Dr. Naomi Wolf speaks at the Mises Institute (41 minutes) Here’s the video description:
“The indomitable Dr. Naomi Wolf discusses her exposé of the covid crime. Recorded at the Mises Institute’s Supporters Summit in Auburn, Alabama, 12 October 2023. Includes an introduction by Sandra Klein. Sponsored by James and Sandy Nardulli.”
Video: “Remember What 2021 Felt Like??” is an example of very effective counter-propaganda. Works particularly well if you like music by Grieg and Beethoven.
This story proves that the main impulse of many in the climate change movement is not to save the planet, but to bring down humanity.
Not only do they not believe in progress, they actively combat it. Or, put another way: They DO believe in progress, but only as a fundamentally malignant force.
“What Western climate activists are really celebrating here is subsistence farming and absolute, grinding poverty. They are exploiting the indigenous people and their alleged harmony with nature to push the UN’s anti-growth agenda.”
Video interview (54 min) that Tom Woods conducts with Matthew Lysiak.
Description:
Matthew Lysiak discusses the various interests that combined to substitute cheap, fake food for the real food Americans used to eat. A key driving force: trying to conceal the effects of inflation on food prices by persuading Americans to consume cheap — and, it turns out, unhealthy — alternatives.
“In one of the strongest episodes of this show ever (see also here), Terence Kealey, professor emeritus at Buckingham University and a research fellow of the Cato Institute, makes a stunningly powerful case for the separation of science and state.”
Here is an article by Kealey on the same subject:
Governments Need Not Fund Science (at Least, Not for Economic Reasons)
From the conclusion of the above:
The evidence that governments need not fund science for economic reasons is overwhelming, and it is ignored only because of self‐interest: the scientists like public funding because it frees them to follow their own interests, companies like it because it provides them with corporate welfare, and politicians like it because it promotes them as patrons of the public good (witness Bill Clinton’s leading the celebrations over the mapping of the human genome.) So the empirical evidence is ignored in favo r of abstract theories.
There are, of course, non‐economic reasons, such as defense or the study of pollution, why a government might want to fund science (and a democratic polity, moreover, might not wish to be dependent only on private entities for its expertise in science) but in this document I cannot pronounce on these non‐economic justifications for the government funding of research: only democratically‐elected representatives have that competence. Here I can make only the technical argument that there is no credible evidence that governments need fund science for economic reasons.
But we can nonetheless note that in his own farewell address (known for its regrets for the “industrial‐military” complex and for the “three and half million men and women directly engaged in the defense establishment”) Truman’s immediate successor as President lamented the effects of the federal government’s funding for science. He lamented the effects on the universities:
In the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery … a government contact becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment … is gravely to be regarded.
And he also lamented the effects on the federal government itself:
We should be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific‐technological elite.
And here is another:
Don’t Be like China: Why the U.S. Government Should Cut Its Science Budget
Writes Igor Chudov:
SUMMARY: This post will show that:
Continue reading here.
Writes thecollegefix.com:
A total of 1,609 scientists, professors and other scholars have signed on to a new declaration that argues there is no climate change crisis.
“There is no climate emergency” is the title of the declaration that consists of 53 pages’ worth of signatories from across the globe, including some Nobel Laureates and other researchers from prestigious universities. Other signers include engineers, attorneys and other professionals.
The declaration, published with its endorsers in mid-August [2023], lists six main arguments against the alleged climate crisis, including that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is actually “plant food” and “the basis of all life on Earth.”
The motivation for the statement “is to counter the almost universal media climate catastrophe narrative with objective facts verified by over 1,600 independent scientists, engineers and professionals from over 30 countries,” said Jim O’Brien, chair of the Irish Climate Science Forum, in an email to The College Fix.
These heroic scientists, many of whom will most certainly soon have trouble finding funds for their research, are countering a narrative supported by people who spout genocidal fantasies such as here.
1. ‘How Not to Launch a Global Anti-Censorship Movement’, writes CJ Hopkins here.
Quote: “The people that no one has ever heard of are not stupid. They know the difference between a serious anti-censorship campaign and a vanity project. There’s still time for Mike to turn this thing around, let go of the reins, stop sucking up to the mainstream establishment, and reach out to the masses. Honestly, I hope he will. I wish him and the London gang success. There are millions of people out there who would get on board with a grassroots campaign opposing the Censorship Industrial Complex, but, to get them on board, you have to let go of the wheel and let them steer the ship.”
2. ‘UK quietly passes “Online Safety Bill” into law’, writes Kit Knightly here.
Quote: “This is clearly a response to Covid, or rather the failure of Covid. Essentially, the pandemic narrative broke because the current mechanisms of censorship didn’t work well enough. In response, the government has just legalised and out-sourced their silencing of dissent.“
“
Writes Michel Chossudovsky:
The confidential report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
This Confidential Pfizer Report provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The data from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 unequivocally confirms “manslaughter”. Based on the evidence, Pfizer had the responsibility to immediately cancel and withdraw the “vaccine”.
Pfizer’s worldwide marketing of the Covid-19 Vaccine beyond February 28th, 2021 is no longer an “Act of Manslaughter”.
Continue reading here (with video).