Vatican Hosts Conference With Pantheistic Theme

Stream: Vatican Hosts Conference With Pantheistic Theme

So the Vatican, under the auspices of its Pontifical Academy of Science, directed by Archbishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, is hosting another global warming soirée. The first was not a rousing success, seeing as it failed to stop the planet’s climate from changing.

But then, the planet’s climate has never, can never, and will never cease changing. No power on earth can ever stop climate change.

So don’t put too much hope in the new conference, “Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health“.

The title should shock you. Why? Because the planet cannot have “health”. It cannot therefore have a lack of health. Only living organisms can have health or suffer its deprivation. The planet is not a living organism. It is not an organism of any kind.

Our planet is a rock in space equipped with a coat of air, soil, and water in which some things live. We call this coating “nature” or “the environment”, of which we are not separate, but rather an intimate, part. The air and water is not itself alive. Scientists used to know this.

Return of the pantheists

Yet it is not surprising Archbishop Sorondo should choose an unscientific conference title which implies the false (and surely heretical) view that the earth is an organism. Why? Because one of his speakers is the pantheist Hans Schellnhuber, whom we have met before.

Perhaps overawed at being made a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for his services in frightening the population with exaggerated threats of doom, he now goes by “John”.

Our John believes the planet is alive, after a fashion. Being “alive”, he says the planet can suffer “syndromes”.

Can you guess what causes these “syndromes”?


The way to cure the earth’s sickness is thus obvious, at least to John. Eliminate the source of infection. About that goal, more in a moment.

Tipping points and UFOs

Our Johnny will speak on “Climate Change Extremes, Tipping Points and Health Risks”. A “tipping point” is a date before which if we do not “do something” we will be forever doomed (to suffer a changing climate). Many, many of these tipping points have come and gone, and surely we can expect many more.

Yet not unlike the cult that keeps advancing the date at which the UFO invasion force will arrive, the effectiveness of tipping points as warnings is beginning to diminish. Johnny might better serve science if he can instead speak on why he always looks like he’s been sucking on an unripe persimmon.


Gaia herself commands that you click and read the rest.

Diversity! Update (Now With More Diversity)

Do to a screw up by certain powers (me), the post I thought would run today won’t run until later. Meanwhile, given that there is nothing more important than Diversity, here is Diversity diversity diversity.


Diversity. Diversity, diversity diversity diversity diversity. Diversity?

Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity. Diversity diversity diversity diversity? Diversity diversity diversity diversity: diversity diversity diversity.

Diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity diversity. Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity. Diversity, diversity.

“Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity; diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity diversity.”


  1. Diversity, diversity.
  2. Diversity diversity diversity diversity.
    • Diversity?
    • Diversity: diversity.
  3. Diversity diversity diversity.
  4. Diversity.

Diversity diversity diversity—diversity? diversity!—diversity diversity diversity.


Diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity diversity. Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity. Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity; diversity diversity diversity, diversity diversity diversity.

Diversity diversity diversity diversity diversity chicken.

Update Diversity, diversity, diversity, diversity.

Should We Be Allowed To Euthanize Jerry Coyne?

Simplest way to do it is to ask Jerry to come over behind the barn for a little “digging party.” Tell him to bring a shovel.

We’ll say the hole has to be deep enough to fit all the corpses of those he has killed, people who suffered from “severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on” before he put them out of their misery.

When the hole is of sufficient size to fit Jerry and his fluffy white poodle (I don’t know he has one; I’m just assuming), we euthanize him using the same method he used to kill all those other people.

It’s for his own good. Anyway, it’s for my good.

Why? The reason is simple. Anybody who is so far gone as to ask with serious intent “Should one be allowed to euthanize severely deformed or doomed newborns?” is evincing signs of some severe mental incapacity. Euthanizing such individuals who “are doomed to a life that cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness” is thus a “merciful action”.

After all, “If you are allowed to abort a fetus”—and you are: hack away!—“then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?”

The logical point is obvious and indisputable. We ought to be able to euthanize any post-birth “fetus” that does not meet certain utilitarian criteria. Who decides those criteria?

I do.

Any utilitarian desiderata are by definition arbitrary, a fact known to all philosophers. Jerry and the corrupted soul he cites, Peter Singer, decide that “pain”, “suffering”, “quality of life” count in deciding who lives, who dies. Yet the purely materialistic universe which these to-be-euthanized fellows envision cannot and therefore does not decide that “pain” or happiness or even usefulness to some task is good or bad. Indeed, there is no good or bad; there is only prejudice. And when you come to it, pain and happiness are sentimentalist horse hooey. Man up.

Since all is prejudice, there is nothing to judge their utilitarian criteria superior to mine. I say mine is superior, and since I’m bigger, or at least meaner, than them, and most of you, what I say are the criteria for life worthiness will be the criteria.

“It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die,” and since we are all doomed to die, another eminent logical point, it makes little sense to keep alive anybody. But I’m a very tolerant man, and I like the company, so some people I’ll keep around for laughs. Until I tire of them.

That’s one criterion, then. My amusement. But don’t worry. I’m easily entertained. Bone up on your knock-knock jokes. (Who’s there? Atch. Atch who? Gesundheit!)

How should we kill those unworthy of life, those who not make the utilitarian cut? Jerry says, “I’ve heard from several doctors that humane euthanasia of adults is in fact practiced in the US: doctors will give patients an overdose of morphine to ease their suffering, knowing it will kill them.”

No, Jerry. Not “doctors”: executioners. Doctors try to save lives, not take them. Inability to use and understand simple English words, incidentally, is on the list. Non-humorous euphemism users will be among the first to be slipped the needle. By my executioners.

That we can now discuss killing the unfit openly is due to “a tide of increasing morality in our world”, says Jerry.

The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul…When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.

I always like to agree with Jerry when he’s right on point of logic, as he is here. We eliminate the metaphysics of religion leaving only the practicalities and arbitrariness of utilitarianism, and then it’s open season on killing anybody that doesn’t make the grade. Humans without religion are not special.

They are mere sacks of self-ambulatory flesh taking up space. Opposition to killing these flesh sacks must vanish if there is no religion to say “This is Right, This is Wrong”, as Jerry rightly says. There is no ultimate right and wrong in a purely utilitarian world, there is only bickering. One will say, “It’s obvious suffering can’t be allowed” and another will say, “It’s obvious suffering must be allowed.” And there is nothing to point to, save might, to say who is right.

But since this view, if held by many, will rapidly depopulate the planet, and since, as I said, I like the company, and my opinion is sovereign, Jerry cannot be allowed to preach his new morality. He’ll have to be euthanized. Bring your shovels.

In Celebration of Cult of Diversity, Google Sacrifices Employee

Stream: In Celebration of Cult of Diversity, Google Sacrifices Employee

Walk into Google’s headquarter’s and say, “Diversity is our strength.” Know what would happen?

A thousand identical unquestioning strident voices would echo “Diversity…Diversity…Diversity…” And then bots, preprogrammed monomaniacal cultic zombies, would roam the halls looking to administer pain to those who failed to amplify the call.

This isn’t surmise. It’s been tried, and it works.

The curious phenomenon was noted and experienced by Google’s now ex-employee James Damore, a gentleman with a many genuine intellectual accolades. And also a fellow without a job.

Did you get my memo?

Damore wrote an internal, never-meant-for-outside-eyes memo “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber“, in which he dared say “On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways”.

Now he might have got away with that, because those who worship at the cult of Diversity sometimes, but only sometimes and always with great reluctance, acknowledge men and women are biologically different.

It was what he said next that cut Damore’s own throat.

“These [biological] differences aren’t just socially constructed,” he said, “Because they’re universal across human cultures.”

The cult reacts

Well, that was it. One of the cult’s high priestess (former VP of Google, adviser to President Obama) Megan Smith said Damore’s remarks were “offensive.” She said Damore’s public admission that men and women are essentially different was a “microaggression.” She said Damore’s words were causing women and men “of color” to “suffer a death of a thousand paper-cuts.”

The low priests and (mostly) priestesses who suckle at the withered teats of the single-headed god Diversity went into their patented act. They screamed. They screeched. They claimed they were under siege. They said they were threatened. They called for blood. They demanded a sacrifice to appease the god.

The magic worked. Cowards fell before the barrage of fake tears and shallow outrage, frozen in fear as if struck by a thunderbolt from Heaven.

And so, in celebration and true worship of Diversity, Google fired Damore.

Irony for you and me

The irony in this fiasco is thick in the air.

In his memo, Damore said, “Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety”. Just so. After the memo leaked, many in and around Google claimed they felt unsafe because they were offended.


Diversity is a cult. Diversity is our weakness.

Unless you’re a Social Justice Warrior who faints at the sight of Truth, click here to read the rest.

Addendum Stuff that couldn’t fit in Stream article. My favorite is this: NPR: Women at Google were so upset over memo citing biological differences they skipped work.

Same thing happened to Larry Summers at Harvard. He suggested, tacitly, women are more emotional than men. Several women left his speech because emotions. They later condemned speech, in emotional terms, saying they disagreed women more emotional (on average).

Another: No, the Google manifesto isn’t sexist or anti-diversity. It’s science.

Quillette magazine tried a similar article but was DDoSed. Still down as I write this.

Now these are fine. Science blah blah. But they are utterly and completely unnecessary. All of mankind throughout all history knew men and women were different. They didn’t need “science” to show what was common knowledge. And we still don’t. We don’t need to encourage scientism, which is already at unsustainable levels, to coin a phrase.

Another: Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo.

WP blared, “A Google engineer said women may be genetically unsuited for tech jobs.” CNN, the liar of liars, “Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren’t biologically fit for tech jobs”.

The media lies, lies, lies, lies, then lies some more, the lies about the lies, then lies about that.