Population Control Quack Appointed to Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Tweet

The earth could use six million billion fewer people

It was announced today that Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and advisor and presenter of the forthcoming Papal Encyclical on climate change, had been appointed to the 80-member Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican.

He's an atheist. More importantly, he's an utter quack, but I'm not going to argue for that here. You may believe it or not.

At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Congress, Schellnhuber famously declared:  

In a very cynical way, (global warming) is a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.

That would take us back to about 1810. The good news is we could stay there forever.

The bad news is we would still have internet.

The above photo collage pairs Schellnhuber with Reinhard Heydrich, the high-ranking Nazi SS-member and self-styled Übermensch.

Is that pairing unfair?

Sure.

So is giving people stones when they ask for bread.

Teilhard de Chardin Was Annoying

Tweet

Jesuitical bimbo

My first reaction to skimming the Google Translate version of the theological sections of the upcoming Papal Encyclical was that it read like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on acid. But then I decided out of charity that perhaps the Google Translate versions of anything might sound like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on acid. So we withhold judgment until Thursday.

Then again, the Encyclical does explicitly reference Teilhard de Chardin. As far as I know it is the first encyclical that ever has, which is not surprising considering that Teilhard de Chardin was, if not a formal heretic, at least formally heterodox. On numerous occasions he was prohibited by the Church from teaching and his books were proscribed. Yes, I know that, for reasons still somewhat unclear or at least diverse, recent (and pre-Francis) Popes have made the occasional favorable Teilhard de Chardin references, the relatively isolated occurrences of which are of course rubbed in within the upcoming Encyclical, but still.

But back to Teilhard de Chardin and how annoying he was. Here are a few choice quotes, helpfully annotated by the scholarly gnomes of Mahound's Paradise. All of them are by the Omega Man himself, except the first:

The above-mentioned works (by Teilhard de Chardin) abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers. This was from a 1962 monitum from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, signed by Pope John XXIII himself. Could a saint be wrong?

Now here's Tielhard: 

Under the weight of converging evidence collected by notably diverse men, I see the possibility of another hypothesis growing: that the Chinese are ‘held-back’ primitives, ‘infantile’ and their anthropological substance would be inferior to ours… Moreover, their mass emanates an insuperable power of leveling and ‘dissolution’. Among them, all that tends to elevation is brought down immediately to zero. Everything that lives for long amidst them is psychologically diminished and enfeebled…Neither the Christian approach of love for all men, nor the human hopes of an organized society, must make us forget that their ‘human level’, is not, perhaps, homogeneous? If such is the case, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for negroes, a special function that is perhaps not (because of the biological impossibility) the same one as that for whites. Your Ku Klux Klan membership card will be arriving in the mail within 7-10 days, Monsieur Tielhard. Yeah, that Jesus and love thing has long been eclipsed by the concept of the Super Man.

In the beginning was Power. Thus spake Zarathustra.

You know already what is dominating my interests and my inner preoccupations and it is the effort to establish in myself, and to spread all around me, a new religion (call it even improved Christianity), in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic master of the past to become the soul of the World that our religious and cultural era cries out for. Some wag once called Tielhard, Catholicism's L. Ron Hubbard. 

The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides, and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, we shall have discovered fire. Okay, but I thought love was for Chinese sissies? 

Science alone cannot discover Christ. But Christ satisfies the yearnings that are born in our hearts in the school of science... Science will, in all probability, be increasingly impregnated by mysticism. Increasingly impregnated? See, this is why we have sex ed now. 

The phrase ‘Sense of the Earth” should be understood to mean the passionate concern for our common destiny which draws the thinking part of life ever further onward. In principle there is no feeling which has a firm foundation in nature, or greater power. But in fact there is also no feeling which awakens so belatedly, since it can become explicit only when our consciousness has expanded beyond the broadening, but still far too restricted, circles of family, country and race, and has finally discovered that the only truly natural and real human Unity is the Spirit of Earth. You didn't help to "ghostwrite" a certain encyclical, did you? 

The Church, the reflectively christified portion of the world, the Church, the principal focus of interhuman affinities through super-charity, the Church, the central axis of universal convergence and the precise point of contact between the universe and Omega Point. You're a scientist? 

Seeing. One could say that the whole of life lies in seeing — if not ultimately, at least essentially. To be more is to be more united — and this sums up and is the very conclusion of the work to follow. But unity grows, and we will affirm this again, only if it is supported by an increase of consciousness, of vision. That is probably why the history of the living world can be reduced to the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes at the heart of a cosmos where it is always possible to discern more. Are not the perfection of an animal and the supremacy of the thinking being measured by the penetration and power of synthesis of their glance? To try to see more and to see better is not, therefore, just a fantasy, curiosity, or a luxury. See or perish. This is the situation imposed on every element of the universe by the mysterious gift of existence. And thus, to a higher degree, this is the human condition. ...Er...how about those Blackhawks? 

Human Energy presents itself to our view as the term of a vast process in which the whole mass of the universe is involved. In us, the evolution of the world towards the spirit becomes conscious. From that moment, our perfection, our interest, our salvation as elements of creation can only be to press on with this evolution with all our strength. We cannot yet understand exactly where it will lead us, but it would be absurd for us to doubt that it will lead us towards some end of supreme value. From this there finally emerges in our twentieth century human consciousness, for the first time since the awakening of life on earth, the fundamental problem of Action. No longer, as in the past, for our small selves, for our small family, our small country; but for the salvation and the success of the universe, how must we, modern men, organize around us for the best, the maintenance, distribution and progress of human energy? ...well, they won the Stanley cup last night. 

And so on. I forgot one thing:

The goal of the journey of the universe is in the fullness of God, which has already been achieved by the risen Christ, the center of maturation universal.

That's not Tielhard, that's the quote from the Encyclical (section 83) that references Tielhard.

Don't blame me. And don't blame Pope Francis either. Blame Google Translate. No doubt, the official translation will sound much more like the Baltimore Catechism.

But one thing will remain true:

Teilhard de Chardin was annoying.

Global Warming is a Pagan Lie, So Why is the Vicar of Christ Shoving it Down Our Throats?

Tweet

Why are you doing this?

Global warming is a pagan lie.

We're calling it "global warming" and not "climate change" because that's what it was originally called before they changed the name to make it less of a blatant contradiction to the facts.

Global warming is false, of course. There wasn't much evidence for it to begin with and there is even less now. Indeed, there is currently much evidence against it.

I'm calling it a lie because much of the "evidence" for it has been fabricated or doctored in an intentional and deliberate mockery of the scientific method that would have made the creator of Piltdown man proud.

But why do I call it a pagan lie?

Well, to begin with, some of the assumptions underlying the overall ideology of global warming amount to earth worship. That's not precisely how it has been explicitly framed, of course. It's been framed as an attempt to help people--all the people whose homes will be flooded out, or who will starve to death or be killed by terrorists (it has been claimed that global warming foments terrorism) and so on. Human activity (it is claimed) is causing the earth to warm by a few degrees, which in turn will have these horrific consequences. Therefore we are justified in spending fifty trillion dollars (or whatever it is), or sacrificing fifty trillion dollars of economic activity (which amounts to the same thing) to stop it.

But consider: suppose we established that the earth was naturally getting warmer by a few degrees (as has happened many times in human history and no doubt will happen again). Logically, this would have the same consequences on people as if the earth were getting warmer as a result of human activity. Homes would be flooded out. People would starve, and ISIS would get new recruits, etc. But does anyone believe that if the cause were thought to be some natural fluctuation, that there would be anywhere near such concern about it? Would there be a movement to, say, spend fifty trillion dollars to (if we could) artificially maintain the current temperature? Or, to go back a step, does anyone believe that the predictions of what would happen if the earth naturally grew warmer by a few degrees would be so dire? To ask that question is to answer it.

Rather, the ideology implicitly assumes that what's really wrong is not that the temperature is rising per se, but that the temperature is rising because man is causing it to rise.

The ideology says that man shouldn't cause the temperature to rise. Or cause it to fall. Or cause it to stay the same (when the natural rhythm of nature is making it rise, or fall). Man shouldn't tamper with nature at all, for no other reason than that he shouldn't.

That's earth worship.

God wants us to respect His creation, among other things because His creation is good for us. But He doesn't want us to worship it.

He wants us to worship Him.

So, now we come to the second reason why global warming ideology is pagan. What did God in fact say?

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it

But global warming ideology tells us not to multiply. Indeed, we've multiplied so much (according to the ideology) that we should start doing some quick long-division, to the point of carrying over billions of people or potential people into non-existence. And (according to the ideology) attempting to subdue the earth is at the root of the problem. We shouldn't even have tried.

Sorry, God. We shouldn't have taken you seriously.

Let's dance around a tree to preserve the equilibrium.

Finally, global warming is pagan because of all that goes with it. It's no coincidence that its biggest boosters are pro-contraception, pro-abortion, and anti-population. Jeffery Sachs, the upcoming Encyclical's most important advisor, has fast become a kind of "great white savior" quack, parachuting into African villages telling the natives how studies have determined that their lives will be transformed if they would only purchase a new Western gizmo and install it in their community center. He has argued for certain economic and cultural initiatives, involving abortion among other things, that will result (thank the goddess) in cutting population growth back by half a child per family. The third "presenter" of the upcoming Encyclical, an atheist--nominated by the Pope to be a presenter because he is an atheist--has claimed that the optimum carrying capacity of the earth is only one-seventh of what it is now.

Sorry, six billion humans.

The Catholic Church has always claimed that life has value. Life in and of itself has value. Not the mere existence of some life. Not only enough life to preserve the "equilibrium". But life itself.

That will appear to officially change on Tuesday.

Hands off the earth, life.

Saint Francis would have been horrified.

This whole thing is evil. It drips it. It's not a silly encyclical, ghostwritten by a deranged loudmouthed archbishop who wrote a kissing manual. Nor is it a meaningless toss-off, directed by a former Archbishop, narcissistically addicted to secular praise.

It will be an evil document.

And no we won't be able to say, this time, that it's a translation problem.

Global warming is a pagan lie, so why is the Vicar of Christ shoving it down our throats?

I don't know the answer. I don't want to know the answer.

But more and more of us will soon be asking the question.

Yeah, but Can I Bribe the Eunuchs to Give Me the Key: Islamic "Sisters Only Funday" at British Water Park

Tweet

At Jim Bakker's water park the women had to dress like Tammy Faye

Frankly, I think the original Sunday Express (by way of Jihad Watch) headline was a bit misleading:

A BRITISH waterpark has sparked fury by banning bikinis and ordering visitors to cover up in "Islamically appropriate" clothing.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the "banning" was only for a one-time, two-hour, women-only event at the park, specifically for Muslim women and their young children.

WaterWorld in Stoke-on-Trent plans to black out windows and provide a prayer room during a women-only night aimed at Muslims. 

Only female lifeguards will patrol the park during the event, which has triggered a flood of complaints. 

Staff will also "guard" the front entrance to "make sure that no males enter the facility". 

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said: ‘I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if the boot was on the other foot and swimmers were told they had to dress appropriately in respect of Christians. I don’t see how this is different." 

One invitation to the "Sisters Only Funday" advises attendees to cover their "awrah" (nudity) by wearing full-length jogging bottoms and a dark-coloured t-shirt. 

Protesters are now planning to demonstrate outside the event. 

WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry said: "I'm astonished that we have been targeted. We feel we've been victimised for offering something that we feel there is a demand for." 

A WaterWorld spokesman said: "We pride ourselves in having the adaptability and diversity to cater to demands of our guests. 

"This is a female-only event and is not specific to any ethnic or religious group."

Here is what I have on this one:

1. Personally, I don't have a problem per se with an entertainment park setting aside two hours to cater to, and as result, change the rules a bit for, a particular group--whether it be ethnic, religious, sex-based or what have you. And I suspect this position is shared by most of my Islamophobic friends. I would have no problem with Sikh Male Night or Estonian Woman's Day, for example (indeed, I have to admit that I like contemplating Estonian Woman's Day). But of course, if one doesn't like the group in question, then it is perhaps natural to get annoyed. How about two hours set aside for Neo-Nazi skinheads or pedophiles or whatever? And this is especially true if one feels the group in question is currently "on the march", so to speak, making special demands, threats and so on that impact the rest of us. Since, as many of you know, I think Islam is morally equivalent to Nazism and the founder of Islam was a pedophile, I'm annoyed.
2. In our hyper-politically correct times it's unclear how one is supposed to feel about something like this. I think the probable PC view is that this sort of thing is generally wrong--it's discriminatory or whatever--though if it is for Muslims, it's super duper. (The PC tenet is that anything done for Muslims is super duper.)
3. I never knew the Arabic (?) word for nudity is "awrah", as in "cover your awrah." Does that mean that Muslim nudists are called "awrites"?
4. Okay, that was lame.
5. Most religions and cultures have dress recommendations, if not specific dress requirements, that often seem silly to others. Sikh males must wear a turban and carry a small ceremonial dagger. Buddhists like frumpy sandals. French women are prohibited from shaving under their arms*, etc. Even secularized western culture has its own codes and imposes somewhat different dress requirements and prohibitions on men and women. For example, full public nudity is generally frowned upon, and going shirtless is often okay for men but rarely okay for women, unless you're breast-feeding, in which case it's a) disgusting or b) super duper depending on what county you're in.
6. Traditionalist Catholics must emphasize their sex but not look sexy.
7. Nevertheless, Islamic requirements are particularly freaky and oppressive. Males are encouraged to grow beards so they can look like the founding pedophile. Women must be completely covered in public. Even in semi-private environments away from males--where the area is patrolled by female guards--they still have to wear long pants or whatever. In a water park.
8. It's not diversity. It's not modesty. It's oppression. Wearing a head-to-toe burka, or a niqab leaving only an eye slit, or wearing long pants even among other women and young children in a freaking water park is a sign of enslavement, or to put it more neutrally, submission, which is what "Islam" actually means, after all. It's like putting your hands together like they're cuffed when Big Brother's face comes on the giant telescreen. Islam is like Ingsoc, except you never see Big Brother's face, or if someone draws it, you have to kill them. 
9. But what's really wrong with people wearing what they want to wear? Isn't all of this voluntary? Don't those Muslim sisters want to dress that way? Sure they do. And I would too if the alternative were having acid thrown in my face.

*That's a stereotype.

Pope Condemns Sharia (Just Kidding, It Was Franklin Graham)

Tweet

You make your father proud

Actually, the Pope said,

authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,

in a Papal Encyclical, no less.

I have never been embarrassed by my Faith. Only by the men who represent it. I wish Franklin Graham were a Catholic.

I know some Catholics who are proud to be Catholics because of the contrast between, say, the Pope and Graham. See (they say), the Catholic Church is more nuanced. We're not like those Islamophobic book burning Protestants who live in the swamps. We don't have sweat under our armpits. And the covers on our Paulist Press books are so tasteful.

What did Jesus say about Pharisees? 

The BBC just published a story about life under radical Islam—what it’s really like. This is a vivid reminder of why...
Posted by Franklin Graham on Thursday, June 11, 2015

Defending the Undefendable: On Refusing to Baptize Illegitimate Children

Tweet

Just shut up and baptize our kid, Father. It's not his fault we're Animists 

In a meeting with priests a few days ago, Pope Francis mentioned a point that he has stressed again and again, both as Pope as well as when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires:

He reminded them a priest does not have the right to not baptize a baby born of a single mother, or whose parents have been divorced and re-married.

According to the short online Biography of Pope Francis by the Catholic News Agency, the Pope

told the Italian magazine “30 Days” in 2009 that illegitimate children should be baptized, even if their parents are not regular churchgoers. 

“The child has no responsibility for the condition of his parents’ marriage. The baptism of children can, on the contrary, become a new beginning for the parents.”

Indeed, the Pope's opposition to the practice of refusing baptism was a well-remarked feature of his resume, as can be seen from this 2013 New York Times story on the then somewhat new Pope:

(I)n September 2012, he scolded priests in Buenos Aires who refused to baptize the children of unwed mothers. “No to hypocrisy,” he said of the priests at the time. “They are the ones who separate the people of God from salvation.”

We digress slightly to not that the story was titled "A Conservative With a Common Touch" and ended by quoting an Argentinian journalist who "expected the new pope to be 'extremely conservative in all doctrinaire questions...'"

Of course, at the time and now, it is extremely difficult to find any disagreement with the Pope regarding his stance on the issue, among either "liberals", "conservatives" or anyone else. Who are these priests in Argentina that refuse to baptize illegitimate children? No doubt "Dirty War" death squad chaplains or SSPX members, or whatever.

So, to again ask a question with what would seem by now to have an uncontroversial and even obvious answer, does a priest have the right to refuse baptism for a child born out of wedlock?

Of course.

What was that again, I missed it?

Of course.

In addition, he also has the right to refuse baptism to a child born within wedlock.

Hold on, I'm not skirting the subject or playing word games. That a priest may refuse baptism in both possible sets of cases does not mean that the particular circumstances surrounding the first set may not be relevant in and of themselves.

Here is the current Code of Cannon Law:

There must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason (868, §1).

The standard sort of example might be a parent or parents who explicitly say they have no intention of raising their child within the Church. One assumes it is more common to have a situation where, though the parents sign the document declaring they have such an intention, the priest decides that the evidence suggests otherwise. A more specific example of this might be that the parent in question is an unwed mother currently involved in an extramarital relationship, and showing no sign that she wishes to end it.

It is important to note that what is at issue is not the Catholic or unCatholic beliefs or actions of the parent or parents per se, but rather their bearing on the question of whether or not the child will be raised as a Catholic. But clearly they would often have such bearing.

It's also important to note that there is certainly room for interpretation as to the meaning of "founded hope" and "altogether lacking", among other things. In addition, there would be ample room for well-intentioned disagreement regarding the facts of any particular case.

What is clear, however, is that it is the priest's job to seriously make such a determination, just as it is the priest's job in the case of, say, an adult baptism to determine whether the candidate has in fact never been baptized previously.

What is also clear is that, contra the Pope, the fact that the circumstances of the case--the intentions or actions of the parents and therefore whether or not there's reason to believe the child will be raised as a Catholic--are obviously not the child's fault are irrelevant. Or, to put it in a politically incorrect fashion, it's similarly not the child's fault that his parents are Hindus.

Sorry Hindus.

Or more appropriately and sincerely, sorry children of Hindus.

Now, there is certainly a pastoral element to this (for the parent or parents as well as the child). The Pope would no doubt agree. But the Pope rarely if at all discusses the fact that there is usually room for honest disagreement on specific pastoral questions. In fact, I'm not sure he ever discusses this point, which, quite frankly is one of the most disturbing things about this Pope. So, for example, Francis claims that "the baptism of children can...become a new beginning for the parents." I'm sure this is often true. However, I'm sure it is also true that, yes, refusing, or more accurately delaying baptism can also often become a new beginning for the parents. Among other things they might be encouraged to go back to trying to live their lives in conformity with Church teachings, which in the end of course would also benefit the child. Indeed, the internet chat rooms are full of these sorts of stories.

The Pope has a habit of stating things that are technically absolutely true and uncontroversial--illegitimacy is not a reason (in and of itself, we should add) to refuse baptism, mercy is central to Catholic teaching, judging other people is wrong, and so on--but in such a way and a manner that they actually imply things that are false and even dangerous.

It's not just that he is erecting straw men to bash other Catholics in order to earn points. If that were all he were doing, it would be merely obnoxious and annoying. It's that he is also sewing doubt among faithful Catholics on essential elements of the Faith.

Baptism is a boundlessly important sacrament (as all sacraments are, of course). But to put it in the Pope's own terms, it is not merely a "prize"--least of all for the child.

Bottle Throwing Muslims to French Pensioners at Picnic: "We're Going to Charlie Hebdo You!"

Tweet

Last year's picnic was better

Translated from LyonMag.com (by way of Bare Naked Islam and Diversity Macht Frei): 

The incident took place on Sunday afternoon close to the district of Grandes Terres in Saint-Fons close to Lyon.  

As it does every year, the FNACA (Federation of ex-servicemen in Algeria) of Saint-Fons organised a picnic. But this time, nothing happened as expected. 

When the tables had just been set up in the shade of the trees right next to the city-owned land of a building, a rain of projectiles fell on the guests: empty beer and whisky bottles, broom handles and stones thrown with slingshots, according to a witness quoted by Le Progrès: 'We heard them shouting: "We're going to Charlie Hebdo you, you filthy French shit!".' During the incident, a woman in her 80s was transported to Saint-Fons hospital because she was struck in the head by the base of a parasol.