Pope: 'Insatiable Consumption' Depleting Earth's Resources : TD

Truthdig Article:
'Insatiable Consumption' Depleting Earth's Resources

Lightfox Postcard:

By JMCSwan, July 18 at 1:38 pm

Perhaps, the friendly Green Pope’s speechwriter, did a bit of editing, but certainly not so much, as to make his statement meaningless, quite to the contrary:

“Perhaps reluctantly we come [why say ‘come’ instead of ‘begin’ or another verb] to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption,” he said.

Insatiable consumption for, among others:
-- religious, financial, and political ‘infallibility’;
-- financial wealth, power and status;
-- financial, religious and national debt-indentured slaves;


Insatiable consumption infallible policies:
-- religious, corporate and national slave and cannon fodder breeding, ad infinitum, the pied piper’s tune continues...; this time with a ‘neutral Swiss twist’.

Switzerland, along with the USA is one of the countries with the highest per capita of firearms, owned by citizens. Allegedly, Hitler repeatedly ordered it’s invasion, but his Officers repeatedly refused; because of that fact.

Remember Amazing Grace, where the British Monarchy resisted for years, and years the bill to end slavery, and finally near the end, William Pitt the Prime Minister informs, William Wilberforce that the British Monarchy has decided that they shall remain neutral on the issue, of abolishing slavery.

So, all in all, if so interpreted, a more than brave statement, by Pope Benedict: very, very brave.

Excerpt from US Army War College: Parameters, Summer 2000, pp. 58-71.

Sir Halford Mackinder, Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21st Century

Conclusion:

Without a vision of what the next century ought to look like, no policies can be formulated to bring it about. ...

Policy is driven by analogy, both historical and theoretical. One common, and dangerous, analogy that drives US Eurasian policy is "the game." Brzezinski speaks of chess; Central Asian policy is the "new great game"; Kissinger and Nixon used game analogies throughout their reign and in their writings afterward. Impenetrably complex problems are simplified to games, which was problematic enough during the Cold War but is acutely poisonous today. Take Brzezinski's chess analogy. Chess has two players, and one opponent; it is zero-sum, and to the finish; there is a winner and a loser, with no middle ground. The opponent of the United States to Brzezinski is, and has always been, Russia. If we approach Eurasia as if it were a chessboard, then we will be met by opponents, and cooperation and mutual benefit would be removed from our calculations. ...

If the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth were to conceptualize foreign policy as a chess game, it would virtually ensure that other nations would as well. A Eurasian alliance to counteract growing US influence would be virtually inevitable. ...

Policymakers in the United States vastly underestimate the hegemon's potential to shape the nature of the international system. Intellectuals wedded to old ideas about the unchanging nature of power have so far failed to lead the world in the new directions that it expected. The unparalleled unipolar position that the United States found itself in when the Cold War abruptly ended is being wasted by politicians with no vision for shaping the future. The debate that occasionally resurfaces over the "isolationist" nature of the United States misses a key dimension: if nothing else, America has certainly been intellectually isolationist in the post-Cold War era, hiding behind walls and refusing to lead the world in new directions that its unprecedented power has made possible. The rules that govern international relations evolve. ...

No so-called permanent interests, or eternal geographical realities, exist. The only way that the next century can be better than the one we are leaving is with a reevaluation of the assumptions and attitudes that underlie our actions. A prolonged investigation into the utility of all geopolitical theory would be a good place to start. ...





A vision of what the next century could look like. ...

Conclusion from: . ...
Institute of the Study of Globalisation and Covert Politics

The Pilgrims Society Membership list
A study of the Anglo-American Establishment

Now that we know that there is an Anglo-American Establishment, should we all oppose globalization and withdraw behind our own borders? This might be tempting, but at the same time this would merely be an unintellectual reactionary response to big business taking charge of the globalization process. With all the advanced and affordable means of transport (ignoring the coming oil crisis), the 24-hour news reports from around the world, and the internet, it will not be possible to stop globalization, nor would it be wise. The known history of the human race goes back almost 10,000 years and since this time has largely been characterized by only two things: abuse of power and war. Every historian at one point will realize that all he or she is reading about is the shifting of borders and the destruction of cultures as a result of abusive rulers looking for more territory and more riches. The only difference between all these wars is that they have become increasingly destructive as the centuries went by. At this point they will be so destructive that a war among the major nations of the earth will have to be avoided at all costs. The globalist group understands this, which in this case is good for everyone. What people in the conspiracy community may actually want to do is to stop fighting the concept of globalization, as apparently America's ultra-right wants them to do, and instead focus on educating themselves and other people about the corruption in national governments and the globalist group. We need to get to a point in which enough people are so informed about conspiracy affairs that it will be impossible for governments to manipulate them into giving up their rights or supporting economic or military policies which will ruin the country, or maybe even Western democratic civilization as a whole. For a number of reasons, some more obvious than others, this is a daunting task, but one things is for sure: a more systematic and intellectual approach to conspiracy affairs, combined with a "different-globalist"* stance, will draw in many more educated and influential persons than the unfocused U.S.-inspired isolationist attitude that is still dominant today.

* translation from the increasingly popular Dutch word "Andersglobalist", a term used to describe people who are skeptical of the present globalization process which is characterized by deregulation and privatization, but who do not want to be labeled "anti-globalist", as they are not against the concept of globalization itself.