Thirty years of COP failures: the damning assessment of a climate process disconnected from reality

Article by Samuel Furfari, who ‘is an engineer, and PhD from University of Brussels. He is a Professor of energy geopolitics and policy. For 36 years he was a senior official in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy. He is author of numerous books.’ 

Excerpt (conclustion):

It is time to turn the page on climate illusions and recognize that the global priority must be economic development and access to energy for all. As the changing positions of emerging countries demonstrate, the future does not belong to ideological decarbonisation, but to energy pragmatism, which alone can meet people’s legitimate aspirations for prosperity, quality of life and well-being. The time has come to abandon a United Nations process that has proved ineffective and to shift international efforts to the real priorities: the fight against poverty and economic development for all through access to abundant and cheap energy.

Silencing the Scientists: Dissent, Censorship, and the New Technocracy

Article by Mark Keenan.

Excerpts (my emphases):

Critics argue that by severing science from broader philosophical or spiritual questions, modern institutions emphasize data while overlooking deeper questions of meaning and truth. In this view, a kind of technocracy has emerged—one in which scientific institutions can appear less like explorers of reality and more like gatekeepers defending established doctrine. Real science seeks understanding; fake science seeks obedience.

If we are to restore genuine inquiry, we must recover not only intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility — the recognition that truth cannot be owned by the state, the market, or the algorithm.

[. . .]

When Truth Becomes Treason

The moralization of science has turned dissent into sin. A climate skeptic is not “wrong” — he is a “denier.” A doctor questioning mandates is not “debating” — he is “spreading misinformation.” This is the language of religion, not reason. Science without dissent is not science at all; it is propaganda. But the cost of silence in the present is immense: an entire generation is being taught that conformity equals integrity.

Restoring Scientific Freedom

The answer is not to reject science, but to depoliticize it. That begins with transparency: open data, open debate, and open funding. Research should not be filtered through bureaucratic agendas or corporate interests. Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry offer a path forward — if the public demands it. Science belongs to everyone, not to the technocrats who manage its narrative. True environmental and medical progress will never come from censorship, but from curiosity — the very trait that built civilization itself.

A New Age of Technocratic Faith

We are entering an era where “belief in science” has replaced belief in God — but without humility or grace. Many worry that a small number of technology platforms now have extraordinary power to shape what information is visible—effectively influencing via algorithms which viewpoints are elevated or ignored.

Unless we restore the freedom to question — whether about carbon, Covid, or any future crisis — we will find ourselves living not in a knowledge economy, but in an information prison. To critics, parts of institutional science now function almost like a new secular authority—one that emphasizes compliance and control. And its heretics are, once again, the last defenders of reason.

My (PwG) thoughts on this:

“If the public demands it”, the author writes, we will get the necessary structures to return to honest science: “Independent journals, decentralized platforms, and citizen-led inquiry”.

He correctly recognises that we are in a crisis “not only [of] intellectual freedom but moral and spiritual humility”.

So, the only way to get the public to “demand” a return to proper science is to first restore “moral and spiritual humility”.

This is the task of the century for Christian churches worldwide. Unfortunately, it appears that about 99% of them don’t recognise it, at least not to its full extent.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY deleted opening scene / scientist interviews. Part One

37-minute video here.

See also this 3-hour podcast ‘EXPOSED: Hollywood Intentionally Destroys Spiritual Themes in Modern Films | Rob Ager’

Where the interviewee says that the vision many of the scientists interviewed for ‘2001’ seemed to have is that a god-like entity will emerge from the intelligent beings evolving in the universe. It won’t be a God that created the universe, but a God that takes control of the universe.

Which is more or less exactly how Gary North interprets the materialistic-evolutionary mindset: Out of chaos came order (despite entropy) and as soon as intelligence emerged, it ‘legitimately’ starts ‘guiding’ and ‘controlling’ evolution to serve its purposes.

No different from the ‘might makes right’ attitude actually.

The Basis of the Culture and Institutions of Britain

Article by Michael Wood.

Excerpt:

How many of us know, for instance, that in the year AD37, the Church at Jerusalem sent one of the Seventy Apostles, named Aristobulus, to Britain as our first Bishop, landing at Hengist Head in company with several others?  That he established the Christian faith to grow in this country from that time?  This has been acknowledged by several Councils in Rome as making the British Church older than either the Church of Rome or the Church of Greece.

More on Aristobulus of Britannia here.

There’s a Revolution Happening You’ve Never Heard Of. It’s Called “The Great Feminization”

Helen Andrews in a video interview with the Daily Signal.

From the description:

For the past half decade or more, conservative intellectuals have tried to answer the question: Where did woke come from?

Some believe it is rebranded cultural Marxism. Others say it came from academia with the postmodern rejection of objective truth ultimately leading to the weaponization of culture. Maybe it came from the global corporations because woke is the ideology of the new managerial elite in late-stage neo-liberalism.

But perhaps “woke” and its offspring like “cancel culture” came from something called “The Great Feminization.”

Helen Andrews, author of “Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster,” recently wrote an essay called “The Great Feminization,” a term borrowed from the pseudonymous online writer J Stone, that explains how “woke” is “an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” She joins “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss.

“We had a big fight called feminism in the 1970s over whether or not we thought women could be lawyers. And we decided that they could, and that’s great,” Andrews explained. “But it took a long time to go from token representation of the kind that was achieved in the heyday of second wave feminism to what we have now.” 

See also this videoed talk: Overcoming the Feminization of Culture.

In short: The two ways to overcome feminization is to remove the pro-women bias in recruitment and to remove the need for two-income households.   

See also this CompactMag article ‘The Great Feminization‘.

See this response by ‘The LOOPcast’. The woman there says Andrews doesn’t go deep enough. This speaker emphasises motherhood.

The Psychopathic Machine: How Modern Finance Learned To Live Without Conscience

Article by Mark Keenan.

Excerpts:

Debt-based money ensures that this pattern is permanent. Because all money is issued as interest-bearing credit, new debt must constantly be created to service the old. If credit creation slows, defaults rise and the political class panics. Hence the endless call for “growth,” however hollow, and the refusal to confront the costs it imposes on both nature and society. A system that must expand or die will behave like a shark—efficient, unreflective, and indifferent to collateral damage.

[. . .]

The late psychologist Hervey Cleckley defined the psychopath as a person who “knows the words but not the music.” Our financial order knows the language of prosperity but not its meaning. It can model markets to six decimal places yet cannot tell the truth about who benefits and who pays. The spreadsheets are perfect; the souls are missing.

As I examine in the book The Debt Machine, this isn’t about hating bankers or glorifying poverty—it’s about recognizing that the very architecture of money has been built to reward the traits of a machine: speed, aggression, and detachment. Unless we redesign that architecture to reward stewardship instead, we will keep mistaking the cunning of greed for intelligence or wisdom.

This is what it means to return from illusion to reality — to build an economy that serves life rather than consumes it.

Sound money, honest credit, and transparent risk are not nostalgic slogans; they are the minimum conditions for sanity in an economy. Until we recover them, we will remain ruled not by men of reason, but by a system that acts—coldly, efficiently, and predictably—like a psychopath.