"Faux Moral Crusade[r]" Francis's “Climate” Scare Agenda is only a means to Marxist Socialist Takeover
The Communist website Marxist.com couldn't have stated it more clearly that "faux
moral crusade[r]" Francis's “climate” scare agenda is only a means to "system change" or Marxist socialist takeover:
"Marxists join biggest-ever climate strike: for system change, not climate change!"
The great Manhattan Contrarian website briefly explained what Francis, Joe Biden and their globalist puppet-masters are up to:
"It’s easy to get discouraged about the 'climate' scare, otherwise known as the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to 'save the planet.'” [https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-6-5-dont-get-discouraged-about-the-preposterous-climate-scare]
Journalist James Taylor showed that the Marxists and leftists used the very “climate” scare agenda policies promoted by Francis which caused the Chile and Ecuador riots as "propaganda for "system change" due to "unequal wealth":
"Forget the propaganda from leftist apologists blaming the Chile riots on “unequal wealth,” the catalyst for the riots was a rise in Santiago Metro prices made necessary by carbon dioxide taxes and a conversion of the Metro from conventional power to renewable energy. Worse, those programs have no measurable impact on global temperatures. The programs amounted to nothing more than high-cost climate change virtue signaling at the expense of the Chilean people. And now Chileans are letting their displeasure be known."
"... The Chilean government should have learned a lesson from the Yellow Vest protests in France that began last year and the riots in Ecuador this past month that forced the Ecuadorian government to flee the capital. Each of those events was sparked by rises in energy prices fueled by alarmist government climate policies."
"Widespread riots are the repeated price paid for climate change virtue signaling. It is the price climate alarmists would like all of us to pay for battling a fictitious climate crisis at the heart of the environmental left’s Climate Delusion."
Might “climate” scare agenda policies and COVID hysteria lockdowns as well as the riots be not so much about Francis climate change hysteria, Francis COVID hysteria or Francis bishops race war hysteria, but pushing for a Marxist one-world government?
What might be the real goal of all the Francis “climate” scare agenda?
Might Francis's hidden agenda at the Amazon Synod have been not so much about undermining Catholic doctrine (which has already been greatly accomplished with Amoris Laetitia), but pushing for a Marxist one-world government?
Socialist Adolf Hitler wanted a one-world government so he inspired the Hitler youth and German race with race war hysteria propaganda as the Socialists are presently using race war hysteria propaganda for their Marxist revolution in the United States.
So, now, is it possible that the Marxists, global elite and Francis apparently want a one-world government and are attempting to inspire green youth and others with hysteria propaganda using the big lie scare tactic of the end of the world is near unless the world accepts a "'green dictatorship" one-world government.
On August 9, 2019, Francis in an interview with the Vatican Insider showed that he had joined climate extremists in shamelessly exploiting the youth hysteric Greta Thunberg for a "regressive green dictatorship" one-world government.
"He praised the increased awareness and movements among young people, such as Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager whose #FridaysForFuture campaign asks students to hold a strike to demand swift action on climate change. Francis had met the 16-year-old environmental activist at a weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square in April."
Scientist and doctor Laurent Alexandre according to Climate Changed Dispatch in the article "French Doctor Exposes How Militant Climate Extremists Are Exploiting Greta Thunberg" said "people who follow Greta Thunberg are the useful idiots of the green dictatorship”:
"In a stinging commentary at Le Figaro here, Dr. Laurent Alexandre, surgeon-urologist, a graduate of Sciences Po, HEC and ENA, and co-founder of the Doctissimo website, asserts that teenage Nobel Prize nominee Greta Thunberg is being shamelessly exploited and “is playing into the hands of economic interests."
"Laurent Alexandre first comments that “the young people who follow Greta Thunberg are the useful idiots of the green dictatorship” much in the same way Lenin called left-wing bourgeois “useful idiots of the revolution” and that the failures of all Marxist models have 'left the anti-liberals in turmoil.'”
"He writes that ecology today serves as 'the ideal instrument to propose a new utopia that is a substitute for the Marxist dictatorship'. He adds: 'By exploiting the youth, we are imposing a liberticidal agenda in the name of good feelings.'”
"... Alexandre implies that Greta Thunberg is unwittingly promoting 'the interests of China and Russia' and that her demands would make us “highly dependent on rare metals needed for wind, solar and storage installations, of which China has a near-monopoly.”
"The French urologist and book author describes Ms. Thunberg as 'a shamefully manipulated victim' who needs to be protected, but adds that her radical ideas 'must be attacked relentlessly'”.
"... Finally, Alexandre comments that following the green path will backfire because it would ,aggravate global warming, increase the waste of public money, lead to a regressive green dictatorship and put us at the mercy of China and Russia. All liberal democrats, all Raymond Aron’s heirs, must combat the deadly utopias it conveys.'”
The Manhattan Contrarian explains that the idea to eliminate fossil fuels is preposterous as "faux moral crusade[r]" Francis and his globalist collaborators have to know:
Sometimes it seems that all you can hear are preening politicians and academics and journalists and “scientists” shouting about the immediate “existential crisis” that requires the prompt end of fossil fuels and that your energy use (but not theirs) must be severely restricted.
Just today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement warning that the next ten years are our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:
We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .
The few people pushing back get shouted down and drowned out. How could this possibly end well?
When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think. The reasons are simple: the magical “renewables” don’t work and are ridiculously expensive. And when the people figure this out, as they inevitably will, the anti-fossil-fuel jihad can quickly turn toxic for the left...
... The fact is that fossil fuels are cheap and they work and, when confronted with the reality of what doing without them actually means, the people are not going to give them up. Recent days have brought a number of new data points that deserve noting:
Over in the UK, the nominally Conservative governments of Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have supposedly committed the country to achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. It may sound nice, but only little by little do the people get to find out the practical effects. During the month of May the government let it drop that there would be a ban on gas boilers by 2035, and everyone using gas for heat would need to switch to electric — at a cost estimated at tens of thousands of dollars per home. At the moment, the UK has nearly 24 million homes with gas heat, compared to fewer than 2 million with electric heat. The political blowback was immediate. From the Spectator, May 25: “[I]t is steadily becoming apparent just how politically costly the net zero commitment could be. . . . A government threat to ban gas boilers in existing homes by 2035, and to fine homeowners if they failed to meet the deadline, seems to have lasted less than a day. It was reported on Tuesday morning that ministers were considering including such a ban in a new heat and buildings strategy to be published next month – but by the afternoon the government appeared to have backtracked, and said there wouldn’t be any fines.”
In the U.S., a very similar story as to natural gas is beginning to play out politically. The Wall Street Journal reports on May 31 that “[m]ajor cities including San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and New York have either enacted or proposed measures to ban or discourage the use of the fossil fuel [natural gas] in new homes and buildings.” So far those proposed bans have proceeded without major political blowback; but then, the effective dates remain several years in the future, and as I reported a few days ago, here in New York there has been little press coverage of the practical consequences, and I think that very few people yet know what their masters are planning for them. But meanwhile, some Republicans are smart enough that they are starting to figure out that this could be a great political issue. Per the Journal: “The bans in turn have led Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana to enact laws outlawing such municipal prohibitions in their states before they can spread, arguing that they are overly restrictive and costly. Ohio is considering a similar measure.”
Climate crusaders think they are making serious headway in forcing the big, evil Western-based oil majors to reduce their “carbon footprints” and back away from the oil extraction industry. The International Energy Agency said in May that all new oil and gas production must stop by 2022 in order for the world to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell seem to be making at least some noises about complying with demands to back away from fossil fuels. But does that mean that oil will not be produced to fulfill consumer demand? Get real. This kind of nonsense just gives an opening for the Russians, and other such unsavory characters, to step in to fill the void. Gizmodo reports on May 28 about a truly enormous new oil project from Russian oil giant Rosneft that has recently begun construction in the Arctic: “The project, called Vostok Oil, is owned by Rosneft, which is controlled by the Russian government. . . . The proposed project is dauntingly huge. Rosneft said that it anticipates exporting 25 million tons of oil a year by 2024, 50 million tons by 2027, and 115 million tons by 2030. [115 million tons is around 850 million barrels.] (The company plans to make 15 entirely new towns for the estimated 400,000 workers needed.)”.
The crusaders against fossil fuels mainly talk about the electricity sector, where replacing coal and natural gas with wind and solar can at least seem plausible to the poorly informed. But the electricity sector only accounts for about 25% of energy use in the U.S., and plenty of other major sectors like agriculture, industry, airplanes and shipping — using in the aggregate far more energy than the electricity sector — have no realistic strategies for getting rid of fossil fuels. On June 3 the New York Times reports on the ocean shipping industry, which on the whole emits as much CO2 as all U.S. coal power plants combined, in a piece headlined “Tasked to Fight Climate Change, a Secretive U.N. Agency Does the Opposite.” The bottom line is that the shipping industry, under the auspices of the UN’s International Maritime Organization, is doing absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions. “The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord. . . . Next week, the organization is scheduled to enact its first greenhouse gas rules since Paris — regulations that do not cut emissions, have no enforcement mechanism and leave key details shrouded in secrecy.” Well, guess what — The ocean shipping industry is never going to cut carbon emissions. Get used to it. The only remotely plausible way for ocean shipping to get rid of the use of fossil fuels is by going back to sailing ships and wind power. It’s not going to happen. Big sailing ships carrying large amounts of freight can take a month or sometimes two to cross the Atlantic — you never know which, depending on weather — and it could be double that to cross the Pacific. Also, sailing ships cannot be nearly as large as fossil-fuel-powered ships, require hugely more staff, and can pose major risks to both cargo and crew. For these reasons, no sailing ship can be anything close to competitive in the ocean cargo business. Trust me, this won’t happen. And how about nuclear? The same people demanding to get rid of fossil fuels will never allow that to happen either. [[https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-6-5-dont-get-discouraged-about-the-preposterous-climate-scare]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost - Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt
the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church
in such a situation:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
- "If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html
- "Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?": http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html
- LifeSiteNews, "Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial
weight behind communion for adulterers," December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows "sexually active adulterous couples facing 'complex circumstances' to 'access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"
- On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
"The AAS statement... establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense."
- On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
"Francis' heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
- Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: "212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted...Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden" [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]
- Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times "Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003": http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html