Vatican calls for a “global authority bank”..sides with OWS

October 25, 2011
March 2: Pope Benedict XVI delivers his blessing during a general audience in the Pope Paul VI  hall at the Vatican.
…”His blood be on us and on our children”…

The Catholic Church forbade usury.
I do not trust the HuffPo at all, but I have other sources

Vatican Backs Obama’s Global Agenda

(HUFFPO) The Vatican called Monday for radical reform of the world’s financial systems, including the creation of a global political authority to manage the economy.

A proposal by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace calls for a new world economic order based on ethics and the “achievement of a universal common good.” It follows Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 economic encyclical that denounced a profit-at-all-cost mentality as responsible for the global financial meltdown.
The proposal acknowledges, however, that a “long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public authority with universal jurisdiction” and suggests the reform process begin with the United Nations as a point of reference.
Vatican pronouncements on the economy are meant to guide world leaders as well as the global church. United States Roman Catholic bishops, for example, have released a voter guide for the 2012 election that highlights social concerns such as ending poverty.
“It is an exercise of responsibility not only toward the current but above all toward future generations, so that hope for a better future and confidence in human dignity and capacity for good may never be extinguished,” the document said.
It highlights that reforms must assure that financial and monetary policies will not damage the weakest economies while also achieving fair distribution of the world’s wealth.
The proposal also called for a “minimum, shared body of rules to manage the global financial market,” lamenting the “overall abrogation of controls” on capital movements.
While past Vatican pronouncements have condemned unfettered capitalism, the latest criticized “an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls.”
It also attacked “utilitarian thinking,” saying what is useful to the individual does not always favor the common good.

(TELEGRAPH) By demanding that the worst excesses of global capitalism be reined in, the Holy See echoed the message of protesters encamped outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London, the indignados of Spain and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US.
In a forthright statement, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace called for an end to rampant speculation, the redistribution of wealth, greater ethics and the establishment of a “central world bank” to which national banks would have to cede power.
Such an authority would have “universal jurisdiction” over governments’ economic strategies.
Existing financial situations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were outdated and no longer able to deal with the scale of the global financial crisis, which had exposed “selfishness, greed and the hoarding of goods on a grand scale”.
The global financial system was riddled with injustice and failure to address that would lead to “growing hostility and even violence”, which would undermine democracy.
The Vatican hardly has an exemplary record on financial transparency and propriety.
Last year the Vatican Bank, known officially as the Institute for Religious Works, had €23m (£20m) of its assets frozen by Italian authorities as part of an investigation into suspected money-laundering.
After years of resisting calls for greater openness, the scandal forced the bank to adopt international norms on transparency.
The Holy See’s murky financial past has included, most notoriously, its involvement in the bankruptcy of Italy’s biggest private bank, the Banco Ambrosiano, in the early 1980s.
Its president, Roberto Calvi, who was nicknamed “God’s Banker”, was found hanged beneath Blackfriars Bridge, with investigators unable to rule whether he had committed suicide or had been murdered.
Thomas J Reese, a Vatican analyst at Georgetown University in the US, said the “radical” proposals put forward on Monday aligned the Holy See with the Occupy Wall Street movement and meant that the Vatican’s views on the economic crisis were “to the Left of every politician in the United States”.
He said the proposals reflected many of the encyclicals and addresses issued by Benedict XVI on the global economy during the last six years of his papacy.


Vatican Backs Obama’s Global Agenda

October 18, 2011
March 2: Pope Benedict XVI delivers his blessing during a general audience in the Pope Paul VI  hall at the Vatican.
“His blood be on us and on our children”

It’s an old story… but I think some Conservatives need to be reminded:

Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a “World Political Authority,” a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food, security and peace


Zmedia watches Israel’s peaceful housing protest.Zmedia thinks it’s z sign they were waiting4.Meanwhile #LondonRiots

August 19, 2011
BBC = Bullshit Burns Community
…Derrick Jensen, allegedly even believes those who destroy the environment should be summarily executed: “If it were up to me, all the people associated with the Gulf oil spill, which is murdering the Gulf, would be executed. That would be part of the function of a state,” said Jensen. In addition to Jensen, the two other environmentalists interviewed in the article – Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay — have spearheaded a fringe movement called the “Deep Green Resistance” (with a book of the same name) that calls for “direct attacks on infrastructure” and an annihilation of civilization as we know it.

…The traditional raider saw himself as part of an outside group. The modern raider has global identities that are at odds with the country he lives in. He may see himself as a citizen of the world, a member of the Muslim Ummah, as black or a Marxist or any number of other wider identities. And these identities are more primal than being an Englishman or an American. When he joins a raiding party, it is as a member of one of those groups looting a society whose welfare is of no interest to him. – Sultan Knish


Why did Anders Breivik kill Norwegians and not Muslims?

July 26, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik is an updated Hitler hybrid. The goals are shared, but the methodology is changed. He isn’t interested in outside his Cultural Christian (but tolerant to atheism) borders. Anders’ attack was against Socialists. Socialists that were hostile to the West, but he didn’t see them as inherently hostile. Muslims were merely a side theatre. And yet he didn’t seem to have any real beef with Socialism. For Anders it was all about the dangers of “Internationalism”, but he seemed content with large government if he could control it. He had no problems with attacks against Muslims, as a way of encouraging Jihadi attacks, but even in this case, Muslims are just tools in his fight against the European traitors. His quotes are in RED

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: No, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy

If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe.

this image is taken before the carnage

Breivik does mention that large numbers of Jews would have to be executed as Class A or Class B traitors, but urges targeting by political belief, rather than by race.
While most have swallowed the idea that Breivik was a counterjihadist, his actual plan was to exploit tensions over Muslim terrorism, in order to conduct a campaign of terrorism against European targets and seize power with a more stable version of National Socialism.
Breivik was not a Nazi himself, for tactical reasons, because he disagreed with Nazi expansionism. But his own plan called for the use of WMD’s in Europe and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of traitors. The echoes of the Turner Diaries are very obviously present in his manifesto.
Breivik viewed Muslims as the enemy, but only domestically. He emphasized that;

“Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims”

And he contemplated collaborating with them on terrorist attacks against Europe.

“An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties… We both share one common goal.”

The_Caliphate was a useful enemy for his cause. In Breivik’s own words, this is how such an arrangement would play out:

“They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass “screenings” in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc.”

Ask yourself if these are the words of a anti-Jihadist who was fighting against Islam. Or a delusional European terrorist who was willing to ally with Jihadist against his fellow Europeans.
Breivik spells out that he is willing to kill Europeans on behalf of just about anyone…

There might come a time when we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will consider to use or even to work as a proxy for the enemies of our enemies.

Under these circumstances, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will for the future consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations.
Justiciar Knights and other European Christian martyrs can avoid the scrutiny normally reserved for individuals of Arab descent and we can ensure successful deployment and detonation in the location of our choice.

This should put to rest any idea that Breivik was on a crusade against Islam. He was a deluded man who imagined himself leading a takeover of Europe, even if he had to serve as a Muslim proxy to do it. This post has quotes from Sultan Knish

over the week my family was in Cape Cod. I was left to tend the house in Poughkeepsie with my mother’s pal… a radical feminist. I try to understand her. In a conversation at the farm here at Vassar she clarified that she was against penetration of any form. That penetration according to her was the cause of all oppression against women. I asked her how she would apply this finding. She said she would only work with consent. The wording was left is such a way as to assume harmony. She doctored her fascism in such a way that was suitable for her to spread her ideas in a popular forum. Her real intent remains hidden… of course we all know that mob tyranny always works with consent…. ok… so why does this apply to Anders? Because I am making speculation that Anders might of not really spoken his real beliefs. That Anders was trying to make a philosophy that others could swallow… often when people create fabrications they start believing it themselves. Somewhere in Ander’s subconscious was a fear of others… to get rid of others he was willing to work with the others. None of it makes sense to you and me… but Anders convinced himself of his own fabrication. He had no problem with greater control and socialism… as long as it was his own control and socialism. He had no problem with Christians… because he created his own “Christian”. and he had no problem working with Muslims because he created an Islam he thought he could control. Islam is very simple. It says to kill or tax those who are not Muslim. Anders made his enemy and his own identity more complex then they actually are. Christianity and Islam can not be altered like Judaism can be.


Immanuel Kant vs. Israel

August 18, 2010

This Post could also be described as Israel Vs. New World Order
Internationalism is a huge threat.
I realize that the concept of the NWO has been framed by many people who hate Jews…. but the reality is that Israel is the biggest threat to a world government

Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8771/immanuel-kant-vs-israel
As someone who deeply appreciates what Western civilization, for all its faults, has achieved, I puzzle over the hostility many Westerners harbor toward their way of life. If democracy, free markets, and the rule of law have created an unprecedented stability, affluence, and decency; how come so many beneficiaries, fail to see this?
Why, for example, does the United States, which has so much for human welfare, inspire such hostility? And tiny Israel, the symbol of rejuvenation for a perpetually oppressed people – why does it engender such passionate hatred that otherwise decent people desire to eliminate this state?

Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem offers an explanation for this antagonism in a profound and implication-rich essay, “Israel Through European Eyes.”
He begins with the notion of “paradigm shift” developed by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 study, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This influential concept holds that scientists see their subject from within a specific framework, a “paradigm.” Paradigms are frameworks that underpin an understanding of reality. Facts that do not fit the paradigm are overlooked or dismissed. Kuhn reviews the history of science and shows how, in a series of scientific revolutions, paradigms shifted, as from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics.
Paradigms also frame politics and Hazony applies this theory to Israel’s delegitimization in the West. Israel’s standing has deteriorated for decades, he argues, “not because of this or that set of facts, but because the paradigm through which educated Westerners are looking at Israel has shifted.” Responding to the vilification of Israel by offering corrective facts – about Israel’s military morality or its medical breakthroughs – “won’t have any real impact on the overall trajectory of Israel’s standing among educated people in the West.” Instead, the latest paradigm must be recognized and fought.
The fading paradigm sees nation-states as legitimate and positive, a means of protecting peoples and allowing them to flourish. The treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the key moment in which the sovereignty of nations was recognized. John Stuart Mill and Woodrow Wilson endowed the nation-state ideal with global reach.
That paradigm, however, “has pretty much collapsed,” Hazony asserts. The nation-state no longer appeals; many intellectuals and political figures in Europe see it “as a source of incalculable evil,” a view that is fast spreading.
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, lived 1724-1804.
The new paradigm, based ultimately on Immanuel Kant’s 1795 treatise Perpetual Peace, advocates the abolition of nation-states and the establishment of international government. Supra-national institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union represent its ideals and models.
Jews and the Holocaust play a strangely central role in the paradigm shift from nation-state to multinational state. The millennial persecution of Jews, culminating in the Nazi genocide, endowed Israel with special purpose and legitimacy according to the old paradigm. From the perspective of the new paradigm, however, the Holocaust represents the excesses of a nation-state, the German one, gone mad.
Under the old nation-state paradigm, the lesson of Auschwitz was “Never again,” meaning that a strong Israel was needed to protect Jews. The new paradigm leads to a very different “Never again,” one which insists that no government should have the means potentially to replicate the Nazi outrages. According to it, Israel isn’t the answer to Auschwitz. The European Union is. That the old-style “Never again” inspires Israelis to pursue the Western world’s most unabashed policy of self-defense makes their actions particularly appalling to New Paradigmers.
Need one point out the error of ascribing Nazi outrages to the nation-state? The Nazis wanted to eliminate nation-states. No less than Kant, they dreamed of a universal state,. New Paradigmers mangle history.
Israelis themselves are not immune to the new paradigm, as the case of Avraham Burg suggests. A former speaker of Israel’s parliament and candidate for prime minister, he switched paradigms and wrote a book on the legacy of the Holocaust that compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He now wants Israelis to give up on Israel as defender of the Jewish people. No one, Burg’s sad example suggests, is immune from the new paradigm disease.
Hazony’s essay does not offer policy responses but in a letter to me he sketched three areas to address: building awareness of the new paradigm’s existence, finding anomalies to invalidate it, and revitalizing the old paradigm by bringing it up to date.
His insights are profound and his counsel timely.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. ©2010 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Aug. 17, 2010 update: (1) I have gnawed away at the mystery of the Left over the past decade, writing on such varied topics as structural differences between the United States and Europe, poor Atlantic relations, opposed European and American “super-systems,” the intensity of European guilt, the fear of a mythological “Empire,” the mind-bending phenomenon of liberal fascism, the infatuation with international institutions, the legacy of World War I, the impact of President Kennedy’s assassination, and the bias of university press publications. I have also published a small avalanche of analyses about the Left’s soft spot for Islamism.
(2) Note that the new paradigm applies exclusively to Western states. Syria and Iran, to take prominent examples, get a free pass; it’s quite fine for them to pursue national interests in as bellicose a fashion as possible, without invoking the Left’s wrath.

Hitler wanted to end the nation state.
Mohammad wanted to end the nation state.
…the end of division can not be achieved by men.
Our borders are what protect us from tyranny.