Category Archives: Media

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.

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

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.

Journalism vs the people

Article by Jenny Holland.

From the moment Brits voted for Brexit and Americans put Donald Trump into the White House eight years ago, there has been a lot of talk about just how divided and polarised Western publics are.

Yet while the public is divided, it appears to be a different story for mainstream journalists. In multiple different countries across the West, they tend to hew to the same themes and offer identical analyses. They tend to be globalist in orientation and ‘progressive’ in outlook. This means that even if they are from different national cultures with different political systems and histories, they are often singing from the same hymn sheet – a hymn sheet that is at odds with millions of their compatriots.

[. . .]

Irish journalist and commentator David Quinn sees the selective reporting of Casey’s statement as an example of a broader problem among Irish media. ‘You can’t go off script, even if your fiancée has been brutally murdered’, he tells me. ‘I think some of it is old-fashioned snobbery’, he continues: ‘Journalistic consensus is rigidly enforced on pain of being socially ostracised, with many in the Irish media thinking, “This makes me look good, it makes me look respectable”, like drinking a particular kind of wine.’ And the result? ‘It’s basically propaganda we’re getting.’

Quinn explains the Western media’s shared worldview in terms of writer David Goodhart’s distinction between those who come from ‘Somewhere’ – rooted in a specific place or community, usually socially conservative and less educated – and those who could come from ‘Anywhere’ – urban, ‘progressive’ and university-educated. ‘Journalists are Anywhere people’, Quinn says. ‘They despise people who are attached to their place, culture, traditions and customs.’

Ian O’Doherty, writer for the Irish Independent, concurs. ‘It’s class contempt’, he tells me. ‘It’s very rare that you’ll see any overt editorial interference’, but the pressure to conform is huge. Irish journalists, he says, ‘are all middle class… They all know each other, they all go to the same dinner parties, they all have the same opinions.’

And these ‘same opinions’ cross borders. Those who work for Ireland’s national broadcaster, RTÉ, O’Doherty says, ‘would have much more in common with someone from the New York Times or the BBC than with someone from Crumlin’.

Similarly, Paddy O’Gorman, a retired RTÉ reporter and now a successful independent podcaster, points out that when it comes to what gets covered in Irish media, the ideological slant only goes one way.

The UK gov’t wants to legalise “assisted dying”. Here’s what happens next.

Article by Kit Knightly

[Gotta get those pension and welfare liabilities down somehow. PwG]

The Parliament of the United Kingdom is moving forward with a vote on a new bill that will legalise assisted dying for those diagnosed with terminal illness.

The bill, proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has yet to be published in full. According to the BBC:

The details have not been finalised but the bill is likely to be similar to a proposal in the House of Lords, which would allow terminally ill adults with six months or fewer to live to get medical help to end their own lives.

This is the culmination of a years-long political, media and entertainment industry wide campaign to normalise euthanasia in the UK’s public mind.

In that time we have been told that assisted dying is good for people, good for the NHS and good for the environment.

The bill is expected to be formally introduced on 16 October, with the first debate to take place later this year, meaning the vote will likely be held in early 2025.

I would be stunned if it doesn’t pass.

Here is my prediction for what happens next…

– For the first year or so it will just be an option, you won’t hear much about it except in articles with headlines like “Assisted dying saved my parent/partner/child from years of pain”.

– After a year or two a report will come out claiming success via some tortured invented statistical measure like “assisted dying boosts patient well being scores in surveyed NHS hospitals”.

– Another will follow claiming waiting lists have improved due to decreased overcrowding in palliative care wards. They might even claim it’s decreased the NHS’s carbon footprint.

– Opinion pieces will appear with titles like “Assisted dying success story shuts down conspiracy theorists”.

– The minimum age to be considered for assisted dying will gradually be lowered. And the list of diseases and conditions for which assisted dying is a “recommended treatment alternative” will expand.

– Eventually non-lethal diseases will be included, then psychological illnesses too. Then physical and mental disabilities.

– Then will come an “emergency” – a fake one, obviously – and the NHS will come out of it shining thanks to resources “freed up” by euthanasia programs.

– Next will come the editorials. “Assisted dying is good for patients and saved the NHS during [fake pandemic], it’s time to make it mandatory”.

– A backbench MP will introduce a bill forcing anyone diagnosed with a fatal illness to be put on an assisted dying list.

– The bill will fail, and most of the press will oppose it, but the government will issue “common sense” compromise regulations where assisted dying is the default, but patients can opt out of if they want.

– It will never actually BE mandatory. But it WILL be harder and harder to get out of. If you choose to opt-in and later try to change your mind, you will be said to be mentally incompetent.

– Patients who don’t want to sign DNRs or opt for end of life care will be branded “selfish” and “irresponsible”. Studies will claim they are a strain on the NHS’s resources.

– Down the line, opting out will incur penalties to your pension payments and mean you are charged for healthcare, making it impossible for many older people to afford to stay alive.

– Then they’ll start panels where patients who are “mentally incompetent” have assisted dying recommended by “mercy tribunals”.

…and the whole time the establishment will claim there is freedom of choice, and no slippery slope at all.