Similarly, as most people also know, I simply am not sympathetic to any Malthusian doctrine of "over-population" or "maximum carrying capacity" and all of the ponderous, pessimistic mystifications (and the underlying financial and cosmological assumptions undergirding them), that accompany it, including the totally tautological, and therefore infinitely useful, notion of "climate change". We would do well to recall that this mythology acually began in Venice with Giovanni Ortes (as Dr. Webster Tarpley has repeatedly pointed out), and that as such, the meme is the darling of corrupt, visionless and pessimistic financial oligarchs concerned not for the well-being of humanity but for the fragility of the institutions preserving their own power. One can, I think, even make the case that "de-population" masks a hidden and very racist agenda, since the focus seems to be on third world over-population and all that that notion has engendered, including covert sterilization projects that occasionally make the news. Reading between the lines of this carrying-capacity claptrap, there's just "too many useless eaters" (of a non-Caucasian non-European background) out there. But maximum carrying capacity is a "sustainable" meme(to use that favored term of the globalist "elites") only when there is technological stagnation and relative constancy. Under the broad and endlessly adjustable frontier of "sustainability" any manner of mischief can be promoted if it is for "the greater good", including depopulation. Let us be clear: "de-population" is one of those "soft language" linguistic swindles complained about by the late philosophical comedian, George Carlin.
You'll recall that Carlin lampooned the whole technique of "linguistic avoidance" of reality in what was probably the most non-politically correct comedy routine in history: "death" became a "terminal medical event," "crippled" or "handicapped" people become "handi-capable," "toilet paper" became "bathroom tissue," and so on. Similarly with "de-population," the "soft" term for genocide, be it by "slow" and "soft" means such as involuntary and covert sterilization regimes, or by the more tried and true Soviet, Maoist, and Nazi methods. "De-population's" real meaning is genocide, plain and simple.
It is therefore with a great deal of sadness that I note that now Francis I has thrown his mitre into the ring of the Malthusians and appears to have infallibly bought into the whole globaloney agenda(in reality, I think he's simply showing his true "colors"), including not only calls for "de-population" but for a "global government" to address such issues:
Pope Francis warns of destruction of Earth's ecosystem in leaked encyclical
Fortunately, Francis is apparently proposing no such "de-population" scheme in any genocidal sense:
"Francis also called for a new global political authority tasked with “tackling … the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions”. His appeal echoed that of his predecessor, pope Benedict XVI, who in a 2009 encyclical proposed a kind of super-UN to deal with the world’s economic problems and injustices."(Emphasis added).But disturbingly, Francis slips back into the model of his predecessors:
According to the lengthy draft, which was obtained and published by L’Espresso magazine, the Argentinean pope will align himself with the environmental movement and its objectives. While accepting that there may be some natural causes of global warming, the pope will also state that climate change is mostly a man-made problem.If this is true, then Francis has decided to cherry-pick - doubtless with his charism of infallibility - among those scientific studies only those supporting his hypothesis, and has decided - again doubtless by dint of his charism of infallibility - to ignore all those indications that the data itself has been molded and squeezed in some cases to fit the theory. Of course, we'll hear from people who want to protect their system about the distinctions between "ordinary magisterium" and "extraordinary magisterium," but such details are beside the point, for the contradictions implicit in this latest encyclical, if the articles about it are true, are bad enough. How does one note "the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production" (left mystically undefined of course), without recourse to a technology? And once one admits this, one must admit of technological solutions to the dilemma that may possibly dispel the whole Malthusian meme.
“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat this warming, or at least the human causes that produce and accentuate it,” he wrote in the draft. “Numerous scientific studies indicate that the greater part of the global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases … given off above all because of human activity.”
The pope will also single out those obstructing solutions. In an apparent reference to climate-change deniers, the draft states: “The attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions." (Emphasis added)
Then we come to the ultimate and typically papal mystification, the attempt to "declare, define, and pronounce"(to paraphrase the words of Boniface VIII from Unam Sanctam) any opposition as "blind faith in technical solutions" while the pope conveniently and blithely ignores his(and the globalists') own blind faith in global bureaucracy and global governmental solutions. In other words, no countervailing arguments or data are - in the pope's infallible charism - of any merit whatsoever; by papal definition, to argue against the proposition is to be obstructing the proferred governmental and regulatory solutions. To believe otherwise is, by implication, a kind of socio-political heresy. And with papal claims being what they are, one wonders if the real motivation here is not only to "define away" any opposition as a kind of heresy, but also to align the papacy with the left-leaning tendencies of the global fascism that is being sponsored by the western oligarchs. And we know what the papacy's response to heresy has been from its gruesome, murderous, genocidal, barbaric, brutal and inescapable historical track record have been: imprisonment, torture, murder, and an "index of forbidden books", and hence ideas and notions, running contrary to the infallible whims and caprices of whatever occupant the See of Rome decides to champion at the moment.
And if you think it could not happen again under the auspices of this institution with its trendy "people-friendly" guitar masses and Saturday afternoon "quickies", think again, for that alignment of the papacy with the Mathusian agenda is what the international oligarchical mafia has perhaps been seeking: a religious "sanction" for all manner of tyrannous methods, regulations, and an infallible quashing of anyone who dares raise a voice in protest over the data and their interpretation of it. No Martin Luthers, Jean Calvins, Thomas Cranmers, or (much worse for such papal people) Photiuses of Constantinople or Gregory Palamases, or Marks of Ephesuses, thank you very much. There can be no "socio-political Protestantism" or "socio-political Eastern Orthodoxy" on these matters, because all that, says Francis, is "blind faith." Thus the papal call for a global government to "deal with" the "over-population problem" could be the modern equivalent of the medieval practice of handing over convicted "heretics" to the secular authority for execution, a wonderfully casuistical sophistry designed to avoid having to commit murder itself. The claims have not changed, only the methods have, and the "older methods", so long as the claims remain, could come roaring back, and with a vengance. And this encyclical - whether intended to or not - could be laying the groundwork for it.
Of course, we'll get the eventual "explanations" and "codiciles" and "clarifications" as have always occurred when this power-mad institution comes forth with the be-robed "explainers" to explain what he really meant and to explain away its manifest Gnostic goofiness and sociological dualisms. But that's the surest clue that this is not a teaching, it's an agenda, and the revolutionaries are simply using the cassocked and mitred symbols of confessional orthodoxy and authority to promote it and to close off discussion.
So, as for me and my house, when I get my copy of Francis' encyclical, I'll probably use it for, as Carlin said, "bathroom tissue," for non habemus papam. What we have, instead, is just another corrupt oligarch, using the power of his position to favor one, and overlook the other, side of a debate, and using his power to close off the other side as "blind faith" while obligingly parroting the memes of globaloney. (And for my Orthodox Catholic friends, you might want to rethink that whole "lifting of the anathemata" thing. It goes like this: "And to Leo IX and all his successors down to Francis I, let them be anathema anathema anathema." You might want to update the Synodikon.)
See you on the flip side...