This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Artist's Impression Of The New Crusades?
»
- 43753 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
The pope is a dick.
And a fucking socialist commie ass wipe.
Jesus may have been a socialist as well.
Mark 10:21-22: Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.
We did. It is called charity. Now the rapacious gum'ment "transfers" our money.
This is the shit's always wound up giving religion a bad name.
Should be, as King James (He of the KJV) stated, the church's role is to be a model for good civil and moral behavior. ie, the lessons as opposed to power, money, property and prestige.
Why not just send the Pope to fight Mohammed his very little lonesome. And he was off to such a good start.
Between the Pope and Karl Rove wanting to Repeal the Second Amendment....
By the words of their mouths will we know them...
Nuff Said...
Hangon to your sleds folks, the slope is getting slipperier by the moment.
The point of no return is long past!
DaddyO
Wanna bet that the pope has a solid gold shitter?
But, he's all about the poor...
good call
Way back when, Pope John Paul visited Mexico and the Los Angeles Times reported him saying to the populace: "The more children you have, the closer to God you'll be". And I thought to myself, what a friggin' idiot! Here you've got an overpopulated Third World Country (that also inflicts it's Third World Children, on us) and he's telling them to have more babies??? That comment has been scrubbed off the Internet, but I remember it well. Heck, my Mom (French Canadian and Catholic) was one of 16 kids! Her and her Mom, were pregnant at the same time! I've got an Aunt, that's a couple months, younger than me! And when Grandmama, decided to stop having kids after the 16th one, the local Church was pissed!
...And they say Jesus was jewish? I'm not buying it.
Jewish or khazar?
Not same.
Pfft, hardly. A socialist is a human that dictates that other humans MUST give or else.
Jesus walked the walk. He gave. He never took anything that was not freely offered and given. He never forced anyone to give anything.
The difference is compulsion versus voluntary.
Why do simple minds refuse to understand such simple things?
A socialist is a human that dictates that other humans MUST give or else.
No actually that's not what a socialist is.
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.
A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital.
In other words a socialist advocates a system based on use rather than on profit. Over time all human systems are socialist - are you still paying royalties to archimedes?
Most zh'ers are probably libertarian socialists without realizing it, it's the only sensible economic philosophy in any case.
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,
regardless of if it is voluntary or not. The tyranny of democracy will happily remove the "means of production" from those who built it.
Social ownership does not exist. Our government spends a huge portion of our GDP yet none of us believes we own any part of it, except the debt. Private ownership preserves and growths wealth. Public ownership spends and destroys it.
"The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10
There was a time when the above quote meant something, when people could survive on their own work. Try it today. The government will prevent you ... little girls can't even sell lemonade.
Do all work on a voluntary contribution basis only.
God will provide:
"For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?" - Matthew 6:25-27
"And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing!" He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. The men were amazed, and said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" - Matthew 8:25-27
so you know how long birds live in the wild verse in captivity?
Living in the wild is tough, every minute not trying to get laid is spent trying to get fed!
If your willing to live on the street - knock yourself out.
The tyranny of democracy will happily remove the "means of production" from those who built it.
Social ownership does not exist.
Again to restate, most human technology is built upon socially owned tech. In every country on earth the infrastruture which modern economies are built on is also funded collectively. Probably 80-90% of the tech in your iPhone was developed by taxpayers or socially. Apple has great designs but built on things which are from open source.
You are talking about intellectual property, aka ideas. Meanwhile, the words you are quoting are talking about the means of production and organization of the economy.
The key difference people are pointing out is voluntary versus compulsory. How often do you see a socialist state arise because the people paid fair value for the productive capital from the private owners? There are some industrial co-operatives made of the workers that bought out the business from the shareholders, for sure.
The key difference people are pointing out is voluntary versus compulsory.
There's nothing in socialism that says it must be compulsory, I would not advocate for a compulsory system.
All property is fundamentally intellectual property. There is no such thing as 'ownership' - just the rules we design and agree to.
i wish people could realize there are no systems of any kind. there is only human nature. human nature is the only "system". the system says that humans can be benevolent to each other in small groups but are malevolent to other groups, even if benevolence is th theme of their group. this benevolence is socialist in a common sharing of labor to produce food and shelter(clothing is a "civilized" creation. clothing originally only served the purpose of keeping bugs out of your stinky breeding and excreting tools and warmth). the people able to form the largest group also needed more land to support the "family" and eventually evolved into the nation states of today. the eventualality would obviously be a one world family. of course that means one .gov which puts everyone in the world at the mercy of the whims and looniness of the present .gov, we could get a benevolent kaddafi or a paranoid stalin and there will be no competing .gov(family) to counter them. not a good idea given human nature.
Give me $5 and the power to carry a gun and prevent anyone else from doing the same and I will protect you. Well, maybe not $5, actually more like 50% of your labor. Ah, hell. We are all friends here so go ahead and make it 80%, and by the way, even you must do EVERYTHING I say....its for your own good.
Are you going to argue with me over this???
I can't protect you if you are going to hold back on the money or resist my authority.
Seriously...it's for your own good.
You can call it anything you like.
What you say we should realize seems so very wrong. It seems more like the malevolent seek and rise to power and the more power the malevolent have, the more malevolent they are.
It is not true that it is human nature to be malevolent to everyone outside their group. If people are not malevolent to everyone outside their group then your whole theory is not true. There must be something else that makes people pick and choose how malevolent they are and to whom.
it wasn't clearly stated but my point is people can be nice and mean at the same tme dpending upon the circumstance, usually involving someone else who is simply "different" from them and/or have something that is coveted by the malevolent one. alliances can be formed by disparate groups but it does not prevent malevolence towards each other sometime in the future. bad marriages come to mind. what starts out as love ends in hate.
"social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy"
Let me know when you see a "Social" walking around.
Until then you may as well have said, "Imaginary ownership of the means..."
Really, you use these words to hide from the fact that you're a thief.
If everyone were in agreement there would be no need to advocate socialism, as you would already have it. Advocating implies there is no agreement, and also specifically implies The desire to control someone else's property...or there would be nothing to advocate.
Socialism works quite well...for ants, bees and termites!
If everyone were in agreement there would be no need to advocate socialism, as you would already have it.
We already do have it, just not how you think. Go and design a piece of software and then get back to me.
"The goal of socialism is communism."
Vladimir Lenin
And those are the words from Lenin, one of the OG Communist Bankster Minions
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.3
Nikolai Lenin Returns From LondonMeanwhile, Lenin had been able to infiltrate the Democratic Socialist Republic established by Kerensky. In October, 1917 when the Revolution started, Lenin, who was in Switzerland (also exiled because of the 1905 uprising [and after having spent several years plotting with the Fabians in London --ed]), negotiated with the German High Command with the help of Max Warburg (head of the Rothschild-affiliated Warburg bank in Frankfurt) to allow him, his wife, and 32 other Bolsheviks to travel across Germany to Sweden, where he was to pick up the money being held for him in the Swedish bank, then go on to Petrograd. He promised to make peace with Germany if he was able to overthrow the new Russian government.
He was put in a sealed railway car with over $5 million in gold from the German government and upon reaching Petrograd, was joined by Stalin and Trotsky. He told the people that he could no longer work within the government to effect change, that they had to strike immediately in force to end the war, and end the hunger conditions of the peasants. His war cry was: "All power to the Soviets!".
He led the revolution, and after seizing the reins of power from Kerensky on November 7, 1917, replaced the democratic republic with a communist Soviet state. He kept his word and made peace with Germany in February, 1918, and was able to get out of World War I. While most members of the Provisional Government were killed, Kerensky was allowed to live, possibly because of the general amnesty he had extended to the communists exiled in 1905. Kerensky later admitted to receiving private support from American industry which led some historians to believe that the Kerensky government was a temporary front for the Bolsheviks.
Elections were held on November 25, 1917 with close to 42 million votes being cast and the Bolshevik Communists only received 24% of the vote. On July 18, 1918 the People's Congress convened having a majority of anti-Bolsheviks which indicated that Communism wasn't the mass movement that Lenin was claiming. The next day he used an armed force to disband the body.
So to conclude your rhetoric in the context of the real history of Lenin's motivations and profits:
Is yours a system based on using and devaluing individual humans, ignoring democratic results and populist opinions because feudal slavery makes profit irrelevant in the absence of a free market of choices?
Is that that the proposition? Is that the definition of socialism?
History and minion motivation certainly seems to suggest so.
"go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor..."
There a few things that Jesus said the a lot of "Christians" would like to ignore. This is one of them.
.........Especially the Catholic Church with their gold vaults.............
Who are you going to sell your stuff to ?
And yet he didn't stick a gun in his nose and MAKE him. It was voluntary.
so the poor can be rich and you can be poor
Jesus will appear and kick your dumb ass for calling him that.
I don't think Jesus supported any other government except his father's. After all, he showed that Satan was in control of them all anyways. (Matt 4:8 -11)
That parable makes the point that spiritual things have to come first in a person's life. Jesus’ words revealed a problem in the heart of this man. He was too deeply attached to his possessions and, no doubt, to the power and prestige that came with them. Sadly, his love for such things far outweighed any love he had for Christ. The “one thing” missing, then, was wholehearted, self-sacrificing love for Jesus and his creator.
What Jesus taught, and what his disciples taught, may not be the same thing. Paul wrote:
Romans 13:1-7New International Version (NIV) Submission to Governing Authorities13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
I don't think Paul ever lived long enough to see the fall of the Roman Empire, or the terrible, terrible way government conducted itself during that fall.
I'm also sure that the Old Testament has countless examples of rulers doing the wrong thing. Either Paul was wrong in his teaching, or he's placing all of the blame for the misuse of God's authority on the rulers, who turned their back on God and took His authority for themselves.
If that's the case (and it makes sense), then it's the fault of the governing bodies that countries fail their people... which is why everyone knows the name of Hitler, and why he's most likely burning in Hell.
The unsurprising truth about everything that cornflakesdisease quotes, just like all of the other Jehovah's Witnesses on ZH, is that he simply cuts and pastes from publications of the Watchtower Society- he is simply regurgitating, without any critical thinking.
Why don't you admit it, cornflakesdisease?
So why were you disfellowshiped? Incest?
Jesus was not socialist
Jesus was advertising sytem based not on taxes but on donations to run the statehood
The larger context of that passage is that you should not love money and possessions more than God and other people.
Notice Jesus didn't continuously preach on govt confiscation and redistribution of wealth.
What?
You mean His Holiness isn't saying global warming is God's punishment for the sins of humanity and we must repent!?
Actually, if you read the encyclical, what the Pope is saying is that you can't respect God while disrespecting God's creation. He also ties in our collective rape, pillage, and pollution of the planet with our treatment of the poor.
Some of the folks here should actually try reading what they are commenting on rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of it.
Since God created man with the ability to think, develop technology and use the resources of the planet to improve our living conditions, then anyone objecting to that is disrepecting mankind and thereby disrespecting God. So this pope, like you, is guilty of disrespecting God.
The 10 commandments don't say anything about "respecting the planet", which of course is the sort of mushy language beloved of self-appointed activists who get to decide what behavior is "disrespecting the planet".
For the complete picture, however, one needs to consider Revelation 11:18:
"The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Wanton destruction of the Earth will result in God's destruction of those judged responsible for it.
You didn't do so hot in philosophy class did you? In what world does "improving" the planet mean polluting it to death?
Remember that "free will" is a responsibility, not a license. You will be held accountable for your choices, both good and bad (perhaps in this world. . . ).
"improve" is a very subjective concept. One person might see a golf course as an improvement, another might see a landfill, another housing. I mean, people need homes, right?
I think it should have said "go forth and multiply until you fill the whole earth to population density X per square mile, then stop".
God gave us the ability to destroy ourselves and the only habitable planet for light years in any direction, so we should. Sound logic.
Actually what the Pope is saying is, that if you do not agree with his informed point of view, your opinion does not matter. What the Pope is saying is that all of the Vatican gold can't solve poverty, but if we all walk to work, the poor folks will still be poor but won't feel quiet so bad about it. If a fucking Pope can solve world poverty and war with a simple edict, what the hell have they been doing for the last thousand years or so? Simply more bullshit to preserve their power and relevance in the new socialist world,no matter what it costs everyone under their thumb.
It is simply amazing how easily these assholes assume that WE will surrender everything that many generations have struggled to achieve, by the false imposition of guilt. Its a damned shame we can't believe in God without empowering these sons of a bitches to lord over us.
"Its a damned shame we can't believe in God without empowering these sons of a bitches to lord over us."
Says who?
I, myself, and many other believers do exactly that.
It is the "joiners" in every group that makes the "groups" dangerous.
I can't think of any group that does not need and encourage joiners. Every group I ever saw had "recruitment" as one of its top goals.
"I can't think of any group that does not need and encourage joiners. Every group I ever saw had "recruitment" as one of its top goals."
I'm working on that.
nah that would take work. Better to just comment on what you think someone said (or did), rather than do research and confirm.
This is why we had riots in Fergeson and Baltimore.
Yer, the problem with the Papacy is that eventually you run out of other people's souls to corrupt
Oh, that's cruel
Yer, the problem with the Papacy is that eventually you run out of other people's holes to corrupt. FIFY
Sunny beaches...dup
Only on ZH can a scientifically proven event like Climate Change be considered controversial
An "event" is something that happens at a point in time. According to the faux-scientists bought and paid for by big fascist government, institutions like the UN and their big business cronies, climate change is an ongoing process not an event.
You don't even understand the most basic aspect of the parasitical garbage you are trying to promote, let along have any connection with reality. Back to the asylum for you.
The Agricultural Revolution is an event.
The Industrial Revolution is an event.
The Population Explosion is an event.
Climate change is a product of these events. Every event produces products.
No such thing as "Scientifically proven"
Do you even Scientific Method?
Proof is not needed as long as there is scientific "consensus" amongst those being paid to affirm the supposition.
If only I could gain access to public funds to the extent that I could afford to hire many minions to testify to my great artistic skills, all of which would provide consensus to my greatness ensuring a prosperous life with everyone paying great homage at every opportunity.If only.....
If only I could gain access to public funds to the extent that I could afford to hire many minions to testify to my great artistic skills, all of which would provide consensus to my greatness ensuring a prosperous life with everyone paying great homage at every opportunity.If only.....
You could do it, first get your PHD in physics from a reputable school. Then get your name published in a bunch of peer reviewed material, then kiss some ass, cross your fingers and hope for the best.
I prefer to call it the weather. And yes, it changes.
And I am just old enough to have watched the first moon landing, live. And I remember all the big brains were telling us we were entering an ice age. All the best science said so.
And what happened to Global Warming??? Title not work so good,eh?
Climate Change is pretty much covering your ass. It's not that some of us don't buy it. It is your fucked up politics and desire to have the world enter into YOUR suicide pact. We, here in the US, and the rest of the " developed" world are expected to feel guilty, and provide costly changes and do without. Of course, you don't have an answer for 1.6 Billion Chinese and 1.1 Billion Indians ( dot, not arrow) who will want to drive, have electricity and a booming economy.
Most people now don't litter, recycle and try to conserve. But it's not enough. It's never enough. Fucking lefty Bill Maher publicly hates religion, but now he is ready to blow the Pope. And he's a Jew. Fucking hypocrite. You lefties are so illogical , simple minded and predictable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/cern-the-sun-causes-global-warming/
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/climate-physics-101/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2728814/Is-SUN-driving-climate-change-Solar-activity-not-just-humans-increasing-global-warming-study-claims.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php
Your links mostly come from murdoch owned nonsense peddlers, you will need better sources. On the CERN study, the author of that article simply doesn't understand it. The cern study in no way contradicts AGW, though it is an important study. I know people working at CERN, i don't know of anyone in broad disagreement with the scientific consensus.
I am sure he cries himself to sleep every night knowing you don't approve of him.
Silly ass.
You should read Barnhardt's blistering comments about him.
Someone is gonna be very pissed when hell freezes over.
Its all so complicated so i just go with what 99.99% of the scientists say.
If you get 99.99 scientists in one room, I guarantee they will not agree on anything. However if you print in a newspaper 99.99% of scientists agree on global warming, few will question it.
Miffed
The actual study where the 97% figure came from goes like this: they poll a bunch of scientists, get a bunch of responses, cherry pick 77 of the total, of which 75 were pro global warming. Thus, the 97% figure. Sadly, I'm not making this up. You can look it up for yourself.
Besides, I'm sure 99% of fund managers think zirp is a great thing.
You obviously don't understand how science works. But I'm guessing you're one of those folks that puts your full faith in the science of "capitalism".
Scientists don't usually agree on much, but on AGW they do. Why do you and so many other airheads on here pretend this isn't the case? NASA has a helpful compilation:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
NASA has already been caught manipulating climate data (arbitrarily increasing temperatures). Seasonalizing financial data the same direction every quarter is bad enough, but taking real, seasonal temperature data and adjusting it to be the least seasonal data in recorded history is criminal.
How many credible scientists who would like to retain their career, would be so brazen as to refute and present contradictory evidence to climate change? Career suicide. And those who had been so ardently professing this theory can never go back on it. There is no transparency. Not once, upon discovery of contradictory evidence or predictive failures, has any of them ever expressed doubts in their theories. Instead they immediately go about revising their data and algos to reestablish the continuity of dogma. Its like watching the religious leaders of old furiously working to destroy contradictory evidence, especially their purveyors, or in instances where the truth is impossible to refute, go about revising their dogma to appear that it was part of the religion all along. Coming ice age, global warming, climate change, or maybe we have simply insulted the gods and await their punishment if lacking in repentance.
The most profitable industry in the world is waiting for them with open arms and very large checks. Wake up.
Financial Services?
feel bad for that 9/10th guy...
I think scientists will agree that gravity exists, and black holes, and other galaxies, and Newton's laws of motion, and Ohm's Law, and the laws of thermodynamics, and genetics. I think scientists will agree on 99.99% of scientific stuff. At least, the scientists I have known agreed on most scientific stuff.
Yep, and in the top 0.01% reside Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, ...
Apparently 50% (at this point) are not fans of those three men of science.
Bollocks on Einstein and the Classicists. They're still trying desperately to repeal Bell's Theorem.
Think non-local, act universal. ;)
Think of the 100,000 billion galaxies, and then act to protect the one little planet you were given. :-)
(Is 100,000 billion the right number? Memory-loss moment. :-)
You would be better off pulling your head out of your ass and going with what 99.99% of the data say.
Scientists lie like rug$.
Some do. And more are piling onto that gravy train bandwagon. The scientists with integrity ought to be nipping that in the bud before the entire field loses all credibility.
Who wants to live in a world like that?
Unlike economists.
People who use phrases like "99.99% of..." generally know less than 0.01% of diddlysquat.
WHAT have the SCIENTISTS ever done for US?
Invented corn, steel, internal combustion, nuclear plants, electric lights, cars, all manner of medicines, cellphones, refrigeration, airplanes, submarines.
YES, but besides that, WHAT have the SCIENTISTS ever done for US?
Scientist Ben Franklin gave us lightning rods, before which most western cities suffered repeated lightning-caused city-destroying fires.
YES, but besides that, WHAT have the SCIENTISTS ever done for US?
Invented Viagra and prophylactics and penicillin to cure the diseases we sometimes get when we forget the prophylactics?
YES, but besides that, WHAT have the SCIENTISTS ever done for US?
Really? Cause I thought all those were due to *inventors*, or just regular folks going about their everyday lives, not scientists.
What scientist invented "corn"? And how many of those fancy medicines are basically an extractiong from some plant in nature that people were already using for thousands of years?
When was the last time you met a global warming zealot who ever invented anything, other than new and creative ways to demonize and hate anyone who disagrees with their idiotic viewpoint?
Many things were invented by creative people who were practicing science independently in efforts to improve their lives. Many others were invented by professional scientists like Thomas Edison.
To make beneficial plant-produced chemicals available worldwide, someone has to practice science, to discover which chemicals in the plant do what, and then to find out how to put the chemicals into a form which is stable and can be transported and stored.
Pre-Colombian native Americans were practicing science when they created corn.
I've invented things. I bet most people have. I never bothered to get any patents, because I figure the things I invented probably aren't marketable. But inventing is fun. Everybody is creative, just in different ways.
As for "global warming zealots", I don't understand why we attach the word "zealot" to people we disagree with. I understand that the reason Venus is probably very low on life is that it has wiped itself out with atmospheric trapping of solar energy. That's what I consider global warming. With the risk being the destruction of all lifeforms we are familiar with on this planet, my opinion is that we should start playing it safer until we get more facts. Astronomy is teaching us more about the dangers planetary life may face, and as we learn about a new danger, my opinion is that we should consider whether it could play out here, and if that seems at all possible, we should play it safe. And, of course, astronomy is science.
Have you polled them? Or you trust the media to do it for you?
Auto-da-fe, what's an auto-da-fe?
It's what you ought not to do, but you do anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMkcBctE7c
Calling Mr. (in Polish) Copernicus...calling Signore Galileo. The denial tradition continues at Vatican, Inc.
And they even sell indulgences these days to assauge your guilt. Called carbon credits. Same concept, different century.
I'm sure local boy Mario Draghi and the GS boys are in on that, LOL.
Al Gore was hoping to be the front man in the carbon credit exchange, and reap billions in the process.
The financial boys have wet dreams over the carbon credit scam. Everyone knows full well there's no way to get rid of carbon based energy and keep the economy intact, at least in the short term. Thus, every person on earth who uses energy, which is everyone, will have to buy credits. Banks get tens of trillions of new dollars to play with, and governments get a huge new pot of tax revenue.
It's the ultimate gravy train, possibly equalling fiat money itself.
It's amusing that even proponents of the carbon credit system agree it will do nothing to reduce global warming, but they are still in favor of it.
Anyway, you can relax. Goldman Sachs sold their shares in the carbon credit exchange 2 years ago. That means they recognized the jig is up and carbon credits are going noplace. Everyone has moved on except for a handfull of diehards who will spend the rest of their lives in a lost cause everyone else has forgotten, like Single Taxers, Free Silver advocates, and dare I say it, Tea Party members.
Reports of Global Warming (excuse me, Climate Change) conferences bemoan how they have gone down hill, only drawing 1/10th the attendance they did 20 years ago.
Looks like the petrochem industry got the $600M worth of propaganda they paid for; cheap, by their standards.
Elon Musk is raking in the taxpayer dollars based on the carbon credits he gets selling electric vehicles that operate on fossil fuel produced electricity. Without those subsides there are losses. Forget about profits, Tesla would shut down overnight.
See if you can figure out what electricity is made from in the table below.
Source; http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T01.03#/?f=A&start=2013&end=2014&charted=1-2-3-5-7-8-9-10-11
Total Fossil Fuels 81.7%
Nuclear Electric Power 8.5%
Biomass (think Ethanol) 4.9%
Hydroelectric Power 2.5%
Wind 1.8%
Solar/PV 0.4%
Geothermal 0.2%
If by saying "Tea Party members" you are meaning that the cause is lost and the country is no longer under the Constitution, but rather a massive socialist leviathan, then I would have to agree with you.
We need a reboot. Perhaps Shemitah can hit the reset.
I am trying to differentiate between the threat of global warming and the carbon credits scheme the globalists have offered up as "the" solution. I believe global warming is a threat, but I don't trust the globalists. In my view, their track record has been to offer up solutions which only make the targetted problems worse. And why shouldn't they? Once they start making money on "the" solutions, why would they want the problem to actually end?
But you have to pay the poop for an indulgence.
Gubbermint pays you for sloppy science.
Winning!
Permission to sin, for a fee, and to be free of its consequences.
Yes Wendigo, you nailed it!!
That bit of catholicism has always boggled my mind. As if the serfs really don't understand that men are making up these little rules so they can get rich and imprison (the minds of) the peons.
No legit church demands anything of its members.
There was a time when the Church used to sell indulgences that has long gone and is rejected by modern Catholicism as not being consistent with the word of God.
On the other hand, the US government is busy selling indulgences to Wall Street banksters and lots of other criminals.
monetary indulgences are no longer allowed because they are subject to abuse. They started out as doing good deeds but then shifted to giving money to charity and that's what became corrupt. Today indulgences include reading the bible and other devotions not involving money.
the overwhelming majority of catholic clergy are not interested in becoming rich. there are far easier routes to accomplish this.
Catholicism/Christianity does not IMpose, it simply PROposes. (JPII)
And now it DEposes.
twasn't the crusades
twas the inquisition!
To the rack with the deniers and homophobic
Whilst the monks chant.
the inquisition was not for deniers, it was only for those who professed to be catholic, but were in reality muslim or jewish. It was established by the spanish monarchs who were catholic.
Sorry, there were inquisitions all over Europe and none of them had anything to do with muslims or jews. They were a religious inquiry and had power over Christians and Christians only. Their brief was to weed out heresy. You can't be a heretic if you are not a Christian. A heathen maybe but not a heretic.
All you had to do was say "I'm not a Christian. I've never been baptized" and they had to let you go. Or turn you over to the civil authorities.
The Kol Nidre prayer allows Crypto Jews to become Christians. Many Cryptos entered the Catholic chuch, especially during the inquisition. Note: It was the Monarchy, not the church that was guilty of abuses. The church simply wanted to remove Jews and Muslims to other lands.
Kol Nidre became a feature of Judaism after Sabati Sevi in 1666. 666 is an Occultic holy number in Kabala, which goes all the way back to King Solomon. Sabati was to become the Messiah, but instead was capatured by the Sultan of Turkey. Sabati had to renounce his Judaism and did not reincarnate as Messiah.
This put the Jewish international into a funk, because they believe they are the chosen people. Sabati enjoined Jews to engage in Crypto Stealth behavior in order to survive amongst the Goyim.
The inquistions were correct in that Crypto's had infiltrated the Catholic Church. Usually upon death, when there is a closed funeral with only Jews around, it becomes apparent that the Muslim/Christian etc. was really a Crypto Jew. In addition to yearly Kol Nidre, they have to renounce on death bed.
yes but i was referring to the spanish inquisition, that is what is usually being criticized.
in reality, it wasn't for Jews, Muslims, or deniers, but ANYONE who disagreed with the all-powerful church about ANY subject...even which of earth and sun revolves around the other.
Sorry, but your church has a very long history of willful ignorance and abuse of power.
again the spanish inquisition was for self-professed catholics.
it is not my church, it is Christ's church (Mt 16:18)
Go read up on Galileo and his interactions with your "church" and get back to us.
i have already researched it extensively and that is my conclusion. Please see above.
Its interesting how the big church thinly disguises their true nature. Just look how so many of their cathedrals are covered in naked toddlers, just take the wings off of the Cherubim.
Clean up your own house, then get back to us.
...And one more thing: Lighten up, Francis!
Al Gore says "the science is settled".
What an interesting way to put it. Einstein's science isn't settled. Darwin's science is widely criticised. Even Sir Isaac Newton's science is questioned.
When you say "the science is settled" that is not the statement of a scientist, that is the statement of a pope.
Saying "the science is settled" is just the same intellectually lazy, reflexive tactic as immediately accusing others as being 'racists' or 'haters.'
Ad hominems are far easier than actually defending one's position with logic and reason.
If I may note.... Einstein's, Darwin's and Newton's works are all classified as Theories, which are by definition (until the New Progressive Political Mantra) NOT settled in any way shape or form.
A Theory remains open to testing, questioning and research, for without a proof it remains a mere theory.
When proven, a Theory becomes a Theorem.
Bell's Theorem is the antithesis for the Classicists.
Go figure.
A (scientific) hypothesis is a proposed, and falsifiable, explanation for a repeatable physical phenomenon. A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis, wherein all the empirical evidence collected to date is supportive and non-contradictory. A conjecture is a logical proposition that is expected to be true given some set of axioms, and a theorem is a conjecture that has actually been proven to hold true.
or a dope.
The Pope states in the encyclical that he is not a scientist and that he is simply relying on scientists. His area of expertise is the morality of climate change.
Also to clarify a ZH report which pointed out that one of the climate "experts" promulgating this encyclical was a radical in population control and ZH raised suspicions the Pope was of the same mind on this. However the Pope explicitly attacks population control as a solution in this encyclical, calling it a trap.
The Catholic church needs members and as converts are hard to come by, lives in the hope that its current members go forth and reproduce. Hell no, he wants no part of population control, and if there is ANY social group particularly susceptible to the church's teaching it is the poor, and if you are claiming to punish the rich for their benefit, your path to power and greatness are nearly assured....ask any progressive.
The Vatican Bank is also known as 'the Mob's bank.' Much of the physical gold used to suppress the gold price comes from the Vatican's vaults. Vatican II said any priest or nun that turned in a pedophile or rapist waa instantly kicked out of the church. Me thinks there is a pattern here. May we see a St. Louis who in the 12th century pulled the Catholic Church out of the hands of the satanists, return to bring the Mother Church back to honest Christianity.
The fascists know sun is moving into a solar minimum and have changed the campaign to global climate change from global warming so they will be able to co-opt the coming mini ice age.
They were hoping to announce they had fixed it. Maybe they still hope that if given a bit of credence they can announce victory.
You've hit the nail on the head. They will announce that their policies reversed the warming and everything is now fixed.
Just like they announced their fixing of the ozone hole. Oh, wait, there is still an ozone hole.
No, there NEVER was an "ozone hole."
What actually happened is that the DuPont family's patent on FREON (R-11 and R-12) was running out, so they concocted the whole "ozone hole" story, and sold it through the captured media, to convince Americans that they needed to buy the replacement, R22.
Now, as Paul Harvey used to say: "You know the rest of the story."
PS- You're welcome.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/reststory/bronfmanfreon.html
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2015/06/the-dupont-freon-conspiracy-was-...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/environment/ozonefreon_fraud.htm
One of the best refrigerants ever is R-290; also known as "propane." A 60/40 mixture of propane and isobutane (R600a) is a direct drop-in replacement for R12 or R134a, and straight R290 is a direct replacement for R22. In both instances, the result is better cooling, higher efficiency, fewer leaks, extended service life, and on and on. You can pick up the fuel off the shelf at any sporting goods store for dirt cheap. There is literally not a single drawback or downside to this conversion.
Just try to log onto any forum anywhere on the internet, other than perhaps a refrigeration forum full of old pros, and discuss actually using these refrigerants in ANYTHING. Just try it, and see how long it takes before some fucking pussy (or more likely, a herd of scared and crying pussies) jumps in there and raises hell, and completely wrecks your logical discussion with their insanity. You will never hear so much panic and alarm in your life, about how DANGEROUS and STUPID something is. I've had people call for me to be BANNED OUTRIGHT from a forum for even bringing it up. Propane is FLAMMABLE, ya know!!
Nevermind that R600a is used in almost every fridge in Europe, with no problems whatsoever, and that people have been running hydrocarbon mixtures in refrigeration systems since long before R12/R22 was even invented. Nevermind that CFC/HFCs are flammable too, under pressure, especially with the OIL they all carry. Nevermind that CFC/HFCs break down into poison gases in the presence of heat, which has actually killed or maimed numerous people. Those and every other logical argument one could make to justify this is completely irrelevant and a waste of time, and will do nothing to turn aside the loud shrieks and sobbing that emanate from the crowd of bitch ass pussies.
That's why these fucking assholes like DuPont are able to dominate with their patented synthetic shit. Most people are literally too stupid to consider alternatives.
The reality of this is that it is a way to take money from people. And that is about it.
fucking religion at it again......
these fuckers took only centuries to apologize to galileo (earth center of the solar system)..... (amongst other idiocies)
oh no... the earth is fucking flat......
damned retards.... kommie hypocrites to boot.
best if they stick to their voodoo and leave science alone....
then again.... all these global warming morons are just that .... kookoos
galileo's proofs were incorrect. Not until 150 years after Galileo, were telescopes able to show he was correct. Copernicus, who came before Galileo, was a catholic clergyman and had already suggested heliocentrism but conceded it was a theory not fact.
also Galileo said the sun was the center of the universe (it is not, it is the center of our solar system)
the catholic teaching does not align perfectly with either socialism or capitalism. it is more akin to distributism. if you studied it you would not be able to easily categorize it, it is based on philosophy, faith, and a relationship with Jesus rather than a political system.
What all SYSTEMS have in common is the desire for power, centralized power, rule by edict....or signing statements. For power to stay in place it ultimately relies on tyranny.....or is the Pope popularly elected??? I think not. They speak for GOD, as all tyrants do.
Jesus did not establish a democracy. he came to establish a kingdom. successors to St Peter have been chosen in a variety of fashions over the past 2000 years. The current method is in place to ensure independance from worldly powers.
The Catholic Church again is not a tyrant because it proposes not imposes. You are free to reject its teachings.
Popes have very little power because they cannot change existing doctrine. What they have in actuality is authority which is not equivalent to power.
Your 1st sentence is correct. Your 2nd "sentence" is correct.
The rest of your comment is brainwashed diatribe.
Read your Bible.
Which book?
All of it.
Here are some great online resources:
http://biblehub.com/
https://www.biblegateway.com/
PS- Don't be lazy.
I bet I was reading the Bible before you were born.
i have read my bibles (several times) can you be more specific?
Sure. I'm glad you asked.
"Jesus did not establish a democracy. he came to establish a kingdom. "
As I stated, this is true- He established a Kingdom. In this staement, you are 100% correct.
"successors to St Peter have been chosen in a variety of fashions over the past 2000 years."
The belief that Jesus Christ establish His church on St Peter is a misunderstanding of Holy Scripture. Peter was not the first "pope". This incorrect belief is based on an apostate understanding of Holy Scripture. Here is what the Scripture states:
"Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." - Matthew 16:16-18
Here is the Scripture that reveals the meaning:
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” - Matthew 7:24-27
Q:What is "the rock" that Jesus built His church on?
A:The "rock" that Jesus built His church on is FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. Peter had faith in Jesus Christ, and so do all TRUE CHRISTIANS. No- it wasn't Peter that Jesus built His church on- it was FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST- THE ROCK- that He built His church on.
"The current method is in place to ensure independance from worldly powers."
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic church descendes from the Roman church that was started by Constantine, the apostacy of which was foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12:
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
"The Catholic Church again is not a tyrant because it proposes not imposes. You are free to reject its teachings."
That may be true today- but what about the period from Constantine until Luther? During that time, all "heretics" were tortured and murdered by the "Catholic" church.
"Popes have very little power because they cannot change existing doctrine. What they have in actuality is authority which is not equivalent to power."
Again- you speak of modern times. Have you read the history of the "popes"? The Medicis? All the pedophiles? The murderers? The Mammon worshippers?
Read, and learn.
Here is just a small list, a place to start:
http://www.oddee.com/item_96537.aspx
You know how to do a websearch?
If not, ask, and I will provide the basics for you.
yes i know how to do a web search but i would never depend on oddee.com for that particular task. it is no wonder you have arrived at your conclusions. i am aware of the judases but that does not affect historical fact - that in Mt 16:18 Jesus is referring to Simon whom he renames Rock in that passage and that he also hands him the keys. I struggled with that passage for years and once you do so it is very difficult to get around. there is an unbroken succession of bishops of rome; peter's tomb is still there as is paul's and other apostles. that all precedes constantine by centuries. a succession example is given in Acts 1:20 "let his bishop-rick another man take (original KJV). best wishes in your quest for truth it is a commendable task.
Show it to me in Aramaic or Syriac or it doesn't count.
certainly - if that is your standard: Check Jn 1:32 "you will be called "Cephas" which is rock in aramaic.