Recycling the Revolution
Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution.... that which I fear is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavours to unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and water ....
Blessed Pius IX (1871)
[W]hat has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organisation... is now [part] of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world... the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak...
St. Pius X (1910)
[W]e are unable to ignore the Second Vatican Council and its consequences... With all our hearts we support the Revolution of John XXIII... This courageous concept of the Freedom of Thought that lies at the core of our Freemasonic lodges, has spread in a truly magnificent manner right under the Dome of St. Peter's.
Yves Marsaudon (1964)
Before Vatican II, in theology, as in other areas, the discipline was fixed. After the council there has been a revolution — a chaotic revolution — with free discussion on everything. There is now no common theology or philosophy as there was before.
Cardinal Danneels (2001)
A crude revolutionary timeline, the opening quotes reveal at a glance our rapid rapprochement with "the new era inaugurated in 1789": which is to say our descent into the revolutionary pit.
Within eighty years of the French Revolution and the prideful, hateful, destructive masonic spirit it unleashed, Pius IX could not have sounded more contemporary in denouncing three of its primary acids eating away at faith, truth, and life:
Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism.
These, he wrote on 18 June 1871 to a French deputation headed by the Bishop of Nevers, "are the true causes of the destruction of states." He well understood, however, that the last item was the most frightening and destructive of all:
That which I fear is not the Commune of Paris — no — ... I have said so more than forty times, and I repeat it to you now, through the love that I bear you. The real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism....
Within another forty years, the rebellious spirit of naturalism had gained such a grip on the hearts and minds of the clergy that St. Pius X was forced to issue his powerful intellectual and disciplinary counterpunch, Pascendi (1907).
It is testimony to the preternatural anti-spirit of the Revolution that even the mighty Pope Saint failed to eradicate its clerical partisans and fellow-travellers in toto. It did not stop the liberal torch of "the new era" being passed to succeeding generations: not least to the 'moderate' faction of bastion-razing Balthasar acolytes (Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, Christoph Schönborn, et. al.) Yet if Pascendi tragically failed to knock the Modernists out for the count, it at least felled them so heavily that they retreated to lick their wounds and bide their time, as Pius X turned from their false philosophy and theology to their socio-political errors.
"What has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?" he asked several years later, in his 1910 Apostolic Letter Nôtre Charge Apostolique ("Our Apostolic Mandate)." He was referring to Le Sillon ("The Furrow"), a social movement established in 1894 by Catholic students and supported by countless French bishops and priests. Seduced by the zeitgeist, it soon came to place democracy on a pedestal, and priests and laity on the same egalitarian footing during study workshops. Concurrently, its publication went from being a "Catholic review of social action," to a "Review of democratic action," in which a Catholic tone gave way to populist democratism pursuant to the principles of 1789.
"A socio-political set-up resting on [the] two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which Fraternity will presently be added), is what they call Democracy," wrote Pius X, alluding to its Revolutionary roots. In a scintillating analysis, he laid bare the Sillon's Catholic pretensions to reveal their false (masonic) democracy rooted in the radical autonomy of man. "Le Sillon places public authority primarily in the people, from whom it then flows into the government in such a manner, however, that it continues to reside in the people," he wrote. The divine and natural truth, on the contrary, is that some men can command others only because "their authority to do so derives from, and is a participation in the supreme authority of God." Or as St Paul put it to the Romans [13:1]: "there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God."
"By ignoring the laws governing human nature," wrote Pius X, the Sillonists lead society "not toward progress, but toward death." They "dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles; and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests."
The "chaotic revolution" mainstreamed
In a brutal coup d'etat just fifty years after this masterly papal rebuke, resurgent Modernists, still bearing deep-seated scars and anti-Thomistic bitterness from their Pascendi-pummelling, revived the same deathly Sillonist programme at Vatican II; replacing the supernatural Gospel of salvation with the naturalistic gospel of social reform.
The Lodge was exultant. Having long planned and prophesied this seismic shift, they knew what was to follow. "If there are still some remnants of thought, reminiscent of the Inquisition, they will be drowned in a rising flood of ecumenism and liberalism," declared Yves Marsaudon in his 1964 book, Ecumenism As Seen By A French Freemason. "One of the most tangible consequences will be the lowering of spiritual barriers that divide the world."
That was the nub of the "chaotic revolution" so fondly recalled by Belgium's Prince of Darkness, Cardinal Danneels: the post-conciliar revolt that jettisoned traditional theology, philosophy, discipline and customs in search of secular chimeras. "More terrible than the Revolution" itself, it was Blessed Pius IX's definition of Hell: the "scourge" of Liberal Catholicism officially sanctioned as 'Catholicism.'
How perfectly their modus operandi mimicked the Sillonists — who, wrote St. Pius X, presented their errors "in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words... set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious."
"Vague," "ambiguous," "emotional," "high-sounding" ... the spirit of the Sillon coalesced in the Council documents, spewing forth and mainstreaming the very Liberal Catholic anti-spirit Blessed Pius IX condemned "more than forty times."
The making of Don Jorge
In that respect, Jorge Bergoglio is just one more egregious product of his liberal times. Pope Francis, however, is the creation of Godfried Danneels and other Modernist cardinals united in their opposition to Cardinal Ratzinger and then Benedict XVI. Speaking on 23 September 2015 at the launch of his authorised biography, Danneels laughingly described this cabal as "a mafia club that bore the name St. Gallen," the Swiss city where they secretly met from 1995 until 2006. These mafiosi — comprising all the usual suspects: Kasper, Lehman, Martini, Hume, Murphy-O'Connor, Silvestrini, et. al. — wanted a drastic reform of the Church, said Danneels, to make it "much more modern." Jorge Bergoglio was to be their capo di tutti capi.(1)
Over many years, using their individual networks which almost saw him elected at the 2005 conclave, they finally engineered the elevation of Don Jorge as papal Godfather.
Before such arrogance, readers must understand that these elite ecclesiastical revolutionaries have been a law unto themselves for half-a-century. Faithless. Untouchable. Living well at lay expense (their regular airfares to St. Gallen included), they do what they like. The notorious Cardinal Danneels is wholly representative.
There is a whiff of brimstone about Danneels. With a smile like the winter sun glinting on a coffin-plate, you wouldn't be surprised to find he had steel teeth. In 2008, he proudly admitted having dressed in ritualistic masonic garb to deliver a lecture at a Belgian masonic temple.(2)A man who completely separates political decisions from moral norms, in 1990 he even tried to persuade King Baudouin to sign the Belgian abortion bill into law (— the devout Baudouin told him to bug off, then briefly abdicated in protest while they passed their murderous 'law'.)
He has also referred to 'gay marriage' laws as a "positive development," stating that the French people should "obey the law" and not oppose it. In 2010, recordings revealed him urging a victim not to reveal 13 years of sexual abuse at the hands of his friend Bishop Vangheluwe of Bruges. While it goes without saying that he promotes the deadly condom-AIDS nexus.
This, dear reader,is the sulphurous ringleader of the "mafia club" that conjured up the startled figure prodded onto the papal balcony on 13 March 2013 (— with "discreet king-maker" Godfried Danneels close by, noted Belgian newspaper Le Vif).In a last ditch effort to realise the "nefarious" Sillonistic ideals denounced by Pius X, they now had their mouthpiece to "set ablaze the hearts of men" with heightened levels of "vague, emotional, high-sounding" post-conciliar verbiage, and doctrine be damned.
Their plan reached a crescendo last May with the papal cry "to move forward in a bold cultural revolution" predicated on eco-alarmism that pushes "a true world political authority... empowered to impose penalties for damage inflicted on the environment." Not a Catholic counter-revolution, mind. Not a movement of personal conversion and adherence to Catholic moral teachings in order to topple the devastating sexual revolution engineered by the cultural Marxists. Not a concerted drive to establish the Social Reign of Christ the King by widespread preaching on the proper understanding of political power, according to which the Church becomes the conscience of the State, and Her teachings the salvific yardstick of all cultural, social, political and economic activity.
On the contrary, in his rush is to preach appeasement, compromise, inclusivity and non-judgmentalism under the Green umbrella, Francis proposes instead a further acceleration away from the Social Kingship of Christ, towards a New World Order "empowered" to cleanse the last remnants of Catholic faith, conscience, and reason itself, from the public square.
Seamless garment sell out
Just two-and-a-half years ago it was impossible to imagine a Church "much more modern" than the Liberal Catholic horror we already suffered at the hands of Danneels & Co.: a hyper-protestantised Church of girl altar boys, syncretic Assisi extravaganzas, institutionalised sacrilege, worldly clergy, empty convents, seminaries and parishes, and every kind of heretical dysfunction. It took the papal poster boy of the St. Gallen crew to broaden our horizons. And how!
Ever since Jorge Bergoglio's contrived election, this magazine has been a running factual record of his self-contradictory efforts to unite principles "as repugnant to each other as fire and water." The May 2015 publication of Laudato Si was the most spectacular effort to date. Mixing truth and error, Catholicism and Socialism, God and Mammon... Modernist ideology made papal common cause with Green ideology to offer souls ideology as religion.
As noted last month, the recyclical does include intermittent pro-life passages, and due warnings against gender ideology and population control. But these token contributions are deliberately outweighed and cancelled out by a preponderance of eco-propaganda, with all its tiresome clichés and Teilhardian gobbledygook masquerading as spirituality.
Effectively, Laudato Si is a jumbo-sized application of Cardinal Bernadin's perfidious 'seamless garment.' In particular, it let the population-controllers off the hook (as brilliantly underlined last month by Randy Engel), while marginalising the pro-life cause in general: refusing to highlight and differentiate the genocide of unborn children from a catch-all eco-ethic of 'sustainable life'. Even with the US abortion industry on the skids, Francis pushed the same line during his recent American visit, most notably during his address to Congress. Amid wild media applause, John Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews summarised what really transpired:
The timing of Pope Francis’ speech to Congress could hardly be seen as anything short of divinely planned – coming on the same day as the Senate is scheduled to vote on whether to defund Planned Parenthood, the country’s number one killer of unborn babies.
Meanwhile, on Monday, Democrats halted a ban on most late-term abortions. On Friday, the House voted to pass a bill making it 1st degree murder to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion. Add to this the fact that millions have watched those undercover Planned Parenthood videos in recent weeks [revealing PP's selling of organs plundered from the babies they kill], and it becomes clear that the groundwork has been laid for an unprecedented national conversation on abortion.
Hopes that the pope’s address could help sway public support in favor of life at this critical moment were raised when he spoke to the assembled lawmakers of the need to protect life at “every stage of development.” Those watching naturally assumed that this remark was prelude to some additional words addressing the abortion issue, and perhaps even the Planned Parenthood scandal.
However, in a curious bait-and-switch that left many pro-life politicians in the chamber in puzzled silence, the pope instead turned his attention immediately to the death penalty, describing how “this conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.”
Even the New York Times took note of the unexpected change of direction, describing how, “instead of continuing on to talk about the need to end abortion, he pivots to the
Another clear opening to speak specifically to the abortion issue came when the pope spoke about “money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.” The phrase is a perfect encapsulation of the Planned Parenthood aborted baby parts scandal. Disappointingly, however, the pope connected these words only to the arms trade. [LSN, 24/9/15]
And so the baby-trafficking Planned Parenthood lived to abort and traffic another day — on the American taxpayer's dime. Way beyond "disappointing," a more heinous sin of omission is hard to imagine. Even 'diabolic disorientation' does not adequately convey the enormity of this seamless garment sell out. To sidestep such a momentous — historic — opportunity to speak Catholic truth to power, underlined and encapsulated everything we have observed and documented about Pope Francis. Not least his calculated retreats to the Quiet Zone: where he "never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated," as Sandro Magister put it.
The papal silence was even more deafening after Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix ordered his flock to man the barricades! Shortly after the Congressional non-event, in a plea to his flock of 29 September, His Lordship did not hold back:
As I write this exhortation, videos are being released documenting the barbaric practice of selling baby body parts by Planned Parenthood. Since this infamous agency receives around half a billion dollars each year from the U.S. Government, funds to carry on their slaughter of innocents, no American citizen, and certainly no man, can remain silent about this travesty of our times. We need to get off the sidelines and stand up for life on the front lines. We need faith like that of our fathers who defended the children of previous generations and who gave up their own lives rather than abandon their faith in Christ. My sons and brothers, men of the Diocese of Phoenix, we need you to step into the breach!
'And so I withstand Francis to the face,' he may as well have signed off, 'because he is to be blamed' [Gal. 2:11].
The key phrase in Mr Jalsevac's report is "bait-and-switch." Together with his retreat to purposeful silence whenever a raised papal voice is required, Francis employs this tactic with devilish dexterity.
To deflect attention from his shameful antics and corrosive Liberalism, the Pope tosses out scraps of orthodoxy and tradition; soundbites and token gestures for which neo-conservatives eagerly scavenge, hold up, and acclaim, even as their hero turns away to undermine the Faith once again. Hence they rejoiced over the few pro-life lines contained in his Congressional address, ignoring the dismal fact that "only 75 words out of the 3,400 words" of the Pope’s address to Congress "had anything to do with anything even close" to life and marriage, as leading US Evangelical Albert Mohler noted with a heavy heart.
President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mohler was most alarmed that in Congress the Pope "never even mentioned Jesus Christ." Alarming indeed. And telling. Yet hardly a surprising omission for a pope who has refused to make the Sign of the Cross over non-Catholics for fear of offending them! (A pontiff whose pectoral cross also drops under his sash and out of sight, with alarming regularity, in the company of rabbis.(3))
"Furthermore," added Mohler, "among the things he didn’t mention were specifically the Catholic Church’s concern about abortion and its definition of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Instead what the Pope referenced in terms of those issues was a very fuzzy and evasive approach that left many people wondering if he was actually talking about either abortion or marriage at all." (Which of course was the purpose of the exercise, and precisely why the "mafia club" chose Jorge!)
Mohler explained that while Francis did mention marriage, "he never defined it and he certainly didn’t draw attention to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church identifies marriage as and only as the union of a man and a woman." (That he also avoided the elephant in the room — diabolic sodomy — goes without saying.) Mohler continued:
Instead he offered a statement that can be interpreted by virtually anyone as that individual may wish to interpret it, mentioning marriage and the family without defining either. And speaking of the future of marriage in such a way that virtually no one regardless of their position on the moral revolution can disagree with him. Furthermore, even though the sanctity of human life is a fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, it was virtually missing from the Pope’s statement; explicitly missing was any reference to abortion and to the fact that abortion is now one of the most controversial frontline issues in America today.
Commonality and common ground
The American President was quick to exploit the loophole-laden address, especially the papal warning about a "temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners." Obama immediately shoved that compromising passage in the face of Republicans fighting to defund Planned Parenthood, while using it to justify his own fight to maintain hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for America's leading abortion provider. "I would just ask members to really reflect on what His Holiness said," he piously intoned,
— not in the particulars, but in the general problem that we should be open to each other, we should not demonise each other, we should not assume that we have a monopoly on the truth or on what’s right, that we listen to each other and show each other respect and that we show regard for the most vulnerable in our society.
This meeting of presidential and papal minds also reflects their mutual delusion: viz., the familiar refrain of personal humility, deference, and respect. Apropos Francis, we have comprehensively exposed the falsity of his high humble self-regard. While for his part, the narcissistic bisexual Obama lost his moral compass long ago.(4)
Either promoting or complicit in every degenerate political campaign, Barack Obama has no regard whatsoever for "what's right," and so little "respect" for the "most vulnerable in our society" that he zealously defends the killing of babies in plain sight (just as they are emerging from the womb). He is also the most mendacious and divisive president in American history; an Alinskyite "community organiser" trained to "rub raw the sores of discontent," using systematic deception and the language of morality to conceal Saul Alinsky's destructive Marxist agenda.
That short bio puts the hypocritical magnitude of the presidential moralising above on a par with the epic papal duplicity we regularly critique. Noting that Obama's call echoed similar words he made on the campus of Notre Dame in 2009, when he said both sides of the abortion debate must speak with "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words," LifeSiteNews pointed out that
pro-life advocates say the president has demonized them with an endless stream of federal actions: prosecuting sidewalk counselors, gathering intelligence on the pro-life movement, and branding pro-life Americans as potential domestic terrorists in numerous federal reports.
Even more significant than the common double-speak, however, is the fact that both are front men for vested New World Order [NWO] interests: Francis for the heretical St. Gallen crew, and Obama for more venal Wall Street varieties. This commonality explains how such a degenerate President can find genuine succour and encouragement in the words of reigning Pope. In other words, if Francis appeared to 'drop the ball' in Congress — to miss a one-off chance to strike a major blow against the Culture of Death (which isthe NWO) — it was only to allow his like-minded political counterpart, and cultural Marxist par excellence, to pick up that ball and run with it. Albert Mohler explained the underlying papal intention well enough:
It represents an opportunity to avoid having to get to the hard edges of Christian truth. It is an intentional effort to avoid a direct confrontation with the secularising culture. It is an effort to try to get along in terms of this moral revolution, not so much at this point by changing the teachings of his church, but by soft-pedalling them or in the case of his address to Congress not even mentioning them. Not even daring to define marriage which is so central to the Catholic Church that it is actually one of the sacraments recognised by the church, but the Pope didn’t reference marriage and he didn’t define it and that is incredibly telling.
Under the Green umbrella
Unlike our neocons, Protestant Evangelicals, for all their many faults, are not blind to Catholic events unfolding before their eyes. They are not distracted by the mass of contradictions that define Francis, nor fooled by his bait-and-switch tactics. Like Mohler, they understand that the convergence comes to pass more by papal soft-pedalling or omission than actual denial of the Faith.
A simple cartoon captured the mentality and the process. Sitting on one side of a confessional screen, Obama confesses: "I'm the most pro-abortion President in history." Comes the papal reply from the other side: "But where do you stand on Climate Change?"
Voilà! — the naturalistic sea change, in orientation and emphasis, by Francis and his backers. As St. Pius X said of the leaders of the Sillon, the zeitgeist has "carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Saviour." The false gospel in question is of course the social gospel. "A chimera, bring[ing] Socialism in its train," warned St. Pius, the social gospel joins up infidelity with godless political outcomes like night follows day. And so the syncretic Assisi abominations eventually — inevitably — found the Church ensconced under the Green umbrella, where all the ideological strains of Socialism make common socio-political common cause.
Environmentalism — as opposed to normal healthy concern for good stewardship of the environment — is an all encompassing ideology that has taken cultural Marxism to a new totalising level. Materialistic, messianic, implacable, dripping with emotional appeals and utopian global designs, it mirrors common garden Socialism. However, tapping into the same wellspring of liberal shame and guilt that gave us abortion on demand (through self-justifying feminists), it has been able exaggerate and exploit modern misgivings about environmental degradation in order to mainstream Socialism as never before.
Boasting 50+ million legally-sanctioned surgical murders of unborn children each year, and countless more chemical abortions, the current Age of Unreason & Genocide has far outdone Marxist and Fascist regimes in its expedient disregard for human life. In order to rationalise this mass killing of the unborn, and the culling of the vulnerable 'useless eaters' who survive the womb (to spare the planet more bodies, consumers, and CO2 than it can handle), the West is happily comforted by Environmentalism: which acts to numb, comfort, and distract the amoral Western conscience. At the same time, a quasi-religious reverence for Mother Earth fills the spiritual void in empty, affluent Western lives.
Against that background, the Green juggernaut and its media lackeys are free to dictate contemporary terms: to shout down scientific findings that do not fit its pre-determined agenda; to eschew fair and open debate in favour of demonising dissenters; to fabricate, distort, and/or bury facts to suit itself.
Instead of condemning this Green ideology out of hand, in the way pre-conciliar popes denounced its doctrinaire Red and Brown lineage,(5)Laudato Si as good as sanctioned the neo-fascism/neo-communism underpinning the NWO.
Firstly, by marginalising and misrepresenting Catholic teaching throughout the document, while soft-pedalling urgent priorities — e.g., reducing the abortion tsunami to this single, tepid mention: "Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion" (#120). As if his Facebook 'friends' will take any more notice of that lone reference than they will of the few allusions to population control, also buried under the 40,000+ other words.
Secondly, by accepting at face value and parroting false Green claims — e.g., "A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system" (#23). This fundamental falsehood requires elaboration.
An M.D. from Harvard who did postgraduate work at Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California, the late best-selling novelist Dr. Michael Crichton (of Jurassic Park fame), was no dilettante. In a 2003 lecture he famously noted: "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."
A post by Brad Miner on The Catholic Thing recounted that the title of that Crichton lecture was "Aliens Cause Global Warming," and its message was a cautionary tale about how "science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity." Crichton took on popularisers of scientific fads such as Carl "Nuclear Winter" Sagan and Paul "Population Bomb" Ehrlich. The popularity of their doom-and-gloom prophecies was based on a kind of peer-pressure, consensus politics that endured until the prognosticators were proved false (— just as the 40-year Piltdown Man fabrication was enforced as untouchable 'science' until finally exposed). After applying actual scientific discipline to the global warming scare, Crichton concluded his talk with a common sense view that totally escapes the Holy Father:
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
It often seems that way. Yet while the Holy Father may have lost his faith, he still possesses the mental capacity to establish the lack of "A very solid scientific consensus." Prior to publishing Laudato Si, a quick Google search for scientific dissidents would have alerted him, for instance, to one petition co-signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers (including more than 9,000 PhD's), which states that CO2 ("carbon") is "harmless" and "beneficial" to the biosphere; that there is no downside to more CO2; that it's still just a very tiny trace gas, as essential to all life on earth as H2O. They also declared as one that
there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of... carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Every co-signer of this Oregon Petition was vetted, each one has a degree in the hard sciences (including climate science itself), and each one is named, along with their degree.
Let us not forget, too, that just before the release of the recyclical, 100 environmental scientists sent Francis a letter imploring him not to allow himself to be misled by the arguments of radical environmentalists and by analyses that have not been demonstrated by environmental science. Dated 27 April, the letter added that, under the pretext of helping the poor, revolutionary environmentalists are actually contributing with their proposals to increase misery around the world.
"Consensus"? With just as little effort the Holy Father would also have found dozens of scientifically reviewed reasons why "global warming" is some distance beyond farce, never mind "very solid consensus." Moreover, he would have quickly discovered that the foundational statistic repeatedly championed by the disreputable Al Gore and a host of others, such as President Obama — who even tweeted on 16 May 2014 that "97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" — is a total fabrication. The Wall Street Journal reported that "The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction." When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.(6)
We could devote many entire editions to exposing the Green hoax: its lies, exaggerations, endemic hypocrisy, and corruption. Also the hugely expensive energy projects which have cost the peoples of the West trillions in subsidies and associated costs. CEOs and executives rake in millions of dollars, while politicians get lucrative donations for their campaigns, and scientists get all the funding they need to keep them going, all courtesy of taxpayers.
Typically, after accepting $1.25 million in campaign contributions, President Obama made sure to include his "global warming" plans in his victory speech: "We want our children to live in an America that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet," he pontificated (as if a ghost writer of Laudato Si). The palm-greasing in this case involved the failed Solyndra green-energy initiative, which cost taxpayers $500 million and created a lot of flack for Obama. A little-known side of the Solyndra story, explains Tom Luongo, is that
Obama, in essence, used taxpayer money to finance his re-election campaign, by funneling it through Solyndra. You see, when Solyndra fell on hard times, it passed into the hands of two large private equity investors, Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser. When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million."
Green payola is endemic. General Electric is notorious for spending tens of millions of dollars a year to "buy" green energy credits for its wind turbines and other green technologies — credits which helped the firm pay ZERO US taxes in 2011. First Solar received $646 million in US government loan guarantees, and has since contributed more than $180,000 to Democratic campaigns.
And so it goes. In America alone, writes Luongo, a former scientist with the University of Florida, $22 billion of taxpayer money is redistributed every year to greedy scientists, politicians, and corporations for "global warming" initiatives. But these initiatives have ripple effects, mainly the regulations (from government agencies like the monolithic US Environmental Protection Agency) that shackle free enterprise and force reliance on foreign energy. According to Forbes magazine, the total cost of these ripple effects is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually.
Al Gore is the personification of the whole wicked sham. A wealthy Green demagogue who decries the supposedly apocalyptic carbon footprint of ordinary folk, the hypocritical Gore racks up annual electricity and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national American average. In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has accumulated $100 million, almost entirely by investing in a handful of "green-tech" companies, 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration. The Telegraph reports Gore could become the "world’s first carbon billionaire" thanks to his investments in green companies, all of which benefit from tax dollars and government loans to "prevent global warming" according to the Gospel of Al. Which is to say that his multibillion-dollar "carbon offset" scams are based directly on his own predictions of inevitable climatic meltdown!
Since the apocalypse never comes, he can continue to preach it to lucrative effect. For example, in 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his "global warming" initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Gore made a striking prediction: "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," he cried. "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now." In 2014, Tom Luongo yawned and duly noted: "It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted, they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%. Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: 'An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice'."
Empire of lies and self-serving
So much for "the oceans are getting warmer," another Gore whopper endlessly repeated by other Green scammers riding the same mendacious gravy train. We know about the mendacity because the evidence of outright lying has leaked out of trustworthy scientific agencies. In the years since our October 2006 'environmental-CO,' thousands of emails and documents from leading "global warming" scientists have revealed potential conspiracies, collusions, data manipulation, destruction of information, and even admission of flaws that were buried.
One leading scientist, Kevin Trenberth, admitted: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t." A travesty simply because they were worried about losing their government funding. According to NASA’s own 2014 data, the world has only warmed a trifling 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979) and we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998. During the subsequent 17 years there hasn't been any "global warming." In fact, as mentioned in passing last month, the world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
In another email, Dr. Phil Jones — a leading "global warming" advocate at the United Nations — admitted that he used "Mike’s Nature trick" in a 1999 graph to "hide the decline" in temperature. While a study done by Stephen Goddard at Real Science revealed the absurd extent of data manipulation by "climate scientists." He said: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models. (The entire "global warming" empire was constructed on a foundation of wildly inaccurate predictions derived from the notoriously flawed process of computer-modelling.)
Recently, Professor Robert Stavins — who helped write the 2014 United Nations Climate Report — revealed to Breitbart News that politicians demanded he change and edit parts of the report to fit their needs!
In short, governments, and government-funded scientists, want to make sure that any "global warming" research published will say exactly what they want it to say. Although despicable, on a purely human level, the servility of these scientists is understandable. "If you work for the government and you stand up and say, ‘Man-made climate change is all nonsense’ you can kiss your government job goodbye," says Dr John Casey, a former White House space program advisor, and one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. "They’ll either make it hell to work there, or fire you outright," he said.
In the end, mortgages and school fees trump scientific integrity.
Epic waste and lethal failure
It seems Pope Francis was not interested in discovering any of this: who is using actual science; who is lying and fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame; and who is so concerned about keeping government or corporate grants that they will say exactly what their paymasters want them to say — undertaking (pseudo-)scientific research with an end goal in mind, only using data points that support that end goal.
When a pontiff makes great play of being for the poor and against capitalist greed (capitalism is "the Devil's dung," he railed on his recent Latin American jaunt), one might reasonably expect him to highlight, and even denounce in strong terms, the social and familial cost of capitalo-socialists like Gore lining their Green pockets at taxpayer expense.
Again, America is indicative. Tom Luongo figures that the $22 billion the US government spends annually financing "global warming" initiatives works out at $41,856 a minute going to waste. While Forbes' $1.75 trillion flow-on figure equals $3,329,528 wasted every minute! Moreover, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says these regulations could ultimately cause gas prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, send 3 million Americans to the welfare line, and reduce average household income by a whopping $4,000 each year. Apparently, the dire myriad consequences of all that were not worth any papal consideration; not even to refute them.
Beyond the financial cost of policies and programmes adopted to fight the "global warming" phantom, Francis just as studiously ignored the body count. The recent Volkswagen diesel-emission scandal is simply the latest in a long line of lethal consequences of Green zealotry.
According to German newspaper Bild, VW project engineers determined there was no way to meet both emission standards and cost controls. Their solution was to apply illegal software, a so-called defeat device, that switched on emission controls only when a car was being tested. The scandal has wiped almost €30 billion off the company's value and prompted a raft of government investigations and lawsuits around the world as the carmaker issues a mass recall. VW could be hit with as much as $18 billion in fines under the Clean Air Act in the US and is already facing more than 190 lawsuits by individual car owners.
Standing amid these recriminations, and renting of garments by VW stockholders, the towering Green Elephant — the lethality of eco-targets obsessively enforced — was ignored. "The European switch to diesel engines was a top-down decision as a direct result of exaggerated fears about climate change," said Tory peer Matt Ridley. Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he elaborated a parable of our times:
Convinced that the climate was about to warm rapidly, and extreme weather was about to get much worse, European governments signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997 and committed to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in the hope that this would help.
In the event, the global temperature stopped rising for 18 years, while droughts, floods and storms also showed no increase. But in 1998, Britain happily signed up to an EU agreement with car makers that they would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent over ten years....
As subjects of Brussels, we in Britain obediently lowered tax on diesel cars, despite knowing that they produce four times as much nitrogen oxides as a petrol, and 20 times as many particulates, both bad for human beings.
This is becoming a repetitive story. Almost every policy adopted to fight climate change has been a disaster, doing more harm than good — all without making a significant difference to emissions. And now it is clear that giving tax breaks to diesel cars made urban air quality worse than it would otherwise have been, killing possibly 5,000 people a year in this country alone.
[...] The Paris climate conference in December will be [another] perfect example of this. For the umpteenth (21st) time, a swarm of politicians and green hangers-on will haggle over words designed to 'bind' the rest of us into a top-down commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions — whatever the cost in money and human lives.
Silent Spring: recycling the panic
The Supreme Pontiff did not need the Mail on Sunday to learn about death tolls triggered by wild and unsubstantiated environmental claims, however. Long before Al Gore there was Rachel Carson and her deadly Silent Spring. The original template for eco-alarmism, Laudato Si, like Gore's Earth in the Balance, is a mere recycling of its spurious, panic-stricken message.
A Green icon, Carson was a well-known naturalist who convinced herself that the chemical known as DDT was a malignant threat to her beloved natural world. In her eagerness to make her case, vital facts went out the window and unsupported assertions were invited in. She added cancer to the mix, implying the "rise" in cancer rates in the 1950s, attributable to improved detection programmes, was due to pesticides. Based on a couple of dubious cases in which exposure to DDT allegedly led to cancer in a man and a woman, Carson derived a universal threat of cancer, particularly involving children.
Published in 1962, the opening chapter of the book threw in an apocalyptic scenario for good measure, depicting a small idyllic town that is suddenly overcome by unseen forces that kills local birds and threatens all other forms of life. She also suggested that DDT leaking into the ocean would kill off phytoplankton, depriving the earth's atmosphere of oxygen. Silent Spring spent 31 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. It set the pattern for all the eco-crusading fighters of smog, ozone depletion, mobile phones, or "global warming". Indeed, Al Gore, who wrote the introduction to the thirtieth anniversary edition in 1992, learned all he knows from Rachel Carson. Including which inconvenient truths to omit!
Nowhere, for instance, does Carson mention the hundreds of millions of lives saved from typhus, yellow fever, and malaria by DDT, both during and after the war, including the prisoners freed from concentration camps. According to Indian medical authorities, control of malaria in and of itself increased national life expectancy from thirty-two to forty-five years. In the end, the global eradication campaign involving DDT spraying and antimalarial drugs saved a minimum of 100 million lives, and perhaps as many as 500 million. In less than twenty years, DDT had largely defeated malaria, one of humanity's greatest scourges.
Carson not only ignored this, she went to some lengths to downplay the pesticide's beneficial effects, even completely misrepresenting successful spraying campaigns. DDT had no redeeming qualities. And since the book appeared at a time of great anxiety over fluoridation of water supplies, the thalidomide tragedy, nuclear testing, and the Cuban missile crisis, the political ramifications were immediate. Within a year, dozens of bills regulating pesticides were pending in state legislatures. Carson herself made several appearances before appreciative congressional committees. The apocalyptic tone of the ensuing government scientific reports echoed Carson, and spraying programmes that would have eradicated pests were shut down.
Only after rigorous scientific examination in the ensuring years were Carson's claims shown to be baseless. Exhaustive studies proved that DDT was not a carcinogen. There was no cancer epidemic triggered by DDT. Not even one solitary case. Even DDT's alleged poisoning of birdlife, Carson's primary concern, was proven false in relation to songbirds, and very doubtful as regards raptors.
But Carson's dishonest, ill-conceived book left its deadly legacy. DDT had been ideologised and made a focus of public fears. Spraying programmes shut down worldwide, and countries threatened with aid and trade sanctions if they did not drop DDT. As a result, malaria returned with a vengeance to pre-DDT levels, until the WHO reported at the end of the 1990s that "more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history." The usual suspects like Greenpeace had campaigned furiously against DDT, the most effective insecticide ever formulated. It took years of behind the scenes attempts to defeat the Green lobby that held back the means of saving countless men, women, and children. When DDT was finally reintroduced, the unspeakable Greenpeace turned 180 degrees, stating: "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it." In fact, as ever, the Socialist dogmatism they personify had resulted in the deaths of millions.
Following his summary documentation of the Carson case in Death by Liberalism: The Fatal Outcome of Well-Meaning Liberal Policies (2011), J.R. Dunn sums up the deadly ideological pattern it established:
Without a single exception, every last sector of the liberal establishment was tried and found wanting. The media, the academy, the scientific community, the politicians, the bureaucrats, all collapsed one after the other into a form of mob hysteria that not only still prevails (global warming), but has become part of the very essence of liberal identity and belief. American liberals allowed themselves to be stampeded by a book, and as a result millions suffered and died.
The crowning irony is that Rachel Carson never called for the banning of DDT. "We must have insect control," she said shortly before her death [from complications of cancer in 1964]. "I do not favor turning nature over to insects, I favor the sparing, selective and intelligent use of chemicals. It is the indiscriminate, blanket spraying that I oppose." But in Silent Spring her rhetoric outran her ideas, and her followers took it as a given that this malignant threat to all that was natural must be abolished. And for that reason, Carson takes her place beside Marx and Engels in that small elite of writers who triggered death by their words alone.
What was the cost? The commonly quoted number, derived from multiplying estimated yearly deaths by thirty years, is 30 to 50 million. But not all of these victims could have been saved. ... But if the money had been spent, if the effort had been made, if the single useful compound had been available, then the ancient parasite would often have been cheated of its prey, and many who died would have lived. We have no idea how many millions that number encompasses, but it must be very high.
Ideology as Religion
Carson's blueprint for evoking baseless fears and catastrophic policies has either been very well understood and cynically re-applied for personal profit (Al Gore), or completely ignored in dealings with the Green industry (Pope Francis). "You'd look long and hard to detect any vanishing trace of logic, rigor, or discretion in the DDT saga," notes Dunn. Yet the Holy Father has fervently embraced the apocalyptic tone, claims, and centralising goals of the ideological heirs of that saga.
In thrall to self-serving alarmists touting a non-existent "consensus" about a non-existent "crisis," he has displayed no discernible interest in the counter-arguments and scandals which utterly discredit environmentalism and its proponents. Rather, casting aside all discretion, prudence and objectivity in his rush to demonstrate his Green credentials, he has scandalised the faithful and degraded the Faith, turning the Vatican and the papacy itself into ideological instruments that discount rational objections to Carson-like claims, for fear of having to account for them.
This narrow outlook has long supplanted the Thomistic mindset that once enabled Rome to weigh up, dispassionately and systematically, all sides of an issue or dispute. A pope with a self-professed "reckless" streak, Francis is the antithesis of Thomistic discipline and the orderly orthodox mind it instilled in his papal forebears. The faithless, chaotic state of the Vatican is testimony to how such disorderly minds are primed for Liberal ideology rather than Catholic theology (— for the curse of "Liberal Catholicism" rather than Catholicism, as Pius IX would put it).
One thinks immediately of the attempt to bulldoze through a revolutionary Modernist agenda at the October 2014 Synod. The October 2015 Instrumentum Laboris was also an ideological exercise "to try to push forward the agenda of a certain clerical pressure group in order to change the Divine law," as Bishop Schneider described it. To achieve this end, its drafters illicitly listed propositions rejected by the first Synod; included spurious interpretations of the Catechism; dissembled and lied (as in stating there is "a common accord" in favour of Kasper's "penitential way" to sacrilegious Communions — which recalls the global-warming "consensus" lie); ensured key omissions and silences (on sodomy in particular); and generally compromised Catholic Truth.
Even more blatantly, it was revealed prior to last month's Synod that the Bergoglians appeared to be already drawing up the post-synodal documents required to implement their pre-determined outcome! Italian journalist Marco Tossati reported that
around thirty people, almost all of them Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian [guess who!], are working on the themes on the Synod, in a very reserved way, under the coordination of Father Antonio Spadaro, the director of Civiltà Cattolica, who spends a long time in Santa Marta, in consultation with the Pope. ... One possibility is that the 'task force' works to provide the Pope the instruments for an eventual post-synodal document on the theme of the Eucharist to the remarried divorced, on cohabiting [couples], and same-sex couples.
As we noted in Part 2, the last secret 'task force' set up by the Holy Father, just prior to the first Synod, produced the catastrophic 'Catholic divorce'-Motu Proprio that Francis was determined to foist on the Church; not even consulting the CDF in the process. Speaking of which Congregation, Cardinal Müller, too, frames the narrow, this-worldly perspective of those pushing heretical synodical agendas (like Communion for the divorced-remarried) in stark ideological terms, recently stating:
In view of so much talk about dialogue and its long processes, one cannot overlook in reality an ideological constrictedness or crampedness. The goal of such an ideology is to enforce at least a change of practice, even if it damages truth and the unity of the Church.
Always the first casualties of ideology, a curia boasting enough 'gay' ideologues to turn Family Synods into Sodomy Sin-Nods is hardly bothered by truth and unity! Long before Francis brought in his unspeakably arrogant crew (see "Iron Fist," Aug-Sept 2015), "truth" and "unity" had become elastic and expendable; empty words spouted by Vatican organs like the dogmatically evolutionist Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which expels and demonises advocates of Catholic creation theology rather than debate them (— see Peter Wilders, CO passim).
Wherever we look, Modernist ideology rooted in false 'pastoral theology' has defined the post-conciliar Church. Just as Socialist ideology rooted in false sociology and false biology has defined Marxist and Fascist regimes respectively. Michael Brendan Dougherty recently reminded his readers that "the entire Mass — the central act of Catholic worship — was re-written according to shoddy, ideologically motivated scholarship." Modernist jackhammers and jackboots finished the job: smashing the altars; sacking the churches; trampling over faith, morals and piety; crushing all Catholic opposition to the world, the flesh and the devil.
Naturally, Francis and his surrogates depict us — defenders of Tradition and the Faith of our Fathers — as the dangerously unyielding. narrow-minded problem! "The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation," enthuses Francis, wearing his Lib Theol hat and portraying the Novus Ordo, unwittingly,as the sterile construct it is. "... What is worrying, though," he adds sombrely, "is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo [Traditional Mass], its exploitation."
In order to rationalise his support for sodomy, contraception, divorce-and-remarriage, and sacrilegious Communions, Cardinal Kasper also beats the drum about "fundamentalism" in the Church. At the pre-Synod launch of his latest book, he again caricatured the mentality of his "fundamentalist" (read faithful Catholic) critics: "You take one line of the Gospel and this becomes an ideology to support your case," he sneered.
He is wrong on both counts.
Firstly, like most of his de facto schismatic German brethren, His