Youth under Occupation, a documentary produced by Al-Haq Organization and The Young Women Christian Association (YWCA), which sheds the light on the Israeli violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and their impact on the Palestinian youth, within 18 minutes of testimonies given by four young men and women.
In this essay I propose that there are many things about climate change that the general public, journalists, academics, environmentalists and politicians may think they ‘know’ to certainly be true that are actually, at the least, highly equivocal (or demonstrably false) and that once these misconceptions are corrected perceptions of the issue are (or, at least, should be) transformed. Note that throughout I use the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of ‘climate change’: ‘a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)’. By ‘global warming’ I mean a rise in the Global Average Surface Temperature of the Earth.
Although the exact terminology and language may vary, we are repeatedly told that the essential ‘facts’ about climate change are that:
a) Global warming is happening, at rate that is unprecedented and accelerating
b) It has been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels
c) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating rise in sea levels
d) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events
e) It has already caused alarming and accelerating global species extinctions
f) We are experiencing a climate change crisis that will soon be catastrophic (potentially even causing a mass extinction event) if we don’t stop climate change
g) We can stop climate change by urgently switching to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, so eradicating our emissions
h) The science behind the above points is settled and beyond reasonable dispute.
My assertion is not that these ‘facts’ are ‘fake news’ (deliberately reported falsehoods) or ‘myths’ (implying that there is no truth whatsoever in them) but that they are fundamental misconceptions based on misunderstandings of what the science and evidence actually tell us. These misconceptions appear to have assumed the mantle of ‘collective beliefs’ (or ‘memes’) that through extensive repetition in the media are mistakenly taken to be indisputable truths, despite the ready availability of science and evidence to disprove (or, at the least, seriously question) them. Few people will have heard the opinions of scientists (including many of the world’s most eminent climate scientists) who doubt this ‘man-made climate change crisis’ narrative because their voices have largely been silenced (typically by branding them ‘climate change deniers’ or even ‘science deniers’). In the current climate of hostility to even considering alternative viewpoints there is apparently only one politically correct position to take, the ‘right’ position of accepting that the alarmist narrative is beyond dispute.
It’s hardly surprising that these misconceptions have arisen because for most people (whether they be the general public, politicians or, indeed, journalists) their exposure to the climate change issue is predominantly through the media. Furthermore when the media concerned is mainstream (such as the BBC), and so ‘trusted’, people reasonably believe that they are being told the ‘whole truth’ by unbiased journalists who must have understood and critically investigated the science and evidence. Sadly such understanding and critical analysis is rarely to be found, journalists typically simply taking on trust what the ‘scientific authorities’ tell them (as gleaned from Press Releases and ‘executive summary’ documents from which all the complexities and profound uncertainties, unknowns and ambiguities have largely been expunged). This often superficial understanding is then communicated to the target audience using unscientific, emotional, hyperbolic language (such as ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate change crisis’) and quoting extreme outlier predictions that are virtually impossible to occur in order to create an impression of urgency and danger; rhetoric appealing to the emotions coupled with alarming images (like ice calving, hurricanes and wildfires or computer-generated drowning cities) are always likely to sway public opinion far more powerfully than rhetoric appealing to logic coupled with complicated science, graphs and data. In this way highly improbable risks in the far future come to be perceived as existential crises today. In fact if you want to convince the general public (and journalists and politicians) that ‘we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis’ then, because few will understand the fundamental differences between man-made climate change and global warming, let alone the differences between man-made climate change and natural climate variability, you typically need only convince them that ‘global warming is happening’ (which nobody denies). So one temperature graph showing warming (there are thousands available on Google Images) is all it may take to apparently ‘prove’ your case. Yet evidence that global warming is happening is not evidence that man-made global warming is happening and not evidence that climate change is happening (let alone evidence that man-made climate change is happening) because the global warming may just result from natural climate variability. Natural climate variability is variability in the mean state of the climate on all temporal scales (beyond that of individual weather events) resulting from natural processes.
This confusion was epitomized in ‘Climate Change – The Facts’, Sir David Attenborough’s BBC documentary (that appeared on British TV 18th April 2019) that was a catalogue of scientific misconceptions, spanning claims of man-made climate change causing escalating heatwaves, droughts, storms, floods, ice melt at the Antarctic, sea level rise, species extinctions and widespread coral death. Sample criticisms of the programme can be found here and here and here. It included the claim (also being made by such extremist groups as Extinction Rebellion) that globally we must achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and not exceed a further half a degree Centigrade of global warming if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe and possible mass extinction event – a claim that, to put it as charitably as possible, is not at all supported by the science, as is evident to anyone with even the most basic understanding of climate science or anyone who has actually read the IPCC SR15 report that ostensibly formed the basis of this claim. Furthermore to achieve this goal would, according to the IPCC, ‘require unprecedented changes in our lifestyle, energy and transport systems’, effectively a global social and economic revolution.
The essential problem for those who are prepared to open their minds to alternative viewpoints is that to understand the flaws in the alarmist narrative’s simplistic certainties requires that you delve quite deeply into the science, statistics, politics and economics of climate change – and that is time-consuming, hard work that requires quite a high degree of scientific literacy. However if you do make the effort a very different (far less alarming) picture appears:
1) Global warming and climate change are both unequivocally happening (the latter being reflected in, for example, glacier retreat and sea level rise) but so far both at a rate that is well within the bounds of natural climate variability (and not unprecedented)
2) There are substantial uncertainties about the extent to which human activity (principally in the form of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions and global cooling from aerosol and soot emissions) has contributed to the observed post-industrial global warming and climate change, not least because of the extreme difficulty of separating man-made climate change from the ‘background noise’ of natural climate variability. Nevertheless on the balance of probabilities human activity was responsible for half or more of the global warming observed between 1950 and 2010 (a period of escalating carbon dioxide emissions)
3) Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 7-8 inches per century, a rate that has remained steady despite our escalating carbon dioxide emissions, i.e. the cause is probably predominantly natural. We could globally cease all carbon dioxide emissions overnight and sea levels would continue to rise, an inevitability to which we must adapt
4) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that extreme weather events have increased in frequency or intensity in post-industrial times (although the reporting of such events certainly has)
5) There is no remotely compelling scientific evidence that climate change (man-made or otherwise) has resulted in widespread species extinctions (most extinctions have been attributed to habitat loss, over-exploitation, pollution or invasive species)
6) If you remove the (entirely natural) El Niño warming of 2015-16 there has been little statistically significant global warming this century
7) Recently (essentially this century) global warming has been slowing down (while our carbon dioxide emissions have continued to escalate), this illustrating the fact that there is no direct (or linear) correlation between global surface temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions
8) It is impossible to control the Earth’s average surface temperature (on the timescales of decades to centuries) just by controlling our carbon dioxide emissions
9) It is impossible to stop climate change happening – climate change is inherently complex, unpredictable and uncontrollable
10) It is impossible to specify a threshold for global warming beyond which the climatic effects become net-harmful (the 20C goal of the Paris Climate Accord is essentially politically arbitrary)
11) Carbon dioxide is an incombustible, colourless, odourless and tasteless gas that is a very effective plant nutrient. Thanks to our carbon dioxide emissions increasing concentrations in the atmosphere there has been a greening of the Earth that is already equivalent in size to twice the area of the USA and could fundamentally change the Earth’s carbon cycle by adding such a vast carbon sink. Furthermore, as the ‘fuel’ of photosynthesis and the creation of oxygen, it is absolutely essential to the existence of complex life on Earth (which includes us). Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the idea that carbon dioxide is a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin ‘will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world’
12) Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere today are about 46% higher than their (280ppm) pre-industrial level (largely because of our emissions) but about four times lower than their average level and at least 10 times lower than their highest level in the history of the Earth (based on paleoclimatology estimates)
13) The global average surface temperature today is about 10C higher than its pre-industrial level but about 60C lower than its average level and at least 130C lower than its highest level in the history of the Earth (based on paleoclimatology estimates)
14) Climate change computer models are proving very unreliable guides to future climate change (in particular they are substantially overestimating warming) – yet it is the most extreme ‘predictions’ of these models that are driving global climate and energy policies
15) The future costs and impacts of decarbonization may well exceed the future costs and impacts of man-made global warming, i.e. even if future man-made global warming becomes net-harmful it may not be cost-effective to mitigate it with decarbonization
16) Based on observational estimates of climate sensitivity (simplistically how much warming you get when you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) on the balance of probabilities further man-made global warming this century is unlikely to exceed 1.50C and its climatic effects might actually be net-beneficial for humans and the environment for many regions of the world [Here I am assuming climate sensitivity not exceeding 20C (based on the best empirical evidence) and ‘business as usual’ emissions trajectories leading to carbon dioxide concentrations not exceeding 700ppm by 2100. Note that by ‘business as usual’ I mean a reasonable extrapolation of economic, population and energy mix trends. This is not to be conflated with recent trends which have roughly tracked the IPCC scenario RCP8.5 (its most extreme emissions scenario, which is virtually impossible to occur)]
17) Climate disruption (e.g. the failure of the Gulf Stream) before the end of this century resulting from man-made global warming is not absolutely impossible but is extremely unlikely
18) A ‘mass extinction event’ before the end of this century resulting from man-made global warming is a virtual impossibility; however a global economic recession/depression resulting from climate policies designed to limit future warming to a half degree Centigrade (and so ostensibly avert such a catastrophe) is a virtual certainty
19) Intermittent wind and solar power is not the solution to any potential future climate change problem (certainly with any foreseeable development of battery technology to ‘plug the intermittency gap’)
20) Climate change science is currently immature, highly disputable and not remotely ‘settled’. This is precisely why many very different interpretations of the science have arisen
Based on the above points the politically correct vogue for councils/counties/countries to declare a ‘climate change emergency’ is clearly profoundly scientifically misconceived (in fact it is hard to avoid the word ‘delusional’) based on any reasonable definition of the word ‘emergency’. It might well make good political sense (to attract the ‘green vote’) but it makes no real scientific or economic sense. For example, the only statistically significant change in Britain’s climate for hundreds of years has been that it has warmed slightly – yet the UK Parliament has now declared a ‘climate change emergency’. Basically it is hard to see how climate change that so far has probably been net-beneficial for humans and the environment, that has lifted us out of the misery of the Little Ice Age that preceded it, with its droughts, crop failures, famines and epidemics, and has been accompanied by the Industrial Revolution’s soaring wealth and life expectancy (according to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2014) could reasonably, in the round, be described as an ‘emergency’; indeed quite the opposite.
Despite all of the above, if nevertheless the radical global decarbonization route is to be followed it cannot succeed without global concerted action, in particular from major emitters like China (30% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and rising – and funding about $36 billion of coal projects globally according to the IEEFA). Decarbonization unilateralism by small emitters is worse than pointless. For example even if Britain (1.1% of global emissions) somehow totally decarbonized its economy (with technologies not yet viable, like Carbon Capture and Sequestration), as is being recommended by its Committee on Climate Change, the future reduction in global warming would still be undetectably and unmeasurably small (estimated to be of the order of a hundredth of a degree Centigrade by 2100) and so basically just extremely economically, socially and environmentally damaging ‘virtue signalling’. The only basis on which this could possibly be described as even vaguely rational or responsible would be if major emitters, like China, followed Britain’s lead – and there is, to say the least, a negligible chance of that.
Of course these 20 conjectures are a great deal more complicated, qualified and uncertain than the 8 simple, absolute and certain ‘facts’ at the start of this essay. Given a choice between the complex uncertainties of my conjectures and the simple certainties of the ‘facts’ many would prefer the latter. So can we reduce all this complexity to a relatively simple ‘alternative climate change narrative’, at the very real risk of being as trite as the original set of ‘facts’? If forced to make such a gross simplification my suggestion would be:
a) Global warming is happening, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating
b) It has been caused by both human activity and natural activity (i.e. it has not just been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions)
c) It has caused a rise in sea levels, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating
d) It has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events
e) It has not caused accelerating global species extinctions
f) We are not experiencing a ‘climate change crisis’ or a ‘climate change emergency’ (indeed arguably quite the opposite) but climate disruption in the far future, although very unlikely, is not impossible
g) We cannot stop climate change but we can reduce climate change risks (albeit at an economic, social and environmental cost that may be prohibitive) by gradually transitioning to lower carbon-intensity energy sources (like natural gas), so reducing our emissions
h) The science behind the above points is immature and subject to dispute. There is almost total scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are happening and that we are contributing to them – but profound disagreements about the extent of our contribution, whether it will lead to ‘dangerous’ climate change and whether urgent global decarbonization is the correct policy response.
Now all this is highly controversial and iconoclastic because it subverts the politically correct orthodoxy on climate change, those alarming ‘facts’ that we are not supposed to question. Many would doubtless disagree with this alternative, more circumspect and far less alarming narrative, perhaps saying ‘well that’s not what the IPCC say.’ The IPCC is typically described as, ‘The internationally accepted authority on climate change’ and is viewed with reverence, not to say awe, by most academics, politicians, environmentalists and journalists, who regard it as virtually infallible and omniscient in all climate change matters. In fact many of my 20 points are directly derived from IPCC reports. Actually I suspect that the IPCC would privately agree with most of these 20 points (but would never publically admit it for fear of reducing the fear). Furthermore the IPCC, in keeping with its remit from the UN to support the UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the main international treaty on climate change), focuses almost exclusively on man-made climate change at the expense of important aspects of natural climate change and is arguably predisposed to a ‘presumption of guilt’ of carbon dioxide emissions. Basically to ignore the opinions of the IPCC would be as foolish as to believe that they are beyond reasonable dispute.
To really understand the climate change issue we must accept that it is far more complicated and nuanced and uncertain than the simplistic way it is typically reported in the media. We must open our minds to the wide range of expert opinions about the issue, give them deep thought, apply common sense, make careful judgements, and above all be wary of any simplistic all-purpose solutions, such as urgent global decarbonization. Unfortunately few people have available to them the time, inclination and perseverance to do that. As Dr. Richard Lindzen has said, ‘Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with the science.’ The apparent overwhelming message from the authorities (as mediated by the media) is that we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis that can only be fixed through urgent and radical global decarbonization and it is perfectly understandable (although regrettable) that the vast majority of the general public and journalists and politicians simply choose to believe this. Why do all that hard, time-consuming work when you can just believe. The simplistic certainties of the alarmist media narrative may be based on profound scientific misconceptions (as the authorities are well aware) but the attitude of the authorities appears to be that because a ‘climate change crisis’ in the distant future is not impossible this possible end justifies the dubious means – after all, even this alarmist narrative has failed to get the nations of the world to act decisively. If the authorities communicated the climate change issue honestly, in all its complexity and uncertainty, it would give governments even more reason to avoid or delay decarbonization. So the behavior of the scientific authorities is perfectly understandable, although regrettable, because it risks radical climate change policies being implemented that may be the cause of deep global regret in the future. And of course the behavior of the media is also perfectly understandable (although regrettable) because bad news sells; it is hard to monetize a ‘no climate change crisis’ story.
When people say that they believe in the climate change crisis because they ‘believe in science’ what they may actually be saying is that because they don’t really understand the science they choose to believe in the alarmist narrative promoted by the authorities and abetted by the media. Few people choose the ‘road less travelled’ of opening their minds to the competing arguments in the climate change debate, embracing complexity, uncertainty, doubt and social opprobrium when they can simply choose to believe what they think the authorities and other ‘right thinking’ people believe. On the one hand you have an apparently scientifically-straightforward, very easy to understand, very certain, very alarming problem (‘our carbon dioxide emissions are causing a climate change crisis’) with an ostensibly very simple solution (‘decarbonize’) and on the other hand you have a scientifically-challenging, very hard to understand, complex, nuanced and uncertain problem that may or may not be alarming and which has no simple solution. To put it another way, on the one hand you have an imminent existential planetary crisis that can only be solved by the radical and urgent transformation of global society and on the other hand you have a possible distant future problem with no obvious ‘correct’ policy response today. It’s not hard to see why certain people, in particular young, idealistic and impressionable people, may be more attracted to the former idea and want to break out the banners and ‘save the planet’ through a world revolution.
Within the climate science community the divide is essentially between those (epitomized by the IPCC) who predominantly put their faith in climate models (i.e. virtual world projections of what might happen in the future) and those who predominantly put their faith in empirical scientific evidence (i.e. real world observations of what has actually happened). The former group tend to focus on the possible high risks of future climate change and urge rapid global decarbonization just in case whilst the latter group tend to focus on the probable low risks of future climate change (and high costs and impacts of decarbonization) and urge circumspection. It might be said that the latter group is looking at the issue in the manner of a businessman, assessing the balance of probabilities, costs, benefits and risks (they are essentially gambling and saying that urgent decarbonization is probably a bad bet) whilst the former group is simply saying that there is a huge potential risk and therefore something (radical global decarbonization) must be done, almost irrespective of the probabilities, costs and adverse impacts. As Obersteiner et al put it in Managing Climate Risk, the key unresolved question is whether global decarbonization ‘will fundamentally reshape our common future on a global scale to our advantage, or quickly produce losses that can throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental bankruptcy.’ Climate scientists who question the dominant man-made climate change crisis narrative are not saying that there is a clear scientific verdict of ‘Innocent’ – instead they are simply saying that our guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities). Perhaps here we need the Scottish legal system’s verdict of ‘Not Proven’.
The fundamental problem with the climate change problem is that it is a ‘wicked’ problem: it is impossible to predict our climate future, determine whether it is benign or alarming and know how best to respond because there are simply too many variables, too many unknowns and too many uncertainties. However we choose to respond is a vast gamble with humanity’s future; however we choose to respond may result in deep regrets.
Discussions which frame Palestine’s precarious future within the context of US President Donald Trump’s so-called “deal of the century” versus the two-state compromise continue. Apparently with just these two dangerous options on the table, Palestine is being pushed into oblivion.
In anticipation of Trump’s deal, a group of former officials from European countries have sent a letter to EU Foreign Ministers and the EU High Representative for Foreign affairs and Security Policy. They call upon the EU to reject the US deal and affirm “the internationally agreed parameters for a two-state solution.”
Their letter calls the Oslo Agreement “a milestone of transatlantic foreign policy cooperation” and describes Trump’s decisions as “gambling with the security and stability of various countries located at Europe’s doorstep.” This is in the context of the US terminating its financial aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). If Europe does not reject Trump’s deal, the letter warns, the result will “accelerate the demise of the two-state option and fatally damage the cause of a durable peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike.”
A close reading of the letter shows that there is more concern about the EU retaining the upper-hand when it comes to diplomatic negotiations, rather than what happens to Palestinians within the context of Trump’s forthcoming deal. Indeed, in conclusion, the letter states that the current rift in policy is “a defining opportunity to reinforce our shared principles… and thereby manifest Europe’s unique role as a point of reference for a rules-based global order.”
All the concerns exhibited by such former this and former that people are alien to the Palestinian struggle for liberation; where were they when they were in positions of power and influence? What did they do or say then of any benefit to the Palestinians?
It is a fact that Palestine was changed, seemingly irrevocably, by European colonisation and the US has now stepped in to hasten the process. The EU is merely vying for international influence when it comes to Israel and it does so at the expense of Palestinian territory and Palestinian lives; it holds no moral high ground when it comes to protecting Israeli colonialism.
Unlike the US on this occasion, though, it has the backing of the so-called international community due to the common factor which is the “two-state solution”, a fatal compromise which rewards the state responsible for the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine. Since the international community has long since manipulated general consensus as being equivalent to fairness and legitimacy, the EU is diplomatically a step ahead in terms of international relations.
As far as Israel is concerned, both the US and the EU are serving the colonial agenda. The US is focusing on promoting overt normalisation of relations with Israel and providing incentives, while the EU has normalised such relations and maintains the illusion of supporting Palestinian rights. However, the underlying premise remains the two-state imposition supported by the Oslo Accords, the milestone diplomatic endeavour which duped the Palestinians and deprived them of their land.
If the EU is measuring its success by Oslo, it should be clear about its underlying agenda and detriment to Palestinians. Telling the EU to reject Trump’s plan in order to support an obsolete paradigm is just a matter of choosing which violation to uphold; of choosing the lesser of two evils: Trump’s plan or the two-state compromise. Both prioritise Israel, normalise colonialism and render Palestinians as mere recipients of humanitarian aid given in compensation for stolen land and shattered lives.
The EU might well achieve its aim of being an international point of reference, but it is worth reminding Brussels that a “rules-based global order” is not tantamount to justice. Europe’s position, though less belligerent than that of America’s, is also based on the premise of protecting Israel’s colonial project in Palestine at all costs, most of which are being paid by the indigenous Palestinians.
Facebook is receiving congratulations from the darkest corner of the web for reverting to the discredited gatekeeping of the legacy media and further eroding freedom of inquiry on the Internet, which in its early days gained popularity as an antidote to the very censorship we see Facebook (and Paypal and Amazon) imposing.
When they were all up and coming capitalists, the CEOs of these companies preached freedom of expression. Now that they’ve made it into the billionaire’s club they have abandoned the very ideals which brought them fame and fortune. Their conceit that they are avatars of new thinking for the digital age is now exposed as a cheap trick driven by the college campus nanny doctrine that there must be “safe spaces” erected where “micro-aggression” emanating from radical ideas cannot be allowed to penetrate.
Freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn’t mean freedom for your fiercest rivals in the ideological and political struggle. The Tech Tyrants have a megalomaniacal confidence in their own righteousness, which has increasingly transformed the Internet into a zone of conformity. As Heather Mac Donald notes, “They consider any disagreement with their own political outlook as a manifestation of ‘hate,’ and as such, fair game for suppression.”
What they ignore in their hubris is that there are few things more disturbing to Americans than suppression of the advancement of human knowledge through the free competition of ideas. Not so very long ago rights for homosexuals and their marriage were offensive topics proscribed by gatekeeping media. Today that suppression appears to modernists like a relic from a dark age, while suppressing conspiracy theorists and black Muslims is hailed as a virtue. It’s a case of the double standard, freedom of speech for me, but not for thee: my radical cause deserves to be publicized, while your radicalism is offensive to my dogma and therefore will be policed off Facebook and eventually, social media in general.
Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook cohort have banned and removed Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam from Facebook and Instagram. Farrakhan dissents from the conformist narrative about Israeli Zionism and Talmudic Judaism, while having the highest respect for true Jews. He is demonized and expelled by invoking “anti-Semitism.” All it takes is for the charge to be made and under the dictatorship of the Tech Tyrants, the accused is banned without the right of appeal or due process. This is from the playbook of Communist despot Vladimir Lenin and Nazi Judge Roland Freisler.
Last February Amazon banned three magisterial volumes of black history produced by the Nation of Islam’s scholars, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. To add insult to injury, this ignominious book-banning occurred during Black History Month. Amazon claims for public relations’ purposes to be an anti-racist organization, yet here we observe the white liberals who own Amazon sneaking through a ban on brilliant and thus far irrefutable works of black history.
The Canadian-Israeli researcher David Sheen appears to draw upon these books as the foundation of his lectures on the forbidden fact of the Judaic role in the black slave trade. As a white Judaic man he has the privilege of saying without fear of being banned, what Louis Farrakhan and his organization were the first to uncover and publish. This is white supremacy of the most hypocritical type.
Underneath all the slogans and name-calling is the struggle between ideas. The white nationalists who parade in the streets and fire guns at Judaic people, are too obtuse to perceive that their alleged combat contra Judaism is in truth a losing battle against their own philosophical allies. Talmudism of the “settler” type practiced since the founding of the Israeli state in 1948 is a form of racial-supremacist neo-Nazism. Hitler was under the influence of Kabbalistic and Talmudic ideology from 1919 onward. He was channeling the most ferocious racism on the planet.
Decades ago Hebrew University Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz warned of the ascendance of what he termed “Judeo-Nazis.” There are indeed Nazi rabbis teaching young people in the Israeli state today. They convey Hitler’s ideology to their students. For this writer to report it may cause me to be banned.
Facts have been judged too hot for you to handle and your infantilization is enforced by self-appointed commissars of the news, imitating the old model of gatekeeping perfected by the increasingly obsolete legacy media. This is a betrayal of the very idea of the Internet. In the 1990s John Perry Barlow, one of the earliest advocates of the Internet, witnessed it functioning as a revolutionary alternative to the censorship common to television and the newspapers, “We are now, as a global group, going into a period where the old editorial system, the old way of stomping down consciousness to a bearable aperture is about to get blasted.”
This is less the case in 2019. The bold promise of a new liberty online is being circumscribed and narrowed by a thousand incremental acts of suppression, which if it continues, over time will forge an Internet which mirrors the decrepit censorship system it was supposed to surpass and overcome.
For the advancement of knowledge without interdiction by partisan expurgators masquerading as objective journalists, a free and untrammeled Internet is absolutely essential, indeed fundamental to what it means to be fully human. “Human rights” is an empty shibboleth if it does not signify the right to know and argue freely according to conscience, something John Milton proposed in 1644, in his essay Areopagitica. He wrote, “If reading is regulated, then music, conversation, every incident of social life must be regulated too.” Four hundred years later and we have yet to learn what Milton knew.
Facebook, Paypal and Amazon will not suppress the Nazi rabbis or the pro-rape rabbis. Just as liberal white supremacy is the covert weapon against blacks in the Nation of Islam who are not willing to submit to the plantation mentality, Nazi ideology and genetic supremacy can be preached with impunity as long as it is done under Zionist or Talmudic auspices. If you understand this, then you know what a mockery is the solemn piety and finger-wagging that accompanies the suppression of heretics like Paul Joseph Watson and Louis Farrakhan.
Rabbis at the Israeli-government-funded Bnei David academy, an elite yeshiva (Talmud school) preparing Israeli youth for leadership positions in the Israeli army, glorify Hitler and the Nazis and urge the enslavement of Arabs. Don’t ask Wikipedia or the legacy news about these Israeli Nazis. You’re not supposed to know. This is what Facebook, Paypal and Amazon are working toward: a vacuum where Correct Think can safely extinguish vital information that has been damned as hateful by people who hate freedom.
Rabbi Eliezer Kashtiel lectures his students at Bnei David academy as follows:
“The gentiles will want to be our slaves. Being a slave to a Jew is the best. They’re glad to be slaves, they want to be slaves. Instead of just walking the streets and being stupid and violent and harming each other, once they’re slaves, their lives can begin to take shape….Yes, we’re racists. We believe in racism. There are races in the world and there are genetic traits inherent in nations. This demands that we think how to help them. There are differences among races…. There are nations around us with genetic defects. The Arab wants to be under Occupation because they have a genetic defect. They don’t know how to run a state. They don’t know how to do anything. Look at how they act.”
Rabbi Giora Radler, addressed the Bnei David academy youth:
“Let’s begin by asking the question: was Hitler right or not? He is the most correct person there is. He was definitely right in every word he said. His ideology was correct. There is a male world which fights, which deals with honor and the brotherhood of soldiers. And there is the soft, ethical feminine world which turns the other cheek.”
Louis Farrakhan has the highest respect for true Jews. But he has righteous anger when he sees Palestinian civilians murdered weekly with no tears shed by the white rulers of America. Neither does he suffer gladly black youth being summarily gunned down by members of American police departments which have been trained by Israeli police in the same tactics they use to wantonly take the lives of Palestinian youth.
The Internet Overlords are turning toward a dictatorship over the mind which they are imposing incrementally, using the pretext of combating white nationalism. (Last time we checked, Minister Farrakhan was not white). Combatting the white Talmudic extremism that is reviving the Hitler cult and has taken thousands of Palestinian lives is not on the agenda. How can it be, when the driving force behind Facebook’s censorship is its own deeply concealed white supremacy?
Our thoughts turn to China and other nations not captive to the Anglo-Zionist networks. American diplomats and newspaper and Internet pundits pompously lecture China on freedom of expression and democracy, presuming, as the British empire did in the 19th century, that the Chinese are dull and slow-witted. Can anyone expect the Chinese to loosen their hold on the Internet when they see American tech tyrants such as Mr. Zuckerberg practicing censorship and limiting free expression?
Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg is encouraging the closing of minds around the world in the name of opposing racism and hatred. Communist Party boss Xi Jinping censors to maintain “Confucian harmony.” Both are pretexts for thought control and the fear that a political or theological rival might get the best of the argument and win adherents.
Gaslighting Farrakhan presupposes that his support among people of color will decline because Facebook has silenced him. Yet the record shows that he has gone from strength to strength as a result of the attacks of the white power structure. Blacks in America are aware that Minister Farrakhan is being censored because he will not behave on the plantation. Moreover, his defiance is a lightning rod for people of all colors who are fed up with the crushing dominion of money over the free spirit of humanity.
Mr. Farrakhan’s position in the black community is not dependent on where he’s at in digital cyberspace. He’s the visionary who organized and led The Million Man March in the streets of Washington D.C. He is the one who has healed and empowered the black family. He has ennobled the black man and woman in the face of the pernicious hate and racism of the prestigious Rabbi Maimonides, who centuries ago taught the western world that blacks are lower than the level of human. Farrakhan reminds his people that they are the imago Dei, even as Maimonides classed them only slightly above apes. So who is the hater?
Louis Farrakhan’s love for his people cannot be disputed. Telling the black community he is a hater flies in the face of everything they know about him. Meanwhile, buildings are named and statues are erected to Maimonides by the closeted liberal white supremacists who cleverly sear their rivals with the stigma of “hater.”
The world is to be made safe for white supremacist Talmudism by any means, including making a charade of the West’s own hallowed principles of free speech. The blowback has already begun, however. In the HipHop World they are saying, “Minister Farrakhan has been instrumental in quelling beef, guiding the leaders like (rapper) Snoop and mending wounds that have been long-standing in the community. He’s a staple. Now, he has said something that people of a certain persuasion may take the wrong way, but what do you think Black people and others of color must contend with daily?”
The history of martyrdom demonstrates that blatantly repressive tactics against women and men who put their life on the line for their ideals will always help to propagate those ideals. Such a man is the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. Zuckerberg, Bezos and the other Internet monopolists will never defeat him.
Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press. His writing has appeared in the New York Times and the New York Review of Books. He is the author of the textbook Judaism Discovered, and a popular condensation, Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded. Mr. Hoffman is managing editor of Revisionist History® newsletter.
(This video available in HD, just set settings to 720)
Join Dark Journalist in this revealing documentary of the intelligence connections of Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of JFK. See the assassination researchers who have uncovered the truth that Oswald was set up to take the fall by shady elements in the deep state of power, politics and total control.
Listen to real former agents like E. Howard Hunt blow the whistle on the architects of the crime and witness Oswald associates who discuss his relationship with the CIA and his betrayal at the hands of covert puppet masters.
Explosive and insightful, this special documentary will show that the JFK assassination was an organized plot by an invisible coalescence of interests that used a young intelligence asset and manipulated him into being the patsy for the greatest crime of the 20th century!
With commentary from DA Jim Garrison, Colonel Dan Marvin, L. Fletcher Prouty, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Governor John Connally, LBJ, Roger Craig, George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, an exclusive interview with Judyth Vary Baker, then a college student, who knew Oswald, and much more! Includes top JFK witnesses and researchers with historical film and audio from the tragedy that changed the world.
I understand Daniel Larison’s frustration with US actions abroad, with him, finally, starting to use proper terminology about US foreign policy, which includes such terms as lunatics, fanatics and now degenerates–about time:
But truth to be told, it is not just Trump Administration, this applies to US political class as a whole, granted with few and notable exceptions. Can we start from the beginning and admit–US political class as a whole is utterly incompetent and aggressive. Replacing Bolton with someone else will make few, if any, differences. Even what passes in the US for so called realists is an amorphous group of good ol’ American exceptionalists, who still think that US is “good”. It is not–this whole, let’s call it for what it is, US imperialism and militarism is a natural state of what came to be known as national security-warfare state which sits firmly on the foundation of a large financial capital, which in desperate attempts to save itself will go to any length to find something to consume. So, low life Bolton or Pompeo are merely material manifestations of the most sinister interests of globalist financial mafia, which will dispose of the remnants of the American Republic if need be.
The transformation I observed in the US since 9/11 cannot be described in words other than an accelerating slide towards totalitarian society. And then you have, of course, moral freaks such as Maddow and HRC:
And here is my pitch–could it be that there are few, if any, simply decent human beings left in US political class? By decency, I, of course, do not mean nice on the surface people who pay taxes and attend church on Sunday–by that I mean not being a moral freak and lowlife scumbag in a larger metaphysical sense. I mean people who do the “right thing” and who are honest in the most fundamental way, under most difficult circumstances. Judging by the position United States finds itself today–no such people exist anymore. Just zombies, but that is precisely a social demand of a system–honest (and competent) people are simply filtered out. Look at the faces and behavior of Marco Rubio, Mike Pence or imbecile Joe Biden–little, fragile people who convinced themselves through ballot, which is to say through professional lying to people, that they are great. Indeed, it is not just the Ship of Fools, it is the Ship of Zombies. Zombies have no morality or decency and that is their defining characteristic which makes them not human and that can explain a lot. The system is IN the process of implosion and we observe it right in a front of our eyes and do not expect anyone to save it–there is simply no one decent out there.
Three hate crimes: a slaughter in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, a massacre in Sri Lanka and a shooting in a synagogue in San Diego; what do they have in common? The three attacks fit neatly within the Neocon vision of our emerging dystopia. We are set to hate each other. Conflict, hostility, terror – rivers of blood- keep the immoral interventionist agenda afloat.
But there is a deeper meaning in these recent events and the many others that preceded them. Terror, as we should know by now, is a message. Terror has a lethal rationale which is delivered by means of fear and destruction. Perhaps if we start to be attentive to the message of terror we may find this to be the best strategy to dilute its venom.
Many are convinced that terror must be met with fierce retaliation, an ‘eye for an eye’ is what the Israelites called it in their Old Testament. Thousands of eyes for an eye is how their Israeli ‘offspring’ interpret their religious text. This brutal genocidal approach has now been adopted by Israel’s most subservient English speaking colonies (The USA and Britain). I assume that being vengeful and merciless on a mass scale must be a satisfying experience for some, and exciting for others, but it hardly offers a prospect of a better future let alone the possibility of harmony and reconciliation.
Vindictiveness reduces the victim into the perpetrator of another crime. That which presents itself as defiance is, in practice, a total surrender to terror. If we really want to eliminate terror we had better learn to listen and even find forgiveness. We better invest our energy in understanding our enemies and attempting to decipher their plight. We must dig into the logus that drives hostility, intolerance, hatred, racism and even genocidal inclinations. We must ask what is it which brings about blood thirstiness towards Muslims (Christchurch), What is it that some Muslims hate about us the so called ‘West’ (Sri Lanka)? The above also apply to Jews. The people who claim to be subject to suffering, discrimination and hatred throughout their history should be able to wonder why. Unlike the so called progressives who attribute reactionary ‘phobia’ (homophobia, Islamophobia, Judeophobia etc.) to that which they oppose, I contend that the path towards progress is to search for the rationale.
To eliminate terror and defuse its poison, we have to reinstate our true Western philosophical ethos. We should seek truth and apply the rule of reason. In the hopeful world I grew up in, hostile debate and crude controversy were a source of inspiration. In the world in which we are living, intellectual polarity has been squashed by a tyranny of correctness. When people are silenced and suppressed they revert to violence. When people realise they are losing their elementary freedoms they become dangerous to themselves and their surroundings. If anyone out there is nostalgic about the hope for a better world, act to reinstate Athens in our midst. Listen to your enemy, love your foe, almost as much as you hate yourself.
If the above sounds familiar or even spiritual it is only because the political is dead in the water. What used to be known as a battle between socialism and capitalism, Left and Right, has reemerged as clash between greed and grace…
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. Ray’s duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief, which he briefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan’s five most senior national security advisers from 1981 to 1985. He received the Intelligence Commendation Medal at his retirement.
During the 1950s Solomon Asch conducted and published a series of experiments that demonstrated the degree to which an individual’s own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.
Demonstrating how a “normal” human being can be pressured into unusual behavior by people they deem as authority figures, or by the consensus of opinion around them.
This is an excerpt from a much longer article by Ron Unz originally entitled Oddities of the Jewish Religion, which we highly recommend.
We reproduce it here because there is so very little written about this important book, which debunks much of what was taught in the West in the 20th century about Russia.
Throughout most of my life, Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn was generally regarded as the greatest Russian literary figure of our modern era, and after reading all of his works, including The First Circle, Cancer Ward, and The Gulag Archipelago, I certainly concurred with this assertion, and eagerly absorbed Michael Scammel’s brilliant thousand page biography.
Although Russian himself, many of his closest friends were Jewish, but during the 1980s and 1990s, whispers of his supposed anti-Semitism began floating around, probably because he had sometimes hinted at the very prominent role of Jews in both financing and leading the Bolshevik Revolution, and afterward staffing the NKVD and administering the Gulag labor camps.
Late in his life, he wrote a massive two-volume history of the tangled relationship between Jews and Russians under the title Two Hundred Years Together, and although that work soon appeared in Russian, French, and German, nearly two decades later, no English translation has ever been authorized. His literary star seems also to have greatly waned in America since that time, and I only very rarely see his name mentioned these days in any of my regular newspapers.
Samizdat versions of major sections of his final work may easily be located on the Internet, and a few years ago Amazon temporarily sold a 750 page hard copy edition, which I ordered and lightly skimmed.
Everything seemed quite innocuous and factual, and nothing new jumped out at me, but perhaps the documentation of very heavy Jewish role in Communism was considered inappropriate for American audiences, as was the discussion of the extremely exploitative relationship between Jews and Slavic peasants in pre-revolutionary times, based on liquor-dealing and money-lending, which the Czars had often sought to mitigate.
When a ruling elite has limited connection to the population it controls, benevolent behavior is far less likely to occur, and those problems are magnified when that elite has a long tradition of ruthlessly extractive behavior. Enormous numbers of Russians suffered and died in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, and given the overwhelmingly Jewish composition of the top leadership during much of that period, it is hardly surprising that “anti-Semitism” was deemed a capital offense. Kevin MacDonald may have been the one who coined the term “hostile elite,” and discussed the unfortunate consequences when a country comes under such control.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, reborn Russia soon fell under the overwhelming domination of a small group of Oligarchs, almost entirely of Jewish background, and a decade of total misery and impoverishment for the general Russian population soon followed. But once an actual Russian named Vladimir Putin regained control, these trends reversed and the lives of Russians have enormously improved since that time.
America’s media organs were overwhelmingly friendly toward Russia when it was under Jewish Oligarchic rule, while Putin has been demonized in the press more ferociously than any world leader since Hitler.
Indeed, our media pundits regularly identify Putin as “the new Hitler” and I actually think the analogy might be a reasonable one, but just not in the way they intend.
The corporate backed “protest” group Extinction Rebellion fully explained. The main protagonists in this organisation and their links to Agenda 2030, the UN Global Action Plan and template NGO’S are all explained in this fact filled show.
Below are the emails between a member of the public who asked the inner core of Extinction Rebellion a few questions and the sinister responses and threats from their “Dragons”
The same type of “Dragons” were used in the Occupy power structure once it was under the control of George Soros they can be seen in The Puppet Masters of Occupy
Our previous shows on the ER cult gave a lot of information and context to this show. They are linked above, “Fake Protest Extinction Rebellion” and “Globalist Fake Revolution”. The articles on the website contain internal ER documents and screenshots.
The structure of ER mirrors the George Soros backed takeover of Occupy with its command structure including “Dragons”who threaten and intimidate anyone who asks questions.
We also have e mail threats from the sinister so called “Dragons” who protect the inner core of ER personnel. This all mirrors previous globalist backed protests.
We also look at the organizations linked to ER and how there are hundreds and globally thousands of these NGO template organizations all using the same narratives, all backed by the big financial interests which are pushing the climate change agenda for profit and ultimately control of the world population and all natural resources. The change agents, social entrepreneurs, psychological nudging, Saul Alinsky rules which all appeared as part of David Cameron’s Big Society.
Gail Bradbrook is one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion along with Roger Hallam and George Barda. Their Company is Compassionate Revolution Ltd and the ER protests came through Rising Up an organisation linked to other template type NGO’s which claim to be “grassroots”.
Gail Bradbrook is a consultant at Citizens Online, her profile was removed from the company’s website before the London “protests” Here it is before it was removed.
On the subject of fake protest groups: Demos the Think Tank which influences all media in the UK and is connected to the security services and MI5 stated:
“The New Democracy will work with a combination of government open infiltration and citizen groups taking Direct Action.”
The show looks at the template NGO’s linked to this “protest” and how they are in line with aims of the UN Agenda 2030, its taxation, restrictions and Smart Cities agenda and everything Globalist.
The use of the world “grassroots” has been hijacked to mean “state controlled and agents of the UN, IMF and World Bank.”
Around 48,400 animals, — namely pigs, monkeys, and guinea pigs — were killed in experiments conducted at the secret Porton Down laboratory in Wiltshire between 2007 and 2017, the Sunday Mirror reported. The Ministry of Defence supported the practice as being life-saving for British troops.
Porton Down reportedly tested experimental body armour by blasting animals covered in it with various explosives. It also tested poisonous substances, gases, and nerve agents on animals.
The news was not well received by animal rights groups, with Animal Aid slamming the experiments for causing “extreme suffering and death”, calling them morally unconscionable. The NGO stated that such experiments are unnecessary and noted that the number of killed animals is “alarming”.
Porton Down laboratory entered the limelight in connection with the poisoning of former Russian GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in 2018. The laboratory ran tests to determine which agent was used on them, but Russia suspects that the nerve agent could have originated from Porton Down’s own experiments, as it has historically dealt with such substances. Moscow demanded that London explain the nature of Porton Down’s latest experiments, as the laboratory is located so close to Salisbury, where the Skripals lived.
The UK, in turn, has pushed a narrative of blaming Moscow for the attack without presenting any credible evidence supporting the accusations.
The laboratory is also known for past questionable experiments. Namely, it contaminated an entire island in order to turn anthrax bacteria into a weapon that could be used against German cities during the Second World War. Porton Down also conducted dubious experiments on British servicemen in a bid to develop protection from certain nerve agents. One such experiment led to the death of Ronald Maddison, aged 20, in 1953.
Former Pfizer chief toxicologist Helmut Sterz presents a critical examination of the development, approval, and global rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—particularly those produced by Pfizer/BioNTech. The Vaccine Mafia details the failure of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, politicians, and international organizations to follow established scientific and ethical standards during the pandemic. Drawing on the author’s decades of experience in pharmaceutical toxicology, Sterz reveals the many ways the vaccines’ inadequate or omitted preclinical safety testing put the world’s population at risk.
Sterz demonstrates how “emergency” approvals allowed manufacturers to bypass long-standing international guidelines governing toxicity testing, especially with regard to reproductive and cancer risks. They also allowed governments and health authorities to ignore or conceal evidence of serious adverse effects that occurred, including myocarditis, reproductive harm, and other long-term health risks.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
