Fear, loathing, intolerance – and worse

“Today’s Green New Dealers and their allies have mapped out their own totalitarian strategies.”

“They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.”
– Paul Driessen
______________

‘Battles over “dangerous manmade climate change,” Green New Deals and Green New Deals Lite are intensifying,’ writes Paul Driessen. ‘To help drive the climate chaos narrative – and many other liberal campaigns – Google, Facebook and other social media and online information platforms have stepped up their efforts to “shadow ban” climate realist and conservative speakers and thinking, censor and alter online information, and marginalize ideas that run afoul of liberal views and agendas.’

‘My article summarizes what is at stake on the climate and energy front, presents examples of electronic book burning and social media bias, and offers suggestions for what America can (and should) do to rein in attempts to censor and silence conservative, religious and other voices in the news media, social media and online search engines.’

______________

Fear, loathing, intolerance – and worse

The climate-fearing, capitalism-loathing Left cannot abide questions or differing opinions

Paul Driessen

Throughout history despots had effective ways of reducing dissension in the ranks. Inquisitors burned heretics. Nazi’s burned books – before taking far more extreme measures. Soviets employed famines, gulags, salt mines and executions. ChiComs and other tyrants starved, jailed and murdered millions.

Today’s Green New Dealers and their allies have mapped out their own totalitarian strategies.

They proclaim themselves socialists, but their economic policies and tolerance for other viewpoints reflect a different form of government – fascism: A political system in which authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries, but strictly regulates and controls their actions, output and rights – while constraining and suppressing citizens and their thought, speech and access to information.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has “no problem” with the fact that implementing her Green New Deal would require “massive government intervention,” wealth redistribution on an unprecedented scale, and many trillions of dollars in new debt. GNDealers want to totally eliminate fossil fuel production and use, and control how much we can drive and fly, heat and cool our homes, eat meat, and live our lives.

If retrofitting 29 million British homes to make them climate-friendly would cost $5.6 trillion – remaking America’s 125 million generally larger private homes would easily cost $25 trillion! Putting just five million electric cars on California roads would require 5 billion pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

Replacing fossil fuels that provide 82% of our energy and 100% of countless plastic and other products would require biofuels grown on tens of millions of acres. Replacing coal and gas-generated electricity with wind and solar would require millions of turbines and panels, on tens of millions more acres, billions of tons of rare earth and other metals, and hundreds of billions of pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

China controls all those rare earth metals and most of the lithium, cadmium and cobalt needed for all that pseudo-renewable, pretend-sustainable energy. They are produced in China and Africa, often with child labor and near-slave labor, and with virtually no health, safety or environmental safeguards.

Meanwhile, Asian, African and EU nations are building or planning over 2,000 coal and gas-fired power plants. So even US elimination of fossil fuels would do absolutely nothing to reduce global CO2 levels. Moreover, citizens are likely to rise up in loud opposition to having millions of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and biofuel plantations in their backyards and across scenic vistas and wildlife habitats.

GNDealers don’t want to talk about any of those ethical, social justice or environmental issues – or about the GIGO computer models and bald assertions of Climate Armageddon that have no basis in real-world evidence. They don’t want anyone else talking about it, either. They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.

They loath and fear ideas, facts and questions that challenge their views and political power. Free speech and access to other people’s free speech is a clear and present danger to their perceived and asserted wisdom on fossil fuels, capitalism, manmade climate chaos, Western culture, and who should make policy decisions on energy, economics, jobs, living standards, religion, civil rights and other matters.

Their version of “free speech” thus includes – and demands – that their critics have no free speech. On college campuses, in “mainstream” and social media, on search engines, in online information libraries, even in the arts, bakeries and K-12 education, thought control and electronic book burning are essential. Despite having a 12 to 1 ratio of liberal to conservative professors, leftist college faculty, administrators and students still ban, disinvite, disrupt and physically attack conservative speakers and their hosts.

They harass Trump administration officials in restaurants – and “dox” political opponents, revealing their names and home addresses, so that other radicals can harass, intimidate and attack them … thereby “persuading” others to stay silent. They assaulted North Korean escapees for wearing MAGA hats.

The Big Tech monopoly routinely implements electronic book-burning tactics. Google and other internet search engines systematically employ liberal biases and secret algorithms to send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia and censor conservative thinking and discussion. Google YouTube blocks access to Prager University (PragerU.com) videos that its censors decree offer “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental policies and other topics.

Google helps the Chinese government deny its citizens access to “dangerous ideas” – and says nothing when China sends a million Uighur Muslims to “reeducation camps.” Its hard-left employees ostracize any conservatives they still find in their ranks … and claim helping the US Defense Department with Cloud computing or artificial intelligence surveillance would “violate their principles.”

Facebook “shadow banned” an ad promoting a Heartland Institute video that called on millennials to reject socialism and embrace capitalism. Facebook censors told Heartland they “don’t support ads for your business model” (capitalism) and would not reveal “red flags” and trade-secret algorithms they use to “identify violations” of their policies and “help preserve the integrity of our internal processes.” Google suppressed Claremont Institute ads for a talk on multiculturalism and political speech restrictions.

Twitter routinely engages in similar cold, calculated censorship of views it opposes.

Wikipedia posts distorted or false bios for climate realist experts and organizations – labeling me an anti-environment lobbyist – and then pops up ads soliciting money for its biased “educational” material. Securing corrections is a long, often fruitless process. Even more totalitarian, the Southern Poverty Law Center uses phony “hate speech” claims to defund and “deplatform” conservative groups like David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, by pressuring credit card companies to close off donations to them.

State attorneys general and members of Congress want to prosecute and jail people for “denying the reality” of “manmade climate cataclysms.” Worst of all, the callous organizations and policies that Big Tech supports cause millions of deaths every year, by denying impoverished nations and families access to the modern energy, insect control and agricultural technologies that its vocal, racist elements loathe.

Creating conservative competitors or finding ways around these social media and fake info behemoths is vital, but would be stymied by their sheer size, wealth and dominance. Trust busting by the FTC, other federal agencies, Congress and the courts, á la Standard Oil Company, should certainly be considered.

These cyber-giant social media and information platforms may be private companies, but they wield massive power, especially with younger generations that get almost all their information online. They are entirely dependent on the internet – which was created by US government agencies and taxpayers. (“You didn’t build that,” President Obama might tell Google.) They have become essential, dominant public forums for discussing and evaluating public policies that increasingly affect our lives.

A federal judge has ruled that President Trump may not block hate-filled criticism from his Twitter account. Because it is a public forum, akin to a park or town square, for discussing important policy and personnel matters, it is protected by the First Amendment. Blocking unwanted tweets is therefore viewpoint discrimination, and Twitter is not beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules, she held. Her reasoning should not apply only to the President and his most obnoxious critics.

The right of free speech and free assembly – to participate fully in debates over important political and public policy matters – is the foundation for the other rights and freedoms that enable our vibrant nation to function. Banning, censoring and deliberately falsifying certain viewpoints deprive major segments of our population and electorate of the right to speak, be heard, become informed, examine all sides of an issue, and live in harmony, peace and prosperity.

Viewpoint censorship, bullying and silencing violates the basic rights of speakers, students, professors, voters and all people whose views an elite, intolerant, power-hungry few have deemed “inappropriate” or “hurtful” to the sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

It’s time to take action, demand investigations, and rein in the monopolistic cyber censors.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.


7 thoughts on “Fear, loathing, intolerance – and worse”

  1. Getup here in Australia are like Hitler Youth, indoctrinating the younger generation into climate fanaticism.

  2. Academic freedom to politically corrupt young minds from within, this is the legacy of the fall of the USSR in 1986, invest in Green Socialism – CND, Ban the Bomb, Greenpeace, as a parting shot then take over other NGOs via political entry-ism. In much the same way the WWF has been and the UK Labour Party has been taken over by the hard left once Climate Change Act Miliband changed the membership’s rules to readmit Trots into the party.
    40 years of propaganda, and yet that lie is now exposed once the Solar Warm Period from 1945 to 2008 ended with the bang of Modern Grand Solar Minimum.
    Regardless of the current CAGW propaganda, the future worldwide government would quickly revert to carbon Based energy, changing the tune from protection to survival in the face of an impending (1500 yr.) Ice age, due to long cycle orbital changes.
    The current tropical zones of the continents would be declared wild zones and human populations removed further towards the Polar Regions, immunisation would then stop to allow the usual tropical diseases to take their course and they did in the 18th century in preparation of the Move South by the favoured few as the Glaciation commences.
    But the greens forget the Human energy civilisation depends on cheap energy, a capitalist economy to generate the technology to keep growth moving forward as efficient a manner as possible. Remove that energy, and the people that provide the human intelligence to develop ideas, the crash back to the bottom of a stone age existence will be dramatic, fast and as complete as the near human extinction of the last 140K yr Glaciation period which ended 20,000 years ago.

  3. “They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.”

    They have been trying to do this for centuries or even longer. It has merely become a little more obvious lately that’s all.

  4. Throughout history despots had effective ways of reducing dissension in the ranks. Inquisitors burned heretics. Nazi’s burned books – before taking far more extreme measures. Soviets employed famines, gulags, salt mines and executions. ChiComs and other tyrants starved, jailed and murdered millions.

    Nazi’s burned books – before taking far more extreme measures.

    The books being burned were communist books ,pornography and other forms of diabolical Jewish texts that were deemed to be anti christian and contrary to the best interests of German and European society. Punishing bad people for their crimes contrary to PC opinion isn’t a crime or even a social faux pas. It had to be done then to save society and the nation and it has to be done now to save Europe and North America. First the books and then the criminals and perverts. They all got to go! Saving the criminals, perverts and their works in the name of moral anarchy, demonocracy , globalism and PC is unacceptable.

  5. Samizdat, (from Russian sam, “self,” and izdatelstvo, “publishing”), literature secretly written, copied, and circulated in the former Soviet Union and usually critical of practices of the Soviet government.

    Samizdat began appearing following Joseph Stalin’s death in 1953, largely as a revolt against official restrictions on the freedom of expression of major dissident Soviet authors. After the ouster of Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1964, samizdat publications expanded their focus beyond freedom of expression to a critique of many aspects of official Soviet policies and activities, including ideologies, culture, law, economic policy, historiography, and treatment of religions and ethnic minorities. Because of the government’s strict monopoly on presses, photocopiers, and other such devices, samizdat publications typically took the form of carbon copies of typewritten sheets and were passed by hand from reader to reader.

    The major genres of samizdat included reports of dissident activities and other news suppressed by official media, protests addressed to the regime, transcripts of political trials, analysis of socioeconomic and cultural themes, and even pornography.

    In its earliest days, samizdat was largely a product of the intelligentsia of Moscow and Leningrad. But it soon fomented analogous underground literatures throughout the constituent republics of the Soviet Union and among its many ethnic minorities.

    From its inception, the samizdat movement and its contributors were subjected to surveillance and harassment by the KGB, the secret police. The suppression worsened in the early 1970s, at the height of samizdat activity. Culminating in a show trial of Pyotr Yakir and Victor Krasin in August 1973, the government’s assault wounded the movement. But it survived, though reduced in numbers and deprived of many of its leaders.

    Samizdat began to flourish again in the mid-1980s because of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost (“openness”). KGB harassment virtually ceased, and as a result a variety of independent journals proliferated, though their readership remained tiny. By the late 1980s, the Soviet government had unofficially accepted samizdat, although it retained its monopoly on printing presses and other media outlets. Samizdat had almost disappeared by the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of media outlets that were largely independent of government control.

  6. I couldn’t have said it better, Paul, and maybe not even as well. Good job, and thanks!

Comments are closed.