Heck yeah!

Everything progressives take over goes to crap because they have a pathological relationship with information. They shame and shun those who don’t play their moralised status games and curate their own information flows to preserve those same moralised status games.

At the foundation of your experience lie two fundamental modes of knowing that shape how you engage with reality. The first one is Participatory Knowing: This is how you "know" through your deep engagement with the world..it’s knowing by being an integral part of the patterns and principles of reality. The second mode of knowing is Perspectival Knowing: Imagine the unique "lens" through which you see the world...your perspective. It shapes your experiences but also limits them. This is about how you're positioned to see anything at all. And where participatory and perspectival knowing intersect you discover something remarkable: You don’t merely experience this intersection...you come from it. It’s the origin of your sense of self. Yet (when you try to grasp this origin) it slips away…

Woke Right Lie of the Day "By James Lindsay's definition, the Founding Fathers would be Woke Right." No, again, the Founding Fathers of the United States were not and are not Woke right, and the fact that many of them were (often conflicted) racists doesn't change that. The Founding Fathers of the United States were (a) realists, (b) individualists and anti-collectivists, (c) anti-statists, (d) anti-elitist, and (e) believed in limited and divided powers by a number of mechanisms including the mechanism of liberty itself among the people. All of this is easy to establish historically including by reading the founding documents themselves (e.g., Constitution) but also their other myriad writing. Being Woke Right includes the opposite of all of these things: (a') Romantic and/or Idealist, (b') collectivist, (c') statist (perhaps in the extreme), (d') highly elitist, and (e') advocate for unbound executive power and the restriction or removal of liberty. As you can see, this means the Founding Fathers, despite some very superficial points of similarity, were resoundingly NOT Woke Right, even without having to point out that "critical consciousness" hadn't (quite) developed by the late 18th century (yes, the underlying Gnosticism had, though, but as realists, the Founders did not subscribe to this in the way they constructed the country, even if some of them were (Gnostic) Freemasons individually). Let's compare. (a) The Founders were ultimately realists who believed in common sense. What this means is they believed an objective reality exists outside of us and that we each have at least some limited capacity to make sense of it (sense is common, hence common sense) for ourselves without authorities or intermediaries telling us what's real or true. This is also known as "General Revelation" in Christian circles. The Woke, in general, reject this for Romanticism, Idealism, and other forms of anti-realism, including particularly constructivism, that truth (our apprehension and articulation of reality) is ultimately (i) contingent on things like time, people, and place, and (ii) in need of decodification by more enlightened Elect elites who understand the contingencies of power and its ability to construct a "truth regime." Constructivism blends readily with Romanticism and Idealism to create a privately held vision for a renewed and/or idealized society that can be constructed by "seizing the means of production" of the contingencies of how "truth" and understanding (interpretation) are constructed by power. That is, they create a kind of elitism that is common on the Woke Right. The Founding Fathers worked specifically against this with deep metaphysical commitments to realism and common sense that reject it completely. (b) The Founders were individualists who were highly anti-collectivist. The ideal of their system was self-governance with an absolutely minimal central government, and the government of the States was to be modeled after this to the greatest degree possible in subsidiarity. They worried about collective power and sought to make all "collectives" (misusing the term for rhetorical purposes here, meaning corporate activity) entirely voluntary. The Woke Right, on the other hand, are collectivist. Whether by culture, nation, clan, kin, race, or other forms of community, they believe collectives bound on some level by involuntary solidarity are not only completely "natural" states for humanity but also necessary. As the enlightened Elect of these collectivist theories, they accept the mantle of leadership of their designated collectives, which they tend to hide behind. Radical members hiding behind innocents in name only is a very Woke trait (think feminists hiding behind all women, TQ hiding behind LGB, or Christian Nationalists hiding behind faithful Christians). (c) If anything is obvious about the Founding Fathers, they were anti-statist. Even considerably statist American leaders who came later, like Lincoln, were strongly anti-statist by comparison to the true statists who came later to muck up our system, particularly Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Again, the ideal was self-governance and federalism, deferring to the individual and to the states as much as possible. The Woke Right is very pro-state, however. They believe not in dismantling central power in the name of favoring legitimate subsidiarity but rather centralizing and wielding increasing state power to enforce a refactored subsidiarity where the subordinates do the will of the central authorities who can keep their hands relatively clean (cf. Hitler's Fuhrerprinzip). They wish to control and delimit personal and corporate action for the "common good," which has to be channeled and maintained through a powerful central authority, and they maintain this belief even when they also think our society should be shattered and balkanized into smaller largely autonomous communities (as in Spain, pre-Franco) of different beliefs. Their statism ultimately resembles the Hegelian model provided in Philosophy of Right (Recht), which is a kind of righteousness they believe they can apply for the "common good" and more or less uniquely perceive. (This is part of what makes them "Woke," by the way.) The Founders could have established a Constitutional Monarchy approximately anticipating Hegel's model (Hegel derived it largely from the budding American system but taken in a different direction), but deliberately did not. George Washington relinquished power to resist the temptations of kingship (which is Biblical), knowing even a potential inferior in future presidencies would be superior to establishing a centralized monarchy and dynasties. Ultimately, the Woke Right rejects self-government as either foolish or an invitation to Communist tyranny or mob rule. They believe too many people make too many illegitimate or bad choices or fail to understand their circumstances adequately to govern themselves and therefore must be ruled. (d) While many of the Founding Fathers were aristocratic in their own fashion and originally established the United States to limit suffrage and other forms of access to landholding white males, the founding ideal remained "all men are created equal," meaning in their Imago Dei and Fallen state. Thus all men are granted by virtue of arbitrary and hereditary factors exactly zero weight toward deserving political authority or having the favortism or disfavortism of the law. Judgment in both regards would be in terms of their character and competence. This enabled a healthy, flourishing natural hierarchy to emerge from a minimum of centralized, enforced, defined hierarchy. Even within the government itself, elitism was eschewed, perhaps except originally in the upper chamber of the Congress, which is the Senate. Representatives in the House were chosen from among the people and frequently, inviting much turnover and opportunity for common folk to get representation. Each branch of the government was designed to check and balance the others, perhaps imperfectly but still rather brilliantly. Their intentions against elitism could not be more clear. Even on the issue of white supremacy and slavery, they were very frequently at least conflicted and even pained by the institution, which many blamed on British establishment and an unfortunate socioeconomic entrenchment by that point. Some disagreed, obviously, and were just supremacist, but the writings of the time show a remarkable amount of pained contrition about the nasty institution, though solutions were lacking (which was also lamented openly, including by Jefferson himself quite eloquently, who understood some later generation would have to deal with it, likely in an ugly way, which panned out). Speaking of Jefferson, his belief in high-quality education available to the entire public who could amass the means for it reflects this anti-elitism. It's not just the children of the privileged who should become educated in the foundations of the nation, but every citizen who could make the opportunity. Again, farmers, the self-reliant, and self-government themselves were exalted. These carry the implication that the regular people don't need some pack of elites telling them how to run their lives and that not only they but everything would be better off without that elitism running things. It was an audacious experiment and wildly anti-elitist. On the other hand, the Woke Right are explicitly and eagerly elitist, observably to the same degree as they believe themselves to be the natural but lost elites who have rediscovered the true truths of society and thus deserve to order the affairs of men. They subscribe openly and eagerly to the Italian School of Elitism, for example. They are not anti-elitist, as you might think from their acceptance of James Burnham's critique of the managerial class/elite. Instead, they believe we simply have the wrong elites and would succeed if we replaced them with the right elites (themselves). This is exactly the same thing Marxists believe too: that the corrupt bourgeois elites maintain a corrupt bourgeois society that is unjust, so if the Marxists seize control and run the show as the new socialist elites, everything will start working its way toward the Utopia the bourgeois elites of today stand in the way of. (e) The Founders, as mentioned, believed in the division of power, which we see explicitly enshrined in the Constitution for the organization of the limited federal government and in the Bill of Rights to further limit the government in what it can do to the people. Every state constitution reflects these same ideals in one way or another too. American public servants do not rule; they serve with strong limits and under checks and balances and for limited time and only with the (renewed) consent of the governed (reelection). Jefferson went further and believed emphatically that the "factionalism" (e.g., Woke Left and Woke Right in our time) that plagued European politics would be avoided in the American Experiment by providing maximum liberty to speak, worship, believe, and associate, among other protections. He believed it would generate so many contending factions working in the common spirit of America itself that none could amass the necessary power to create what we would now call a mass movement. He saw this as a crucial safeguard against "democratic" tyranny (in the classical sense of the word). The Woke Right rejects this idea entirely and favors "unbound" centralized power, mostly drawing from the political theories of Carl Schmitt and Thomas Carlisle. Schmitt, in particular, was the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich and explained his concept of the "unbound executive" operating in the "state of exception" (to the rule of law) in several essays in the early 1920s and in a landmark book in 1933 (the year Hitler took power) called The Legal Basis for the Total State. The Woke Right favors increasingly unrestricted centralized executive power, especially for dealing with "states of exception" (crisis or emergency states, on their own definition). They might use this to fight the Woke Left, as they often argue, but the WHO Pandemic powers and all of the myriad abuses of Covid-19, plus much else, flowed also directly from this bad political logic. A good king is good when he's good but very bad when he's not, and not all kings have any capacity for goodness in the first place. This last point is the starkest difference between the Founding Fathers and the Woke Right. The Woke Right Lies About This Situation There are three essential pieces to this particularly stupid piece of Woke Right lying without getting into its several strategic purposes. The first is that some, maybe many, of the Founding Fathers were (often conflicted) racists and white supremacists, and in documents such as bills in the First Congress they made explicit reference to the nation being for "white people." The specific claim is that the Founding Fathers had "racial consciousness" (misapplying the term) and are therefore "Woke" by the standards I have allegedly set out. The second is that the Founding Fathers recognized their state of oppression under the British Crown and George III and resolved to relieve themselves of this oppression, which they did by declaring independence from the Crown. The specific idiotic claim, which appears in other places as well, is that "James says oppressor-versus-oppressed = Woke, so if there is recognition of oppression even when it's real, you're Woke." This is idiotic, wrong, and a completely failed reading of Marx (probably there was no reading of Marx, tbh). The third is that the Founding Fathers were, by definition, revolutionaries who, by necessity, were violent revolutionaries. The Woke Right conflates this fact with Marxist and Fascist subversive revolution, which is completely different. Understanding what "Woke" actually represents, which is a totalizing conflict theory of society between oppressor and oppressed such that the oppressed can adopt slave morality and work in collectivist lockstep to transform the world according to their utopian vision, undermines all three of these claims. Woke Right, almost to a man, however, does not understand Woke at all, and they promote many lies that stem from their (sometimes deliberate) failed understanding. The first of these arguments makes some among the Founders racists and white supremacists, not Woke. Racism and white supremacy, deplorable and despicable as they are, are not on their own Woke. The stratification theory of society has to be believed to be totalizing and indicative of the movement of History itself through the contention of the classes. That is, Woke is about believing that a state of conflict from oppressor back against oppressed moves History from one stuck stage to the next. The second misunderstands, again, the nature of the role oppression plays in a Woke worldview. Of course oppression sometimes actually exists (as does a lesser form, repression). Of course some people realize they are (actually) oppressed or repressed and decide to end that state of affairs. Throwing off the shackles of a tyrant is nowhere close to the same thing as believing you are advancing the teleological cause of History by initiating a battle in the conflict that defines History. It's just getting rid of unjust and arbitrary power. Woke understands oppression in a much different way than the way oppression exists in reality when it is occurring. Oppression is an all-pervasive system. It is not merely institutional, as with the Crown or a corrupt government or under a warlord. Woke believes that is not even generally possible to think of an alternative to the corrupt system except through (Gnostic) enlightenment to the true-but-hidden workings of society. Woke believes oppression is totalizing, therefore, not merely imposed. The oppressors and the oppressed both are complicit in the dynamic of oppression, and the oppressed are merely unaware of this fact. Woke also believes it is intrinsically a permanent conflict, and that conflict is defining of what it means to be human. Third, the Founders fought a revolution, in violence, to throw off the shackles of the Crown because they were actually shackles. They did not attempt to set up a new tyranny of their own to control the people on their own contrived terms afterwards, but the opposite. They did not claim the "struggle" was permanent. They endeavored to install the most objective system (common sense, rule of law, divided powers) they could, which is the opposite of "seizing the means of production" of society. Had the Crown accepted their declaration of independence, there would have been little or no violence aside from those skirmishes that preceded it, but the Crown did not accept the terms and decided to fight. The Founders fought back for their liberty, not a new tyranny. The Founders were not liberationist but merely seeking genuine liberty. They saw the revolution as an unfortunate necessity for achieving that, but not as a way to subvert the existing order for their own gain. This last point is a crucial difference between the Founders and "Woke." The Woke Right, on these points, are misleading at best and deceptive, if not malicious, at worst. They either don't know what they're talking about re: either Woke or the Founders, or, much worse, maybe they do. Woke Right Strategic Purposes for These Lies These particular lies about the Founders and Woke serve several strategic purposes. I'll describe a few here in brief. (1) It muddies the definition of "Woke Right," which allows them to pretend the term is "meaningless," "unhelpful," or "too broad." Using the Iron Law of Woke Projection, they tend to add that the term "Woke Right" muddies the issue and waters down the meaning of the term "Woke," which they were using as a unifying pejorative for an enemy class (this has its own purposes I won't get into now). (2) It seems to align them with the Founding Fathers while saying the people exposing them are the ones who have deviated. If we "accept" that the term "Woke Right" applies to the Founding Fathers as falsely alleged by the Woke Right, that means the Woke Right are just acting more in line with what America's Founders intended. This is a kind of ideological stolen valor. (3) Inapt mockery of their exposers to discredit them aside from their often-detailed (see: the present discussion) criticisms and arguments. Woke almost always proceeds by trying to diminish (a) intellectual authority, (b) moral authority, and (c) psychological authority in its critics. This particular argument achieves (b) by the two mechanisms above and (a) by trying to show that the Woke Right actors know the Founding history better than their detractors, who are therefore allegedly arguing baselessly. This is a scam tactic, but it works. (4) To subtly and even overtly write a Woke Right historicism of the Founding that retells the story in a way flattering to Woke Right agendas and ambitions. By leveraging this argument, the Woke Right can tell a revisionist version of American history that puts them in line with the intended current of that history while excluding their critics. Historical revisionism (historicism) of this kind is common in Wokery. Using this argument allows them to advance their in-house, self-serving historicism of the Founding. This approach operates through making superficial comparisons that ignore (and negate) the deeper points including profound differences in ambitions (liberty versus power and self-government versus centralized statism) and underlying metaphysical commitments (realism and common sense versus Romanticism, Idealism, and (Gnostic) elitism). In closing, the Founders weren't just not Woke Right, despite some superficial similarities like fighting a revolution, being (sometimes) racist ("identitarian"), being (somewhat) aristocratic (at first), and rejecting legitimate oppression. They were in every meaningful respect the opposite of Woke Right. This Woke Right Lie of the Day is a true "WHOPPER."

Thanks, Peter! This is the beginning of the end for destructive wildfires. In a country that loses ~$500B every year to wildfires, even tiny gains make for huge savings, to say nothing of the incalculable value of lives and homes.

If you use Google Drive, you need to read this. Google holds the keys to every file you've stored there. That means Google can open them, and now its AI can too. 🧵 1/7

1. The second post in my series on why ‘capitalism’ and ‘capitalist’ are such misleading terms examines why profit and loss are problematic for Marxism and, more oddly, mainstream Economics; the centrality of risk to how commerce works;

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE DEMOCRAT MIND BEFORE YOU CAN DEFEAT IT Most liberals do not wake up believing they are destroying America. They believe they are compassionate, enlightened and morally superior. That is exactly what makes their worldview so dangerous. They can justify almost anything as long as they convince themselves they are helping somebody. Here is how they think. They do not begin with truth. They begin with feelings. If something feels compassionate, they call it good. If the facts prove it causes harm, they ignore the results and defend the intention. They see almost everything through oppressors and victims. The rich oppress the poor. Employers oppress workers. Police oppress criminals. Men oppress women. White people oppress minorities. Christians oppress sinners. America oppresses the world. Once somebody is declared a victim, personal responsibility disappears. Bad decisions become society’s fault. Crime becomes poverty’s fault. Failure becomes discrimination. Dependence becomes compassion. We believe people must answer for their choices. They believe consequences are another form of oppression. They do not believe truth is fixed. They believe each person can create his own truth. That is how a man becomes a woman by saying it, biological reality becomes hate speech and everyone else is ordered to participate in the delusion. Gender dysphoria is real mental distress and should be treated with compassion, but compassion does not require lying. A man is still a man. A woman is still a woman. Feelings do not rewrite chromosomes, and government cannot repeal biology. They see abortion as personal freedom because the mother’s wishes outrank the unborn child’s life. We see a living child with his or her own DNA, heartbeat and future. Millions of unborn children have been killed because they were unwanted or inconvenient, yet the left calls that healthcare. Their radicals fight restrictions even late in pregnancy, then accuse Christians of cruelty for defending the baby. That is how completely their moral compass has been turned upside down. The modern left is largely driven by atheism, agnosticism and a counterfeit version of Christianity. Some reject God openly. Others play church in congregations that validate every sin, demand no repentance and bend Scripture around the latest political movement. They want a Jesus who never judges, never commands and never says no. There God is the Government or a cause like abortion or gun control, not God above. That is not biblical Christianity. It is a social club with stained-glass windows. They reject the Ten Commandments because those commandments expose the very things their movement excuses. They defend sexual immorality, covet what others earned, excuse stealing when government does it, tolerate dishonesty when it advances the cause and defend the killing of unborn children. Then they call Christians hateful for refusing to celebrate it. They believe equal opportunity is not enough. They demand equal outcomes. If one person succeeds more than another, they assume somebody cheated. Hard work, discipline, talent, sacrifice and good decisions are pushed aside because admitting those things matter would destroy the victim narrative. They enjoy every blessing capitalism created while attacking capitalism. They use smartphones, air conditioning, modern medicine, dependable vehicles and overnight delivery. They live better than kings once lived, then curse the farmers, builders, employers, investors and workers who produced that prosperity. They embrace socialism/communism because it is the religion of envy and destruction of capital. It's a proven historical fact that it always fails and only creates equal misery and destruction. Taking from that those that do and giving to those that won't is morally and historicaly wrong. 1/…

Today, I am announcing the Joint Warfighter Evaluation.

We are in a CO2 famine. More CO2 is good for life on earth and at 420 ppm of CO2, plants are starving. That die at 150ppm and thrive at 1000-1200 ppm. CO2 is not a temperature control knob. I love CO2, you should too.

After sending 100+ monitors in the primaries, we @CivilRights plan to send 1000 federal election monitors to select locations around the country to observe the general election in November. This will be the largest monitoring effort in @theJusticeDept history!

CNN and MSNBC reporters burst into tears outside the White House gate after being banned. Here’s 3 reason why their tears mean nothing… 1. Biden already banned hundreds of reporters — mostly center-right — and barely took questions. CNN and MSNBC said nothing. 2. Theses same reporters cheered and danced like goblins when Trump was banned from YouTube, Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and then debanked. Free speech only matters when THEY are under attack. 3. These news channels never aired Trump’s rallies live. They clipped him, talked over him, and sneered while depriving their viewers of the Presidents voice. Hard to argue now they need access to Trump. BONUS: Freedom of speech is not freedom of access. The First Amendment argument collapses when you understand the limiting principles of these people. They can keep lying from the sidewalk.

The Leftist mindset is that people are the product of their conditions. I don't mean this in some cutesy way that's kind of true, that we are shaped by our conditions. They believe fully literally that we are the product of our conditions, and "conditions" are those things that shape systemic political power. That applies to every aspect of life, down to how we think the world works, the vocabulary we might use to communicate, what our hopes and fears are, what's true and false, what's right and wrong, everything. In particular, it defines something like a horizon of possibility that people hold for their lives. Their present conditions prevent them from seeing beyond that horizon, so they accept the limitations of the present world (real, fake, or whatever). They believe that every existing society operates like a brainwashing bubble that "socializes" its members into this set of conceptual and imaginative limitations, and they believe that the people who control society control and maintain the terms upon which people are constructed and defined (through socialization into that society). Every harm, every injustice, everything they don't understand, every foiled hope, every dream that isn't actually possible, etc., is therefore an indictment of the people who hold power over the existing society. Anything that threatens the existing socialization program is therefore potentially good or useful and can be brought into use for Leftist ends. The Left really believes this, though. They also believe they can see a little beyond the present horizon to greater freedom ("liberation" from the existing system and its harms). They believe they should therefore control the socialization program (which is always running) to make people like themselves who can see a little beyond the rim. Part of what they believe is that the people who have the power in society, or who benefit from its current arrangement (as they would put it), do everything they can to limit people's abilities to see beyond the rim, so they fight to keep people inside the current bubble. That's how they either oppress or are complicit in oppression. They believe they, themselves, are not perfect but are more enlightened (or Elect) than people who accept the current system as how it is ("the status quo"). They should therefore seize the means of production of the socializing forces and conditions in order to make people who can see the world differently, outside of the existing (false, imposed) limitations. This all gets wrapped up in political power. The control of the bubble is ultimately political, they assess, therefore everything is political because the terms by which we understand it are political. The current politics are bad, and their different politics would be good, so it's a moral imperative for them to take over and open up idealistically beyond the horizons of realism. Because they are collectivist and statist in their beliefs about how society works, they believe the state will be the object that controls how people are socialized. That is, the state might not produce the conditions that produce and limit people, but it enforces the boundary and could enforce different boundaries. Therefore, they believe the state, acting as the incorporation of the people who can see beyond the rim, should be the instrument for resocializing people in the new way and that it is a matter of moral necessity to empower the state to do this against the actors in society who benefit from that not happening ("oppressors"). This "incorporation of the people" thing is also understood literally, in the collectivist sense. The society itself is like one body, and each person is like a cell in that body, all meant to work in harmony together for the good of the whole. The state has the power to organize and discipline that body (like the Mind or Will) and therefore should be given that authority. Anyone who resists this awakening, collectivist incorporation, and transformation is maintaining oppression and should be resocialized or destroyed because of the threat they pose to the body. That is, they're cells of a cancer to heal or to eliminate. Those people are trapping us within a false set of limits that harms people, mostly for their own benefit, which is a cancer to the body. This is how they see the world, and it comes out in expressions like the below: "Doesn't matter [how good the outcomes are], the primary purpose of elementary/middle school isn't to teach it's to socialize your kid. You can't do that alone."

The Earth is in a protracted ice age, and average global temperatures are around 15°C, still far lower than the long-term historical average of 18°C to 26°C. The world is just too cold to be facing a crisis of global warming. Polar ice sheets are almost entirely isolated from warmer tropical waters, and any significant glacial ice loss is likely to last thousands of years, potentially raising sea levels by only a few millimeters a year. Any protracted warming or carbon dioxide rise is more likely to benefit plant growth, improved living conditions, and higher food production. This has already been identified in NASA satellite studies. Predicted extreme temperature rise scenarios—such as warming reaching up to 5°C by 2050—have been increasingly set aside in recent years by climate modeling cohorts and United Nations assessments as support fades for extreme high-emissions scenarios in favor of more realistic baselines. The evidence of our ice age world is sitting there like a sudden winter snowdrift. Ten percent of the world's land area is still under glacial ice, which covers 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles)—roughly a third of its peak extent during the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago). The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest and thickest ice formation on Earth, reaching up to 4.8 kilometers (about 3 miles) deep. It holds 90% of the world's ice by volume and accounts for around 85% of total global glacial ice cover, spanning roughly 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles)—8.3% of the world's land surface. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age has not ended, having lasted for 34 million years, triggered by the glaciation of Antarctica, orbital anomalies (Milankovitch cycles), and tectonic shifts that isolated the Antarctic continent as Australia and South America drifted northward. Human civilisation has risen almost entirely during the benevolently warm Holocene interglacial period, which has lasted for 11,700 years. The alternating cycles of glacial and interglacial periods have been taking place continually for 2.58 million years. These are very long-standing geological cycles, driven by orbital shifts (known as Milankovitch cycles). However, the oceans are the Earth's greatest and most abundant physical feature visible from space. Oceans cover three quarters (72%) of the globe to an average depth of 2.3 miles, while forests cover 31% and deserts 33%. Most of the rest of the world is still wilderness. Furthermore, the oceans contain 86% of the surface carbon reservoir and 91% of all retained heat energy; by contrast, the atmosphere holds a mere 1 to 2% of each. For four decades, public debate has been dominated by fear and guilt, centered on claims of a looming climate crisis caused by us. The UN has led this campaign, which is unrelated to its mandated purpose of resolving international conflicts. Much of the scientific basis for the campaign was based on worst-case computer model scenarios and forecasts of soaring world temperatures. The intensity of this campaign has progressively been diminishing.

🚨 IDF MOVES TO RELEASE OCT. 7 ATROCITY FILM AMID ‘NAZA’ FALLOUT The IDF is advancing plans to publicly release its 47-minute compilation of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre footage, according to Channel 12. Netanyahu and the defense establishment reportedly back the move as Israel pushes back against the “NAZA” documentary’s allegations over AI-assisted strikes in Gaza. The IDF says it “categorically rejects” the documentary’s allegations and stresses strike decisions are made “by human personnel only… and not by artificial intelligence.” The Oct. 7 compilation has until now only been screened behind closed doors.

HORRIFYING: Hackers have breached the IRGC’s network and found out what we already knew. It is now CONFIRMED that at least 100,000 Iranians were murdered by the Islamic regime during the January protests. One of the deadliest massacres in history.

Water, ocean currents, water vapour and clouds ultimately dominate the earth's dynamic biosphere and sustain all life within it. Human civilisation emerged in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age (the past 34 million years) - and subsequent recurring glacial cycles and climate spikes over the last 2.58 million years of severe glaciation cycles. CO₂ ultimately does not drive such massive shifts in the world's climate. CO₂ is still a single trace gas at 420 parts per million. Nor do its effects increase exponentially as volume increases, as the warming crisis narrative seems to imply. The effects of CO₂ are logarithmic, as parts of its bandwidth become saturated or overloaded. Each additional unit has a diminishing impact. There are endless examples of warming trends that were not caused by CO₂, such as the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods during the 11,700 years of the current Holocene interglacial warm period. This 'control knob' scenario cannot be compared with the massive, linear influence of a world dominated by the oceans and ocean currents. The oceans are vast, covering 71% of the world's surface area to an average depth of 2.3 miles - holding 96.5% of all the planet's water. They also contain 91-93% of the world's retained heat energy, the great driver of ocean currents. Water is also 1,000 times denser and heavier than the air. Water is the de facto lungs of the earth, containing 86% of the surface carbon reservoir (the atmosphere retains only 1-2%). Oceans are also the world's great air conditioning unit and the heartbeat of all life, through photosynthesis. Ocean currents have warmed Northern Europe since the closure of the Isthmus of Panama around 2.8–3 million years ago. One round trip takes 1,000 years for a single parcel of water. The flow of warm waters to the north prevents much of northern Europe having a frigid climate like Greenland. The effects on the climate we experience day-to-day are overwhelming. There's a hundred times more water vapour in the air than CO₂, a trace gas at 426 parts 'per million'. Water vapour dominates the world's atmosphere, reaching up to 4% in the humid tropics and warm oceanic regions and the mid latitudes. Water vapour is the primary source of clouds, storms, rainfall, humidity and snowfall. Clouds permanently cover around 67% of the world's surface, reflecting incoming shortwave radiation from sunlight yet trapping outgoing longwave infrared radiation. They are a unique cooling parasol and warming blanket at the same time. Solar radiation, orbital cycles, oceanic thermohaline circulation and water vapor dictate earth's endlessly changing climate - largely independent of CO₂. Oceanic heat content is the primary driver that dictates how much water vapor is released, rather than the air temperature alone.

Another Karp heater: the AI labs have repped themselves as if they do not have the sense God gave a goat, so Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are just monetizing it.

Despite four decades of continuous climate alarmism, roughly 10% of the Earth's total land area remains permanently capped by glacial ice, which covers 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles). Earth is still bound to the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and our planet's average global temperature still hovers around a very livable 15°C. This is far below the world's long-term planetary average of 18°C to 24°C - seen throughout most of Earth's biological history. It makes the idea of a global warming crisis seem out of sync with reality. That is nearly a third of its extent during the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago), when continental ice sheets reached their historical zenith. The Antarctic ice sheet remains the largest and thickest body of ice on the planet, extending up to 4.8 kilometers (about 3 miles) deep. It holds roughly 90% of global ice volume and accounts for 85% of total glacial land cover. Spanning 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), Antarctica alone makes up 8.3% of Earth's total land surface. A basic geographical reality is often forgotten: land comprises a mere 28% of the planet's surface. All human cities, towns, and infrastructure combined occupy just 1% to 3% of that land (while deserts take up 33% and forests 31%). We live on an ocean world, and waters cover 72% of the globe to an average depth of 2.3 miles. Crucially, the oceans hold 86% of the global carbon reservoir and absorb over 90% of retained thermal energy. By contrast, the atmosphere holds a fraction of a percent of each. The oceans—not human industrial activity—serve as the true long-term regulatory engine for atmospheric carbon dioxide and global climate stability. The current Quaternary Glaciation is part of an ice age cycle that began 34 million years ago with the thermal isolation and glaciation of Antarctica, later intensified by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama and orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles). Carbon dioxide was not the driver of these immense shifts. All of human civilisation, agriculture and technological progress has unfolded within a brief, warm respite: the Holocene interglacial period, which began just 11,700 years ago. Yet for 40 years, the narrative has been dominated by a campaign driven by an unaccountable bureaucratic authority—the United Nations—pushing an agenda of global control.