The United Nations is using a talking dinosaur to urge poor African nations to not use fossil fuels while providing information to global elites about which airports in which they can land their private jets for next week’s climate change meeting
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, & other elites flew to UN climate talks in 400 private jets to send a message. The message isn’t just that they’re richer than you, nor that they’re more moral. It’s that the rules that apply to us don’t apply to them
Everybody misunderstands what’s happening. Defenders of the climate elite say “face time” is crucial, but that’s obviously nonsense because UN climate talks are between governments, not billionaires, are totally voluntary & irrelevant to how nations decide energy and food policy.
Similarly, it’s misleading to think the climate elect are being hypocritical. They’re not. They’re behaving in ways that are totally consistent with their view that they are fundamentally better than ordinary people
We are seeing a reversion to pagan (Roman) values in real time
The idea that “all men are created equal” is super recent in human history, and there were always questions about how long such an idea could last. The idea is deeply counterintuitive to billionaires, ruling elites, and their hired fluffers, eg, the PMC, diplomats, journalists
The pandemic ostensibly required elites to follow yet another set of universal rules, but it was too much for them. They happily dined & danced, maskless, in violation of their own rules, knowing at some level that they could be caught. They didn’t care.
We misunderstand the elites. We think they’re embarrassed. And sometimes they are. @GavinNewsom had to apologize. Imagine the horror! But most of them flaunt their special status. They knew perfectly well they’d be dinged for flying private to climate talks. They didn’t care.
Just look at Prince Harry and Meghan. Even as they work tirelessly to deny poor African nations oil & natural gas, they fly private. They know perfectly well the tabloids will criticize them for it. They welcome the criticism because it reminds everyone who is on top.
It’s understandable that we find their behavior confusing. Again, they’re not like us. We think, “All men are created equal!” They don’t. Deep down they worry we might really believe it, and seek to hold them accountable for things like paying taxes, or not having sex with minors
We misunderstand what they want. We focus on their words, “We want to save the climate!” when we should focus on their behaviors. Flying private is the least of it. Their main goal is to make energy and food scarce and expensive, and most of all to keep Africans down.
The climate elite have been spectacularly effective. They diverted billions in public & private money from abundant energy to scarce energy, triggering the current global energy crisis.
It’s true that expensive oil makes jet-setting more expensive, but that’s a small price to pay for increasing domestic and global inequality. Everybody knows that increasing the price of energy and food hurts the poor the most. Why do you think the climate elite love doing it?
Of course, the elite justify making energy & food more expensive for “environmental”reasons, but that’s obviously wrong. Emissions decline when natural gas is cheaper than coal. Forests and grasslands return when unproductive farmland is abandoned, and poor farmers move to cities
The elites of course hate it when those things happen, which is why they never talk about them. Readers of the NY Times don’t know that US emissions declined 22% from 2005-2020 for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with climate policy. And they’d deny it if they were told
Elites reject the fact that we reduce pollution by making clean energy cheap, and save nature by making farming more productive, because those things also make all people richer, and their goal, consciously or unconsciously, is to *widen* inequality, not reduce it.
Climate change is the perfect issue for elites because it offers a way to control energy and food policy at a global level. I used to think UN talks, shareholder campaigns, etc we’re symbolic, but the energy crisis, and efforts to deny Africa fossil fuels, prove they’re effective
"Stop funding gas in Mozambique"
"Cutting funding to our Country and our gas projects will condemn us to energy poverty for the next decades."
probably just a coincidence
Meanwhile
As the worlds' richest people fly by jet to sit in coal-powered conference rooms in Scotland to discuss ways to deny reliable energy to poor nations in the name of climate change, African leaders are uniting to fight "coercion" by Malthusian hypocrites.
"Our continent collectively... is made to bear the brunt for polluters. We are being pressured, even compelled, to move away from all forms of fossil fuels, including resources such as gas... [a] key resource for industrialization" — South African Energy Minister @GwedeMantashe1
"We've noticed with interest that when Britain, China, India, Australia ran into [an] energy crisis, they all appealed to coal to give them energy. You will notice that, but when they talk to us they say, 'Stop using coal immediately.'"
Fact check: True
One of the rich nations pushing hardest to deny poor nations cheap and reliable energy is Germany.
Germany is, at this very moment, replacing its zero-emissions nuclear plants with coal. In the name of protecting the environment.
The government didn’t censor anyone on Covid, say the media. But it did. Facebook’s Zuckerberg even said he regretted giving in to the government's demands. And now, new documents reveal that the Dept. of Homeland Security may have broken the law by hunting down Covid wrongthink.
Department Of Homeland Security Illegally Targeted Covid Dissent, New Documents Suggest
DHS’s cybersecurity agency went far beyond its congressional mandate in hunting wrongthink and monitoring emotions
by @galexybrane & @shellenberger
Chris Krebs, founding director of the Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security; President Barack Obama; Jen Easterly, Director of CISA (GETTY IMAGES)
The idea that intelligence and security agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and others have been involved in the surveillance and censorship of the American people is a conspiracy theory, according to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other media outlets. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was not a victim of government censorship, says NBC News. There was simply no “Censorship Industrial Complex” or government-coordinated activity that targeted American citizens’ speech and violated the First Amendment, mainstream journalists and commentators agree.
But there was and is a Censorship Industrial Complex. The Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of DHS expanded its mandate in January 2017, during the final days of Barack Obama’s presidency, to cover election infrastructure as critical infrastructure. This would eventually entail protecting “cognitive security” by combating mis- and disinformation. DHS asked four government-funded think tanks to flag “misinformation,” which was often simply political speech that Democrats didn’t like, and together with DHS urge social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to delete, suppress, or censor it in some other way. In 2020 and 2021, the four government contractors worked hand-in-glove with DHS and other government agencies to pressure social media platforms to engage in political censorship.
Defenders of those efforts say they weren’t engaged in censorship and that the Supreme Court agrees with them. Representatives from these Big Four counter-misinformation NGOs say they did not censor anyone, nor could they, since they didn’t operate the social media platforms. They simply did what anyone could do which was to flag misinformation to the social media companies. No government agency ever threatened to harm a social media platform that refused the offers of help from NGOs engaged in counter-misinformation. And the Supreme Court ruled that government officials have long been free to try to persuade the publishers, reporters, and editors at newspapers and thus were and are free to do the same with social media platforms. “CISA does not and has never censored speech or facilitated censorship,” a Senior Advisor for Public Affairs told Public. “Such allegations are riddled with factual inaccuracies.”
In truth, the Biden White House “repeatedly pressured” Facebook to censor “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire,” said Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in August. “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it.” Senior Facebook executives worried that the Biden administration would not help Facebook deal with its problems complying with European regulations if it didn’t censor vaccine hesitancy.
And CISA did not refute any of Public’s allegations; it simply dismissed them. That may be because there is no dispute over the basic facts of the situation. DHS and the censorship NGOs persuaded the social media giants to give them unique and special status for flagging disfavored election and Covid content in 2020 and 2021 through a special ticketing (Jira) system. Ordinary members of the public not only did not have access to this system, nobody outside the small government-organized censorship clique knew it existed.
The head of the Stanford censorship program said its function was to “fill in the gap of things the government couldn’t do.” And there was virtually no separation between CISA and Stanford’s flagging and censorship operation. CISA’s Director and the Director of one of the Big Four censorship groups texted each other “with some regularity,” according to a staffer. A CISA official named Brian Scully was in a Signal messaging group with at least one Stanford intern and Twitter’s content team.
It has been a mystery about when exactly CISA began its push for censorship. Ostensibly, CISA didn’t ask the four censorship NGOs to create the “Election Integrity Partnership” until mid-2020, and those NGOs did not come up with the idea to create the “Virality Project” on Covid until late 2020, after the elections.
Now, newly obtained documents provided to Public by the America First Legal reveal that CISA began its hunt for disfavored speech about Covid-19 as early as the week of February 18, 2020. The new documents, obtained from litigation by American First Legal against the State Department and CISA, show that the latter agency had Covid censorship on its mind long before it decided to focus on election censorship. The documents thus provide the missing link in CISA’s operation to chill disfavored speech.
“Incredibly, the evidence is that CISA relied on a dangerous, anti-American blob of ‘authorities’ to closely monitor what the American people were saying,” said Reed D. Rubinstein, America First Legal’s Senior Vice President. “CISA was created to protect the homeland from terrorists, not to protect incompetent federal bureaucrats.” While the monitoring of social media narratives may seem innocent, it is the crucial first step in the process of demanding censorship.
These new documents expose the early extent to which the US government repurposed the homeland security apparatus, including DHS’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for domestic control. The documents show that CISA may have sought to counter information from Bhattacharya, despite claims by the mainstream media recently that the government never tried to censor him. And the new documents come at a time when the in-coming Trump administration has its eyes set on defunding government censorship activities, including by CISA and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC).
CISA’s early monitoring of Covid narratives may constitute a violation of what’s known as the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, argues America First Legal, which holds that government agencies must not stray from the specific legal authorities given to them by Congress. The Supreme Court has rejected claims by government agencies to have authority over issues of “vast economic and political significance” without clear congressional authorization. And CISA arguably had no congressional authorization to monitor such Covid-related speech, which was unrelated to cybersecurity, infrastructure security, or election security. As such, CISA may have indeed broken the law.
Why, then, did it do it? How did an organization supposedly focused on cybersecurity end up tracking and orchestrating the censorship of disfavored Covid information?
Please, subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism and to read the rest of the article!
Thank you and bravo to @America1stLegal for their discovery of these damning documents, which show @CISAgov @CISACyber going far beyond its congressional mandate.
Biden says there’s no “sense of danger” in the repeated invasions of the air space above homes and military bases by unidentified drones. That’s a ridiculous and terrifying lie. Of course there is. Protecting our air space has been one of America’s highest priorities for 80 years
From Biden to Mayorkas to DOD spokesperson, the US government officials are flagrantly lying to the American people and nobody knows this more than US military base commanders and the men and women who work in the military.
If you are in the military, Intelligence Community, or other US government agency and know something about these drones, please contact me to shine the light on the wrongdoing.
Biden officials @AliMayorkas & John Kirby said, " We have not seen drones penetrate restricted airspace" and "There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted airspace," but US officials have reported drones at Langley, Edwards, Earle, & many other sites.
Drones penetrated restrict airspace at Langley, Norfolk, Edwards, and Nevada National Security Site.
This was heavily reported and so it's very odd for Kirby to make his claim on Thursday and for Mayorkas to repeat it on Friday.
There is an epidemic of white police officers killing unarmed black men, we must block the puberty of children born in the wrong bodies to prevent them from killing themselves, the Russians control Trump through a sex blackmail operation, the Covid vaccine prevents infection, millions or billions will die from starvation and harsh weather from climate change, there's no way a Covid virus could have escaped from a lab, mass migration improves societies with no trade-offs, it's best for addicts if we give them hard drugs to use in special sites downtown, we need the government to fight misinformation online in order to save democracy, Biden is sharper than ever, Kamala is 100% prepared to be president, and anyone who disagrees is racist, sexist, and/or fascist.
While many Americans are increasingly and at least partially aware that all of the above are lies, we are still a long way from coming to grips with their enormity, their monstrous consequences, and the totalitarian ways in which the mainstream news media, many employers, and governments demanded that we believe them. Current and former heads of state, our most-trusted journalists, and full professors at Ivy League universities created and propagated those Big Lies, repeatedly, for years, even after they had been thoroughly debunked, sometimes within days or hours of them being made, by people who ruling elites then sought to bankrupt, shame, and ostracize.
There has not yet been a proper accounting of the very many abuses of power, including the Big Lies, by elected officials, the media, and other governing elites during the Woke Reign of Terror (2013 - 2024). That accounting will need not only to thoroughly debunk all of the major lies, it will also need to explore why elites created and perpetuated them, why so many people believed them, why they lasted for so long, and what can be learned from them, both separately and how they worked together as a whole, constituting the worldview of the people who run Western societies and nations. Historians, sociologists, psychologists and many others will, for centuries, study the Work Reign of Terror as a uniquely irrational and self-destructive period in America's history. Hopefully something good, including wisdom, courage, and improved self-governance, will come out of those studies and reflections.
The Australian PM @AlboMP wants global censorship to counter misinformation. But only free speech can counter misinformation. Please share this to affirm your opposition to his awful bill!
I am concerned about the impact of social media on children, but this bill is a Trojan horse to create digital IDs, which is a giant leap into the totalitarian dystopia depicted in "Black Mirror," and already in place in China. And @AlboMP has proven censorial and untrustworthy.