Vatican: A Sustainable Future Is Possible If We Implement Modern Socialist Rule

What else could the Vatican and Pope Francis be talking about? If you change governance, you’re getting rid of Democratically elected governments, and really implementing a Modern Socialist agenda, where you really do not have a choice of whom to vote for

Covid: a sustainable future is possible if governance changes

Marxism and SocialismPope Francis is certain of this and is repeating it to everyone: we will emerge either better or worse after the pandemic The global crisis requires that the parameters of human co-existence be rethought through the lens of solidarity. Based on this foundational idea, the “Covid-19: Building a Healthier Future” has been created in collaboration with the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, to offer a vision that might lead to the beginning of a new fraternity after the pandemic

It’s a question of perspective. Quarantined by the coronavirus, the world quarantined having had to suspend the evolution of its activities, wanting to recover a sense of direction needs to be careful that it takes the right path. Above all, there is no room to commit past errors. First among these is that of thinking that health is a consequence of economic growth. “Growth is the wrong goal. What we need to aim for is human development – sustainable human development”, states Janet Ranganathan, Vice-President of  Research, Data, and Innovation of World Resource Institute, one of the experts invited by Pope Francis as a member of the Vatican Covid-19 Commission. Ranganathan has an idea so that the poor will not be left pay the virus’s high costs: “One concrete first step would be for Pope Francis to convene a summit with other religious leaders and to form a virtuous Circle of Sustainability that keeps expanding until it envelopes the entire planet”.

So, the Vatican is going to give up its vast riches and all how it raises money?

If the international community were to take decisive action against the climate crisis, could it push the global economy toward growth?

R. – Growth is the wrong goal. What we need to aim for is human development – sustainable human development. That is what the UN SDGs call for. Too many governments have pursued economic growth, allowing it to become the “end” rather than the “means.” This has contributed to growing inequalities and degradation of the natural resource base that supports life on earth. Effective climate change action must be an integral part of efforts to rewire economies to deliver sustainable development. This requires a shift in focus to tackle the root causes of inequity and environmental degradation some of which I mentioned above – vested interests, overconsumption, lack of transparency and accountability, etc.

No growth, no earnings. Oh, right, all that money goes to Government. Funny how all the solutions go to big, controlling Government.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Vatican: A Sustainable Future Is Possible If We Implement Modern Socialist Rule”

  1. Hairy says:

    Teach you yourself went to a tax payer supported university
    Isn’t that “socialistic”
    Are you also against food stamps for kids ? That typo is socialism?
    What about state regulated power companies like Duke Power ?

  2. Est1950 says:

    The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that (FACEBOOK) the social media giant plans to limit the spread of viral content and lower the benchmark for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts using internal tools previously deployed in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

    Again, FB, GOOGLE and TWITTER posses way too much power over society and should be heavily regulated.

    They are being used to destabilize elections all over the world as I have previously said. Even Zuckerberg is starting to realize his company is Out of control.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      TEACH typed: Democratically elected governments

      Teach is behind the times, isn’t he boyz?

      So Facebook, Twitter and Google are too powerful? What happened to unfettered free markets? Now, so-called conservatives are advocated the government takeover or private industries.

      FOX, Sinclair Broadcasting and other conservative media companies refuse to run stories and pieces favorable to liberals. Should the government take them over, too?

      • formwiz says:

        So Facebook, Twitter and Google are too powerful? What happened to unfettered free markets? Now, so-called conservatives are advocated the government takeover or private industries.

        As always, you lie.

        Social media violates people’s 1st Amendment right. We know you think they are only for you, but, SURPRISE!!!!!!!!, they’re for everybody.

        FOX, Sinclair Broadcasting and other conservative media companies refuse to run stories and pieces favorable to liberals. Should the government take them over, too?

        Favorable or just lies?

        There is a difference, you know. You peddle lies.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          You must not understand our 1st Amendment. But we’re used to conservatives paying lip service to what they think is in the Constitution.

          Why do you and that other commenter think the government should determine what is in the media?

          You peddle ignorance.

          Anyway, for the first time, read the very simple First Amendment.

          “Amendment I
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

          What part of the Amendment gives the government to power to limit private businesses? Facebook is a private company and can decide what to allow, just as TEACH can. The internet is wide open, so every crackpot conspiracy tale you want can be found and spread. What you suggest is nationalization of the media, just like China, Russia or North Korea.

          • formwiz says:

            You must not understand our 1st Amendment. But we’re used to Conservatives paying lip service to what they think is in the Constitution.

            No, that’s your thing. Have any good penumbras lately?

            Why do you and that other commenter think the government should determine what is in the media?

            You peddle ignorance.

            No, you perpetuate it. And, if somebody enters into a contract with Facebarf, they have the right to have their stuff put up, regardless of political stance.

            There’s your 1st Amendment.

            What part of the Amendment gives the government to power to limit private businesses? Facebook is a private company and can decide what to allow, just as TEACH can. The internet is wide open, so every crackpot conspiracy tale you want can be found and spread. What you suggest is nationalization of the media, just like China, Russia or North Korea.

            Try again. You’re talking about Net Neutrality, Zippy’s scheme.

            The government does have the responsibility to enforce the law, which means contracts, and the issue is not limiting business, but to make it live up to its contracts, especially when the rights of it clients are being abused.

            And, clearly, I understand it better than you, especially the abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble part.

          • Iron Man says:

            Yeah, we pay lip service to the Constitution, while you assholes use the 1st to trash the 2nd.
            You lefties are so full of shit.

      • Kye says:

        If the Pedophile Communist Sympathizer and his BJ Whore win Jeff Zuckerberg will be the first Commissar of Information and Truth in America. Sure, private companies are not held in by the Constitution they refuse to recognize anyway.

        Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told the Journal that the company has “spent years building for safer, more secure elections,” and that their strategy is based on “lessons from previous elections, hired experts, and “new teams with experience across different areas to prepare for various scenarios.”

        Hang on. Why is it Facebook’s job to “build” what it determines to be “safer, more secure elections”? If Facebook is the arbiter of “safe and secure elections,” as it sees fit, who is the arbiter of Facebook? Mark Zuckerberg? Gimme a break.

        In a September 3 Facebook post, Zuckerberg wrote:
        “[W]ith Covid-19 affecting communities across the country, I’m concerned about the challenges people could face when voting. I’m also worried that with our nation so divided and election results potentially taking days or even weeks to be finalized, there could be an increased risk of civil unrest across the country.

        “This election is not going to be business as usual. We all have a responsibility to protect our democracy. That means helping people register and vote, clearing up confusion about how this election will work, and taking steps to reduce the chances of violence and unrest.

        “Today, we’re announcing additional steps we’re taking at Facebook to encourage voting, connect people with authoritative information, and fight misinformation. These changes reflect what we’ve learned from our elections work over the past four years and the conversations we’ve had with voting rights experts and our civil rights auditors.”

        • Est1950 says:

          Facebook hired communist censors from CHINA to help them censor information because CHINA does such a great job at it.

          Is that scary or what.

          Wait you don’t believe me Elwood?

          A recent report from the New York Post claims that Facebook has hired Chinese nationals who are “working on censorship,” at the company. China famously employs the “Great Chinese Firewall” to block many websites within the communist country, including Facebook.

          What you need to know about this is if you GOOGLE this article it comes at the top of the page for GOOGLE and has the first three pages of this article. Now why would GOOGLE do that if it wasnt true? GOOGLE has an agenda just like FB and TWITTER.

          If they don’t like something, believe it is false it is buried on page 20 of results.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            1950,

            I believe little I read here without solid backup information. It’s been my experience that many commenters here don’t use primary sources and take the word of sites such as Gateway and Breitbart or worse as reference.

            The Chinese communists block Facebook? But isn’t Facebook run by communists? That’s confusing.

            Kye,

            Why do you call VP Biden a “pedophile” and Senator Harris a “whore”? Is it your general lack of class and decency, i.e., a pig?

            Trump has been accused of raping a 13 yr old girl, and there are pictures of him fondling his teenage daughter, Ivanka. Melania used to undress for money and wouldn’t you think she had sex with men (and women) while unmarried.

  3. Est1950 says:

    What happened to unfettered free markets? Now, so-called conservatives are advocated the government takeover or private industries.

    It still holds true today in conservative circles. What you miss with the Fox and Sinclair situation is that they are competition to a monopolistic press.

    In FB’s situation who is the competition? No one.

    Google and YouTube? No one.

    Twitter? No one.

    When there is no competition then the free markets do not work and capitalism fails. Funny how you would defend the ultimate failure of capitalism though.

    The only real solution is to make them all publishers. Held accountable for the content on their sites, because in reality that is what they are now. Censoring the president of the USA is akin to being a publisher and as such they must be willing to bear the consequences of litigation for their published material.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Are “publishers” required to print every thing they receive? So Facebook could be sued for what they “don’t” publish?

      You’re correct that Facebook outgunned all the competition and could be called a monopoly, although people can still communicate without Facebook.

      Should Trump use the Sherman Act to break up Facebook, much as Reagan did AT&T?

      • formwiz says:

        Are “publishers” required to print every thing they receive? So Facebook could be sued for what they “don’t” publish?

        that’s what’s about to be adjudicated.

        You’re correct that Facebook outgunned all the competition and could be called a monopoly, although people can still communicate without Facebook.

        But not as effectively.

        Should Trump use the Sherman Act to break up Facebook, much as Reagan did AT&T?

        Sounds good to me.

        And it was Bucketmouth, jerkoff, not Reagan.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Recall it was Rimjob who insisted for weeks that Reagan invaded Panama.
          (Maybe before your time)
          It was around the same time he lied about joining the Army.

          Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            I remember Panama well. I was flying to Utah to see my firstborn nephew that day.

            I also remember Grenada, which Reagan did invade.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          You’re right…. The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982… after Jimmy Carter took office for his third term. The proceedings started back in 1974 during President Carter’s first term.

    • Dana says:

      Twitter does have competition with Parler, but, to be perfectly honest, Parler isn’t very good.

      • Est1950 says:

        Google has competition with BING, AWS, YAHOO etc. But they have all decried the fact that GOOGLE did exactly….EXACTLY what Microsoft did that caused them to be sued by the entire EU.

        That is they would embed in their Microsoft OS or operating system their own Browser making it extremely difficult for competing browsers to gain a foothold in the market. They lost that lawsuit and rather than fight another costly and losing lawsuit in many countries around the world they agreed to remove their browser from the OS. The problem is they had to have some way to get online so a browser was allowed to be in the OS when shipped but it could easily be removed and the other Browsers such as CHROME, Firefox, Opera, TOS etc could be easily installed.

        Google now arrives even on APPLE I PHONES. IF you try to change your search engine in some browsers it defaults back to GOOGLE. If you buy software that uses browser helpers, it defaults to GOOGLE. MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES.

        GOOGLE has the android OS. Much as Microsoft has windows. Windows was forced to relinquish their own browser and GOOGLE will be forced to relinquish their search engine in the future to allow YAHOO, BING, AWS, ASK, ANSWER etc. to compete.

        THIS is why GOOGLE is facing ANTI-TRUST. FB and TWITTER are a different animal and anyone who thinks a private firm should have more power over the direction of any country than state, local and national governments, churches and culutural norms must remember that FB and TWITTER are actively effecting the outcomes of ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD AND NOT JUST IN THE USA.

        This is extremely dangerous and if you have people with an agenda doing this then they are effectively using a platform unimpeded to bring about change that only a certain percentage of the world would agree with.

        It is why I advocate for NON censorship and free Speech.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8480 access attempts in the last 7 days.