Cameron retweeted
I cannot help but notice that once a culture turns godless, men of ordinary intelligence are unable to make a moral calculus of even one variable. Such men cannot weigh one thing against another.
They are unable to weigh their duty to protect life and child against the duty to help the deserving poor.
They are unable to do, or even to imagine, the basic things necessary for survival, for the survival of their family and nation, for the preservation civilization.
Their moral compass consists solely and entirely of self-destructive actions and addictions.
Evil is good and good is evil.
Secular men since the French Revolution have boasted that one needs no God to be moral.
History proves otherwise.
We have run the experiment in real time for two centuries and counting. The results are unambiguous.
Godless means irrational, godless means immoral, godless means suicidal.
Cameron retweeted
NEW PAPER: IPCC DEBUNKED AGAIN!
Human-Caused CO₂ Rise FALSIFIED
MEASUREMENTS PROVE IT!
Isotopic, radiocarbon, and energy-balance measurements expose the failures of Engelbeen et al. (2024).
- Keeling intercept: −13.2 ± 0.2‰
- Fossil fraction of net atmospheric CO₂ addition: indistinguishable from ZERO
- Bomb ¹⁴C decay: 18.4 years
- Mass balance provides ZERO evidence of causation
Cohler & Soon (2026)
Science of Climate Change, 6(4), 100–136.
papers.jcohler.com/ehb/
Cameron retweeted
Another wise, even brilliant, essay by Devon Eriksen. He reminds me of Ayn Rand, sharing the same strength and weakness. Strength: a keen-minded clear-sighted, logical, unapologetic diagnosis. Weakness: a curiously evasive or illogical prescription, or none at all.
Like Mr A Squared of Flatland, neither Rand nor Eriksen cannot see the spiritual aspect of any problem.
Ayn Rand's solution to the lure of Communism was to condemn Altruism. Communism is a wolf in sheep's clothing, hatred disguised as compassion. Her solution was to treat all sheep as wolves, and eschew all altruism.
The idea of following the Catholic social teaching, which rejects socialism root and branch, but also instructs private property be used, when need be, for public good, and never to compel charity, is not even discussed.
The idea of subordinating society to spiritual authority without the use of force is not an idea that can be represented by the simplistic political categories Libertarians, Liberals, or postchristian Freethinkers can think about.
Likewise here: Mr. Eriksen's solution to the collapse of morals, sexual and otherwise, among our womenfolk is two equally doubtful options: 1. Inequality for women and 2. Collapse.
The idea of returning women to the dignity and esteem of Church teaching, punishing adultery and pornography by law, outlawing abortion, fornication, contraception, divorce, and using social pressure to reward virginity and motherhood and to shame harlotry and immodesty -- this, to him, looks the same as inequality.
Women were not made equal by the Nineteenth Amendment. Indeed, less than one woman in twenty favored granted women the vote. These antisuffragette women knew government was a thing of laws and armies, policemen and executioners, and in short, man's work. Only once women were involved in government does the Nanny State emerge in history.
As the Antisuffragettes of the time warned, involving women in politics would require a loss of their moral authority. Women would become merely one more political faction, bribed by bad laws by the power hungry--which is indeed precisely what happened.
Catholic teaching promotes the proper subordination of child to wife to husband, man to magistrate, secular authority to spiritual authority, spiritual authority to God.
Modern mad sees all hierarchy as oppression: master dominating slave. Christians see hierarchy in Christlike terms, as the first to be last, and the master to be the servant.
Mother sacrifices for child, man sacrifices for wife, soldiers and police risk life and limb to maintain peace and public order, priesthood forswears family life, and Christ sacrifices Himself for the world.
No secular thinker, not even a woman as brilliant as Ayn Rand, can intellectually grasp the paradox of Christian thought on the matter. All men are equal in terms of their dignity as being in the image and likeness of God. No man is equal to another in any secular or material way: there is always a hero braver than you, a saint holier, a millionaire richer, an athlete stronger, a genius smarter. The only equality to be hoped for is to have laws and customs treat men by their merit, not by their birth, nor to punish sons for sins of their fathers.
But a law that treats women like men, giving them and equal vote and equally drafting them into the military, is based on a false, if not insane, view of human nature. If nothing else, the mathematics of how man men are needed to replenish the tribe versus how many wives and mothers would require women be protected from the competition and shock of men's world, our wars, and, as it is now becoming clear, the ruckus and competition of the marketplace.
Equality, like Altruism, is a concept that has been warped and abused by antichristians, socialists, communists, freethinkers.
It might be politically impossible in this generation to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment. But there are women who might consider voting away her vote, if she were offered immunity from income tax in return.
Men, by and large, treat politics like a game, and, as long as socialists are not involved, can shake hands afterward like gentlemen, neither vaunting if they win nor lamenting if they lose.
Women, by and larger, treat politics like a cult, like witchcraft, useful only for killing children and signaling their imaginary moral superiority. To them, loss means screaming at the sky, and winning means bloodthirsty threats. Each policy, the woman treats like a helpless child, like a babe at her breast, and woe betide those who menace her helpless loved ones. Reason has no place in the midst of maternal fury.
In the secular world, Mr. Eriksen correctly identifies only two options: dis-enfranchising women or social collapse.
He correctly (even brilliantly) identifies the instincts and temptations that have herded women into the witchcraft cult of harlotry and child-murder.
He does not identify the instincts and temptations which might reasonably be used to lead women back to the path of civilization and sanity: even Ayn Rand (if one reads her violent love scenes) admitted a woman want to be swept off her feet by a superior man.
Look at the disgusting romantic fantasies oversweeping the cheapie book markets these days: if men cannot be images of power and victory to women, they will look for vampires or were-bulls or monsters.
They are looking for leadership. I will tell you the deep secret of women: they do not know what is wrong with them. So they cannot tell you what they need. If you try to solve their problems in a straightforward, logical, masculine way, women will grow impatient with you, and rightly so.
Romance is built into the fair and fragile female frame. Also, despite all attempts, women still love babies. They do not like working outside the home any more than men do, and the conquest and defeat of competitors makes them bitchy, bossy, and sour. The masculine pleasure in honest victory is unknown to them, as is grace to a fallen foe.
Women secretly want what they have been told not to want. Husbands, children, homes, security. To be the queen each in her own castle.
But how can a man be masterful without being a tyrant? How can a warrior be chivalrous without being weak and gullible?
That is the Christian paradox no secular thinker can understand, nor can it be explained to them. You must become one of us to understand us.
Women are demanding the unquestioned right to kill their infant children because they are having sex with men they do not respect.
This is not a matter of poor moral character, as if all women of a several generations had suddenly been born depraved all at once.
It's a matter of instinct.
A woman is instinctively programmed not to mate with a man unless she sees him as superior to her. Not just equal. Superior.
This ensures she will have the best children she can.
A woman is instinctively programmed to conform to the wishes and opinions of her tribe.
This ensures that her children will be cared for and survive.
A woman is instinctively programmed to crave sex, just as men do.
This ensures that she will have children at all.
All of these instincts are paleolithic, genetic, hardwired, and immutable.
But what happens when these instincts are pitted against each other?
What happens when the very social matrix, which she is programmed to obey, insists to each and every woman that no man is her superior, and she can do anything he can do, not only backwards and in heels, but with far better result?
She is now programmed to refuse every potential mate.
Oh, she won't be celibate, of course. But sex will be social, casual, or downright recreational, and she will want double, triple, and quadruple assurances that she will never become pregnant, or if she does, that pregnancy will never lead to her raising the child of an "unworthy" man.
We have socially engineered our entire civilization into a state where all men give women the ick. Every single one.
Even the wealthiest, most powerful, and most accomplished men in the world are getting divorces... or, if they are smart enough not to get legally married, they are getting publicly dragged by their baby-mommas in the press.
I won't go into how or why this was done, not right here today. It's enough that we all know that it was done, and anyone who says different isn't confused, he's just lying.
When a modern day Amelia Earhart is given a five million dollar Lear Jet with fifteen lives aboard to crash and destroy, before she is even old enough to have a beer, just so we can all sprain a shoulder patting ourselves on the back... well, then you all know what the problem is.
We all know that matriarchies go extinct because women with political power immediate steer their society into the nearest iceberg.
But do we really?
Perhaps now we find out that wasn't even the problem, at least not immediately, and possibly far less than we thought. Matriarchies go extinct because they don't breed.
If you give women power over men, they start to find men disgusting. How dare they? How dare those men be so weak that women actually be able to influence or hurt them in any way? To a woman's basic, paleolithic mating instincts, this is unforgivable.
Men can forgive weakness, but never cruelty. Women can forgive cruelty, but never weakness.
But this means we are left with a dilemma, a choice of two unacceptable alternatives we cannot avoid.
Either we stop propping up women into a forced social and political equality with men, which is unacceptable because every civilized Westerner, including me, was brought up to think of this as morally imperative...
... or, by doing nothing, we allow society to collapse back into a more desperate state where this will happen automatically.
I don't have a third, easy offramp to offer you.
Pornographic films can comfort young men who have been shut out of any chance at success, power, and respect by social engineering. And pornographic books can comfort girls who have been rendered unable to feel anything for an any man who isn't an immortal billionaire vampire warlord.
But porn can't love anyone, and it can't get married and raise children.
We need to stop this nonsense, not because we have gleefully become bigots suddenly and for no reason at all, but because we need to be smart enough to recognize an existential crisis when we spot one.
Otherwise, what good is it to even be an intelligent species?
Cameron retweeted
AI Bubble has officially burst today IMHO.
Semiconductors are the pick and shovel suppliers to the AI buildout. The industry is down 32% from the parabolic peak in June.
Today it took out the July low with authority. The AI bubble has technically burst. There will be rallies and hope but the process has begun. Financial reflexivity that propelled it up is now in reverse. Credit markets were the canary.
Cameron retweeted
🚨Midterm Elections: Not a Mandate, Just a Rejection
Mark Mitchell and Rich Baris warned this was coming. The reasons were visible in the data long before Election Day. The economy for the average household remains the real problem. substack.com/@eddowdbeyondth…
Cameron retweeted
this post has so much wisdom in it i thought naval wrote it
and i don't think the author even realizes why
if you understand this properly, you can explain almost all political issues we see in the world today
you can't take care of your loved ones if you can't even take care of yourself. you can't build a functioning country if your loved ones aren't taken care of. and you certainly can't save the world if your own country is falling apart. responsibility has to expand outwards.
the problem with so much left-wing thinking is that it's backwards. it starts with the most noble sounding objective imaginable, "saving the world" or "climate change" or "poor migrants", and thinks about the most nice-sounding solution, without considering if the conditions required to achieve it even exist, and that's why so many apparently well-intentioned policies end up doing the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.
they sound compassionate, but completely ignore incentives, tradeoffs, or second-order consequences
clean your own damn bedroom and put your house in order before trying to change the world
you will never be able to fix the world if you can't even get the order of your own responsibilities right
Cameron retweeted
As much as this tweet illustrates something very much at the heart of the Left-Right divide, the same thing the famous heat maps capture, it differs in one key way.
Leftists in no way, shape, or form put THEMSELVES last.
They do brutally subordinate the needs of those close to them, their family, their community, their countrymen, to distant and abstract global causes, "thinking about the world," but they only "think about the world" as a kind of performative exercise OF THE SELF.
The real goal is mainly narcissistic: they "think about the world" because this makes them (or at least signals that) they are "a good person."
This tweet itself is very obviously an example of this very thing. "Ambre" isn't thinking about the world. He's thinking about SIGNALING how leftists are morally superior to rightists, and hence, he is not only among the best (a leftist) but among the best of the best (a leftist who loudly broadcasts the moral superiority of leftism).
In other words, this post is about him, and has no concern about "the world."
Cameron retweeted
The chief benefit from rising atmospheric CO₂ levels is an undeniable increase in planetary green leaf cover, now clearly visible from space.
This fresh greening covers an area twice the size of the continental United States - yet it remains ignored by the institutional forces driving a narrative of climate emergency, and largely overlooked in the mainstream media.
The chief benefit from rising atmospheric CO₂ levels is an undeniable increase in planetary green leaf cover, now clearly visible from space.
This fresh greening covers an area twice the size of the continental United States - yet it remains ignored by the institutional forces driving a narrative of climate emergency, and largely overlooked in the mainstream media.
Data from NASA’s MODIS satellite instruments tells the real story. Rather than triggering global collapse, the rise in CO₂ sparked a massive expansion in the green canopy, stimulating agricultural yields (some cereal crops up by 280%) and natural ecosystems alike. This 'CO₂ fertilisation effect' occurs as plants perform photosynthesis more efficiently while losing less water through their stomata.
Meanwhile, the global economy has been severely disrupted by a 40-year campaign built on forecasts of environmental doom from anthropogenic CO₂. This trace gas is not a climate control knob. It is the fundamental driver of biological photosynthesis and oxygen production.
These campaigns, led by UN activism, demand a rapid, forced transition away from hydrocarbon energy. Yet wind and solar cannot supply the dense baseload power required for steel production and heavy industry. Hydrocarbon fuels still provide 82% of global primary power.
This entire transition is justified under the warning that CO₂ emissions are leading the planet to the brink of catastrophe - with the total cost of this pointless pivot estimated at a staggering $275 trillion.
Earth's geological history, paired with empirical satellite data, reveal a completely different reality: CO₂ is a powerful agent of biological enrichment. Its capacity to drive runaway global warming faces steep, immovable physical limitations.
A critical pillar of atmospheric physics is how the warming effect of CO₂ continually reduces along a sliding logarithmic curve. The first 100 ppm of CO₂ exert the greatest impact on capturing outgoing infrared radiation. But as concentrations rise, absorption bands rapidly saturate. Each subsequent doubling of CO₂ yields an ever-smaller increment of radiative warmth.
The concept of a runaway warming feedback loop loses its theoretical foundation under actual atmospheric conditions, where the 'rate of warming' diminishes progressively. Yet this debunked narrative is routinely recycled to fuel panic.
Annual COP climate summits over the past thirty years also endlessly amplify this agenda of fear, functioning largely as high-end junkets for global elites.
In geological terms, atmospheric CO₂ is in long-term decline - a fact carefully airbrushed from IPCC worst-case scenarios. During the Cambrian period, atmospheric CO₂ peaked as high as 7,000 ppm. Even with those immense concentrations, there was no global boiling; instead, it marked the greatest explosion of biological diversity in Earth's history.
During the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 19,000 years ago), CO₂ levels plummeted to roughly 180 ppm - dangerously close to the 150 ppm threshold below which most C3 plant life starves and dies. From a long-term evolutionary perspective, modern levels hovering above 420 ppm represent a vital, partial recovery from a geologically recent carbon drought, rather than a precursor to apocalypse.
Today’s global average temperature sits at approximately 15°C. In the context of the history of complex life on land, this is remarkably cold. Earth’s baseline historical temperature average was closer to 24°C, characterised by ice-free poles and expansive, highly productive ecosystems. Our current global average actually reflects a colder-than-average ice age regime.
Global climates are not controlled by trace gases. They are driven by massive, slow-moving astronomical, oceanic, and tectonic forces - such as Milankovitch orbital cycles or the shifting configuration of continents blocking equatorial ocean currents.
Cameron retweeted
The TOTAL DEMOLITION of the IPCC
Our latest peer-reviewed paper concludes that fossil carbon is a NEGLIGIBLE component of the net atmospheric CO₂ increase.
500 years of isotopic evidence.
Elementary mass conservation.
A devastating mathematical result.
BOMBSHELL
Fossil Fuels Did NOT Cause the CO2 Rise.
New peer-reviewed paper just dropped. 500 years of data. The verdict is in.
Fossil carbon's contribution to rising CO2:
effectively ZERO.
The entire IPCC/NASA/NOAA/EPA climate narrative rests on a claim that just got mathematically falsified.
Read it.
Share it.
The cover-up is over.
The full peer-reviewed paper:
papers.jcohler.com/keeling
Cameron retweeted
Americans, read this to the end. Then share it. Because if you don't understand what I'm about to tell you, you will lose your country the same way we lost ours.
You need to kill the EU. Not reform it. Not negotiate with it. Kill it as a political project. If you want to save Western civilization, there is no other way.
I know how that sounds. Let me show you why I'm not exaggerating.
Over the past few years, Brussels has built a complete architecture of control. The Digital Services Act to decide what you're allowed to say. Chat Control to read your private messages, including encrypted ones. A digital ID to end anonymity. A digital euro and a war on cash to see every transaction you make. Speech, private messages, identity, money. All four pillars of total control, built in plain sight, each brick sold as "safety."
But the laws are not the real danger. The real danger is the machine that produces them. And the one thing you need to understand about that machine is this:
It never stops.
In 2005, France and the Netherlands voted NO to the European Constitution. A clear, democratic no. Two years later, Brussels repackaged almost the entire text as the Treaty of Lisbon and passed it without asking the French people again. In 2008, Ireland voted NO to Lisbon. So they made Ireland vote again the next year, until it said yes.
Chat Control was rejected by the European Parliament. It came back. Rejected again. Came back again. Every new presidency, a new version, a new name, the same goal.
They don't win the argument. They outlast you. You have to win every time. They only have to win once. And once a power is transferred to Brussels, it never comes back.
Now here's what should keep you up at night. That same machine doesn't stop at Europe's borders. It will come for your institutions too. Not with an invasion. Step by step. Like a hacker probing a system for weak points.
First, through your companies. Brussels doesn't regulate European platforms. It regulates X, Meta, Google, Apple. It's cheaper to apply one set of rules worldwide than two, so the censorship machine built for Europe ends up running on your phone in Texas. That's how GDPR cookie banners ended up all over American websites.
Second, through NGOs. The DSA gives special status to "trusted flaggers," organizations whose takedown requests platforms must prioritize. When your State Department barred the architect of the DSA from the United States, it also barred people from organizations campaigning against "online hate" and "disinformation," some of them operating on both sides of the Atlantic. The network is already inside your house.
Third, through experts and academia. A whole industry of "disinformation research" produces the reports, the definitions, and the lists that regulators then turn into law. Same vocabulary in Brussels, London, Ottawa, Canberra and Washington. That's not a coincidence. That's a pipeline.
Fourth, through international agreements. Every summit, every treaty, every "global standard" on online safety or digital governance is another lever to make American rules converge with European ones. Quietly. Technically. Without a single vote of the American people.
Fifth, through patience. They are waiting for the next administration that agrees with them. One election. That's all it takes for every safeguard you built to be dismantled from the inside, with European legislation ready to copy and paste and a press kit that says "our democratic allies already do this."
You blocked them once. They will try again. And again. And again. With new names, new causes, new crises. It will never stop. Not as long as the machine exists.
That's why half measures won't work. You can't fine a cancer into remission. You can't negotiate with it. You remove it, or it spreads.
The EU started as a free trade area between sovereign nations. That Europe, I'd defend. What it has become is a supranational bureaucracy that no one elected, no one can fire, and no people can vote out. A machine designed to transfer power upward and never give it back.
So use everything you have. Stop treating Brussels as a legitimate rule-maker for American companies. Refuse any trade deal that accepts foreign censorship of American platforms. Deal with Europe nation by nation, not through Brussels. Make it clear that the price of exporting censorship to America is too high to pay.
America is the last great country with free speech written into its founding document as an absolute. If America holds, Europeans have something to point to, something to fight for, somewhere to look. If America falls, there is nowhere left.
Western civilization was built on free people saying what they think, owning what they build, and governing themselves. The EU, in its current form, is the negation of all three.
Kill the project. Everywhere. Or one day, it will have you too.
I'm writing this from France. I love Europe. That's exactly why I'm asking for your help.
Cameron retweeted
There’s something so profound about the Garden of Gethsemane.
After the Last Supper, Christ goes to the garden to pray. He knows on this night he’ll be betrayed, arrested, and then crucified. He asks his three closest disciples, Peter, James, and John, to come with him, to stay awake, and to keep watch.
Jesus then goes a short distance away to pray to God the Father. He asks if there’s any other way. What he’s about to endure—the suffering—is something we can’t even comprehend. Nevertheless, he prays, “not as I will, but as you will.”
Every time He returns to His disciples, His most loyal companions, He finds them asleep.
He says to Peter, “could you not watch with me one hour?” He then warns them about temptation, saying “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
It’s one of the most sobering passages in the Bible, but it gives me great hope as well.
God wants us to stay faithful to him, to keep watch, but He also knows we’re human and we’re easily led astray. Christ forgave his disciples and still used all three to establish His church, even though they failed him.
Men are weak, but God loves us anyway. Even when we fall short, God is faithful.
Cameron retweeted
Note that H2O is not one of their top greenhouse gases.
H2O absorbs long wave radiation across the spectrum and is in concentrations of up to 40,000ppm.
It is THE greenhouse gas.
These people know this.
What they are saying is a deliberate distortion of the facts.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in our atmosphere are higher than ever before.
The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on the amount of gas that accumulates in the atmosphere, not new annual emissions.
Explore the findings: bit.ly/4iIqwMR
Cameron retweeted
20 years ago, Nicholas Stern wrongly predicted that climate change would cause immense economic losses from extreme weather events
Now, we know he was wrong
Ironically, but not surprisingly, The Guardian celebrates him for being right
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p…
