Principles of New Environmentalism A new environmentalism challenges climate alarmism, rejects false scarcity, and defends both ecological integrity and human freedom through practical, market-based solutions. By Edward Ring

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/07/principles-of-new-environmentalism/

Last month, in recognition of the annual celebration of Earth Day, it seemed appropriate to compile a list of ten common myths that constitute the major premises of modern environmentalism. That list, along with explanations of why each of these premises is unfounded and counterproductive, can be summarized as follows:

1 – There is no climate crisis.
2 – There are not too many people on Earth.
3 – We are not running out of oil/gas/coal.
4 – Biofuel is not renewable or sustainable.
5 – Offshore wind is not renewable or sustainable.
6 – Renewables are not renewable.
7 – Renewables cannot replace oil/gas/coal.
8 – Housing should not be confined to densifying existing cities.
9 – Mass transit is almost never cost-effective.
10 – Wilderness areas are not sacred.

Environmentalism, pursuant to these myths, is not a movement primarily devoted to protecting the planet’s ecosystems. It is a totalitarian political agenda that aims to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a managerial elite that will wield absolute control over every aspect of human life. Where you live or travel, what you purchase or produce, and what you can own and consume will all be specified, monitored, and rationed. And the moral justification for this will be the “climate emergency.”

There are few examples in history that can compare to the political power grab enabled by the alleged “existential threat” of climate change. But of equal concern is the fraudulent essence of the economic and technological agenda pushed in the name of fighting climate change. It not only discredits environmentalism in the eyes of awakening millions, but, as explained in the ten myths, it also will wreak environmental havoc.

Greta Thunberg’s moral siege of Israel This is an armada of Israelophobic activists, not an aid mission. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/05/07/greta-thunbergs-moral-siege-of-israel/

Why isn’t Greta Thunberg sailing an aid ship to Sudan? Things are dire there. Two years of war have given rise to ‘catastrophic hunger levels’. The horrors dwarf ‘those in Ukraine, Gaza and Somalia combined’, reports Deutsche Welle. And yet the benighted Sudanese have failed to win the favour of the world’s best known eco-brat. Her boat is destined not for Africa but for the only strip of land that matters to the virtuous of the West: Gaza.

Sweden’s prophetess of doom is back in the news. She’s making waves with her plan to sail to Gaza. She and others from the turbo-smug keffiyeh classes had planned to sail on a boat called – wait for it – Conscience. Rumour has it they called it that because ‘Aren’t We Fucking Wonderful?’ was too long for the hull. But their moral expedition has been put on hold after a drone fired on their boat in waters off Malta, causing damage but no casualties.

Information is sparse. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) that’s organising this virtue-fest in the Med says 30 people were onboard at the time – the Maltese government says 16 were. Greta says Israel fired the drone, yet another ‘crystal-clear example’ that it doesn’t give a toss about ‘international law and human rights’; Israel is staying schtum.

Of course, no one wants to see Greta or her activist pals come to any harm. I’m glad that they haven’t. Yet it would be wholly wrong to describe this expedition as merely about delivering aid, as simply humanitarian. The aim of these seafaring Israelophobes is less to ‘help Gaza’ than to weaken Israel’s hold over the enemy territory it has seized in its bloody war with Hamas.

The Spoiled Brats of Academe “Democracy cannot thrive without a certain diet of truth.” by Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-spoiled-brats-of-academe/

President Trump’s campaign to restore Constitutional order and common sense to our government has rightly targeted our educational institutions, keeping the pledge he made on the campaign trail “to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left.” These institutions, like a fish, rot from the head down, and so the corruption of our universities must be reduced by starting with their administrations and faculties.

That corruption became obvious during the campus protests celebrating Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The despicable anti-Semitism of the students and faculty of some of our most prestigious universities, as well as violence directed at Jewish students, replete with genocidal chants and rhetoric, were tolerated by campus authorities and met with shameful appeasement, if not encouragement, rather than arrests and expulsions.

Trump has responded by garnishing some of the billions of dollars that taxpayers provide to universities, which use these funds to finance politicized or dubious research, create anti-American programs, and graduate majors rife with leftwing curricula filled with postmodern “higher nonsense,” but lacking any prospects of employment other than political activism. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Wall Street Journal reports, “You have a higher chance of being unemployed these days if you go to college.”

In response, these institutions have been caterwauling like a spoiled, entitled brat whose rich father has reduced his exorbitant allowance. Typical are the comments of Princeton’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, who blustered, “The attack on Columbia is a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research . . . Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

So how did private universities with multi-billion-dollar, tax-free endowments get a “right” to taxpayer money? And how did the common-sense wisdom that “He who pays the piper calls the tune” disappear? Aren’t there conditions the feds impose on how public funds are spent? Are not politicized curricula, programs, and majors verboten?

But the left-wing’s “long march” to politicize universities is just one example of the left’s corruption of our schools. Postmodern and poststructuralist ideologies––the idiot children of Marx’s malign ideas such of “false consciousness” –– incorporate other sophistic ideas such as the simplistic, radical materialist determinism and relativism.

Democracies and Death Cults Douglas Murray emerges as Israel’s fiercest non-Jewish defender. by Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/democracies-and-death-cults/

As faux historians, faux conservatives, and former MMA tough guys vie with each other to be the biggest antisemitic influencers in the dank sewer known as social media, one pundit stands out as the fiercest, most visible non-Jew defender of Israel’s right to exist.

Bestselling author and journalist Douglas Murray, known for his incisive observations on the embattled West, his fearlessly pro-Israel stance, and his withering verbal takedowns of Jew-hating opponents, recently released a new book: On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization. It is both emotionally searing and intellectually rigorous, a meticulously reported deep dive into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, centered on the atrocities of October 7, 2023, and their broader implications for Western democracies. The book draws from Murray’s extensive on-the-ground reporting in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon, offering a firsthand account of the horrors perpetrated by the terror group Hamas and a trenchant critique of the West’s largely sickening response to the conflict.

Arguably the book’s greatest value is that it underscores the clash between a thriving democracy that celebrates life, and a savage ideology obsessed with death and with the eradication of Jews and their tiny Middle East state. Murray’s ability to convey the shocking horror of Palestinian brutality with understated language, combined with his warning about the dangers of the West’s perverse sympathy for Hamas, makes On Democracies and Death Cults a vital contribution to the discourse on democracy, morality, and the future of civilization.

Murray’s restrained prose manages to amplify the visceral impact of his reporting. Rather than resorting to sensationalism, he lets the grim facts of October 7 speak for themselves. The massacre, which saw Hamas terrorists and Palestinian civilians murder, rape, and abduct over 1200 Israelis in a meticulously planned assault, is recounted through the voices of survivors, victims’ families, and even captured perpetrators. Murray’s descriptions are spare yet haunting: a mother burned alive in her home, a child witnessing unspeakable brutality, a terrorist exulting in his murderous deeds.

Biden team sought to ‘get rid’ of Netanyahu for opposing its Gaza plans The apparent willingness of the Biden administration to consider ousting a sitting prime minister once more raises questions about U.S. interference in Israel’s internal politics. David Isaac

https://www.jns.org/biden-team-sought-to-get-rid-of-netanyahu-for-opposing-its-gaza-plans/

The Biden administration considered ways to “get rid” of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he wouldn’t go along with their plans for the Gaza Strip, Channel 13’s weekly investigative news show HaMakor (“The Source”) revealed on April 27.

“The White House got tired of Netanyahu and started to roll around a revolutionary idea … : how to get rid of Netanyahu,” said Raviv Drucker, who hosts the hour-long Sunday show.

The April 27 broadcast, titled “All the President’s Men,” involved in-depth interviews with nine members of former U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration, including former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides, former national security advisor Jake Sullivan, former White House national security communications advisor John Kirby, former senior advisor for energy Amos Hochstein and former senior Biden aide Ilan Goldenberg.

Worth noting is that the program was an apologia for the Biden administration, and that Drucker is a long-time critic of Netanyahu. The episode criticized the prime minister throughout, portraying him as ungrateful, as torpedoing potential hostage deals for political reasons and missing a chance to sign a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, among other missteps.

According to the program, the Biden administration became aggravated by Netanyahu’s refusal to discuss the end goal of Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza, specifically, who would take charge of the Gaza Strip after Hamas had been ousted.

The Biden team proposed handing security to a foreign force, which would then turn Gaza over to Palestinian control, Goldenberg told HaMakor.

The Ayatollah Regime – a Clear and Present Threat to the US Yoram Ettinger

http://bit.ly/4jIt8IJ

Is the Ayatollah regime a threat to the US?

*It has been claimed that Iran’s Ayatollah regime does not pose a threat to the US, nor would a nuclear Iran. Moreover, it has been suggested that just like a nuclear India, Pakistan and North Korea, a nuclear Iran may be a regional threat (e.g., North Korea), but not a global threat to the US.

*However, unlike India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China, a nuclear Ayatollah regime would be the first ever apocalyptically megalomaniacal regime. 

Unlike the other nuclear powers, the Ayatollah regime is fully committed to a 1,400-year-old vision, which transcends financial and diplomatic considerations, and is underscored in Iran’s school curriculum, mosque sermons and official media, mandating the regime to topple all “apostate” Sunni regimes and bring the Western “infidel” to submission, especially “The Great American Satan.”

Furthermore, dissimilar to the other nuclear powers, the Ayatollah regime is the leading epicenter of global anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and the proliferation of advanced military systems. Currently, the operational footprint of this apocalyptic regime extends from the Persian Gulf and the Middle East through East, North and West Africa to Latin America (the US’ soft underbelly), the US-Mexico border and the US homeland.

Regime-change pro and con

*The attainment of the noble goal of ending wars and terrorism is preconditioned upon eliminating the world’s leading epicenter of wars and terrorism, which is the (currently) non-nuclear Iran’s Ayatollah regime. Refraining from regime-change in Iran, on the one hand, and pursuing the prevention, minimization and ending wars and terrorism, on the other hand, constitutes a self-destructive oxymoron.

Defund The United Nations

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/08/defund-the-united-nations/

The United Nations is running short of cash. This is not a crisis but an opportunity. Please rid us of this meddlesome, venal and baleful organization.

The Economist reports that “internal modeling” at the U.N. “suggests that the year-end cash deficit will, without cuts, probably blow out to $1.1 billion, leaving it “without money to pay salaries and suppliers by September.”

Apparently “some members are paying their bills late and others not at all” and it is the U.S. and China that “are pushing it to the brink of financial collapse.”

Who says the U.S. and Beijing have no common interests?

Two weeks into the second Trump administration, the White House announced it was considering withdrawing the country from, and ending funding for, three U.N. agencies, including the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

“UNRWA has reportedly been infiltrated by members of groups long designated by the secretary of state as foreign terrorist organizations,” says the White House, “and UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.” 

Meanwhile, “UNESCO has demonstrated failure to reform itself, has continually demonstrated anti-Israel sentiment over the past decade” and has shown that it will not “reform itself.”

The U.S. is also quitting the U.N. Human Rights Council, which it has done once before, in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term. The misnamed Human Rights Council “has protected human rights abusers by allowing them to use the organization to shield themselves from scrutiny,” says the White House.

Christopher F. Rufo Center-Right Critics Are Missing the Mark on DEI They claim to oppose discrimination in the name of diversity, but they have criticized the White House for using administrative power to eliminate it in practice.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-universities-dei-diversity-center-right-critics

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has taken decisive action against DEI in universities, threatening to investigate, punish, and withhold funding from higher education institutions that discriminate in the name of diversity. Most conservatives, who correctly see DEI as a threat to colorblind equality, have celebrated these maneuvers. But some center-right intellectuals, who claim to oppose DEI in theory, have criticized the White House for using administrative power to eliminate it in practice.

One such figure is Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who has gained attention in recent years as an insider critic of DEI. He has been mildly critical of diversity statements in faculty hiring, which he claims infringe on “academic freedom” and diminish “the true value of diversity.” Some conservatives praise him as a reformer, but the truth is more complicated: as dean, Flier was not a critic of DEI at all. In fact, he oversaw its rapid expansion and became a critic only after he retired from that position.

Last month on X, I asked Flier to substantiate the facts about his opposition to DEI. “When you were Dean of Harvard Medical School, what did you do to stop racial discrimination in admissions, hiring, and programs?” I asked. “Why can’t I find any record of you speaking out against your department’s illegal DEI practices when you were in charge?”

Flier attempted to duck the question but eventually relented. “[W]hen I was dean, affirmative action in admissions and various DEI programs were not illegal,” he replied.

This approach distorted the law—discriminatory hiring programs have always violated the Civil Rights Act. And Flier’s reply was an evasion. He would rather quibble over legal technicalities than grapple with his conduct as an administrator.

After resigning as dean, Flier himself admitted that he knew requiring diversity statements in faculty hiring was wrong but could only publicly express his criticism once he was out of power. “As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said [that I oppose requiring diversity statements]. But I will now.” In other words, Flier knew that these initiatives violated his principles but refused to voice his opinion at the time, not because of legal technicalities—a post hoc rationalization—but because it would have jeopardized his career. He could have opposed DEI, but chose not to, out of fear.

DOGE Is Doing the Clean-Up Leftists Can’t Stand By Joan Swirsky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/05/doge_is_doing_the_clean_up_leftists_can_t_stand.html

In this allegorical scenario, Honey and Hank moved into a cozy home in a small community in New England 30 years ago.  The next day, their neighbor, Irene, brings over a hot, homemade casserole to welcome them to the neighborhood.

Within minutes, Honey and Irene “connect” in a phenomenon known as human chemistry.  They just seem to “get” each other.  And as their relationship evolves, they learn that they are on the same page on just about everything: raising kids, favorite foods, must-see TV programs, Mommy-and-Me classes, even the crocheting and knitting that their grandmothers taught them.  And each of them has three children, with two of them having the same name!

As luck would have it, their husbands also hit it off and have quite a lot in common, the biggest that both are on-the-road salesmen.

Over the years, the couples become so close that they vacation and celebrate birthdays and holidays together.  Honey and Irene even exchange house keys and list each other as emergency contacts on medical forms.

All good…for 30 years!

Uh-Oh…

Then, one day, Honey gets a phone call from her bank manager, Mr. Hervey, requesting that she and Hank come in for a sit-down.

Hyperbole, Lies, and Delusions Pritzker’s New Hampshire speech blurred the line between hyperbole and hysteria, raising the question: is he channeling Seinfeld, Smollett—or something more sinister? By Richard Porter

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/07/hyperbole-lies-and-delusions/

CHICAGO — Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s speech in New Hampshire last week was greeted by the media as yet another stirring call to arms for the rudderless Democratic Party.

“Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption – but I am now,” Pritzker thundered. “These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box.”

Republicans protested that the governor came close to inciting political violence – and they have a point, given the attempts to assassinate Donald Trump, the dangerous attacks on Tesla, and the near-kidnapping of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

However, what Pritzker had to say in his speech before channeling Maxine Waters’ infamous call to harass Republicans should not be overlooked. It raises an important question: Is Pritzker delusional, a liar, or merely hyperbolic?

Hyperbole, lies, and delusions are all forms of falsehoods, but of different magnitudes. The first are exaggerated claims not meant to be taken literally. Trump himself is no stranger to this oratorical device. Lies are exaggerations or falsehoods the speaker wants others to believe – and, while shameful, are a too-frequent feature of modern political discourses. Delusions are false beliefs at odds with observable reality.

Jerry Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” is an example of hyperbolic name calling. Seinfeld and his audience understood it was an exaggeration so grotesque that it was funny. No one thought the soup guy was actually a member of the SS. Jussie Smollett’s claim that MAGA bros assaulted him was a lie, albeit a calculated, elaborate, and harmful hoax. The Salem witch trials were the terrible consequence of a mass delusion.

So, is Pritzker channeling Seinfeld, Smollett, or Cotton Mather?

“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” Pritzker said.

“Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history,” he said before adding, “Today it’s an immigrant with a tattoo, tomorrow it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Donald Trump.”