PZ Watch: PZ invokes Nietzsche

An article by Karen Armstrong annoys PZ, so he invokes Nietzsche:

“Nietzsche, of course, wasn't arguing for a literal death of a deity, nor was he claiming that religion had disappeared from the world. He was making a narrower argument, that in his culture (19th century Europe), the concept of god had lost its material and moral authority. There is no central defining source of absolute truth, and we human beings have to rebuild our values around something new, other than this notion of a celestial monarch (he personally thought the new value was a "will to power", individual ambition and aspiration).
That's still true.”

PZ gets that right; Nietzche defined an end to all morality and replaced it with the amoral struggle for complete dominance through power, the only meaningful ethic in a deity-free universe. PZ goes on to describe fundamentalism (ie Christianity) as a reaction to Nietzche’s declaration.

“God is dead; he is no longer a vital element in how human beings interact in a meaningful, productive way with the universe. Modern fundamentalism is basically a series of aftershocks as cultures struggle to deal with the fall of gods.”

PZ fails to mention that the “death of God” was the basis for Nietzsche’s philosophical masterpiece, “Anti-rationalism”. The “Will to Power” that PZ does mention is a subset of that philosophy, and basically refers to amoral anarchy with the strongest willed fighters becoming dominant – an evolutionary tenet taken to its logical conclusion by Nietzsche. PZ continuously fails to grasp this outcome of his/Nietzsche's philosophy:

“We often get labeled "militant atheists". It's a joke. Militant atheists would be the type who argue that we should charge in and deconvert populations at the point of a sword — we don't (well, maybe Hitchens leans that way, a little bit). We need modern societies to evolve away from religion, and that means education, local adoption and integration of secular motives into existing institutions, and gradually shift to a rational foundation in a way that doesn't destroy the existing, essential superstructure.”

Shifting to a “rational superstructure” would certainly be disruptive, because as always PZ fails to define “rational” while he extolls Nietzscheism. This is likely because PZ fails to differentiate between rational and antirational, a fault he displays in this post. Undefined "rational social experiments" have been tried on very large scales, making the 20th century the bloodiest ever. But this argument is lost on the elites who declare themselves the arbiters of rationality – without feeling the necessity of revealing what they really mean by that. In both the Soviet and the German versions of the Nietzsche Will to Power, the revolutions were not instantaneous, they took years for the revolutionaries to acquire enough power to enable them to take the next steps for bloody control. They intitially would have agreed with PZ: "We would never operate at the point of a sword - we love people!)

Next PZ declares,

“Egalitarianism is definitely not a characteristic of these religious traditions. All build on a hierarchy, all are patriarchal, almost all religions rely on a separation of the world into "us", the tribe, the chosen, the people of the one true god, and the "other", the enemy, the servants of the dark ones, and you simply do not build egalitarian communities on that foundation.”

Demonstrably false. The New Testament teaches specifically that ALL people have equal access to God, including the “servants of the dark ones” as PZ put it. There are no human enemies except those who make themselves into such. The real enemy, it is taught, is The Deceiver, another non-human creation of God.

And if by egalitarianism PZ means equal outcomes guaranteed for all people of all attitudes, then he is correct, for the wrong reason. That type of egalitarianism is destructive of individuals, providing disincentives for personal development of any kind – precisely the initial goal of socialist totalitarianism.

PZ:

“I consider religion the enemy of science because it short-circuits critical thought and gives believers an escape hatch to superstition. As long as religion teaches that the answers to real world issues can be found in revelation and authority and the interpretation of holy texts, belief is inimical to scientific thinking.”

PZ is all about enemies; it is his very premise for posting. What PZ is not about is rational thought, which he never defines but of which he claims to be the devout defender. PZ is Nietzschean all right; he is (a)morally free to claim to be one thing while pursuing its antithesis; there is no morality outside what he decides it to be, and all actions are certainly acceptable under certain conditions which he appears to define for himself. Very Nietzschean: read Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil”, and you will understand not just PZ, but also Alinsky, the Political Left, and every Atheist you have ever met (except for those who co-opt religious moralities).

Belief is not “inimical to scientific thinking”. Belief is completely outside of scientific thinking, even Massimo Pigliucci realizes that, except for those like PZ who wish to demonize God with fallacious claims. PZ seems to need enemies in order to grasp for his personal fame; it likely will not come from either logical breakthroughs or scientific contributions.

I hope that some day PZ will call me personally a “toothless zombie”.

The Coalition of Reason: tautology or thieves of morality?

The Coalition of Reason (COR) is another humanist-type group, one that is being activist in the sense of promoting Atheism via billboards declaring that they are Good Without God, which is also the title of a book which they promote.

One might be tempted to think that a group declaring itself to be attached to “Reason” might at least describe what reason means to them. And certainly one would expect an outline of the rational process behind their beliefs. However, a quick trip through the COR website produces nothing of the sort. COR is attached to reason merely because they say so – a ploy of virtually all Atheist organizations and Atheist promoters. Reason means Atheism. There is no rational process involved. The term “Reason” is merely co-opted to provide the aura of rational respectability they need to shroud their faith.

Let’s examine their main tenet of faith: they are self-declared “Good Without God”, and they proclaim it to be so on billboards. The without God part is uncontested; they are definitely without God. But what about “good”?

“Goodness” is a relative term, in that it demands reference to a measurement baseline, a standard to be used for comparison. Deviate in one direction from that baseline, and “badness” occurs. Deviate in the other direction from that baseline, and "goodness" occurs.

What does the COR designate as its baseline? It does not designate anything. So taken at this level, the claim to be good, which is based on no foundation or baseline definition of goodness or badness, this claim of “goodness” is a tautology. This is because goodness is designated by their unstated, personal definition, with which they obviously consider themselves to have conformed. More importantly, this unstated standard or baseline could always be evolved to match their current behavior: hence, they are good merely due to their own definition, a permanent tautology, one they cannot fail.

But at the next level, perhaps they have co-opted (stolen) an ethic from the culture they inhabit – Judeo-Christianity. If this is the case, then they have dishonestly compared themselves to a standard which they openly reject, that of religious ethics, the authority of which is derived through revelation. This process makes them not good compared to the standard they are using, in the sense that they are deceiving, possibly themselves, and certainly attempting to deceive the public. That is “Not Good”, rather than the “Good” which they project.

However, after the actual rational analysis of their claim is done, it is obvious that the Coalition of Reason is not interested in logic, reason or rational thought. Nor is it really interested in Goodness. It is really interested in the standard Atheist elitist pursuits couched in humanism, Freethought and so on.

So the COR is engaged in fraud from the get-go, which indicates that its baseline for “goodness” is a slippery thing that conforms to objectives, not to absolutes such as incorrigible truths.

Dawkins Explains Evolution

Here are some clips of Richard Dawkins responding to the questions of a (friendly) interviewer last week. As with all quotes, they are out of context, so for the full interview and context, go to "the not so angry evolutionist".

"It is utterly remarkable that DNA is a scientific digital code. It’s text, it’s exactly like written human language, with letters – you can actually count the number of letters. It means you could really compare every animal with every other animal, or plant, or bacterium, letter by letter, word by word, in their actual genetic text."

Let's review. DNA is a scientific code, exactly like written human language; therefore there is neither intelligence nor design involved? Dawkins once made the most ignorant statement I think I have ever heard. Paraphrased, he said, "No engineer in his right mind would use previously existing designs to base his design upon". In actuality, every engineer would and does leverage off of previous designs (that are not IP protected). An engineer who did not do so would lose his job, it is that stupid.

Dawkins feels comfortable backfilling opinion into slots that should be reserved for verifiable evidence. This is called rationalization in the world of Logic and Rational Thinking. It is, however, actually the method of forensic sciences: make an observation (say, a new fossil) and then make up a story about it. It is rampant in offshoots of evolutionary science such as evolutionary psychology.

...

"The genetics of Darwin’s time was completely wrong, apart from Gregor Mendel, who was a contemporary of Darwin. But unfortunately Darwin never read his works. Even Mendel was surpassed in a very big way by Watson and Crick, and the molecular biology revolution of the last half of the 20th century – which has now made genetics into a branch of information technology. And this has enormously increased the sheer weight of evidence in favor of Darwin. Darwin would simply have loved that.

A branch of information technology? He finally admits that there is information in the code... It used to be common to hear that it wasn't information, it was just random code that happened randomly, then randomly changed, got tested by the environment, and stuck if it passed the test.

And never, ever discussed is the source of the code, nor the probability of the code describing a living thing existing inside the living thing...nor the paradox of which came first, the code or the critter.

...

"The point about the detective and the crime-scene analogy is not that the information is incomplete, or not 100 percent. It can indeed be – if not 100 percent, then 99.99 percent. The point is that it’s not eyewitness evidence. You can’t actually see a murder taking place. You can’t actually see most of evolution taking place, obviously, because it happened in the distant past. But the evidence for a crime can be exceedingly strong, even without eyewitness evidence.

Eyewitness evidence is actually not the most powerful evidence anyway. Eyewitness evidence even in human crimes is notoriously poor. Eyewitnesses get all sorts of things wrong."

Dissing eyewitness evidence is extremely odd for a scientist; science methods depend heavily upon experimental evidence (eyewitness), and replication (eyewitness). But he is right in saying that "it's not eyewitness evidence" with regard to evolution. Yes, that is correct; it is not empirical, experimental, replicable evidence, it is inferential, extrapolatory, story telling. The incontrovertable evidence that exists is (a) a genetic code of indeterminate origin; (b) fossils (without genetic material) of animals that no longer exist. Everything else is inferential - a made up story.

...

"Another big stumbling block is that an awful lot of people think evolution is a theory of random chance. It isn’t. If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very opposite of random chance. Natural selection is non-random survival of genes that work."

This is almost too false to believe that it came from an educated person. Evolution is most certainly based on random changes (mutations) to genetic workings, changes that might just happen (randomly) to bring into existence new beneficial characteristics for survival in a changing environment. Any fool who educates himself can see that.

But I gotta love that quote:"If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that."

...

"That was a technique that Darwin himself used. Everybody understands domestic breeding, and everybody can see the dramatic consequences of breeding dogs, for example, which came from wolves not that long ago. So you can see a lot of evolutionary change packed into just a few centuries. All you then do, if you’re explaining it as Darwin did, is just remove the human breeder and let nature do it instead.

Nature does it inadvertently, unconsciously, non-deliberately – by some animals surviving and some not surviving. That is the precise analog to the role of the domestic breeder choosing which puppies to breed from."

The "Big Dog/Little Dog = Evolution" Fallacy is still false. See the next item.

...

"The human mind partitions the world into essential objects: "A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. There’s an unbridgeable gulf fixed between a rabbit and any other species." People can’t grasp the idea that it’s not true that a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. It gradually changes over time. There’s a constantly sliding definition of what it is to be a typical rabbit. That goes for any species."

Conflating the idea of "atypical" with mutated creatures that are no longer the same species is a staple in the evolutionist bag of tricks. It's a gloss over the massive probability against such beneficial mutations.

...

"I very seldom actually meet a creationist. I don’t know where they’re hiding. Polls tell me they’re extremely numerous, but they don’t seem to come out of their holes when I’m around."

It is hard to tell if Dawkins is truly self-deluded or if he merely wishes to deceive his listener. He consistently refuses to meet and debate with any detractor, creationist or otherwise: they are too far below him.

iPS Stem Cells: Fat to Bone and Easier too.

The news of non-embryonic stem cell successes keeps rolling in, and I can’t help but celebrate each bit. The latest news is of a boy who was born without cheek bones, the structure that gives form to the face and protection and support to the eyes. He has been given new cheek bones using stem cells from his own fat. Bone was used to form a substrate or scaffold, and the stem cells form new bones grown on that.

And other developments include techniques that make iPS stem cells much easier to produce.

Researchers at Scripps Institute found three natural chemicals that allowed the efficiency to be increased by 200 times, and speed to be doubled, with the elapsed time decreased from 4 weeks to 2 weeks.

This technology is as interesting and exciting as semiconductor technology was in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s – and digital technology in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s - rapidly changing, advancing and enabling incredible new technologies to tumble out. If I were a youngster looking for a career, I think that stem cells would be it. The ultimate affect on humanity can only be guessed, but it will be as great as semiconductors / computers I suspect.

The latest news from embryonic stem cells? They are still discussing ethics. Nothing else of significance.

Are 95% of Blacks Really Incompetent?

I am just finishing reading a book by Kevin Jackson, “The Black Lie”. Jackson is one of the 4 to 6% of blacks that claim openly to be conservative / Republican. According to Jackson, it is very difficult for a black to converse in any manner other than liberal / victimology merely due to peer pressure within the black community. However, Jackson does not fear to take on black racism, including black racism against other blacks. The inside knowledge provided by Jackson of a domestic yet foreign culture is somewhat eye-opening, although much of it is easily suspected.

Jackson points to the facts: Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats repressed the blacks through demeaning legislation and the KKK subsidiary of the Democratic party for nearly a century. The Democrats under Lyndon Johnson first vehemently and heatedly opposed the civil rights legislation, and the Republicans were the ones who proposed and passed it with far more votes for it than the Democrats.

Nevertheless, the Democrats co-opted glory for the passage of civil rights legislation, but proceeded to pass victimology legislation to keep the blacks in thrall. Blacks now are largely dependent upon the largess of the politicians, and vote to keep it that way. They do not vote for the party that historically liberated them, they vote for the party that enslaved them, over and over.

The culture of victimology in the black community has produced a backlash against all forms of white culture, including education. “Players” look for ways to scam money out of the system, and are admired for doing so. (Is Charles Rangel not elected over and over?)

Kevin Jackson’s views are reminiscent of those of another black author, intellectual Thomas Sowell, who wrote a book which I reviewed not long ago. Sowell documented the massive “wars” mounted by the Left on poverty, homelessness, civil rights and so on – wars designed to redistribute wealth and entrap those “porchsitters” as Jackson calls them, wealth taken from the hated “rich” which means white middle class and up. The porchsitters are enabled to continue sitting on the porch, which they do, while railing against their benefactors and voting Democrat to keep the enablement in place.

Now a Justice Department ruling decrees that the Democrat party must be on the ballot. The small city of Kinston, North Carolina, voted last year to have non-partisan elections, where candidates would be on the ballots without party affiliations being noted. The Justice Department ruled that this is unfair to blacks, the rationale stated that whites would not vote for blacks unless the blacks are Democrats(!) According to the Washington Times,

“The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.”

If 2/3 of the population is black, then the blacks could easily elect whoever they want without the help of the whites. Moreover, if the voters can’t identify the candidate they want by name, then they are obviously not responsible voters. The idea that the word “Democrat” is the key to voting for a candidate says explicitly that voters are trapped in the Democrat web, stuck in an unthinking culture.

If victimology – a term Jackson uses often – is the Democrat trap for blacks, it should work on other minorities too, right? Is it any wonder that the Democrats are actively seeking ways to get benefits – and the vote – to illegal aliens?

The victimology trap is nasty. It dehumanizes while pretending to benefit. And it self-perpetuates, with the dehumanizers given ever more power, while their victims rot, mentally, physically and spiritually.

Quote of the Day 10-20-09

"A final, odd observation. As I have dropped out of contemporary American culture and retreated inside some sort of 1950s time-warp, in a strange fashion of compensation for non-participation , I have tried to remain more engaged than ever in the country’s political and military crises, which are acute and growing. One’s distancing from the popular culture of movies, TV, newspapers, and establishment culture makes one perhaps wish to overcompensate in other directions, from the trivial to the important.

"Lately more than ever I try to obey the speed limit, overpay my taxes, pay more estimates and withholding than I need, pay all the property taxes at once, pick up trash I see on the sidewalk, try to be overly polite to strangers in line, always stop on the freeway when I see an elderly person or single woman with a flat, leave 20% tips, let cars cut me off in the parking lot (not in my youth, not for a second), and patronize as many of Selma’s small businesses as I can (from the hardware store to insurance to cars). I don’t necessarily do that out of any sense of personal ethics, but rather because in these increasingly crass and lawless times, we all have to try something, even symbolically, to restore some common thread to the frayed veneer of American civilization, to balance the rips from a Letterman attack on Palin’s 14-year-old daughter or a Serena Williams’s threat to a line judge, or the President’s communication director’s praise of Mao, civilization’s most lethal mass murderer, or all of what I described above.

"I don’t fathom the attraction of a Kanye West (I know that name after his outburst), a David Letterman, Van Jones, Michael Moore (all parasitic on the very culture they mock), or the New York Review of Books or People Magazine (they seem about the same in their world view). So goodbye to all that.

"Horace called this reactionary nostalgia the delusion of a laudator temporis acti, the grouchy praiser of times past for the sake of being past. Perhaps. But I see the trend of many ignoring the old touchstones of popular entertainment and life as a rejection of establishment culture—a disbelief in, or utter unconcern with, what elites now offer as valuable on criteria that have nothing to do with merit or value. I was supposed to listen to Dan Rather because Murrow once worked for CBS? I am to go to the Cinema 16 because Hollywood once made Gone With the Wind or On the Waterfront?

"I don’t particularly like the idea that I want little to do with contemporary culture. But I feel it nonetheless—and sense many of you do as well."

Victor Davis Hanson

Quote of the Day 10-16-09

“I hope that I may claim in the present work to have made it probable that the laws of arithmetic are analytic judgments and consequently a priori. Arithmetic thus becomes simply a development of logic, and every proposition of arithmetic a law of logic, albeit a derivative one. To apply arithmetic in the physical sciences is to bring logic to bear on observed facts; calculation becomes deduction. The laws of number will not, as Baumann thinks, need to stand up to practical tests if they are to be applicable to the external world; for in the external world, in the whole of space and all that therein is, there are no concepts, no properties of concepts, no numbers. The laws of number therefore , are not really applicable to external things; they are not laws of nature. They are, however, applicable to judgements holding good of things in the external world: they are laws of the laws of nature. They assert not connexions between phenomena, but connexions between judgements; and among judgements are included the laws of nature."

Gottlob Frege; The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1950, p99.
[emphasis added]

“Critical Thinking” as a Materialist Fraud

I recently became aware of a YouTube video family purporting to teach “critical thinking”. This was interesting enough to me that I invested the 2 hour + download time over our frail country phone lines in order to see a 9 minute video called “Open Mindedness”, which is only one of maybe 8 or 10 “instructional” videos by someone called “QualiaSoup”.

It turns out to be a good starting video, because it clearly and in no uncertain terms spells out Qualia’s Philosophical Materialism. The entire video is dedicated to two concepts: Rule #1, one must not believe anything without evidence. Rule #2, if you don’t obey rule #1, then you will be open to believing anything and your mind will be filled with rubbish.

As might be expected, “Science” is mentioned reverentially throughout, as is the implication that science is the only critical thinking that is possible. If the evidence for a certain premise is not scientific, aka material, then one must not accept the premise but must reject it with at least an “I can’t know”.

This is reinforced with the standard references to believing in fairies, ghosts, paranormal experiences and so on: fear-mongering blatantly aimed at limiting reality to physical, material, measurable "scientific" entities.

But as we know, Truth does exist and can be known. Further, it cannot be tested physically since it is not material. And further still, science never, ever produces Truth, science produces only contingent factoids. This means that material evidence - via science - does not give us Truth and even its factoids are vaporous. And any implications to the contrary are false. This does not mean that science is false. It means that using science as a limit to reality is a philosophical error.

There are no tools presented by Qualia’s video to implement evaluation of the materialist “evidence filter” touted by Qualia, either for the actual evidence, its source, nature and validity, nor for the discernment process required for the actual screening and cognition of evidence. Nor induction with its limitations and deduction with its limitations. Nor falsification as a screen for non-material propositions. Nor axioms, their source and validation. Nor the difference between hypothesis and theory. Judging from the titles of the other video family members, I doubt that any reference to these are made anywhere in any of these videos.

These videos, based on viewing the Open Mindedness video, are not based in any principles of logic, nor the principles of rational thought, nor the apprehension and comprehension of the First Principles. They are purely philosophical, not rational. And, again judging from titles, they are purely a tool of Atheism.

But what these videos do demonstrate quite vividly is the principle that one must question EVERYTHING, especially if it is on the web. (And that includes what one finds on this blog, too). Question everything, study the principles, introspect and intuit. That will take you beyond science, and into the realm that actually contains Truth.

The pity of these videos lies in the comments section, where gratitude flows for having been given the materialist process of “critical thinking”. Those folks who believe what the videos teach now are shut out of the path to apprhending full reality, and are confined to the materialist box.

PZ Watch 10-14-09: Too Good!

Today PZ says,

OK, I confess: I completely lack the tools and background to evaluate this claim:

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Except for one thing: the proponents of this idea are operating in the world of pure speculation, and have no evidence to support it, yet. That tells me that I'm best off provisionally rejecting it. I'll start incorporating crazy counter-intuitive notions about the nature of the universe when the cold implacable hand of the universe starts shoving them down my throat, not before!

Let's take this verrrry slowly and savor it. PZ identifies a world of "pure speculation". This, he claims, is a place where "there is no evidence to support it." Now of course there are math and logic and quantum theory to support it, so appparently what PZ is referring to is hard evidence: experimental. Yes, experimental evidence is needed, according to PZ, in order to avoid a "provisional rejection" on his part - despite his admission of being knowledgeless in this area of science.

In fact he requires this hard evidence in Charleton Hestonian terminology":

"I'll start incorporating crazy counter-intuitive notions about the nature of the universe when the cold implacable hand of the universe starts shoving them down my throat, not before!"

Well, PZ, here is a "crazy counter-intuitive notion":

"We can build up immense amounts of complexity from nothing but noise..." (PZ Meyers, 10-11-09)

Where is the HARD, NON-SPECULATIVE evidence? Mmmm Hmmm; it must be buried in that mountain of SPECULATIVE evidence that is so often brandished about in evoutionary apologetics, eh, PZ?

Or maybe, PZ, you are ANTI-SCIENCE?? Mmmmm Hmmmm. Now, "Dr. Nielsen is well-qualified in this tradition. He is known in physics as one of the founders of string theory and a deep and original thinker..." This is no lightweight; this is an expert we're talking about here, PZ; you are rejecting an expert in his field? A field where you "have no tools"? Uh oh. Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm!

Enviro-Cultism

The Friends of the Earth have apparently convened their own ad hoc court, where they put those accused "climate criminals" of their own choosing on trial with the intent of punishing them (morally, somehow). Christopher C. Horner has translated the following bulletin from Spanish:

NOTICE TO THE PRESS
Friends of the Earth International
October 14, 2009
First International Court of Justice Climate

Cochabamba, Bolivia, 14 October 2009 – With the aim of identifying and morally punish[ing] those who violate the environment, this 13 and 14, held the First International Audience Climate Justice in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and it is intended that the UN continue that work.

This initiative comes to the search for compromises and solutions world governments have not been able to achieve against Change Climate.

The initiative seeks to influence institutions like the Organization of the UN to step in the formation of courts consider the crimes related to climate change, plus explore options for preserving the environment.

The court has received reports of at least ten people and nations indigenous descent, peasant movements and fishermen, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Brazil and Bolivia to be argued in hearings and reviewed by a panel of recognized social and environmental activists, including ecologist Richard Navarro, representing Friends of the Earth International.

“Rich countries must dramatically reduce their OWN greenhouse gas emissions already. That is the first step towards climate justice. Besides climatic and ecological debt must be recognized and paid. False solutions such as agrofuels are [NB: not?] acceptable,” according to Irene CENSAT Velez de Agua Viva (Friends of the Earth Colombia) and co-Coordinate of the Climate Justice Program of Friends of the Earth International.

The First International Climate Justice Court is also the result of an initiative to make Bolivian President Evo Morales, last September in a United Nations conference, in which proposed the establishment of a tribunal against the change climate, as permanent investigative body to governments and companies that pollute the environment.

The government of Evo Morales has shown a strong stance in defense of environment and Mother Earth and their negotiating positions United Nations on climate change have been very constructive, according to Friends of the Earth International.

Setting themselves up as a para-world-government with elitist judicial powers is mere silliness, unless of course, they actually do endeavor to punish someone - in which case they are themselves international criminals. The environmental "laws" that they perceive as being broken don't exist except in their minds as religious dogma. And the deification of "Mother Earth" renders the Friends of the Earth as just another cult, albeit one with dangerous-sounding aspirations, aspirations with lynch mob mentality behind them.