"I
am power! I am power!"
A chant led by Bella Abzug at UN's World
Conference for Women
"The
female liberation movement is developing in the context of international social
revolution."[1]
Sisterhood
"I did not... rise again on the third day to show you what I could do, but what
you can do. Yours is the power. Yours is the glory![2]
Barbara Marx Hubbard's message from the
spirit she calls Christ
"I
am the Lord, that is My name; and my glory I will not give to another...."
Isaiah 42:8
"We are all connected!"
That theme, proclaimed from a poster welcoming women to the June 1995 celebration
called "Women and the United Nations," echoed the hope of feminists around the
world. Picturing a circle of dancing women, it introduced a new art exhibit which showed
"women of all nations celebrating the strengths, diversity and shared experiences
of all women."
It didn't take long to see that the "shared experiences of all women"
was pain and oppression. Pictures of sad, angry, contorted, and naked women lined the
long bayfront hallway leading to the San Francisco auditorium where women were gathering
to discuss the coming United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Matching the
theme, an oversized collage featured a nude goddess with hands reaching out to a
turbulent, hurting world. Dark faces crying out in agony surrounded her long
surrealistic yellow body.
Only a few pictures offered hope. A nude pastel-colored woman symbolized the UN's
solution to pain: a worldwide change in consciousness causing humanity to see itself as one united people, speaking with one voice, and "thinking in
common... so that the experience of the mass is behind the simple voice."
If the UN has its way, that simple, collective voice would be forced to speak its
ideology. That ideology colored all the promotional literature and gifts offered
at the entrance to the auditorium: the campaign buttons that called for
"Choice" and the "ERA"; and the books and pamphlets promoting
Planned Parenthood, NOW, and the American Association of University Women.
I picked up a book titled Choices from
one of the display tables and scanned the pages. Published by the Angry Isis Press, it
was full of caustic cartoons mocking pastors, Christian parents, the Bible, and pro-life
activists. Many drawings looked familiar. They were drawn by the creators of syndicated
series such as Cathy, Feiffer, Sylvia, and Doonesbury.
Apparently, these artists agreed that extra-marital sex with freedom from
consequences is a woman's right. Any moral or legal deterrent makes her victim of a
patriarchal culture ruled by men "trying to control women's bodies."[3]
This was not a happy place. Nor did it welcome men. My husband came as far as the
entrance, but noticing the cold stares, he chose to leave. "I hoped he would go
somewhere else and let you come in alone," said the women who sold me the $10
ticket.
I looked at the program she gave me. "We have come together," it
announced, "to honor the involvement of women," "envision and forecast a
future agenda that will include and empower all women," and work together to
"end war and dissonance in the world."
Noble goals, I thought to myself,
especially the last one. But how could the United Nations end expressions of disunity
except by worldwide totalitarian controls?
The meeting began half an hour late—not bad for UN-type meetings. The
speakers gave a preview of the upcoming UN
Conference on Women. About 5000 official delegates and participants from over 180
nations would meet in Beijing in September 1995 to finish the international document
declaring the feminist plan for global transformation of schools, homes, work, and
values. Starting a few days earlier, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) would meet
in Huairou, about 30 miles away. Across that awkward distance, more than 25,000 NGO
participants—representing groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Focus on the
Family—would try to influence the official delegates in Beijing.
Three months later, the Beijing Conference would begin. The pain and oppression
felt by women around the world would be re-imagined to fit feminist needs for victims
and scapegoats—two essential players in their planned revolution.
Goddesses at the NGO forum
"We are building a Shrine to the Goddesses,"[4] announced the leader of a workshop
titled "Goddess and Women, Hand in Hand." The Shrine would be constructed in
the Peace Tent, one of many tents built to house special displays and events.
A shrine to the goddesses? In
China, which seemed so hostile to religious expressions? Diane Knippers, President
of the Institute on Religion and Democracy,[5]
pondered the paradox. When she arrived in Beijing, a flier from the Chinese
"Security Committee" warned her to "refrain from staging religious
activities or distributing religious publicity material"[6]
outside designated areas. She eventually found the place designated for Christians -- a
dingy structure at the far edge of the conference site. Yet, the Peace Tent was in the
center of activities.
"The goddess was everywhere," she explained later. "The opening
ceremony of the NGO Forum was held in a giant Olympic Stadium, the end of which boasted
a huge steel-gray profile of the Goddess of Joy.'" And women soon filled the Shrine
to the Goddesses with all kinds of goddess figurines, pictures and small statues. Those
who had no idol to offer could simply create one on the spot using the handy
"paper-doll cut-outs", glue and glitter.
The star of the NGOs was former congresswoman Bella Abzug, head of WEDO (Women's
Environmental and Development Organization), the leading feminist NGO.
It sponsored a series of meetings called "Daughters of the Earth." Each
session was dedicated to a different goddess -- Athena, Ishtar, Nu Kwa, Tara, Pasowee,
etc.
At the first meeting, a Brazilian leader presented a thank offering
of fruit to "Mother Earth." Then she lifted a Christian cross saying,
"The people from my community used to believe in the crucifixion but we have
decided 'No more crucifixion.' We believe in life!" She began chanting, "We are power. . .
No one empowers anyone, we do this ourselves."
Bella stood up and the rest followed. Clasping each other's hands, they raised
their arms and chanted, "I am power! I am power!"
"Welcome, daughters of the Earth," intoned Abzug when the chant died
down. Her words echoed the militancy of WEDO's official warcry, "A Woman's
Creed":
"We
have survived femicide. We have rebelled. . . . We are whale-song and rainforest. . . .
the lost and despised. . . . The exercise of imagining is an act of creation. The act of
creation is an exercise of will. All this is political. And possible. . . . . Believe
it. We are the women who will transform the world."[7]
Funded in part by the United Methodist Women's Division, WEDO "advocates
50/50 quotas of men and women in all government and policy-making bodies; prefers
socialist economic models over free market options; argues against 'traditional family
values' and 'fundamentalism' . . . supports 'abortion as a basic method of fertility
regulation' and an essential reproductive right; and seeks to indoctrinate children and
youth on its understanding of 'women's rights,'"[8]
wrote Diane Knippers. Most of these demands were included in the final Beijing Platform
for Action. The officials from the UN, the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund who joined the last WEDO meeting added their unspoken authority to its
revolutionary claims.[9]
WEDO led the march toward feminist power, but countless other groups followed. An
"anti-imperialism" parade showed the political mood at the NGO Forum. Its
banner bore an ominously familiar slogan: "Down with US Imperialism. Women of the
Toiling Class Unite."[10]
No
tolerance for Christians
You
may remember that the UN dubbed 1995 the Year of Tolerance. Yet, the narrow tolerance
shown in Beijing excluded all opponents to the feminist agenda.
Women could speak freely as long as they fit the planned "consensus,"
and UN organizers would block pro-life groups that tried to “unbalance the
proceedings.”[11]
As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet
State, “naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on
for the foes of socialism.”
[12]
"I think. . . those in favor of the Beijing draft platform simply don't want
their positions challenged," wrote journalist Michael Miller, "and they're
resorting to straw-man arguments, doublespeak, and name-calling."[13]
Dissenters were discredited as "extremist religious groups." When asked
for an example of an "extremist" group, a member of Pew Global Stewardship
Initiative,[14]
who had used that label, named Focus on the Family.[15]
Focus on the Family? Extremist? Absurd as it seems to many Christians, one
wonders what it and other pro-life groups have done to earn this distinction? Sure, they
support human rights for unborn babies as well as traditional parents. But don't they
share the right to express their convictions? Are all
conservative groups that support the family and the fetus considered extremist? What
"rights" does this UN conference really
support? These are important questions, for
if freedom is only for those who agree, it's not freedom at all.
The hostility toward Christians and other "extremists" raises questions
about some of the hard-won guarantees in the Platform for Action. The following item
seems to promise religious freedom, but can we be sure?
"The right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion is inalienable and must be universally enjoyed.... However, it
is acknowledged that any form of extremism may have a negative impact on women and can
lead to violence and discrimination."[16]
"Women, Religion, and Culture," one of the many seminars on how to
fight fundamentalism, labeled Christianity "imperialistic, patriarchal,
colonialist, capitalistic, egocentric, racial, and homophobic." The leader of the
WCC (World Council of Churches) seminar added, "This is a religion so corrupted I
call it religious fundamentalism."[17]
Sadly, many American churches have believed the lies. A Presbyterian (USA)
staffer at a workshop sponsored by the WCC claimed that "messages from the Bible,
from church tradition and authorities had helped to perpetuate and justify domestic
violence, incest, child abuse and sexual exploitation of girls and women by
clergy." She suggested that "any element of Christian tradition that denies
the full humanity of women must be discarded, ignored or transformed."[18]
(Emphasis added)
Do you see the seeds of persecution?
"If your religious faith was a bit less eclectic and experimental,"
said Diane Knippers, "you quickly got the impression that you were part of the
problem rather than part of the solution."[19]
On the other hand, "all types of weird spirituality and invocations of the Goddess
flourished":
"The
irony is that the European Union, once the heart of Christendom, is most recalcitrant in
accepting [rights for the family and freedom of religion]. As I sat outside the room
where the negotiations were taking place, I watched an African ambassador erupt at one
point. Referring to the Europeans, he asked, 'What's wrong with these people? They don't
believe in family! They don't believe in religion!'
"This is
not quite right. They do believe in some kinds of religion. A few days ago, I got a
mailing. It said: 'What a success! The shrine will travel!' For a suggested donation of
$100, one can host the Shrine of the Goddess. . . .
The Goddess is coming soon to a location near you."[20]
Decoding feminist language
Just where
does the family fit in the feminist utopia? The
three-word theme of the Beijing conference—equality, development, peace—didn’t
give a clue. So when Chinese leader Chen Muhua opened the official conference on
September 4 with those words, "Equality,
development and peace are the common
demand,"[21]
everyone seemed to agree.
But a different set of goals soon became evident.
"There is a massive cover up of these ideological positions and moral
policies that are anti-family and at war against human nature,"[22]
said Nancy Schaefer, president and founder of Family Concerns, Inc.. She explained:
"Every
woman here supports women's economic and political rights. Every woman here supports
more opportunities, better education and health and the stopping of violence and abuse,
but these issues are only a smoke screen being used as a front to ultimately promote the
radical gender agenda....
"The US official delegation, the gender feminist Non-Government Organizations
headed by Bella Abzug, and representatives on staff at the UN are coordinating a
worldwide feminist revolution and cover up."[23]
A new feminist language hid the goals
driving the feminist agenda: abolishing male leadership at every level of society and
taking control of all issues that affect Western women. The official reasons for the
conference dealt with more obvious and global concerns: hunger, illness, drought and
violence. Yet, Western delegates seemed
focused on feminist issues such as reproductive rights and sexual orientation. Why?
"We intend to fight like mad for all we want," said Donna Shalala, US Secretary of Health and Human Services. "There
is extensive opposition to sexual orientation . . . we have had opposition on other
issues. . . but we shall overcome
them."[24]
Feminist leaders had planned their offensive long before they came to Beijing. At
the "PrepCom" (Preparatory Committee meeting) they discussed the meaning of
the word "gender." Mentioned 216 times in the pre-conference Platform for
Action adopted at their meeting, it was defined as a "socially constructed"
role, not a biological fact. "Gender," they said, "indicates that sex
roles and behaviors are artificially constructed and freely chosen."[25]
Do you see how this reasoning fits feminist goals? Lesbians win sympathy for
their cause by blaming those "socially constructed" gender roles on male
oppression. This frees them to spread their message through public education and
increase their number. The larger their number, the greater their political strength. No
wonder they fought hard to gain access to the world's children through
"gender-sensitive" classroom lessons.
"We will not be forced back to the 'biology is destiny' concept,"[26]
thundered Bella Abzug, a "venerable feminist warhorse," as news writer
Frederica Mathewes-Green calls her.
Some feminist leaders even wanted to promote "an equality of five
genders." They would include "male and female heterosexuals, male and female
homosexuals, and trans or bisexuals."[27]
Gone is God's view of gender: "He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female.'" (Matthew 19:4)
No one wanted to define the phrase "gender perspective" which was
mentioned 45 times in the Platform for Action. When Nancy Schaefer asked the US
delegation for a definition, their response was, "We don't define terms!"
"If they don't," asked Nancy later, "how can they possibly expect
186 nations to sign on? Will they bully
them into accepting the platform by linking their approval to financial aid?"[28]
The new usage of the term "violence" added to the confusion. It
obviously wasn't limited to "the use of physical force so as to damage or
injure."[29] What, then, did the Anglican
Women's Network mean when they said, "We strive to eliminate economic, political,
domestic, cultural, environmental, religious and sexual violence against women?"
"The Network's goal of eliminating violence sounded entirely worthwhile
until we read the fine print," said Diane Knippers. "What they are eliminating
is any meaningful definition of the word 'violence.'" She gave some examples to
show the new usage:
-
Economic violence
included 'unequal distribution of wealth.
. . as evidence by world debt' and 'no
wages for women's work.'
-
Political violence
ranged from genuine examples of violence [such as rape] . . .
to 'women's exclusion in decision-making.'
-
Religious violence
was 'intolerance and persecution of women who will not conform' and 'exclusion of
women from religious leadership.'[30]
-
Sexual violence
[included] 'compulsory
heterosexuality.'[31]
"In the end, the Network's statement
deconstructs language and demeans the plight of women who truly suffer violence,"
concluded Diane Knippers. Rwandan delegate
Aloysie Inymba agreed. "I'm here because my people are starving," she said,
"and we want to discuss a cure for malaria, not abortions."[32]
Power
to change the world?
Some wonder if the conference will matter in the long run. They cite
well-known UN problems: shortage of money, lack of consensus, etc. So will Beijing make
a difference?
"Yes, enormously," says Diane Knippers, who called it "an
arrogant, intrusive, and comprehensive experiment in social engineering."[33]
She explained why:
"The Platform for Action
adopted in Beijing will be used as a standard for economic, political, and social
politics at home and abroad. The Platform will have particular impact in American
universities and will be used within the education establishment to determine what our
children are taught. Through this conference the values of the Western left will be
forced onto other countries."[34]
Actually, the economic, political, and social policies of the platform have already
been accepted in American universities. In an article, aptly titled "A Road to Hell
Paved with Good Intentions," respected economist Thomas Sowell[35]
points out that "Marxism as an ideal continues to flourish on American college
campuses, as perhaps nowhere else in the world."[36]
Don't underestimate an idea whose time has come. Whether Marxist utopianism or
feminist socialism, they spread like cancer when the climate is right.
Take the word "gender." Once "safely cordoned off inside the
confines of the academy," warns a Wall Street Journal editorial, "[it] spread
to the courts, government and Microsoft Word processing program. . . . Lately the PC
wisteria has been spotted wrapping itself around elected bodies and international
conferences."[37]
According to Donna Shalala, the Clinton White House was committed to carry out
the Beijing Platform. As a starter, it would open an "Office of Women's Outreach
and Initiatives" which would direct a year-long process that would "involve
every federal agency in carrying out the Platform." That's a big first step toward
acceptance!
Alan Wisdom, Vice President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, is right
when he says, "We must re-examine the common assumption that the Platform is just
another bloated, meaningless effusion of UN rhetoric. The American public may be
surprised and dismayed when it sees a whole new raft of intrusive, expensive federal
programs coming down the river."[38]
Some of those intrusive federal programs have already been put in place through
the new education system. Its favorite
slogan fits right into the Beijing declaration: "It takes a whole village to raise
a child"— the theme of Hillary Clinton’s book. Both hide a warning that parents
may be forced to share their God-given right to "train up a child in the way he
should go"[39]
with schools, counselors, psychologists, and health workers determined to teach a
contrary set of values.
"Little by little, children are losing their families, and the government is
becoming a surrogate parent,"[40]
wrote Nancy Schaefer.
The Beijing declaration did finally consent to call the family "the basic
unit of society."[41] But the same paragraph also warns
us about coming restrictions: "The upbringing of children requires shared
responsibility of parents, women and men and society as a whole." It adds a
reminder that a woman's role is changing: "Maternity, motherhood, parenting. . .
must not. . . restrict the full
participation of women in society." Are
they implying that women must join the workforce to fulfill the 50/50 workplace quotas?
But, some will protest, didn't the Beijing Declaration promise "freedom of
thought, conscience, religion and belief?" Yes, it did, but remember the
reservation: "any form of extremism may have a negative impact on women and can
lead to violence and discrimination."[42]
That sounds like a wise precaution, but it can also be used against all who
oppose the feminist agenda. The key is: who will define "extremism"? Will
people be free to follow their conscience and choose their religion -- as long as they
don't choose the radical feminist view of "extremism": resisting the new
social values?
Like the US education system, the platform would require adults as well as
children to be trained, re-trained, and
remediated through "gender sensitive"[43]
courses to make sure they pass the new social standards for acceptance into the global
workforce. Its education agenda seems to be an extension of the
World Conference on
Education for All (WCEFA),[44]
the international system which shares the same six basic goals and global agenda as the
US education system.
I know this sounds complicated. If I tried to summarize the psychological
manipulation, politically correct requirements, attitudinal tests and lifetime
surveillance that comes with this global education network, you probably wouldn't
believe me. Instead, I suggest that you read my book,
Brave
New Schools, and see for yourself. It
will show you that the Beijing agenda fits right into the worldwide education network.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," (Hosea 4:6) said God.
Can you hear the grief in His words? If we
close our eyes to the danger signals all around, we won't be ready for the challenges
ahead. Don't forget, if this global education movement isn't stopped, parents as well as
children will be molded to fit the feminist and globalist plan for transformation.
Keep in mind, the clamor for
global socialism didn't begin with the feminist
movement. Karl Marx and other revolutionaries started it long before women had a public
voice. There's reason to believe they are merely using the women's demands to create the
right climate for change. In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference,
James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF),
stated that --
"Children and women
can be our Trojan Horse for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding
democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic
development."[45]
A
Trojan horse?
Do you remember the Communist Manifesto? It announced a proletarian revolution
which would empower the poor by redistributing all wealth. Resources would be shared
according to need, everyone would be equal, and justice would reign. Men and women alike
would join the socialist workforce, and their children would be trained by the state.
It happened, didn't it? All but the
leaders became almost equally poor, and all the children were indoctrinated with an
anti-Christian socialist philosophy. Morally
and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Did you notice the similarities between the Communist Manifesto and the Beijing
Declaration? In Beijing, radical feminists
finally won worldwide -- though far from unanimous -- support for the revolution they
have proclaimed for years. Look at the parallels:
-
Both
revolutions are rooted in modern social sciences such as psychology and
sociology, which help establish the victimhood, blame and anger needed to fuel the
revolution.
-
Both
emphasize education as the means to social transformation.
-
Both
use synthesis (a psychological strategy to blend opposing views into new
compromise beliefs that fit the goal) as a strategy to establish
"consensus."
-
Both
appeal to the masses by promising equality through Marxist economics.
-
Both
spread hatred toward any "extremist belief" that refuses to
compromise and affirm their
"consensus."
-
Both
lead to religious, moral and economic bankruptcy.
As you saw earlier, the Platform for Action reshuffles job
"opportunities" for both men and women. Employers would have to demonstrate
50/50 gender equality by hiring as many women as men, especially at leadership levels,
in all areas: the media, education, industry, politics,
etc. "One imagines women dragged away from nursing babies in order to serve on
village councils, whether they want to or not,"[46]
said reporter Frederica Mathewes-Green.
Which women would run for top political, educational and media positions -- the
leading platforms for changing culture? Probably more feminists with politically correct
values than women with traditional values. If radical feminists win their 50/50
representation in government, how many would represent your
values?
Would Jane Fonda? Billed as "a good-will ambassador" of the UN on a
Chinese television show, she affirmed China's coercive abortion and one-child policy.
"All countries should understand what China understands about population
control," she said. ". . . I am embarrassed that my own country does not have
an official program."[47]
How would employers meet the 50/50 quota if some women choose not to enter the
workforce? It's hard to say. Would men be dismissed and forced to work at home? They may
-- as a drastic means to reverse old trends and traditions.
The Platform for Action indicates that all parents would have to model equality
at home.[48]
If they don't, they could face remediation[49]
(the social retraining or psychological indoctrination programs already being
implemented through the new education system). If they refuse to reject the old
"sexist" roles, they would surely face punitive measures -- perhaps special
taxes or loss of social privileges such as drivers licenses or jobs.[50]
A new international surveillance system[51]
would ensure that traditional family roles are eradicated and all economic activity
tracked and recorded.[52]
Operating through nations or regions but controlled by the United Nations,[53]
the personalized data files would expose families that refuse to follow feminists
guidelines. Women would be assessed for "unremunerated work" -- housework,
child care, helping others, community service, etc.[54]
What does that mean?
"Each family would be given a 'dependency ratio,'" says Joan Veon.
"As part of the economic filling for the global cake, it shows whether or not a
household is producing enough to warrant its existence." Under the guise of
"gender analysis statistics," it would
"measure how people spend their leisure time
and the [number of hours they spend] caring for dependents and working for
family businesses, etc. When you [link this kind of surveillance to the
regulations needed for] 'sustainable development' -- which says the world
has too many people and the U.N. must be the caretaker of the earth's
resources -- you get the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of measuring 'who is
producing and who is consuming the earth's resources... all under the guise
of 'women's issues.'"[55]
"By
using women as the 'Trojan Horse'," explained Joan Veon, "the United Nations
would overrule national laws and conform the economics of each country to the concept of
'sustainable development.' Everyone would be assessed both for their economic value and
their burden to the global economy. If fully implemented, this program would classify
every person according to how much they produce and consume[56]
of planetary resources."[57]
That sounds good or scary, depending on where you stand. If you have believed the
doomsday scenarios painted by politically correct environmentalists, you will probably
agree that the planet already houses more people than it can sustain. On the other hand,
if you have read the scientific facts[58]
that expose the sensational and inflated scenarios (ozone "hole" destruction,
global warming, melting ice caps, etc.) and outrageous doomsday predictions, you may
shudder at the prospect of letting environmental "experts" and globalist
politicians set the limits on available resources -- and the number of people allowed to
live and use them.
Falsifying
the evidence
Let me assure you of two important facts. First, the world is full of genuine and
devastating environmental problems. Most have to do with local pollution, deforestation,
or depletion of ocean life. They usually
required local solutions, so they fail to stir enough public indignation to kindle
global outrage. Yet, they affect millions of people on marginal incomes, destroy vital
habitats and farm land, and get far less media attention than they deserve.
Second, unless God allows the kinds of droughts and floods that devastated Israel
when His people turned to other gods, we are not about to run out of food. Under normal
conditions, we can raise far more than globalists want us to believe.[59]
The main obstacle to feeding hungry masses is distribution, and nothing will harm
well-meaning efforts to preserve perishable food more than the horrendous ozone hoax
which persuaded nations around the world to sign the Montreal Protocol banning CFC --
the basic coolant in refrigerators.
You see, the green movement is another Trojan horse, and it works hand-in-hand
with the worldwide feminist movement. It was formed on college campuses in the sixties
by four counter-culture groups: radical feminists, Marxists (the new left), peace-niks
(the anti-war movement), and hippies seeing spiritual enlightenment. Then as now, their
common enemies were Western culture and Christian values.
Since then, they have learned to win support for planetary management by raising
consciousness -- a skill fine-tuned by feminist revolutionaries. With the media on their
side, they don't even need a real global
crisis to build awareness and prompt action. They just need believable stories. What
counts is perception, not facts. As Stanford
climate modeler Stephen Schneider points out,
"We need to get some broad
based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have... Each of us
has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."[60]
Al Gore described just the right "scary scenario" at the 1992 United
Nations World Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro:
"...an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer," he said, "[and] huge
quantities of carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons are trapping heat in the
atmosphere and raising global temperatures."[61]
"But
isn't that true?" you might ask.
No, it's not.
In a chapter on
environmental education in Brave New Schools,
I describe and document the environmental hoax and its political purpose. You can find
some of the information relating to the mythical ozone “hole” in the end notes.[62]
Honest and respected scientists, who are not intimidated by government threats to cut
their research grants, are appalled at the politicized reports that are replacing
genuine science. They know well that the United Nations and many U.S. politicians are
far more devoted to political ideologies than to scientific realities.[63]
