The Media is Now Opinion-Checking

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen –  23 July 2020

opinion_check_logoThere is yet another new threat to an important right that Americans and all freedom loving peoples hold dear  –   the right to express one’s opinions on important societal issues in open public forums.  In the 1960s, I, and many others, fought this fight on university campuses all across America.  This fight was called the Free Speech Movement

Today, university campuses are the locus of a new, and sadly misguided movement, the Anti-Free Speech Movement.  Some refer to it as “Cancel Culture”, which is ill-defined, but in essence, by whatever name, it is a movement spurred by the pernicious idea that one group of people should be able to dictate what other people are allowed to say, what opinions they are allowed to express, what they can write and the very words they are allowed to speak.  Writers and speakers that do not fit into a very narrow window of what is deemed “acceptable” by the Twitter-mobs are shouted down, dis-invited, slandered, libeled, subjected to calls for dismissal from their employment and have their very lives threatened.

Bari Weiss, who has just resigned after a three-year tenure as an op-ed staff editor and writer about culture and politics at The New York Times, put it this way:

“Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

And, my personal favorite line:

“The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people.”

[Read  whole resignation letter on Bari’s  web site here.  It is well worth the ten minutes required to do so.  Frequent readers  at WUWT will realize I have been saying much the same about The NY Times on these pages for years.]

The Free Speech Movement resulted in universities designating certain areas where anyone could come and speak, hand out pamphlets and fliers and express whatever opinions and political views they chose.  Any opinion – any speech – any written material.  It didn’t matter how offensive to some; how nutty, whacko or anti-American it was.  They could say it, write it, distribute it.   Most of these free-speeches and pamphlets were simply accepted in passing and trash-canned.  But they were not forbidden and not mobbed out of existence.

Sadly, this is not the case today.

Today’s Public Forum, today’s Free Speech Zone, is the internet.  Personal and organizational web sites, Facebook pages, Twitter-feeds.  The beauty of the Internet was that one could say whatever one wanted, and as long as one didn’t violate certain laws (pornography, death threats, etc), one could publish his or her  views and if other people chose to read them, they could freely do so.

You are reading one of these free-speech efforts at this very moment:  Watts Up With That.  There have been attempts to shut this site down, there have been personal threats against its founder and some of the authors here.  There are ideological opponents who falsely label this site as mis- and dis-information and slander and libel those who write here.  That opposition has a right to express their views – just as we do.  They do not have a right to endeavor to enforce their views on others through attempts to shut this site down or direct traffic away from this site.  Google has de-legitimatized WUWT in its search engine while legitimatizing slander sites. (Some of my previous pieces on Google here, here and here.]

Now, a new evil has arisen, on the largest public forum in the world, Facebook. Facebook’s attack on free speech is being labelled “fact-checking” — and a similar attack has been mirrored in many newspapers.


The “incident” occurred last August – the publishing of an Opinion piece  in the Washington Examiner by Pat Michaels and Caleb Rossiter of the CO2 Coalition.  The post was subsequently mirrored to the Coalition’s Facebook page.


The CO2 Coalition’s Facebook page copy was promptly labelled “false”.  Here the story is unclear, and different media outlets report differently.  One version says that a more enlightened Facebook employee (the press call him/her a “conservative” employee, as yet unidentified) removed the “false” label on the basis that the Washington Examiner piece was clearly an Opinion. Other news outlets state that  that Facebook reacted to a protest from the CO2 Coalition, and removed the label.  That story should have died then – it was a “tempest in a teapot” — but curiously, it has re-appeared this last week in several places (here ,  here and more surprisingly, as a letter from Elizabeth Warren and three other U.S. Senators to Mark Zuckerberg [link is a .pdf])

It appears to me that someone has re-issued this story to sympathetic media outlets with a copy to Elizabeth Warren’s office.

What really happened is obfuscated in the press, but if you dig deeply enough and read all the press coverage you discover that Facebook did not ask anyone to “fact-check” the article in question.  A private climate advocacy group initiated the action on their own and used their position as an “approved” Facebook outside third-party fact-checking organization, to have the article (on a private organization’s Facebook page) labelled as false.  To do this, they only had to make an entry into a Facebook database.

Who did this?  Climate FeedbackThey are not listed on Facebook list of approved fact-checkers (see this page, at the bottom, select to  see list of United States fact-checkers) but they apparently are a sub-group of  Science Feedback, which is listed.

One gets immediate “feedback” on their opinions on Climate from this image on the Home Page of the Science Feedback web site:


Facebook has a policy that Opinion articles are generally not be to fact-checked  based on the obvious fact that


and on controversial topics, such as Climate Change, they run across a very wide range of viewpoints, from “because of CO2 pollution “We’re all Doomed and We’re all Gonna Die” (with various time frames from 5 years to 30 years) to the stand taken by Michaels, Rossiter (and Will Happer) at the CO2 Coalition that higher “carbon dioxide levels will help everyone, including future generations of our families.”

The Facebook Official Policy on Opinions and Fact-checking is this:


Opinion content is generally not eligible to be rated. This includes content that advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data, and tells the public what the author or contributor thinks about an event or issue. Opinion pieces may include reported facts or quotes, but emphasize the author’s own thoughts, personal preferences and conclusions. This may also include editorials, endorsements, or content labeled “opinion” in the headline, authored by an identified opinion columnist, or shared from a website or Page with the main purpose of expressing the opinions or agendas of public figures, think tanks, NGOs, and businesses. However, content presented as opinion but based on underlying false information may still be eligible for a rating.”

Facebook believes that people have a right to express their opinions freely (and not have some busy-body, Twitter-mob or issue advocate or advocacy group independently  label  their opinion as false, mis-information, dis-information,  mis-representation, etc).  Someone, and I suspect the same individuals involved in Science/Climate Feedback, is again generating a lot of new noise about Facebook’s policy.  This issue did not just teleport itself through time from last August to the climate desk of The NY Times, to ClimateWire, the website Heated, or the desk of Elizabeth Warren.  Someone apparently has decided to use the ongoing efforts aimed at getting Facebook to censor or control content on other social and political issues [racism, Trump, vaccines, police] to attempt to get them to censor opinions on climate.

You call this a Fact-Check?

It is an interesting read to see the “annotations” – the details of the “fact”-check that led Climate Feedback to falsely label the CO2 Coalition piece “false” – Climate Feedback initiated the “fact-check” of the opinion piece on their own – remember, Facebook did not request any fact-checking of this article.

Go to this page:


The box to the right comes up when one clicks on the story headline.  Clicking on other highlighted text reveals that the “fact-checkers” are not Fact-Checking, but rather are Opinion-checking.  I encourage readers to view the page and click on each annotation and see the “fact-check” for that item.  ALL are matters of opinion that depend on one’s overall view of the climate issue.  One “fact-checker”,  Stephen Po-Chedley,  is happy to link to a couple of his own papers as proof positive that the Coalition is wrong on some point or other.

E&E News states:

“Facebook has made it easier to mislead the public because it boosts inaccurate climate claims to an audience only interested in partisan narratives and unwilling to examine the actual science, said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University and a member of the team that fact-checked the original CO2 Coalition post. He said Facebook, as well as other social media companies, allows people to “live in these bubbles where they only hear the info that they want to.””

[NB:  None of the annotations on the Washington Examiner article were posted by Andrew Dessler.  Dessler is not listed as a Reviewer on the Climate Feedback web site nor at the Science Feedback site.]

Here’s the sequence of events:

  1. Pat Michaels and Caleb Rossiter publish an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Examiner  on August 25, 2019, putting forward the opinions of their group, the CO2 Coalition, about Climate Change and CO2.
  2. The Climate Team, including those involved with the so-called Climate Feedback effort, and Andrew Dessler (who is not officially associated with the Science/Climate Feedback group), don’t like those opinions.
  3. They can’t pressure the Washington Examiner, apparently, so they go after the re-published article on the Coalition’s Facebook page, carry out their independent and unsolicited “fact-check”, and label the Opinion piece on Facebook as “Misleading, Flawed reasoning, Biased, Inaccurate and Cherry-picking”.  Note that all of their objections are themselves opinions and their own understandings of complex data – albeit aligned with what is called “the climate consensus”
  4. In September 2019, about three weeks later, after a complaint from the Coalition, Facebook agrees that fact-checking opinions is a violation of its own policies  and un-labels the article.
  5. Now, In late June 2020,someone, not willing to let this attack on Free Speech remain unsuccessful, having awaited ten months then begins to foment “outrage” by re-issuing the story to news outlets (and, it seems,  to Elizabeth Warren in the U.S. Senate).

Those of you who don’t quite get this need to re-read Bari Weiss’s Resignation Letter linked far above.  She says, of The NY Times, but it is true of almost all mass media outlets in the United States (and certainly the UK as well):

“Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

We see this now at Google, Twitter, YouTube and other social media and internet-based platforms.  Those who consider themselves to be the “enlightened few” – who believe that only they know the Truth and believe that “Truth = Orthodoxy,  Truth = Consensus,  Truth = The Will of the Mob” – are seizing the power to block any views contrary to their own.

This has been true in Climate Science for decades.   However, it comes as a surprise to those who have lowered their eyes and  looked away, glad they were in another field.  Now that the Consensus Mob has turned its attention on historians, doctors, philosophers, psychologists, professors and jurists – we are seeing a few more voices crying out against this destructive tide.  Those voices are, in turn,  being viciously attacked for defending free speech –  after all, “it doesn’t fit the approved Twitter narrative”.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

This is an Opinion Piece.  If you disagree, please leave your contrary opinions in the comments.

Examples are so rife in everyday life that if each reader left a link to a local story that illustrates this problem, we would have a record-breaking number of comments.

On July 15 2020, Caleb Rossiter gave his version of this episode here.

I do not include strictly two-party politics examples in this essay.  Those readers who wish to see how bad this problem is when it concerns two-party politics in the United States can view these pages, select any link, and determine for yourself if the media is fact-checking or opinion-checking.  In my view, they are most often checking against their established editorial narratives, not facts. (Again, read Bari Weiss.)

AP News:

CNN Fact-Check Politics:

NPR Fact-Checks Politics:

MSN Fact-Check:

USA Today Fact-Check:

NY Times Fact-Checks:

Note:  I will not be responding to any comments that involve US Presidential politics.

This is a heavy problem – we all need to lift where we stand.  Demand that your local news outlets practice real journalism – and that they don’t just parrot what the Twitter-mobs are going on about.  Demand real unbiased coverage of issues.

And for heaven’s sake, if you feel tempted to “go along to get along”  — Stop It! Just, Stop It!

[h/t Bob Newhart]

Read widely, think for yourself and think critically.

# # # # #

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 2:20 pm

No need for trendy new names like ‘cancel culture’. It’s the new fascism.

A new caricature/stereotype to blame for everything, a new save-the-world theory, a Goebbels-on-steroids press, violence and intimidation as their primary methods – and THIS time with the blessings of our blue-city ‘leaders’.

The power of hate – it works every time it’s tried.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 3:31 pm

I just call it the Marxist Media!
A term that I believe is accurate, succinct, and to the point!

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 24, 2020 12:35 am

MainStream Marxism

paul courtney
Reply to  RockyRoad
July 24, 2020 11:08 am

Rocky: My own is “progressive press”. Appropriate that they have small pp’s. The psychology folks call it compensating or something.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 3:41 pm

A collusion of public and private interests to suppress civil rights.

Good point. Part of their success can be traced to semantic, conceptual, and ideological games. Don’t indulge them by operating in their relativistic frames of reference. #PrinciplesMatter

Reply to  n.n
July 24, 2020 6:58 am

I agree. A pernicious part of this is how this pro-Communist, Anti-American / Anit-Capitalist / Anti-Nukular-Family cabal works is to diffuse responsibility so that there is no one to be held accountable, and “rules” are vague enough to allow great discretion.

We used to call it “Astroturf.” Now, no one really cares that these social movements have been brought to us, the general public, to get us involved as part of their long-term goals.

Businesses, schools, and other organizations are making decisions because of the fear of bad publicity, or of suffering from the application of a vague rule upon them.

This is all planned and intentional. It makes it very hard to fight the opponent.

This is why, for well over a decade, I have been posting that behind many of these movements and ideas and institutions it is simply Marxists doing what Marxists do.

If there were a way to go back 10 years, you could find my posts making this assertion, and basically not a single other person making this assertion here at WUWT.

I am a life-long Democrat making these assertions. I figured out that my party made the mistake of teaming up with “labor” and other social-political movements that were engineered to work for one goal: bringing down our prevailing government and society.

I could draft out a “Democratic” party platform that is not rabidly anti-American. I could advocate for reasonable regulation of business so that The Little Guy does not get poisoned or maimed, advocate for good public education, etc. My “platform” would sound a lot more like JFK than BHO, or what is being put n front of Biden to appease the “radical arm” of the Dem Party.

We could debate Republican vs. Democrat, and carry on our civil society, one so great that people from all over the globe clamor to come here.

The Dem Party has been hijacked in a pernicious way. For the most part, my long-time friends and colleagues have simply gone along, with hardly two seconds given to questioning crazy ideas such as a world with neither nuclear energy or fossil fuels. “The Party of Science?”

As time has gone by, the crowd at WUWT has morphed. To my estimation, it used to heavily be empirically minded engineers and their kind. Now, it sound quite political, with many “conservatives.” This shows that the un-affiliated, or loosely political, have been overpowered by the conflict-producing Marxists, and those who are most motivated to follow the “Manmade Global Warming” farce has shifted from science geeks to those science geeks and others with a political bent.

So, now, WUWT sound rather political.

In a sense, it is necessary. Obviously, history teaches us that the Communists will use, will exploit, hard-science scholars and practitioners. Who will shrug at the politics as someone else’s deal, and get back to the lab and the equations and the data.

This is well-presented in “Sound of Music.” Von Trapp, in the military, is pressed to remain in his role as his nation goes Nazi; Max the Entertainer goes along just to stay in business. This is what they are pressing on all of us. Insidious, pernicious.

To be more intellectual and scholarly, there is a somewhat historically-based novel, “Stones from the River.” It seductively starts out getting you bought into the stories of some locals in small town 1920s Germany. “Background,” “context” themes begin to encroach, however.

Before you see it happening, it has become a novel portraying how the Though Police Nazis take over the mood and community of this town.

A liberal, open-minded colleague recommended this book to me 20 years ago. She of course is mindful of those Evil Big Baddies, the Nazis. Now, she is a Nazi, but cannot see it.

We are all supposed to rally around the “Good Guys,” who take advantage of our good nature and our values, getting us to oppose whatever they declare is “bad,” or Evil.”

We used to value any constriction on free speech as “Evil.” Now, it is “racism,” in all its hydra-headed well-imagined forms.

They are shifting what we must declare we support. As all Totalitarians do. As they move forward, they expand what is “Evil” to grab more control, and they demand allegiance in ever-expanding ways. Social media is a boon to them.

I am glad to have been a single, lone voice pointing out how we have not been fighting rogue or misguided scientists in this “CAGW” issue, but we have frankly, from Day One, been fighting Communists in their surreptitious program to achieve Communist Goals: overthrow our Prevailing Society, by Bloody Revolution, in order to usher in a social and economic system called Communism that they dearly believe will solve all the perceived Oppressions that our dastardly Evil society is supposedly inflicting upon all of humanity.

It is the same fight I see affecting my faith. Soon enough, each of our Christian churches will be given a choice: declare that we no longer believe that marriage is God-ordained as between a man and a woman, or we will not be permitted to exist anymore. The claim will be that we are full of “hate,” and, with hardly much word-smithing, they will state that we are Enemies of the State, of Humanity. Two different issues, same fight.

I am an academic, scholarly person carrying out consulting projects addressing social policies in various manners. I am getting penned in as were Captain Von Trapp and Max.

This is all clear to me. I hope it is clear to you all.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 24, 2020 11:45 am

An excellent analysis.
Thank you.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 24, 2020 9:24 pm

Great comment

Joe Crawford
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 25, 2020 10:15 am

Another book you might add to your collection is Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Iranian author and professor Azar Nafisi.

Reply to  n.n
July 25, 2020 5:33 pm

This information seems relevant to the collusion. Who are facebook’s fact checkers?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 9:07 pm

The hate first sprouts from the fertile soil sown with the class and group envy. An envy they create with the victimhood narrative. The victimhood narrative is of course the pitting one group against the other, a divide and conquer political strategy.
It is the essence of Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ original thesis we now simply call Marxism. It is class warfare sown with envy turning to hate. Marxism in the 21st Century.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 25, 2020 12:30 pm

The real problem is there doesn’t seem to be viable competitors to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube … I see it as natural what happens when you allow monopoly to flourish. Silicon Valley seems to be a singularity ideologically and in this day and age, it seems to be also good business.

How is it that the most profitable sector in the world has failed to attract vigorous competition. Do we have the Rockefeller 19th century Standard Oil Company situation crying out for “breaking up” by government anti-trust action? I would prefer the entry of new competitors. Where inheck are they?

High Treason
July 23, 2020 2:23 pm

A single word describes the cancel culture and its flagrant suppression of views other than their own.

Joel Snider
Reply to  High Treason
July 23, 2020 2:39 pm

Most versions of Marxism will get you there.

David A Anderson
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 4:51 pm

Yes, although Marxism is not perhaps adequetly broad. My preferred word is Statism; central government power and control by unelected burecrats, in the USA it is the swamp and media affiliates.

john harmsworth
Reply to  David A Anderson
July 24, 2020 10:15 am

All these political structures are based on one party rule. If only one mode of thought is tolerated, what difference does it make how many parties there are? It is bullying and intimidation and the enemy of democracy. With the apparent failure of democratic government to control spending, democracy is already challenged as an effective method of governance.
The near complete failure of our education system is at the heart of this. The general public has very little understanding of Western liberal traditions, capitalism or why socialism doesn’t work economically, let alone the staggering failure that is Marxism. We can’t even teach our kids personal financial management.

Reply to  High Treason
July 24, 2020 1:49 am

Whenever a society bans free speech, it prepares ground for a revolution.
The “free speech” works like controlled bush fires in Australia.
What happened when the left (greenies) banned the controlled fires, we have seen a few months ago .
The opinions will not go anywhere if you ban their expression. They will come back with force.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 23, 2020 2:30 pm

Warren’s letter is revealing. Four scientifically illiterate politicians pontificating about science as they know it because they have been told . No self doubt to be seen anywhere. No realisation that being illiterate implies the incapacity of judging the veracity of what you have been told.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 23, 2020 2:41 pm

And I just heard on the radio that she’s the front-runner for Biden’s VP pick – because he’s looking for a ‘woman of color’.

Can’t make this stuff up.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 3:18 pm

Dementia Joe has openly stated that his VP running mate will be an African American Woman. Warren doesn’t get that done, plus her popularity outside Liberal circles in middle America is quite low.

The Democrats need a “woman of color” because if Senile Joe does win, his dementia will be made evident and he’ll be quickly kicked aside using the 25th Amendment process to install his VP “woman of color” as the President.

And if you thought the First Black Man to be President Barack Obama was resistant to a Congressional impeachment process while he stomped on the US Constitution, one can only imagine how “Impeachment Proof” a Woman of Color President would be. Such Impeachment-Proof stature with kowtowed politicians in Congress would facilitate the Executive Branch to utterly and quite literally tear-up the US Constitution to pursue all the Progressive agenda items the Left has only dreamed of for decades.

So Dementia Joe’s VP pick has to actually be a woman of color, especially in this age of pushing the BLM lie down emotionally fragile white folks’ throats.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 3:42 pm

And isn’t it interesting that skin color and sex – as opposed to one’s character – seems to be the determining factor for suitability for the job?

Which, in this case, is really the president’s job, because Biden actually IS the dementia case that progressives have tried to paint Trump as.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 4:32 pm

Liberals tell us that anyone who judges a person based on their gender or skin color is a sexist or a racist.
Except when they do it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 7:40 pm


Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 4:01 pm

we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom

with social progress: 1/2 Americans (e.g. Fetal-American), people of color, sometimes capitalized.

I wonder how many people will exercise liberal license to indulge their inner diversitist (i.e. color judgments).

Dave Miller
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 24, 2020 7:55 am

I fear most Democrat voters are stupid enough to believe EW is black.

I hate myself for saying that aloud.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 24, 2020 11:59 am

Hilary will steal the nominaton from Biden as she did from Sanders . Trump is so weak now that a democrat win is obvious and this will be her chance for revenge – a dish eaten cold , etc.
Her choice for VP: someone who won’t try to steal her second term : Kamala Harris? Or is she too ambitious ?

July 23, 2020 2:45 pm

History repeats itself and we have seen this type of media control before. The latest pogrom is aimed directly at the US Constitution and all that it stands for. All perceived and manufactured inequalities are game and supported by the MSM. AGW wasn’t enough so it has taken a back seat ….. today. Vote.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  markl
July 23, 2020 2:55 pm

Vote +10

Reply to  Dan Sudlik
July 23, 2020 4:33 pm

Only liberals are allowed to vote multiple times.

Reply to  markl
July 23, 2020 9:06 pm

Display the US flag every day from now until the election if you are a US citizen!

Let’s make this nation a sea of red, white, and blue!

Let the Burn Loot Murder crowd know we don’t appreciate their antics!

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 24, 2020 6:12 am

I have my flag out every day it can.

Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 2:54 pm

“Cancel Culture”, which is ill-defined, but in essence, by whatever name, it is a movement spurred by the pernicious idea that one group of people should be able to dictate what other people are allowed to say, what opinions they are allowed to express, what they can write and the very words they are allowed to speak. “

The Left must invoke its Cancel Culture because it entire Climate Agenda being sold to the public is built on layers upon layers of lies, deceptions and half-truths. The half-truth is the climate scammers favorite tool, because it is demonstrably “true”, but still just a deception by omitting other data or alternative explanations that expose the deception.

Allowing an informed debate by knowledgable skeptics to be heard by the Public is in effect Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story.” The allowing the rest of the climate “story” being supressed to be “heard” exposes the lies and deceptions employed to push the anthropogenic climate change scam. The Rest of the Story in the climate scam is of course the failure to acknowledge massive physical and paleorecord uncertainties, the jiggering of historical temperature records to always and inevitably make the past cooler and present warmer, and the utter anti-science that are the climate models and their gathered “ensemble” that is underpinning the IPCC and COP process.

In other social areas far from climate, we see the Cancel Culture being employed in the on-going culture war. One prominent area where the Cancel Culture must be employed to save a gargantuan lie in the push for Black Lives Matter agenda, which is based entirely on the premise that “systemic racism” exists in police departments across the US.

And just like the climate scam, the BLM movement is about political power into the hands of a few, and many in the core of that group are openly avowed Marxists. Practical Marxism has at its core the concentration of power into an “enlightened” few. And hence this harkens back to the Bari Weiss resignation letter quote, where our “enlightened” betters what us to cede to them political power and thus control over us.

A critical examination in public discourse of the this utterly false premise cannot be allowed in public discourse, else the entire BLM scam being perpetrated on the US would fall apart. And to shut it down, the Left simply throws out the Race Card to those attempting to expose the lie that “systemic racism” exists. Certainly racism exists in individuals, that is not the issue and the system now for 50 years has learned how to deal with racist individuals and groups. But BLM is about power, and power by any means into the hands of those pushing it, truth be damned.

The reason I bring this up is essentially because the Climate Scam is quickly being replaced by the Cultural Revolution being undertaken by the Left. The Climate Scam has been existing on Life-support for some years now ever since the “hiatus” exposed the flawed climate models and the inability keep adjusting surface records to match model theory with the satellite-provided troposphere soundings acting to prevent wholesale surface temperature frauds. So the unwieldy and massively complex climate scam is now getting kicked to the curb and sidelined because a quicker and more decisive tool-set has come to the hands of the Socialist-Marxists. These new tools for inciting public fear-mongering and suppressing the truth come the form of pandemics and cultural wars, and a cultural war with race being front and center.

My humorous take on this from several weeks ago in this popular meme summarizes what is now happening:

The climate girlfriend just got jilted by the better looking cultural and race wars combined with a pandemic attacks on the core of Western society that has achieved in 4 months what the Greens have labored for for decades, a drastic throttling of Western economies and energy use via COVID-19 fear mongering.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 3:11 pm

Said for years, the climate BS was just a means to this very end.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 23, 2020 3:38 pm

Joel it may be a means to an end but people REALLY believe we are doomed with global warming…climate change…climate extinction. I see it at work and they are all in.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Derg
July 23, 2020 4:13 pm

The rank and file do – that’s they operate. Fear controls and directs the mob.

Of course, the prejudice has to be there to be baited-up in the first place.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Derg
July 23, 2020 4:15 pm

It’s also why they pander to the young – after you’ve been scared by the same stories for thirty years, and the fear-mongers keep moving the goal posts and change their stories over and over, it becomes a harder sell.

Not that there aren’t those that never HAVE that epiphany.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Derg
July 23, 2020 5:51 pm

They see it until they are asked to approve policies that will triple the price for gasoline and quadruple their monthly electric bill. Meanwhile none of the rich and politically powerful’s lifestyles are hurt to any meaningful extent by such skyrocketing energy costs.

So just ask your co-workers how much they are willing to pay for their transportation related gasoline and home electricity to limit global temps 80 years from now.

Reply to  Derg
July 23, 2020 7:46 pm

There’s the rub Derg. Those of us that have’d lived through the last thirty years and longer know that there is no climate emergency. However, those born after the turn of the century can easily be duped because any major weather event can be attributed to ”climate change” because they haven’t witnessed similar events in their lifetime. Hence they and are told its ”unprecedented”. A word that I now detest.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 4:57 pm

Joel, all of the main characters in your meme are white. RACIST!!!!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 23, 2020 5:37 pm

All the main characters driving the Global Socialism are white.
Just like the urban warfare being waged under the BLM name in Portland, it has been completely infiltrated and taken over with the Left’s US-based Red Army Antifa and turned violent.
George Soros’ investment in the Portland-based, highly organized Antifa thuggery is paying off there.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 23, 2020 9:13 pm

This will probably be moderated out, but I’m beginning to believe that a white supremacist is simlly one who adheres to the rule of law!

The rest of the people don’t want the trappings of the rule of law, such as the police, ICE, prisons, grades, judges, the constitution, etc., etc.

They simply have no clue how thin the ice is upon which they skate!

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 24, 2020 9:29 am

It used to be that liberals called anyone who disagreed with them racist. That insult has been used so much, for so long, that it has started to lose it’s sting.
So the liberals up the ante, now anyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist.

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 24, 2020 9:31 am

“They simply have no clue how thin the ice is upon which they skate!”

The problem is that the rich liberals who are pushing this nonsense aren’t the ones who are going to suffer from the implementation of this nonsense.

It isn’t rich liberals who are getting gunned down because gangsters no longer fear being caught by the police.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 23, 2020 5:53 pm

Some Conservative talk show hosts used to talk about “The History of Now” which I thought was a great satirical exaggeration of a valid point. However today the Left has is effectively employing this improbable concept! The “cancel culture” depends on this phenomenon! (Please forget what I said yesterday!)

Nancy Pelosi can today condemn the President (the “Trump Virus”) for not early on advocating separation and masks, while she has been captured on video calling people to attend Chinatown celebrations and to ignore Trump’s restriction of travel to and from China (which she and Biden were actively opposing!)

Many have also noted that the actual content of the NGD is high on Social Justice remedies compared to the number of absolutely impractical “Climate” solutions. (The same is true for the Dems HERO legislation which has little to do with pandemic problems as contrasted to bailing out Dem states and cities as well as advancing until now unsuccessful Progressive entitlement programs.

Little does Greta know that she has been left in the dust pile.

July 23, 2020 3:28 pm

The solution is simple:. Don’t use FB, Twitter, Google, NYT, etc.

Reply to  WR2
July 23, 2020 4:18 pm

WR2 ==> I never have (in any real sense — I have accounts at FB and Twitter to facilitate other web functionalities….I never post anything ever). Far too dangerous for far too many reasons to explain.

I was a web professional at IBM Int. headquarters back in the day….and know better.

Reply to  WR2
July 24, 2020 1:30 am

Nope. The solution is repealing section 230 of the 1996 communications decency act.

Reply to  WR2
July 24, 2020 3:11 am

+ 100%
The problem is how to persuade everyone else not to either.

Reply to  WR2
July 26, 2020 1:45 am

Curling up from a fight is a solution no longer. Ignoring the tyranny in our midst is no option. Cede grounds and they will seize the field.

Their goal is total domination, not coexistence or toleration of different opinions or beliefs.

Tom Abbott
July 23, 2020 3:55 pm

The Leftwing Media, as far as I know, has never been about fairness or reporting “just the facts”.

In the modern era, since the Vietnam war, the Leftwing Media have been actively promoting the Leftwing agenda.

The difference between now and then is several decades of leftwing brainwashing taking place in the schools, along with a Leftwing Media that has grown by leaps and bounds, and those on the Left have become so emboldened by their newly acquired power that they are blatantly trying to censor and silence the poltical opposition and dare you to try to stop them.

The fly in their ointment is President Donald Trump who exposes the Leftwing Media for the liars they really are. Trump may even be a vehicle for establishing alternative social media platforms. Remember MySpace?

The good news is that the Leftwing Media has a very low favorability rating with the public. For good reason: The Leftwing Media lie constantly.

The bad news is there are a lot of credulous people out there who don’t suspect the Leftwing Media is lying to them.

I still say the greatest danger to the Republic and our freedoms are the lies put out by the Left and the Leftwing Media. People can’t govern themselves properly based on lies, and lies is all they are getting from the Leftwing Media and these lies will cause the dupes to cast votes that are not in their interests such as electing Democrats to political power.

We’ll know a lot more about the national psychology come November 4, 2020. Then we’ll know whether all that school brainwashing and Leftwing Media lies were effective in electing a criminal cartel like the Democrats to the presidency. Our last free election, if that’s the case.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2020 6:14 pm

Tom Abbott July 23, 2020 at 3:55 pm
…Our last free election, if that’s the case.

The election fraud will be the mail in vote. The Marxist Media will keep the Covid-19 scare going until after the election to insure a maximum mail in vote tampering. If Trump wins, it will be a miracle.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 24, 2020 9:35 am

Only ballots that are postmarked prior to the election will be counted.
The problem is that the government union is in charge of postmarking ballots. You can be sure that just enough last minute ballots will be “certified” to ensure that the government’s candidate wins.

July 23, 2020 3:58 pm

Conflation of logical domains is imperative for social progress, and necessary for social justice.

Diversity today ostensibly justified by systemic racism. Diversity yesterday, reproductive rites (“selective-child”), and clinical cannibalism, socially justified by claims of rape… rape-rape culture.

Marxism has at its core the concentration of power into an “enlightened” few

Consolidation of capital and control are central features of Marxist philosophy, and its derivatives: communism, socialism, fascism, imperialism, dictatorship, et al, in obeisance to mortal gods, goddesses, and minority regimes. The names change, the concepts persist, the so-called secular “ethics” (religion) of olde.

old engineer
July 23, 2020 4:01 pm


I think you must have been in college in the 60’s, and were too close to the trees to see the forest. I graduated from college at the being of the ’60s so I was in school in the very beginnings of the ” Free speech movement.”

The movement was not about “free speech.” It was the attempt by far left wing agitators to gain a foothold in what was at that time, a very conservative academic culture. They were very successful and changed the academic culture to a very liberal one. They were never interested in “free speech.” That was just to sucker in the undergrads. Once they became the majority, free speech went out the window, The “cancel culture” you see today is the direct consequence of the phony left wing “free speech” movement of the ’60’s.


Joel Snider
Reply to  old engineer
July 23, 2020 4:19 pm

One thing it took me a minute to realize about counter-culture types back in the day, was that they are NOT open-minded – they take advantage of the open-minded – they themselves are rigidly close-minded.

Reply to  old engineer
July 23, 2020 4:27 pm

Old engineer ==> I can’t agree — the Free Speech Movement was mostly powered by the anti-war movement — and the right to oppose the government (draft, the Viet Nam war, etc). By the late 1960s, the incoming academics were already leftist leaning — as academia has always been. The Left has been intentionally injecting itself into academia since the early 1920-30s.

As the old guard professors die/age out, the young turks from the left have moved in — many of them schooled in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, etc. Some, like the leaders of the BLM, were professionally trained communist agitators and are now teaching your children and grand-children. Others are just brain-washed liberal/progressives without the ability to think clearly — too much pot and cocaine.

sadly, these academics actually believe they are right about things….after all, “all their friends agree with them.”

The anti-war movement of the 1960s was fought by all right thinking students — on the right and the left. The Free Speech Movement was the same – it was not, as McCarthy would have characterized it, a commie plot.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 23, 2020 4:36 pm

If it was about free speech, they wouldn’t have eliminated free speech as soon as they had enough power to do so.

Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2020 4:55 pm

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scissor
July 23, 2020 5:33 pm


Reply to  Scissor
July 24, 2020 10:23 am

They wish to control free speech. If they don’t like what they hear, they shout it down.

Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2020 7:37 pm

MarkW ==> It has been 50 years — that’s a rather long time for cultural change.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 24, 2020 9:38 am

They didn’t take over the institutions in 1960. That didn’t occur until the late 70’s and 80’s. It was in the 1980s that speech codes started. That was just the first wave, as the courts hadn’t been taken over yet, and the courts routinely struck down speech codes that went to far.
As the other societal institutions have been taken over, they have been getting bolder in what kinds of speech and activity they are willing to ban.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 26, 2020 1:54 am

The partisan hiring patterns in academe tell the story of power lust for single party rule: 3 to 2 (Left/Right), 1970; 5 to 1, 1998; 48 to 1 recently (states John Ellis, Emeritus pro of German, UC-Santa Barbara, in his latest book.

Reply to  old engineer
July 24, 2020 1:34 am

So, in other words, they were just communists and there were plenty of useful highly educated idiots. That’s like a repeat of every single communist movement on Earth.

Reply to  old engineer
July 24, 2020 3:56 am

I was at UC Berkeley the semester the “Free Speech Movement” started. I didn’t, at the beginning, know particulars about the person, or the intended topic, that the campus authorities refused to let lecture on campus but I was against censorship of any sort so I got on board with letter writing and attending various rallies.

It was then that the true agenda was revealed. The cancel culture was alive and virulent right there and then. Speakers in favor of the socialist/Marxist viewpoint, which was the basic thing being denied formal access by the campus administration, were well attended and widely approved. Anyone attempting to discuss the other side of such issues, or speaking favorably about ROTC, the US involvement in Vietnam, traditional university management, the responsibilities, rather than the privileges, of students, was shouted down, screamed at, blasted with portable sound systems, a target for thrown projectiles, prevented from speaking.

Some may remember that the national guard was eventually sent in because property was being destroyed, fires were being set, and everyone’s life, regardless of their involvement or complete separation from any campus issues, was being forcibly disrupted. Perhaps there were also other reasons of which I was unaware. Once I saw that events were far beyond what was originally advertised, and completely in opposition to what had been preached, I distance my self from it all.

However, attempting to attend classes often presented challenges and for awhile it was necessary to find alternate routes and backdoor entrances to classroom buildings. Also, while I don’t know if it was common, the same sort of violence as some of today’s protests was being practiced. I heard people excitedly discussing their attacks on, and rock throwing at, police and guardsmen and even some expressions of a desire to ambush and kill National Guard personnel.

Maybe there were some eventual benefits for liberties of expression here and there but that wasn’t what the organizers and instigators were about.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 24, 2020 9:43 am

It was as early as the 80’s when it became normal for a handful of radicals to attend any speech given by a conservative, and through the constant screaming and noisemaking, make it impossible for the speaker to be heard.
Of course the campus authorities would go on and on about how the students had just as much right to be heard as did the speaker, so there was nothing the administration could do about the disruptive.
By the end of the 80’s it was impossible to schedule a conservative speaker on most campus’s. The administrators excuse was usually that since conservatives were so disruptive, that the administration couldn’t guarantee the safety of the speaker or attending students.

July 23, 2020 4:05 pm

Most of these university professors are useless. My company has hired many an ex university professor and they have totally failed at the job. Of course there are a small percentage that are gifted and creative, but those are the ones typically not involved in trying to silence others.

Tom Abbott
July 23, 2020 4:36 pm

A poll question is asked at the link above that says “The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe”.

77 percent of Conservatives and Strong Conservatives agree with that.

64 percent of Moderates agree with that.

52 percent of Liberals agree with that.

42 percent of Strong Liberals (radical Leftists) agree with that.

So what do we have here?

What this shows is that the radicals feel much more free to say what they think. They do so because they don’t fear any consequences from what they say because the extreme Left is in control of the national narrative.

All the other groups are afraid to speak their minds to one degree or another because they fear criticism from the Controlling radical Left if they say what they really think and it does not conform to the radical Left Thought Police narrative. Even those Leftists who are not radicals are afraid to speak up for fear of being criticized by their more radical party members.

The Radical Left and its Propaganda Arm, the Leftwing Media, are causing serious problems for free speech here in the good ole USA. They are to some extent, succesful at shutting up their political opposition.

This has to change if we are to maintain our personal freedoms. We can’t allow ourselves to be intimidated into silence. The crazies win if that happens.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2020 7:20 pm

A teacher in Florida was recently fired because of his social media posts praising President Trump.
According to the school board, if the students found out that the teacher supported Trump, they might be afraid to present their opinions in class and this would hinder their ability to learn.
Apparently the many teachers who posted things condemning Trump had no impact on the children’s ability to learn.

Jim Whelan
July 23, 2020 4:59 pm

As a student at Berkeley in the early 60’s where the “free speech movement” started, I have to continually point out that that was NEVER about “free speech for everyone. It was entirely about free speech for communists and communists only. Those same people were constantly denying any speech rights of those who disagreed with them. This was no different than the Marxists of today. Falsely branding what they are doing is the way they always do business and I object to those who accept the false branding.

Juan Slayton
July 23, 2020 5:07 pm

The turmoil of the 60’s lasted for years and it is difficult at this distance to recall the exact sequence of events. But I’ll try. There was at one point a small bulletin board outside our department’s reading room on which anyone could post comments on current events. Angela Davis had just stated that she didn’t believe in academic freedom, a statement that was widely reported. I posted a brief note referring to her statement and adding one of my own: “I don’t see how you protect academic freedom by hiring people who don’t believe in it.”
I think my post had a half life of minutes. The Free Speech Movement was mainly motivated by the desire to transmit a message that the advocates thought was important, not necessarily to protect other messages.

Of course in our school (UCLA, you may have heard of it) we were attentive to problems that were more local than galactic, like the school food services. Berkeley had the Free Speech Movement. We had the Fresh Sandwich Movement….
: > )

Hocus Locus
July 23, 2020 6:09 pm

Each half of people in the US thinks the other half is crazy.
Half of each half is right.
The half-nots are restless.
The sun is spotless but for a little one.
The ENSO meter is poised perfectly in balance.
We are living balanced on a knife edge.

My life is light, waiting for the death wind,
Like a feather on the back of my hand.


July 23, 2020 6:16 pm

RICO. This may not be the racketeering that inspired the legislation, but the corruption is plainly an organized criminal effort to subvert the first amendment. And it’s is every bit as deadly. Eliminating free expression eliminates democracy – because, as history has shown, that freedom is the last gate to tyranny.

As is illustrated by recent events at the NYT, the ballooning corruption is being facilitated by corporate and institutional management (notably of media), which is surrendering to and underwriting the suppression of free speech.

The conduct isn’t new. It’s an ironic parallel of the conduct of petroleum corporations, who, to appease climate activists, funded the very outfits who seek their demise.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.
– Churchill

What’s needed is a bow shot across corporate management, like the one recently issued by William Barr for their implicit abetting of Chinese offenses against American interests.

July 23, 2020 6:45 pm

My opinion is commenters are missing a key type of people.
1.They are not the true believers.
2.They are not the people seeking power.
3. They are the hanger ons.

An example of a hanger on might be, a millennial who grew up in the not fair, I need a prize culture. They have good winging skills. Being a millennial, they probably can articulate how they want to improve things and change the world. They don’t want to learn by experience.
They are insecure and are intimidated by colleagues who speak there mind or just want get in and do something.
A hanger on might be someone who has climbed one or two rungs higher than their ability.
The hangers on, aren’t true believers, and they don’t seek total power, they just don’t want to be exposed.

July 23, 2020 7:15 pm

I’m starting a new movement — Suspend Stupid

Who’s with me?

July 23, 2020 7:16 pm

A few days ago I read about a bunch of “reporters” at the Wall Street Journal” whining that the opinion pages need to be fact checked.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
July 23, 2020 9:17 pm

The reporters want it to very clear that the opinion pieces are clearly marked as such. Silly me, I thought this was the case.
I do, sometimes, have trouble with the opinions found in the news reporting. Perhaps those parts could be printed in pink or some other color.
It did not seem that the reporters included this idea in their letter.

July 23, 2020 7:46 pm

So NO ONE is going to comment on Yahoo disabling comments? Really? The complete collapse of one of the world’s most used, and commented, websites gets no mention AT ALL? WE ARE BEING SUPPRESSED! Does no one see this but me?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  TomB
July 23, 2020 9:19 pm

What’s Yahoo?

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  TomB
July 23, 2020 11:14 pm

I was just about to do that TomB, but I see you got there first. Yes, as of yesterday, Yahoo litters the internet with their childishly written opinion pieces and likewise, culled from the worst offenders of journalistic integrity, and plasters them across their site completely free from opposition, criticism, or useful information that is usually only found in the comments section. Full Pravda. I suspect they will keep this up until the election in November. At least we don’t have to deal with last week’s half $%&#ed attempt to censor the comments by swapping out cartoon swearing symbols anywhere the letters “a-s-s” appeared in a word together. They wouldn’t even allow “$%&#ociated press.”

Clyde Spencer
July 23, 2020 7:53 pm

I observed today that Yahoo had suspended comments to all their ‘news’ articles. The implication was that it was temporary, but the survey they provided, in lieu of comments, suggested that, depending on the survey results, it might be a permanent situation. The comments tend to be very polarized. However, it seems to me that lately Yahoo has been getting a lot of push-back about their ‘protest’ reporting. It will be interesting to see if Yahoo resumes letting readers comment on their usually biased articles.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 24, 2020 1:41 am

Interesting. I totally stopped using Yahoo a year ago and have broken that habit. I primarily visited Yahoo because of the ability to comment. I’m so happy that I left. I’ve noticed that my local has done the same thing. I would never in a million years subscribe to a newspaper anymore, but I have access through a family member that does.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 24, 2020 7:36 am

Clyde ==> Yahoo is afraid that if they let people comment, they will express “bad opinions” and then Yahoo will be blamed…. cowardice.

Gerald Machnee
July 23, 2020 8:28 pm

On July 15, the Winnipeg Free Press ended comments online regarding their articles. Now you can only write letters to the editor which of course they control. So they have effectively become a propaganda paper especially since they have a climate writer who is partly paid by the federal government.

Gerald Machnee
July 23, 2020 8:32 pm

Snopes is at it too. They just did a “check” on the article about Polar Bears disappearing by 2100. They called it mostly true. they referred to the usual “scientists” who have erroneously for years been predicting that the Polar Bears will decrease due to “disappearing ice” which is not happening. I referred them to Dr. Crockford’s blog which I expect they will ignore.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
July 23, 2020 11:22 pm

Gerald, more than once I’ve seen a Snopes article rated “mostly true” or “mostly false” where the body of the article makes their conclusions completely nonsensical. Usually if there’s a story going around that doesn’t support the liberal narrative, they don’t refute it, they just don’t investigate it at all. Go to and see if you can find an investigation into whether 97% of scientists support the idea that global warming is manmade. You can’t. I’ve looked. They won’t go there because they would have to rate it as “mostly false.” I just had to stop going to Snopes for anything.

July 23, 2020 8:39 pm

The media are a bunch of useful idiots, but in my opinion the bigger long term problem are the educators, or I should write mis-educators.

Rick C PE
July 23, 2020 9:32 pm

What I find amazing and appalling is that 4 US Senators would actually sign their names to this anti-free speech screed. They are essentially demanding that a non-governmental entity impose restrictions on free expression of ideas and opinions that would be clearly illegal if done by any governmental entity. I seems clear that Warren, Whitehouse, Carper and Schatz would quite happily run the 1st Amendment through the shredder if given the chance. I remember a time when any politician who might advocate for taking away constitutional rights would have been unelectable. I would consider the position expressed in the Warren et AL letter to be disqualifying for any elective office.

Reply to  Rick C PE
July 24, 2020 9:48 am

Liberalism has always been about controlling what others are allowed to think.

Ian Coleman
July 23, 2020 10:26 pm

I went to university in Canada in the early 70s, and the suppression of unpopular (and therefore immoral) opinions was very much a fact of life then. Professors, then as now, taught opinions as fact and if you demurred from the opinions taught, you failed the courses in which they were taught. In English Literature classes, the thought that kept bubbling up in my young brain was, if all these poems and stories and plays are so great, why is reading them so tedious? In Zoology, I could not put aside the thought that there was no way that the Theory of Evolution could be correct. But I just sucked it up and pretended to agree. I ended up taking a lot of Math, because I was perfectly confident of the truth of it.

Of course, in those days in Western Canada, the student body was overwhelmingly white and middle class. At the University of Alberta there were literally no Negroes (as Black people were called) at all. Everybody was straight, or else. I think at least half of us were not only virgins but committed to staying that way until marriage, and the people who weren’t kept quiet about it. Very few of us cared enough about politics to vote. But of course we were young, clever and arrogant, which are powerful inducements to intellectual and social bullying of all kinds, and I was on both ends of that spear pretty often. I owe a lot of my old classmates apologies.

Mike Dubrasich
July 23, 2020 11:24 pm

The Old Media are dead. They are zombies now. Facebook and Twitter are dying, too. They want to control information, but it’s like herding a million cats — they can’t do it.

Nobody on this site is cancelled. Free expression still rules most of the Internet, and judging by my email it rules there too.

So what if “newspapers” are twisted? In the end they are in the wood products (paper) business, trucking dead trees with fossil fuels and creating a solid waste mega problem. They are past over. Stick a huge barbecue fork in them.

The MSM has comorbidities. They are on ventilators in nursing homes. All they have left is fomenting rage, and everybody is tired of that. Americans are turning the MSM off and changing the channel.

Academia is in quarantine, too. The colleges are deserted. Young adults have better things to do, places to go, people to see. The idea of “education” at brick-and-mortar mausoleums has lost it’s attraction. The truth is most kids went to college to hook up with members of the opposite sex. They studied biology. And that’s what they still do — only somewhere else.

Take heart. People are not sheep. Freedom is too seductive. The end is not nigh. Cancel culture is cancelling itself. Life will go on — the party isn’t over.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 24, 2020 7:55 am

People are not sheep.

Certainly Blue Oyster Cult aren’t sheep:

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 24, 2020 9:51 am

“People are not sheep.”
Some people are not, I fear that the majority are.

“Freedom is too seductive.”
That may be true for some, but for most freedom is scary, they would rather be safe and secure.

Reply to  MarkW
July 25, 2020 11:53 am

I was debating a “friend” recently, and he told me sociologists found that freedom doesn’t exist, and he seemed perfectly happy with that statement.

I live in Poland and commented on a post about a documentary saying how evil coal was. The whole documentary was just lies, and the facebook crowd where I was commenting basically didn’t allow me to argue and present evidence. I was of course called a chill for the fossil fuel industry. Many people are deep into the statism/technocratic/marxist propaganda.

July 24, 2020 12:36 am

I have always read AntiFA as anti First Amendment and that seems more in keeping with their agenda as their tactics border on extreme fascism. Perhaps we should be calling them out as such, it would cause some delightful confusion.

Reply to  Crockett
July 24, 2020 9:51 am

They don’t border on extreme fascism, it is extreme fascism.

Nick Graves
July 24, 2020 3:13 am

It’s not as easy as the dreamworld Marxists would have you believe.

In 1970s UK, the place was a communist dystopia. After civil unrest, Comrade Heath was replaced by Margaret Thatcher and similar happened with Ronald Reagan in the US. The History Man was a great parody of the idiocy in Ejucashion…

The Eastern Europeans don’t get fooled again and are pilloried by the MSM for their politically-incorrect voting.

I expect a sharp snap back to more conservative thinking once the (mostly) silent majority lose patience, just as they did back then.

TPTSNB cannot silence all of the internet – there’s always the Dark Side too.

Reply to  Nick Graves
July 24, 2020 9:53 am

If the liberals are allowed to finish their quest to corrupt the electoral systems, an electoral snap back won’t be permitted.

Global Cooling
July 24, 2020 3:58 am

What about fact checking fiction? For example Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, George Orwell’ s 1984 and Animal Farm?

Reply to  Global Cooling
July 24, 2020 9:59 am

GC ==> Don’t give them any new ideas — they are liable to take you up on it.

paul courtney
Reply to  Global Cooling
July 24, 2020 11:37 am

Global Cooling: Well, what about fact checking this very article. I have had Mr. Hansen’s article reviewed, and we found that there is no first name “Kip” in english. Therefore, I am forced to label the above “false” and “cherry-picked”. Seems silly to call him on his name, of course, and “cherry picked” is not even wrong, but I recently discovered that there are no fact checkers for my fact checkers! Sincerely, Mark Z.

(I hope Mr. Hansen gets a good laugh).

Ewin Barnett
July 24, 2020 3:59 am

“Those who consider themselves to be the “enlightened few” – who believe that only they know the Truth and believe that “Truth = Orthodoxy, Truth = Consensus, Truth = The Will of the Mob” – are seizing the power to block any views contrary to their own.”—- thus we have a new secular form of Gnosticism. Those who consider themselves to be the guardians of the mystic truths call themselves “woke”. The question then should be to what transcendent ends? Not clear yet, except the Singularity gives us a hint. Humanity has been here before. Thousands of years ago. Paganism in a lab coat.

Mike O
July 24, 2020 4:54 am

A piece in the WSJ opinion section today talks about how they won’t wilt to “Cancel Culture” pressure to change their editorial stance:

July 24, 2020 5:30 am

Globally, Trump has destroyed the “flat earth economy”!

The implications are enormous!

July 24, 2020 8:42 am

Facebook censored one of my posts about the benefits of tea, such as in a cup of tea. It did not meet their standards. Right or wrong what standard can there be about a cup of tea? It has water in it. No one was attacked in the article. The only objection could be the source regardless of content.

Reply to  Olen
July 24, 2020 10:27 am

Facebook censored a post I made about polarity being the reason we can’t come together for mutually beneficial solutions.

July 24, 2020 10:17 am

I have been censored by at least a dozen mainstream outlets. I am careful to not violate terms of use. Official statistics, empirical facts and logic which destroys the desired narrative are not allowed anymore by the establishment media. I was sometimes getting the most liked comment in my local newspaper. That gave me too much credibility so they couldn’t allow me to continue posting. They refuse to provide justification or even let me contact moderators.

People who can be dismissed as right wing Trump supporters are allowed to violate terms of use consistently.

Richard Lambert
July 24, 2020 10:41 am

All this reminds me of my English composition professor of 50+ years ago. She would down grade you if she didn’t agree with you. I only passed because I got to select the topic for my semester paper and I chose, “The Importance of Sulfuric Acid to the Economy of the United States.” She had no opinion on that subject.

July 24, 2020 12:04 pm

Kip – I’ve always enjoyed reading your informative and thought-provoking contributions, and this one is no exception. But… but,but,but! Never assume that your audience is up to speed with the issue. The section “Here is the sequence of events” should be at the beginning, not near the end! Mods, I think you could help here, by insisting that all contributions define the scope of the topic they are about to address. There are too many worthwhile pieces on this site which fail to make their very valid points simply because only the “converted” will be able to understand what it is they are preaching about.

Alternatively, just pass all contributions for pre-approval to that master of lucid prose, Willis Eschenbach 😊

Reply to  Phil
July 24, 2020 12:23 pm

Phil ==> Is that you, Willis?

July 24, 2020 12:31 pm

Phil ==> Seriously, this essay is not about the CO2 Coalition editorial incident — which is just an example readers here will be interested in — tuis, its timeline comes in later in the piece.

The lede is the first sentence of the first paragraph — with a secondary lede at the beginning of the second paragraph.

The CO2 Coalition is at one of the very far edges of climate opinions but they have a right to express those opinions clearly — and most certainly in the Opinion Section of media outlets — without fake fact-checking.

The big story is the exposure of “opinion control” — in all sections — of the New York Times — in Bari weiss’ resignation letter.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
July 26, 2020 2:09 am

Kip, Die Neue Zurcher Zeitung, the voice of Switzerland, noticeD how the NYTimes censored Senator Tom Cotton by a mob. Their house editorial in June condemned the Times as no longer a legitimate newspaper.

Better late than never.

Robert B
July 24, 2020 1:33 pm

The media are full of people who have done well for themselves by repeating “facts” as if they had done the research. Needless to say, few remain who have a first rate intelligence, as defined by Scott F. Fitzgerald.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function

Henning Nielsen
July 24, 2020 9:19 pm

The problem with Facebook is the millions of “cannon fodder” users who share their everyday experiences without a thought about how they unwittingly support a repressive media regime. Such a huge platform as FB should be under some kind of public control or oversight, with full transparency.

July 25, 2020 4:58 am

Aren’t comets supposed to be portents of doom, or something like that? Just askin’, because Comet Neowise has a 6,800 year orbital period and was last in our area around 1450 -1400 BCE. End of the Bronze Age. Disastrous earthquakes were a possible cause, sending the Sea Peoples and others such as the Israelites to new territory in the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

Just wondering if we should be paying attention to that end of the political mess. Neowise could be spelling “doom on you” for the eager beaver power grabbers, you know. Watching what is going on is like watching a pot of water going past the boiling point but not completely spilling over just yet. I keep wondering when the book burnings are going to start, but I never say it out loud.

July 25, 2020 4:26 pm

“Fact check” was always a con to interject into a debate as an arbitrer and pretend to be neutral while doing naked propaganda. That way the media pretends to not count as an arm of a political party while acting as one.

Because of grotesquely biased fact checking (so inept a child would see through it, but not an adult, because of “education” and “being an adult” which means crushing all the correct intuitions of childhood while not replacing it with anything), I believe the Macron election should be cancelled, as the gift in nature of the MSM amounts to millions in free help, perhaps billions.

July 27, 2020 12:05 pm

Call the Leftists what they are…… BULLIES!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights