Nice blog post on the Moonbattery blog about the WaPo discovering how masculinity is dangerous to the planet. It is that kind of fake “research” that leads you to very sad reflections about how much money is wasted in modern universities.
Yours truly would like to add his own two cents to the issue. It won’t please everyone. But hey, this blog never does.
Environ-mentalism is emotional tosh. However, it is emotional tosh on a planetary scale. Therefore, it tends to attract more easily women, who on the one hand have a stronger instinct for nurturing and protecting, and on the other end are more prone to emoting.
Men go out, earn bread for their families, cut trees, wage wars, discover continents, invent new things. Women stay home, cook for their men, keep the house clean, are naturally caring and nurturing. No amount of emancipation tosh will ever erase this fundamentally different hard-wiring of the sexes, which remains true as a (beautiful) reality of nature and, in fact, corresponds to the deepest, most intimate aspirations of both of them. This, irrespective of rare exceptions in one sense (Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher) or the other (Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter).
This has always been so. It will always be so. The great P.G. Wodehouse expressed this difference and used it to comic effect in his usual wonderful way:
when a girl suddenly asks you out of a blue sky if you don’t sometimes feel that the stars are God’s daisy-chain, you begin to think a bit.
The problem is not the feminine tendency to emote more than men do. This is a beautiful, God-given trait of the (once) gentle sex. The problem is the absence of men who are men enough to tell them to shut up and go back to the kitchen when they start emoting about the “environment”.
Women have always been the emoting sex. However, they had around them men who were able and willing (being men) to control and keep in check their bouts of emotionalism. Both sexes knew this, and understood the added value of the other. Women knew (being women) that they needed men to keep their emotionalism in check. Men knew (being men) that it was their duty to keep said emotionalism in check. Therefore, women’s emotional overflow remained, on the whole, one of the harmless, somewhat endearing sort.
This equilibrium, this natural collaboration of the sexes went to the dogs when men stopped being masculine and started to want to “think like a woman” (= fag) or “discover their feminine side” (= fag), or in any way try to ingratiate women to themselves ( = weakling) rather than being the Tarzans of their Janes; something which, believe it or not, most Janes would like an awful lot, though they might not admit it.
This is why we have this dying, but still pernicious environ-mentalism. The emotional appeal of the unspeakable tosh is not countered – on the individual level, which is what counts in the end – by thinking men willing to assert their natural authority over their women and tell them to stop emoting, start thinking, and think of dinner instead. On the contrary: a generation of single mothers has created an army of half men who, literally, think like a woman and, raised without an importance male presence around, were never able to grow into their natural role of naturally assertive, naturally leading, men.
The problem of environ-mentalism is, at its roots, a problem of diffused effeminacy among men, and betrayal of femininity among women (yes, the one goes with the other). It is a collective short-circuit in the ability of entire nations to put in place a proper, healthy relationship between the sexes. It is a complete failing of reason in the face of a tidal wave of feminism, effeminacy, and outright faggotry.
The solution is the return to healthy inter-sex relationship: manly men willing to lead the life of their women, and feminine women eager to accept the leadership of their men.
You don’t read such things often. Therefore, it is the more important that you read them here.
Meet the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
This appears to be a group of uncoordinated, or rather disorganised extremists (but you can recognise some of this in every enviro-bitch you have met, I am sure) advocating no less than the destruction of the human race in order to avoid suffering to humans and – which seems to be more important – our oh so beautiful planet.
I had to read for a long time into this before convincing myself that this is not a long, sophisticated joke. There are really people who think humans must extinct themselves in order to be friends of the planet and, in some way, humanitarian. In these people’s Hall of Fame Hitler, Lenin and Stalin can’t be very far away from the top.
The site contains snippets of involuntary humour like:
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory
Great progress will be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education, and oppression with freedom
Making babies seems to be a blind spot in our outlooks on life.
We call The Movement VHEMT, but it’s undoubtedly been given other names throughout history. None have been recorded, as far as we know.
We know we’ll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet
and the winner of the biscuit:
we should voluntarily phase ourselves out for the good of humanity
The madness of all this beggars belief. It is not only that only the gloomiest atheist can even conceive a “solution” like this one. It is the idea of the destruction of the human race being “humanitarian” that makes one laugh out loud.
Alas, whilst I do believe that your average environ-mentalist is stupid, what is behind this thinking is very probably simple egoism.
Nowadays that everyone has an ersatz-religion in his pocket, not reproducing out of simple desire to have a bigger car, bigger house, better holidays and no fuss isn’t really uncommon. But you see, it sounds just as selfish as it is.
Therefore, it is necessary to flip this selfishness into something noble, to throw around in parties and offices. I am sure the “members” of this “movement” think it works. Alas, there is a problem with that.
They will be considered mad.
And selfish anyway.
This article would make for barely believable reading, if we did not live in barely believable times: a Rabbi working for a so-called ” interfaith” group starts to investigate Catholic seminaries in order to see whether they are environ-mental enough.
The exercise is sponsored by a Julia Burke Foundation, and the reader is left wondering whether this is Jewish money gone mad, or Catholic money working for Satan.
One also notices the sheer number of those foundations, and groups of any kind, that must be around doing nothing, or doing damage, with money that they haven’t earned and which must be, in many cases, the result of the perversion of the intents of the original donors, in a comparable way to the lesbian “nuns” now abusing the generosity of countless devout Catholics of generations past.
How many institutions and foundations are there around, funded either by Catholic or infidel or atheist money, working against our faith?
But even if this were exclusively Jewish money, it is utterly disgraceful to see that a faithless Pope is actively encouraging infidels to make our religion as faithless as possible, contaminating it with purely secular elements that not only do not have anything to do with our faith, but run frontally against it. Environ-Mentalism is a purely secular construct, born of the atheist thinking that there is no God, and therefore our earth, created by a casual combination of who knows what (a combination of nothing with nothing, which in the genial mind of the atheist then creates an immense universe), is in constant danger of being destroyed by these evil human ants also born our of sheer randomness.
Francis is now clearly trying to poison the well, that is: the seminaries. A non-Church made in his image and resemblance, glorifying the First Non-Christian Pope as it celebrates the golden calves of the heathens, is what he has in mind. And before you object that this is all an initiative from outside the Church, reflect that this is how faithless clergymen utilise the heathen: as a Trojan Horse to heathenise the Church. The understanding among the people of all faith and none is just an excuse to make more difficult to understand the faith.
“Rabbi Neril will be meeting with leaders of Catholic institutions in Rome in June to further cooperation in this area”
says the article, whose author stupidly repeats the obvious slogan of the “vital area” of environ-mentalism.
“Vital”? Really?? What kind of children are allowed to be published nowadays?
We must pray for the end of this pontificate, and for a Catholic Pope as the successor of Francis. We can’t just look as this evil man and the enablers always surrounding people of power demolish Holy Mother Church.
Yes! Do it now! The earth is on the verge of a massive cooling!
Run to your A/C! Go start that car and make it run at idle! Take a holiday involving some intercontinental flight!
Global Cooling, this was the same phenomenon sold to us in apocalyptic tones when I was a boy! And then, it was sold by the same anti-Western agit-props who are now telling us we are soon going to fry, or at least get severe climate change shocks!
You know what? The best weather forecaster cannot forecast absolutely anything with a reasonable chance of success beyond a handful of days. What do we know? We know that the earth has phases in which it tends to become warmer and phases it witch it tends to become colder.
We know this because we have seen it happening in the past couple of thousand years. But how it happens, and how long each phase goes on, is as per today not in our power to predict with any accuracy.
Some things we know, though. There was a time when Greenland was so green that they called it that way. A time in which England was a reputed producer of wine. A time in which patrician palaces in England were built with porticos open to the interior, and people dressed in tunics as a matter of course.
No one fried. The world was, actually, extremely prosperous. The melted arctic ice did not flood England. The wine tasted just fine.
I do not believe anyone who tells me he can reliably forecast the climate changes in the next 100 years. But I am a Christian, and believe that Creation is good, and that anyone who thinks God created a planet that his creatures can destroy by producing perfectly natural, harmless emissions (or, in the end, by multiplying according to His command) should be seen by a doctor and watched very closely by a man dressed in white.
That would be funny. A man in white watched by another man in white.
“Mom, who is that man in white?”
“The one near the madman? It's a nurse, dear…”
The Evil Clown has found another way to keep pushing his utterly secular, environ-mentalist agenda. I hope to be the first to call “bullshit” on this. If not, I assure you I posted this as fast as I could.
Not only we have Catholic Idiot Day on 1 September, but we are also informed that we must ask forgiveness for “sins committed against the world”.
Boy, the world must be really offended. If I ask him for forgiveness very, very hard, will he forgive me? At least a bit? Eh? no? Come on, world, be a good world, give me the hand!
I remember when the Church thought Her role to save souls, not trees. Today, the very pope helps you to damn yourself as a pervert or adulterer, whilst he asks you to ask the world for forgiveness.
What a clown.
What an evil, evil clown.
I am not an expert in the matter, and I would therefore be grateful for anyone attempting a calculation of the total co2 emissions caused by the latest papal folly: an entire aeroplane of entourage and journalists flying the other side of the ocean, touring several countries and back, in order to spread more nonsense and feel a bit at home for some days. Another six weeks or so, and the exercise will be pretty much repeated…
I am also grateful for any news of the pope ordering to switch off the a/c in the residences that lodged him and his entourage. Mind, I am sure he did so (everything else would be the height of hypocrisy…), but just to be sure…
It appears to me that if it never necessary for a Pope to travel, it should be even less desirable for a pope breaking our … ears with talks of co2 emissions, air conditioners, and the like. A pope's role isn't in being seen around. He isn't an Hollywood actor, or the attraction of an itinerant circus. A pope is called to be a good Pope, and if he is that no travel is necessary; not ever, and particularly not for one who tweets and blabbers with journalists every time he isn't eating, or in the bathroom.
No, it is not necessary for Francis to travel. But he seems to like it a lot, and stuff the emissions…
This is not only a pope unprecedented in his hypocrisy. This is a Pope unprecedented in the arrogance of putting his hypocrisy in front of the whole world and not caring for it one bit. “Hey, I am the Pope”, is the clear implied message, “and I do whatever I want, because I can. ¿Está claro?”
How I miss old Benedict…
The entire article is here.
I report below some of the most interesting comments. Emphases mine.
Wealth enables people to afford better environmental stewardship. Pope Francis should champion economic development as a solution both to poverty and to environmental degradation. Unfortunately, at least as regards climate change, the leaked draft of the new encyclical does the opposite.”
“The Vatican’s partnering with the United Nations climate agenda is nothing short of an unholy alliance. The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.
“The climate activists are no doubt getting a PR boost from the pope’s entry into the climate debate. But ultimately, the pope’s views on climate science will do little to alter the opinions of Catholics about global warming. ”
“Throughout the last two years, in preparation for the encyclical rollout, the Vatican has relied solely upon global warming alarmists in its rush to judgment to meet the UN 2015 Sustainable Development Goals’ timetable. Additionally, during this process, the Vatican consulted primarily with and continues to rely upon radical population control proponents who exploit discredited climate change science to justify their extremist population reduction policies under the nuanced UN ‘reproductive sexual health’ rubric.
“Instead of welcoming our heartfelt disapproval of papal experts who promote policies in direct contravention of Catholic moral teaching, the Vatican authorities mocked and scoffed at our serious and faithful objections, by calling us ‘Tea Partiers’ and ‘deniers.’ This callous and flippant response exposed the Vatican’s political agenda.”
“Over the past 18 years, the best measurements of Earth’s global temperatures (by NOAA and NASA satellites) show no warming whatsoever. The total warming since 1979 has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC, and of that tiny warming, most can be attributed to natural causes, such as volcanoes. That leaves room for, at most one- or two-tenths of a degree due to carbon dioxide, which projects to half a degree or less of warming by 2100. Half a degree is not noticeable by any human and can have no serious consequences. This mere half a degree is not a prediction from supercomputers, but a simple observation based on the best global data, and it shows that catastrophic, or even harmful, global warming is not a reality.
“In short, over the past two centuries humans have, through productive and beneficial endeavors, added one molecule of CO2 to each ten thousand molecules of air. The feared and forecast dire consequences of that molecule are not coming to pass. Attempts at curtailing those human endeavors to remove that molecule would be flawed policies that will fail to solve a non-existent problem.”
“Pope Francis’s goal of preserving God’s earthly kingdom for future generations is shared by every ‘skeptic’ of man-caused global warming. But he will not preserve it by putting his moral authority behind a UN agenda that considers it a sin for the poor to use affordable, ever-cleaner fossil fuels to power their lives. More than a billion of the poorest people in the world would remain in abject poverty for generations if they are to rely on windmills, solar panels, and other unreliable and expensive sources of energy.”
What a shameful day, when a pope accepted to prostitute the prestige of an encyclical letter to promote his own popularity on fashionable political issues, of which he understands nothing anyway.
You cannot believe the kind of rubbish the fake catholic sites will print in order to deny reality.
After the huge uproar even before the release of the encyclical (no surprise about that, when Enviro-Dr-Goebbels advises the Pope) we are told (here the link that does not link) that we should simply relax: hey, Popes have always loved a tree, right?
This is the usual smoke bomb of the Catholic libtards, and it might be useful to say a word or two: there is an immense difference between being a friend of the environment and being an environmentalist. Catholicism teaches to use Creation with respect, it does not teach to make of Creation a religion.
Francis made a first huge step in the wrong direction in that he accepts the environ-madness of Prof. Schellnhuber & Co; so much so, that he allows the man to be of the three (and the only layman) who introduce the rubbish work to the press. Having made the first, hugely wrong step, other absurd mistakes (none of them promoted by past Popes, let alone Church teaching) will be unavoidable: the world government madness to keep environment and poverty in check, the enmity with even normal Western lifestyle, and the like. Further steps the Evil Clown will not openly endorse, but they are the unavoidable consequence of such thinking: population control in form of massive recourse to contraception and abortion.
Grima Wormtongue can tell us not to fuss as much as he wants, but this encyclical will be a huge shame for the Church. Not because it will introduce any new “truth”, but certainly because it will show to the posterity what kind of talking ass was made Pope in 2013.
The likes of Prof Schellnhuber shape Papal policy on the environment. This truly says it all.
The soon-to-be-released encyclical about the environment – no doubt, the biggest collection of rubbish ever published by a Pope – will be presented by three men. One of them if Prof. John Schellnhuber, a well-known climate Nazi.
professor Schnellnhuber should, I think, be posed a simple questions: seen that no one believes that his own fantasy-targets about emission reduction will be reached, where does he think the global population should stabilise to avoid planetary food wars, and how does he think the target should be achieved?
You see, our Enviro-Goebbels is already on record with saying that around 4.5 degrees Celsius of increase in earth temperature would reduce the earth population to around 1 billion. So, if we do not reach the 4, and do not manage to keep the Co2 emissions under control, what is the sustainable earth population at, say, a 2.5 degrees increase in say, anytime between 2070 and 2100? Four billion? Five? Perhaps, if we want to be generous, six? How many million, nay, billion babies will have to be aborted to make this happen? You see: prof Schellnhuber has no doubt at all that a massive global warming is going to happen. He calls nebulous fantasies “physical realities”, as if they were, erm, real! So, in the fantasy world of Mr Schellnhuber – a world, as you will understand, much appreciated by the Evil Clown – a massive adjustment will have to happen anyway: not down to one Billion humans if the worst case scenario does not become reality, but somewhere between the nine Billion projected for 2050 (and the much higher number projected for 2070-2100) and that number.
So, what does the man propose to do to avoid food wars and worldwide tragedies on a lesser, and sustainable, scale than the ones in the 1 Billion scenario? What exactly?
I tell you once again: abortion. Abortion on a scale probably not even Dr Goebbels would have considered human, at least considering the untold number of Aryans it would involve. And please do not hide behind the contraception finger. In England there are in the region of 180,000 abortions a year, and contraception is available in a way that would be almost inconceivably costly to actuate in poor countries. This, of course, leaving behind for a moment the Catholic stance on contraception, in which neither the Pope nor Prof. Schellnhuber (by the by: a Catholic, that one?) are interested.
“But Mundabor! Mundabor! Prof Schellnhuber does not say we must abort billions! He says we must reduce emissions!”
Poppycock. The man may be deluded, but he is not retarded. He knows that his fantasy objectives will not be reached. Never ever. He complains about that very openly, when he says that Western democracies refuse to take his own apocalyptic fantasies (which he calls “physical reality”, so he has no doubt at all they will come to pass) into account in their own planning and legislating activity. Madmen can be very lucid.
Therefore, there can be only one way: reduce the humans now before they kill each other in 50 years’ time. This is the unavoidable conclusion of this environ-mania. This is the only way any thinking man starting from such sick premises can go on thinking in a coherently sick way. This is the only rational consequence of the environ-mania the Evil Clown is so aggressively promoting, out of his own hate for the West and desire of humble self-aggrandisement.
This man, my friends, has played such an important role in the writign of the encyclical, that he will be one of only three relators, and the only layman. An utterly unbelievable Pope has allowed a papal encyclical to be substantially shaped by a man who considers his own fantasies “physical realities”. It beggars belief.
A man can be, at the same time, evil and astonishingly incompetent. If you think of people like Chavez, for example, it is obvious that in these men a strong ideological hate goes hand in hand with an exceptional degree of economic stupidity, and inability to look three inches beyond their nose.
Francis is such a one. He is evil, but he is also plain stupid in his inability to even think three steps further the path he is asking us to take. When one like Francis decides to write an encyclical about the environment, we can’t be surprised one like Prof Schellnhuber will be the one who shapes the most of its “scientific” part.
The blind (religious leaders, and climate bogus scientists) lead the blind. They are so radical (Schellnhuber, because he is; Francis, because he is accomplice, and too stupid to understand he must not link his name to such nutcases) that their “effort” is condemned to failure and ridicule from day one. They do not care. Schnellhuber lives in his fantasy world, and have made a good living out of it. Francis will, like Chavez, push his own form of hatred, uncaring of consequences, for the short term popularity advantages it will give him among his clients (all but the Catholics) and his groupies.
These people are environmental Nazis.
To such a scale, that it is reasonable to say that even Dr Goebbels would have been terrified.
On June 18 the new encyclical about the Environment will be released, for the joy of mainstream plate-licking journalists and bloggers and the laugh of the sane part of the planet.
My forecasts below. If I am right, you read it here first!
1. It will be very long. If you write rubbish, at least write a lot of it. It will impress the simple. The “apostolic exhortation” aptly called “I will make you sleep”, or the like, is a very bad omen.
2. It will be full of the tritest, most populist slogans about the rich damaging the poor by ruining the environment, and the like. New socialist or environmentalist commandments, or at least socialist and environmentalist capital sins, might be invented, or it might be discovered they were there already. There will be an awful lot of Socialist propaganda mixed with the environ-madness. Francis isn't one known for restraint on that matter. He will use the occasion.
3. It will, on the whole, espouse the cause of the environ-mentalists in full, and contain a lot of pseudo-science simply taken for granted. If you thought that the recent visit of thinking scientists and the revision it triggered would have the effect of the madness being taken away, you can abandon all hope now: the short delay clearly means there has been no more than some cosmetic adjustment and removal and the most scandalous phrases. On the whole, the encyclical will continue to stink. Which, it being rubbish, is fairly obvious.
4. It will contain images of speech and rhetorical flourishes of the stupidest sort, like the environment being “poor”, or the Apostles being the first environmentalists, and the like. The Holy Ghost will be credited with an environmental awareness never suspected before. The gullible will swallow it whole. I am very curious to see what the Frankie Boys will come up with.
5. It will either contain, or imply, the idea that this new “orientation” is Very Big News in the history of the Church, as the Holy Ghost has now decided we use the kettle far too much. Cue an entire army of faggots explaining to us how the Church now “modernises her thinking”. How do they say that in Italy? Oh, yes: aggiornamento. Francis, the Historic Renewer. Francis, the Enviro-Pioneer. Francis, the Eco-Marx.
6. It will be earth-related. Supernatural aspects will only be abused to serve the Enviro-Socialist propaganda. If you consume too much energy you don't love Jesus. Rubbish like that.
6. It will embarrass Francis' memory for all times to come. Future generations will be astonished at the childishness and stupidity. They will not know most of the “off-the-cuff” comments, therefore they will meet this madness unprepared.
“But Mundabor! Mundabor! How can you criticise the encyclical without even reading it?”
Heavens! Where do you live, on Mars? Did you need Hitler to release the Nuremberg Laws in order to know they were complete rubbish? No, you didn't. You knew what kind of chap Hitler was and you knew what the work was about.
A Pope is playing environmental prophet, and you think anything less than horrible may come out of it? Don't make me laugh…
A propos laugh, prepare yourself for many,long ones. It's the healthiest reaction. And the best treatment for the Evil Clown.
Sandro Magister reports that the announced Clown Encyclical in favour of Environ-mentalist has been postponed because, in its present form, it has no chance of being approved by the CDF.
This is both good and bad news. The good news is that there are still enough people in the Vatican asking Francis not to make an ass of himself at least when writing encyclical letters. Another good news is that Cardinal Müller is once again on the side of common sense, and is willing to stop the worst nonsense at the cost of incurring the ire of Heresy Supremo.
The bad news is that such a reaction could mean that Francis was really such an evil idiot that he wanted to present his own anti-Westerner, protocommie enviro-ranting as a teaching conforming to Church tradition and binding for all Catholics. Whilst this would not have made the madness less mad and the ranting binding in any way, this would have further increased confusion among Catholics.
We are also informed that a delegation of scientist visited Rome in the last days, and put an end to the “science” rubbish. I am sure my readers are far too intelligent to believe Francis can be swayed by logical arguments. Rather, it is clear the delegation was one of the ways used by the CDF to put an end to the worst excesses, sparing us from an encyclical letter influenced by the likes of Raul Castro and Cardinal Maradiaga.
Talking of the latter, it seems to me he is losing some clout in the splendid corridors of the Vatican. It seems to me that whilst Francis does not care a straw about everyday, off-the-cuff heresy and assorted madness, he has decided to draw a line when his pontificate can be seriously and permanently damaged. An encyclical has a character of permanence that an off-the-cuff half drunken video cannot have, and will shape his perception after his death in a far more significant way. Add to this that to set his protocommie rants in stone with an encyclical would ensure constant flak from people with a brain for as long as he lives, and would cause severe embarrassment even among those with half a brain still functioning. If Magister is right, this seems a price he is not ready to pay.
We shall see how this develops. Magister could be badly informed, though I think he seldom is. At the very, very least there is resistance brewing. Still, it seems reasonable to me to take the rumours seriously, because they make a lot of sense seen the circumstances.
Let us take every good news gladly, and savour it for very long. We aren't left completely at the mercy of an atheist commie loony. The machine seems not to like the man very much, both in some top positions and – I am absolutely sure of that, because I know my people – at the level of administration, where one thousands little obstacles will be put in his way in that subtle, but effective way Italians manage so well.
Still: please, please free us from this scourge, o Lord.
There is an excellent blog post from Louie Verrecchio imagining what Francis would say if he were… a Catholic interested in Catholicism instead of a faithless, wordly old man interested in his own self-aggrandisement. I suggest you click here and read the post in its entirety.
I would like here to develop a bit on the point and wonder whether this disgrace of a Pope could not see in environmental issues a way to achieve popularity the easy way.
We all know Francis has already put a huge bomb under the chair of the Church, but the reaction of sincere Catholics who actually believe in heaven and hell defused the bomb before the explosion. The following months showed even to the most stupid (and Francis is not so stupid) that a huge conflict awaits him if he pulls a stunt in Kasper style next October. The events in October also indicate that this here is not a brave man; and we already know that he is a real Jesuit, intended here in the usual meaning of “sly, oily, slippery, accommodating little piece of work”.
What is, then, such a man to do? Could it not be that faced with the choice of being remembered as the Pope of Destruction or the Pope of the Environment, he would choose the second role and a quiet life?
Francis might be content with becoming the Apostle Of Mother Earth. The White Mandela for the stupid masses looking for the World Uncle. The Friend Of The Squirrels. You get the point.
This is easy to do, and not fraught with the potential for self-destruction a Kasperite Campaign starting in October would have not for the Church (which is Indefectible) but for his own very backside.
The issue of the environment would allow him to reach both these objectives: self-promotion among the unthinking masses, and avoidance of a nuclear conflict that could well destroy him in the reputation, if not in the office.
A Pope lives of his being seen as the spiritual guide of Catholics. As the spiritual guide of hippies amidst the ferocious condemnation of Catholics no Papacy has ever been, is, or will ever be worth a dime. And yes, the world at large would still recognise who are the Catholics; even – actually, first of all – those who insult them all the time.
I do not know what the man thinks. I think he is cunning, but I do not think he is intelligent. Actually, he seems to me clearly less endowed than average in that department. He might well feel safe in October, and perhaps use his own environ-mental popularity overdose to think he can pull the Kasper-stunt without danger. But this is rather far-fetched, and contrasts with the obvious CV of a man who was, all his life, not prone to vocal conflict, particularly when dangerous to him. Francis always went for the easy way: the populist rhetoric, the Pinocchio masses, the rides on the bus, the ecu-maniacal stunts, all that pleases the crowds, without ever risking being transferred to the Tierra Del Fuego.
Enviro-Idiot. That would be one possible role for Francis, particularly if it helps him to spare us a nuclear conflict of communion for adulterers. He might well warm to the job. I even hope he will, so that his mind is occupied – and his ego satisfied – elsewhere. Until we get freed from his presence, and pray and hope that a better successor will be given to tend to us.
How we have fallen. Reduced to hope that a Pope might be inducing by wordly popularity to forgive Christ a tad less, or not spit to his face like a mad Roman soldier…
One day all this will be gone. Let’s hope that day comes soon.
On the “mainstream” blog “First Things” there is an excellent article from a Maureen Mullarkey about the latest blunder of The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) and, expanding from that, the clownesque, stupid, socialist, godless, self-centred boundless egotism of the man. Follow the link as long as you can. Kudos to Rorate for making us aware of the article.
In case the blog post be taken down, below are some of the pearls. Emphases mine.
Handwriting has been on the wall along the Viale Vaticano from the get-go. At the beginning of his pontificate, Francis revealed himself to be fastidiously attuned to image. He refused to give communion in public ceremonies lest he be photographed giving the sacrament to the wrong kind of sinner. So, when he agreed to pose between two well-known environmental activists and brandish an anti-fracking T-shirt, we believed what we saw.
It was a portentous image. Press toads hopped to their keyboards to correct the evidence of our lying eyes. Francis was neither for nor against fracking, you see. Nothing of the sort. He was simply using a photo-op to assert blameless solidarity with the victims of ecological injustice. (Both a decisive definition of such injustice and its particular victims went unspecified.)
If that restyling were true, then the more fool Francis. But Francis is not a fool. He is an ideologue and a meddlesome egoist. His clumsy intrusion into the Middle East and covert collusion with Obama over Cuba makes that clear. Megalomania sends him galloping into geopolitical—and now meteorological—thickets, sacralizing politics and bending theology to premature, intemperate policy endorsements.
Francis serves an environmentalist mindset that, unlike the traditional ethos of conservation, views man as a parasite (Western man in Francis’ marxisant variant) and understands wealth in pre-modern terms as a zero-sum game. It discards the West’s great discovery—realization that wealth can be created. The endgame is transfer of wealth from productive nations to unproductive ones.
Orthodox environmentalism resents human sovereignty over the earth we inhabit. It begrudges ingenuity in the transactions we invent with nature and with each other. Its radical form, which beckons Francis and Vatican academics, is atavistic, even animist. Discount the gospel gloss. What matters is the spectacle of the Church imitating the world by justifying political agendas based on still-contended data and half-baked Gramscian dogma.
First Thing is a “mainstream” Catholic presence, with all the problems of the case. The author of the blog post indicates an emerging trend: more and more of those who have been very reserved, or shall we say innocuous, towards Francis are losing patience in front of continuous provocations, of the obscene show of a man revealing himself more and more as clearly obsessed with his own persona, and utterly subversive in his own way of thinking and acting. I add to this an evident childishness in radicalising his rhetoric as his bogus science and economics (let alone theology) are criticised more and more widely.
It’s getting far too much even for the mainstream; far, far too much, and there are voices who say this loud and clear.
Enough. Enough. Enough.
Ideologue. Meddlesome egotist. Megalomaniac. Theology bender. Gramscian dogmatist.
Yep. Maureen Mullarkey got it about right.