Author Archives: rg

BBC still playing fast and loose with climate facts

New paper outlines corporation's "tall tales"

Via Net Zero Watch. (Press release:)

London, 2 August – A new paper from Net Zero Watch shows that the BBC is still misleading its viewers and listeners about the facts of climate change.

From sea-level rise to bird migration, from hurricanes to heatwaves, the corporation’s climate narrative is never knowingly bothered by facts, context or nuance. 

Author Paul Homewood says:

“No matter how often the BBC get caught playing fast and loose with the climate facts, they never change. They are incorrigible.”

Paul Homewood: Tall Climate Tales from the BBC (pdf)

They got away with it. Now what?

“Accept reality and educate the masses to stop the next big power grab”, says Jordan Schachtel here.

Excerpts:

One of the main lessons of the corona hysteria era is that we need to be much quicker on the draw in providing the counter narrative [the true signal] to the propaganda being deployed by the global ruling classes.

This is no easy task, but it’s so enormously important to the cause of preserving some semblance of human freedom, and pushing back against those who wish to transform the entire world into their own local versions of China’s Social Credit Score system.

Education is paramount. And through platforms like Substack, the promise held by the social media app formerly known as Twitter, Rumble, and elsewhere, the forces for humanity still have a shot to win the messaging battle. When the next big power grab arrives, we should hope for much more courage and bravery than last time around.

Global boiling? Don’t be ridiculous

It’s time to stand up to the eco-fearmongering of our medieval elites.

Article by Brendan O’Neill.

Excerpts:

As the Washington Post [see link in original] said in its coverage of the ‘global boiling’ edict, apocalyptic superlatives can be ‘useful in underlining the importance of [this] issue’. This is a familiar tactic of eco-propagandists. A few years ago, Extinction Rebellion protested outside the offices of the New York Times [see link in original] to put pressure on it to dump the passive phrase ‘climate change’ in preference for the panic-inducing ‘climate emergency’. ‘Linguistic experts’ have cheered the media’s embrace of catastrophic language [see link in original] because apparently fretful terminology can help to ‘convey to the public an increasingly urgent threat’. They’re trying to manipulate us. They are using the grammar of Armageddon to cajole us into compliance with the green narrative and its demands for sacrifice in everyday life. As I argue in my new book, A Heretic’s Manifesto, they want to ‘coerce us into the realm of doom by making us think less about “climate change” and more about climate chaos, climate disaster, even climate apocalypse’.

It is imperative that we resist this linguistic authoritarianism. ‘Global boiling’ isn’t only a ridiculous phrase – it is also an insult to truth, reason and us. That such a fact-lite, post-scientific, hysterical phrase has been used by the UN, the activist set and the media elites is a reminder that they see the rest of us, the little people, as malleable creatures to be marched this way and that by scary words and warnings of a hellish future. It’s boiling anger we should feel, for this arrogant crusade of emotional manipulation.

This pro-mask “study” is why you should NEVER “Trust the Science”

Instead, you should read it, writes Kit Knightly here.

Excerpts:

Last week it was reported that the Australian state of Victoria may be considering “permanent” facemask mandates to achieve “zero-Covid”.

[. . .]

No, the only aspect of this development worth talking about is the “evidence” used to support the position – and trust me, the quotes are entirely justified.

The “study” which claims to demonstrate the benefits of permanent masking was published in the Medical Journal of Australia last week and titled “Consistent mask use and SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology: a simulation modelling study”.

[. . .]

Did they maybe average the results of multiple studies?

No, they used a phone survey.

One phone survey.

This phone survey, published last year and conducted in late 2021.

In this *ahem* “scientific study”, they had people randomly call up those who had recently been tested for “Covid”, ask them “did you wear a mask?” and then published the conclusion – “masks reduce transmission by 53%” – as if they meant something.

Interestingly, if you scroll down to the “affiliations” section you can see that one of the authors is a Pfizer grant recipient.

Rather more troublingly – and for some reason not mentioned as a conflict of interest – is that the whole study was produced by the California Board of Public Health.

California had already had a mask mandate in place for almost a year before this “study” was even started.

What we have here is not “science” it’s a computer model based on the results of a subjective phone survey conducted by a government agency with a vested interest. It is entirely meaningless, and yet is published in journals and cited by “experts”, perhaps even used as the basis of introducing new laws.

This is how “The ScienceTM” works. And, although Covid has maybe opened many people’s eyes to this issue, it is far from unique to “Covid”. You are just as likely to find this kind of “research” published on any topic – especially those that serve a political purpose – and have been for years if not decades.

Stanford Professor of evidence-based medicine,  John Ioannidis wrote a paper called “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, and that was back in 2005.

This has nothing to do with the “pandemic”, and everything to do with the difference between science and “The Science”. So let’s examine that distinction.

“Science” is an approach to the world. A rational method for gathering information, testing new ideas and forming evidence-based conclusions.

“The Science” is a self-sustaining industry of academics who need jobs and owe favours.

An ongoing quid pro quo relationship between the researchers – who want honors and knighthoods and tenure and book deals and research grants and to be the popular talking head explaining complex ideas to the multitudes on television – and the corporations, governments and “charitable foundations” who have all of those things in their gift.

This system doesn’t produce research intended to be read, it creates headlines for celebrities to tweet, links for “journalists” to embed, sources for other researchers to cite.

An illusion of solid substantiation that comes apart the moment you actually read the words, examine the methodology or analyse the data.

Self-reporting surveys, manipulated data, “modelling studies” that spit-out pre-ordained results. Affiliated-authors paid by the state or corporate interests to provide “evidence” that supports highly profitable or politically convenient assumptions.

This mask study is the perfect example of that.

Interlacing layers of nothing designed to create the impression of something.

That’s why they want you to trust it, rather than read it.

Totalitarianism Begins With Censorship

Principles of what a free society means are being redefined by collectivists.

Article by Barry Brownstein.

Excerpts:

Consider this essay: “Don’t COVID Vaccine Mandates Actually Promote Freedom?” [See link in the original.] Medical ethicists Kyle Ferguson and Arthur Caplan argue, “Those who oppose cracking down on the unvaccinated are getting it all wrong.” Ferguson and Caplan are sure their opponents have a “flawed view of freedom.” They argue “Passports and mandates are hardly ‘strong-arm tactics.’ These strategies are better seen as liberty inducers. They bring about freedom rather than deplete it.”

They add, “a successful COVID-19 vaccination campaign will liberate us — as individuals and as a collective — from the callous grip of a pandemic that just won’t seem to end.” Orwell’s “Party” proclaimed in 1984 that “Freedom is slavery.” Ferguson and Caplan come close to arguing “Slavery is freedom.”

Ferguson and Caplan assure us that the enlightenment view of “the unbound individual” is outdated. They want to reimagine freedom as communal, starting with “the individual’s participation in a community and the kind of community in which the individual lives.” 

[. . .]

For some, flowery visions of the common good have always been seductive. In The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek observes that even well-meaning people will ask, “If it be necessary to achieve important ends,” why shouldn’t the system “be run by decent people for the good of the community as a whole?”

Hayek challenges the axiomatic belief that wise people can tell others what the common good is. He explains why there is no such thing as the common good: “The welfare and happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less or more. The welfare of the people, like the happiness of a man, depends upon a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations.”

Here’s the crucial question: Who decides what the “common good” is? With what authority?

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James Macgregor Burns recounts in his book Fire and Light how Rousseau’s ideas of the general will led to the brutality of his disciple Robespierre. Like Hayek, Burns explains that there can be no agreement about the common good. Claiming to rule by the common good inevitably leads to excesses. Robespierre and the other eleven men who made up the Committee of Public Safety ruled France with “unlimited power” and “terror.”

Burns explains what Rousseau did not understand: “Peaceful and democratic conflict [is] crucial to the achievement of freedom.” Instead, Rousseau imagined, like Ferguson and Caplan “a new society filled with good citizens… working selflessly and with identical minds for the common good.”

Rousseau’s ideas are mantras for censors. In Rousseau’s world, there would be no pesky “long debates, dissensions and tumult” impeding implementation of the common good.

[. . .]

We can never make the best of “imperfect material” when those posing as having superior knowledge are allowed to coerce others. Hayek writes, “What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it.” In other words, choose to be directed by the limited power of Dr. Fauci’s mind or choose a free society’s virtually unlimited and unpredictable power.

Let’s put this together. Health collectivists, behaving like Jacobins, are sure there is one best way; they believe they are the arbiter of truth. Cloaking themselves in the holy robes of the augur of the common good, dissent is not to be tolerated. The end to the pandemic requires not that we follow the collectivists but that we are free to consider different perspectives and discover in the course of an uncoerced social process what really works.

Continue reading here.

And/or watch this 10-minute video here.

Final thoughts: What scares many people into the arms of authoritarians and collectivists is precisely the “unlimited and unpredictable power” of a “free society”. That is why God sent us the commandments. They give us a framework that limits the “unlimited” power and channels it into more “predictable” developments. Not only are we free to do anything within the framework of those commandments, He says. He also promises an abundance of blessings if we adhere to them.

(P.S.: Joseph Boot, in his book “The Mission of God“, writes: “Formerly, when the incoming President of the United States took the oath of office it was done, not on a closed Bible, but on a Bible opened to Deuteronomy 28, invoking the blessings and cursings of the law for obedience or disobedience.” Unfortunately, Boot doesn’t tell us “when” this “formerly” time was. But if it’s true, it’s significant nonetheless, as he continues: “All this reveals the fact that biblical law has had a continuous history as an object of relevance and study that makes it unique amongst ancient legal systems, and gives it a ‘claim to historical influence unmatched by any other legal system of antiquity.'”)

The Pandemic of Lies

Don’t Give Up Now. Truth Is Winning

Article by Dr. Joseph Mercola – mainly about a lecture by Del Bigtree.

Extract:

The global cabal failed to achieve everything they’d hoped for because a “meaningful minority” refused to comply and refused to shut up. In fact, their plan backfired and now they realize the entire vaccine program is in jeopardy. Bigtree cites a recent poll that shows only 34% of adults in Iowa now believe there should be a mandated childhood vaccination program, down from 59% before COVID.

In addition to that, confidence in medicine, hospitals and medical expertise in general has dramatically eroded, as has trust in regulatory agencies and public health authorities.

“We have rocked Goliath on his heels,” Bigtree says. “Thirty percent of America [avoided the COVID shot], probably more — I think they’re fudging the numbers … Under the biggest blitzkrieg of propaganda, $10 billion-worth, buying every television channel 24 hours a day, they [still] couldn’t get anywhere near the 85 or 90%.

And … how many got it because they were doing it under duress? They thought they’d lose their job or couldn’t be with their family. They weren’t with the program. And now we’re seeing that, because the recent booster is only being used by 30% of those that are eligible for it, meaning 70% of the people that believed in this program are now turning on the CDC, the light is starting to appear on the horizon.

This is our time, this is what we dreamed about. But believe me, we have pissed them off. They are coming with everything they have. We need you to give everything you have now. I hope … you realize that going to sleep will most surely end in our demise. We are about to be imprisoned if we give up this fight now.

We’ve shown we can move hearts and minds. We’ve shown that we grow exponentially when we speak our truth. And we’ve shown that we are still the children of God and no [one] … is going to convince us otherwise. We are not machines. You’re not hacking into our bodies.

I assure you we are being led by something much bigger. We were born for this moment, this time. I really want you to stop complaining about the world that we live in. You chose to be a warrior in this time. We were chosen to be here at this time. The proverb, ‘May we live in interesting times,’ this is it.

This is a battle for humanity, and it’s in our hands. We’re not leaving it to our kids. It’s going to happen in our lifetime. We will see how this ends. It’s up to us. The history books are not filled with pages of stories of how we outnumbered them and it was an easy battle. Every page is insurmountable odds, courage and passion and belief … We are writing history right now together and it’s going to be magnificent.”

Creation Stewardship

From the book “The Mission of God” (2016 [2014]) by Joseph Boot, p.249-251:

Much is said today about nature or land and ‘environmentalism,’ and Christians (usually the younger evangelicals), often with good intentions, can get caught up in the ‘save the planet’ rhetoric and agenda.

[. . .]

A truly biblical picture of creation stewardship does not elevate nature to the status of God as the source and wellspring of life, nor does it give nature or land priority over man, but rather tells us that the land suffers because of man; and because God governs all things by his personal agency, the created order responds to our moral conduct.

[. . .]

But because most people today (even Christians) think in impersonal terms about the creation and the land and view ecological processes in purely naturalistic terms, they do not think about man’s sin in relationship to the fruitfulness of farming, husbandry, forest health and animal populations.

[. . .]

Biblical creation care however, means obedience to God’s law as it concerns God, man and the land. This means that the environmentalists of today, who claim to love Mother Nature and therefore want to sav the planet whilst worshiping idols, advocating the killing of the unborn to reduce carbon footprints, pursue the theft and re-distribution of land and resources, seek a radical equalization of all things, viewing the wealthy, the church, the family and Christian marriage as the primary obstacle to planetary salvation, are in fact destroying the environment; the land, cursed on their account, will vomit them out. IF we are concerned with responsible care for creation and want to see human flourishing in the land and blessing on our agriculture, cattle, wilderness and animal kingdoms, we must obey God’s law. If we are parched in these areas, we need look no further than our sins. Obedience is green! Thus the Puritan mind actually takes the totality of the law seriously in these matters rather than arbitrarily picking bits from the Torah or prophets that might fit with a given ideology, then setting the rest aside as hopelessly outdated and inconvenient.

My own thoughts on this: I have long considered our fundamentally flawed and fraudulent monetary system to be the main if not root cause for many of society’s ills, including environmental degradation. In the latter case, another ungodly cause can be identified: The denial by the courts of property rights, which happened in the course of the 19th century. To accelerate industrialisation, people were denied the possibility to sue companies polluting their land. When this eventually lead to such great environmental degradation that it could no longer be ignored, the property rights were not re-instated, as they should have. Instead, governments declared that they would henceforth be the protectors of the environment. As if. Only when we do the biblical thing, which is to re-instate property rights and thereby fully re-instate individuals and their families as the true stewards of creation, responsible and answerable to God, will we receive a truly sustainable improvement of the state of nature.

By the way, the author, Joseph Boot, is affiliated with the Ezra Institute.