Amidst the early days of the COP26 Summit in Glasgow, Pope Francis made several accolades to world leaders and the entire global Catholica community alike to take bold action in the face of anthropogenic climate change and drastically alter our entire system of values towards a new order. Referring to the COP21 Paris Accords, the Pope said:
“There is no alternative. We can achieve the goals set by the Paris Agreement only if we act in a coordinated and responsible way. Those goals are ambitious, and they can no longer be deferred. Today it is up to you to take the necessary decisions.”
Just in case anyone had the idea of reviving nationalist policies in opposition to the globalizing forces of the post-nation state age which we are supposedly entering, the pope said:
“We can confront these crises by retreating into isolationism, protectionism and exploitation. Or we can see in them a real chance for change, a genuine moment of conversion, and not simply in a spiritual sense.”
This call for conversion of society towards climate action echoed the earlier 2015 encyclical Laudato Si produced by the Pope to usher in COP21 and the greening of Christianity under a new ethos.
Within the 2015 Laudato Si, the Pope took aim directly at the “old and obsolete” notion of Christianity that had seen humanity as a divine creature born with a Promethean spark saying:
“An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world.”
This new Christian ethos unveiled by Pope Francis saw humankind not as a species which could transcend the limits of nature, but rather as a species bound inexorably to the ecosystem within which he evolved. If the ecosystems of earth imposed limits on all species according to such variables as space, food and resource availability, then according to the secular priests of the new world order, humanity was expected to be no different. Nature was little more than a mother Gaia figure from ancient Babylonian times long past with the 2015 encyclical’s opening prayer reading:
“Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her”
So I ask again, what sort of “conversion” was Pope Francis implying the Christian world engage in by supporting both the Paris Accords of 2015 and the COP26 goals today?
Was it the embrace of Christian values embodied in Christ’s message to love their neighbor and love god? Was it the embrace of Christ’s anti-imperial call to kick the money changers out of the temple or raise up the sick and poor?
Well, if one is to assess the purpose of COP26 and the World Economic Forum ideologues like Mark Carney who are stage managing this summit, the answer smells more like sulfur than love.
The Anti-Development Aims of COP26
Professing to reform humanity’s entire system of political, economic, security and cultural values around a new global green order, the COP26 initiatives call for making global carbon reduction targets legally binding and enforceable by new world governing mechanisms. Carney has called for $135 trillion to be rallied over the next 30 years to reduce CO2 emission 80% below 1991 levels by spreading windmills, solar panels, biofuel plants, and green grids over the face of the earth.
Broad swaths of nations- are expected to block off their land in defense of ecosystems (and thus banning actual hydro dams or real development from ever being built along regions like the Congo River basin).
Banking systems are being rewired by Carney’s Green Banker’s compact in order to channel funding towards expensive green energy systems while “dirty” companies that produce CO2 are expected to be destroyed. Carney has made it known that a linchpin for this new anti-carbon economy is founded upon new carbon indices which all companies are expected to showcase which will showcase their degree of green virtue based on a gradient of deep green to brown (and fifty shades in between). Depending where your company falls on this gradient will determine the levels of interest rates you will pay or whether you can or cannot access loans. Carney laid out this new system in 2019 saying:
“Climate disclosures must become comprehensive, climate risk management must be transformed and sustainable investing must go mainstream… the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.
All this is being done of course with the supposed (and completely unscientific) belief that this will in turn keep temperatures within 1.5 degrees of pre-industrial levels.
Ignoring for the time being that CO2 has never been shown to play ANY causal role in temperature fluctuations, let us look at the sort of effect this global green new deal will have on human life.
The unreliable, and low-quality electricity derived from windmill and solar panel farms are magnitudes below the quality of energy derived from fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
It is well known that these “green” energy sources may work to limited degrees within the residential sectors of an economy, but the transportation and industrial sectors which consume over 50% of industrial society’s electricity needs will not function on solar or wind power, since you can’t manufacture a windmill with windmill energy and you cannot process industrial steel with either wind or solar power.
And forget about ever powering a high speed or magnetic levitation rail grid. The heat densities of renewables are just too low, and any society dumb enough to shut down their “dirty” oil, natural gas and nuclear stations in favor of these renewables will irreparably incapacitate its industrial sector and if the country is among the undeveloped sectors of the world, it may find itself receiving piles of monopoly money as bribery to sign onto the COP26 green pacts as Boris Johnson has championed at COP26, but it would condemn itself to never build any heavy industry ever again.
Meanwhile, it is useful to hold in mind that windmills and solar panels only function at 26% capacity on a good day, but will occasionally fall to less than 1% capacity when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow resulting in the sorts of crises sweeping Europe as we speak.
Russian Security Council Secretary Nicolai Patrushev recently called out the absurdity of green energy grids saying “Europe’s energy crisis has shown that the existing technologies don’t make it possible to meet economic demands only through renewable energy sources. Europe, an industrialized region turned out to be unable to replace coal, oil and gas with wind, solar and tidal power plants.”
The overarching effect of this anti-scientific policy is a vast reduction of humanity’s means of supporting its eight billion souls. It is the abolishment of sovereignty of nations and the abolishment of the means to carry out the mandate to uplift humanity out of squalor, poverty, and despair… all under the self-righteous guise of virtuously protecting the environment.
It is really worth asking: Is the COP26 mandate to create a global decarbonization scheme truly premised on honest intentions to preserve the environment, and protect the poor? Are Pope Francis’ efforts to re-wire the entire Catholic church around the green agenda truly driven by Christian love as the pope is so fond of saying? Or is something darker at play?
Club of Rome Founder Sir Alexander King let the cat out of the bag quite directly when he stated in 1991: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The Anti-Malthusian Traditions of the Vatican
In better times many years past, a much healthier vision was advanced by leaders of the church who saw that the pathway towards resolving the Cold War was located in genuinely ending global poverty and war.
Much like devoted Catholic statesmen such as Enrico Mattei, John F. Kennedy, Konrad Adenauer or Charles De Gaulle who fought against an ideological Malthusian deep state within their nations, the Church as a whole was caught in a battle between opposing ideologies throughout the 20th century.
For those leading the humanist faction during these turbulent times (especially in the wake of the murders and coups conducted against the aforementioned leaders cited above), navigating through the Cold War did not mean simply “picking a side of communist or capitalist” as so many were expected to do within the rules of Game Theory. Their strategy took the form of a much more moral solution.
In Pope John Paul II’s 1981 Encyclical Laborem Exercens, the terms of the Manichean cold war dichotomy were laid bare with the pope taking aim at two opposing ideologies that suffered from inverse, though equally destructive poisons. On the one hand, the encyclical polemicized against those systems which value the liberties of the individual over the wellbeing of society (Smith’s hedonistic doctrine of Laissez Faire ‘each-against-all’ forms of capitalism for example). On the other hand, the Pope took aim at the destructive materialism of Marx’s ‘Dialectic Materialism’ which value only the whole but in total defiance of respect for the sacredness of the individual.
The Christian principle defended by the Pope within this seminal writing was found in the edict of Genesis 1:28 which called forth man to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.”
If we are indeed to hold true to the belief that mankind was in fact made in the living image of the Creator, and if we thus understood the creator to be a living, creative being (and not an impotent tyrant who made the rules of the universe never to participate in its process of creation ever again), then certain truths followed.
Multiplying seemed straight forward enough, but being fruitful was the most important consideration. Multiplying meant something quantitative, but being fruitful meant something qualitative. In the encyclical, the Pope John Paul II wrote:
“THROUGH WORK man must earn his daily bread and contribute to the continual advance of science and technology and, above all, to elevating unceasingly the cultural and moral level of the society within which he lives in community with those who belong to the same family. And work means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man is capable and to which he is predisposed by his very nature, by virtue of humanity itself. Man is made to be in the visible universe an image and likeness of God himself, and he is placed in it in order to subdue the earth. From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth.”
As the encyclical demonstrated, “Fruitful” meant uplifting the standards of living, educational, and cultural standards of all people. It meant applying the fruits of scientific discoveries equitably in the form of technological progress for all human beings- since the absence of the application of this type of progress would condemn humanity to the fate of animals. Lack of scientific and technological progress would ensure that the carrying capacity and limits to growth of the species would be relatively fixed to whatever resources, minerals, agricultural land, techniques of production, etc that exist at a given moment in time.
Pope John Paul II recognized that the resolution to the dichotomy of the Cold War bipolarity was located in this higher understanding of the nature of work and human life saying: “human work is a key, probably the essential key, to the whole social question, if we try to see that question really from the point of view of man’s good. And if the solution-or rather the gradual solution-of the social question, which keeps coming up and becomes ever more complex, must be sought in the direction of “making life more human”, then the key, namely human work, acquires fundamental and decisive importance.”
Describing the notion of “subdue the earth” and the interconnected infinite aspirations of humanity for self-improvement and the infinite bounty of new discoveries, the Pope had this to say:
“The expression “subdue the earth” has an immense range. It means all the resources that the earth (and indirectly the visible world) contains and which, through the conscious activity of man, can be discovered and used for his ends. And so these words, placed at the beginning of the Bible, never cease to be relevant. They embrace equally the past ages of civilization and economy, as also the whole of modern reality and future phases of development, which are perhaps already to some extent beginning to take shape, though for the most part they are still almost unknown to man and hidden from him.”
This banishment of creative discovery and the destruction of technology which could otherwise liberate countless poor slaves or serfs from the material shackles to a higher station in the cosmos as creatures of intelligence and dignity, has been a technique used by oligarchs since the days of ancient Babylon and Rome. It is the same technique that attempted to persuade the slaves of the confederate south that slavery was sanctioned by the bible with some born as chosen people destined to rule over the weak. It was applied by regressive regimes amidst the Church who sought to convince their parishioners that God willed humanity to be ignorant since eating from the tree of knowledge was the root of sin.
This perversion of Christianity unfortunately took hold of many thought leaders within the Catholic Church who had become won over to the Transhumanist agenda of such reformers as Jesuit modernist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his countless minions within the Jesuit order. These same forces found themselves advancing a rotting liberalization throughout the years of Vatican II reforms of 1962-65, and took Chardin’s call to adapt Christianity to the rules of the age by picking sides in the bi-polar Cold War game of capitalism vs communism.
These same agencies increasingly worked to sever the Church from its own principles and render it a merely adaptive instrument susceptible to fluctuating tastes and standards of our age. If the style and norms of an age become polarised with modernism, liberalism, ecologism, and a war against global warming, then so too must the values of the liberalized Church thus adapt to said standards regardless of how detached from truth, morality, or the teachings of Christ they might be.