Pope Francis

Pope Francis and Naomi Klein Both Hate Free Markets, Technological Progress, and Economic Growth

This coalition of the secular left and the religious left bodes ill for the poor and the climate.

|

NaomiKleinBook
nuclear-net

Last week, Pope Francis issued his new encyclical Laudato Si' (Praise be to you, my Lord) in which he addresses the problem of man-made climate change. Unfortunately, the encyclical makes it clear that the Pope completely fails to understand how the spread free markets yielded the technological and economic progress that has lifted billions out of humanity's natural state of abject poverty. Global life expectancy has more than doubled over the past century; the amount of food per capita has never been higher; literacy has never been more widespread; and the level of violence never lower. Nearly all of these improving trends can be traced to the spread of sweet commerce.

In Laudato Si' the Pope strongly urges that markets and technology be reined in. Instead of creating more wealth, the Pope would prefer to redistribute it. Now, in a not-so-strange-bedfellow alliance, Pope Francis has invited prominent hater of free markets Naomi Klein to advise him and the Vatican on economic and climate policy. In her 2014 screed, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Klein asserted that climate science has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever. She added that progressive values and policies are "currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature."

Regarding her upcoming visit to the Vatican, Klein told The Guardian:

"The fact that they invited me indicates they're not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he's wrong on the economics. I think he's right on the economics," she said, referring to Pope Francis's recent publication of an encyclical on the environment.

As I noted in my review of Klein's book:

Klein acidly dismisses reliance on science, technology, and markets to address the problems of climate change as embodying the attitude that "We will triumph in the end because triumphing is what we do." Well, yes. And that's a much better bet than imagining the laws of nature mandate a post-capitalist utopia.

Alas, Klein should be right at home in in Pope Francis' Vatican. Sadly, this nascent coalition between the secular left and the religious left will help neither the poor or the climate.

Perhaps I should send the Pope a copy of my new book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century (St. Martin's Press, July 21).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

151 responses to “Pope Francis and Naomi Klein Both Hate Free Markets, Technological Progress, and Economic Growth

  1. We will triumph in the end because triumphing is what we do.

    #likeaboss

    1. Past success is not an indicator of future results. It’s possible we could fuck things up beyond our ability to adapt.

      On some level, it comes down to faith: do you have faith that people can overcome, through ingenuity and cooperation, the challenges we may face in the future?

      It’s sad that the Pope, who believes that human beings are made in the image of God, apparently thinks the answer is no.

      I look at the least 6000 or so years of recorded human civilization, and especially the last 500, and especially especially the last 150 or so, and I think the answer is a resounding yes.

      1. Well, the Bible teaches what happens when people try to have too much ingenuity and cooperation. Being made in the image of God doesn’t mean God can’t fuck your shit up if you piss him off.

        1. As a kid I used to wonder how tall the Tower of Babel must have been for it to have bothered God. Certainly it demonstrates a Biblical basis to the idea that the humanity God created could, if united, accomplish amazing feats of engineering among other things.

          1. 10 stories. That’s about the limit with the construction materials available at the time.

          2. God was just a dick back then. He’s done a lot of growing up since.

          3. god destroying the tower of babel had nothing to do with them actually getting close to god but that they thought they could be close to god just by building a tower. Pride always goeth before the fall.

            1. But Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. Jehovah said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So Jehovah scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

              What an a-hole Jehovah was. Good thing he’s dead.

              1. “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

                Celebrate diversity!

    2. We will act like we give a shit because acting like we give a shit is what we do.

  2. Sadly, this nascent coalition between the secular left and the religious left will help neither the poor or the climate.

    There’s nothing secular about the Church of Owlgor.

    1. I’ll gladly take the heaps of scorn for being a huge nerd when I say this.

      Thanks for giving me a great idea for a new D&D monster.

      1. On the moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with moon rocks.

        1. That’s harsh.

          1. She is a harsh mistress

        2. +1 Err

    2. I’m pretty sure Klein is not primarily motivated by a desire to help the poor.

      1. Of course she is! Who do you think will be hurt the most by climate change? The poor! Who do you think the evil corporations systematically robbing? The poor! Of course she is primarily motivated by a desire to help the poor! How dare you insult her good intentions! You must be a denier and a wealth apologist! Why do you lick the corporate boot that is holding you down?!?!

        Aaaauuuggghhhh!

        1. Busted – my evilness has been exposed!

          I take back everything I said about Naomi Klein being motivated by wanting to be saluted by her fellow leftists and by wanting to feel good about herself.

          1. It’s a package deal. They can think they’re helping the poor and thus feel good about themselves.

      2. Maybe she just wants to get it on with the Pope. I’m sure she’s turned on by the Pope’s manly embrace of tyranny.

  3. Somebody linked to this article over the weekend

    The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested — or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas

    Climate Science, meet Economics

    1. I did.

      1. Thanks for that, good article

        1. And NAS & LG didn’t even leave you a hat tip. Ungrateful wretches!

  4. I think they’d be better served with a copy of Ridley’s Rational Optimist.

    1. NAS: See my interview with Ridley about the book.

      I will also note that Ridley generously blurbed The End of Doom: “Ronald Bailey sets out factually and simply the unassailable, if inconvenient, truth: that if you care for this planet, technological progress and economic enterprise are the best means of saving it.”

      1. Ridley’s book has been out for 5 years. Just sayin’.

  5. There’s a reason we elect popes with gray hair. We don’t want the bad ones to be around long enough to do real damage.

  6. Great, now Klein will never go away.

  7. Global life expectancy has more than doubled over the past century; the amount of food per capita has never been higher; literacy has never been more widespread; and the level of violence never lower. Nearly all of these improving trends can be traced to the spread of sweet commerce.

    All true.

    Poor people are fatter and yet still live longer than ever before.

    And for you Peanuts governments are less evil than any time in the last 150 years.

    Both teams get things wrong.

    1. Peanuts? Like the Charlie Brown gang or like Planter’s?

      1. Obviously the one with the monocle and top hat.

      2. A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle.[

        Wikipedia

        1. That’s great, Tulpy-Poo. Did you come up with that all on your own? How many hours did it take you? Or is days a better metric?

          1. I copied it from Wikipedia.

            1. Holy Christ you’re stupid. That isn’t just missing the joke, that’s not even being in the same dimension as it. That’s so, so fitting of you.

        2. And throw peanuts at the stage, hence the nickname.

        3. It’s always funny when the circus geek thinks it’s being clever.

    2. And for you Peanuts governments are less evil than any time in the last 150 years.

      That bar’s so low, even Barbados Slim couldn’t clear it.

  8. I thought Progressives wanted a separation of church and state. Now they want us to take policy cues from the Vatican? I haz a confuzed

    1. The Catholic Church is a massive financial institution specializing in redistribution while skimming off the top. Klein is going to fit right in.

    2. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives has only one principle; they should be running things. All other positions are subject to shift without notice if it will help the cause in the short term. Thankfully, most LIRPs are too self absorbed – not to say stupid – to look at the long term, so they keep revising themselves in potentially embarrassing ways.

  9. Klein asserted that climate science has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.

    Not that I expected anything else, but it bothers me that she’s very obviously seeking evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. If “climate change” (bogus as it is) led her to come out against “unfettered” (ha) capitalism, hey, that’s fine. You’re wrong, but at least you made a conclusion based on evidence. That’s not what’s happening here.

    1. Well, conservatives seek evidence to support their predetermined conclusions that Creationism is valid (sorry, Intelligent Design) and that carbon pollution is not real.

      1. Yes – nothing justifies willful ignorance like someone else’s willful ignorance.

        1. Don’t be too hard on it, tu quoque is all it has.

      2. Try living on an Earth with no carbon. Being nothing more than a poorly wrtten ELIZA, you would be left talking to yourself.

        1. Being nothing more than a poorly wrtten ELIZA, you would be left talking to yourself.

          If you recognize this, why do you keep interacting with it?

          1. Team Red Defense Squad leaps into action!

            1. Wow, tarran must be the first anarchist member of TRDS.

            2. Ad hominem for the win!

            3. Palin’s Buttplug, I hate you and you aren’t funny, your not even a good troll. If I saw you on the street I’d kick your nuts right up into your keyboard warrior throat, fucking idiot.

          2. Maybe he thinks he can pull one of those 1960s TV show man outwits computer and it becomes stuttering wreck with smoke pouring out of it (like Captain Kirk and the probe that thought he was “the Kirk, the creator” or “Number 6″ and the computer he slagged by asking it a single word question…”why?”) …come to think of it, he just may have done so!

            1. The first Priceline commercial William Shatner did had him talking about this super-computer that would help customers books the best flights and hotels. My reaction was “Keep that man away from that computer!”

              Remember M5? Nomad? Landru? A planet where they had a computer simulated war and they had people voluntarily walking into disintegration chambers to make the simulated casualties real? Two whole planets of androids? He even made the Enterprise ship’s computer cry once!

          3. I thought my comment had an elegant twist otherwise I probably wouldn’t have bothered.

            1. It *was* elegantly phrased.

              Ordinarily I scroll without paying attention past threadlets where Shriek is harvesting responses from the humans it keeps in its thrall, but your beautiful turn of phrase leapt out at me and seized my attention.

      3. There are not really very many creationists. Anyone who’s studied Genesis closely knows that there are actually three creation stories and they are all allegorical/metaphorical. So take your strawman back.

    2. It’s hardly surprising. The progs would do anything to force us into their Socialist Worker’s Utopia. That doesn’t just mean hatred of wealthy CEOs; they’ve long hated privately owned automobiles, free standing single-family homes, basically anything that gets us out from under their authoritarian thumbs.

    3. This is Klein’s second (or third) run at trying to get the holy ‘most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism’. Her last attempt, the Shock Doctrine, was literally just taking every anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the 19th century and replacing ‘Jews/Zionists’ with ‘neoconservatives/neoliberals’.

      “The neoconservatives/Jews control everything! They manufacture disasters to increase their influence over governments!”

  10. Naomi Klein is a perfect example of someone who starts with a conclusion (capitalism is bad, mmmkay?) and then throws as much shit on the wall as possible to see what sticks.

    Does anyone important take her seriously? All her arguments are laughably bad and full of errors and outright lies.

    1. Yeah, but they feel right as long as you don’t think about it.

    2. Pope is pretty important, unless you are counting divisions, and he’s taking her seriously, so, yes.

      1. In their defense, it isn’t a lie if you truly believe it (or have some centuries old encyclical to fall back on)

      2. if I was was pope, the first thing I would do is raise a division. The second thing would be to have a bathroom constructed in the woods.

        1. Well, if I were a cardinal, you’d have my vote!

    3. But she’s hot! (Though not as hot as the other crazy leftist Naomi, Naomi Wolf.)

  11. Someone needs to tell the pope that Jonathan Edwards already wrote “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Climate change and income disparity is nothing but the modern hell by which the church seeks to scare people into following its edicts and submitting to its control. By getting into bed with the left, it’s essentially sleeping with itself.

  12. Ignorant arrogance.

    The pope is entering dangerous waters. Unless global temps begin to rise again, CAGW is going to meet a well deserved comeuppance and this pope will lose significant credibility in the west. Yes, I know that the choir will continue to sing the same song only louder, but the average person on the street will become increasingly sceptical if temps don’t rise. American Catholics will move further away from the Vatican if he hitches his credibility to a discredited scientific theory.

    1. Unless global temps begin to rise again, CAGW is going to meet a well deserved comeuppance and this pope will lose significant credibility in the west.

      Nope. Last I checked they are admitting that that continuous nuclear explosion around which we orbit may not be giving us a constant supply of warming energy as they assume in the infallible computer models. It is having a temporary lull. But global warming is still happening. So when the constant nuclear explosion gets back to normal levels, then the climate will rebound, like a step on a staircase. And it will be catastrophic. So we must act now to prevent the impending doom. Doooooom. Doooooooooooooooooom. Doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom.

      1. I thought they claimed that solar cycles had an insignificant effect on global temperature. So, I guess solar output contributes to cooling but not to warming?

        1. I’m just repeating what I heard on NPR a few months ago.

    2. Temps are almost certain to rise. The CAGW has no compunction about manipulating the data to obtain the desired result. They will revise temperatures of the past downwards as necessary.

      1. CAGW = Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming

    3. Hyperbolical (wadair)|6.29.15 @ 12:35PM|#
      “[…]Unless global temps begin to rise again, CAGW is going to meet a well deserved comeuppance and this pope will lose significant credibility in the west.[…]”

      That charlatan Ehrlich begs to differ.

  13. The thing about Klein and folks like her is that they are always quick to try and demonize capitalism in ways that the evidence doesn’t support, yet they never offer alternatives.

    What’s so uniquely disingenuous about this is that they know that the only real alternative to free markets that’s been tried on a large enough scale is communism, which failed on such a massive scale that there is no real defense of it.

    I would take her and her ilk more seriously if they attempted to either live without capitalism or at least propose realistic attempts at centralized economies of scale.

    Instead you get Klein selling books on the free market that are diatribes against the free market.

    1. something, something selling rope something hang themselves?

    2. I should also note that Klein does not seem to have a problem with severely overcharging for her books, especially here in Canada. What a partner in the socialist cause.

  14. While sadly I haven’t yet read the encyclical cover to cover, thanks to Sandro Magister I find this gem, which Reason should at least acknowledge:

    “There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.”

    http://chiesa.espresso.repubbl…..1072?eng=y

    Pope Francis is no Urban VIII.

    1. So while His Holiness chats with loonies like Klein, faithful Catholics should be able to advocate rule-of-law solutions, market solutions, and civil society solutions to the problems the encyclical identifies.

      1. Do you think the pope wants to solve CAGW, or is he–like other leftists–just using it as an excuse to rid the world of capitalism?

        1. It’s just another sin to be flogged from humanity like usury.

        2. Hyperbolical,

          I think that His Holiness says what he means and means what he says. As his press people have discovered to their embarrassment.

          So…he’s worried about poor people drinking polluted water, he’s worried about manmade climate change (poor people hardest hit), he’s worried about people throwing away all that waste…

          If he is to be weaned from the Kleins of the world, the way to do it is through improving things with property rights. For instance, poisoned water violates the property rights of the poor people onto whose land the poisoned water comes. Find a way to make poor people less poisoned by the application of free-market solutions, and I bet the Pope will be impressed.

          1. Find a way to make poor people less poisoned by the application of free-market solutions, and I bet the Pope will be impressed.

            As someone mentioned above, he should read Matt Ridley’s books, and http://HumanProgress.org

            1. He answers letters from atheists, he has audiences with all an sundry, the free-marketers should get some time to go and impress him with the great results of free-market solutions. With a special focus on the poor.

              1. If he doesn’t realize that more people have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last 150 years than in the previous 1500 and that it is largely due to free market capitalism, at what point do we entertain the notion that he is being willfully blind?

              2. But leftists are not concerned about the poor. They’re envious of the successful. The pope should not encourage them.

              3. The have tried and failed. His Holiness does not meet with all and sundry. He meets with all and sundry except for advocates of the free market.

                http://blog.heartland.org/2015…..onference/

        3. This Pope? Oh, he just wants an excuse to rid the world of capitalism.

    2. “But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate…”

      So much so that his own cardinals banned the attendance of anyone with a thought or position contrary to anthropogenic global warming.

    3. True, His Holiness did write that in Laudato Si.

      However, the entire document rests upon the assertions that “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods” AND “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”

      This consensus is NOT to be challenged.

      1. Cato – Well, it’s nice that the ClimateProgs can get official writs and judgments of Heresy! now.

        Maybe there will be a new Malleus Maleficarum?

  15. Glad to hear her admit it – climate change is just the latest weapon to use against economic freedom. “Fairness”, efficiency, and all the other original communist propaganda has been proven completely false.

    So let’s take an unproven scientific hypothesis turn it into an article of faith, and use to implement a command and control economy with the right people in charge.

    1. Unproven? There’s a consensus! A consensus I tell you! And those scientists are like really smart and stuff, so it must be true!

  16. The simple fact is that His Holiness loves the poor, and wishes to make us all poor so that he can love us, too.

    Of course the Pope knows nothing of economics. “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” (Rothbard)

    1. Well, everything he knows about economics he learned in Argentina…

      1. Of course he does—Argentina is hard core Socialist and poor

        1. I thought it was where the Peronists had proven how well socialism works?

        2. From the mid-19th Century until the end of the 20th Century, Marxists argued that socialism would bring wealth to the working class. In practice, they discovered that socialism brought about universal poverty for the working class.

          Environmentalism was invented to explain to the masses that universal poverty is a feature, not a bug, of socialism.

          Laudato si is replete with examples of how the widespread wealth generated by a system of private property, free markets, and profits is destroying the planet. In his encyclical, His Holiness is particularly criticizes the widespread use of air conditioning (55), chemical products in cities and agriculture (21, 29), disposable consumer products (22), and private cars (153).

          1. Of course, we cannot support 7B people without modern agriculture and the chemicals it requires. So, I suppose the Catholic church will decide who gets to live and who must be sacrificed for the good of Lady Gaia?

    2. For crying out loud, just show him some poor people whose lives have been improved by, say, giving the right to sue polluters who poison their water. There’s your free-market solution right there.

      He’s not so blinded by ideology as not to see concrete results.

      And if poor people aren’t currently enjoying the right to sue their polluters, make sure they have such a right. Don’t simply defend the status quo which doesn’t even properly recognize property rights.

      1. He’s not so blinded by ideology as not to see concrete results.

        Huge citation needed

        1. Yeah it really doesn’t surprise me that Eddie’s willing to bend over backwards to present the Pope as a reasonable figure who can be convinced to renege on his advocacy despite all evidence against it.

      2. … just show him some poor people whose lives have been improved…

        He could just look at a history book.

        The default situation for humans, and all animals, is poverty. Only expanding innovation, and trade, has brought us out of poverty such that we are not as threatened by weather, drought and war as our forbearers were. The solution for most of the poverty is to fix broken governments that prevent the poor from taking advantage of the innovative solutions to human poverty that have been developed over the past 10,000 years.

        1. Hyperbolical – And this is why the gov’ts and power institutions right now are in a mad rush to cement things like climate change economic models and destroy things like free speech and private property – the poor getting their hands on the goodies, essentially.

          The rulers see this and are doing everything they can to squish it to maintain their own power base. The rulers want to prevent the poor from getting technology, land, wealth, etc.

      3. No offense, but you really sound like a battered wife here.

        If the pope had even a modicum of intellectual curiosity (and I have no reason to assume he doesn’t), he’d have run across the evidence of this already. Especially given that he’s making major pronouncements about the topic. The much more plausible alternative is that he’s ignoring the evidence in favor of a pre-ordained conclusion.

        1. Especially after releasing Laudato si. Yes, it’s full of climate change advocacy here, but he also pretty heavily complains about materialism and the use of wealth. That’s the really bizarre thing about it, he’s arguing that he’s trying to help the poor, then starts arguing that that wealth itself is poorly utilized and leads to moral degeneracy. “I want to help people but people can’t be trusted to make their own choices’. It’s very ‘have your cake and eat it too’ and it pretty clearly shows the Pope is not really a consistent thinker.

          1. “he also pretty heavily complains about materialism and the use of wealth.”

            Of all the things to criticize the Pope for, the fact that he’s against materialism and the idolatry of money gets your goat?

            This is pretty standard stuff – do not lay up treasures on earth, etc.

            The question is whether he wants the government to bestow the blessings of poverty on you against your will, and believe it or not, I don’t think he actually wants to do this.

            He would like rich people – and rich *countries* – to step up to the plate and help the poor – to take just one example, to clean up their drinking water, which is one matter, at least, where you guy’s can’t criticize him.

            But I think he’s less anti-rich than, say, President Eisenhower – ask about the tax rates under *his* administration.

            1. I’m pointing out that your belief that the Pope would be convinced by free market advocates borders on delusion. His anti-materialism arguments are not just simple ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’. He actively complains about technological innovations that improve people’s lives Eddie. When you’re proclaiming that you’re all about improving the poor’s lives, then go on a tangent about the evils of air conditioning, you’re full of shit.

              1. And this is, of course, ignoring the fact that the Pope is pretty much unwilling to admit that for his climate change advocacy to ‘help the poor’ would require the poor to stay where they are, and consume even less resources. So forgive me if I don’t think he’d be convinced by people showing how capitalism helps the poor when he can’t even understand what his own advocacy entails.

        2. “you really sound like a battered wife here.”

          He’s a lefty, he likes Naomy Klein and Piketty. He also made clear he’s not imposing particular scientific and ideological hypotheses and programs on the faithful. He’s left his successor(s) free to draw in the insights of the free-market crowd.

          Of course, he called on the faithful to watch their consumption. which seems fair if it’s voluntary. And if consumption actually results in polluting the air and water, that’s an “externality” which justifies limiting consumption by law. But only the extent required by the situation.

  17. Is it because I am in France, or is commenting being shitty today?

    On an almost sort of climate related note, it’s fucking hot here. Supposed to be 100 degrees every day this week. I’m mostly working, but I was hoping to go do something while I am here. It’s not too humid, but I don’t do well in this weather. I wonder if another 20,000 old people will die this week.

    1. Bug or a feature?

    2. They’re punishing you for not using the French-centric search engine.

  18. Is Klein really stupid enough not to realize that her own position is exactly the same as “We will triumph in the end because triumphing is what we do”? Just because her ‘triumph’ involves radically changing society to fit her views and placating the nature spirits doesn’t fundamentally change that her base attitude is exactly the same as the people she criticizes.

  19. Pope Francis has invited prominent hater of free markets Naomi Klein to advise him and the Vatican on economic and climate policy.

    Well I just vomited up my lunch.

  20. I’m a Catholic and this Pope is starting to distress me more and more. There are ways in which he is a breath of fresh air, but as with many emoting love-the-poor progressives, his critical thinking is overwhelmed by hazy good feelings of doing the right thing.

    * I do not own a woodchipper

  21. Naomi Klein always dresses very well, and always looks very well put together. Expensively put together. I don’t get a 99% feeling when I look at her.

    1. She’s a champagne socialist. Probably has daddy issues?

      Like all loud socialists, she’s one of the 1%, as she would term it.

      And like all 1%er Socialists, her goal is probably just to make sure those foolish peasants don’t get the rulers’ wealths and properties. She’s an intellectual buffoon and charlatan who wants to be a Lenin puppet. Her looks are not deceiving at all 🙂

    2. This is a woman who was once asked what she liked about capitalism, and said ‘the shoes’. She’s just your typical completely hypocritical anti-capitalist.

      1. John – Haha, that’s more likely. She got into the socialism because of the cool posters and colors. I may have given her too much intellectual credit.

        1. Her parents were hardcore full-blown Marxists apparently

          1. And quite wealthy, I’m guessing.

            1. What is it about Marxist’s kids they never rebel against the parents? Is it the money’s too good?

              And yeah, she’s wealthy. Like a lot of socialists…

  22. I’d say Mr. Francis Papa is a fairly conservative pope in that he adheres to the late medieval Catholic church as primarily a political force, rather than Vatican II’s “spiritual” stance. In that, Pope Francis would, unlike John Paul II, gladly uphold people like Mussolini and Stalin for his own purposes. Unlike the popes who reigned during the totalitarian era (Pius XI and XII), who at least verbally upheld private property and tried to help the victims of fascism (they did have to crony up, however…), Francis would probably hand people over to Stalin and say private property is EVUHL.

    Francis has proclaimed himself a socialist, so the latter wouldn’t be far off.

    He is not some courageous leader; instead, he is a vacillating power monger like Alexander Borgia. Inviting the likes of Naomi Klein, who wishes to be new Socialist Royalty and seeks to destroy private property, enterprise, and separation of state and ideology/religion, only makes sense. Francis is the sort of Pope who would have burned as many Protestants as possible, and would do so now.

    1. MORE: Historically, the capitalist and technological revolutions happened when the countries of Europe divorced themselves of the Catholic church. The Protestant Reformation coincided and helped further things like widespread literacy, class mobility, income/property redistribution (in the spontaneous way, where peasants bought land), and so on. Now, it’s not the only factor, but the early Modern Church was not pleased with things like advanced rudder technology or the telescope. Francis is a 17th century pope, nothing less. So this comes as no surprise.

  23. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  24. A completely voluntary, free-market society is God’s will. How do I know that? Because God told me.

  25. OT: I just skimmed that website you link to in your handle. Wow, just wow.

      1. Yeah, sorry, thread-fail.

        1. It’s all right – and thanks! Don’t know if I’ve ever gotten a wow before!

  26. I see Ms. Klein has moved on from disaster capitalism to disaster papism.

  27. Klein asserted that climate science has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.

    Too bad that, in general, most voters don’t even care.

    They’re more interested in the “Unfettered capitalism doesn’t give me free shit” arguments against unfettered capitalism.

    1. Also, that unfettered capitalism gives the economic elite a bunch of free shit (like the ability to pollute for free.)

  28. So eco-socialism has co-opted another major institution. Of course there will enormous push back but the damage has already been done. Between this and the recent supreme court decisions I am not sure that much of western society can survive.

  29. Unfortunately, the encyclical makes it clear that the Pope completely fails to understand how the spread free markets yielded the technological and economic progress that has lifted billions out of humanity’s natural state of abject poverty.

    What a shock that a man who sits at the head of the hierarchy of the largest Christian church in the world isn’t down with decentralization and free markets.

  30. It’s great news for fans of Juan and Eva Peron.

  31. The Climate will do what she wishes irrespective of Man’s futile wishes, desires, or efforts.

  32. Maybe the Pope should send you a copy of the Bible, Ronald.

    Come to think of it, both books will probably fall on 2 sets of deaf ears. Save your postage.

  33. By the way, I might add that it’s a fairly shallow reading you’ve given him if you think he doesn’t give full dibs to technology.

    “Humanity has entered a new era in which our technical prowess has brought us to a crossroads. We are the beneficiaries of two centuries of enormous waves of change: steam engines, railways, the telegraph, electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, chemical industries, modern medicine, information technology and, more recently, the digital revolution, robotics, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. It is right to rejoice in these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us, for “science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given human creativity”.[8

  34. By the way, I might add that it’s a fairly shallow reading you’ve given him if you think he doesn’t give full dibs to technology.

    “Humanity has entered a new era in which our technical prowess has brought us to a crossroads. We are the beneficiaries of two centuries of enormous waves of change: steam engines, railways, the telegraph, electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, chemical industries, modern medicine, information technology and, more recently, the digital revolution, robotics, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. It is right to rejoice in these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us, for “science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given human creativity”.[8

    1. What he calls isn’t a rejection of technology, but rather a better understanding that tech in and of itself isn’t the answer…that humans need to take responsibility for solving our problems, rather than waiting for the cavalry to ride in to the rescue. Kind of a liberttarian principle.

  35. I guess the 9th commandment has been downgraded to a suggestion.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..O2gmURL_cg

  36. So a dumb, control freak, cunt tool bitch is advising a senile, old man who thinks he talks to God? Brilliant, whats next? Checking his holy stools to see how church policy is going to be set? That “Encyclical” sure seemed like it.

  37. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  38. First of all, AGW is nothing more than outright junk-science fraud, and you’re a moron if you think it is real Bailey.

    Secondly, the dumbass pope doesn’t “fail to understand” anything. He’s a fucking communist you pinhead and so is that stupid cunt Naomi Klein.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.