They’re Trying to Silence Us: The G20’s War on Climate Skepticism

Article by Charles Rotter.

Excerpts (more links in the original):

In yet another chilling example of Orwellian overreach, the G20 Summit in Brazil has unveiled a new international effort to stifle dissent under the banner of “fighting disinformation.” This latest scheme, dubbed the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, is spearheaded by the United Nations and UNESCO. With a financial war chest provided by nations like the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden, this initiative isn’t about “truth” or “science”—it’s about control.

According to their public statements, the Initiative seeks to fund nonprofits for “research” and “public awareness campaigns.” They’re also creating what they call an “international research network” to identify and suppress so-called disinformation. In other words, they’re building an apparatus to label opposing viewpoints as dangerous lies and to justify censoring them into oblivion.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with his characteristic paternalism, declared disinformation a threat to climate action and even democracy itself. The not-so-subtle subtext? If you dare question their dogma, you’re the problem.

 “We must also take on climate disinformation,” Guterres said. “Our climate is at a breaking point.”

This isn’t the first time climate skeptics have been targeted. As far back as 2010, Google began manipulating search results to demote skeptical voices. A French study highlighted how skeptics dominated online search rankings at the time, leading to a concerted effort to bury their views beneath mountains of alarmist propaganda. Blogs like Pensée Unique and works by Claude Allègre drew enough attention to provoke the ire of the establishment.

The global elites are terrified of one thing: losing control. Despite decades of propaganda, public skepticism about catastrophic climate change has grown. Every failed prediction—from the “ice-free Arctic” to collapsing polar bear populations—chips away at their credibility. And with each new report showing the astronomical costs of Net Zero policies, more people are asking whether the so-called cure is worse than the disease.

Rather than answer these legitimate questions, the climate establishment resorts to silencing its critics. They know their models are flawed, their data cherry-picked, and their policy prescriptions ruinous. Yet instead of reevaluating their position, they double down on censorship.

Make no mistake: this is a battle for the soul of free inquiry. If the climate alarmists succeed in silencing dissent, the consequences will extend far beyond climate policy. The precedent being set is clear: disagree with the elite consensus, and you will be erased.

How 1936 Consolidated the Progressives’ Triumph in 1913

Article by Gary North.

Excerpts:

Until the myth of Keynes and the myth of Franklin Roosevelt, which are closely entwined, are refuted in a series of comprehensive, scholarly materials, and then translated into materials accessible to the general public, and rhetorically effective among bright high school students who are in homeschool programs, we will remain on the receiving end of the Establishment’s overwhelming control of the media and academia. The World Wide Web offers a way to get around both of these Establishment operations, but in these two fundamental areas of American history — the New Deal and Keynes’s original introduction to Keynesianism — we have not yet begun to fight.

The intellectual battles over the New Deal and Keynes were part of a continuing war. Conservatives and libertarians lost both in 1936, but not because of their lack of theory. Mises had provided the basis of the answer in 1912 with The Theory of Money and Credit. Hayek also had the foundation: Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (1933). But neither of them sat down in 1936 to write definitive answers to Keynes. Neither of them ever did. Mises wrote a major book in 1957: Theory and History. By then, Keynes was triumphant in Western academia. Hayek’s final book was in 1988: The Fatal Conceit.

You have to fight when the battle comes to you. It is not good enough to be well armed. You have to stand your ground and fight.

Whistleblower Uncovers Covid Scam

From the video (31 minutes) description:

A whistleblower obtained 10GB from Robert-Koch-Institute, the German CDC. This so-called RKI-Leak reveals that Covid was a scam from start to finish. The presentation took place in the second largest room of the German Bundestag, which is actually intended for committees of inquiry. Recorded 2 November 2024 in Berlin, English subtitles provided by the speaker.

Speaker: Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg

John Maynard Keynes

Writes Robert Katz:

John Maynard Keynes, 1883 – 1946, was an infamous British mountebank and soothsayer who overpoweringly advanced the idea that an effective way for the State to defray the extravagant expenses met on route to its worldwide barbarous pillaging would be for it to engage in mass counterfeiting. He based his prognostication of the scheme’s efficacy on the premises that the multitude was either ignorant enough to believe that the debasement of their money was beneficial or wicked enough to energetically participate as the State’s privileged partner in the sham of taking in sound money and passing out fake. He was alarmingly accurate on both behavioral suppositions. Some of the biggest and most dishonorable swindlers of this morally offensive confidence game are Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, and Jerome Powell.

Stop blaming climate change for Spain’s disastrous floods

We can’t let the authorities off the hook for this horrific tragedy.

Article by Rob Lyons.

Excerpt:

As with all disasters, lessons must be learned and changes made so that human suffering can be reduced in the future. Furthermore, even if there is an element of truth to the claim that human-created climate change made the floods worse – and that’s a big ‘if’, according to the IPCC – we still have to learn to cope with the problems that the weather throws at us. With ingenuity and investment, we are more than capable of doing so.

The Birth of “Irrational Exuberance”

It’s still with us. Article by George F. Smith.

Excerpt:

John Law, the early eighteenth-century Scottish gambler and financier, thought the best way to revive an ailing economy was to remove the “great scarcity of money,” as he wrote in a 1705 monetary tract. A decade after its publication he took his ideas to the Continent and sold them to Philippe d’Orleans, the regent in charge of France’s finances, who needed a scheme more sophisticated than his failed program of coin clipping and confiscation to save the nation from bankruptcy.

In 1716 Philippe set Law up as head of the Banque Générale, the country’s central bank, giving it and him monopoly control of the note issue. Having won the nation’s trust with declarations of allegiance to sound money principles – he had promised his banknotes would be “payable on sight” in unadulterated gold coin – Law proceeded to apply another element of his theory. Because a scarcity of money, he believed, was the root of France’s economic problems, and since banknotes backed purely by precious metals would be in short supply, he began issuing notes “backed” by the nation’s vast landholdings. Exactly how one would redeem banknotes for acreage he neglected to explain.

Is John Law regarded as a charlatan today? Not whatsoever. The most influential economists of modern times regard Law with sympathy and respect. One eminent economic historian places Law in the “front ranks of monetary theorists of all time.” Others view him jealously for being the first economist to run an entire country, even if it meant running it into the ground.

Saint-Simon concluded,

[T]he chimera of the Mississippi, with its shares, its special jargon, its science (a continual juggle for drawing money from one person to give it to another), was to almost guarantee that these shares should at last end in smoke (since we had neither mines, nor quarries of the philosopher’s stone), and that the few would be enriched at the expense of the many, as in fact happened.

The allure of easy money drives irrational behavior, then and now.  End the Fed.