In order to combat the Holy Deficit, the Pope began to issue indulgences to the lowly sinners of the congregation in order to forgive them—not of their past transgressions, but of their future sins. Of course, this was not an act of spiritual altruism; forgiveness came at a tangible price, which was imposed on a progressive scale determined by one’s wealth and the atrocity of their sin. The Catholic Church had become so dogmatic and authoritative that unsuspecting and fearful Catholics bought into this scheme without question—to oppose this plan could have meant the eternal damnation of one’s earthly soul.
History, despite her eternal struggle for progress, has been ordained once again to repeat her orbit around the selfish desires of man.
The international frenzy that happened in Copenhagen was the culmination of decades of scientific subterfuge and social stratagems that resembles so strongly a religious bureaucratization and exploitation, one wonders if they have not read the political playbook of the Medicis of Florence. The goal of this summit was to impose inter- and intranational restrictions on the people of the world all in the name of “Climate Change,” the premises, methods, and conclusions of which receive more and more scrutiny from thousands of scientists who thought it best not to blindly accept the findings of a few of the self-proclaimed elite. The charge of this new protocol is one that not-so-subtly demands a form of global socialism and asset redistribution, forcing the “wealthy” countries to pay penance to the nations they have so maliciously endangered.
If the Copenhagen Summit is successful in all aspects (to include a ratification by the US Senate), businesses and individuals will not only have to adhere to domestic emission standards, but will be forced by international law to participate in a global cap-and-trade system of carbon and greenhouse gas regulation.
Advocates heroically liken a treaty of this nature to humanity’s last stand against themselves, and advocate the advancement of this agenda in the name of anthropological altruism. Many may actually believe this to be true; many may have thought it too hard to question the motives and check the premises of the theory’s founders; many may have thought it convenient and efficient to allow their opinions to be formed by a popular presentation of pseudo-statistical analysis and an alarmingly compliant media.
However, we must remember the “altruism” of Pope Leo X. Remember his fundamental motive. His issuing of indulgences was not in any way meant to purge the polluted soul of humanity of his sinful acts. Neither was his goal to redistribute the revenues he accumulated to the destitute of his empire. His goal, like any centralized institution that has the privilege of unchecked liberties, was to stabilize and strengthen his individual and corporate influence. By creating among the penitent masses a perception of the Church’s necessity for spiritual pardon, he succeeded. However, he also ignited a firestorm that altered the course of civilization as only few other events had.
Martin Luther recognized when he began the Protestant Reformation that an institution that ignored the fundamentals of its purpose and instead sought to subvert a population for its own gain was not worthy of its own dominion, but was more than deserving of its dissolution.
President Obama and our Democratically controlled congress have been pushing the American public, upon whom they have inflicted the guilt of geocontamination, to accept a new policy of religious indulgence in the name of environmentalism. The cap-and-trade legislation currently before the Senate and the international summit on climate change are the archetypes that will inevitably pave the way for an environmental papacy. (Indeed, the UN Environmental Program has proclaimed Environmentalism to be the “only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity.”) By forcing nations, states, businesses, and ultimately individuals to purchase permits for the emission of what we all naturally exhale—not of our past emissions, but of our future ones—this global community will monopolize the absolution of environmental transgression and be the sole purveyors of our ecological salvation. How long until the next Martin Luther?
Of course, industry will try to serve their better interests, but their ultimate interest is the consumer and if the consumer fails to purchase, whether out of conviction or a competing solution, that industry will fail. But to say that all dissenters of climate change legislation are industrial shills is as invalid as saying that all proponents are communists and anti-American.
Finally, the facts are not in. The evidence that supports a certain theory has been accepted. As has been seen recently by the hacked emails, this evidence must now be in question—and has been in question for quite some time. To say to someone to accept a proposal simply because someone else has accepted it is absurd and a denial of TRUE liberal principles.
As for the Oil Industry’s alleged fear-mongering, I am sure they would prefer not to have their own industry harmed, but as far as I know, they have never forced any legislation that has required the consumer to purchase their product. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have created legislation that not only forces a consumer to purchase their product—carbon—but also restricts consumers from purchasing other products.
Your second comment makes the assumption that all dissenters of climate change are cronies of industrial corporations. No one I know who disagrees with theories of leftist environmentalism is in any way associated with corporate or industrial influence on the matter. Rather, they have seen the alarmism that has been used by that movement to limit economic and social freedoms.
While Silent Spring brought an alarm that caused legislation to limit freedom that was in place, Luther's 95 theses attacked the authority that was restricting individual choice and freedom (cf. Thesis #20: Therefore, by "full remission of all penalties "the Pope means not actually "of all," but only of those penalties imposed by himself.) The assumption that industry–in a Capitalist market–has any control of an individual is really to say that the individual has imposed upon himself a dependence on industry. In a capitalist environment I could survive without any modern appliance or service if that were my priority; Communism instead demands that I participate in a certain agenda.
Thank you for the comments. Pleasantries being said, your assertion that plenary indulgences were a capitalistic force, while an interesting notion, is absolutely absurd. Capitalism does not demand a monopolized dependence on a product; rather, it negates that demand. The Roman Catholic Church had monopolized their product–absolution–and refused to allow any competition.
Using your argument, one could logically assert that Stalin's product–national security–was a capital venture and the market price was loyalty and subservience.
As a matter of fact, it was Luther who truly practiced capitalism in his Protestation. When he shed the bonds of monopolization he created competition for the market of salvation. His brand came at an infinitely lower price–salvation by grace, not by works. Perhaps this is why Protestantism was so successful even in the shadow of an autocratic marketplace.
Fast forward; the facts are in and climate change has become accepted just like Protestantism as an alternate explanation for the byproducts of energy. Rather than actually contribute industry has done like it always did and painted environmentalists first as alarmists and kooks, then anti-americans with a secret communist agenda and now they're "globalizers" out to propagandize their views and infect the public. Interesting retort, explain to me just how the oil companies aren't following the same fear-based playbook to attempt to muddle and stall any intelligent debate about climate change? the summit was one area where the energy companies and their mouthpieces were not given equal position because just like the Catholic Church they'd proven their mindset of profits and power over serving the public. And the end result? nothing; why? Same as always, economics and fear of loss of quality of life. Thus if you really examine it, the propaganda of industry has wrongfully tainted the debate with bias, not environmentalism.
For one, the longest running institution in America aside from religion is industry. Industry has always resisted the words of anyone concerned with it's unfettered and dogmatic approach to the environment by using fear (communist, anti-american, etc.). This was very similar to the pope's use of fear to quell descent. Industry has always wrapped itself in the flag while making it's opponents the grist of communism. Industry has also threatened with the loss of quality of life for anyone who agrees with it's opponents on principle from actually doing anything to curb it's excesses. Now, just like Luther the complaints were nailed to the door so to speak with "Silent Spring". Industry was always able to make it's previous detractors (like Thoreau, Emerson, Muir) out to be kooks who's concerns were out of the reality of economics. Silent Spring was the first time real science was used to demonstrate rather dramatically the costs of industrial products and byproducts. Thus began the torrent of evidence against chemical manufacturers, cigarette manufacturers and on and on. Thus, actually environmentalism spoke truth to power, not the opposite.
Well first off, I'll give you credit. Of the conservative blogs I've read (including pundits) you're the only one I've seen present their arguments more in the old style of conservatism (picking and choosing from history to suit your current argument). Following your logic it would seem you're making an anti-capitalism argument, since planary indulgence was an example of eccliastical capitalism (absolution the product and the indulgences being the "market price" for finding absolution. In the context of your argument then Martin Luther actually represented Marx, anti-institutional, angry at capitalism's shameless and often pointless profiteering and excesses. Marx thought removing the ruling class would make each person individually free and having actual contribution of work determine earnings rather than assumptions and power would make for an equality-based society. In other words, I don't see how you can possibly equate anti-global warming zealots to Luther.