they’re not technically alive.

  11. Around 5 years ago, I was contacted by an organization that was recruiting people around the country to speak in their own local community about climate change. Somebody must have tipped them off that I would be a good candidate. Maybe it was connected to previously being the chief meteorologist at a local tv station with the AMS and NWA seal of approval for broadcast television as well as writing a dozen articles for the local newspaper on the subject over the past decade,. They were interested in capitalizing on me using my science knowledge and communication skills and appeared to be enthusiastic about having me on board.
    For a very brief period, I was excited too, thinking that this could be another excellent opportunity to be a teacher to those interested in learning some new things about weather and climate science. I really enjoy speaking to groups about these subjects. I’ve also taught and coached chess to over 2,000 students at 4 schools over the past 20 years.
    When they told me that I didn’t have to worry about what to say, because they would “coach me”, it was obvious what they intended. Before we were to get started, they just wanted me to fill out a questionnaire, which asked for responses to get my core beliefs on climate change.
    I answered sincerely but also very objectively/open minded………………….and never heard back from them again.

    • @ Mike, Aug 20, 7: 24 pm: A very similar thing happened in our small town about 9-10 years ago, a number of us after filling out the questionnaire were completely ignored and never approached again. This ties in with a conversation(s) I have had since then and also ties in with the statement in the article :
      “It falls to the older classically trained, and through that, open-minded professors and academics, to fight for sanity, reason and the truth. Sadly, they are dying off “.
      I also see this in the electoral process, to me ( my wife and many others) it seems , actually very obvious when you think about it. The the plan is to muzzle those that have had a good basic education and are fighting back but as our numbers dwindle they are taking over the political, educational and media process, it is frightening to watch and counter, my grandchildren including their parents are becoming zombies.

  12. It is called Post-normal science where facts are not so important if the world is to be saved
    From Wikipedia:

    Post-normal science represents a novel approach for the use of science on issues where ‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’. PNS was developed in the nineties by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz. It can be considered as a reaction to the styles of analysis based on risk and cost-benefit analysis prevailing at that time, and as an embodiment of concepts of a new “critical science” developed in previous works by the same authors. In a more recent work PNS is described as ‘the stage where we are today, where all the comfortable assumptions about science, its production and its use, are in question’.

    • If “facts uncertain” and “values in dispute” one cannot possibly know if “stakes high and decisions urgent.” One group of people looks at rising CO2 and rising temps, figures cause-and-effect, and decides the stakes are high and the decisions urgent. Another group looks at the same facts and values and sees no cause-and-effect, merely correlation, and a poor one at that, and so sees no high stakes nor need for urgent decisions.
      PNS is exactly like every other socialist/Marxist endeavor where “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability” is implemented, but someone else decides for you what your needs are and what your ability is.

  13. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    While on the subject of the ‘climate change’ debacle, this post deserves inclusion as it deals with a most important aspect of the public brainwashing element. The corruption of the education system(s).
    An extract:
    ” There is also general agreement that unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to the reinforcement of social inequities and of poverty with the above-mentioned consequences for demographic parameters.
    It was a short, well orchestrated, jump from this to the textbooks and curricula of the education system in Western countries. The indoctrination of the youth was underway. Now they graduate from high school fully immersed in all the propaganda of environmental and climate science. They go to higher levels of education as the conservative, planet saving warriors, who only take courses from professors who say what they want to hear. It falls to the older classically trained, and through that, open-minded professors and academics, to fight for sanity, reason and the truth. Sadly, they are dying off as Steyn and I discovered as we try to test facts and logic in the last refuge where reason might prevail. This hope was tested and proven in the judgment of Justice Burton in the demand for balance beyond propaganda in the classroom by parent Stuart Dimmock.
    The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to “political indoctrination” and to the “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986.
    Justice Burton did not ban showing Gore’s movie but did comment
    ” I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. “”

  14. Dr Ball, your trial is coming in February 2017. Have you been able to do discovery on Dr Mann? That would impact your witness list.

    • Yes. In Canada there two lines of defence against a defamation charge. You can claim it was fair comment, which does not allow discovery but the penalty is much less if you lose. You can claim it was the truth and that allows discovery but the penalty if you lose i much much higher. For obvious reasons I chose the latter.

  15. The Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) declares that there is an “unalienable right” of all people to the PURSUIT of happiness – not to happiness itself. Big difference.

    • Thank you for that link, TA. It’s good to see. From what I understand, kids of all ages hate the indoctrination that’s being forced down their throats, but it is especially good to see college kids fighting back against peer pressure and standing up to bullies. More strength to them!

  16. Gang Green has got to act as their nature dictates.
    When we finally bring criminal charges against these fools, this will be their defence.
    It is our nature to be true believers,with no concern for other citizens.
    “We cannot do logical thought,nor comprehend consequences.”
    The Twinky defence of the Cult.

  17. Ah yes, another “scientist”. Sounds like Al Gore saying, “The center of the Earth is millions of degrees.” And these people teach kids from pre-school through college.

  18. The truth is that only the Homo sapiens species is the only one intelligent enough to get off of this ultimately doomed planet. The cosmos ain’t for the faint of heart and earth will not be here forever. Killing off man just assures the extinction of everything else here too. I’m reminded of the FarSide cartoon where the cows are building a wooden rocket ship in a field and some human hecklers yell “Hey you stupid bovines! What’s that gonna run on? Hay? Maybe it’ll go to the Mooooon! Ha ha ha!”

  19. …and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
    I disagree with that part of the quote. Not all truths are “conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.” Yet they are still true.

  20. When I read this David Graber quote, “Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer.” (my bold), I thought, that must be a misprint.
    After all, anatomically modern humans have been around for only about 200,000 at absolute most, and Cro-Magnons (conscious thinkers) probably only some 40,000 years.
    A billion years is twice the distance back to the Cambrian, which is when fossilizable animals only first appeared. A full billion years ago, the ecology of Earth consisted of bacterial stromatolites in the marine shallows and heaving green sludge everywhere else (except the land surface, which was barren).
    So, I went and found the original 1989 article in the LA Times.
    Yup, here’s what a practicing ecologist wrote: “Somewhere along the line–at about a billion years ago, maybe half that–we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.” Exactly as quoted.
    David Graber has a Ph.D. with a career in ecology and conservation biology, and he thinks humans have been around for a billion years. Even if it’s a misprint, and he actually wrote ‘at about a million years ago,‘ that would still be a gross misstatement.
    I feel better about modern education knowing that, even some 40 years ago, one could apparently get a Ph.D. in Biology without knowing anything about evolutionary history.
    From the article, Dr. Graber also thinks humans are now not a part of nature. Nature is the entire universe. So, Dr. Graber is implying that parts of the universe are not part of the universe. This is the kind of mindless idiocy that results when ideology replaces science.
    The article, by the way, is Dr. Graber’s review of a 1989 book by Anthony’s anti-particle, Bill McKibben, “The End of Nature.” In it, McKibben promotes alarm about CO2 and global warming. This perspicacious alarmism was raised only one year after Jim Hansen’s 1988 testimony before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. Can’t fault Mr. McKibben for not recognizing an opportunity; like the 19th century missionaries, he’s done well by doing good.
    David Graber’s review is a real hand-wringer. His anguish and projected guilt in 1989 are already fully developed right up to the modern standard of enviro-extremism.
    The interesting thing is that Dr. Graber proves himself incapable of using the science he knows to assess Mr. McKibben’s scientific claims. He accepts them all at face value. There was, and still is, no “rising curve of species extinctions.” Dr. Graber should have known that, or at least had the training to investigate the claim. Nope, and not done.
    Somehow, Dr. Graber’s scholarly collapse highlights the analogous failures of the scientific societies, most notably the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics. I still don’t understand it, but with a 1989 example we can note that the pathology is apparently long-standing.
    [Thank you. .mod]

    • Excellent post. Unfortunately, very few people have probably read it because it was posted so long after the original post…Well, at least I got to read it…(and the Mod…) LOL…

  21. Excellent post. As a teacher in high schools I saw it happening. The old disciplines went out the window and the central task became to inculcate the message. In the process the curriculum turned to mush.

  22. The models forecast that you have a court case coming up. How can we help with funding for you? I assume big oil is not kicking the can.
    Thanks for all your good work.

  23. It is mind-meltingly ironic that “environmentalists” — who claim a belief in evolution, survival of the fittest, and the like — are often the most politically reactionary people on the planet, seeking iron-fisted power in an effort to preserve some mythical “status quo” in the natural world.
    It should go without saying that A) the task is impossible, and B) that those at the top have no intention of using their power for anything but their own gratification, but people continue to forget that the struggle has never EVER been about the science, nor about preserving “Nature.”

  24. “Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer.”
    About a billion years ago, all life on this planet was of the single celled variety.
    Even a million years ago was 100’s of thousands of years before the rise of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

  25. Ingrid Newkirk, Paul Watson and all their ilk are vile sociopathic misanthropes who can take credit for for the coinage “human-hater” as a catchall for greens of every stripe. Tragically, their mind poison has gone mainstream and as Dr. Ball points out, is even fed to school children, a recruitment campaign Stalin or Hitler would have been proud of. I make damn sure my son understands the verity of the advice of the Buddha given in the article, which happens to jibe perfectly with the worldview held by all people possessed of the power of reason.

Comments are closed.