"Your Future As Peasants"
by Addison Wiggin
I know the human being and fish can co-exist peacefully.
- George W. Bush
"Okay, so are we “boiling the oceans,” as former Vice President Al Gore told the Davos Crowd of the World Economic Forum earlier this year… or are we “burnt toast”?
"Free Speech On Trial"
by Leighton Woodhouse and Alex Gutentag
"Neither sound very positive. And on a sunny day in the Mid-Atlantic, 75 degrees and a slight breeze, it doesn’t feel much like either. Still, it’s not a question we’re asking lightly. The journal Science Advances published the results of a study which has been measuring 9 key health factors for the planet earth. They include, Earth’s climate, biodiversity, land, freshwater, nutrient pollution and “novel” chemicals, those created by man. Those six metrics are all “out of whack” according to the AP, because all six are exceeding “safe operating space for humanity” on this shining ball of blue we call home.
“We are in very bad shape,” said Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We show in this analysis that the planet is losing resilience and the patient is sick.” Of the three other metrics the study tracks – ozone, health of the air and acidity in the oceans – only the ozone layer is in whack. “I’ve often said if we don’t quickly cut back on how we are stressing the Earth, we’re toast,” commented Granger Morgan, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon, when interviewed by AP. “This paper says it’s more likely that we’re burnt toast.”
As you can imagine, after the AP covered the study, the rest of the legacy press chimed right in. The “narrative,” of course, is that we’re all doomed to be boiled alive and, apparently, have dry mouth as we try to swallow the “burnt toast” conclusion. You’ll recall, here in The Daily Missive we’ve been following the debate between the “alarmists” and “deniers.”
The alarmists want draconian measures taken to mitigate the causes of climate change in their scientific view. The deniers, many of whom don’t dispute the science at all, but have a beef with the policy being crammed down our throats by politicians and unelected bureaucrats all over the globe. Deniers favor “adaptation” which is best supported by a free market and open source innovation. Addled by the Baader-Meinhoff phenomenon, we see these debates all over the place from network news to twitter posts.
The mitigators believe we need draconian measures to bring the Earth back into the whack it was before the Industrial Revolution in the 1750s. Oy. “Climate change is the perfect problem for enterprising globalists,” Jim Rickards told us in a Wiggin Sessions interview earlier this year. “It’s a global problem, so it requires a global solution.”
Our buddy Jud Anglin, writing in Mark Moss’ newsletter Brush Fires, identifies some objectives of the Davos Crowd, should we go along with their premise and accept that the seas are, in fact, boiling and the air tastes like stale bread crumbs. Here are the objectives of The Green World Order policy agenda, in bullet point form, according to Jud:
Centralized for total control. Eyes on you… Eyes on me.
A transformation from fossil fuels to electricity.
All your home appliances will have to be electrified:
Furnaces…
Gas Ranges and Ovens. ...
Water Heaters. ...
Clothes Dryers. ...
Fireplaces. ...
Grills. ...
Fire Pits...
Outdoor Lighting…
And, of course, you’ll drive an Electric Vehicle (EV).
The X (formerly Twitter) iconoclast, Jordan Peterson, tweeted a longer list:
No fireplaces.
No meat.
No dairy.
No heat.
No air conditioning.
No cars.
No clothes.
No flights.
No comedians.
No free speech.
No cash.
No cats.
No dogs.
No farm animals.
No children.
Your future as peasants under the eco-fascists. Really just fascists with the best excuse ever.
There are two main tenets we follow in our writing. The first is we start most of our inquiries with a simple question: “What could go wrong?” Then we see where that question takes us. The second is “ignore politics at your peril.” Both tenets are vital to keep in mind when planning your future… what you’re going to do with your money, what you’re going to do to protect your family, what you can do to ignore the busy body world improvers who want to tell you where to live, what to eat, what energy you can use, what you drive and… the worst of them all, what you can “think”.
Today’s installment of “ignore politics at your peril,” comes loaded with a fresh dose of Orwellian doublespeak. Below, you’ll find a piece tracking the Great Barrington Declaration as it wends its way through the courts. We’ll let the authors, Leighton Woodhouse and Alex Gutentag, writing in today’s episode of the online publication, Public, explain the Declaration and why it's destined for the Supreme Court.
Some context, The Biden White House, including specific members thereof, has been issued an injunction by a Federal judge in Louisiana forbidding them from talking to social media companies (like X, Facebook, LinkedIn etc.).
Specific evidence has been cited in instances where the Biden administration has demanded specific posts they deemed “misinformation” about the COVID-19 virus, mask mandates and vaccines. It’s a deep rabbit hole, if you have a few days of free time you want to spend wondering whatever happened to the America that cherished free speech.
Spoiler alert: White House lawyers are trying to get the injunction lifted because… the injunction violates the government’s right to free speech. In other words, they are using the 1st Amendment to argue they have the right to censor statements they don’t agree with. Yeah, see below.
In light of the climate “debate”, we’re keenly observing the Great Barrington Declaration as it trundles its way toward 1 First St NE, Washington, DC. If the Biden folks have their way, they will also be able censor “misinformation” about the climate. Rather, they will only allow you to read the forgone conclusion that the climate crisis is here and we must act urgently. After all, “the science is settled,” right?
“What kind of disaster,” we’re wondering beholden to our first tenet, “would a climate crisis lockdown of the economy create?” And how long could we expect the government to use emergency powers like they did during the pandemic? It’s Friday, enjoy the read below. And enjoy your weekend!"
o
by Leighton Woodhouse and Alex Gutentag
"Missouri v. Biden, one of the most important free speech cases in American history, is almost certainly going to the Supreme Court. The case centers around whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment of the Constitution when it pressured social media platforms to take down or de-amplify accounts that voiced speech the government disagreed with. Two of the plaintiffs in the case are Stanford University’s Dr. Jay Battacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, currently on leave from Harvard, who co-wrote a statement called the Great Barrington Declaration, which laid out an alternative public health response to lockdowns and school closures.
For that, they were personally targeted by Anthony Fauci and then-NIH Director Francis Collins, who orchestrated a media campaign to discredit them. On social media, they were censored and shadow-banned, which is at the heart of the case. On the Fourth of July, a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent the government from pressuring social media companies to censor any further content. That ruling was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which issued a mixed ruling on the injunction.
Yesterday, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in by appealing the federal court’s injunction. That’s a risky move for the government, given how stridently pro-free speech this court is. Most observers believe the Supreme Court is almost certain to hear the case. In its application for a stay on the injunction, the Biden administration argued that the Fifth Circuit decision “contradicts fundamental First Amendment principles.”
“A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the Office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans - and American companies - to act in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest,” the administration wrote. “The court imposed unprecedented limits on the ability of the President’s closest aides to use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern, on the FBI’s ability to address threats to the Nation’s security, and on the CDC’s ability to relay public health information at platforms’ request.”
In other words, according to the Biden administration, by preventing the government from censoring people, the court is violating the government’s freedom of speech. Public is tracking this case closely and will report on any developments here as it makes its way to the nation’s highest court."
o
"The Supreme Court Will Rule on Censorship"
Missouri v. Biden goes to the high court, setting up a historic
showdown. Did adminstration lawyers make a tactical error?
No comments:
Post a Comment