Climate Change Hypocrites Arrive In Copenhagen

The limousine liberals who are of course superior to all the petty little human beings beneath them arrived in Copenhagen – like gods descending from Mt. Olympus of old – and of course they did not forget their limousines.

Copenhagen is one of the great moments when your ontological superiors get to pass measures for the petty human insects crawling about below them.  Should they be held accountable to the same standards they pass for everyone else?  Of course not!  That’s part of what it means to be a member of the ruling class of deity, after all.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,”
she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change “Truth Squad.” The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen’s clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city’s famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week “Climate Bottom Meeting,” complete with a “storytelling yurt” and a “funeral of the day” for various corrupt, “heatist” concepts such as “economic growth”.

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a “parallel conference” in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to “be sustainable, don’t buy sex,” the local sex workers’ union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate’s pass. The term “carbon dating” just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from “saving the world,” the world’s leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week’s unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change “saboteurs” reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. “If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence,” said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. “Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys.”

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners’ apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare,’ people would not have followed him,” he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama’s decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a “victory” for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

I’m sticking with the proceedings being eminently mockable.  The entire conference is a disgusting joke.  And the limousines and private jets – along with the profound absence of electric cars – is proof positive that none of these elitists either a) really much believes in their global warming load of hooey, or b) has any intention of changing their elites jet setting lifestyle as they oppress the little people.

The limousines and private jets are the equivalent of Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake” moment.

Meanwhile, even as the Olympian gods descend upon Copenhagen to shape the energy future of puny man and take back the fire they once gave him, we see the crisis of global warming:

Fierce snowstorm gains strength after hitting West

By FELICIA FONSECA, Associated Press Writer Felicia Fonseca, Associated Press Writer

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. – A howling winter storm barreled through the West, hitting the mountain states with snow and fierce winds as it headed toward the country’s midsection on Tuesday.

The far-reaching storm system stretched from California to Indiana, gathering strength as it raced eastward.

Parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin were bracing for blizzard conditions and up to 10 inches of snow, according to the National Weather Service.

“The storm system is really strengthening as it goes, and that’s usually a recipe for some heavy snowfall and a lot of wind, and that’s what we’re watching for,” said Mike Welvaert of the National Weather Service in La Crosse, Wis.

The storm hit nearly all of the western mountain states on Monday, leaving places like Flagstaff and Reno, Nev., under a thick blanket of snow. Heavy rain raised fears of mudslides in wildfire-devastated Southern California, but no damage was reported. The weather system also snarled traffic and closed schools in Indiana, and crashes caused one death.

In the Phoenix area, fierce wind brought down power lines, left four hospitals temporarily without power and created wide outages. At one point, some 250,000 customers were without power; by early Tuesday, that number was down to about 58,000, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service Co. said.

The storm system lingered over the West on Tuesday.

On Monday, virtually the entire Western region was hit by wintry weather — from subzero wind chills in Washington state to heavy snow that closed schools and government offices in Reno, Nev. Big rigs were left jackknifed across highways in several states.

In New Mexico, two people were killed in traffic accidents blamed on slick conditions, and officials there told snow-clearing crews to prepare for 12-hour shifts as the storm swept south and east.

The National Weather Service said the upper elevations of the Sierra mountains could get up to 3 feet of snow, with up to 4 feet forecast for the mountains of southern Utah.

Reno schools closed, and many state government workers were told to stay home. Chains or snow tires were required across the region. Several flights into and out of Reno-Tahoe International Airport were delayed or canceled.

“Motorists are going to have to chain up,” Trooper Chuck Allen with the Nevada Highway Patrol said. “Otherwise, we end up with a parking lot.”

In northern Arizona, state officials closed parts of Interstate-17 and I-40, saying early Tuesday that some stretches of the highways were snow-packed and visibility levels were near zero.

The city school district let students out early Monday and canceled classes Tuesday. Northern Arizona University also released students and staff early Monday, in the midst of final exams.

Arizona Department of Transportation spokesman Rod Wigman vowed to keep northern Arizona roads plowed despite a $100 million budget deficit, but advised people to stay home if possible as the brunt of the storm sweeps through.

“When the sun goes down, people need to go home,” Wigman said.

Please, take back our fire and send us back into the caves from which we once emerged, o mighty Zeus and all yon deities.

Save us from all this warming, lest our flesh melt away from our wretched mortal bodies.

Meanwhile, even as we see just what a corrupt bunch of thugs and frauds these global warming mongers have been, we learn that Al Gore has so enriched himself with his part in the scam that may be the first climate billionaire.

Once upon a time, socialists and Marxists were able to confiscate other peoples’ wealth and dictate other peoples’ behavior on the bogus theory of socialist equality.  Now the same socialists and Marxists are doing the same things in the name of saving the planet.

And just like with Marxism, the gods of global warming can live lives that never come even remotely close to touching the fraudulent message that they preach to the unwashed and ignorant masses.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Climate Change Hypocrites Arrive In Copenhagen”

  1. David Hamilton Says:

    What’s your point – that liberals have possessions and make money too?

    Doesn’t that undermine your other point that they’re really all Marxists.

    Joined-up thinking isn’t that difficult… maybe you should try it sometime!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    My point is that “limousine liberals” (and how apt that label is here) want to control and use other people’s money. If they even began to actually believe their garbage (which they want to impose on everybody else), they’d live like it.

    And you should learn a thing or two about what Marxists are really like when they taste power, David. Read about Stalin. Read about Mao. Read about Kim Jong Il. All were men who gave themselves everything that the world could live on the backs of their people. Luxury, wealth, women, caviar – they enjoyed it all in massive abundance even as they called upon their people to suffer and labor for the benefit of “the proletariat.”

    In other words, if you had a clue about history and reality, you would realize that not only does it not undermine my point, but it actually PROVES my point.

    You mention “joined-up thinking.” That’s where people work together in synergy to produce a greater result. But the problem is that secular-humanist leftists are greedy and dishonest people who pervert that synergy to create a false Utopia in which only they benefit from the system they create. Think about all the major cities/inner cities that have had total liberal control for a hundred years, but the poor have utterly nothing to show for it but a century of misery. I would submit that, in the hands of liberals, “joined-up thinking” is rather what it sounds like: people who think out of their anuses, but have serious constipation issues.

  3. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Always judge people by what they do in reality and not by what they say! Words are cheap; they offer a principled course without the physical action to ‘back up and justify that course’.

    As I have always maintained, the world’s rich and powerful are the worst individual polluters on the face of this earth and yet ironically are the same people who dictate virtue to the ‘average joe’ about becoming greener and cleaner! Think about it logically, the more you can afford, the more you consume and thus the more you inevitably waste. It all follows the same pattern!

    What stinking hypocrites these self-righteous liberal do-gooders are. They have the audacity to lecture people about man-made global warming and in the next breath – they are driving around in Limo’s and flying by private jets to different destinations.

    The fact of the matter is the world’s poor are the most efficent and less-wasteful of all people – simply because they cannot afford bugger all to begin with and therefore often not in a position to waste anything.

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    You’re right and you’re wrong.

    When a society is poor and developing, it doesn’t spend (“waste” is probably a better term) scarce resources on protecting the environement. Go back in time and look at all the nations that are developed now, when they were developing. We polluted, and didn’t worry much about it.

    And as we became wealthier, and able to protect the environment, we began to do so more and more.

    The left has seized upon the environmental movement as a way to impose their leftist communist and fascist economic policies. But that is another story.

    Poorer and developing nations (people) burn things and contaminate the land and water far more than other peoples. They have little choice. They have cut down their forests and polluted their rivers just like we did when we were at that stage.

    That said, the liberals who come from wealthy nations hardly give up their contaminating ways. Just take Al Gore (PLEASE! as they say). The man flies around in a pollution-spewing private jet, and has had several mansions that he kept lit up like a Christmas tree for years.

    What we find is they don’t give a damn about the environment. They want control over people’s lives, and that’s all they really give a damn about.

  5. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Fair point, both rich and poor waste. However, I would definitely argue that there are different reasons for this (explained below). In addition, it is also true that the wealthier a nation is, the better it is equipped to both safeguard and improve upon its existing structures/social affairs in most respects. These points I do not contend.

    As you quite correctly pointed out, the poor have little choice when it boils down to it – which ultimately provides them with a sound cover in terms of excusing their position. The RICH AND POWERFUL. HOWEVER, DO NOT HAVE THIS DEFENCE! They have a very real choice in the matter and are in far better a financial position than anyone to lead by example.

    This is the point I am trying to convey! The rich cannot be excused, the poor can! Having a CHOICE is what it all boils down too at the end of the day and this is precisely what the RICH have IN ABUNDANCE!

    However, the issue here is the one allegeding ‘anthropogenic global warming; a theory which has been postulated, but not scientifically demonstrated in accordance with the scientific method. The issue of pollution is totally separate from ‘climate change’! One of the tactics of the left is to try and confuse the two – as if they are somehow interconnected.

    I would argue that the only reason why politicans support the notion of human-induced climate change is precisely because it allows them to posture as self-righteous friends of the earth – giving them a license to raise taxes and impose even tighter regulations upon the public. The basis of change is usually CONTROL! Other than that, the capital to be made from such scams is probably the main driving force behind any ‘seeming’ concern for the environment.

    In a nutshell, Abraham Lincoln hit the nail on the head when he once defined a HYPOCRITE: ‘The man who murdered both his parents and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan’.

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    With your clarification, I am totally on your side.

    The redistributionists have always followed the same model that is expressed in a joke:

    An American capitalist riding the bus sees a rich man in a fancy sports car and says, “Someday I’LL be able to have a car like that.”
    A European socialist riding the bus sees a rich man in a fancy sports car and says, “Someday that sonofabitch will be riding the bus just like me.”

    The problem of the “haves” and the “have nots” can be solved by changing the worldview, religion and political and economic system of the “have nots.” The simple fact of the matter is that the Judeo-Christian, capitlalist, democratic worldview is superior to all competitors. It’s not our fault that we have abundance and the bitter people of the world have bitterness. If they did more emulating and less hating, they too would have abundance. It wouldn’t come overnight; it didn’t come overnight with us. But it would come as a result of hard work properly directed toward the right ideals.

    I’ve written quite a bit about “global warming” and what a fraud it is. Here are a couple oldies but goodies:

    Our planet can produce far more food and withstand far more pollution than the left believes. Mostly, I believe, that is because they reject a Creator God who knew what He was doing. We could easily feed far, FAR more people if we had the right motives. But for instance poor countries produce things like coffee while their people starve when they should be growing FOOD for their people. And with these redistributionist and economically-sabotaging policies re: global warming, we end up PREVENTING the kind of growth that would ultimately lead to both a) more jobs and more prosperity for all and b) more ability for now-wealthier countries to actually deal with pollution and the environment.

    But like you point out as well, it’s NOT about the environement or taking care of the people with the left; it’s about CONTROL.

    God has given us all the resources we need to “be fruitful and multiply.” But the people who hate God and WILL NOT trust Him or His provision instead want to control the shrinking pie that they themselves “shrank.”

  7. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Michael, I agree with what you’re saying. However, I am not a religious person by nature, although I do have a quiet, unassuming and reserved faith in God.

    What I cannot understand is the lack of respect that so many people have for each other in life. I have been raised to respect my fellow man – even when there are great differences between ourselves in terms of culture, religion, attitudes, etc.

    What I find incomprehensible is why certain people promoting this scam would feel compelled to do so in the first place. It reveals a complete lack of respect for one’s fellow human being.

    I long for the day when people will wake up from the deep coma they have sleeping in for most of their lives and realize that as human beings we all affect other in so many ways; it’s like a knock-on effect!

    This is my problem with the bogus theory of human-caused global warming. What really underlies it is a profound disrespect for ordinary working people – when in reality they are very backbone of any decent society.

    It does my heart no good whatsoever to see such an astonishing level of hypocrisy being openly demonstrated among the political leaders of this world. To add insult to injury, they have the audacity to offend people by claiming that their hypocrisy is warranted because it serves a greater good in the long-term. Pretty much like John Travolta who still lectures on global warming while at the same time owning five private jets, a huge mansion, homes all around the world, fleet of never-ending luxury cars and gas-guzzlers and a supremely indulgent lifestyle to top it off. The fact that he would feel compelled to lecture on the issue of ‘climate change’ mystifies me in itself; surely a man of his intelligence would be cognizant of the underlying hypocrisy!

    What’s worse, is that most of the political elite follow this frame of thinking P.S. let’s have a good banter about the dangers of global warming over a glass of wine and caviar wedges and then fly back home later on – making sure to reduce our carbon footprint by planting a tree in Africa at some point this year!

    As I said, it comes back to the word ‘RESPECT’; in other words, not taking advantage when the opportunity beckons.

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    I agree with you that being religious has nothing to do with being able to see the fraud of global warming; although I would also say that those who believe in global warming are themselves religious fanatics with a blind faith committment to their pseudo-science (similar to that cult that committed suicide because they believed their was a spaceship behind a comet a few years back).

    As to trodding over ordinary working people, it is franklly astonishing that the United Nations has actually said they want $76 TRILLION to fight global warming. And that working Americans are supposed to pony up at least a third of that!!!

    The first time I understood that global warming was a complete crock of crap was the Kyoto Treaty that the United States Senate refused to ratify by a vote of 99-0. THAT’S called a slap-down!!! And we found that the US and a few other countries were to held responsible, while all the other countries like Russia and China and India that are pouring out pollution day and night were to be allowed to pour out MORE polltion.

    That was when it was 100% obvious to anyone with a brain and a clue that global warming was nothing more than a Marxist redistribution campaign. Because if these people actually believed that global warming was any kind of actual crisis, THEY WOULDN’T BE ALLOWING ANY COUNTRY TO POLLUTE, WOULD THEY???

  9. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Couldn’t agree more, Michael.

    However, we must remember that ‘climate change’ and ‘pollution’ are distinctly two separate issues.

    The mainstream media and scientific establishment have achieved great success in convincing the public that ‘Carbon Dioxide’ is some type of ‘pollutant’. This is scientific nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is vital in photosynthesis and is the basis of the planetary food chain. It is an airborne beneficial fertilizer; a nutrient upon which all plant life depends.

    Granted, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does retain heat-trapping properties that will cause some warming, but in reality it won’t cause very much warming. CO2 by its very own nature and constitution – is a minor and naturally-occurring trace gas in the atmosphere. It has been present in much higher concentrations in the past i.e. up to twenty times the current level (P.S. Jurassic Period, etc). It is therefore, well within the range of natural variability and thus nothing to worry about whatsoever from a geological perspective.

    That’s basically what the whole issue of climate change boils down too: Are current temperatures within the range of natural variability or outside of it? In other words, in the Earth’s 4.5 BILLION YEAR HISTORY – has the planet experienced periods of warmer and colder conditions than today? To answer ‘NO’ to this question would require an ALARMISTS mindset! Thick as sh..!

    I despair with these alarmists, I truly do. How ignorant must you be to honestly think that current temperatures are abnormally high compared to any period in Earth’s staggeringly long history. We are merely a passing blip in geological terms and yet people believe that human beings are drastically altering the earth’s fragile climate because they are driving around in cars and spewing out pollution from an industrial perspective. I think I should exchange the word IGNORANCE for ARROGANCE come to think of it!

    I have long asserted the view that this planet is not fragile; it’s as tough as an old boot. 4.5 Billion years worth of natural variability should be telling you something P.S. ice ages, comet collisions, mass-extinction events, droughts, mega tsunamis, etc. If anything, the fragility lies within us, not the planet!

    The advocates of anthropogenic global warming, however, seem to think that they know better. The planet is fragile and needs saving from the evils of humanity. To achieve this, the almighty human being must stand up and rise to the challenge and shout out in one voice ‘WE SHALL NOT PERISH’. We will take mother earth into our caring arms and blow kisses of love onto her ravaged soul! Need I go on! ALL THE SYMPTOMS OF A RELIGIOUS NUT JOB!

  10. Michael Eden Says:


    As a Christian, I believe that God gave man domionion AND stewardship over the earth. We are responsible to take care of it.

    I not only pick up my trash; I pick up OTHER people’s trash. I am an avid recycler.

    Not trying to toot my own horn, but simply saying that caring about earth God gave us is hardly something liberals own. By any means.

    So I very much agree with your distinction between “climate change” and “pollution.”

    I agree with your facts, and present one other: to a large extent, it is wealthier nations that seriously deal with pollution, primarily because it is only wealthier nations that can AFFORD to. There is a balance between how much pollution we can/should accept and the jobs that “going overboard” in anti-pollution regulations cost. We might disagree on exactly where that balance is (and we might not!). But we ALL want clean air and clean water to go along with having jobs, manufacturing and industry.

    We might “get there” from different perspectives, but we BOTH agree that the earth is hardly fragile. I would submit that the God Who created it knew very well what He was doing. And one of the fascinating mechanisms is a tropical climatic heat vent that absorbs CO2 and serves as a “natural thermostat.”

    Your point about CO2 (a natural-occuring gas essential for life) made me think of this great, easy-to-read article:

    I’ve also written an article that talks about the many climate cycles that summarizes my reading of a tremendous book on Global Warming here:

  11. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Michael, tackling pollution is a noble cause in itself – PERIOD! It is in the best interests of everyone to take better care of the planet, not only for ourselves, but for future generations. This is plain commonsense and should appeal to any reasonable individual!

    However, how much of this desire to be ‘greener and cleaner’ is born of self-righteousness and feel-goodery is another matter. One must concede through humility that ‘virtue’ is a powerful emotion and often compels people to act in ways, that given any other state of affairs, they wouldn’t! For example, a reasonable person may conclude that taking better care of the environment is a positive step in the right direction and in many ways it actually is. However, really ask yourself the question, why would I care to begin with? What compels me to and in reality – will my own individual actions really make much difference either way? How will you justify it to yourself? Really stop and think about that last question because it is more meaningful than any other question can be!

    As I stated previously, I have a quiet and unassuming faith in God. I keep it to myself, because I believe that the relationship is personal and should be personal. But that is my view although my view is by no means the correct view, even if such a thing as a ‘correct’ view exists to begin with.

    I would argue that in the Environmental movement, everything is an emergency. There has to be for them to justify their own pitiful existence. I do not despise these people; more than anything else I feel sorry for them, They are victims of their own ignorance and arrogance; both of which are often interconnected on so many levels. The end of civilization is always nigh with these people, but in reality it never quite seems to materialize for them!

    Whenever I speak to environmentalists in general, they always appear to me as individuals full of self-loathing and inner-guilt over their own lifestyles and consumption. This is the primary reason why they feel compelled to act on their principles from the offset. They are basically compensating themselves to themselves if you catch my drift!

    In summary, i would argue that people, by enlarge, want to be good and do good. The problem lies in the fact that deep down people are not really interested in doing good, but rather in making themselves feel good on the presumption that any action they personally take – is somehow going to make a real difference! (‘Time’ renders all our efforts inadequate by any measure)

    In the grand scheme of things, one must remember and remember always – we are nothing! As cynical as it sounds, nothing we do really matters – because the future isn’t guaranteed!

  12. Michael Eden Says:


    It is an interesting discussion to have in terms of why we should be moral and ethical, and why we should care about future generations not yet conceived (particularly given so many people’s incredibly cavalier attitudes toward babies who are developing in wombs RIGHT NOW). My intuition – if not my common sense – tells me that leftists environmentalists who argue that we should freely be able to kill babies in the womb while at the same time arguing that we must save the planet for future generations not yet conceived, have a considerably different agenda than their claimed one. A couple of quotes serve as a springboard:

    – “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 178).

    – “From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life’ [that is, Darwin ‘s subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations – and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here.” – Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1962

    – “Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings–namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

    – In the movie ‘Alien,’ we have the alien creature described thusly: “You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? A perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility… I admire its purity. A survivor unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality” (Ash, the “Artificial person” Science Officer of the Nostromo, in the film ALIEN).

    I personally believe that it is very difficult to get other-centered love from the premise of atheism and naturalism. Animals have a biological programming to protect their own young (to a limited extent, at least); but why should we care about people who have nothing to do with us and quite literally are often our enemies? I don’t see you getting there with naturalism/Darwinism, and in fact consistent Darwinism ought to lead to SOCIAL Darwinism as the quotes above indicate.

    Belief in God is the starting point. God uniquely created man in His own image – and that makes man special and of incommensurable moral value. And therefore we – who are likewise in His image – ought to care. And in caring about our fellow human being, we ought to likewise care about his environement.

    I respect your own views about God because I respect you as a fellow image-bearer of God. And God created humanity with free will; YOU have the power to choose, and God holds us accountable for our choices in the next world even as our fellow man holds us accountable in this one.

    Your description of environmentalists and “emergency” reminded me of the following. Well before Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made famous the line, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” Jonah Goldberg wrote the following in his book “Liberal Fascism”: “The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” (Page 42)

    The atheist communists essentially seized control of the government and brutally ran roughshod over the people in the name of “emergency” or “crisis.” Except of course it was a crisis without end; a crisis that permanently suited the needs of the State. Not much has really changed.

    Czech President Vaclav Klaus – who has the direct experience with communism to know exactly what he is talking about – basically said “environmentalism is the new communism.”

    I saw that with crystal clarity when the Kyoto Protocal came out in the 1990s. Then, just as today, environmentalists said on the one hand that the human race was literally facing extinction from the threat of global warming, on the one hand, while saying that only the Western European nations needed to change their ways, on the other. Russia, China, India, all the 3rd world nations, did not need to change ANYTHING even though they themselves were terrible polluters. And now of course China has eclipsed the US as the world’s largest polluter, and enviornemntalists STILL say only the West needs to destroy its economic system and way of life. In brief, enviornmentalism is a complete sham movement. Socialism is the real goal.

    As a Christian, I deeply believe that God cares about His creation and has a marvelous eternal plan for those who freely choose to embrace Him and His ways through the work of the Son who tore down all barrers between man and God. That, of course, is my ultimate deliverance from cynicism. At the same time, I read my Bible as the literal Word of God to man, and the Book of Revelation (as well as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others) tells me that there will be a coming time (SOON, I believe) that an Antichrist will arise who will seize control of the government of the entire world. Revelation 6 describes a state of affairs in which the world has a collapsed economy, wars and racial violence and famine which will result in the arrival of a global dictator. And when Christ returns as recorded in Revelation 19, it will literally be to save the human race from self-destruction.

    Btw, the Bible speaks a GREAT DEAL about bizarre and deadly climate patterns in the last days. You would think all of these radical leftists who hype environmental disaster would all be fundamentalist Christians, given the fact that the Bible only said it would happen for 2,000-plus years. But nope.

    I find it amazing how close we are to the situation described in the Bible 2,000 to 3,000 years ago.

    All that to say that when I choose the God of the Bible, I find that I DO find the greatest source of morality and wisdom therein.

  13. Leigh Harwood Says:

    An interesting take on things indeed, Michael.

    I do appreciate your insights on this issue and I really do think that so many of our problems in general today stem from many people’s lack of belief in God. However, this is an educated assumption based upon my own views.

    I do agree with your belief that the environmental movement is a sham; its real underlying goal/purpose is the acquisition of power and influence over government policy and regulation. This power would yield the ability to influence the course of events in favour of the environmental agenda.

    As for countries like India and China, the only way they can elevate their people out of poverty is by raising the standard of living in their respective countries which demands that they be allowed to burn as much fossil-fuel as required to achieve this desired end. In truth, fossil-fuel provides them with the cheapest form of energy and it is therefore imperative to their own prosperity as individual nations to keep-on burning and burning as much fossil-fuel as they like! The poorer a nation, the higher the birthrates; the wealthier a nation – the birthrates tend toward stability. This is well established in demographics!

    The whole notion of CO2 as some type of pollutant, is by any measure, absolutely hilarious. It is an insult to the very trace gas which gives us the very life to breath!

    Future generations will undoubtedly look back at this period in time with great amusement and who could honestly blame them!

  14. Michael Eden Says:


    Here are five links that deal with the frightening fact that environmentalists basically want billions of human beings to die so they can “save the planet” based on a quick google search I just did:

    I agree with you: there should always be a balance between economic development/growth and pollution control. We should pollute as little as is good for society as a whole. Sometimes we need jobs more; sometimes we reach a level where we can afford to pursue better pollution-control policies. But utlimately we should be pro-human race. The idea that the left advances has the ridiculous thesis that conservatives want to drink filthy water and breathe toxic air. I can assure you we don’t; but we would just assume have a society that doesn’t implode economically, either.

    The simple fact of the matter is that the radical environmental agenda literal HATES human beings. Someone may say that’s an extreme statement; but the environementalists confirm it is true in their own words! They see human beings as parasites that need to be eradicated for the good of the host (the earth). To which I would simply respond, “You first.”

    What you say about China and India is, of course, true. But it is JUST AS TRUE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET. I look around at my own USA and it occurs to me that we could use some job creation. WE need inexpensive energy as bad as the Chinese do. We have the same needs because we are all human and we all need the same things.

  15. Leigh Harwood Says:

    Michael, more jobs are always welcome in any country, because as you correctly point out – we are all human beings and all have the same needs to some degree or another.

    Inexpensive energy is always the key goal, but exactly as to how this is achieved – is open to debate. There are always positives and negatives to contend with! The key is in trying to balance them out.

    Unlike the theory of ‘anthropogenic climate change’, tackling pollution is a reality that needs addressing in the present and by any measure of logic – the less we pollute – the better off for it we most certainly are!

    However, it is particularly important for third world countries to burn as much fossil-fuel as they like – because they more than anyone at present – need to advance for the benefit of their own short-term and long-term future. This means having access to a stable supply of clean water and modern electricity.

    As you aware by now, I do not subscribe to the theory of human-caused global warming whatsoever. In my opinion, it serves as nothing more than an excuse to give politicians and environmentalists a platform from which to promote green policies, whilst simultaneously glorifying themselves in the process.

    Like most things in life, climate change or global warming has more to do with EGO than it does anything else. As Professor Lindzen of M.I.T.(atmospheric scientist) once correctly stated: ‘it provides people with a cheap quest for virtue; people need a cause in life – it makes them feel virtuous’. Those are my sentiments exactly!

    Environmentalists are not concerned with ‘Science’ in my opinion. It’s purely a matter of CONTROL AND POWER for them! The same old story. If I gave a penny for how many times I have heard the word ‘CHANGE’ from a politician or environmentalist with respect to the issue of ‘global warming – needless to say I would by lying somewhere on a tropical beach by now – dripping in wealth!

    Why any movement or political faction would seek to restrict the growth of third world countries (P.S. the global warming scare has virtually doubled world food prices and there have been mass riots in many of these impoverished countries as a result!) quite frankly defies me! What is infinitely more astonishing is the fact that the western media have been remarkably silent in reporting this news to its own citizens. Until someone pointed it out to me, I had no idea myself that this was the case!

    Environmentalism is indeed the new communism!

  16. Michael Eden Says:


    I wrote an article titled, “Gas Prices Have Risen 55% On Obama’s Watch And Continue To Soar” that pointed out how pursuit of “green energy” meant “expensive” while pursuit of fossil fuels meant “cheap.”

    By the way, I wrote that article on March 27, 2010 and essentially said gas would become more and more expensive due to Obama’s stupid energy policies. Was I right or was I simply right given a year of hindsight???

    You are of course completely correct regarding your understanding of the abundance and low cost of fossil fuels versus other energy sources. I had a couple of charts that helped to illustrate that:

    First, regarding the abundance of oil, coal and natural gas relative to other sources:

    Second, the cost of various sources of energy:

    Now, for an American political leader to suggest that the United States should pursue these incredibly expensive forms of energy which – on top of their huge costs – could not possibly fulfill our energy requirements is essentially a call for national suicide. People should realize that, and vote accordingly. If you want to slit your throat and the throats of your children, then the environmentalist agenda is the one for YOU.

    Obviously, you and I share a common desire for both survival and sanity.

  17. Leigh Harwood Says:

    I can honestly say Michael that you are the very first person I have exchanged views with over the internet on this specific issue – that hasn’t ended up insulting me in some way or comparing me to a ‘holocaust denier’.

    I often encounter this ‘herd mentality’ with my work colleagues, the vast majority of whom endorse the theory of human-induced global warming. Trying to put across a different point of view to these people is a lost cause in itself! They presume that what they hear and read via the media is BANG ON THE BUCK! It’s unquestionable as far as they are concerned. They simply cannot ‘think outside of the box’ P.S. almost like a programmed robot given a set of instructions to carry out by it’s master.

    The problem lies in the fact that most of the public possess insufficient knowledge of Science to form their own educated conclusions regarding the credibility of ‘climate change’ as a theory. As a result, this ‘lack of knowledge’ paves the way for bias and ignorance on the subject matter, coupled with a political and scientific establishment that are all too happy to oblige them in maintaining that ignorance.

    I recommend a website for you to browse through regarding political correctness and how it is continually changing our lives for the worse

    It covers the issue of global warming and many others and how political correctness is the sole culprit in each case! You may agree or disagree, but the choice is always your own to make!

    On a different note, It does indeed seem bizarre to me for any country, much less the US, to seek out more expensive forms of green energy when they already have at their disposal a far more economical and cheaper alternative P.S. Fossil-fuel. However, in accepting the faulty premise on which the theory of human-caused climate change is founded – it would now seem that many of the world’s political leaders (including Obama) who have foolishly committed themselves to a stance on this issue – are now trapped in a position where they can no longer break free!!

    Political correctness demands that countries are seen to be doing something to promote the Green philosophy – regardless of it’s cost, efficiency or practicality. As a consequence, REALITY get’s put on the back burner whilst the pursuit of virtue triumphs at the expense of necessity! The politically-correct have a fondness for pursuing the lofty principle over the practical; they cannot stand reality and to further realize that things have evolved the way they are to be for good reasons!!

    In a nutshell, political correctness does the exact opposite of what commonsense suggests. Does this remind you of any movement/political body – Michael?

  18. Michael Eden Says:


    I can’t take TOO much credit for that, Leigh. I AGREE with you. It makes it a lot easier to not start shouting and demonizing.

    I get a lot of “shouting” and “demonizing” from my opponents, too.

    Not all people take it this way, but in my own blogging, I feel that I am doing the equivalent of shouting at the world. By that I mean I go after “liberalism,” and “Obama” and “Democrats.” But I don’t go after “Steve” who lives in Pittsburgh. But of course a lot of people react as if I am; so while I don’t personally attack “Steve in Pittsburgh,” Steve feels obliged to personally attack me. The way I blog, if someone wants to have a polite discussion with me and disagree with what I say, I try very hard to keep the discussion polite. If someone wants to start shouting names at me, I’ll shout a few names back and then block them (why bother waste much time arguing with a fool?).

    I actually DON’T go to liberals’ blogs and try to debate them. That’s not my “thing.” I’d rather talk to those who a) agree with me, and are looking for arguments to support their own debates, or b) independents who are persuadable. When I realize I have no chance of changing someone’s mind – and particularly when they start applying labels [e.g. “You’re worse than a Holocaust deniar”] – I usually do the “wipe the dust off the soles of my shoes and go to another village” thing. I don’t like to simply waste my time arguing.

    Can’t do that at work so easily, of course.

    Years back, I taught history at a public middle school. I enjoyed teaching, loved watching my students show interest, watching the look on their faces as they understood something that they were trying to figure out, watching them work hard and get a grade that made them proud of their accomplishement, that sort of thing. Having summers off was nice, too. But the teachers’ lounge was just utterly toxic. A number of the more rabidly liberal teachers made even the more immature students look MATURE in comparison. They bullied, they harrassed in some of the most petty ways, they formed cliques, they tried to poison other people against you. It wasn’t the MAJORITY of teachers, by any means. But if one teacher (e.g., me) tried to stand up against this group, no one backed that teacher. You just unified “the group” against you. The teachers union certainly wasn’t going to do anything, and the administration was quickly revealed to be powerless to do anything. I’m sure that happens in lots of places, but whenever the government is involved and “public employees” are involved, it’s even WORSE. I finally realized I could be miserable, or I could leave. [I’m not saying I was a “great teacher,” but I’ll always wonder how many great teachers have made the same choice I made to find a happier environment to work in].

    I have certainly seen what you’re describing.

    Religious cults often use the Bible, but they use it in a twisted way, with esoteric interpretations, relying on passages stripped of context. They might as well be using a phone book and “read” their theology from that. If you talk with them, you find that they often haven’t read the Bible outside of a narrow track of selected passages. They’ll make a point based on a single word in a single verse, and you say, “But look at the rest of the passage. It clearly doesn’t mean what you’re claiming.” And they’re like, “Do WHAT? Why would I bother to look at the rest of the passage? What I want to think is found right here. I don’t need to read any further.”

    I’ve read a lot of Bible commentaries, as a similar example. When I was working on my philisophical theology program, I was required to interact with multiple perspectives. And what I found – and I mean found every single time – was that the conservative commentators felt the need to cite liberal commentators and interact with their views and explain why they disagreed; whereas the liberal commentators either utterly ignored the conservative views as though they weren’t worth considering, or presented a straw man to tear down. Conservative evangelical scholarship has had a great renaissance the last several decades, but the ways that liberal scholars simply tried to shut them out of the debate altogether simply stunned me.

    And that’s what I’ve found with political liberalism, too (just like you, it appears).

    Al Gore falsely claimed “a broad consensus of scientific opinion.” And first of all, science doesn’t worth that way, and second of all, it was NEVER TRUE. I’ve written my own articles on this, but here’s a link I quickly found: And then on the basis of that false claim to a “consensus,” the left began a campaign to demonize opponents as “deniers.”

    Then we get the exact same approach from liberals regarding the massive government stimulus and the Keynesian approach behind it. Virtually all economists agreed, Obama assured us. It didn’t matter that that statement was simply a gigantic lie. See: and also

    And Obama has repeatedly claimed to be acting in the name of science. He repeatedly claimed that Bush had politicized science, but he was returning to “legitimate” science.

    Note the way the media framed this particular example:

    “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” Obama said.

    Researchers said the new president’s message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.

    Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.

    You’ve got Obama – and ‘science” – depicted on one side, and some narrow-minded right wing reactionary “opponents” on the other. That’s par for the course. The way they write their story, who should you believe? The “researchers” representing “science” or the moralizing opponents who probably see demons hiding in every bush they walk past?

    It doesn’t matter that NONE of that presentation is true. Obama has been caught red-handed politicizing science in a way that George Bush NEVER was. See

    In my own state of California, we passed a vile measure that provided billions in government funding for ebryonic stem cell research (which required human embryos be destroyed). I point out in the article above, and can STILL state for the record, that not so much as a SINGLE CURE resulted from that multi-billion boondoggle. Versus the hundreds of cures from ADULT stem cells that do NOT require the death of a human being. But again, this false “consensus” of science was presented as the grounds for this vile boondoggle. I don’t know what you believe about abortion, but as a simple matter of legitimate science, embryonic stem cell research that is based on stem cells harvested from human embryos that die in the process has never produced a single cure. It is a massive and costly boondoggle that never produced anything but cancer tumors; but it was sold as representing the “consensus of science.”

    You say, “The problem lies in the fact that most of the public possess insufficient knowledge of Science to form their own educated conclusions regarding the credibility of ‘climate change’ as a theory.” And go on to say a little more. I agree with everything you said, but would fill-in between the lines: there is a VERY DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN to present a false impression. It’s not merely ignorance; it is deliberate deception. It is coming from the mainstream media – which has become downright propagandist – and it is coming from scientists who are acting NOT as scientists but as activists such as James Hansen, Phil Jones and others. See

    And it literally no longer seems to matter how blatantly they violate standards of legitimate science. Because the same sort of phenomena that allowed a handful of leftwing goons to dominate my teachers’ lounge has come to dominate much of academia. And the same United Nations that actually gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize in spite of stuff like THIS and also see

    It’s interesting. Nazi Germany was THE most “scientific” country IN THE WORLD BAR NONE. Their superior technology was one of the things that made them so incredibly difficult to defeat. But look at how they thought!!!! And again, Marxism/communism was embraced as the “modern” and “scientific” economic system. Facts were turned on their head for a century even as the system collapsed. AND THEY CONTINUE TO BE ROUTINELY TURNED ON THEIR HEAD. We find that Marxism exists more in academia than ANYWHERE else in America. It’s almost as if the worse a system fails in the real world, the more credibility it gets in the academic community.

    Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by redefining it. Early 20th century Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

    I come back to my Christian faith. It is remarkable how I read the Bible and then look at the signs of what is happening in the world. The Bible warned us that in the last days the world and the world system would become so corrupted that it would lead to a global dictator who would bring the world to destruction and literally create hell on earth in only seven years. And then I put my Bible down and pick up my newspaper…

  19. Leigh Harwood Says:

    I no longer engage in conversation with my workmates on this specific issue, because as you correctly point out – you’re just basically wasting you’re own time! I can only hope that some of my skepticism has rubbed off on them on some level P.S. just enough to get them to start thinking!

    Take your point with respect to political correctness, although as far as I am concerned, it does not make me feel any better whatsoever. I can see right through it for the menace that it really is! Of course, I agree that political correctness is largely about controlling speech in terms of defining what is acceptable language and what is not. But it has so many other ‘guises’ in addition to the ‘controlling of speech’ factor!

    I have just finished reading a very informative book regarding both the nature and origin of Political Correctness. If time permits, I would really recommend the following book:

    ‘Anthony Brown’s: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Life’. You can purchase this through Amazon! A very interesting read!

    Once again. I agree with you’re take regarding an oversensitive and overly gullible public. These have been precisely my own thoughts for many years now – although I find it very disheartening indeed! People, by enlarge, automatically believe what they are being told and what is being reported to them – because they mistakenly associate ‘authority’ with ‘truth’ – thereby deluding themselves in the process. It is this underlying disposition which reduces their ability to question and seek out alternative viewpoints which contradict or undermine the ‘given line’ from authority. By no means am I suggesting that ‘authority’ is always in the wrong or necessarily a bad thing in itself. but the general public by enlarge are all too ready to accept without questioning.

    As for the end of times, I prefer to remain humble on this matter. Ideally, given a choice, I would prefer life to continue and flourish – because I value the earth and the people on it. However, if living means to accept ‘hell on earth’ and a ‘global dictator’ – then given a choice – I would prefer to be free of it altogether – by which I mean ‘death’! Either way, I cannot know the future, but it is within my power to hope for a better one!

    It’s strange, how all of these issues are interconnected on so many levels from ‘climate change’ to ‘world governance’, etc., but yet they all revolve around the same old unchanging truths: MANKIND’S QUEST FOR: POWER, STATUS, CONTROL AND GLORY! Each a delusion in themselves, because eventually we all die regardless of our achievements or status – which renders everything we have ever done – completely and utterly meaningless.

    Not to sound pessimistic, but too many people forget themselves!

  20. Michael Eden Says:


    Yep. I don’t want to be a “coward,” but there’s no point in getting into a pointless fight – even if you’ve got the “muscles” (or the arguments) to win.

    We DO have the arguments, of course. We’ve got the fact that virtually every form of actual hard physical science (tree rings, ice cores, coral reefs, etc.) which confirm that we have “unstoppable global warming” cycles about every 1,500 years. “Greenland” was called “Greenland” because it was GREEN. And we’re no warmer now than we have been countless times before. It is factually and scientifically dishonest to say otherwise. We’ve got “scientists” on the record deliberately falsifying results (and relying on computer modelling rather than “science”).

    But I’d just assume argue nuclear physics with my dog as argue with your average liberal. I will get much farther with my dog, who has a far better character and is at least as intelligent.

    I’ll have to look up the PC book and consider adding it to my library. It IS a worthy subject to explore.

    I am by no means an expert in humility or it’s exercise. But I know that the most humble people know what they believe (i.e., they do NOT succomb to abandoning that there truly is objective “truth”, or that God Who is Truth created us in His image to know Him and therefore to experience Truth); and they are humble in their attitude toward others, rather than in their beliefs. God gave every person the freedom to make their own choices, and the humble person can respect the person making a choice even if he/she does not respect the choice that person makes.

    And, of course there ARE things we can’t “know” with certainty in this world. And I agree with you that the humble person doesn’t demand that others believe as he/she does.

    Take “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever they’re calling it these days. Is it possible that we are truly in a period of extreme weather? Sure it is. Is it possible that man has SOMETHING to do with it? Sure it is. As a Christian, I know that Jesus said that in the last days we would see ALL KINDS of crazy atmospheric warnings that we were in the last days. So it’s not like I’m philosophically opposed to the basic idea that the earth’s climate is in crisis.

    What I “know” whether I’m “humble” or not is that the environmentalists basically stripped the science out of the issue and perverted it into a matter of redistributionist political ideology. When they told us there was a terrible crisis facing human existence, and that we HAD to take drastic action, but that ONLY the developed nations needed to actually alter their behavior (that countries like China – the world’s LARGEST polluter – shouldn’t have to make any changes at all)… Well, I drew the only reasonable conclusion.

    I have said that one of the reasons I blog is because if “they” come to start taking people away to camps, I hope they come for me in the very first wave. And the reason is that I’d rather be courageous now when it is relatively easy than have to be courageous AFTER the persecution starts coming. And it WILL be coming. So you can certainly see where I’m coming from when it comes to tyranny. I’d rather fight it NOW than fight it after it’s too late.

    Your last paragraph is a very apt description of human nature. It is quite biblical. Human beings have a sin nature; we have become corrupted. Genesis 11 records the SAME THING.

    Glenn Beck had a rabbi on his program who had a fascinating take on the Tower of Babel:,2933,602223,00.html

    LAPIN: First of all, he didn’t actually say — according to Chapter 11 in Genesis and these nine verses really reveal this dark secret that lies at the deepest recesses of the human soul, which is our susceptibility to become slaves. It’s there. It’s ready. It can pounce at any moment and transform us into serfs.

    And sure enough, these nine verses in Chapter 11 in Genesis, as you say, the King Nimrod doesn’t say let’s build a tower. He starts off with this extraordinary pronouncement: Hey, everybody, let’s build bricks. And then he says let’s build a city and a tower.

    Now, ordinarily people would say, hey, let’s build a city and a tower. A shining city on the hill, said John Winthrop. And people will say, how are you going to do it? Well, we’ll make bricks. No, here, the key thing was let’s make bricks.

    And what’s more he’s not identified necessarily or early as a king. He’s first identified as a hunter back in Chapter 10, verses 8-10.

    Now, here’s the key thing about that, Glenn — everybody was hunting.

    LAPIN: Today, it’s just the good guys hunt. But back then, everybody hunted. That’s how you ate.

    Why on earth would this one man, Nimrod, be identified as a hunter? Because he hunted, not animals, he hunted people. Not to kill them, he hunted people to seduce them into becoming his subjects and to allow him to become their master.

    BECK: OK. So, he said — Nimrod, a great hunter of man, he says, let’s build bricks. And then let’s build a city. Why did he say let’s build bricks first? What do the bricks represent?

    LAPIN: Bricks are really important things here. Later on in the five books of Moses, ancient Jewish wisdom highlights the fact that that an altar — an altar to God must not be built of bricks, right? It has to be built with stones.

    Why? Because this tension between the bricks and stones is absolutely crucial. Bricks and stones are a biblical metaphor for the way people should be stones, and the way we are easily pulled to be bricks.

    LAPIN: Two differences between bricks and stones.

    Number one, every brick is the same as every other brick. That’s the whole point. They’re totally interchangeable. If you want to turn people to bricks, you are able to turn them into interchangeable social economic cogs that can be just plugged around society.

    The second thing about bricks is they’re made by man. Stones are each unique. When we have a tradition in Western civilization that man is created the image of God, what it really means is that just as God is unique, so is every single human being is unique, just like a stone.

    Don’t allow other people to turn you into bricks, retain the personality of a person for which you are created.

    BECK: It’s a difference between “yes, I can,” and “yes, we can.”

    LAPIN: Yes, exactly.

    BECK: And Nimrod comes and there’s something about — you know, he had a — he had a new idea, right? Tell me about the new idea.

    LAPIN: The new idea is — and is presented as the Babel blueprint. This is not long forgotten story. This is actually something which is as relevant today as it will be tomorrow, as it was when Robespierre was conducting the French Revolution. The principle is always the same.

    The two competing ways of organizing human society: One is the Abraham vision of individual independence, individual accountability, God-centric — versus the idea of centralized control.

    LAPIN: So, Abraham gives the vision of individual independence, which always has to include economic impendence. That’s absolutely crucial. And sure enough, Abraham, first man in the Bible described as a wealthy man, a blessing, a good thing. Not a curse — a good thing.

    BECK: OK. All right. So, when we come back, the bricks and the mortar.

    And when — America, when you find out what the mortar means in Hebrew, right?

    LAPIN: Yes.

    BECK: Yes. What the mortar — what the translation — mortar is not mortar. Bricks are not bricks in this story. When you see it and you begin to see the parallels of what is happening today — remember this is a story to remind us what not to do.

    BECK: A hunter, a king — Nimrod — says, let’s build bricks and then we’ll build a tower. But the bricks represent people. He’s taking people and making them all uniform and exactly the same, right?

    But in that part, he says bricks — we’ll use bricks and mortar, right? What is the mortar? Bricks and mortar — why is the mortar part important?

    LAPIN: Yes. Well, so this Bible blueprint is a depiction for all time of how the world really works.

    BECK: OK.

    LAPIN: And one way it really works is that in every epoch, there is always going to be somebody who tries to seize power. What these 11 verses — these nine verses in Chapter 11 tell us is here are the things you have to watch out for. Here are the things that a potential tyrant is going to do in order to seduce you.

    Number one, he is going to have a tower. Now, a tower means reaching for the skies — appealing to everything that is great in human nature.

    Now, look, any leader, whether you’re taking care of your family, whether you’re running a business, whether you’re a military leader — you know, military recruiters don’t say: Hey, come join us. The food is horrible. You’re likely to get killed and you’re going to be a horribly hot — they don’t do that. Step forward and play a role to defend your country, be all you could be. You appeal to the highest in human nature.

    That’s what tyrants learn to do as well.

    BECK: Here’s what — here’s what he did though. He erased religion. He said God is not important, right?

    LAPIN: Correct, making a war on heaven. Yes.

    BECK: Right. We’re making a war on heaven, really, and we’re building a tower to reach heaven.

    LAPIN: And we don’t need God. We don’t need stones. We don’t need anything that God created because you are great, people are great. All of this is going to be built with bricks and we’re going to make you all interchangeable. That’s why tyrants will do exactly that.

    BECK: OK. And the mortar that holds those bricks together.

    LAPIN: Yes now, in Hebrew, mortar is very related — same word really as the word materialism. And you can actually even hear the similarity transfer into the English language. Mortar — M, T, R are the key consonants. Material — matter — same word essentially.

    And it’s very important because the lesson from ancient Jewish wisdom here is that you can bond people and unify people with a sense of common spiritual purpose, but if you’re going to eliminate the spiritual — if you’re going to take God entirely out of the picture — then you can unify people through materialism.

    Get people in debt, use your credit cards, folks. Buy stuff. Acquire stuff. And then you can rent storage facilities to keep the stuff you bought that you don’t need.

    But that way, we’re all in this together and we can all talk about the great commercials we saw during the football game. And we’re all in this great materialistic splurge because it will unite people.

    BECK: America, I want you — I want you to think about this. What he’s saying here is — the king made everybody into bricks so they’re all exactly the same. Everyone is equal. Everyone is equal.

    And then the mortar that holds it together is the stuff, the material. Not the — not their common experiences of spiritualist or even history.

    Think about this: What holds us together as a nation? Two years ago, did you know a lot of our own history? How many Americans right now can’t tell you the Signers, can’t tell you anything about the American Revolution, can’t tell you about Frederick Douglass, can’t tell you anything about our history?

    But we all know Nike. We all know the Mercedes Benz logo. We all know everything about materialism. If you take — think about what you’re headed for — if you take our materialism, our stuff, our wealth, our TVs, our phones, if you take that away, what holds our bricks together?

    LAPIN: Exactly right. And what any tyrant knows is that you cannot enslave a people that believe in the boss. You have can’t. And so, therefore, any tyranny will always begin to develop a hostility to traditional biblical faith, a hostility to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a hostility to biblical commitment of any kind at all.

    You always find that, whether it’s Cuba or the Soviet Union or anywhere else, secularism becomes the religion of the day. In fact, I gave it a name — secular fundamentalism, I think, is the religion of the day.

    BECK: OK. So, I want to take a break because I guess where we go now is God gets mad and punishes them but actually, this is a happy ending.

    LAPIN: It’s wonderful ending.

    BECK: Yes.

    LAPIN: And because it’s one filled with hope for us, I think.

    BECK: Right. Because it’s not — God doesn’t get mad and he doesn’t punish them. And then we’re going to — then we’re going to end where we began with the actual picture of the Tower of Babel. Blow your mind! Coming up.

    BECK: I have been telling you in the last few years that higher food prices are coming. I told you earlier today that I saw report out of — I think it was Shanghai — out of China, one of the big distributor for clothing in America, JC Penney, Wal-Mart and — what was the other one? Target? Oh, the Gap. The Gap is saying — all three of those retailers are now saying that clothing prices could go up as much as 30 percent by spring.

    Please prepare. Please prepare. We’re going to help you do those things in the coming weeks, in days and months quite honestly, because you’re going to be presented with a choice.

    And the choice is: We can be bricks and we can — “yes, we can,” or “yes, I can.” And I can reach out to my community and I can reach out to my neighbor and I can help. And together, a collection of strong eyes will make the strongest “we” the world has ever seen. We have done it before.

    Now, there is a new global order that is coming. George Soros doesn’t seem to have a place for the American free market system or the American system at all. Now, we’re being shoved head first by our own people. We have seen bill after bill that does nothing but collapse our system.

    Health care already costs — they are already going through the roof. At least 111 companies have been declared exempt from having to use Obamacare — many of them, the ones who helped design it. If it’s the most historic bill of all time, why would anyone, who helped design it, especially, want to be exempt from it? It is so delicious. Even the group who helped designed the bill, the unions, getting exemptions from it now. It’s a job killer and an economy killer. You know it and I know it and so do they.

    Europe is ahead of us. They’re on fire because of the similar policies that they have done years ago and they’ve all failed.

    What they created over there is coming apart at the seams. But instead of admitting wrong, they’re doubling down and trying to force the entire globe in a new world order.

    This may seem like a new story to you, but a new world order is not. The very fist time that this was tried — let me bring in Rabbi Lapin. He is the president of the American Alliance for Jews and Christians.

    Rabbi, the very first time socialism or communism or new world order was tried was the Tower of Babel, right?

    LAPIN: Yes.

    BECK: OK. So let’s just pick the story up. If you missed the story — if you missed the first half of the show, DVR the show, man. What are you thinking? The idea was this hunter of men started to erase God. He became king.

    LAPIN: Yes.

    BECK: He said, Let’s make people all like bricks, all the same, not like stone. The mortar that will hold those bricks together is materialism.

    LAPIN: Yes.

    BECK: And we’ll have this utopia. We’ll build a tower that will reach the heavens.

    LAPIN: Yes. You will be able to fulfill your highest aspirations in that fashion.

    BECK: We’re all bricks.

    LAPIN: And I urge people to read the story and to listen to us, not as if we’re describing some long forgotten historic event, but we’re describing what is really happening today and will happen in our grandchildren’s generation somewhere in the world again.

    It will happen over and over again.

    BECK: OK. So now, tell me the happy ending, because I’ve always read the story and God gets angry and comes down and he scatters the people.

    LAPIN: OK, fine.

    Well, to just put into context, the surest indicator that this is going on is when your leaders try to turn you from stones in to bricks. And there are lots of different ways that’s done depending on the epoch in history.

    Right now, for instance, you might find that people might want to get you out of one of the most beautiful expressions of freedom and independence, the automobile. You can buy it in whatever color you want, whatever make you want. You can go whenever you like, when you like.

    No, we want you all in public transport. And it’s always for the tower, always for a higher purpose. We’re going to save the environment.
    We’re going to have fewer cars. Surely, you want to save the environment.

    And then, housing — where the housing is in Cabrini Green in Chicago and Moscow, the government housing always looks the same — everybody in ticky-tacky little boxes, because we want everybody to be like bricks.

    And there will also be a war on state’s rights because we’re taking away individuals’ rights. We even take away the states rights. It’s all going to go to the tower in the middle. And we see that happening as well.

    So the blueprint of Babel is absolutely reliable.

    And God comes along and as you correctly said earlier, doesn’t punish the people. The name of God used in the Hebrew text is not judgment God; it’s the mercy god.

    And he is saying, I’m on the side of people. I’m not on the side of tyrannical government. I’m on the side of the Abraham model which happens to be the model subscribed to passionately and fervently by the founders of the United States.

    BECK: So what he says — because we’re going to have to take a break here — what he basically says is I’m going to make you back into stone, not into bricks.

    LAPIN: That’s exactly right. Exactly.

    BECK: And that’s why he confuses their language because they’re no longer working as one.

    LAPIN: Yes. He’s not crazy about the one world idea.

    I believe that pretty much nails it on the head. There has ALWAYS been a desire in depraved man to unite in the name of humanity and some form of secularism. “Religion” is demonized primarily because it prevents the kind of humanist unity that these people want. (As you describe, there is a coherent line of thought coming from numerous sources seeking the same goal/agenda).

    Now, Paul takes up with this in the New Testament. He points out that IN CHRIST the human race CAN BE united. We can all be one in Christ. Ultimately, that will happen. That’s what I live for.

    I have a short-term “pessimism” which understands that God told us the day would come when the world would in fact unite under the control of a one-world global dictator: the Antichrist or the beast. Today millions if not billions of people believe that the human race can solve their own problems without God. They believe that Christians are an impediment to their glorious Utopia. And God will give them the chance to see if their theory works.

    God will take His people out of the way (the Rapture), and give secular humanity the chance to solve the world’s problems. When Jesus Christ returns just seven years later, it will literally be to prevent the human race from completely destroying itself.

    That said, the last page of Revelation makes it clear: God wins in the end.

    That gives me a great deal of ultimate optimism.

  21. Leigh Harwood Says:

    You know, Michael, people in general puzzle me!

    I don’t pretend to be anything more than what I am – because in reality – I know that I am not. I try to lead an honest life, often failing in many ways to live up to my own standards. But ultimately – I am aware of my own insignificance!

    You state ‘that there has always been a desire in depraved man to unite in the name of humanity and some form of secularism’. Why? Why is it considered so important for people to ‘unite’ and ‘be as one’? It seems such a non-issue to me and a very unimportant one at that.

    I cannot comprehend this ‘controlling’ aspect of human nature. Perhaps, I am naive – but the logic defies me altogether.

    I have a belief in God. Always have and always will. That is sufficient for me in itself. I feel no need to improve upon myself – because I am satisfied in my faith. I can’t explain it in words, but there’s just a feeling of ‘knowing God’ without ‘knowing’ God!.

    It really does mystify me, why certain people feel so compelled to do evil in this life. It’s such an easy way out!

  22. Michael Eden Says:


    I think I can field that question (“Why is it considered so important for people to ‘unite’ and ‘be as one’?”).

    Man has been hard-wired to search for meaning greater than his/her own individual existence.

    God created us in His own image, and He created us to have fellowship with Him. Hence the famous quote from Augustine: “Thou movest us to delight in praising Thee; for Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”

    Literary analysis show that the great Romances and Adventures that captivate both girls and boys and men and women stem from two deep desires: the longing for adventure that requires something of us in a struggle that transcends us, and the desire for intimacy – to have someone truly know us for ourselves.

    Everybody wants to be part of something. We cannot live in a vacuum. Our five senses are all designed to enable us to experience a community and be part of it.

    People WANT to be part of something that is greater than themselves: of their Maker, or of a Cause, of a Society, of a State. And those who are less inclined to “be part of something great” have no power. They can’t shape anything because they don’t act. They just get tossed back and forth like waves in a stormy sea.

    So, given that God “hard-wired” us to seek fulfillment in Him, He that is far greater than we as Creator of the entire Universe, what happens when we don’t seek our fulfillment in Him? It turns out that we are NOT the dominant species on this planet: there is God and His angels; and there is Satan and his demons. And both of these supernatural powers are greater, stronger and more intelligent than we are. We will ultimately serve one or we will serve the other. And there really aren’t any “neutrals” in the ultimate sense.

    An analogy can be the war between the Republicans and the Democrats. There are two fundamentally different opposing visions that are nearly opposite one another being presented. Should we be Keynesian or should we be laissez-faire? Should we have a giant all-powerful federal government or should we have very limited government? Should we have a massive stimulus or should we let the free market right itself? Should we have ObamaCare and socialized medicine or should we have a powerful private health industry? Is global warming the kind of crisis that we should fundamentally transform our society and our way of life to deal with (while refusing to require developing nations and communist countries to do anything) or should we be extrememly skeptical of the evidence supporting that radicalism? There’s two sides, representing two very different ideologies and worldviews.

    Now, let’s say you don’t want to be part of either side, Republican or Democrat. You’re not doing anything. A pox on both their houses. But here’s the thing: If the wrong side prevails, is able to truly impose its agenda, and you could have been helping the right side in the struggle but didn’t, are you not part of the problem that allowed the wrong side to win? You SHOULD have been taking sides and helping the right side win. History is FILLED with times when people and nations and entire civilizations simply ceased to exist because too many people didn’t take the stands they needed to take and they were therefore wiped out.

    That’s why Jesus said rightly, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30). If you sit on the fence and watch the world go by, you have chosen not to take the side of what is right. Which is to say, you DID choose a side. You chose not to be on HIS side.

    (Btw, when I say “you” I simply mean the 2nd person pronoun; I don’t mean “you” as in “Leigh”).

    So my response is that 1) we have a hard-wired desire to be part of something that is greater than ourselves and 2) that we are caught up in a greater cosmic struggle above and beyond ourselves and we are not the masters we think we are. We will either ultimately either unite in Christ or we will unite into the demonic world system that opposes Christ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: