小说搜索     点击排行榜   最新入库
首页 » 英文宗教小说 » 与神对话 Conversations With God » Part 2 Chapter 10
选择底色: 选择字号:【大】【中】【小】
Part 2 Chapter 10
关注小说网官方公众号(noveltingroom),原版名著免费领。

I’ve been waiting for this. This is more of what I assumed You were promising1 me when You told me that Book 2 would deal with planetary issues on a global scale. So, can we begin our look at our human politics by my asking you what may seem like an elementary question?

 

No questions are undeserving or unworthy. Ques-tions are like people.

 

Ah, good one. Okay then, let me ask: is it wrong to under-take a foreign policy based on your country’s own vested interests?

 

No. First, from My standpoint, nothing is “wrong.” But I understand how you use the term, so I will speak within the context of your vocabulary. I’ll use the term “wrong” to mean “that which is not serving you, given who and what you choose to be.” This is how I’ve always used the terms “right” and “wrong” with you; it is always within this context, for, in truth, there is no Right and Wrong.

So, within that context, no, it is not wrong to base foreign policy decisions on vested interest considerations. What is wrong is to pretend that you’re not doing so.

This most countries do, of course. They take ac-tion—or fail to take action—for one set of reasons, then give as a rationale another set of reasons.

 

Why? Why do countries do that?

 

Because governments know that if people under-stood the real reasons for most foreign policy decisions, the people would not support them.

 

This is true of governments everywhere. There are very few governments which do not deliberately2 mis-lead their people. Deception3 is part of government, for few people would choose to be governed the way they are governed—few would choose to be governed at all—unless government convinced them that its deci-sions were for their own good.

This is a hard convincing, for most people plainly see the foolishness in government. So government must lie to at least try to hold the people’s loyalty4. Govern-ment is the perfect portrayer5 of the accuracy of the axiom that if you lie big enough, long enough, the lie becomes the “truth.”

People in power must never let the public know how they came to power—nor all that they’ve done and are willing to do to stay there.

 

Truth and politics do not and cannot mix because politics is the art of saying only what needs to be said—and saying it in just the right way—in order to achieve a desired end.

Not all politics are bad, but the art of politics is a practical art. It recognizes with great candor6 the psy-chology of most people. It simply notices that most people operate out of self-interest. So politics is the way that people of power seek to convince you that their self-interest is your own.

Governments understand self-interest. That is why governments are very good at designing programs which give things to people.

Originally, governments had very limited functions. Their purpose was simply to “preserve and protect.” Then someone added “provide.” When governments began to be the people’s provider as well as the people’s protector, governments started creating society, rather than preserving it.

 

But aren’t governments simply doing what the people want? Don’t governments merely provide the mechanism7 through which the people provide for themselves on a societal scale?

For instance, in America we place a very high value on the dignity of human life, individual freedom, the importance of opportunity, the sanctity of children. So we’ve made laws and asked government to create programs to provide income for the elderly, so they can retain their dignity past their earning years; to ensure equal employment and housing opportunities for all people—even those who are different from us, or with whose lifestyle we don’t agree; to guarantee, through child labor8 laws, that a nation’s children don’t become a nation’s slaves, and that no family with children goes without the basics of a life with dignity—food, clothing, shelter.

 

Such laws reflect well upon your society. Yet, in providing for people’s needs, you must be careful not to rob them of their greatest dignity: the exercise of personal power, individual creativity, and the single-minded ingenuity9 which allows people to notice that they can provide for themselves. It is a delicate balance which must be struck. You people seem to know only how to go from one extreme to the other. Either you want government to “do it all” for the people, or you want to kill all government programs and erase10 all government laws tomorrow.

 

Yes, and the problem is that there are so many who can’t provide for themselves in a society which gives the best life opportunities routinely to those holding the “right” creden-tials (or, perhaps, not holding the “wrong” ones); who can’t provide for themselves in a nation where landlords won’t rent to large families, companies won’t promote women, justice is too often a product of status, access to preventive health care is limited to those with sufficient income, and where many other discriminations and inequalities exist on a massive scale.

 

Governments, then, must replace the conscience of the people?

 

No. Governments are the people’s conscience, outspoken11. It is through governments that people seek, hope, and deter-mine to correct the ills of society.

 

That is well said. Yet, I repeat, you must take care not to smother12 yourself in laws trying to guarantee people a chance to breathe!

You cannot legislate13 morality. You cannot mandate14 equality.

What is needed is a shift of collective consciousness, not an enforcer of collective conscience.

Behavior (and all laws, and all government pro-grams) must spring from Beingness, must be a true reflection of Who You Are.

 

The laws of our society do reflect who we are! They say to everyone, “This is how it is here in America. This is who Americans are.”

 

In the best of cases, perhaps. But more often than not, your laws are the announcements of what those in power think you should be but are not.

 

The “elitist few” instruct the “ignorant many” through the law.

 

Precisely15.

 

What’s wrong with that? If there are a few of the brightest and best among us willing to look at the problems of society, of the world, and propose solutions, does that not serve the many?

 

It depends on the motives16 of those few. And on their clarity. Generally, nothing serves “the many” more than letting them govern themselves.

 

Anarchy17. It’s never worked.

 

You cannot grow and become great when you are constantly being told what to do by government.

 

It could be argued that government—by that I mean the law by which we’ve chosen to govern ourselves—is a reflection of society’s greatness (or tack18 thereof), that great societies pass great laws.

 

And very few of them. For in great societies, very few laws are necessary.

 

Still, truly lawless societies are primitive19 societies, where “might is right.” Laws are man’s attempt to level the playing field; to ensure that what is truly right will prevail, weakness or strength notwithstanding. Without codes of behavior upon which we mutually agree, how could we coexist?

 

I am not suggesting a world with no codes of behav-ior, no agreements. I am suggesting that your agree-ments and codes be based on a higher understanding and a grander definition of self-interest.

What most laws actually do say is what the most powerful among you have as their vested interest.

Let’s just look at one example. Smoking.

Now the law says you cannot grow and use a certain kind of plant, hemp20, because, so government tells you,

it is not good for you.

Yet the same government says it is all right to grow and use another kind of plant, tobacco, not because it is good for you (indeed, the government itself says it is bad), but, presumably, because you’ve always done so.

The real reason that the first plant is outlawed21 and the second is not has nothing to do with health. It has to do with economics. And that is to say, power.

Your laws, therefore, do not reflect what your soci-ety thinks of itself, and wishes to be—your laws reflect where the power is.

 

No fair. You picked a situation where the contradictions are apparent. Most situations are not like that.

 

On the contrary. Most are.

 

Then what is the solution?

 

To have as few laws—which are really limits—as possible.

The reason the first weed is outlawed is only osten-sibly about health. The truth is, the first weed is no more addictive22 and no more a health risk than cigarettes or alcohol, both of which are protected by the law. Why is it then not allowed? Because if it were grown, half the cotton growers, nylon and rayon manufacturers, and timber products people in the world would go out of business.

Hemp happens to be one of the most useful, strong-est, toughest, longest-lasting materials on your planet. You cannot produce a better fiber23 for clothes, a stronger substance for ropes, an easier-to-grow-and-harvest source for pulp24. You cut down hundreds of thousands of trees per year to give yourself Sunday papers, so that you can read about the decimation of the world’s forests. Hemp could provide you with millions of Sun-day papers without cutting down one tree. Indeed, it could substitute for so many resource materials, at one-tenth the cost.

 

And that is the catch. Somebody loses money if this miraculous25 plant—which also has extraordinary me-dicinal properties, incidentally—is allowed to be grown. And that is why marijuana is illegal in your country.

It is the same reason you have taken so long to mass produce electric cars, provide affordable26, sensible health care, or use solar heat and solar power in every home.

You’ve had the wherewithal and the technology to produce all of these things for years. Why, then, do you not have them? Look to see who would lose money if you did. There you will find your answer.

This is the Great Society of which you are so proud? Your “great society” has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to consider the common good. Whenever common good or collective good is mentioned, every-one yells “communism!” In your society, if providing for the good of the many does not produce a huge profit

for someone, the good of the many is more often than not ignored.

This is true not only in your country, but also around the world. The basic question facing humankind, there-fore, is: Can self-interest ever be replaced by the best interests, the common interest, of humankind? If so, how?

 

In the United States you have tried to provide for the common interest, the best interest, through laws. You have failed miserably27. Your nation is the richest, most powerful on the Earth, and it has one of the highest infant mortality rates. Why? Because poor people cannot afford quality pre-natal and post-natal care—and your society is profit driven. I cite this as just one example of your miserable28 failure. The fact that your babies are dying at a higher rate than most other industrialized nations in the world should bother you. It does not. That says volumes about where your priorities are as a society. Other countries provide for the sick and needy29, the elderly and infirm. You provide for the rich and wealthy, the influential30 and the well-placed. Eighty-five percent of retired31 Ameri-cans live in poverty. Many of these older Americans, and most people on low income, use the local hospital emer-gency room as their “family doctor,” seeking medical treatment under only the most dire32 of circumstances, and receiving virtually no preventive health maintenance care at all.

There’s no profit, you see, in people who have little to spend . . . they’ve worn out their usefulness . . .

And this is your great society—

 

You make things sound pretty bad. Yet America has done more for the underprivileged and the unfortunate—both here and abroad—then any other nation on Earth.

 

America has done much, that is observably true. Yet do you know that as a percentage of its gross national product, the United States provides proportionately less for foreign aid than many much smaller countries? The point is that, before you allow yourself to become too self-congratulatory, perhaps you should look at the world around you. For if this is the best your world can do for the less fortunate, you all have much to learn.

You live in a wasteful33, decadent34 society. You’ve built into virtually everything you make what your engineers call “planned obsolescence35.” Cars cost three times as much and last a third as long.

 

Clothes fall apart after the tenth wearing. You put chemicals in your food so they can stay on the shelf longer, even if it means your stay on the planet is shorter. You support, encour-age, and enable sports teams to pay obscene salaries for ridiculous efforts, while teachers, ministers, and researchers fighting to find a cure for the diseases which kill you go begging for money. You throw away more food each day in your nation’s supermarkets, restaurants, and homes than it would take to feed half the world.

Yet this is not an indictment36, merely an observation. And not of the United States alone, for the attitudes that sicken the heart are epidemic37 around the world.

The underprivileged everywhere must grovel38 and scrimp to merely stay alive, while the few in power protect and increase great hoards39 of cash, lie on sheets of silk, and each morning twist bathroom fixtures40 made of gold. And as emaciated41 children of ribs42 and skin die in the arms of weeping mothers, their country’s “lead-ers” engage in political corruptions43 which keep donated food stuffs from reaching the starving masses.

No one seems to have the power to alter these conditions, yet the truth is, power is not the problem. No one seems to have the will.

And thus it will always be, so long as no one sees another’s plight44 as his own.

 

Well, why don’t we? How can we see these atrocities45 daily and allow them to continue?

 

Because you do not care. It is a lack of caring. The entire planet faces a crisis of consciousness. You must decide whether you simply care for each other.

 

It seems such a pathetic question to have to ask. Why can’t we love the members of our own family?

 

You do love the members of your own family. You simply have a very limited view of who your family members are.

You do not consider yourself part of the human family, and so the problems of the human family are not your own.

 

How can the peoples of the Earth change their world view? That depends on what you want to change it to.

 

How can we eliminate more of the pain, more of the suffering?

 

By eliminating all separations between you. By constructing a new model of the world. By holding it within the framework of a new idea.

 

Which is?

 

Which is going to be a radical46 departure from the present world view.

Presently, you see the world—we’re speaking geopolitically now—as a collection of nation states, each sovereign, separate and independent of each other.

The internal problems of these independent nation states are, by and large, not considered the problems of the group as a whole-unless and until they affect the group as a whole (or the most powerful members of that group).

The group as a whole reacts to the conditions and problems of individual states based on the vested inter-ests of the larger group. If no one in the larger group has anything to lose, conditions in an individual state could go to hell, and no one would much care.

Thousands can starve to death each year, hundreds can die in civil war, despots can pillage47 the countryside, dictators and their armed thugs can rape48, plunder49, and murder, regimes can strip the people of basic human rights—and the rest of you will do nothing. It is, you say, an “internal problem.”

 

But, when your interests are threatened there, when your investments, your security, your quality of life is on the line, you rally your nation, and try to rally your world behind you, and rush in where angels fear to tread.

You then tell the Big Lie—claiming you are doing what you are doing for humanitarian50 reasons, to help the oppressed peoples of the world, when the truth is, you are simply protecting your own interests.

The proof of this is that where you do not have interests, you do not have concern.

 

The world’s political machinery51 operates on self-interest. What else is new?

 

Something will have to be new if you wish your world to change. You must begin to see someone else’s interests as your own. This will happen only when you reconstruct your global reality and govern yourselves accordingly.

 

Are you talking about a one-world government?

 

lam.


点击收听单词发音收听单词发音  

1 promising BkQzsk     
adj.有希望的,有前途的
参考例句:
  • The results of the experiments are very promising.实验的结果充满了希望。
  • We're trying to bring along one or two promising young swimmers.我们正设法培养出一两名有前途的年轻游泳选手。
2 deliberately Gulzvq     
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地
参考例句:
  • The girl gave the show away deliberately.女孩故意泄露秘密。
  • They deliberately shifted off the argument.他们故意回避这个论点。
3 deception vnWzO     
n.欺骗,欺诈;骗局,诡计
参考例句:
  • He admitted conspiring to obtain property by deception.他承认曾与人合谋骗取财产。
  • He was jailed for two years for fraud and deception.他因为诈骗和欺诈入狱服刑两年。
4 loyalty gA9xu     
n.忠诚,忠心
参考例句:
  • She told him the truth from a sense of loyalty.她告诉他真相是出于忠诚。
  • His loyalty to his friends was never in doubt.他对朋友的一片忠心从来没受到怀疑。
5 portrayer 3c114fa168705f50a94daa773380c8a5     
n.肖像画家
参考例句:
6 candor CN8zZ     
n.坦白,率真
参考例句:
  • He covered a wide range of topics with unusual candor.他极其坦率地谈了许多问题。
  • He and his wife had avoided candor,and they had drained their marriage.他们夫妻间不坦率,已使婚姻奄奄一息。
7 mechanism zCWxr     
n.机械装置;机构,结构
参考例句:
  • The bones and muscles are parts of the mechanism of the body.骨骼和肌肉是人体的组成部件。
  • The mechanism of the machine is very complicated.这台机器的结构是非常复杂的。
8 labor P9Tzs     
n.劳动,努力,工作,劳工;分娩;vi.劳动,努力,苦干;vt.详细分析;麻烦
参考例句:
  • We are never late in satisfying him for his labor.我们从不延误付给他劳动报酬。
  • He was completely spent after two weeks of hard labor.艰苦劳动两周后,他已经疲惫不堪了。
9 ingenuity 77TxM     
n.别出心裁;善于发明创造
参考例句:
  • The boy showed ingenuity in making toys.那个小男孩做玩具很有创造力。
  • I admire your ingenuity and perseverance.我钦佩你的别出心裁和毅力。
10 erase woMxN     
v.擦掉;消除某事物的痕迹
参考例句:
  • He tried to erase the idea from his mind.他试图从头脑中抹掉这个想法。
  • Please erase my name from the list.请把我的名字从名单上擦去。
11 outspoken 3mIz7v     
adj.直言无讳的,坦率的,坦白无隐的
参考例句:
  • He was outspoken in his criticism.他在批评中直言不讳。
  • She is an outspoken critic of the school system in this city.她是这座城市里学校制度的坦率的批评者。
12 smother yxlwO     
vt./vi.使窒息;抑制;闷死;n.浓烟;窒息
参考例句:
  • They tried to smother the flames with a damp blanket.他们试图用一条湿毯子去灭火。
  • We tried to smother our laughter.我们强忍住笑。
13 legislate 090zF     
vt.制定法律;n.法规,律例;立法
参考例句:
  • Therefore,it is very urgent to legislate for the right of privacy.因此,为隐私权立法刻不容缓。
  • It's impossible to legislate for every contingency.为每一偶发事件都立法是不可能的。
14 mandate sj9yz     
n.托管地;命令,指示
参考例句:
  • The President had a clear mandate to end the war.总统得到明确的授权结束那场战争。
  • The General Election gave him no such mandate.大选并未授予他这种权力。
15 precisely zlWzUb     
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地
参考例句:
  • It's precisely that sort of slick sales-talk that I mistrust.我不相信的正是那种油腔滑调的推销宣传。
  • The man adjusted very precisely.那个人调得很准。
16 motives 6c25d038886898b20441190abe240957     
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 )
参考例句:
  • to impeach sb's motives 怀疑某人的动机
  • His motives are unclear. 他的用意不明。
17 anarchy 9wYzj     
n.无政府状态;社会秩序混乱,无秩序
参考例句:
  • There would be anarchy if we had no police.要是没有警察,社会就会无法无天。
  • The country was thrown into a state of anarchy.这国家那时一下子陷入无政府状态。
18 tack Jq1yb     
n.大头钉;假缝,粗缝
参考例句:
  • He is hammering a tack into the wall to hang a picture.他正往墙上钉一枚平头钉用来挂画。
  • We are going to tack the map on the wall.我们打算把这张地图钉在墙上。
19 primitive vSwz0     
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物
参考例句:
  • It is a primitive instinct to flee a place of danger.逃离危险的地方是一种原始本能。
  • His book describes the march of the civilization of a primitive society.他的著作描述了一个原始社会的开化过程。
20 hemp 5rvzFn     
n.大麻;纤维
参考例句:
  • The early Chinese built suspension bridges of hemp rope.古代的中国人建造过麻绳悬索桥。
  • The blanket was woven from hemp and embroidered with wool.毯子是由亚麻编织,羊毛镶边的。
21 outlawed e2d1385a121c74347f32d0eb4aa15b54     
宣布…为不合法(outlaw的过去式与过去分词形式)
参考例句:
  • Most states have outlawed the use of marijuana. 大多数州都宣布使用大麻为非法行为。
  • I hope the sale of tobacco will be outlawed someday. 我希望有朝一日烟草制品会禁止销售。
22 addictive hJbyL     
adj.(吸毒等)使成瘾的,成为习惯的
参考例句:
  • The problem with video game is that they're addictive.电子游戏机的问题在于它们会使人上瘾。
  • Cigarettes are highly addictive.香烟很容易使人上瘾。
23 fiber NzAye     
n.纤维,纤维质
参考例句:
  • The basic structural unit of yarn is the fiber.纤维是纱的基本结构单元。
  • The material must be free of fiber clumps.这种材料必须无纤维块。
24 pulp Qt4y9     
n.果肉,纸浆;v.化成纸浆,除去...果肉,制成纸浆
参考例句:
  • The pulp of this watermelon is too spongy.这西瓜瓤儿太肉了。
  • The company manufactures pulp and paper products.这个公司制造纸浆和纸产品。
25 miraculous DDdxA     
adj.像奇迹一样的,不可思议的
参考例句:
  • The wounded man made a miraculous recovery.伤员奇迹般地痊愈了。
  • They won a miraculous victory over much stronger enemy.他们战胜了远比自己强大的敌人,赢得了非凡的胜利。
26 affordable kz6zfq     
adj.支付得起的,不太昂贵的
参考例句:
  • The rent for the four-roomed house is affordable.四居室房屋的房租付得起。
  • There are few affordable apartments in big cities.在大城市中没有几所公寓是便宜的。
27 miserably zDtxL     
adv.痛苦地;悲惨地;糟糕地;极度地
参考例句:
  • The little girl was wailing miserably. 那小女孩难过得号啕大哭。
  • It was drizzling, and miserably cold and damp. 外面下着毛毛细雨,天气又冷又湿,令人难受。 来自《简明英汉词典》
28 miserable g18yk     
adj.悲惨的,痛苦的;可怜的,糟糕的
参考例句:
  • It was miserable of you to make fun of him.你取笑他,这是可耻的。
  • Her past life was miserable.她过去的生活很苦。
29 needy wG7xh     
adj.贫穷的,贫困的,生活艰苦的
参考例句:
  • Although he was poor,he was quite generous to his needy friends.他虽穷,但对贫苦的朋友很慷慨。
  • They awarded scholarships to needy students.他们给贫苦学生颁发奖学金。
30 influential l7oxK     
adj.有影响的,有权势的
参考例句:
  • He always tries to get in with the most influential people.他总是试图巴结最有影响的人物。
  • He is a very influential man in the government.他在政府中是个很有影响的人物。
31 retired Njhzyv     
adj.隐退的,退休的,退役的
参考例句:
  • The old man retired to the country for rest.这位老人下乡休息去了。
  • Many retired people take up gardening as a hobby.许多退休的人都以从事园艺为嗜好。
32 dire llUz9     
adj.可怕的,悲惨的,阴惨的,极端的
参考例句:
  • There were dire warnings about the dangers of watching too much TV.曾经有人就看电视太多的危害性提出严重警告。
  • We were indeed in dire straits.But we pulled through.那时我们的困难真是大极了,但是我们渡过了困难。
33 wasteful ogdwu     
adj.(造成)浪费的,挥霍的
参考例句:
  • It is a shame to be so wasteful.这样浪费太可惜了。
  • Duties have been reassigned to avoid wasteful duplication of work.为避免重复劳动浪费资源,任务已经重新分派。
34 decadent HaYyZ     
adj.颓废的,衰落的,堕落的
参考例句:
  • Don't let decadent ideas eat into yourselves.别让颓废的思想侵蚀你们。
  • This song was once banned, because it was regarded as decadent.这首歌曾经被认定为是靡靡之音而被禁止播放。
35 obsolescence bIjxr     
n.过时,陈旧,废弃
参考例句:
  • For some small unproductive mills,the reality is not merger but obsolescence and bankruptcy.对一些效率低下的小厂而言,现实不是合并,而是可能被淘汰和破产。
  • Finally,the cost approach can provide a basis for allocating penalties,specifically economic obsolescence.最后,成本法可作为一个分配因陈旧特别是因经济
36 indictment ybdzt     
n.起诉;诉状
参考例句:
  • He handed up the indictment to the supreme court.他把起诉书送交最高法院。
  • They issued an indictment against them.他们起诉了他们。
37 epidemic 5iTzz     
n.流行病;盛行;adj.流行性的,流传极广的
参考例句:
  • That kind of epidemic disease has long been stamped out.那种传染病早已绝迹。
  • The authorities tried to localise the epidemic.当局试图把流行病限制在局部范围。
38 grovel VfixY     
vi.卑躬屈膝,奴颜婢膝
参考例句:
  • He said he would never grovel before a conqueror.他说他永远不会在征服者脚下摇尾乞怜。
  • You will just have to grovel to the bank manager for a loan.你只得低声下气地向银行经理借贷。
39 hoards 0d9c33ecc74ae823deffd01d7aecff3a     
n.(钱财、食物或其他珍贵物品的)储藏,积存( hoard的名词复数 )v.积蓄并储藏(某物)( hoard的第三人称单数 )
参考例句:
  • She hoards her money - she never spends it. 她积蓄钱,但从来不花钱。 来自辞典例句
  • A squirrel hoards nuts for the winter. 松鼠为过冬贮藏坚果。 来自辞典例句
40 fixtures 9403e5114acb6bb59791a97291be54b5     
(房屋等的)固定装置( fixture的名词复数 ); 如(浴盆、抽水马桶); 固定在某位置的人或物; (定期定点举行的)体育活动
参考例句:
  • The insurance policy covers the building and any fixtures contained therein. 保险单为这座大楼及其中所有的设施保了险。
  • The fixtures had already been sold and the sum divided. 固定设备已经卖了,钱也分了。 来自英汉文学 - 嘉莉妹妹
41 emaciated Wt3zuK     
adj.衰弱的,消瘦的
参考例句:
  • A long time illness made him sallow and emaciated.长期患病使他面黄肌瘦。
  • In the light of a single candle,she can see his emaciated face.借着烛光,她能看到他的被憔悴的面孔。
42 ribs 24fc137444401001077773555802b280     
n.肋骨( rib的名词复数 );(船或屋顶等的)肋拱;肋骨状的东西;(织物的)凸条花纹
参考例句:
  • He suffered cracked ribs and bruising. 他断了肋骨还有挫伤。
  • Make a small incision below the ribs. 在肋骨下方切开一个小口。
43 corruptions f937d102f5a7f58f5162a9ffb6987770     
n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 );腐化;腐败;贿赂
参考例句:
  • He stressed the corruptions of sin. 他强调了罪恶的腐朽。 来自互联网
44 plight 820zI     
n.困境,境况,誓约,艰难;vt.宣誓,保证,约定
参考例句:
  • The leader was much concerned over the plight of the refugees.那位领袖对难民的困境很担忧。
  • She was in a most helpless plight.她真不知如何是好。
45 atrocities 11fd5f421aeca29a1915a498e3202218     
n.邪恶,暴行( atrocity的名词复数 );滔天大罪
参考例句:
  • They were guilty of the most barbarous and inhuman atrocities. 他们犯有最野蛮、最灭绝人性的残暴罪行。 来自《简明英汉词典》
  • The enemy's atrocities made one boil with anger. 敌人的暴行令人发指。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
46 radical hA8zu     
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的
参考例句:
  • The patient got a radical cure in the hospital.病人在医院得到了根治。
  • She is radical in her demands.她的要求十分偏激。
47 pillage j2jze     
v.抢劫;掠夺;n.抢劫,掠夺;掠夺物
参考例句:
  • The invading troops were guilty of rape and pillage.侵略军犯了抢劫和强奸的罪。
  • It was almost pillage.这简直是一场洗劫。
48 rape PAQzh     
n.抢夺,掠夺,强奸;vt.掠夺,抢夺,强奸
参考例句:
  • The rape of the countryside had a profound ravage on them.对乡村的掠夺给他们造成严重创伤。
  • He was brought to court and charged with rape.他被带到法庭并被指控犯有强奸罪。
49 plunder q2IzO     
vt.劫掠财物,掠夺;n.劫掠物,赃物;劫掠
参考例句:
  • The thieves hid their plunder in the cave.贼把赃物藏在山洞里。
  • Trade should not serve as a means of economic plunder.贸易不应当成为经济掠夺的手段。
50 humanitarian kcoxQ     
n.人道主义者,博爱者,基督凡人论者
参考例句:
  • She has many humanitarian interests and contributes a lot to them.她拥有很多慈善事业,并作了很大的贡献。
  • The British government has now suspended humanitarian aid to the area.英国政府现已暂停对这一地区的人道主义援助。
51 machinery CAdxb     
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构
参考例句:
  • Has the machinery been put up ready for the broadcast?广播器材安装完毕了吗?
  • Machinery ought to be well maintained all the time.机器应该随时注意维护。


欢迎访问英文小说网

©英文小说网 2005-2010

有任何问题,请给我们留言,管理员邮箱:[email protected]  站长QQ :点击发送消息和我们联系56065533