‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’.

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control. The following articles provide evidence.

Links to more articles follow those below

Carbon is a girl’s best friend


Carbon is a girl’s best friend  By Professor Ian Plimer, The Spectator Australia, 6 August 2020

The Australian Press Council has joined the cancel culture club.

As a result of an activist campaign, the Australian Press Council took exception to my article in the Australian on 22 November, 2019. They claimed that my statement that there ‘are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims’ was false.

Journalists in the Press Council should know basic English and the difference between an element (carbon) and a compound (carbon dioxide). This is elementary schoolkid’s science. For the Press Council to claim that this is factually incorrect shows breathtaking ignorance. There are eight forms (allotropes) of carbon, one of them (diamond) is not black which is why the word ‘most’ was used. I was showing that to call the odourless, colourless. tasteless gas that is the food of life as ‘carbon emissions’ is Orwellian.

The Press Council objected to the use of ‘fraudulent’ in my statement about ‘fraudulent changing of weather records’. It is clear that the council is not aware of the widely publicised fraudulent expunging of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age by Michael Mann and failed court cases initiated by Mann. They are clearly not aware of the admission of fraud in the Climategate emails.

The Press Council wrote ‘The Council considers that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part’. I made absolutely no reference whatsoever to the Bureau of Meteorology. I have been verballed. When can I expect an apology?

It was claimed that my statement ‘unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting’ was wrong. Polar ice concurrently melts, grows and moves and polar ice includes terrestrial ice and sea ice. Changes in polar ice are due to a diversity of reasons and my point was that we only hear from activists who claim that polar ice is melting due to human-induced global warming. We don’t hear that glaciers move due to recrystallization, that many glaciers are growing or that there are more that 150 volcanoes and areas of hot rocks beneath the Antarctic ice.

The Press Council claimed that my statement ‘the ignoring of data that shows carbon dioxide at a time in planetary history of low atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth’s climate dances to rhythms every day, every season and on far larger lunar, ocean, solar, orbital, galactic and tectonic cycles.

Climate change is normal and continual. When cycles overlap, climate change can be rapid and large. Sporadic events such as supernovas and volcanic eruptions can also change climate. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. It is the only gas in air that can evaporate, humidify and condense into clouds that precipitate rain, hail and snow. Earth is unevenly heated. Oceans hold most of the planet’s surface heat, not the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is plant food. It is neither a pollutant nor a toxin. Without carbon dioxide, all life on Earth would die. Plants convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight during photosynthesis into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables and grains, which animal life uses as food. Marine organisms also take up and use carbon dioxide. Plants need almost three times today’s carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to thrive. For decades horticulturalists have pumped carbon dioxide into glasshouses to increase yields. The fossil record shows that a thriving and diversification of plant and animal life occurs every time the atmosphere had a very high carbon dioxide content. In the past, warming has never been a threat to life on Earth. Why should it be now? When there is a low atmospheric carbon dioxide content, especially during very cold times, life struggles.

For the past 500 million years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been decreasing and if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die. This carbon dioxide has been removed into the oceans and is sequestered into coral, shells, limey sediments and muds and on the land into coals, muds, soils and vegetation.

In our lifetime, there has been no correlation between CO2 missions and temperature. Geology shows us again there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. Each of the six major past ice ages began when the atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than at present. The idea that a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to unstoppable global warming is demonstrably wrong.

In the past decade China has increased its CO2 emissions by 53 per cent, 12 times Australia’s total output of 1.3 per cent of the global total. The grasslands, forests, farms and continental shelves of Australia absorb far more carbon dioxide than we emit. The attack on emissions of the gas of life is an irrational attack on industry, our modern way of life, freedoms and prosperity. It has nothing to do with the environment.


Professor Peter Ridd challenge goes to the heart of a free society

Professor Peter Ridd challenge goes to the heart of a free society  By Gideon Rozner, Institute of Public Affairs, The Australian, 29 July 2020

The Ridd case will mean the ‘difference between tertiary education as a rigorous intellectual pursuit that invites critical thinking, or as rigid dogma …’

Peter Ridd has decided to fight last week’s decision in favour of James Cook University, and the case is of such public importance that the High Court simply must allow the appeal to be heard.

The Ridd case is much more than a mere workplace relations dispute between an academic and his employer. It is even bigger than a dispute about climate change.

It is about the free speech crisis at our universities, and goes to the heart of the “cancel culture” epidemic engulfing the Western world.

Ridd is a Townsville-based marine geophysicist and Great Barrier Reef expert, whose 30-year academic career effectively ended when he started disputing the conventional wisdom that climate change was “killing” the reef. He subsequently took the university to court, winning $1.2m in compensation for his unlawful sacking. Last week, the Federal Court overturned that win in a 2-1 decision.

Illustration: John Spooner.

In deciding whether to grant special leave for the appeal, the High Court will consider whether the case involves “a question of law that is of public importance”. The Ridd matter easily meets this threshold. It would be the first time the High Court has been called upon to consider the meaning of “academic and intellectual freedom”, which is used in enterprise agreements covering staff at almost all Australian universities.

The court’s decision will therefore have very real consequences in terms of university governance, and the extent to which administrators tolerate controversial (and, often, commercially inconvenient) opinions from the professoriate.

READ MORE:Sacked professor ‘had no choice’|Ridd goes to High Court|Uni to pay sacked Ridd $1.2m

Should “intellectual freedom” be limited by the whims of university administrators, as JCU is arguing? Or should it be wide enough to allow for the kind of controversial, but honestly held opinions for which Ridd was ultimately sacked?

The Federal Court’s answer to that question is deeply disturbing. In its judgment last week, the majority seemed to suggest that free speech on campus is past its use-by date.

“There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts of academic freedom,” scoffed justices Griffiths and Derrington. For good measure, the majority judgment quoted — arguably out of context — from an academic textbook outlining “a host of new challenges”, like “the rise of social media” and “student demands for accommodations such as content warnings and safe spaces”.

If nothing else, the Federal Court has exposed just how much our public institutions have been corroded by modern cancel culture. The free speech crisis at our universities has been apparent for years, but now the hypersensitivity of woke undergraduates is being taken seriously by our penultimate court. It sets a precedent, and a dangerous one. While The Australian does not suggest the judges acted improperly, it is worrying that the idea the boundaries of free speech should be defined by self-appointed cultural arbiters and anonymous Twitter mobs is on the verge of formal legal recognition.

This is not about the polite notion of so-called “acceptable limits” to free speech. It is a radical departure from how our society treats knowledge. Former opinion editor Bari Weiss recognised this dynamic in her sensational resignation from The New York Times recently: “I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history,” Weiss wrote. “Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing moulded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

You could replace the words “journalism” and “history” with almost any intellectual discipline. Woke revisionism has trashed the humanities faculties almost beyond repair. Now it is creeping into the “hard sciences”. That is how we have arrived at a situation in which a respected academic such as Ridd is put through hell for offering a critique of the “settled science” of climate change.

If our judicial system lets JCU get away with it, every academic in the country — present and future — will be forced to choose between speaking the truth and putting bread on the table.

And for students, the Ridd case will mean the difference between tertiary education as a rigorous intellectual pursuit that invites critical thinking, or as rigid dogma that must be internalised and regurgitated in order to secure an expensive piece of paper with one’s name on it.

Intellectual freedom and free speech are not antiquated notions. They are ancient and important rights, and “public institutions” that dispense with them are not public at all.

The issues raised by the Ridd matter must at least be considered by the highest court in the land. The implications for our most basic freedoms give every Australian a stake in its outcome.

Gideon Rozner is director of policy at the Institute of Public Affairs. Donations to Dr Ridd’s legal fighting fund can be made at www.gofundme.com/f/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund-2019.



Stay skeptical, my friends

Stay skeptical, my friends  By Caitlin Johnstone, 24 July 2020

In post-Iraq invasion world, it’s absolutely insane to blindly believe the US narrative on China

By Caitlin Johnstone, an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz

My social media notifications have been lighting up over the last few days, with virulent Chinagaters sharing a video which purports to show Uighur Muslims being loaded onto a train to be taken to concentration camps.

It’s actually an old video that had already surfaced last year, but it is magically making the rounds again as a new and shocking revelation in 2020, now that Western China hysteria has been officially kicked into high gear, at exactly the same time the US enacts one of the most dangerous and incendiary escalations of recent years in the South China Sea.

Everyone tagging me in this video presents it as a self-evident “gotcha” moment, in exactly the same way Russiagaters spent years tagging me in every “HUGE BOMBSHELL WALLS ARE CLOSING IN” item of thinly sourced narrative fluff for their debunked conspiracy theory that the Kremlin had infiltrated the highest levels of the US government.

They are one hundred percent certain that the video shows Uighurs being loaded onto a train to go to a concentration camp, solely because that is what the bit of text over the video tells them they are seeing. They aren’t looking at the actual data and thinking critically about it, they’re looking at the narrative and believing it on blind faith. Which, in a post-Iraq invasion world, is an absolutely insane thing to do when presented with information about a nation that is being targeted by the US-centralized empire.

In reality there’s nothing in the video which tells us that these are Uighur people being sent to a “re-education camp,” and not merely a conventional prison transfer of convicted criminals, the likes of which take place in the far more populous US prison system all the time. It’s an unknown. We are told by the BBC’s Andrew Marr (the same Andrew Marr whose phony journalism Noam Chomsky derided years ago) that it has been “authenticated by Western intelligence agencies and by Australian experts”, which in practice are the same thing, and that’s really the extent of the evidence. Again, this is an insane source to take on faith in a post-Iraq invasion world.

There are in fact an abundance of reasons to be highly skeptical of the establishment narrative about what is happening to Uighurs in Xinjiang. But that isn’t the point that I am trying to make here.

The point I am trying to make here is that the only sane response to any narrative that is being promoted by Western intelligence agencies and their media stenographers about governments which have resisted absorption into the imperial blob is intense and unrelenting skepticism. These organizations have such an extensive and well-known history of lying about exactly this sort of thing that they have left us no choice but to withhold belief from anything they say, without a mountain of independently verifiable evidence, if we want to have a fact-based relationship with reality.

None of this means that China has a wonderful government. It doesn’t even mean that all the bad things we’re being told about what the Chinese government is doing are false. It’s entirely possible that that video shows exactly what we’re being urgently told to believe it shows. There’s simply no way to be sure, one way or the other, in an information ecosystem that is so severely tainted by propagandistic narrative manipulation.

‘Give us evidence’: Chinese consul general demands proof amid mounting accusations of espionage & order to close Houston consulate

Surely the Chinese government is far from sinless. It seems to be a constant that power structures which keep secrets and use propaganda will always wind up doing ugly things. But this doesn’t mean you go believing whatever cold war-facilitating story we are fed about it by Western power structures. Not if we want to avoid being duped into serving as pro bono CIA propagandists, unwitting tools of a murderous war machine.

There is a slow-motion third world war underway between the US-centralized power alliance and the nations like China which have resisted being absorbed into it, and that war is being largely facilitated by propaganda. If one doesn’t wish to become a propagandist themselves, one ought to withhold belief from the stories they are told about the terrible, awful things the unabsorbed nations are doing which require extensive sanctions, subversion and interventionism in response.

This doesn’t mean you believe the opposite of what you’re told; it simply means you refrain from believing either way and remain agnostic until presented with hard, verifiable proof. Believing damaging narratives about US-targeted governments is exactly as stupid as believing the words of a known compulsive liar about someone you know he hates.

China is such a curious anomaly in the narrative matrix. Many who are normally skeptical of claims by western governments immediately swallow anything they’re told about China. They not only believe all such claims, it never even occurs to them to seriously question them. It’s like they’re genuinely unaware that skepticism of establishment China narratives is even an option. The claims just slide right into the “believe” file in their mind, completely unchecked by anything resembling critical thought.

I argue with people all over the political spectrum about China online, and an astonishing percentage of them have clearly put exactly zero research into critically examining these claims, even if they’re people who are normally relatively critical of Western foreign policy. They’re often completely unaware that whatever claims they’re advancing are not just disputed, but have large amounts of evidence against them. This is because they’ve done no research whatsoever into finding out if what they were told is even true. They’ll do that research on Iran, they’ll do it about Russia, they’ll do it about Syria, but with China all skepticism immediately goes right out the window. It’s the weirdest thing.

Always be intensely skeptical of claims made about governments targeted by the known liars who run the US-centralized empire. Always, always, always, always. If you advance imperialist propaganda, then you are just as culpable for the bloodshed and suffering they help facilitate as the people who are actually launching the missiles.

Stay skeptical, my friends.


Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016