1-08

Daniel Evanoff

1455 E Briarcliff LN

Eugene, OR 97404

970-433-0362

<Daniel@forestcouncil.org>

## 1-08

## Dear Stewards of the Future,  Thank God for your appeal for help in deciding the future of approximately 2.6 million acres of public lands spread throughout the coastal mountains and on the west slopes of the Cascades in Oregon.   Your invitation to participate this planning process comes as a blessed opportunity to curtail yet another attempt to implement a temporary solution to natural resource and environmental policy recurring nightmare in the long and troubled history of forest management in Pacific Northwest.

Settlement agreement; unsettling disagreement;   Settling Wrongful
Oregon Plan Revisions

## The alleged purpose and need for the revisions themselves are curiously situated in a footnote on p4:                               2 This revision process will satisfy a settlement agreement resolving long-standing litigation of the Northwest Forest Plan (AFRC v. Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)) that alleged the current RMPs violate the O&C Act. The settlement agreement requires BLM to consider revisions to the RMPs by the end of the year 2008, and include at least one alternative that "will provide permanent forest production across the O&C lands without reserves except as required to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act." See Appendix A for more discussion.  Curious indeed is why the central purpose of the revisions is located in a footnote. Yet perchance even an inexperienced tracker, such as myself, can still trace the intention of the ravenous beast by this vestige.   It appears that the whole reason for the revisions is to settle a matter with private industry outside of court of Law. Thus the entire document stands in direct contradiction to repeated claims within the proposal which state that \"The plans will also comply with all other applicable laws\"(p.3) 

##  Curiouser yet is; if the BLM\' wanted a legal solution, then how will the \"purpose and need\" be resolved by a settlement agreement outside of court? If the BLM has to follow all laws, why didn\'t they let the lawsuit be legally resolved? Moreover how will this temporary \"settlement agreement\" provide a permanent legal solution to public resource management?

##  During the scoping period the question was raised (p?), \"Since this plan revision effort is the result of a court settlement agreement with the American Forests Resource Council, hasn't the final the decision already been made?\" And the BLMs, response (p?);

The Settlement Agreement represents BLM's willingness to work with
interested parties to see if there is a better way to manage
BLM-administered public lands in western Oregon, one that is more
successful in meeting the intent of the O&C Act while still fully
complying with other federal laws and regulations that guide BLM
activities.

The portion of the Settlement Agreement that requires a revision of
existing RMPs does not specify a particular outcome. It only specifies
that one of the alternatives analyzed must address minimizing reserves
except those necessary to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species
Act. A range of alternatives will be analyzed and a decision will be
based on that analysis.

But the authors of the draft also state; \"We have selected Alternative
2 as our preferred alternative because this alternative would best
fulfill our statutory mission and responsibilities.\" (p?) I have tried
to interpret this other than as a statement of intention favoring a
certain single interest, but have failed on all accounts.**  **

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as
amended, 43 U.S.C.\
1701 et seq., provides the authority for the BLM land use planning.\
-- Sec. 102 (a) (7) and (8) sets forth the policy of the United States
concerning the\
management of the public lands.\
-- Sec. 201 requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and
maintain an\
inventory of the public lands and their resource and other values,
giving priority\
to areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and, as funding and\
workforce are available, to determine the boundaries of the public
lands,\
provide signs and maps to the public, and provide inventory data to
State and\
local governments.\
-- Sec. 202 (a) requires the Secretary, with public involvement, to
develop,\
maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide by
tracts or\
areas for the use of the public lands.\
-- Sec. 202(c)(1-9) requires that, in developing land use plans, the BLM
shall use\
and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; use a
systematic\
interdisciplinary approach; give priority to the designation and
protection of\
areas of critical environmental concern; rely, to the extent it is
available, on the\
inventory of the public lands; consider present and potential uses of
the public\
lands; consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the
availability\
of alternative means and sites for realizing those values; weigh
long-term\
benefits to the public against short term benefits; provide for
compliance with\
applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air,
water, noise, or\
other pollution standards or implementation plans; and consider the
policies of\
approved State and tribal land resource management programs, developing
land\
use plans that are consistent with State and local plans to the maximum
extent\
possible consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.

## Understanding how individuals, organizations, city, state and federal governments are developing capacity to meet the challenges of increasing environmental responsibility is the polar opposite of the strategy being employed by the authors of the WOPR. Considering  that ALT 2 proposes the greatest increase in logging and the greatest threat to the Natural environment, calling for tripling clear-Cuts, more than 2/3 reduction in riparian buffers, & a wopr-ing & 700% increase in old growth....etc. ad nausea.  Therefore alt 2 is the most lopsided alternative in favoring single minded timber interests, over Native, public, conservation and all other interests. This wopr-ing outrageous proposal has drawn attention to the source intention of the problem.  Preferring alt #2 suggests a willingness to submit to timber interests over all others. 

The WOPR is in conflict with many laws but Most of all in conflict with
The Law of Nature to which we owe our survival. Although we woefully
dwell in quiet desperation within the current economy, if the current
economy is in conflict with the current ecology which ultimately
sustains us, then, the current economy will eventually lead to our own
demise. Such is the best that all proposed alternatives present.

## The following paragraph from p.5 of the draft reveals the sad truth behind their intention, greed or ignorance, or some combination thereof;

## In 1995, the Northwest Forest Plan analysis used a geographical information database that was limited to a resolution of units of 40 acres in size. The current database has a resolution many times finer than this: i.e., 10 square meters in resolution rather than 40 acres. Additionally the hydrological map data, among others, was incomplete at that time and has now been completed and updated. As a consequence, the BLM is now able to perform analysis on such resources as aquatic habitat in much finer detail with more precision using analytical models that were unavailable in 1993. In part due to the limitations of the available information database, the 1995 RMPs erred on the side of caution regarding resources used by species considered rare, threatened, or endangered. That margin of error is no longer justified. Making this adjustment in light of advances in the analytical ability, data, and knowledge of the resources is consistent with the principles of adaptive management articulated in the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994.(P5)

## Hence comes clearly into vision the truly unscrupulous motive of the authors of the Worst Option Preferred in Reality. It makes me cry. If we continue to \"err\" on the side of caution, by protecting our native ecosystems, Homo Sapiens will be a primary contender as a candidate to be listed as an endangered, and therefore protected under the ESA. And then even the authors of the WOPR would likely find grave difficulty in attempting to draft an agreeable settlement to meet the purpose and need and to reconcile the ESA and all other Laws with the \"primacy" of the O&C act. Can you imagine? 

## The authors of the WOPR bring great shame and indignity to the nation's principal conservation agency. It is most unfortunate that the very agency that is poised to protect and manage our public forests for the greater good has sided with those who seek only the profit of the Almighty dollar and to recklessly plunder the one Earth we all must share. The authors of the WOPR in siding with the timber industry favoring short-term economic irrationality over long-term ecological stability and economic potential, have thus positioned themselves as the leading obstacle to any perennial, causal, and legal solution, and poised in direct opposition to public interests, true conservationists and Forest defenders who seek souly to treat our Mother Earth with the love and respect she deserves. Future generations are thus further compromised and left with fewer resources and less viable means to address the underlying structural problems.    

This document is an unwise and unethical plan to defraud
the people of their public resources and rather than resolving anything
the WOPR has created an unsettling disagreement of massive and tragic
proportions.

 

In response to your inquiry;

How to speed the redevelopment of structurally complex forests after
regeneration timber harvesting. (cover letter)

  

I admit certain and constrained difficulty in attempting to ground a
position from which one can respond seriously to this non-sensical
statement. But it provides further evidence that the timber industry has
curried the favor of the authors of the WOPR, overriding their
responsibility to the public interests as part of the nation's principal
conservation agency. Calling clear-cutting \"regeneration harvesting\"
is a mischievously cutting line in itself. Is it possible that I am the
first to state that regeneration harvesting is inconsistent with the
redevelopment of structurally complex forests at any rate of speed? Old
growth forest ecosystems are not rapid growth ecosystems. Do I plea
ridiculously to say that? I honestly think that I must be
misunderstanding what this statement is suggesting. I know of no other
perennial \"crop\" that is \"harvested \"in such a manner. I know of no
other ecosystem that takes longer to reestablish its complex structure,
which can continue developing over millennia. I can find no ground for
reconciliation between regeneration harvesting any where in the
definition of \"sustainable yield\". And can find no reason to support
the conclusion for clear cutting at all on any land, anywhere at all,
ever.

This WOPR -what is it but a fraudulent, insidious and deliberate,
though   meagerly camouflaged tradition to sell public resources to
private industry.

RE: errors in your analysis; Stop Wasting Oregon\'s Priceless Resources 

-false scoping

-bogus purpose and need

-bogus definition of \"sustainable yield\"

-regeneration harvesting

-old growth is not renewable resource and so cannot be considered a
factor in \"sustainable yield\"

\- old growth cutting  can not be considered a valid part of any plan
revision, alternative or any real solution\
-remaining % of Native forests must be saved for their loss will only
result in our Grandchildren facing the same the same issues we\'re
facing now

but further compromised and left with fewer resources and less viable
means to address the underlying structural problems.

and further compromised and left with fewer resources and less viable
means to address the underlying structural problems.

thus further compromised\
-does not legally resolve any issue, thus rendering the entire WOPR a
useless document of unscrupulous, insidious, wasteful, witless, wrongful
, and greedful intent.

\- irony of conservation\
-selective use of data and scientific references to support a
pre-determined preferred outcome---that outcome being the maximum cut
rate possible while maintaining an appearance of compliance with
existing laws and regulations.\
-does not provide the protection and regard that our public forests,
irreplaceable assets in the ongoing livability of our planet, deserve.\
-Constantly changing the definitions of science to fit the political
mood or demand of the timber industry\
 \
The errors in your analysis are many and weighty; it follows that the
entire revision can be shown irrelevant, immaterial, shortsighted and
temporary\... can summarily be dismissed, and propose to submit the
entire document to the flames, provided of course, that the flames do
not protrude into an area of potential fire danger.

RE; new or missing information that would have a bearing on the
analysis; Save Wisely Organic Perennial Resources\
\
Over ten years have passed since commitment to the NWFP. Times have
changed. Knowledge has accumulated. Cutting of timber from old-growth
stands has become evermore unlikely. That does not seem apt to change.
Declines in numbers of pairs of nesting northern spotted owls, likely
associated with displacement by barred owls (Strixvaria), recent
invaders of the habitat and better adjusted to younger stands and
fragmented habitats, an under appreciated factor in 1990, seems likely
to increase the value of any remaining old growth to the welfare of the
northern spotted owl, including that in the matrix between reserves.For
those who love old-growth forests, for reasons ranging from concern over
associated plants and animals (or the ecosystems of which they are
part), to the beauty and majesty of large old trees, there is no
compromise. They have fought, and will fight mightily, and probably
successfully, to save both old large trees and any remaining old-growth
forest stands on national forests in the Pacific Northwest from being
cut. And, they have the upper hand in terms of national public opinion
and as a consequence of the ESA and consistent federal court decisions
associated with that factor.\
Technicians and the lawyers who advise them ("left brain dominated"
technocrats all) should have learned by now that it is not the northern
spotted owl that is or was the question in the Pacific Northwest. Nor,
is it or was it marbled murrelets, nor the myriad runs of anadromous
fish at risk. It was not even the hundreds of species closely associated
with old-growth forests. It was, technically and legally, the remnant
old-growth ecosystem upon which threatened or endangered species depend
that was, itself, threatened and endangered.\
Or, is there even more to it than that, something more related to
beauty, reverence, or other factors -- "right brained processes" -- that
foresters, wildlife biologists, other technicians and lawyers and judges
are poorly prepared, reluctant, and even legally prohibited from
considering? If so, this debate, and other raging debates about the
future of the public's forests, are being argued and fought using
surrogates for the real issues. Perhaps consideration of
"sustainability" should be expanded beyond the current application to
goods and services to be inclusive of stand conditions determined to
have value in and of themselves.

Sustainability of old-growth ecosystems, in the end, will be dependent
on forest managers understanding and utilizing dynamic approaches. LSRs
are the beginning point in sustaining old-growth associated ecosystems,
not the end. If a desired forest condition is to be maintained over the
very long term, management to attain and sustain that condition must be
dynamic, flexible, adaptive, and equally considerate of both short-term
and long-term risks. Minimization of short-term risks (the modus
operandi of regulatory agencies and the federal courts) has a price tag,
and a very big one, related to significantly increased longer-term risks
of failure to meet incremental objectives over very long time frames.

However, make no mistake, any management scheme aimed toward providing
for old growth, even over centuries, must begin with remnant stands of
old growth. Old growth may take centuries to develop, and, even then, it
is unknown whether facsimiles can be produced through innovative
silviculture. Even if the very long-term probability of maintaining
old-growth stands of adequate amount, sizes, arrangement, and adequate
connection to sustain species associated with such conditions are
unknown, federal land managers are none-the-less required, above all
other objectives, to attempt achievement of that end.

**Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is to but to obey the law. And, at
the moment, the overriding law is the ESA.** They will execute their
duties in a manner prescribed by duly elected officials and their
appointees. I.e., elected officials set policy and the professionals
execute those policies within the bounds of laws, regulations, court
decisions and budgets. When questions arise as to compliance with laws
and regulations and reckoning is due, the federal courts, not technical
specialists and not interest groups, and not the authors of the WOPR,
will judge when and whether land managers have performed appropriately
and adequately.

Clearly, the NWFP is the minimum (in terms of the short term protection
of old-growth forests within the range of the northern spotted owl) that
will pass muster with the federal courts.  If the BLM timber harvests
are below par under the NWFP, and existing laws at this point, then it
is impossible to evaluate how the BLM will legally be able to enact any
of the action alternatives or pending variations thereof.  And
considering the cost of litigation that will ensue, the fact that
logging subsidies already out weigh timber harvest revenues by billions
of dollars per year at taxpayers expense, the cost of survey and manage
protocols and numerous other hidden and exposed costs to the public, it
would make considerably more sense to come up with a Solution Wisely
Paying Our Preservation Reality. It would cost less just to give the
timber industry the money instead of the timber, but as this may appear
as more appalling than the alternatives, perchance consider an
alternative that would analyze that it would be far more cost effective
just to give the counties the money and let the children inherit a
habitable Earth. Just how much is each dollar of revenue from generated
timber costing Oregonians? The figure I heard today, was that for every
\$1 eared, \$1000 is the true taxpayer cost. What is the true cost?
Surely that is exactly the kind of analysis that the authors of the WOPR
FEIS should be considering , and summarily be supplying the information
to the Public, they may be a little interested themselves. Even if it
costs us only \$1 or \$2 for ever dollar earned, the inequity will not
be resolved by more logging. Why is the answer always more logging, when
the question is always less common sense?  At the very least the 17
western Oregon counties deserve such an analysis. Perchance ARFC or the
Board of O\$C counties, as they seem most interested parties, on the
lop-economic side, could be put to that task of  analysis, of which I
would like to see the results, no matter who performs it or the party
affiliation.

RE: a definition of a substantive and new alternative; Solution Western
Oregon Plan Revisions

Because the alleged \"purpose and need" is thoroughly bogus and
fraudulent there is a clear need to waste no further time or effort on
such foolish plans. I therefore state vehement opposition to all of the
proposed alternatives 

introducing the SWOPR; Solution Western Oregon Plan ReVisions

I recently relocated to Oregon, and am currently seeking employment that
meets the purpose and need of a human being. If I could have and fulfill
but one one wish, it would be to define a substantive new
alternative based on the Real purpose and need. I  cry for a Vision to
define a real alternative based on the true Purpose and Need of our
perennial forest lands and their management , based on the one true
purpose and need that we all share- to live on this planet peaceable
together. An alternative that creates jobs which are good. Timber is old
hat. Please recognize the seriousness of this. We need real jobs. Not
the kind of jobs that send us half way around the globe to speed the
rate of our own death. At best the Western Oregon Plan Revisions would
enable me to work in a self-destructive industry, where the bulk of my
wages may profit a corporation that is part of the problem, support  an
inequitable economy that is destroying itself, and ruin myself and the
environment all in one wopr-ing blow.

I would very much like to see a revision plan addressing the true
purpose and needs of our forest ecosystems as well as all of its related
inhabitants and the possibilities of employment opportunities in helping
the Forests rather than helping the timber industry. I call for a SWOPR
to swapper with the WOPR. and

Solve Wage Oppression Publicly Responsibly.

   I enjoy the benefits of standing trees. Much has been said on this,
so lets work on the SWOPR to Support Wages Of Permanent Restoration, for
people such as myself, who would like to see tress not clearcuts, more
over would like a job in the standing trees, not falling trees.

Please consider this in your revision analysis and may the final draft
relieve us all of the current problem situation and controversy, just so
the timber industry can get dirty (rich) at taxpayers expense. It would
be far cheaper to hire people like me, who wish for employment that is
truly sustainable, and makes more sense to pay BLM employees, to protect
the trees and public forests than to devise plans (Whopping Oppressive
Plan Revisions) to attack the Forests, and become the subject of public
attack. 

Temporary solutions to natural resource and environmental policy issues
have been universally presented and implemented in varying degrees.
Temporary measures based on corporate greed and manipulation, invalid
ideas \"sustainable yield\", of unlimited growth and infinite progress
in a world of limited space and finite resources, fail to address the
underlying problems and casual solutions. Yet economic and political
rhetoric appear predestined to create and support such foolhardy
policies. Future generations are thus further compromised and left with
fewer resources and less viable means to address the underlying
structural problems.\
The Vision of a habitable planet for future generations requires
creating the possibility of positive change;  As our understanding of
human impacts on the environment has increased, it has become clear that
we cannot continue to follow outdated modes of forest management, and
need to reorganize in order to avoid undesirable economic and ecosystem
consequences.   At this most crucial moment in the history of this
planet, we as a nation and society stand at on the brink of impending
peril and environmental catastrophe and ecosystem collapse Moreover may
these reflections extend not only to these Oregon lands but to all
public lands, and finally to the realization that there is but one true
owner of this one land, our Mother Earth.

  I am shamed by the  nation\'s primary conservation agency in is
manipulatively coercing various individuals and organizations to protect
what is rightly the job of the BLM to protect, and aggrieved to no end
and the mortal sins being inflicted on our Earth Mother.  As i must
believe that many of those people on the interior wish no clear cutting
and to save remaining native forest ecosystems for future generations
and are truly interested in creating a better alternative, have been led
astray by those insidious interests who seem to conclude that  its right
to kill our grandchildren to feed  their own gaping mouths and
insatiable hunger for profit of abhorrent consequence. I appeal to my
brothers and sisters within the BLM and to whomever this may concern to
make you voice heard to create a world worthy for our grandchildren to
inherit. Our ancient forests are being recklessly plundered and
annihilated, just as the perennial wisdom as our Elders, and Ancestors-
it is my sincere hope and plea to make your voice heard and stand both
in opposition to the alternatives presented in the WOPR and toward the
construction of a new alternative that is truly in the best interest of
us all. Let the old ways die and the ancient wisdom return.

  Surely there are many among you who perceive the many inadequacies of
the WOPR, and we call upon you to join in opposition to the WOPR and to
voice a willingness to call attention to addressing the need for a SWOPR
to exchange the Wasting Of Public Resources with an alternative to Solve
Western Oregon\'s Problem Resource management. I am optimistic that
together we create a peaceful future for our grandchildren to inherit a
perennial forested Earth. Please \"err\" on the side of caution to be
safe and not leave our grandchildren woefully, hopelessly sorry with an
inhabitable planet.

## The WOPR poses a threat far greater than any Natural disaster ever has in the past. The amount that the native landscape, which sustains us, has already been altered is infinitely greater than is tolerable. The WOPR sets the stage for the biggest un-natural disaster in the history of Humanity. A plan to thin the department of the interior of those who devise such foolish revisions would do more to help our public forests and public interests than any revision to plans to manage or thin the forests themselves ever could.

## At its very best the proposed WOPR takes a giant step toward failure, is an immense waste of time and invaluable public resources and sets the stage for a battle ground for massive civil disobedience. At is worst the WOPR represents the next step toward the probable future; an inhabitable future planet for our grandchildren to inherit, and the dawning of the eve of destruction of mankind as prophesied by numerous tribes and peoples who formerly inhabited this land, who recognized that they were not the owners of the land, but rather that the land was entrusted to their stewardship, and that we belong to it. Let us work together to preserve and protect a native, natural environment to sustain us, future generations and the all children of the one Earth. It is good to have spoken. Aho!

United in Defense of Forests of Peace,

Love,

Daniel

Human Being

1 Earth Place

Universe

00108

  Complementary Verses from the Essene Gospel of Peace;

\"Your Mother is in you, and you in her. She bore you she gives you
life. it was she who gave to you your body, and to her shall you one day
give it back again. Happy are you when you come to know her and her
kingdom; if you receive your Mother\'s angels and if you do her laws. I
tell you truly, he who does these things shall never see disease. For
the power of our Mother is above all. And it destroys Satan and his
kingdom, and has rule over all your bodies and all living things.

\"The blood which runs in us is born of the blood of our Earthly Mother.
Her blood falls from the clouds; leaps from the womb of the earth;
babbles in the brooks of the mountains; flows wide in the rivers of the
plains; sleeps in the lakes; rages mightily in tempestuous seas.

\"The air which we breathe is born of the breath of our Earthly Mother.
Her breath is azure in the heights of t heavens; soughs in the tops of
the mountains; whispers the leaves of the forest; billows over the
cornfields; slumbers in the deep valleys, burns hot in the desert.

\"The hardness of our bones is born of the bones of our Earthly Mother,
of the rocks and of the stones. They stand naked to the heavens on the
tops of mountains; are as giants that lie sleeping on the sides of the
mountains, as idols set in the desert, and are hidden in the deepness of
the earth.

\"The tenderness of our flesh is born of the flesh of our Earthly
Mother; whose flesh waxes yellow and red in the fruits of the trees, and
nurtures us in the furrows of the fields.

\"Our bowels are born of the bowels of our Earthly Mother, and are hid
from our eyes, like the invisible depths of the earth.

\"The light of our eyes, the hearing of our ears, both are born of the
colors and the sounds of our Earthly Mother; which enclose us about, as
the waves of the sea a fish, as the eddying air a bird.

\"I tell you in very truth, Man is the Son of the Earthly Mother, and
from her did the Son of Man receive his whole body, even as the body of
the newborn babe is born of the womb of his mother. I tell you truly,
you are one with the Earthly Mother; she is in you, and you in her. Of
her were you born, in her do you live, and to her shall you return
again. Keep, therefore, her laws, for none can live long, neither be
happy, but he who honors his Earthly Mother and does her laws. For your
breath is her breath; your blood her blood; your bone her bone; your
flesh her flesh; your bowels her bowels; your eyes and your ears are her
eyes and her ears.

\"I tell you truly, should you fail to keep but one only of all these
laws, should you harm but one only of all your body\'s members, you
shall be utterly lost in your grievous sickness, and there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth. I tell you, unless you follow the laws of
your Mother, you can in no wise escape death. And he who clings to the
laws of his Mother, to him shall his Mother cling also. She shall heal
all his plagues, and he shall never become sick. She gives him long
life, and protects him from all afflictions; from fire, from water, from
the bite of venomous serpents. For your Mother bore you, keeps life
within you. She has given you her body, and none but she heals you.
Happy is he who loves his Mother and lies quietly in her bosom. For your
Mother loves you, even when you turn away from her. And how much more
shall she love you, if you turn to her again? I tell you truly, very
great is her love, greater than the greatest of mountains, deeper than
the deepest seas. And those who love their Mother, she never deserts
them. As the hen protects her chickens, as the lioness her cubs, as the
mother her newborn babe, so does the Earthly Mother protect the Son of
Man from all danger and from all evils.

\"For I tell you truly, evils and dangers innumerable lie in wait for
the Sons of Men. Beelzebub, the prince of all devils, the source of
every evil, lies in wait in the body of all the Sons of Men. He is
death, the lord of every plague, and taking upon him a pleasing raiment,
he tempts and entices the Sons of Men. Riches does he promise, and
power, and splendid palaces, and garments of gold and silver, and a
multitude of servants, all these; he promises renown and glory,
fornication and lustfulness, gluttony and wine-bibbing, riotous living,
and slothfulness and idle days. And he entices every one by that to
which their heart is most inclined. And in the day that the Sons of Men
have already become the slaves of all these vanities and abominations,
then in payment thereof he snatches from the Sons of Men all those
things which the Earthly Mother gave them so abundantly. He takes from
them their breath, their blood, their bone, their flesh, their bowels,
their eyes and their ears. And the breath of the Son of Man becomes
short and stifled, full of pain and evil-smelling, like the breath of
unclean beasts. And his blood becomes thick and evil-smelling, like the
water of the swamps; it clots and blackens, like the night of death. And
his bone becomes hard and knotted; it melts away within and breaks
asunder, as a stone falling down upon a rock. And his flesh waxes fat
and watery; it rots and putrefies, with scabs and boils that are an
abomination.

And his bowels become full with abominable filthiness, with oozing
streams of decay; and multitudes of abominable worms have their
habitation there. And his eyes grow dim, till dark night enshrouds them,
and his ears become stopped, like the silence of the grave. And last of
all shall the erring Son of Man lose life. For he kept not the laws of
his Mother, and added sin to sin. Therefore, are taken from him all the
gifts of the Earthly Mother: breath, blood, bone, flesh, bowels, eyes
and ears, and after all else, life, with which the Earthly Mother
crowned his body.

\"But if the erring Son of Man be sorry for his sins and undo them, and
return again to his Earthly Mother; and if he do his Earthly Mother\'s
laws and free himself from Satan\'s clutches, resisting his temptations,
then does the Earthly Mother receive again her erring Son with love and
sends him her angels that they may serve him. I tell you truly, when the
Son of Man resists the Satan that dwells in him and does not his will,
in the same hour are found the Mother\'s angels there, that they may
serve him with all their power and free utterly the Son of Man from the
power of Satan.

\"For no man can serve two masters. For either he serves Beelzebub and
his devils or else he serves our Earthly Mother and her angels. Either
he serves death or he serves life. I ten you truly, happy are those that
do the laws of life and wander not upon the paths of death. For in them
the forces of life wax strong and they escape the plagues of death.\"