blog

STATEMENT

 

 

August 26, 2017

To all-

It has come to our attention that a respected leader of our small online enclave has betrayed the trust many people have instilled in him over the past years.  We are stunned at these revelations like everyone else.  It was with much internal debate and emotional pain that we decided as a group that we had to release the information to the community.  Although this form of information is not our usual forte as we are collectively concerned about overriding issues, such as leaving some form of a natural world above all else, it was something so stunningly vile that we had no other choice but to present it to the community as our conscience would not allow us to conceal this from the public.

Since this decision, which is something we thoroughly debated due to its seriousness, there is much online discussion regarding to what degree his transgressions can be described as terrible and even if they should be in the public due to the personal nature of the correspondence.  From this perspective, this person and his supporters have pointed to the fact that the behavior between himself and the woman in question was of a consensual, private nature, and should be of no concern to the wider community.  We believe this argument falls short for three critical reasons which should be considered both separately and collectively.

The first reason is one of ethics, which is separate from legality.  The word ethics is defined as “a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.”  Most professional organizations have codes of ethics, which participants must adhere to in order to remain in good standing.  In regards to its specific ethical standards, the American Psychological Association states “your psychologist shouldn’t also be your friend, client, or sex partner.  That’s because psychologists are supposed to avoid relationships that could impair their professional performance or harm their clients. One type of relationship that’s never acceptable is a sexual relationship with a current client.“

This person has taken on several roles, which in combination provide the framework for producing potentially serious ethical concerns.  As a recognized authority in the field of climate science, this person’s words contain the weight of authority for many.  His carefully worded prognostications of a coming end of human existence on the planet, though backed by his scientific understanding,  nonetheless have the ability to produce a state of anxiety, uncertainty, and despair in those who accept his perspective.  This person acknowledges this on his website, stating that “Because the topics of his presentations sometimes induce despair, Guy became a certified grief-recovery specialist in January 2014.”

The combination of his pursuits, as a climate scientist predicting the end of life as we know it, and grief counselor, puts him in the unique role of both producing or exacerbating the effect of anxiety or despair in an individual, as well as creating the context through which that despair is then addressed.  His audience, of which we have been a part, consists of individuals often marginalized by our larger society that ignores the very real warnings of catastrophic  climate change.  The views shared by many in our numerous and varied Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) groups have produced not simply a sense of despair about the future, but also a sense of isolation from our immediate communities and families.  Solace is then sought out within the NTHE community, under the banner of this person’s scientific findings.

While in many ways natural responses warranted by our current situation, this combination of despair, confusion, and isolation, none the less set up the potential for the exploitation of those who acutely feel the desperation and disorientation of abrupt climate change, and have nowhere else to turn for answers.

And this is the reason for the need for ethics and ethical boundaries.  This person is in a position of authority with direct influence over the mental, emotional, and in some cases physical and monetary lives, of those who exist in a state of vulnerability.  This is a state which he has helped to facilitate and of which he profits from in his personal life.  To then use that position, as this person has done, to engage in sexualized relations with women by way of administering a self-serving “healing” to individuals who are going such traumatic personal experiences, is a violation of ethical boundaries.  From a purely ethical perspective within a narrowly focused context of a professor/student and grief therapist/client context, the exact content of these relations, which will justifiably elicit revulsion in many by themselves, is not the primary concern.  The mere existence of these relations under such power dynamics, whether consensual or not, is at best ethically compromised, simply because of the potential  for abuse that exists, even if no actual abuse can be conclusively identified.  As the revelations of women who have come forward and expressed their pain with regard to these relationships continues to grow, this strongly indicates that emotional abuse and the abuse of power were at play and their claims should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the most basic level, it is because these abuses could take place that professional boundaries and codes of ethics are established and why we should reject this person‘s behavior.

In that vein, the truth of the matter is that whatever grey area there may potentially be is no longer up for debate due to his repeated and lengthy record of attempting and succeeding in taking advantage of women in a vulnerable position emotionally due to the disheartening mental and social effects of personally accepting the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction (of which humanity will be one of its victims, as well as its singular cause).  As one of the admittedly unfiltered and honest voices concerning this present set of circumstances with few people having the sphere of influence that he has in our small community,  the unethical manner in which he used this trust for nefarious sexual ends repeatedly has left us no other recourse but to do everything in our power to stop him from continuing the same behavior.

This then leads to the second critical point.  While the argument has been made that in regard to his relations with one particular woman, the content is irrelevant because of its consensual nature, this defense rings hollow.  To use an analogy: while living in a free society one may be legally permitted to hold racist beliefs and freely associate with other racists, a member of the NAACP would  nonetheless rightfully oppose its leader if they were later discovered to be a member of the KKK.  Such an association would clearly violate the spirit and mission of an organization promoting racial justice, and in the duplicity of core beliefs in the leadership, it would  also indicate a threat to the structural integrity of the organization and potentially its members.  It would not matter whether the current leader had joined the KKK after being first approached by a klansman, or if the leader started a chapter on his own.  The compromise would be clear.

Similarly, the content of his interactions with one woman in question, no matter how they came about, indicated the willingness of this person to engage in, perhaps initiate, rape fantasies  and other degrading and sexually objectifying dialogues that are not congruous with the core values of a significant number of members of the Near Term Human Extinction Support Group and its associated community.  This incongruity is borne out in the fact that he has spoken out specifically against patriarchy on his regular online radio program and in innumerous public forums and presentations, but has engaged in fantasies of rape and sexual enslavement, which represent the most extreme form of patriarchy, regardless of how that interaction began.   Therefore, the problems surrounding the content of his interactions are twofold.  They are contained in both the degrading, misogynist verbiage itself and the fact that such interactions represent a betrayal of trust relating to the public image of a respect for life and an opposition to patriarchy that he has cultivated in the public eye to his personal benefit.

The destruction of the Earth, the underlying concern of the various NTHE support groups, is the direct result of human and environmental exploitation, a core element of which is the domination of women where females are treated as property to be used  like much of the natural world, mere objects for male gratification.  Thus the move from more egalitarian, hunter gatherer societies into stratified agricultural and industrial societies, which culminated in today’s planet devouring global civilization which this person critiques, entailed the objectification and commodification of women.  To participate in such objectification and fantasies of female subjugation with a potential member of the NTHE community no less, goes beyond hypocrisy.  It signifies that in regard to what this person believes and values, he cannot be trusted.  And given the context, as suggested in the above analogy, this duplicity threatens both group integrity and potentially the safety of its members.

Perhaps some would say that the way in which the information was obtained makes us no better and even worse than the perpetrator, as there are many online accusations of this being the case.  However, we didn’t go out seeking this information, even if we are greatly appreciative of it since it allows us the opportunity to stop any future manipulations by someone in a leadership position.  It was brought to us and we made the difficult decision to use it for the greater good of stopping any further occurrences – our decision superseding any disparaging things said about us individually or collectively.

Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that none of the individuals who became privy to this information have an axe to grind with this person. Actually, this is quite the contrary.  We are all people who had a great amount of respect and admiration of him as a scholar and a person.  It wasn’t until recently that those who possessed such a tremendous amount of respect for this man started questioning his motives outside of the irrefutable science and his singular desire to provide it to the public.  Sadly, this recent incident dispelled any doubts in our minds regarding much of his endeavors.

We are a small community of activists.  Most of what we know to be true in this world in regards to the state of affairs of the planet are things that are not accepted by the mainstream world, even though they are playing out in real time and disaffecting humanity at this very instant and with growing intensity.  As it is difficult to find any sources of solidarity, be it local or globally, once this disparate group of human beings find comrades or leaders (of which there are even less), we tend to cling on to them in great desperation as they are truly few and far between.

As this is the case, the people who come to us and try to find a community of some sort to explain to them what is going on or just commiserate about the ongoing travails of this global society are the picture of vulnerability during their greatest hour of need.  Hence, it is unethical, even predatory, for anyone to take advantage of these people while they are most defenseless.  As some people are trying to construe this as just a single, solitary case,  the fact of the matter is that this has been an ongoing pattern for awhile now and has reached a point where someone must step in and stem the tide of abuse this man is committing on this tiny yet venerable group.

As such, it begs the question how long can people righteously withhold  what they know to be the truth when it comes to this man’s interaction with the members of such a small group, an already victimized sect who find very little acceptance in general society?  Can we, as supposedly moral people, just sit back idly and allow this type of behavior to continue unabated since it is the path of least resistance to stay silent?  As the response from this tight knit community has ranged from outrage to acceptance, the outcome of this revelation is of no real importance as biases abound as to the acceptance of this information.  Since that is the case, the only thing of barometric significance is apprising the people of the truth to keep them from harm, which was our singular reason for the release of this information.

Although we are cognizant that all of us have personal transgressions and no one is perfect, the predatory nature of this individual makes him a threat to both those who may be accepting of his advances and, most importantly, those who are not.  If the interaction is one of consent amongst equals, it is not the business of us as individuals or as a group to intercede at all.  But, when there is a blatant disregard for the welfare of the people  in an attempt to serve the lascivious desires of one man, then that is something that must be addressed by those who are in power to do so by any means necessary.

This brings us to the third and final critical point.  Not only was there a sordid psycho-sexual aspect of what took place that was against everything this man professed to be of a personal nature as a leader of a social movement, he also betrayed the confidence and trust of another intellectual leader and comrade in the movement, where, based on his documented language, it is a legitimate concern as to whether or not he would have been an actual physical threat to her if he had the opportunity.  With this third and final critical piece, his actions go beyond purely professional ethical violations and public misrepresentations of core values which demonstrate a willingness to degrade and objectify women.  His discussion moves into the realm of creating a physical environment that justifiably feels unsafe to core members.  As previously mentioned, there are other cases of women who have begun to voice their own troubling experiences, which at this time we cannot provide further details.

Therefore, even though we have all had an immense amount of respect for this man over the years, the recent events show he isn’t worthy of being in a position of influence and power over others, as he has abused it in the past, is abusing it presently and will assuredly continue this behavior in the future if no one attempts to at least stop him.

Although we are understanding that people will still hold their opinions about the veracity of the evidence against this man and come away absolving him of all guilt in this series of events, the primary thing we hope to accomplish is to warn those who are in the community about the ulterior motives of this man.  Once people are provided all the evidence, it is up to them to make a personal decision if they wish to continue their relationship with this person, be it personal and/or professional.  We aren’t here to tell anyone what to do in any aspect, as freedom of thought and choice is something we believe in and respect.  However, we would be remiss if we didn’t provide people the total knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

As we know that many people will consider our revelation as being divisive and a planned attack for some fantastical reason that has no basis in reality, we can only say we received this information through no attempt on our part and will receive no reward for releasing it.  Once we became aware of it though, there was no other recourse but to bring it to the public sphere, as the ongoing pattern of behavior was spiraling out of control. There will be those who will cast aspersions against our character and accuse us of somehow profiting in some way from this event, even though this is anything but the case.  Still, there will be many people who will consider us turncoats, paid informants, subversives and every other form of accusation as to our motives.  Yet, we will almost assuredly lose more favor and receive heightened scorn through providing this information than any other outcome.  No matter what blowback we receive though, it is worth it to us to receive a mountain of negative response rather than live with the unconscionable act of staying silent in the face of knowing malfeasance.

We welcome all queries about the veracity of the information since the specific evidence is part of the public domain and not under our supervision.  We have nothing to hide and will vociferously defend our decisions in this matter since to be silent in this regard is criminal, if not legally, then definitely morally.

We are greatly appreciative of the support from our online community in bringing this to the fore.

Thank you.

Michael  Sliwa, Host of the radio show Nature Bats Last from August 2014 to May 2017

Derrick Jensen, Deep Green Resistance

Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance

Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green

Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green

Luke Orsborne, Wrong Kind of Green

 

+++

Psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author Judith Herman:

“Authoritarian, secretive, sometimes grandiose, and even paranoid, the perpetrator is nevertheless exquisitely sensitive to the realities of power and to social  norms. Only rarely does he get into difficulties with the law; rather, he seeks out situations where his tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired. His demeanor provides an excellent camouflage, for few people believe that extraordinary crimes can be committed by men of such conventional appearance.  The perpetrator’s first goal appears to be the enslavement of his victim, and he accomplishes this goal by exercising despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life. But simple compliance rarely satisfies him; he appears to have a psychological need to justify his crimes, and for this he needs the victim’s affirmation. Thus he relentlessly demands from his victim professions of respect, gratitude, or even love. His ultimate goal appears to be the creation of a willing victim. Hostages, political prisoners, battered women, and slaves have all remarked upon the captor’s curious psychological dependence upon his victim. George Orwell gives voice to the totalitarian mind in the novel 1984: “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.”

 The desire for total control over another person is the common denominator of all forms of tyranny. Totalitarian governments demand confession and political conversion of their victims. Slaveholders demand gratitude of their slaves. Religious cults demand ritualized sacrifices as a sign of submission to the divine will of the leader. Perpetrators of domestic battery demand that their victims prove complete obedience and loyalty by sacrificing all other relationships. Sex offenders demand that their victims find sexual fulfillment in submission. Total control over another person is the power dynamic at the heart of pornography. The erotic appeal of this fantasy to millions of terrifyingly normal men fosters an immense industry in which women and children are abused, not in fantasy but in reality.”

FINAL-STATEMENT-AUGUST-26-2017-final-revision

 

27 Comments

  • peter choyce on Oct 12, 2017

    I think when u are a man and u get that involved in feminist theory that’s just another way of trying to hit it off with the chicks. People in our small enclave aren’t telling u this, but it’s creepy and lame to connect environmental issues with your dopey female supremicism. This is the kind of rot that has the science community snickering and the rest of the world laughing at us. Grow up and come to grips with your own dark predilictions. I hope Guy wins his defamation suit and it was so worth it to you to lose a sizeable portion of your own audience. Ya, chicks really dig u now!

  • Stephanie Hibdon on Sep 30, 2017

    I am very disappointed in all the signers of this long winded, self rightous bunch of bullshit! Do they really know what happened? No. Were they directly involved? No. Just because you insert yourselves into pronouncing judgement about a situation you THINK you know about does not mean it is true. If you have concrete evidence, write about that.

    I am very disappointed that you signers have taken it upon yourselves to assume some superior attitude. Who the hell are you to judge anyone, much less determine the mindset of another?

    How bout you stay on track, reporting/promoting awareness of climate change & not sink to the bottom like so many others, in distracting people with garbage? Very, very disappointing!

  • Brenda Rosser on Sep 18, 2017

    Could I please view the testimonials of the women affected by Guy McPherson’s actions and also any other evidence in regards to these accusations? thanks

  • Ellen C Perry on Sep 14, 2017

    With all due respect to the people involved I personally would like to write in support of Guy. I’ve had a few light interactions with him online and he was always informative and respectful. I don’t care at all about his sex life. I’m not sure if his “we only have 10 yrs to live” theory is correct or not but I take it with a grain of salt. Knowing this might happen has actually enhanced my life as I make a point to appreciate every minute I have left.

    I’m very suspicious that someone in the climate collapse community is being “outed” in this way. I would not be surprised if it is some kind of ploy.

    That being said I have great respect for Derrick Jensen. The fact he is on this list is troubling.

    Hoping the best for Guy and the rest of the people who are feeling hurt about this.

    Sincerely,
    Ellen Perry

  • DA on Sep 09, 2017

    You talk about this evidence against Dr. McPherson, but you have not shown us anything. Why couldn’t you give us links to this information? Why do you hide behind the ‘anonymity’ of the accusers, since by law the names of sexual misconduct victims are supposed to be protected. How convenient.

    If any of this is true, then I must stress that at least some of you must have known what was going on with this man but you turned the other way. If this was a long pattern of behavior then I find it hard to believe that you all didn’t know about any of this. For you all to feign innocence about this ‘newfound information’ is, not only suspicious, it seems like you are throwing GM under the bus(whether he deserves it or not) in order to look like morally upstanding people. You guys must have known what was going on and you didn’t care, but now you are trying not to look like enablers to the public.

    How long has this pattern of behavior been going on? You don’t specify anything. This is all so vague! Now, I’m reading info about transphobia within DGR according to First Earth Newswire?! Are you kidding me?!

    Talk about calling the kettle black! Sexual harassment is wrong but transphobia is not?!

    I really don’t know what else to say here, except that in the future I will make it a point to avoid anything that you all are involved in.

    I don’t know if you are a part of the deep state spreading lies, or whether you are telling the truth and I frankly don’t care.

    What I find disturbing is the niggling in the back of my mind that at least some of you knew that this professor was a sexual predator and you ignored all the red flags. What made you guys “come clean” is unknown to me, but I do feel very strongly that this man’s misconduct was quite known to you for quite some time- if indeed this news is all true.

    Wow.

    Just wow.

  • Carol Oldershaw on Aug 31, 2017

    What kind of smear campaign is WKofG running? Chris Hedges? Guy McPherson?

    The information that Guy McPherson has passed on to us is invaluable and we should be grateful for him – and all those who speak truth-to-power. I believe Guy McPherson became aware of just how profoundly deep is the grief and depression that comes with awareness – i.e., like Michael Ruppert’s suicide in 2014 – and decided then to counsel those of us who despair at what we have done, what we continue to do, and what we have become … ease up people … don’t kill the messenger.

  • Johnny on Aug 31, 2017

    I don’t get it. What is the actual accusation? I’m sorry but i having a hard time reading it all.

    • Kat on Sep 13, 2017

      I’m hanging too. Did not ever read the “texts” and don’t care to, ever. It sounds as if someone is attempting to
      step into a role of leadership by moral superiority and after bringing down another. I plan to back out and stay out, I’ve seen this type of attack on others in so many movements and is just as ugly this time.truly disheartening.

  • William Kay on Aug 31, 2017

    There is a new video at:

  • Spenser on Aug 29, 2017

    I honestly just came upon this website today but I have a few questions that this treatise appears to have left unanswered:

    -Was this woman receiving treatment from this man or not?
    -Was this woman a member of this group or not?
    -Are you indeed saying that by the nature of this man’s academic or activist work he’s prohibited from having a physical relationship with someone who has the same views or interests?

    -Did he indeed initiate the idea to have the subject of these “fantasy” communications?
    -Do these communications represent his true feelings or are they a form of fantasy, role playing, power dynamic play, fictional writings, experimentation and/or attempts to please, etc?
    -How do these communications directly show that he approves of what you claim? eg patriarchy, etc
    -If the communications occurred between reversed roles, ie: Woman -> man would they still prove what you claim?

    -The accusations of similar behavior, did they appear before or after these revelations?

  • Barbara A. Smith on Aug 29, 2017

    Are we talking about adult women here? It almost seems like this man was abusing children.

    Girls have to be raised from a young age to learn to say “no” and not put up with bs from ANYONE, no matter how admired and respected the perp is. Not socialized to be “nice” or overly sentimental and to know what boundaries are, and when someone has crossed them.

    This man had no real, police power and was not an employer. All he had was just a kind of charisma, a true, distressing message, and unethical dual role that girls and women should be taught to recognize for the manipulation that it is.

  • OLG on Aug 28, 2017

    ‘we can only address it by walking away.’= REMAINING SILENT is CONSENT

  • Dora W. on Aug 27, 2017

    Firstly, I have “know” 2 out of the 6 people who signed their name to this document. And I too feel it is divisive. Second, I don’t know how “intellectual” one has to be to be part of your organization because for me it was quite difficult to understand the lengthy and high brow vocabulary used in this “statement”. And I have studied latin plus speak, read and write hungarian and english, so that is not the issue. But one thing I want to “volunteer” and though it is only my own view, I feel it has a “universal truth” ring to it. We have all made mistakes, yes. Is anyone innocent at the basic level? Who knows. There are one but many sides of any story and no matter who wins, in the end this ship is going down. A “ship of fools” LOVE. If it was up to me I hope that ONLY LOVE REMAINS. PS: I also want to retract my dark humor one I wrote on Facebook. “Only porn remains”. In solidarity with no side Dora

  • Joshua Hinnenkamp on Aug 27, 2017

    Sorry bad link — please read comment #11 (and others if you wish) in the comments section — http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/02/23/a-toxic-culture-of-violence-and-shame-how-dgrs-denial-of-transphobia-exposes-worse-tendencies/

  • Joshua Hinnenkamp on Aug 27, 2017

    P.S. I would be happy to share mountains of evidence to give some solidity to the vague claims and statements I have made below. Here is a link that sums of much of what I am talking about. Specific attention should also be given to the comments section, specifically comment #11 which is the statement DGR Austin released internally to the parent organization.

    http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/02/23/a-toxic-culture-of-violence-and-shame-how-dgrs-denial-of-transphobia-exposes-worse-tendencies/The Letter Collective

    I am not trying to dredge up DGR’s transgender stance. That is a secondary issue, so please do not throw that specific issue back in my face. My issue currently is in the way Derrick and Lierre handled organizational issues and how they treated members of their organization when their transgender stance blew up in their face. While they may very well be correct above for calling out Guy Mcpherson, they also should be called out for their own hypocrisy surrounding their own specific behavior to individuals and peers.

  • Joshua Hinnenkamp on Aug 27, 2017

    While guy McPherson may be guilty of what he is being accused of above, we do have an issue. DGR. DGR leadership has repeatedly shown how it lies and lies and lies in order to smear people, bend the truth, harm movements, and create very toxic environments. This is coming from a former member of DGR Austin. DGR Austin unanimously disbanded the group because of the toxic leadership that showed us how they valued hierarchy and used it to oppress members of their organization that did not share every opinion they had. They used shame culture to smear people, and when the evidence pointed back at them, they used their hierarchy to shut people out. Derrick and Lierre cannot be trusted. But, since I have no qualms with Wrong Kind of Green, I do believe this issue may very well be worth looking into. My suggestion to Wrong Kind of Green and Nature Bats: disassociate yourself from these two toxic people. They are as oppressive as the oppression they claim to fight.

  • Frank Schoenburg on Aug 27, 2017

    Thank you for making this public. From where I sit it’s a no brainer but I’m sure it was much more difficult decision when you folks were actually making it. Personally I haven’t given anything Guy has said an ounce of weight since he thought it was acceptable to quote half sentences of Nicole Foss and then attack her. This is obviously a much more serious offense and I’m glad it’s out in the open. He doesn’t deserve any benefit of any doubt. Good riddance.

  • voza0db on Aug 27, 2017

    Hello.

    If we want to achieve the state of “Human Being” we can not allow this type of degenerated behavior to occur either by simply looking the other way, or by trying to find some excuse.

    If any single sign emerges that a person is a degenerated human animal, we can only address it by walking away.

  • Cindy Winkelman on Aug 27, 2017

    I was so disturbed by everything so wrong this accusation that I had to sleep on it before I could comment. This feels like a typical “human” reaction that has stoked the “us vs. them” war mentality since the beginning of human time. The writers of this document (especially Michael J. Sliwa and Derrick Jensen – I’m shocked!) seem like a lynch mob. Like the KKK hunting down a black man. Like the inquisition looking to burn someone at the stake for fornicating before marriage. Where is the justice? There are always two sides to a story and this one is completely one-sided. Is this the post apocalypse “leadership” we are in store for? If so, it seems like we are indeed a hopeless species. Where’s the love people? I’ve known Guy McPherson for nearly 10 years. He was a devoted husband; married to a woman who did not share his views. It was a heart breaker! But Guy is a man true to his beliefs. His passion to warn people about what he believes is in store for them burns strong. In the face of brutal resistance, he has stayed true to his mission. And then he finds love again! How wonderful! Oh ~ how we can all be so fortunate! It is LOVE that I will seek at the end of times. And fight this biased, judgmental, frigid, kkk-like “leadership” I would.

  • Norm Prakash Keegel on Aug 27, 2017

    I would like to know more. I saw a vague comment about accusations of a sexual nature and I think there was a hint of legal action. This statement contradicts the latter and perhaps my memory is faulty.

    But it is important to me to know the circumstances. I will continue to support Guy both personally and in his message. That does not mean that I will disbelieve what is said about him.

    The statement says that ‘the specific evidence is part of the public domain”, so it shouldn’t be hard for somebody to point me to it.

    I am grateful that the statement takes this beyond rumour..

  • Deborah Burns on Aug 26, 2017

    Thanks for bringing this information to light!!!! Ìw

  • lynn faulkner on Aug 26, 2017

    I am saddendum to read this about someone I have respected, but Bravo to all of you for exposing the truth.

  • Chris Behrmann on Aug 26, 2017

    I thank you for making such a bold statement. You’re actually correct it comes under the realm of ethics and moral behavior. I also made reference of such on line a week ago after learning of the said allegations. However, I did not pursue discussing the subject of morality and best practice approaches when in a leadership position, especially one of this nature where there is no way out as our very lives are at risk due to the inhospitable and egregious acts of a sociopathic society. You are absolutely right in revealing such behaviors or else you would be complicit and even liable for further exploitations to vulnerable and innocent participants.
    Power is so corruptible and intoxicatingly addictive that leaders must be held to higher standards as bearers of light separate from the fray. My background as a healthcare administrator and business owner has on occasions presented opportunities to cross the line also, either by exploiting a subordinate or allowing myself to be exploited for favor. I clearly understood the ethical implications and have never crossed that line of compromising integrity, trust and pursuit of excellence. We have greater responsibilities as keepers of light in building one another vs the degrading of another human being.

  • gail zawacki on Aug 26, 2017

    I very much thank you for all this, it needs to come to light. However, I have the same disagreement with part of your analysis that I have had with Guy ever since I first met him. “The destruction of the Earth…is the direct result of human and environmental exploitation, a core element of which is the domination of women where females are treated as property to be used like much of the natural world, mere objects for male gratification. Thus the move from more egalitarian, hunter gatherer societies into stratified agricultural and industrial societies, which culminated in today’s planet devouring global civilization which this person critiques, entailed the objectification and commodification of women.” – this isn’t quite true. Inequality is the human condition. Exploitation of women and the environment, animals and any weaker human creatures is part and parcel of the human condition and always has been. Industrial civilization has accelerated the destruction but it has also enabled women to demand equality, and slavery to be (technically, legally for the most part if not in fully in actuality) abolished. Guy refused to recognize this and hence he could not recognize the innate impulse within himself, and override it. This is a form of denial that ultimately shackles any real progress.