Last week was pretty hectic for me.
My wife had to head overseas on short notice. We don’t have family in Melbourne, so that means I had to do the school runs and afterschool activities, as well as write to you and my subscribers each day.
Working single parents, I take my hat off to you…
On Friday morning, I was at the school with my six year old. She was playing on the equipment and I was impatiently waiting for the morning bell to go so I could head into the office.
A mum I know saw me standing there and came over to talk. We chatted about how our older kids were coming back from a school camp that afternoon, and that we hoped they’d had fun.
Small talk took us to ‘what are you up to today’. For me, work. For her, finishing up at 1pm to join the climate strike.
This was dangerous territory for me.
I don’t believe we face a climate ‘emergency’. And I don’t believe we should be inciting fear in our kids about it either. Promoting fear and anxiety at such a young age is detrimental to their longer-term health.
Adults, on the other hand, can do what they like. If they want to strike about the climate, that’s fine with me. That’s what a free society is all about.
But when she mentioned she was joining the climate strike, I felt like I couldn’t mention it. I certainly didn’t want to endorse her decision. But likewise, I felt like I couldn’t argue against it either.
Mercifully, the bell went and I scampered off.
But the point I wanted to make is that we have got to a stage where there can be no rational discussion about the man-made effects of climate change. If you disagree, you are a ‘denier’ and some sort of Nazi racist scum.
There is no nuance. You either believe or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re an outcast.
The belief in climate change has reached fever pitch. If you question the new orthodoxy, you are shut down and ridiculed.
For example, the taxpayer funded, and ironically named ‘The Conversation’, recently made the decision to censor those questioning the new climate religion.
As Gerard Henderson wrote in The Weekend Australian:
‘The most recent version of what was once termed the authoritarian personality can be found in the decision by taxpayer-funded online publication The Conversation concerning the climate debate. On Tuesday, Misha Ketchell, its editor and executive director, advised that from now on he would adopt “a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers and sceptics”.
‘Now it’s true that a large number of climate scientists, many of whom work in universities and government agencies, share Ketchell’s view that failure to act on climate change immediately “will ultimately destroy the planet”. But not all. Yet everyone, including the occasional climate scientist, who does not share Ketchell’s eco-catastrophism will be de-platformed with respect to The Conversation.
‘Editors cannot be expected to publish all contributors. And there are the trolls who, irrespective of what side of the debate they are on, do not fit in a publication such as The Conversation. But Ketchell has decided to cease being an editor making decisions concerning research, writing style and the like. Instead he has embraced the role of censor. This does not make sense, even from an eco-catastrophist perspective. For in this area it should be possible to enter a discussion about the extent of the urgency and timing of what needs to be done. And then there is the wisdom of knowing what those who disagree with you are saying and writing.’
So The Conversation is banning conversation. It’s a standard tactic of the left. If you can’t win an argument with reasoning, shut the argument down.
Another tactic is the use of kids and actors to promote an agenda. Greta Thunberg is the poster child of the climate movement. Kids are innocent. Kids are believable. Those trying to push their climate change agenda are shamelessly using her.
You simply don’t get as much airtime as she does without a powerful someone making it happen.
Hollywood is in on the ruse too. Actors — who make their living from being someone else — are all singing from the same song sheet. But they’re all phonies. They’re the biggest emitters of all. And they are owned. Their ongoing success depends on them towing the Hollywood line.
So whenever there is a coordinated global action to make us believe something, I question it. It just smells fishy to me. And we should absolutely question the climate narrative.
You may be familiar with ‘the big lie’. It’s a propaganda technique made famous by the Nazi’s, and Joseph Goebbels quote in particular:
‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.’
The rest of that quote is even more important:
‘The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.’
Goebbels, in turn, was inspired by Hitler’s despicable mind. From Mein Kampf:
‘All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
‘It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.’
The point to note, dear reader, is this:
Just because you would never make up something so outrageous, doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t. There are dark forces that operate in this world. And they prey on your kindness and good nature.
Don’t forget, a free society thrives when it questions everything. When dissent is shut down, you know you’re getting close to the truth.
To put the current day scare campaign into context, take a look at past scare campaigns and see how they’ve worked out. That coming ice age scare was a bit of a dud…
And finally, let’s ask: Why? Why would such a huge scare campaign exist? In short, fear is a great tool of control. And division. If people are divided and opposed, then no one notices their pockets being picked.
The climate change movement represents a massive transfer of wealth via taxes and climate change ‘funds’. This opens up a huge opportunity for corrupt officials.
Call me cynical, but the bottom line is that the climate change movement is a huge money spinner for the 1%. We’re all being conned.
I know this is a hot topic, so I’d welcome your thoughts on it. Let’s start a conversation, not shut it down. Send me an email at email@example.com.
Editor, The Rum Rebellion
PS: Is the Australian economy in danger of a Japanese-like economic winter? Download your free report now.