Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Harold Klemp's Politics - An Eck Master On Planet Earth

Expand Messages
  • tomleafeater
    Thanks, you made some good points as well. About global warming, which is an issue I have studied and followed closely over the years: With the high degree of
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 7, 2007
      Thanks, you made some good points as well.

      About global warming, which is an issue I have studied and
      followed closely over the years: With the high degree of
      misinformation that abounds about this subject, I want to take
      the time to point out a few things.

      There is one statement you made that I want to address in more
      detail. You wrote the following in your post:

      >>"This book of his was written early on when fewer scientific
      studies had been done. Later, and currently, more of the world's
      scientific resources and technical advances have been used to
      study the problem more closely and over the years for better
      comparisons of data. "<<

      A few facts should be pointed out to clear up a few things about
      the timing of Klemp's remarks. The book in which Klemp wrote
      his comments about global warming was published in August,
      2001.

      This date is well within the period in which a majority of world
      renowned climate scientists had long come to a consensus that
      there is, in fact, global warming occurring caused by
      human-generated greenhouse gasses.

      To demonstrate just how far off Klemp was for the times, I'll
      provide just a few of the many highlights of the history of
      scientists warning us about GW, which amazingly goes back to
      1896 when a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, proposed the
      theory that burning of coal would produce co2 which would
      cause global warming. Since then, the data has been coming in
      over the years, with more certainty occurring in the `70's, with a
      fairly well established consensus beginning to form in the 80's,
      as government bodies and science organizations began to
      weigh in with statements affirming the existence of GW.

      In 1985, the first formal consensus formed in a conference
      between international groups including the World Meteorological
      Organization, The International Council of of Scientific Unions,
      and the United Nations Environment Program. The report from
      that conference issued a warning that global Warming appears
      inevitable regardless of future actions.

      In 1988, the now famed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
      Change (IPCC) was formed consisting of renowned climate
      scientists from around the globe.

      By 1990, the first formal consensus was in place, with the
      signing of GW agreements between forty two nations at the
      Interparliamentary Conference on the Global Environment, held
      in Washington in the spring of that year. The agreement
      addressed the full range of threats implicated by global
      warming. Also in 1990, more conferences were held by the IPPC
      involving hundreds of world climate scientists, who published
      an official report concluding human activity is causing global
      warming.

      And in 1995 (skipping over many other important GW
      conferences and agreements), the UN organization IPPC, in its
      `95 conference issued another statement affirming the reality of
      human generated global warming.

      Thus, Klemp's comments, coming as the did in 2001, are far, far
      off the mark for that date to be considered merely a mistake or
      the words of an uninformed person. For those who have read
      the conservative nonsense-science offered as a rebuttal to the
      worlds great climate scientists, Klemp's words are obviously
      straight out of the neo-conservative playbook. It is far too similar
      to the neo-con rhetoric to be coincidence. Klemp obviously is
      well schooled in the neo-con movement's talking points.

      As to Klemp's statement that there have been natural warming
      periods:

      According to my reading of the scientific literature, the last time
      the earth was going through a warming period as dramatic as
      the one that is beginning was some 40 or 50 MILLION years
      ago, when we were in a completely different geological era in the
      formation of earth's geological features, and when most
      biological forms were not yet evolved.

      Many people like to point out a warming period in Europe that
      began around 1000 c.e., but that was a local, regional warming
      that was not GLOBAL, and was of relatively short duration. It was
      not at all comparable to global warming. So no, Klemp is
      absolutely incorrect in his statement. The cycles of glaciation
      and interglacial periods are well known, and there are many
      intricacies and details that can be twisted and misrepresented
      by the anti-environment groups that wish to deceive, but these
      are not agreed to by the consensus of world scientists.

      I suggest people do some reading on this, since there is a great
      deal of Neo-Con funded misinformation around about the
      subject that is extremely distorted and misleading.

      Another of Klemp's silly assertions:

      "Many scientists who study earth changes believe that the cycles
      of warming and cooling are actually caused by solar bursts from
      the sun. There have been many studies done."

      This is another distortion of the facts. There were a couple of
      Danish scientists who asserted the solar burst explanation, but
      this was found to completely flawed by a Stanford scientist, and
      the theory has been resoundingly debunked, and is not accepted
      by the vast majority of climate scientists.

      And as to klemp's notion that:

      "People who support the idea of global warming usually bring
      up some study backed by scientists, but it's often a broad body
      of scientists that includes dentists, doctors, psychiatrists, and a
      lot of other people who have no special knowledge about earth
      temperatures.  And often their words are twisted to be
      something other than what they originally said."

      This statement is unmitigated nonsense. The consensus is not
      among dentists and psychiatrists, but among world renowned
      climate scientists from nearly every major country in the world.


      One of several of my sources of the history of GW:
      http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/381_FactShee
      t_globalwarming_timeline.pdf

      Klemp's book, for those who want t verify the date it was written:
      http://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Spiritually-Our-Times/dp/1
      570431671/sr=8-1/qid=1168201654/ref=sr_1_1/104-5512952-1
      427909?ie=UTF8&s=books

      General information about global warming:

      http://www.undoit.org/home.cfm

      I'd be glad to debate and/or duscuss any of this with those
      reading here, since I stand completely behind my comments.

      Kent



      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
      "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Kent,
      > You make some very good points about Klemp. Yes, his
      opinions
      > on Global Warming are way off the mark. This book of his was
      > written early on when fewer scientific studies had been done.
      Later,
      > and currently, more of the world's scientific resources and
      technical
      > advances have been used to study the problem more closely
      and over
      > the years for better comparisons of data. One would think that
      even
      > a self-proclaimed "Modern Prophet" would have had a better
      grasp of
      > this issue.
      >
      > However, Klemp is correct that Global Warming had been a
      natural
      > phenomenon in the past, but this was due to cataclysmic
      events
      > caused in nature and, therefore, unpreventable - unlike present
      > day Global Warming.
      >
      > Also, by Klemp stating that "a lot of emotion goes into these
      issues.
      > Save the children, save the poor..." is his way of saying that this
      is
      > ASTRAL PLANE stuff and is of no concern for the ECKist.
      However,
      > how can an ECKist demonstrate the "Golden Heart" by Not
      showing
      > love and compassion? The Physical Plane is where the most
      intense
      > spiritual tests are given. How can these delusional ECKists
      think that
      > they can ignore and by-pass the tests here and think that they
      are
      > making advances on the Inner Planes! They aren't and most
      know it!
      > That's part of the Subtle KAL Illusion of ECKANKAR. Klemp
      was chosen
      > by the KAL to lead ECKANKAR. ECK Vahanas have become
      the Devil's
      > Advocates!
      >
      > The KAL has two faces - a True Master has but one!
      >
      > This also leads me to believe that ECKANKAR has become
      more like
      > a Causal Plane Religion since Klemp seems to live in and
      revisit the
      > past so often! HK, also, holds on to grudges and anger from
      even
      > his childhood. He can't get past the past and neither can
      ECKANKAR.
      > No Master Soul uses the negative tone, words, or intent that
      HK uses
      > with his Chelas. And, then, Klemp chastises more to lower the
      'esteem'
      > of these 'losers' and 'foxes' for their 'self-serving behavior' and
      signs
      > off with - 'Affectionately, Harold.'
      >
      > What a hypocrite! In truth, Klemp is a FAME JUNKIE that has a
      lot of
      > pride in presenting himself as an intellectual in Who's Who.
      Yet, he
      > puts down Twitchell for promoting himself in Who's Who!
      >
      > See, Klemp always 'talks the talk,' but never 'walks the walk.'
      It's
      > always about him in a WIN/WIN status and the Chela in a
      LOSE/LOSE.
      > How is it that Klemp never takes responsibility for even his
      nasty
      > or unloving comments let alone for the suffering and the LACK
      of
      > emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual protection and
      growth
      > of his Chelas when they make affirmations to do everything in
      the
      > name of the Mahanta? Where's the GOOD KARMA for ECKists
      on the
      > Physical Plane? Talk is cheap when HK not only fails to deliver
      here,
      > but also fails to deliver in the dreams of most of his
      followers.Many
      > are desperate to believe in something more than themeselves,
      as
      > Soul, or are proud of their initiation rank because, throughout
      life,
      > they have been the losers and social misfits. They still are,
      except,
      > that now they out rank the non-ECK Infidels! LOL!
      >
      > However, Initiations don't mean a thing if ECKists can't
      demonstrate
      > in their Thoughts, Words, Feelings, Actions, and Reactions a
      Higher
      > Consciousness on the Physical Plane and in this Here and
      Now! The
      > inability to follow-thru on this demonstrates that ECKANKAR IS
      > NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION ANYWHERE. It
      also
      > demonstrates that the Higher Initiations don't work in this
      testing
      > ground for Soul.
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > "tomleafeater" wrote:
      > >
      > > With all the political talk, I thought I'd post something from
      some
      > > of my earlier posts at A.R.E. Please, folks, don't think I'm
      trying to
      > > offend those with different political view than I have. I do
      believe
      > > that there are eckists out there who don't understand what an
      > > extremist Harold Klemp is in his political views. They have a
      right
      > > to hear this from an old-timer like myself.
      > >
      > >
      > > HOW TO SURVIVE SPIRITUALLY IN OUR TIMES, Harold
      Klemp,
      > > Page 210:
      > >
      > > "A lot of emotion goes into these issues.  Save the children,
      save
      > > the poor, the planet is going to warm too much and people in
      the
      > > South Sea Islands are going to wake up knee-deep in water.
      > > That happened thousands of years ago. Suddenly, for no
      reason
      > > at all--certainly it wasn't from human pollution--earth's
      > > temperature just went above normal.  Many scientists who
      study
      > > earth changes believe that the cycles of warming and cooling
      are
      > > actually caused by solar bursts from the sun.  There have
      been
      > > many studies done. People who support the idea of global
      > > warming usually bring up some study backed by scientists,
      but
      > > it's often a broad body of scientists that includes dentists,
      > > doctors, psychiatrists, and a lot of other people who have no
      > > special knowledge about earth temperatures.  And often their
      > > words are twisted to be something other than what they
      originally
      > > said."
      > >
      > > MY COMMENTS:
      > > In my view, based on my attendance of various talks by
      Harold,
      > > his comments of economics and the environment, and of his
      > > writing in support of Richard J. Marbury, I have come to my
      own
      > > personal conclusion that Harold is quite conservative in his
      > > political outlook. Also, the RESA in the state I once lived in
      > > reported to me some of Harold's comments personally
      made to
      > > the RESA  which revealed his politically conservative stance.
      > > Most long time eckists I have privately conversed with know
      this,
      > > though there are some who still deny it. Twitchell was fairly
      > > conservative also, based on what I heard back in his time,
      but
      > > Klemp has moved eckankar a few notches to the right in
      bringing
      > > out his views more vocally than Twitchell.
      > >
      > > Based on this, I predict that in the future, this conservatization
      of
      > > eckankar will attract a more fundamental, down to earth type
      of
      > > follower who has old fashioned conservative/libertarian
      values
      > > with respect to economic, environmental, and social issues.
      In
      > > one of the last eck meetings I attended in my local area many
      > > years ago the conversation was all about resentment toward
      tax
      > > law. It got to the point that eck leaders in the meeting were
      > > skirting around the edge of fostering an attitude of
      encouraging a
      > > roomful of gullible chelas to actively break the law in
      > > non-payment of taxes. Concerned over the prospect of
      chelas
      > > getting in trouble over this, I remarked that we don't want to
      > > encourage illegalities in the membership, and the entire
      room
      > > became rather irritated over my comment, as innocent and
      well
      > > meaning as it was. I remember how shocked the RESA was
      > > when she learned I had voted for different political leadership
      > > than she and most other eckists on the state board had
      voted
      > > for. I was apparently one of the only non-conservatives on the
      > > state board.
      > >
      > > A friend of mine who once described herself as a New York
      > > liberal (that's pretty liberal, folks), who was active in politics
      and
      > > proud of her long held integrity on a number of issues she
      > > concerned herself with, completely changed in her political
      > > leanings due to Harold's influence.
      > >
      > > While I don't agree with everything Harold has said about
      > > economics and politics, particularly with his views of the
      > > environment, I do recognize Harold has a right to his political
      > > opinions. I think the org should be honest and out front about
      > > this and admit to the new conservatism in the movement.
      People
      > > can then make their own choices fully informed of the
      direction
      > > he is taking eckankar.
      > >
      > > On economics and judicial policy he is much further to the
      right
      > > than most Republicans (not to be redundant in pointing this
      out
      > > -- Libertarians are, by definition, to the right of Republicans).
      Mix
      > > that in with Lutheran prudishness, a stern Christian work
      ethic,
      > > Midwestern manners and reservedness (don't ever use
      naughty
      > > words around Klemp), as well as the typical blandness and
      lack
      > > of emotional range of expression, and you get Harold Klemp.
      > > Welcome to the new Eckankar -- but he'll fail with most
      > > Midwesterners. They'll be revolted by Harold's brand of weird
      > > quirkiness. They'll sense he's not quite normal -- something
      > > Midwesterners are very uncomfortable with.
      > >
      > > Has Klemp gone on record in a statement about which party
      he
      > > affiliates with? To my knowledge, he never has, but his
      various
      > > political statements strongly suggest a Republican with a
      right
      > > wing Libertarian slant. He has admitted to campaigning for
      > > candidates before his having become Eckankar's leader of
      the
      > > universe, so it is clear he has had an interest in politics.
      > >
      > > This is a guy who thinks even Reagan and Nixon were too
      > > economically liberal, thinks Roosevelt's social programs
      > > contributed to creating a lazy generation of baby boomers,
      and
      > > wants to go back to an extremely conservative judicial
      principle
      > > of an "eye for an eye."
      > >
      > > Though he claims to support the concept of abortion rights (a
      > > previously established Eckankar policy he inherited from his
      > > predecessor, the more liberal Gross), he thinks late term
      > > abortions are murder. He made no mention of making an
      > > exception for women whose lives are threatened by the
      > > pregnacy. He wants to end legislative law, so you can kiss
      such
      > > things as clean air legislation goodbye.
      > >
      > > As noted in the quote I provided above, Klemp has bought
      into
      > > the extremely ignorant notion that there is no global warming,
      > > something that is widely recognized around round the world
      by
      > > climate scientists. His statements in the quoted excerpt are
      > > absolutely false that there isn't a consensus of world climate
      > > scientists that global warming is occurring. Global Warming
      is
      > > now widely established to be caused by man-made
      greenhouse
      > > gasses.
      > >
      > > He has denounced government assistance for the
      > > disenfranchised (I remember an Eckist friend who was
      basically
      > > dying of MD who felt agonized and torn over accepting
      > > government aid after hearing Klemp's remarks about the
      welfare
      > > system at a seminar) He is also a guy who admonished his
      > > child for innocently wanting to pick up a few pennies she
      found in
      > > the sand, because of the karmic implications (whew, what
      scars
      > > will that kid grow up with?)  I've also heard from a fellow on
      > > A.R.E. that Eckankar supported a gun rights legislation in MN
      a
      > > while back.
      > >
      > > If Klemp isn't a Republican, it is only because he would
      consider
      > > Republicans way too liberal.
      > >
      > > Liberals and moderates who are still Eckists: Wake up to the
      fact
      > > that you're following a right wing nut case. An Eck Master
      with
      > > such callous and destructive views of the planet is no
      spiritual
      > > master.
      > >
      > > Kent
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.