Censorship and Cult Indoctrination

Greg Taylor with Mary Otto-Chang HBA, MES, PhD (Candidate)

The more one looks at the United Nations, the weirder it gets, particularly when looking at Robert Muller. James Lindsay exposed the fruit bat theosophical religion Muller urged that international organization to take up as part of its Millennium Assembly to define a new world order for the 21st century and Third millennium. Lindsay goes further, reading a 2005 document from Muller explaining his belief in a need for a “proper” global government with a global religion, all controlled by a newly reconstituted (AI led) United Nations for the 21st century. The goal is nothing less than a Global Pagan Theosophical Theocracy led by the United Nations. The United Nations is, quite clearly, taking this bad idea seriously, which leads us to an urgent need to take seriously the idea of defunding and abolishing the United Nations altogether.[1]

In a speech to advertising executives in New York City on 5^th June 2024 the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, gave one of his most overreaching and arrogant speeches. His address called on US advertisers to cease “greenwashing” and instead stop working with fossil fuel industry clients.  His call for censorship was based upon advertisers and PR firms “knowingly working against scientific consensus” and called on them to “stop acting as enablers of planetary destruction”. The UN has decided that they are the sole arbiter of the truth on climate change.

By using an analogy to tobacco, Secretary General Guterres justified his overreach as being something that is focused on the danger to health that climate change causes. Thank goodness, at least for now, that the United Nations health division, the WHO, did not get their Pandemic Treaty otherwise we now know that the WHO would apply its powers to stop fossil fuel emissions in the name of the public health emergency that Guterres asserts is upon us.

The demands of Guterres will be a clarion call for environmental justice warriors and further their actions to oppose fossil fuels of all kinds. It would be astounding if Guterres did not realize what he was doing with this speech. His intention is to aid and abet the Eco zealots.  His goal is clearly to severely curtail, if not stop, the use of fossil fuels. We cannot let this happen.

The Secretary General calls for censorship of the fossil fuel industry, yet he has never publicly addressed the Chinese Communist Party and demanded that they cease development of coal fired power plants. Does Guterres not consider that the CCP is enabling planetary destruction?  The hypocrisy from the UN is astounding and it makes one question their illogical motives.

We have long been told that climate change is “settled science”. That now seems to have been downgraded to “scientific consensus” according to Guterres but even that is far from conclusive. Consensus means a general agreement. The consensus is that the Kansas City Chiefs will win the 2025 Superbowl, but it may not be a good idea to bet our future on it. Why should humanity bet its future on Guterres’ beliefs and dictates?

Bear in mind that most of the scientists that comprise the consensus are dependent on government money for their research activities. Deviation from the expected narrative will mean that their livelihood is at risk. Maybe scientific coercion is a better way to describe the consensus.

Many leading scientists including Professor Steven Koonin of NYU point out that climate data doesn’t support the narrative that we are continually being fed. According to Professor. Koonin, “Let’s look at the data. When you do that, you discover, as you can read in the IPCC reports themselves, that it is pretty hard to find trends in extreme events much less attribute them to human influence. “

The IPCC Professor Koonin criticizes is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body. The IPCC, with all its resources, has never created a climate model that has accurately predicted anything.  Yet we should follow their science and the UNs beliefs.

With questions surrounding the specific causes of climate change and greenhouse gas emission’s role in it, Guterres expects Americans to go without the cheap source of what currently accounts for 60% of energy needs. Curtailing the use of fossil fuels, at least in the short term, would inevitably lead to thousands of deaths from cold each year and decimate the US economy. It seems that is a price worth paying, despite its danger to health, according to the UN, and all while they turn a blind eye to China’s growing emissions, not to mention the Global “Leaders” monumental private jet and rare caviar fueled carbon and ecological footprints.

The US has made significant moves to reduce emissions in recent years, unlike China whose emissions continue grow. The US is developing cleaner energy.  That comes at a great economic cost. The move to alternative energies and the cost associated with it are a question for the American people not unelected blowhards acting against their mandate who attempt to bully and censor us.  We need more free speech, not less.

If we allow the UN to censor the public, and restrict free speech on fossil fuels, they can justify censorship for anything.  They can control the narrative for the future that they want. Like climate change, such suppression would not have to be based upon scientific facts, but on manipulation and misinformation. We will become brainwashed by whatever they want us to think. The UN wants to establish our future beliefs. Simply put, the UN is a cult, and they want to indoctrinate us.

Freedom of speech is the soul of democracy.    When a power holding entity of governance is a third party, who acts as an interlocutor within private civil dialogue, and who employs censoring, investigating, coercing, enticing and otherwise directing and controlling the type and flow of information, and who also has been bestowed with providence of both judge and jury, one has no choice but to note that this is not the stuff of which liberty, nor democracy, is made. (See UDHR.)[2]

Freedom of Speech is also the elemental foundation of science.    Those who say they follow “the science” mean to say that they believe conclusions drawn from due process of the scientific method.  Yet, as seen today, the prevalence of ad hoc and laissez-faire adherence to scientific process, sloppy hypothesis testing, no following observational truths, no questioning, no second opinions, no debating, no double blind evidenced-based conclusions, no neutrality, no neutral oversight, clearly results in, no science.  As for the numbers and statistics one sees reported, anyone who has had some experience in working in these areas, knows that all numerical evidence can be tweaked, tailored and toyed with to prove whatever predetermined goal one desires, perhaps even favoring goals of influential non-elected entities. 

Levels of neutral oversight need correlate with levels of powers, internal and external, and there is no better watchdog than the public. Thus, no freedom of expression, and therefore no questions, means no real science and no democracy.  It’s that simple, and the footprints of money, leadership, and oversight are always quite revealing.

Thinking logically, if a truly democratically elected government, had its public’s best intentions at heart, worked closely with them and for them, was honest and transparent, and if this was time tested and well accepted, then the public would trust what their officials and official media sources were saying.  Any other information contrary to this would largely be ignored and most certainly not be threatening. 

As such, if democracy is to be fostered, then alternative opinions not only need be heard, but need be amplified.  The question politicians need be asking is “Why would our people not trust our word and believe outlandish conspiracy theories from all depths of the internet?” not “How can we make sure only governmentally approved opinion is heard”?  May we ask then, what is debate and why is it used as a key tool for the public’s assessment of candidates? The sound of one hand clapping will emanate from a prescriptive and preapproved one government monologue. 

In truth and in light, there is nothing to hide, control or fear.  If the government walks tall in its truth, is pure in its intention, clear in its conduct, robust in all science, honest with all monies and transparent in all undertakings, then they will be confident, and would call on the debates, and welcome dissidents from all corners, as each debate would only further illuminate their honor and their excellence, and guarantee their next election victory.

It is critical that we decompose the ideas and movements that have engulfed much of today’s society like an amoeba. This is profoundly important for anyone who has internalized the contradictory nonsense and dysfunctional beliefs we’ve been fed.

Facts and the evidenced-based truth are the peroxide that eradicates the virulent delusions the Globalists have been dispersing and helps to disintegrate the indigestible plaques that have jammed the systems of individuals and societies.

Sad but true is that the Leadership of the UN is no longer fit for purpose. It has devolved into a sort of –techno-pagan cult, pretending to worship Mother Earth, but actually representing de-creation and the absolute dissolve of all that makes Humanity God’s Creation.  To call the perverse purveyors of the UN Leadership and its Global Partners such as the World Economic Forum and pals, merely Satanic, is truthfully being kind.

And so America – Disassociate and Defund the fraud that is the United Nations and Partners today. 

Visit Our Country, Our Choice

GLOBALISM

Sources:

https://x.com/UN/status/1799472202481573895

https://x.com/ConceptualJames/status/1799132491032531400

UN call for fossil fuels divestment sparks discourse: ‘Outlawing oil ads is inevitable’ | The Drum

(187) Climate: The Movie – YouTube

[1] https://newdiscourses.com/2024/06/the-global-pagan-theocracy-united-nations/

[2] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.