In April 2015, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “made clear that a leading solution to global warming includes extreme depopulation.” Figueres said, “We can definitely change those [population] numbers and really should make every effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding the planetary carrying capacity.”
The Vatican and United Nations also issued a joint statement in April. The “UN-inspired joint statement called for ‘reaching a level and sustainable population.’”
Nothing says Christianity and love for thy neighbor like extreme depopulation to reach a level of sustainable population, does it?
“The Vatican’s partnering with the United Nations climate agenda is nothing short of an unholy alliance. The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.”
A worldwide church that opposes birth control for its followers, thereby increasing the earth’s population, is now joining hands with the same people who want the world’s population immediately reduced so the earth’s population is at a more “manageable” level? Do bedfellows get any stranger?
Mike Adams at Natural News recently reported in “Vatican speaker and California Governor in push for massive depopulation… talk of ‘Planetary Court’ and removal of 6 billion people under new ‘Earth Constitution’ and ‘World Government’”:
“The depopulationists are on the move again, pushing hard for the elimination of six billion people on planet Earth in order to bring the planet down to what’s being touted as its ‘sustainable carrying capacity of one billion people.’”
At this writing, the current world estimated world population was 7,253,000,000 plus. Reducing that number to what these people call a “sustainable one billion or less” would certainly be quite an extreme depopulation!
This past April, a group of climate science, environmental policy and theology experts visited Pope Francis in the hopes of adding some real science to the information the Pope was being fed. The Heartland Institute sent this “contingent” of experts because they were concerned the Pope was receiving a skewed alarmist view of climate change from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the United Nations.
On a side note and by coincidence, the Club of Rome happens to be in the same country as the Vatican. The Club of Rome has been a leader in working on world depopulation since it’s formation in 1968. “According to the club’s publications, the common enemy of humanity is man.” One of the Club’s major goals is “to reduce the world’s population by twobillion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary.”
Is the Pope aware that groups like the Club of Rome are willing to use war, famine, disease and any other means necessary to get rid of man, the “common enemy of humanity”? And if you remove man from humanity what does that leave? (No, the answer isn’t “huity”.) The very definition of humanity is, collectively, the human race.
Jim Lakely, Heartland Institute Director of Communications, said Pope Francis “made a grave mistake by putting his trust and moral authority behind agenda-driven bureaucrats at the United Nations who have been bearing false witness about the causes and consequences of climate change for decades… Simply put, someone at the Pontifical Academy of Science should have told Pope Francis that every calamity the UN bureaucrats predicted for decades has not come to pass.”
Any possibility the Club of Rome’s members might have access to members of the Pontifical Academy of Science who influenced the Pope?
Unfortunately the Heartland Institute experts were unable to sway the Pope over to “reality”. Richard Keen, Meteorology Professor (emeritus) University of Colorado-Boulder wrote:
“Sections 23 and 24 of the draft Encyclical refer to numerous hypothetical disastrous consequences of climate change, or ‘warming.’ But none of these projected catastrophic consequences are anywhere to be found on the real Earth. Over the past 18 years, the best measurements of Earth’s global temperatures (by NOAA and NASA satellites) show no warming whatsoever. The total warming since 1979 has been a fraction of that predicted by the IPCC, and of that tiny warming, most can be attributed to natural causes, such as volcanoes.”
Like a tiny lifeboat, the Heartland Institute was hoping for fairness in an ocean rigged with sharks.
But Pope Francis, and his Environmental Encyclical, didn’t just simplyand totally agree with the United Nations’ global warming plot. The Popealso quoted his predecessor, Benedict XVI, and again called for a “world political authority”.
Rebecca Terrell, The New American reporter, asked, “is it possible that these popes are proposing a world government with total control of currency, the food supply, military forces, private property and immigration, along with a court system to uphold its decrees? This plan disturbingly parallels the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals enumerated in its Agenda 21 program, formulated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.”
Yes, Rebecca, it’s possible we are on the threshold of the long-awaited new world order.
In his article, “Survival of Spaceship Earth: The Ultimate Rockefeller Depopulation Propaganda Film,” Truthstream Media’s own Aaron Dykeshas previously reported that the plan for the one world government was put into action a long time ago:
“Depopulation, environmental laws, carbon taxes, global warming/global cooling/climate change, family planning, denying development to developing countries – it was all planned decades ago for global control by a handful of elites.”
The Pope is now joined with the elitists whose goal is depopulation and global control.
The elitists are a “tiny class of people that have appointed themselves to fix the problems of the world – in their own ways,” as Truthstream’s Melissa Dykes wrote in her article, “Eugenics and Population Control: How the 85 Richest See the 3.5 Billion Poorest.” In their own ways like war, famine, disease and any other means necessary? Melissa asked,
“And who will stop them? Who will even point out the harm, rather than just assume they are saints and thank their unilateral actions?”
Indeed, isn’t questioning the authority of the Pope tantamount to blasphemy?
The elitists who are looking to depopulate and enjoy a world with a smaller population are effectively in motion to sweep the pesky pawns off the chessboard.
So, now we have the “wisdom” of the Pope’s Environmental Encyclical. The Pope’s solution is for wealthy nations, who owe a “social debt” to the poor, to pay this debt by “better distribution of wealth” to the impoverished people of the world.
The wealthy are not going to want their riches going to anyone else, especially not the poor. Once the population is reduced to a sustainable one billion or less, how many impoverished people will even be left?
Extremely curious at the media allegation that the "scientific Pantheist who advises Pope Francis" and has swayed "Laudato Si" (named so after St. Francis of Assisi's canticle), "seems to believe in Gaia, but not in God," I set out to read for myself the climate change encyclical in Italian.
Pope Francis, began his 192-page "Lettera Enciclica, Laudato Si' del Santo Padre Francesco Sulla Cura Della Casa Comune," by quoting a St. Francis d'Assisi canticle, and by saying that we are abusing and irresponsibly using "our sister Mother Earth, which sustains and governs us and produces diverse fruits with colourful flowers and herbs."
On page 5, he continues with, "Ogni aspirazione a curare e migliorare il mondo richiede di cambiare profondamente gli 'stili di vita, i modelli di produzione e di consume, le strutture consolidate di potere che oggi reggono le societa." As I translate, "Any aspiration to care for and improve the world requires changing profoundly life-styles, the patterns of production and consumption, the established structures of power that today govern society."
I have heard these words before written in the 40-chapter U.N. Agenda 21 document signed by 179 countries in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and repeated by subsequent Rio conference participants and advocates who really want to destroy capitalism.
Here's a quote by Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, in which she admits that environmental activists and lobbyists aim to destroy capitalism, not save the globe from ecological Armageddon.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution"
To accelerate our compliance with United Nations demands on greenhouse gas emissions, Congress was informed in a CRS report on June 29, 2015, about the dangers of increased atmospheric CO2, even though lost in the report is the following statement: "The atmospheric CO2 concentration was however higher in Earth's more distant past (many millions of years ago) at which time paleolithic and geological data indicate that temperatures and sea levels were also higher than they are today."
The objective of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to "stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the Earth's climate system." To the U.N., according to this CRS report, "stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations implies zero net emissions." (Jane A. Leggett, Greenhouse Gas Pledges by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Congressional Research Service , R44092, June 29, 2015)
As Leggett explains in the footnotes on page 2 of the CRS report, the UNFCCC's covers only greenhouse gases influenced by human activity but implicitly includes gases that occur naturally and human-related, such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, manufactured gases such as hydroflourocarbons (HFC), perfluorcarbons (PFC), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Cloroflourcarbons (CFC) are apparently covered under the 1985 Vienna Convention to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone Layer and the Montreal protocol.
Quoting Patriarch Bartholomew on page 8, Pope Francis said that "by being human we are destroying the biological diversity of God's creation, we are compromising the integrity of the planet, we contribute to climate change, deforest the earth, destroying its humid areas." We are committing sins because "a crime against nature is a crime against ourselves and is a sin against God." The 15-page preamble asks on page 13 for a "new universal solidarity."
The following chapters deal with water, human life quality, social degradation, inequality on the planet, the greening of society, environmental justice for the poor, reproductive health, country inequality, poor countries of the southern hemisphere, universal communion, the common destination of goods, the human root of ecological crisis (read man-made), crises and consequences of the modern Anthropocene, the need to defend work, social, environmental, cultural, and economic ecology, ecology of daily life, the principle of the common good, justice through generations, sustainable agriculture, protection of natural resources and water, replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, Rio +20, the Rio Declaration of 1992, reparations for poor countries for the environmental damage caused by developed countries, etc.
These paragraphs are obviously an abbreviated and religiously-tinged regurgitation of Agenda 21 goals as spelled in the 40 chapters of the U.N. Agenda 21 document signed in 1992 by 179 countries.
A dialogue between religion and science is proposed on page 152 because the majority on the planet view themselves as faithful. It is thus imperative for religion to enter the dialogue of curing nature, of abolishing poverty, and of building a network of respect and fraternity.
It is vital for education and spiritual ecology to merge together, he said, but to do so we must create change in our excessive consumerism, our collective egoism, and in our sense of precariousness and insecurity. We must strive for the common good, he added. The Christian community and churches have an important role to play in this educational change to form and educate the masses for responsible austerity, to cure poverty, and to care for the environment in this ecological conversion. (p. 163)
With all due respect to his Holiness and the church, this document reads just like any other communist-based environment manifesto and is full of transparent communist jargon (especially the bold-faced words) promoted and supported by various United Nations-affiliated environmental NGOs.
When Pope Francis asked on page 123, "What type of world do we wish to leave for our children who are now growing up," it became clear to me what type: it is global communism ordered around the redistribution of wealth and around a one-world government under the guise of planet stewardship.
Yep. Too many people. So I boldly suggest ALL those feeling that way should do the right thing and leave this planet as a good example to the rest of us. Problem solved. This is tongue in cheek of course but seriously....JESUS, HURRY UP PLEASE!!!!! Hey the rapture will help with that depopulation thing right? ;)
ReplyDeleteOk
ReplyDelete