Latest from UKIP Daily

Pope Francis to dump Catholicism to lead new Peoples’ Church of the Sustainable

On September 25, 2015, speaking at the UN Special Summit on Sustainability from the banker-built UN headquarters in New York City, Pope Francis will effectively dissolve the Catholic Church and announce the creation of a New Religious World Order. This new religious order will emerge from the incremental dilution and co-mingling of all existing major religions, and it will purport to deify the common God that Francis says all religions share: Sustainability.

Francis’ Catholic Church, Inc. will market this new, merged, global religion under the existing Sustainable brand. It’s a smart (pun intended) branding decision: Sustainable has no scientific nor legal definition, yet it has been the justification for an avalanche of allegedly science-based, totalitarian international and national “soft” law, so it already has market share. Also, Sustainable, like God, means whatever the people who use it say it means and it doesn’t need to withstand scientific scrutiny. That makes Sustainable the perfect hook on which to hang a new, terrestrial, pragmatic global religion.

The biggest benefit of the new religion to the globalizers is that it will immediately and irreversibly place the UN firmly in control of the passage of all future local, national and international law. This Apocalyptic Truth is revealed in Sustainability’s latest Bible, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which builds on UN Agenda 21, the grotesque Marxist ideology that national sovereignty is evil and that private ownership of anything — from land to a broken ball point pen — and middle class lifestyles are un-Sustainable.

Once ratified later this month, this new canon will give the UN final say over all UN members’ lawmaking based on the UN clergy’s arbitrary metric for suitable level of adherence to sustainability. The other term for approving every new law made in the world is global governance.

e.g. From its preamble:

“All countries and all stakeholders, citing in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.”

Note the word will.

It continues:

“5. …These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of development …

“8. … We envisage a world of universal respect for human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination : of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity. …”

Francis, who doesn’t appeal fazed by promoting a new totalitarian global agenda that offers protection for just about every freedom except religious freedom, primed the market for his re-branded Salvation in his recent encyclical, in which he strategically relays God’s latest whisper to Mankind: God has decreed that questioning the manmade climate change narrative is heresy and a sin.


 “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate …– these are sins”. (See this)

Francis’ tells us that Mankind can only be saved by accepting into our hearts no other master than Sustainability, and no other spiritual destination than the creation of the new Eden of a sustainable one-world government.

As a (lapsed) survivor of both a convent and Catholic School, I’ve invested a lot of Hail Mary’s and Our Father’s in my time to keep my Jesus slate clean without ever giving a thought to Photoshopped pictures of Polar Bears clinging grimly to imaginary melting ice floes. Do I now have to repent for not accepting Warmism as God’s revealed Truth? Is Warmism a new part of Christian canon? Or was Christianity always a subset of Warmist dogma, and the nuns who raised me in the 1960s just forgot to mention it? Under this new regime, do I even still have my Soul? This is a fair question, since Francis’ lengthy pro-Warmist encyclical affords the Human Soul merely a single mention.

Francis, like Henry VIII, has been labeled by some a “reformer” of the Catholic Church. Whatever label we append to him, he has clearly done some pretty nutty things when judged by historical Papal standards. For example he has, apparently on a whim, nullified the most fundamental of all Biblical claims that God created the Universe, and that He did so in seven days, because, as Francis says, God simply doesn’t have the power to work such “magic.” I’m not sure that most Catholics will appreciate Francis comparing God to David Blaine. Nor will they appreciate Francis’ nonchalant shoulder-shrugging “admission” that there is no conflict between the Big Bang/evolution, and seven-day Creationism. Although, some might welcome his Papal special sale: forgiveness for abortion, offer available for just one year!

We could be forgiven for thinking that Francis is getting away Scot free with this Catholic inversion. Certainly, if there is any serious Catholic internecine dissent towards Francis’ re-branding of Catholicism as Sustainability, then we’re probably not going to hear about it from a mainstream media that is owned by the same global banking folk who are likely pulling Francis’ strings.

Personally, I think Francis, the Jesuit cuckoo in the Vatican nest, is no more than a sordid, common-or-garden New World Order functionary, who has been given a filthy job to do, and who is faithfully and gleefully rolling in that filth because, like all technocratic globalizers, he’s an amoral person promoting an inhuman agenda.

So, why would Francis want to declare the coming of the Kingdom of God contingent upon an unquestioning global acceptance of Sustainability and on the ascendancy of bankers to totalitarian world governance? Why are the World Bank and the Vatican merging? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that Jesus threw a major moody in a temple to banish this self-same class of money lenders from God’s house? One of Francis’ predecessors seemed to have his head screwed on properly over the existential threat to the world of unfettered money lenders:

“… hence come the iniquitous disturbance of affairs and the unequal division of “possessions, as a result of which the wealth of nations is heaped up in the hands of a very few private men, who – as We warned you last year, in Our Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo anno – control the trade of the whole world at their will, thereby doing immense harm to the people.”

Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, May 3, 1932

The answer to these questions and to why Francis has decided to bat for the other team is annoyingly simple: Francis and the austerity-mad World Bank share exactly the same goal to impoverish and disenfranchise the entire planet to the benefit of a tiny, moneyed few. As Francis tells us:

“Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations.” (See this)

Here’s a pretty common definition of “subsistence“:

a :  the minimum (as of food and shelter) necessary to support life

Francis, by playing the role of the good Jesuit, wants developed nations to degrade themselves to a level of subsistence. And he wants them to do this while they are paying global carbon taxes to the World Bank. What Francis and the World Bank want, the UN wants, too: they are the latter day Holy Trinity.

Not surprisingly, there are enough truly stupid people in the world who will continue to be beguiled by the glitter of empty words describing the moral rebalancing of wealth, eradicating poverty, of a one-world community at peace with itself. And the most dangerously stupid of them will buy into the Marx-friendly Sustainable lie, even as they lose their identity, their democracy, their nation, their home, their family, their religion and, ultimately, their faith in their own beauty and purpose as a free individual placed on this Earth to thrive, as any true Creator would want them to.

I suppose the question that we need to ask ourselves very soon is: Should we take these warnings seriously?

Is the Pope Catholic!?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Les Kozaczek (33 Articles)
Les lives in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. He's an ex-pat Brit and UKIP Supporter of old. He also runs the website Necessary Intervention

39 Comments on Pope Francis to dump Catholicism to lead new Peoples’ Church of the Sustainable

  1. The Pope knows that there is no hard, reproducible, empirical scientific evidence that man’s activities have had any significant effect on the climate, and yet he says that we have that evidence.
    That makes the Pope a liar.

  2. Climate change deniers are on about the same mental level as Flat Earthers and antivaxxers. And by that I mean they’re total morons who wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked them in the face and then caused the desertification of California. And that’s being kind.

    Also is there some great need to mock other people’s faith? It doesn’t make you sound particularly clever you know. Not that anything could at this point.

    • No.
      Warmists have been scientifically proven to be Flat Earthers. They see a football lying on the ground, and not rolling away, and they declare that the world must be flat. There is absolutely no reproducible, empirical, hard scientific evidence to support the claim that man’s activities have had any significant effect on the climate.

      Also, do you think the Pope is right to declare CC “denial” a sin?

    • You obviously belong to the Church of Man-made Climate Change Believers, Alice, and woe betide anyone who challenges your faith. It’s the same with most religions, actually: no one is allowed to question the facts or basis of truth of a religion without incurring the wrath of its followers. It’s FAITH that matters and this blind belief is enraged by questioning, or what some prefer to see as ‘mocking’. Seems to me that faith must be a very fragile thing if it feels threatened by others’ scepticism.
      Take warning from the evil that Islam does in the name of its blind, unquestioning, indoctrinated faith.
      Every human institution is fair game for a challenge; no form of religious belief or personal conviction is exempt from this. It’s called free thought and free speech.

      • Yes, it is a matter of faith. So you might want to ease up off her back about it.

        Particularly ironic, in the light of Alice’s closing two sentences.

        • I don’t ease off the back of anyone who tries to erect a barrier against questioning something by claiming it’s their ‘faith’. I don’t know whether you noticed that I was being ironic in claiming Alice had a ‘faith’ in man-made climate change, but when she tried to bring in a sideswipe about allegedly ‘mocking’ religion, she was fair game for a mocking comment. Now I know you have great faith in your intellectual powers, mailbiter, but that faith is as delusional as ‘the god delusion’ (pace R. Dawkins).

          • I am not defending her position. I am defending her right to it.

            You seem incapable of posting anything without working in nasty little insults. Straight away, that means you are a match for UKIP – you have found your home, and there can be little doubt about that.

          • From your constant snide little posts, you appear to think people in UKIP have no right to their position. I dare say Alice could have defended her own position if she had wanted to without you squeaking up. Granting that someone has a right to a position doesn’t mean accepting it, or respectfully refraining from critical comment. It’s called D_E_B_A_T_E. And as you constantly insult UKIP members, your grounds for complaint about ‘nasty little insults’ is very shaky. Perhaps our insults are just better than yours. I can see why that would be galling.

          • I have not posted snide or insulting comments on here – I leave that to you, which you seem powerless to resist.

          • Mailbiter has no intellectual power that I can see.

          • Cognitive myopia. A common trait among kippers.

  3. I think this article, in its choice of how it describes and criticises LA21, does not display, let us say, good judgement.

    I am not RC, although I am a committed traditional protestant Christian; moreover I respect those who are committed Catholic Christians. Many of the traditional ones are a bit sensitive about the new liberal Pope. Whilst I believe passionately in free speech, a political party must be aware that it does not strengthen its membership by mocking the faith of some of those members. I feel that this article mocks the Catholic Church, if not Christianity per se, so I am not overjoyed.

    I hope that there are no more basically, anti-Christian articles appearing in Ukip. Indeed if I have to choose between my faith and anything at all, my faith takes absolute precedence. An apology to Catholic’s is in order I believe.

    • The article seems to be pro-Catholic. It reads to me like a despairing at what the Pope is doing to the Catholic Church — changes like saying that atheists only need to live good lives, not accept Jesus as their Saviour, to go to Heaven).
      The author’s real problem seems to be with Sustainability becoming the new world religion, judging by the title of the piece. (Assuming he chose that title and not the editor.) I actually think he has a point.

    • Ukip won’t miss you if you can’t accept that religion should be questioned

  4. Note to all kippers that are also Christians….

    Jesus was non-white.

    • You seem to think that you’re leaving posts for uneducated people who need basic information.
      I think UKIP members who are Christian and non-Christian already know where Jesus was reportedly born and that he was very unlikely to be white in the sense of being a Caucasian. What’s your point?

      • mailbiter is a renowned Disqus troll.

        • I know, but he’s a little twerp with an inflated sense of his own clever-cleverness while being completely inept at making any relevant points at all. I’m just trying to discourage him from constantly embarrassing himself on here.

          • You shall never win an argument by trying to quell it.

            UKIP’s strategy appears to be that making the most noise will win the argument. That didn’t go too well in the election, though.

      • As a demographic, UKIP supporters are indeed comparatively poorly educated. A quick peruse of pages like this soon confirms the point.

        • A quick peruse of your comments on this and other articles soon reveals that you are neither knowledgeable nor articulate, therefore you would do better not to comment on others’ education. Perhaps you would like to reflect on how well the ‘highly-educated’ members and leaders of LibLabCon have managed to create a stable, secure, prosperous and happy country over the last 100 years. Don’t bother telling me that you belong to none of those parties, not interested.

    • Are you a racist?

    • Is this supposed to be funny ?

      It’s certainly in bad taste.

      • I’m curious: What part do you take issue with?

        • EllieMae's grandad // September 5, 2015 at 1:56 pm // Reply

          a/ mailbiter is a troll on other sites.
          b/ non-white is . . . what exactly?
          c/ this is an intentional insult.
          You’re usually clued-up on this sort of thing.

          • a) Only tend to comment on this site.
            b) Can’t help you beyond the obvious. Ask a grown-up.
            c) Not nearly as insulting as Farage’s policy to make colour discrimination legal.

            Burberryblue is wrong about virtually everything.

            Think that covers it.

            BTW: As an aside, almost as many people who voted for the BNP (sorry, I mean UKIP) in the GE have now signed a petition saying the UK should take in more refugees.

            Oh dear.

          • You’re really committed to this whole troll thing, aren’t you?

  5. Being a non-Roman Catholic, I don’t know what to think about this attack on the Pope. As an atheist, I believe the whole world would be better off if all religions disappeared and children were free of indoctrination to think for themselves as rational adults. We have an evolved, inbuilt moral capability that is distorted rather than enhanced by religious superstition.
    I can’t see the UN as a threat to anyone. It seems to be an ineffectual body that manages to recruit celebrities to work for UNESCO, but as for relieving the world of war, injustice and widespread cruelties such as FGM, it’s one big FAIL.
    As for “human beings destroying the biological diversity of God’s creation”, they do that every single day by over-breeding themselves at the expense of the non-human inhabitants of the planet. The Roman Catholic Church must accept their share of the blame for encouraging profligate reproduction with no thought for the poverty and deprivation it causes, plus the exploitation of women as breeding machines for more Catholics.
    It looks as though the Pope has decided to jump onto the man-made climate change bandwagon without thinking through what the real problem is and how his
    Church has helped create it for centuries.

    • Formally the UN is ineffective, but informally it is very powerful. And with Agenda 21 it has gained the ears of most of the “free world”. This gives a fairly balanced assessment of what Agenda 21 is and what it means. The EU and our own government of EU-appeasers have bought into it, too, as has the USA with Obama:

      • I’ve looked at that and it’s the first time I’ve heard of Agenda 21, although the comments on that article are from 2012. All the more reason to get out of the EU pronto, hope for a UKIP government and tell the UN to keep their noses out of our business. I don’t think the Americans are going to stand for it, especially after they’ve got rid of useless Obama.

        • I wish I shared your optimism about Americans not standing for it, but I don’t. I’ve known about Agenda 21 for years and I can tell you much of it is well underway. It is not new under Obama but he’s certainly done more to advance it than any other president. Here in the U.S., much of it is accomplished via regulation instead of legislation and under Obama via Executive Orders. Here, the trip wires are assaults on personal property rights, currently being led by the EPA and Bureau of Land Mgmt. This article by Mr. Kozacezk is important but no surprise. I knew what this pope was all about as soon as I heard him say “Wealth not shared is theft”. The Vatican, under John Paul and Benedict, has been trying to purge Francis and his ilk for years. If I may, I recommend a book “Disinformation” by Lt. General Ion Mahai Pacepa. He is the highest level Soviet Intelligence official to ever defect to the west. He served under Romanian President Nicolai Ceaucescu. He was, as it were, ‘present at the creation’.

          • Obama ordered every US government agency and any contractors they use to comply with UN “Sustainability” laws in everything they do.
            It’s all pretty sordid, scary stuff really.

          • “Wealth not shared is theft”? This is a variation of “Property is theft” as old Commie/anarchist Proudhon averred in 1840.
            Perhaps this Pope belongs to the Internationalist Communist Party instead of the RCC.

    • The UN is dictating law, particularly land use law, to more than15,000 communities worldwide, including in our greatest capital cities, via ICLEI.
      It is standardizing and massively consolidating “human dwellings” (not “homes”) and “Human settlements” (not “towns” and “cities”) into “sustainable” mega cities.
      It is forcing farmers and home owners off of their land, with the view to purging most of the planet of the presence of most Human Beings.
      And it is doing this entirely outside the democratic process.
      Do a little research on UN Agenda 21 and you’ll understand that the UN is not harmless.

      • Quite !
        Like many ‘good ideas’ it is now in the hands of power mad Marxists and lefty-liberals who are determined to destroy freedom.

    • EllieMae's grandad // September 5, 2015 at 1:58 pm // Reply

      * I can’t see the UN as a threat to anyone *

      Perhaps none so blind as those that will not see?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.