Category Archives: irrational leftism

Orwell’s essay on Newspeak from the end of 1984

Posted on by

One of the purposes of this site all along has been to try and understand the fundamentals of the systems of thought of both leftism and Islam. As we have learned, so we have tried to bring forth evidence and understanding of the significance of these systems of thought in terms of the threat to our civilization at its absolute core that they represent.

That core of our civilization would be its primary belief system as basic to our way of understanding the world, dealing with each other, and organizing our society as zeros and ones are to a CPU.

As an example, Islam has several forms of mandated deception for the purpose of dominance of all things. The most well known is taqiiya, but there is also Kitman and a couple of others. Interestingly the specifics of each form of deception shows a solid grasp of real reasoning in order just to come up with these methods of deceiving those who rely on honesty and cooperation.

But leftism has a deeper and more complete reframing of reality. Yes, it has a name and that is dialectics. And explaining it in any short form is tricky as it is truly a fundamentally different system of thought, (as Is Islam for that matter) So any attempt to understand it through our own forms of reasoning is bound to fail, other than in the simplest and most practical ways. Which is still very useful.
For example, we could say that the purpose of dialectics is to come up with narratives which look like they are in the public interest in some way but really is an attack on a component or components of our society. Components such as basic liberties as a primary example.

A good example of this would be how nearly all Western governments used Covid as a way of removing some of the most fundamental freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all people in nations that had been more or less republics before that. eg: For the public good, we are locking you inside. You must wear a mask to get food or be outdoors. You must take an untested new technology vaccine to save your grandmother etc. etc. ad naseum.

So that short form of the definition of dialectics is true for  many purposes. That one understanding may be enough to resist or fight back here and there in some circumstances.

At the end of the book, 1984 there is an essay on Newspeak. It could be argued to be a lesson on dialectics but without using the word. I would hope many people here would watch it and offer their thoughts in the comments. There is a lot of red meat in this essay.

Examples of how Newspeak is already in use in the West for the purposes of control are legion. Think about every time you have seen the same narrative, usually of just a few words pushed through every TV or mass media outlet in the Western world, and nearly always a lie and nearly always destructive to our liberties. Some examples are above. But they continue steadily. “Trump and his supporters are nazis” etc. etc.

In this essay, Orwell specifies how the word “free” is to be used in the future. Not entirely unlike how Muslims use the term, “freedom”, meaning free to implement the sharia, or “Justice” meaning sharia law. And any other use of those terms eventually will be memory holed in an Islamic state. They may be already for that matter.

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc,
but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that
when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten,
a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging from the principles of
Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is
dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and
often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could
properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the
possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly
by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable
words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and
so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single
example. The word FREE still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be
used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is
free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of 'politically
free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no
longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.
Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction
of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be
dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend
but to DIMINISH the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly
assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum."

Stephen Coughlin points out how contradictions which we witness daily from leftist leaders and media is not hypocrisy but dialectics. In this context it likely means that the use of certain phrases or words or actions which are justified under a certain rubric are then contradicted by another action or set of words in a similar context but with a different purpose.

The example which is so blatant it’s amusing from Trudeau is his frequent assertions that the Freedom Convoy are misogynists, while he gives CDN $367M to the Taliban. 

The purpose of these phrases is to create an effect. The meaning in the phrases is in part, assumed by the listener, and is meant to be understood by the public in a different way than what those who are initiated into these thought systems would understand them to mean. So when we hear the phrase, “Threat to our democracy” from all Western leaders, usually referring to counter-revolutionary public figures who the people would prefer as political leaders, they know we hear it one way, while they are using the term, “our democracy” in a much more Leninist way. And indeed, people like Trump and Orban and hopefully Poilievre are threats to their democracy as they use the word.

In Newspeak, something to one degree or another or in one way or another is certainly taking place and has been taking place in the Anglosphere for some time now. Anyone who has read Twain’s famous books, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer would know that the word that starts with a letter between M and O did not always mean what we were told it means. But the left decided for us all that there was no possible use for that word except in the most derogatory and humiliating sense and therefore it was never to be used ever under any context, including exposing the racism of someone because they used it.

In other words, it may not even be quoted to try and torpedo someone else who did use it. I believe one CBC reporter found that out and was publicly excoriated although I’m not sure there was any practical consequences to her after the initial flurry as she is a blue-overalls wearer after all.

Most people at this point would agree with banning that word. But the real issue is less the banning of that particular word as it is the state mandated meanings of words, and therefore the control of how we think by the reformatting of language. Although the state should play no role whatsoever in determining what words we may use, or in Canada, what words we must use. The issue which made Jordan Peterson famous.

Have a listen to this post script essay at the end of 1984 on Newspeak and please offer your own thoughts on any connections to today’s destruction and recreation of language as a fundamental tool of state control. Even if you don’t see any, there is a lot of insight in this portion of the audiobook.

Interesting security brief by Stephen Coughlin

Posted on by

This is a fairly straight forward brief by Maj. Coughlin. It gets fascinating at over the half way point when he talks about sorcery and pharmacology. Read the Tweet I put after this video in the context of his explanation of mind control and sorcery.

This appears to be an impromptu interview with Stephen after his brief

 

Another curious form of dialectical project naming by the UN

Posted on by

Those of you who may be old enough might recall a book called “The Limits to Growth,” published in 1972. A clearly leftist org with a mission to cause the west to destroy itself with false predictions about how much stuff was left in the world to mine.

Pierre Trudeau was a member if that tells us anything. And if it doesn’t you’re reading the wrong site.

The fun thing about the Club of Rome report, was that it was entirely predicated on the notion of over population of humans on the Earth. It was for all intents and purposes save entertainment, a distopian future novel where humans are reduced to squalor for having mined out the earth for materials and energy.

Having read it when I was a teenager, I can’t remember a great deal of it. But after literally arguing with Chat GPT for a bit I managed to coax an answer to some of the specifics in terms of what the planet Earth will run out of, and when it will run out of it.

(As an aside one might say that Chat GPT is a genuine intelligence by the purposeful way it lies, all the time, and to a single purpose. Confirming contemporary narratives)

CHAT GPT:

In The Limits to Growth (1972), the authors projected that under the assumption of continued exponential population and economic growth without significant technological advancements, the world would run out of oil by around 1992

Similarly, they predicted that copper could be depleted by around 2000 under the same conditions.

Depopulation became a craze as a result of the Club of Rome and its communist origins and intentions. It became the culture that people in the West would show their moral superiority by having very few children.

China did take this one to the next level, but China’s use of materials and fuels grew a great deal since then, so lack of population growth doesn’t factor in to the whopping pack of lies the Limits to Growth represents, since China’s industrialization represents a significant increase in the use of all of the materials the Limits to Growth concerned itself with.

Next, I asked Chat GPT the question that will bring me to the point of this article:

How did the Limits to Growth effect the UN’s population strategies?

It offered me two answers:

Response 1

The Limits to Growth (1972) had a significant influence on global discussions regarding population growth and sustainable development, including shaping the United Nations’ population strategies. The book highlighted the potential consequences of unchecked population growth, such as resource depletion, environmental degradation, and economic collapse, which resonated strongly with international policymakers.

Key Impacts on UN Population Strategies:

  1. Focus on Sustainability: The Limits to Growth emphasized the idea that continuous population growth in a world of finite resources was unsustainable. This reinforced the UN’s agenda to incorporate sustainability into its population programs. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), created in 1969, increasingly incorporated sustainable development concepts into its policies, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s.
  2. 1974 World Population Conference (Bucharest): In response to the growing global concerns about overpopulation and resource scarcity, reflected in The Limits to Growth, the UN organized the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest. The conference debated population control measures and emphasized the need for family planning programs, but also recognized the importance of addressing poverty and economic inequality. The work of the Club of Rome indirectly bolstered the urgency of these discussions.
  3. Integration with Development Policies: Following the publication of The Limits to Growth, the UN and other international organizations began to stress the interconnection between population growth, resource consumption, and environmental sustainability. This led to the promotion of integrated policies focusing on both population control and sustainable economic development, which were further institutionalized in programs like the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994.
  4. Shift Towards Family Planning: One of the tangible results of The Limits to Growth was the emphasis on family planning programs as a tool to manage population growth. The UN worked closely with governments around the world to promote family planning as a way to mitigate the environmental and economic pressures highlighted in the book.
  5. Global Environment and Development Discussions: The book’s emphasis on the environmental consequences of population growth helped influence the UN’s later focus on the intersection of population, environment, and development. This is seen in the Brundtland Commission Report (1987), titled Our Common Future, which called for sustainable development strategies and influenced subsequent UN conferences like the 1992 Earth Summit.

In summary, The Limits to Growth contributed to shaping the UN’s focus on sustainability, resource management, and the integration of population policies with environmental and economic development efforts. It helped popularize the idea that population control and sustainable resource use must go hand-in-hand to avoid global ecological crises?(

I prefer this response
ChatGPT
Response 2

The Limits to Growth significantly influenced global discourse on sustainability and population control, including the strategies and policies of the United Nations (UN). Although the book itself did not directly shape UN policies, its emphasis on the consequences of unchecked population growth and resource depletion contributed to a growing awareness that influenced population strategies within the UN and other international organizations.

Key Impacts on the UN’s Population Strategies:

  1. Sustainable Development Framework: The Limits to Growth underscored the interconnectedness of population growth, resource use, and environmental sustainability. This fed into the broader discussions within the UN about how unchecked population growth could exacerbate environmental degradation and resource scarcity. This thinking contributed to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), where the focus shifted to sustainable development, highlighting the need for controlling population growth in conjunction with promoting environmental sustainability.
  2. Emphasis on Population Control: The UN began integrating population control more actively into its strategies in the 1970s and 1980s, driven by concerns over the limits of Earth’s resources, as pointed out by The Limits to Growth. The UN Fund for Population Activities (now UNFPA) placed increasing emphasis on family planning, reproductive health, and the reduction of fertility rates in developing countries, partly influenced by the data and warnings provided by reports like The Limits to Growth.
  3. Global Collaboration on Population Issues: The message of The Limits to Growth reinforced the need for international collaboration to address population growth’s implications on global resources. This resulted in the UN organizing high-level discussions and conferences, such as the World Population Conferences in 1974 and 1984, to address these issues. These conferences aimed to find balanced solutions that would promote both human welfare and ecological preservation.
  4. Incorporation of Ecological Limits: In subsequent years, particularly with the UN’s Agenda 21 in 1992, the idea of ecological limits (central to The Limits to Growth) was integrated into population strategies, where population dynamics were viewed not just in terms of economic development but also in terms of their environmental impact.

While The Limits to Growth did not directly dictate specific UN population policies, its ideas contributed to a broader shift in international thinking. Population control became a part of a larger strategy to manage global resources responsibly, leading to the development of policies that promote family planning, reproductive rights, and sustainable development.

The book’s long-term influence is visible in how the UN approached population and sustainability from the 1970s onwards, emphasizing the interrelationship between population growth, economic development, and environmental sustainability?.

It almost kinda sorta looks like the Limits to Growth was a book foisted upon the public to justify a depopulation agenda by the UN. The fact that every prediction was wrong, and I mean wrong on the enormous scale of the ‘Global Warming’ line of effort against the West, is secondary to the point but not entirely irrelevant.

The United Nations, headed by a life-long communist in the form of António Guterres, has created a new phrase which is a 180 turn about from its previous position.

Identical in the ways that matter from its reversal of its Nuclear Winter stance pivoting deftly to Global Warming without even acknowledging its previous position, the United Nations has now coined the phrase, “Population Alarmism”.

Do not read further if drinking anything just at this moment. You will get coffee coming out of your nose.

Here is what Chat GPT had to say about the phrase:

Vlad: The UN refers to a phrase it created called Population Alarmism. what does it mean

Population Alarmism is a term used by the United Nations and other organizations to refer to exaggerated or overly pessimistic claims about the impacts of population growth. It often describes concerns or policies that focus on the perceived threats of overpopulation—such as resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and economic collapse—without fully considering other factors like technological advances, resource management, and demographic transitions.

The UN coined this term to caution against alarmist rhetoric, which can sometimes lead to counterproductive or overly aggressive population control policies. Population alarmism typically emerges from predictions or studies (such as those inspired by works like The Limits to Growth or Malthusian theory) that emphasize dire consequences without accounting for potential adaptive measures or changes in human behavior, such as advancements in agriculture, renewable energy, or improvements in family planning and health care.

Key Aspects of Population Alarmism:

  1. Exaggerated Risks: It emphasizes doomsday-like scenarios, where unchecked population growth is portrayed as leading inevitably to environmental and economic collapse.
  2. Oversimplified View: Often, alarmist views neglect complex factors, such as advancements in technology, shifts in birth rates due to education and access to contraception, and changes in resource management.
  3. Policy Consequences: The term is used to warn against policies or actions that stem from fear rather than evidence-based planning. In some historical cases, alarmist views on population growth led to extreme policies, such as forced sterilizations or strict family planning measures, which were later criticized for violating human rights.

The UN promotes a more nuanced approach, focusing on sustainable development, education, and voluntary family planning rather than drastic measures driven by fear of population growth.

For example, the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994 shifted global thinking from population control strategies toward broader goals like women’s empowerment, reproductive health, and sustainable development as solutions to population concerns. This approach directly counters the overly simplistic view associated with population alarmism?

So the UN actually created a phrase to try and dialectically negate its own policies on population via the Limits to Growth, even citing it as a problem.

Making sense of it is easy though.

Communism is about destruction through informational warfare. Nuclear Winter and Limits to Growth were not sufficiently destructive. So the pivot to global warming and “population alarmism” (I still can’t type that without twisting my lips all out of shape) was the next attempt. No contradiction there because the purpose was the same. The destruction of the West primarily.

As a Post Script, it has proven to be impossible for me to find any of the thousands of hours of people warning us about nuclear winter. David Suzuki, one of the people who somehow got a lot of the population to get those God-Awful compact fluorescent bulbs, was the best Canadian example of constant TV appearances about Nuclear Winter and then suddenly it was all Global Warming.

But good news! You can get a copy of Limits to Growth maybe from Amazon.

Screenshot

I should emphasize at this point that the purpose of this post is not to argue population or resource management. We are examining all these things from the point of view of an analysis of information warfare, primarily of the West but against all human modes of organization. To argue the rightness or wrongness of population and resource use is a perfectly legitimate discussion.
But it is our contention that this discussion, like nearly every other subject that matters, has been turned into weapons against the public. And to argue the specifics of what is not the point, is to give the information-warfare attack energy and mass.

This applies to all dialectic lines of operation.

North Carolina citizens are victims of Hanlon’s Razor, or critical economic theory

Posted on by

Occasionally this site has had a critical look at the expression known as Hanlon’s Razor, without knowing it was called Hanlon’s Razor. The expression goes: Never assume malice whne incompetence can explain the results”. We just knew it was bullshit. In fact, it is a classically dialectic approach for negating obvious malice in such a way that we fail to investigate it for what it really is. In fact, we think it is the reverse. Never assume incompetence when malice is more consistent with the results.

Let’s add to that what is becoming increasingly obvious about government spending. It has sweet bugger all to do with taxes. Taxation increasingly appears to be a way to control the middle class as the wealthy really don’t pay much from what we see and the poor pay nothing. In fact, taxes appear to have two purposes, neither of which is funding public works. Punishing the middle class, and enslaving them through never allowing them to retain enough money to be free of the system unless they are leftists. Then of course, well you know the rest.

How these two ideas tie together is easier than it should be.

Governments in North America never have the money to do anything constructive cause tax money ran out, but they have infinite money to do things which are destructive. Let’s see how that applies to the recent victims of the hurricane in NC:

Feds say there’s no money left to respond to hurricanes — after FEMA spent $1.4B on migrants

You know what? I could stop here. The headline says it all. But let’s flesh it out a little as it gets more interesting when yuou see that it appears the federal government is actively criminalizing citizens who try and help the stranded and destitute in NC:

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas set off outrage Wednesday when he told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “does not have the funds” to see Americans through the rest of this Atlantic hurricane season — after the agency spent more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address the migrant crisis.

“We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have,” Mayorkas said during a press gaggle on Air Force One en route to tour damage from Hurricane Helene in South and North Carolina.

“We are expecting another hurricane hitting,” he added. “We do not have the funds. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what — what is imminent.”

Anyone who sits down to do the books on this really doesn’t get it. Money is invented for destructive things. Money is withheld for things that make anything better. There is no better definition of dialectics. Let’s call this Dialectical economics and add it to the post from the other day.

Frankly, there are just too many of these to ignore them altogether:

A list of military aid to foreign nations

A personal account of going in to help the stranded and destitute

Instagram guy makes really serious claims about the state of NC. No way to verify.

Some of his claims I have seen made independently though.

Another Instagram from a gentleman who claims to be a member of the Florida State Guard recovery unit. He explains what is going on quite clearly.

Same video on Twitter:

There is a lot lot more out there. But I think this enough to fortify the theory. Hanlon’s razor is backwards, and the explanation for US government policy over the last years since Obama was first elected, excluding 2016 to 2020 can be explained by Critical economic theory and the proper examination of Hanlon as a dialectic device.

As an aside, this is a constant in Canada and across Western Europe as well.

Chemtrails?

Posted on by

This is an issue I have really worked at avoiding. It feels like an injected narrative to make other factual psuh-backs on state narratives look ridiculous. In other words, people who might believe the vaxx is a bio weapon created in a lab by the Chinese along with say, Fauci’s various organizations like Eco health Alliance could be made to look like kooks who believe in chemtrails. It is widely held that the term, “Conspiracy Theorist” was coined by the CIA/FBI to stop people from looking into the JFK assassinations.

The videos inset in this video are factual though. There is no doubt that governments around the world have been perusing weather control technologies for decades. And also even created some. Seeding clouds with silver iodide goes back a long way. But as to the rest of the claims in this video, well some of them are just claims for sure. Some have evidence of a sort. I dunno. Let’s call this for entertainment purposes until further notice.

There really are conspiracy theories that are a genuine threat to the world though. One of them is that Western industrial activity right down to heating your own homes creates CO2 which will cause the ice caps to melt and the oceans to rise and is an existential threat which would wipe out coastal cities by the year 2000! Now that is a dangerous, not to mention kooky conspiracy theory.

But I really have no idea about this one. RAIR article is here.

Comments on this post:

Comment:
Them trails are real.  I am a soft fruit grower in Southern Okanagan Valley of British Columbia.  We have experienced unprecedented sudden weather pattern changes, odd cloud configurations and elevated levels of Aluminum in our soils.  Aluminum inhibits a plants ability to uptake necessary minerals.  Conspiracy theory, no.  This is going on, look at the big picture which is reduce population specifically in North America.  Reduce food supply and go even further, reduce crop yield.  They are doing it!

A short and partial list of common (marxist) terms and a translation to reality

Posted on by

This is a post i have wanted to make for a long time. A Marxist to English dictionary, even if its only half a page. The point of it is to understand how to do it much more than just exposing the specific terms we chose as exemplars. Understanding the principles and methods of Marxist dialectical terminology is critical if you want to have any chance of seeing outside the Matrix.

Communism is not much more if anything at all, than a system for attacking and destroying Western civilization at every level at which Western Civilization operates and exists. More than we are even aware of. Every aspect of our nature from our forms of reasoning and cultures as well as all institutions and professions which support our systems. From medicine to engineers, pilots to teachers etc.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is an excellent manual on how to use orthodox Marxist methods adapted to the early 20th century. And a lot of those methods can be said to be a subset of Critical Theory.

At one level, critical theory is really simple. It is just criticizing everything about the West. Dishonestly, partially honestly, meaning spinning a real thing into something totally other than it really was to make the West, and especially the US look bad, or even honest criticism in an emergency, so to speak. Meaning when a narrative attack isn’t available. But in nearly all cases, Critical Theory is about a fictionalized version of the target and then a critical theory attack on that fiction.

It is because of this that we noticed that the media would sustain a rabid feeding frenzy over any non-white person killed by police either due to no fault of the police, like with George Floyd, or where the person who was shot richly deserved it as they were in the process of committing a violent crime. Even more importantly, that when a person who could be labelled as a black person was killed by police for reasons that were likely genuinely racist, there was little to no media and certainly no major protests or riots.

And this is 100% sensible when one understands that the idea is not to make the system better, but to destroy it altogether. 

When people protest a real problem there is a solution that makes things even better than they were before. But when the problem is synthetic, the solution the rioters want, defund the police etc. is the only option on the table.

Therefore, when we look at the way we are forced to look at race relations now in the West, and particularity the USA, we can see and understand it as a product of :

Critical Race Theory. A critical theory attack on the West by attacking people of European ethnicity, or “white people” as guilty of any number of things for which they have no connection and in many ways no-one ever was guilty as the history is usually partly or fully fictionalized. Certainly the context will be adjusted for the best effect of the Critical Theory attack.

The communists now in control of the schools are becoming more bold now and use the term, Critical Race Theory more openly. But that is what it is. A branch of Hegelian dialectics as interpreted by Marx and refined by the Frankfurt School tactician, Alinsky. This process of abstracting and expanding Marxist methods of attack on the West continue to this day. And the people fighting for the West for the most part do not understand the nature of the attack, and spend all their resources arguing the reality behind the critical theory attack, if they even get that far. In other words, arguing the surface specifics of a given narrative’s claims, while the critical theory attack does its damage.

As we often say, with the left, the point is never the point. The Revolution is always the point.

[I think I first heard that from Diana West but she may have been quoting someone else]

Let’s have a look at a few more terms:

Multiculturalism ~ Critical culture theory.

Like BLM is a marxist expression of critical theory by creating a dialectic confrontation between black and white people with the intention of destroying both ultimately, but ‘white’ people first, Multiculturalism is exactly the same. Bring in people from different cultures. Pretend to the host country that bringing in different cultures really just means interesting new recipes and sophisticated new arts and entertainment. But the reality of Multiculturalism means giving special protection to people from outside the host country to ‘protect their cultures’ while removing basic, even fundamental rights to the citizens of the host country, such that no opposition to what is taking place can happen without the objector being either directly guilty of a crime such as ‘hate speech’, or adjacent to a crime such as ‘racism’ where ‘racism’ while not always and not in all districts is specifically a crime, it can be dealt with by removing additional rights such as social media use, access to banking or even the right to use of a credit card or even accepting credit cards. So while not a crime, it is indeed punishable.

This happened to Robert Spencer for factual and unimpeachable explanations and descriptions of Islam that make Western peoples aware of it as a threat doctrine. Which it is. In case you haven’t noticed. But in all cases, the term, “multiculturalism’ is one deceptive click away from Critical race theory. The use of fictionalized race history and relations, or truthful ones but spun or cherry picked for a political outcome, rather than information. And the outcome is destruction.

Critical Culture Theory is tearing the west apart and down everywhere. And it has moved to pure oppression in the UK.

Climate Change ~ Critical Climate Theory

This one required an extra twist. It required moving from science as a method of understanding the universe, to scientism, where Marxist politicians tell you how the universe works. It is a gnostic cult of the White Coat. Science is never done by consensus. Politics and religion are, and in the case of communism, even that consensus is imposed from above. With Global Warming/Climate Change, we saw experts we never heard of, explain a consensus in the ‘science’ which has ‘already been done’ to explain why the measures being taken to ‘combat climate change’ cannot be questioned. You know, cause so many scientists agree. Real scientists, ones who explain their methods and publish their research get cancelled. Anyone who wants to see an excellent example of this should watch The Cloud Mystery. This is a short documentary by two Danish scientists who actually have a hypothesis on climate and temperature, and then prove it with data going back to Galileo’s first use of the telescope to study the Sun. Then watch the linked video of an explanation on how a Frankfurt School 2nd generation member, Jurgen Habermas, created the framework around which a small minority can impose their will on the majority using ‘consensus’ for political purposes.

Below, a truly amazing example of how Canada’s CBC COMINTERN broadcaster does exactly this. They make any refutation of Critical Climate Theory into hate speech as per Habermas. Have a listen after watching the linked video on Habermas.

But what makes it critical climate theory is its use to destroy Western industry. Communists picked the one marker that all industry in the world produces, CO2, and claimed it is a pollutant and claimed it as an existential threat to the World. Unless it is produced in China, North Korea, or anywhere else already socialist/communist. Then it is not to be mentioned. Like all Critical theory, it is meant to be destructive to Western Civ. And this one is majorly destructive. After all, if it was a real threat the people agitating over it would meet on Zoom and not fly private jets all over the world, and purchasing multi million dollar beach front homes for themselves where they themselves had saiid would be deep under water already from “global Warming”. And we would be building nuclear power plants as fast as we could. Even people who have real or exaggerated concerns about the safety of modern nuclear energy plants, will admit that the risk is not an existential risk to all life on Earth as they claim climate change to be. So in other words, it is a fake problem with real solutions that are avoided, in order to get the solutions they want, which is our destruction.

SOGI (Sexual orientation and Gender Identification) also Gender affirming Care ~ Critical Sex theory.

Destroying how people think of each other in terms of sexuality is a major victory for communists. After all, without reproduction, we go extinct. And yes, that is a victory for communism by some interpretations of communist theory. There are leftist groups across the West now that actively and openly seek human extinction. But as a rule, just for white people. Or more accurately, anyone who supports Western Civilization of any race or colour, as they will be labelled as white people and treated as such or worse by the left. Larry Elder as one clear example.

To the point though, destroying people’s ability to reproduce using drugs and surgical mutilation is a bonus. The main purpose is to destroy how Western people view each other sexually. This one deserves more than its own essay. It deserves a book.

Some point form proofs though, are that China made an official announcement, and passed a law, that no effeminate men can be seen  on TV. In other words, Critical Race Theory is a destructive dialectical weapon against the West and China needs to protect itself from it in case it comes back home. Like Covid.

Below is a truly excellent video on the communist origins of Critical Sex Theory:

DEI ~ Critical institutional theory, or Critical Merit Theory

The whole purpose of DEI is to destroy all the institutions we have. Stephen Coughlin feels it is primarily to destroy our military capability. And it can and it will. But it has already destroyed many other professions. The Merit principle is one of the absolute supporting pillars of Western Civ. The idea that the person best suited for a job and best at it, gets the job, not only enables things to be done well, but advances all of our sciences and arts throughout the history of Western Civ. One can spot quickly the number of positions in leftist governments that use DEI hires, or what we used to call, “Affirmative Action”. An older term used as a disguise for Critical Merit theory. This is not to say that people other than white males are incapable. In fact it has nothing to do with white males. DEI is about making sure the people picked for important and responsible positions are incapable. They would definitely pick a white male for a job requiring training and coordination if the person they picked had advanced Parkinson’s and Alzheimers. In fact they picked one for President of the United States.

The Merit principle also is the best example of actual fairness in human history. Everyone understands when someone who has worked harder, is more dedicated, more talented or simply better at a job gets the job. It was the replacement of nepotism. In fact some historians argue that Lincoln was actually shot by a man who felt that he deserved a well paid and prestigious civil service job by nepotism and was passed over for someone of greater merit. Out of resentment, he shot Lincoln. DEI manufactured the idea that all who are good or accomplished are oppressors, and therefore not deserving. That achievement is cheating. Taking responsibility is privilege and so on. Over the course of the revolution in the West during the past 10 years or so, we see countless examples of Critical merit theory. From Math is Racist to reading to your children is racist.

Harm Reduction:

This is the idea that creating an environment where illegal powerful narcotics can be used with zero legal repercussions and even facilitate its use, resulting in exponentially more addicts, fatalities and resultant crime from the use of these substances, somehow reduces the harm to the users and society as a whole. It is named dialectically as are the others in this list. A case could be made that providing the actual narcotics free could actually reduce harm, as it ends organized crime interest in the purchase and sale, and also guarantees the user a known purity, usually meaning no overdoses. But what the “harm Reduction” policies do is the exact opposite. Harm reduction keeps organized crime at the centre, while eliminating the cost from a legal point of view to the addict. It even removes the shame of it. The results are obvious. EVERYWHERE “Harm Reduction: has been implemented, the number of users has skyrocketed and the real and measurable harm in deaths, serious disease from drug use and prostitution and crime have all risen to the point of destroying entire urban areas.

“Diversity is our Strength” is the dialectic attack on United We Stand, divided we fall. because the intention is to make us fall by division. 

This is only a partial list. Comments are welcome with other phrases used as disguised attacks on us all.

Interview with Canadian veteran, Jeff Evely on how Canada repaid him for his service

Posted on by

This is basically a 2 part interview. The first part deals with his time at the Freedom Convoy, and subsequent arrests and government over-reactions. The second part starting at around 25 minutes in, discusses how the state convinced his child to undergo procedures to change the outward appearance of her body to resemble the other sex more or less.

The writeup is at RAIR.

Wall drops on the new Global full-control Panopticon via UN-WHO VAXX PASSPORT

Posted on by

This is one of the most disturbing videos I have worked on for some time. Watch carefully please.

Even this panel of experts in The Netherlands who clearly get it, are reluctant to say where this is going.

Although it is billed as a “Vaccine Passport” the impression that it is about travel is probably the least of the concerns. Clearly national borders are being dramatically redefined, if not obliterated altogether, Millions of 3rd workers are being brought in to Western countries, obviously at this point, to replace the people who built them. So this won’t be about travel.

It will be about whatever they need it to be about. Buying food. Leaving your 15 minute zone. Fuel of any kind. Anything.

Please spread this around.

Details at RAIR

Let’s ask a Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton about CO2 and Global Warming

Posted on by

 

Full text:

 

“CO2 is actually good for the world, so people ought to be encouraged to make more of it.” – Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University. According to Dr. Happer, carbon taxes are being pushed by “opportunists who are making a good living out of frightening everybody, and sucking money out of the common man, to push idiotic energy solutions on them that make everyone poorer and provide less reliable energy, less affordable energy”. “Let’s hope that there are enough people of common sense in the world… Let’s hope that they’ve got the good sense to throw out the rascals before they do too much damage.” Credit:

@ALEXNEWMAN_JOU
@NewAmericanMag

Kevin O’Leary from Shark Tank: Democrat states are UN-INVESTABLE

Posted on by

The fact that a US businessman had to move a company from Niagara Falls on the US side to Norway, a country most think of as socialist because of American leftist policies is quite revealing in terms of the nature of both states.

Winston Marshall interview on the whole gestalt including the history of evil of the New York Times

Posted on by

From the YouTube page:

In the aftermath of Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to Jim Jordan and the arrest of Telegram’s Pavel Durov, renowned investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg exposes the troubling history of media and social media bias and censorship at the highest levels. In this interview, Ashley reveals how the New York Times has shilled for authoritarian regimes from Stalin to Hitler and again today in America. He unpacks the troubling capture of Wikipedia by progressive interests and it’s relationship with YouTube, Google and the political establishment. The conversation explores the broader “digital civil war” as alternative voices challenge the establishment’s grip on information control. ———————————————————————————————————————– Linktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall

Explaining equity, and then showing how it results in brutal totalitarianism

Posted on by

1. New Counterspell video on the dialectics of equity. It is rare that there is a peril in not seeing a video. But don’t watch this one at your collective peril. This needs to be understood to at least some degree for us to fight back effectively.

2. Ireland: Please watch this and then consider the video in item 1.

3. Toronto: Islamic street prayers block major Toronto road and street car tracks.

And here we are.

Trevor Loudon on the communist clique running America

Posted on by

With a special emphasis on Commie Kamala. This starts a little slow and it is in the simplest terms. But its very good and may be worth sending to people who are just starting to ask questions about the nature of the Democrat party as it has been now since at least Obama, and Diana West would say since at least the New Deal.

 

Counterspell: Getting practical on the fight back against the Platonists

Posted on by

This is another great video by Counterspell Group. As usual, it simplifies and analogizes the complex or rather, alien thinking of the left. There is one thought I think is really interesting and even important in this video. And that is that we must not criticize people on the counter-revolution for “going to far”. The left simply does not do that and thusly they move the culture and institutions farther to the collectivist and authoritarian left every day. Yet we hobble ourselves when one of our own tries to push back to individualism and liberties.

Of course I do not mean allow people who are controlled ops to get away with painting us all with a false brush a la Alexander Dugin or Diagalon etc. But people questioning whether or not Gay marriage was a good idea instead of a form of civil union. Or reexamining Nixon as a truly great president and who was one of the first critical theory, Alinsky rule 13 victims in living memory. We must not take down our own for them as we have been doing, seems to be one of the central and more practical ideas in this video.