I know I've been critical as of late. This is an excellent article! Your personality is starting to come through in the remarks, and the opening line of "I’m sure you’ve heard of Laudato Si; Pope Francis’s Vatican drive to… well, broadly subjugate God in the name of environmental scientism." was an excellent starter. One imagines him turning up with a cudgel labelled 'environmental policies' from behind to bonk God on the head with.
I personally avoid religion as it is a hot potato subject difficult to get right, but I think you managed to walk the tightrope extremely well, non-polarising and with enough cheeky wit it avoids tripping the usual alarm bells.
It's clear they're attempting to use the Catholic church as a trojan horse for their environmental dogma; largely lacking scientific facts, they're now trying to force it through hijacked religious teachings in the hopes the masses will chant themselves to death ("Net Zero"). This must be the secret, long hidden Eleventh Commandment - Thou Shall Reduce Thy Carbon Emissions. I'd wish they'd reduce their own carbon emissions - they seem to be mostly full of wasteful, inefficient hot air!
ah no worries. it's pretty difficult to offend me in the first place but as long as criticism is constrcutive then i'm ok with it. what annoy me are idiotic replies like "leave", or "you said communist once so now everything you say is invalid", typically commented by people with an antifa logo in their bio.
i think the catholic church is probably the trend setter, but all religions are involved to some extent, and it started in 1893. the objective of society is to turn it into a 'one religion' sort of situation, where the one religion is that of the baha'i sect.
Islam comes second. I would argue the other religious types are wishy-washy enough that you could easily subvert and frontload a fake 'environmentalism' agenda into.
The question you might want to ask is 'why?' - Why is the pope doing this? What dirt do they have on him?
One way to achieve results with your work - optional territory by the way, but it helps - is to find *cause*. What causes a person to do what they do? Avoid any obvious answers like 'money', because many a man will reject money if it conflicts with his particular set of ideals. Ask what *drives* them to do a thing.
I guarantee you odds are he's blackmailed and/or a paedophile. If you could prove it, it would go a great way in discrediting his message.
oh its all about jantsch's pyramid. the purposive leads to the normative. and collegium international is a main organisation doing this translation of meaning into 'global ethics'. once you see it, its absolutely everywhere. i've been building up for this, but it takes quite a long time because this is complex as all hell.
global ethics leads to global governance through the un, education through UNESCO, morality through laudato si, business through ESG...
its why you see all those 'ethics declarations' going up everywhere - including in the natural sciences, even mathematics. because it's a parallel legal construct, where the 'enforcement mechanism' will see you terminated/fined/prosecuted for disagreeing with the central narrative.
a major giveaway here is all of these organisation being in total sync. that means it's led top down, and jantsch's pyramid enabled expressly this; ethics translates to normative level, and organisation translates to pragmatic (social science).
sure, they'll probably bribe a hell of a lot of politicians, but that doesnt explain why it all in sync. it is, because it's all about 'global ethics', derived from the 'purpose' which at present is 'sustainable development'.
I ask this as a question, but it's more intended to spur a 'reply article' (if you're okay with it).
How do you suppose their "global ethics"/"one health" would (or wouldn't?) work in the context of the emerging WW3/nuclear war scenario?
For context, the US House has passed a bill for *automatic* registration for males, and I'm presently reading evidence that they intend to expand this to women as well:
This is on top of rumours China have started their own conscription. It's from a reliable source but I'm having trouble verifying it.
I'm not sure a UN/WHO global bureaucracy could even function if so many areas got flattened with nukes. Even if one supposes a bizarre no-nukes scenario, the sheer amount of cross-destruction would surely ruin their plans?
Regarding the nuclear war trigger attempts, I refer to:
Either way, I don't get why they'd put in a lot of paperwork when the house of cards is about to collapse all around them. Not saying they're not doing it... just... are they so unhinged, so possessed with their delusion that even staring down the barrel of the gun they still continue? [Why continue with their weird cult dogma if it's about to go up in smoke?]
I'd be curious to know what your detailed article thoughts would be on that.
very short reply as i'm two minutes off falling asleep - i think they need the war to push the autocratic laws through. they know the 'pandemic' approach will not fly - too many people would become bothersome through objections, and they don't have the legislation in place to clamp down in order to 'protect us'. the act eliminating the right to assembly, for instance, failed. but if war is declared, then all things suddenly become a whole lot easier.
i also think if they are legitimately that insane, the declaration could come on july 9, as that's the 75th NATO summit, and they like numbers.
I know I've been critical as of late. This is an excellent article! Your personality is starting to come through in the remarks, and the opening line of "I’m sure you’ve heard of Laudato Si; Pope Francis’s Vatican drive to… well, broadly subjugate God in the name of environmental scientism." was an excellent starter. One imagines him turning up with a cudgel labelled 'environmental policies' from behind to bonk God on the head with.
I personally avoid religion as it is a hot potato subject difficult to get right, but I think you managed to walk the tightrope extremely well, non-polarising and with enough cheeky wit it avoids tripping the usual alarm bells.
It's clear they're attempting to use the Catholic church as a trojan horse for their environmental dogma; largely lacking scientific facts, they're now trying to force it through hijacked religious teachings in the hopes the masses will chant themselves to death ("Net Zero"). This must be the secret, long hidden Eleventh Commandment - Thou Shall Reduce Thy Carbon Emissions. I'd wish they'd reduce their own carbon emissions - they seem to be mostly full of wasteful, inefficient hot air!
ah no worries. it's pretty difficult to offend me in the first place but as long as criticism is constrcutive then i'm ok with it. what annoy me are idiotic replies like "leave", or "you said communist once so now everything you say is invalid", typically commented by people with an antifa logo in their bio.
i think the catholic church is probably the trend setter, but all religions are involved to some extent, and it started in 1893. the objective of society is to turn it into a 'one religion' sort of situation, where the one religion is that of the baha'i sect.
Its a numbers game. Christianity has the largest number of followers:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-religions-in-the-world.html
Islam comes second. I would argue the other religious types are wishy-washy enough that you could easily subvert and frontload a fake 'environmentalism' agenda into.
The question you might want to ask is 'why?' - Why is the pope doing this? What dirt do they have on him?
One way to achieve results with your work - optional territory by the way, but it helps - is to find *cause*. What causes a person to do what they do? Avoid any obvious answers like 'money', because many a man will reject money if it conflicts with his particular set of ideals. Ask what *drives* them to do a thing.
I guarantee you odds are he's blackmailed and/or a paedophile. If you could prove it, it would go a great way in discrediting his message.
oh its all about jantsch's pyramid. the purposive leads to the normative. and collegium international is a main organisation doing this translation of meaning into 'global ethics'. once you see it, its absolutely everywhere. i've been building up for this, but it takes quite a long time because this is complex as all hell.
global ethics leads to global governance through the un, education through UNESCO, morality through laudato si, business through ESG...
its why you see all those 'ethics declarations' going up everywhere - including in the natural sciences, even mathematics. because it's a parallel legal construct, where the 'enforcement mechanism' will see you terminated/fined/prosecuted for disagreeing with the central narrative.
a major giveaway here is all of these organisation being in total sync. that means it's led top down, and jantsch's pyramid enabled expressly this; ethics translates to normative level, and organisation translates to pragmatic (social science).
sure, they'll probably bribe a hell of a lot of politicians, but that doesnt explain why it all in sync. it is, because it's all about 'global ethics', derived from the 'purpose' which at present is 'sustainable development'.
I ask this as a question, but it's more intended to spur a 'reply article' (if you're okay with it).
How do you suppose their "global ethics"/"one health" would (or wouldn't?) work in the context of the emerging WW3/nuclear war scenario?
For context, the US House has passed a bill for *automatic* registration for males, and I'm presently reading evidence that they intend to expand this to women as well:
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/military-draft-coming-house-passes-measure-automatically-register-men-selective-service
This is on top of rumours China have started their own conscription. It's from a reliable source but I'm having trouble verifying it.
I'm not sure a UN/WHO global bureaucracy could even function if so many areas got flattened with nukes. Even if one supposes a bizarre no-nukes scenario, the sheer amount of cross-destruction would surely ruin their plans?
Regarding the nuclear war trigger attempts, I refer to:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/theyre-attempting-to-trigger-nuclear
Either way, I don't get why they'd put in a lot of paperwork when the house of cards is about to collapse all around them. Not saying they're not doing it... just... are they so unhinged, so possessed with their delusion that even staring down the barrel of the gun they still continue? [Why continue with their weird cult dogma if it's about to go up in smoke?]
I'd be curious to know what your detailed article thoughts would be on that.
very short reply as i'm two minutes off falling asleep - i think they need the war to push the autocratic laws through. they know the 'pandemic' approach will not fly - too many people would become bothersome through objections, and they don't have the legislation in place to clamp down in order to 'protect us'. the act eliminating the right to assembly, for instance, failed. but if war is declared, then all things suddenly become a whole lot easier.
i also think if they are legitimately that insane, the declaration could come on july 9, as that's the 75th NATO summit, and they like numbers.
will get back to you later.
Wow another eye opener. Thank you esc.