Atticus Fox

People and Planet

If you genuinely believe that humans are responsible for destroying the planet via Climate Change then Game Theory would propose that the only rational solution would be to drastically reduce the human population. Such an outcome is what AI would determine.

Unsurprisingly, many Global Stakeholders who push the Climate Change and Environmentalist narratives have expressed their Malthusian desires to reduce the human population

Eugenics has been a popular philosophy of the upper classes since at least the Victorian era before becoming an unacceptable topic after WW2. However, as the quotes below prove, the idea of eugenics remains central to the ideology of what are now called the ‘Global Stakeholders’.

https://expose-news.com/2025/01/08/47-quotes-from-self-styled-elites/

John D Rockefeller:

‘The population problem must be recognised by government as a principal element in long-range planning.’

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood):

‘All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class.’ And… ‘The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’

Ted Turner:

‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.’

Boris Johnson (Baby-maker extraordinaire):

‘The primary challenge facing our species is the reproduction of our species itself … It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet’

Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder:

‘My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.’

Paul Ehrlich, member of ‘Club of Rome’, a former science adviser to President George W. Bush and the author of ‘The Population Bomb’:

‘Solving the population problem is not going to solve the problems of racism … of sexism … of religious intolerance … of war … of gross economic inequality. But if you don’t solve the population problem, you’re not going to solve any of those problems. Whatever problem you’re interested in, you’re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem.’

Maurice Strong (First executive director of the UN Environment Programme; Foundation director of WEF; member of World Business Council for Sustainable Development):

‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?’

Professor Philip Cafaro (Colorado State University) in a paper entitled ‘Climate Ethics and Population Policy’:

‘Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.’

Jacques Costeau:

‘In order to stabilise world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.’

Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola:

‘If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die.’

Prince Philip (Co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund):

‘In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.’

Bill Gates (doctor and farmer): ‘The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (…) And we’ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don’t have an impossible situation later’

And let’s not forget Guide #1 on the Georgia Guidestones, organised under conditions of high secrecy but since destroyed, which stated ‘maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.’

Eugenics and population control has been a constant pre-occupation of the intelligentsia since the Victorian era.

When humanity is a variable and the environment is a constraint, the optimization function can solve for fewer humans.

Women Are Instructed To Ignore Their Natural Instincts

Many women, especially leftist women, just don’t know how they are supposed to behave these days. Feminists tell them that they mustn’t behave like their mothers or grandmothers because those women weren’t good feminists. Instead, they supported the Patriarchy by being Tradwives. Young women are under pressure not to perpetuate the system by acting the same way.

So, what are women to do to prove their Feminist credentials?

Well, to start with, women – particularly leftist women – are increasingly selecting male partners that they can dominate. To destroy the Patriarchy, they have to become the Matriarchy. Thus, women are choosing weak men.

The problem is that deep down, at a biological level, women do not want to dominate the men in their lives. As unfashionable as it is, women want to be with strong minded men who can fill in for the anxiety and neuroses that women are susceptible to. But strong minded men are increasingly right wing and that is not acceptable in the social justice era. Society has sharply split into Left and Right wing political factions with women overwhelmingly choosing the Left wing side.

The result is that strong liberal women are going out with weak liberal men. Or they are engaging in hook-up culture which brings us to the other way women are trying to be good feminists…

Young women are now trying to ape male behaviour. And, why not? They are told that men have all the power and that gender is just a social construct so why not behave like men. Perhaps that is the secret to having all the power? So women try to copy male behaviour by being more strident, less apologetic, putting their jobs first and engaging in hook-up culture. But it’s a very misguided and confused version of how men behave because they’re just pretending and, in reality, they’re a bit lost because they are no longer allowed to act like women. And huge numbers of them were raised by their mothers without the constant presence of a father in their lives. As such, they only have a vague and distorted idea of what men are like. So they’re pretending to be something that they don’t understand. Women are torn. On the one hand they have hormones and biological needs that demand monogamy and maternity but on the other hand they are constantly subject to behavioural nudging that instruct them not to follow their natural instincts: not to get married or, if they do, not to have children; concentrate on their careers; not to allow men to have any control over them. They are repeatedly told that men are the enemy.

The irony is that casual sex benefits men much more than it benefits women which means that women are playing into the hands of the Patriarchy by giving men commitment-free sex.

All of this is making women unhappy:

‘Using data across countries and over time we show that women are unhappier than men in unhappiness and negative affect equations, irrespective of the measure used – anxiety, depression, fearfulness, sadness, loneliness, anger – and they have more days with bad mental health and more restless sleep.’

https://ideas.repec.org/p/qss/dqsswp/2202.html

Women would rather be allowed to be women than be inferior men but they are shamed for doing so. Right wing women are sneered at. Behold the latest shaming device…

Women are even being made to be ashamed of having a boyfriend. Like the whole idea of even liking a man makes a woman a bad feminist. Vogue published this article about how straight (white) women are downplaying their boyfriends in their social media so as not to appear ‘culturally loser-ish’. This is Vogue behavioural nudging their readers: you should be embarrassed to have a boyfriend. To have a heterosexual relationship is patriarchial endorsement by the back door. You should be hooking up with 3 dudes per week or you should be a lesbian. Having a heterosexual relationship makes you very suspect.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/is-having-a-boyfriend-embarrassing-now

So what is the result of such nudging? Well, as it is ‘culturally loser-ish’ to look to a man to look after you, women are now looking to the State to look after them.

Single women are increasingly voting for leftist – ie ‘Big State’ – political parties to provide that safety net for them.

Women are bearing the brunt of social conditioning that aims to encourage women to shun all those aspects of their personalities that make them women. The ones who are swayed by such conditioning are very unhappy but they don’t know why and they are locked into patterns of behaviour that they cannot escape from. I feel sorry for them.

In a future post, I will describe the social conditioning of men.

The Decline of the West – Oswald Spengler

Cultures come into being, evolve, mature and then decline. So wrote Oswald Spengler in his book ‘The Decline of the West’, pub. 1918.

Spengler explained that the final form of a culture is its ‘Civilisation Phase’, representing the high point of the culture. From this point the culture starts its decline.

Each culture is independent of other cultures. For this reason, there can be no universal history of mankind only the individual histories of self-contained organic high cultures that grow along observable and predictable patterns that come into being age, inevitably decline and die. Each individual high culture has a totally unique form of expression.

“There has never existed a human culture in general, but only independent cultures of individual form, consequently also at all times, separate developments.” – Oswald Spengler

Spengler called the Western culture ‘Faustian’ after the story of the man who sells his soul to the devil in return for forbidden knowledge. This is because the West expresses itself through an insatiable desire for growth and knowledge.

Spengler said of Western civilisation that it had already passed its cultural peak – or ‘Summer’ – and was now slowly declining into its ‘Winter’ an era of vulgar barbarianism and chaos.

Spengler argued that the French Revolution was the transitional event in Western culture that marked the move from an age of traditional spiritual aristocratic form and the beginning of decline into an age of materialism, cultural bankruptcy and imperialism.
The former age was the ‘Culture phase’ while the latter is the ‘Civilisation phase’. Civilisation is the final stage of a culture. It is in effect where a culture goes to die.

Thus, for Spengler, the French revolution and the rise of Napoleon were the beginning of the end for the West, the beginning of the West’s civilisation phase.

Spengler wrote:
“Civilisation is the ultimate destiny of the Culture…Civilisations are the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable. They are a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thing-becoming, death following life, rigidity following expansion…Petrifying world-city following mother earth and the spiritual childhood.”

Our Faustian culture was born around 900 AD.
The culture phase is the ‘becoming’ while a culture works out its place in the world while the decline is synonymous with the ‘become’ marking the end of creative possibilities.

Art in the culture period is pure creation with a religious intensity, the thing-becoming as the culture finds its way in the world. However, once the potential is fully actualised, grand art is essentially completed. After this art in general declines into mutable styles and fashions that have no grand meaning.
Arts and sciences of past seasons are perfected and expanded, but nothing fundamentally new is created.

Art is no longer a well defined thing with shared characteristics because art as a cultural language of expression has nothing left to accomplish. According to Spengler, the ‘becoming’ of Western art was completed some time in the early 19th century. After this point, art declined. Art now can only look backwards. There is no remaining originality to be tapped.

‘You are dying. I see in you all the characteristic stigma of decay. I can prove to you that your great wealth and your great poverty, your capitalism and your socialism, your wars and your revolutions, your atheism and your pessimism and your cynicism, your immorality, your broken-down marriages, your birth-control, that is bleeding you from the bottom and killing you off at the top in your brains—I can prove to you that those were characteristic marks of the dying ages of ancient States—Alexandria and Greece and neurotic Rome.’
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West

According to Spengler, imperialism is the only course left for a civilization once other potentialities have been realised. Energy that was once directed inwards to the mind and the spirit is now directed outward to politics and economics. Spiritual possibilities are now completely exhausted.
The civilisation phase replaces the Culture’s spiritual creation with mecchanistic construction. Tradition cannot survive rational materialistic logic.
This is why in every civilization’s modernity period a form of democracy appears, characterised by bourgeois statesmen with economic powers rather than kings with divine right.
Rationality overcomes instinct and it becomes cancerous. The civilisation turns on itself.

This is when the moral and political ideology begins to assert itself: ‘-isms’ (socialism, individualism, transgenderism etc) serve as replacements to religion for a people that no longer have a spiritual need for religion.

The rootless masses find life in the great cities but have little drive. They can’t be bothered to settle down and produce children so they turn to hedonism and other time wasting activities. They distract themselves from the unfulfilled boredom of modern living.

Spengler predicted the main societal divide would exist between city folk and provincials – those still connected to the soil (from which all cultures begin).

In time, democracies become the political weapons of money. They inevitably give way to bureaucracies and technocracies, further alienating the masses. Money replaces blood and tradition as the source of power in the civilisation phase.

‘In place of a true-type people, born of and grown on the soil, there is a new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman…’
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West

Imperialism increases in scale and intensity until the international system becomes so irreparably damaged that only a few nations remain strong enough to conduct foreign policy.

The civilisation decays into a strange state of civilised barbarism and will remain in this state for the rest of its existence.

Into this directionless void, strongmen will emerge that Spengler referred to as ‘Caesars’.

Spengler predicted that the period of Caesarism in the West would emerge between 2000 and 2200.
The masses gravitate towards the strongmen – Caesars – who promise to destroy the democratic system that has been made ineffectual and weak through the influence of money and interest groups. Caesarism, however, can never restart a culture in a profound way.

So, now you know why everything is becoming worse. Western culture was always destined to collapse, like every other culture before it. This is what it looks like. It cannot be restored.

How Bad Is the UK Labour Government? Let Me Count The Ways…

Let’s document the egregious acts imposed by the UK labour govt since their election win in July 2024:

Pre-election pledge to abolish student fees – abandoned.
Pre-election pledge freeze council tax for 1 year. Broken.
Pre-election pledge to reduce energy prices – the opposite has happened.
Made Winter fuel allowance for pensioners means tested despite pledging before the election not to do so.
Closed the migrant barge.
Stopped Rwanda programme.
Promised before election that ‘pensioners would be better off under labour’.
Gave his donor, Lord Ali a Free Pass for Downing Street.
Made family farms eligible for inheritance tax despite pledges from Starmer to protect farmers.
£500 million given to foreign farmers.
22.3% pay rise for doctors.
15% pay rise for train drivers
Bridget Phillipson (Education Secretary) will face legal action over her decision to pause new free speech laws designed to protect academics from cancel culture…Legislation designed to protect academics from cancel culture paused just days before it was due to come into force in August.
Southport protests: Starmer branded all those who were angry about the murder of 3 little girls ‘far right’.
Thousands of prisoners had their sentences reduced so they could be released to free up spaces in prisons. On October 22nd, 1,100 prisoners were released after completing only 40% of their sentence to “ease overcrowding”. These include those convicted of kidnapping, grievous bodily harm, and torturing a child on Snapchat. This followed September 10, when 1,700 inmates were also released — including 37 freed by mistake, who have since been returned behind bars.
Gave Ukraine permission to fire UK supplied missiles into Russian territory. (This meant UK soldiers would be firing these missiles).
Starmer’s Chief of Staff is at the helm of Britain’s interference in US elections.
Gave £millions more to Ukraine.
Gave £50 million to Syrian militants.
Labour Party broke US electoral law by advising Kamala Harris’s campaign.

https://expose-news.com/2024/10/24/britains-interference-in-us-elections/
Sold Chagos Islands to Mauritius in a deal where we give money to Mauritius.
Took us into the EU by stealth.
Changed status of Gibralter.
Stopped issuing licenses for offshore oil and gas exploration.
Introduced the Fraud, error and debt bill – allowing surveillance of bank accounts.
Increased taxes / NI etc.
Scrapped non-dom status.
Gave councils go-ahead to sell allotments for housing.
Extended voting to 16 year olds.
Banning parents from seeing curriculum .
Scrapped National Insurance payments for Indian immigrants.
Added VAT to private school fees.
Legalised abortion up to birth
Planning to spend £50 million to dim the sun.
Cancelled local elections.
Gerrymandering Welsh elections. https://open.substack.com/pub/nickgriffin544956/p/labours-great-election-robbery-in?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1csxsa
Introducing state euthanasia.
Scrapping jury trials.
Lied about a financial black hole in order to raise taxes.
Promised to ‘smash the gangs’ driving illegal immigration. Instead numbers have risen.
Promised to build 1.5 million new homes during their term. Instead, housebuilding has fallen.
Refused to commission a national inquiry into grooming gangs before yielding to public pressure. Since then, the government has done everything it could do to undermine the scope of the inquiry, leading to all victims disassociating themselves. A chairperson still has not been appointed despite 6 months having passed.
Signed the UK up to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme where carbon costs were much higher than the UK. Carbon costs have risen 37.7% from £19.84/MWh in January of this year.
Rolling out facial recognition software throughout the UK.
Attempting to bring anti-semitism laws
Attempting to bring in islamophobia laws
Introducing Digital ID
Stuffing the Lords with his cronies and ex-advisers.
Aligned the UK with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme thereby driving up energy prices.
Planning to perform medical experiments using puberty blockers on 13 year olds.
Re-instituted the Erasmus scheme which allows free movement of students with the EU.

This government is quite remarkable in its hostility to the native population and its determination to enact unpopular legislation. We wake up each morning wondering what the government is going to do that day to make our lives poorer and more miserable.

I will continue to add to this list.

‘Keir Starmer isn’t dishonest in the traditional sense. That would imply intent, memory, and a fixed relationship with reality.

What he practises instead is something far more modern narrative laundering.

Statements go in firm, clear and solemn, and come out later unrecognisable, cleansed of meaning, date stamped “misinterpreted” and quietly reissued as if nothing ever happened.

The Telegraph’s catalogue of his untruths doesn’t read like scandal. It reads like a job description. This is a Prime Minister who treats promises as provisional drafts, manifestos as mood boards, and voters as an inconvenient audience who keep quoting the script back to him.

Starmer didn’t break pledges, you see. He merely outgrew them. He didn’t raise taxes. He simply discovered new definitions of “raise” and “tax” after the election.

He didn’t mislead the public about the state of the economy. He just waited until he had the keys to Number 10 before admitting the house was already on fire, then blamed the smoke on those who noticed earlier.

The most impressive thing about Starmer is not the scale of the contradictions, but the calm with which he delivers them.

No bluster. No drama. Just the serene confidence of a man who knows that if he says something slowly enough, with enough lawyerly precision, most people will assume it must be true or at least too exhausting to challenge.

This is governance by semantic exhaustion. Every claim is wrapped in so many caveats, footnotes and retrospective clarifications that accountability simply gives up and goes home.

Ask him what he promised, and he’ll tell you what he meant. Ask him what he meant, and he’ll tell you what you should have understood.

Even the famous fiscal “black hole” follows the same pattern. It didn’t exist before the election because acknowledging it would have been politically inconvenient.

It existed immediately afterwards because it became fiscally essential.

This wasn’t deception, apparently. It was statesmanship. Schrödinger’s budget both balanced and broken, depending entirely on whether votes were still required.

He doesn’t inspire confidence because confidence requires belief. He inspires compliance.

Don’t question too closely. Don’t remember too clearly. Don’t compare the before and after too directly. Just accept that whatever was said then has been superseded by what must be said now

In the end, Keir Starmer will never steady the ship insisting he never promised calm seas, never denied the storm, and never said the compass was pointing north in the first place.

And if you remember it differently, that’s not his problem. That’s yours.

https://oagroup.co.uk/home/f/starmer%E2%80%99s-12-lies-of-christmas

Unsatisfactory Communications with a Politician

At the start of 2025, the Climate and Nature Bill was working its way through the British Parliamentary Process.

The objective of the Bill was to save the planet. To do so, the Bill outlined a series of open-ended, ill-defined measures that the government could co-opt in order to do whatever it (the govt) deemed necessary to save the planet.

Suffice it to say, the Bill was primarily focused on drastically reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. This made me concerned what this would mean for the UK’s ability to produce enough energy to support the economy.
My MP, AAA, who likes to think of herself as a ‘Good Person’ and wants others to see her as a ‘Good Person’, obviously supported this Bill. As such, I had no choice but to contact her, by email, in an effort to prompt her into some critical thinking.

Spoiler alert: I didn’t make any progress!

Below, I document my email exchanges with AAA. There are 5 messages: 3 from me with 2 responses from AAA.

1st email from Atticus Fox to AAA, dated 11 January 2025.

‘Dear Ms. AAA,

Can you explain why you support the Climate and Nature Bill?

Can you include in your answer details on the effects you believe the Bill will have on British industry and construction?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on British living standards?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on domestic energy consumption?

What effects do you think this Bill will have on food production and food import?

What effect do you think this Bill will have on Global temperatures?

Your sincerely,

Atticus

Atticus: I dashed off the email above without much thought. I hadn’t even read the Bill at this stage. I expected that AAA would respond with a pre-scripted boilerplate response so I didn’t want to invest a lot of time and effort.

First response from AAA to Atticus Fox on 17th Jan, 2025:

‘Dear Atticus,
Thank you for your kind email regarding the Climate and Nature Bill.
Climate change is an existential threat. Soaring temperatures leading to wildfires, floods, droughts and rising sea levels are affecting millions of people directly, and billions more through falling food production and rising prices. Urgent action is needed – in the UK and around the world – to achieve net zero and avert catastrophe.
At the same time, sky-high energy bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost-of-living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and invest in renewables – both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security.
I be (Sic) in attendance of the second reading [AF: 2nd reading of the Bill scheduled for 24th Jan] – it’s already in my diary. I look forward to encouraging its progress in Parliament.
Many thanks for your correspondence.
Kind regards,
AAA MP
Member of Parliament for XXX’

Atticus: As expected, pure boilerplate. No engagement with any of my questions. In the meantime, I had read the CAN Bill. I had also read an interesting analysis on Substack, by Richard Lyon, that laid out the relationship between a country’s energy use and its economy. I decided to respond to AAA using the Lyon piece as a sub-structure.

2nd email from Atticus Fox to AAA on 22nd Jan, 2025:
‘Dear AAA,
Thank you for your response.
By way of rejoinder, I would like to point out an economic truth: the debt-based economy of the UK is wholly dependent on growing the economy each year by an amount sufficient to generate enough tax receipts to keep funding the expanding commitments of the UK government. That economic growth is entirely driven by the UK’s energy production. Net Zero will result in government bankruptcy.
Let me explain.
The UK economy – any country’s economy – is a pyramid whereby energy and resources comprise the bottom layer of the pyramid that supports the rest of the economy.
Thus, there is a direct relationship between the quantity of energy and the size of the economy. For example, a low energy country cannot support a car industry (nor any other kind of industry for that matter). Nor could such a country build 1.5m homes in the next 4 years. Mud huts, maybe.
Hence why there are no rich ‘low energy’ countries. A ‘rich’ country that decimates its energy levels will become a poor country very quickly. And that economic shrinkage will not happen in a calm and tidy manner. We are talking about hyperinflation as the value of money becomes worthless because there is not enough energy to support the goods and services that make a country rich. (Lots of money tokens chasing far fewer good and services). Pensions would be wiped out.
People would freeze to death through not being able to heat their homes. (Cold weather kills 15 times more people than hot weather). Money would flee the country, ports and airports would shut due to lack of traffic, cars would disappear from the roads and even local travel would become difficult.
Starvation would ensue. Starvation is always a risk in a country that only produces half of the food that it needs. However, without the fertiliser derived from hydrocarbons, even less food would be produced in the UK. The CAN Bill indicates that the carbon emissions of imports will be included in calculations suggesting that food imports would drastically reduce (not that a country undergoing hyper-inflation would be able to afford imports).
There would be no power to run sewage treatment plants or hydrocarbon-based chemicals to clean the water.
(The irony is that wind turbines are made from hydrocarbons, further impacting on the ‘debit’ side of our carbon emissions ledger. The energy needed to make both turbines and solar panels can only come from fossil fuels. Wind power and solar energy does not have the energy density necessary to manufacture these items, hence the loss of industry referred to above – the energy produced by a windmill cannot build a windmill).
The CAN Bill is all about significantly reducing the amount of high density energy the UK produces in a short space of time. The only possible outcome of de-industrialising Britain is to take Britain’s economy back to pre-industrial levels. 200 years of progress in health and living standards would be undone in less than 20 years under conditions of extreme social turmoil.
In this email I have only focused on the economic consequences of CAN as these consequences alone are more than enough to contest this Bill. As this email is already longer than intended I shall ignore the egregious assaults on property rights and personal autonomy that are also built into the Bill. The subject of a subsequent email, perhaps.
Net Zero will eventually collapse under the weight of its own monumental scientific and economic illiteracy. I beseech you to understand the consequences of this Bill before too much irreparable harm is done.
This email is my evidence that I tried to warn you. The CAN Bill will do more damage to the well-being of this country than Climate Change ever will.
If you have evidence that contradicts the narrative I have outlined above, I would welcome the opportunity to review it.
Best regards,
Atticus’

2nd email from AAA on 27th Jan:

Dear Atticus,

Thank you for your email regarding the Climate and Nature Bill. I appreciate you sharing your concerns, and I’d like to take this opportunity to explain my position and hopefully address any doubts you may have.

As you noted, I have been a supporter of the Climate and Nature Bill and supported it during its second reading in Parliament on 24th January. My support for this bill is driven by the urgent need to tackle climate change, which I, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, consider to be an existential threat.

We are already seeing the devastating impacts of climate change: soaring temperatures, wildfires, floods, droughts, and rising sea levels are directly affecting millions of people. Additionally, billions more are feeling the indirect effects through disrupted food production and rising costs. It is clear that urgent action is required, both here in the UK and globally, if we are to meet our net-zero targets and avert further catastrophe.

Furthermore, the current energy crisis, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has underscored the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Rising energy bills are putting immense strain on families and businesses, deepening the cost-of-living crisis. The transition to renewable energy not only helps address climate change, but it also enhances our energy security and helps lower energy costs.

The Climate and Nature Bill is a key step towards achieving these goals. It would require the UK to meet ambitious climate and nature targets and place a duty on the Secretary of State to implement a strategy to achieve them. The bill would also establish a Climate and Nature Assembly to advise the Secretary of State, ensuring that decisions are informed by expert opinion. Additionally, it would assign important roles to bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in overseeing the progress towards these targets.

Given the imminent risks posed by climate change and the growing global volatility, I believe it is both necessary and right that we take action now to protect our planet and secure our energy future.

However, you may have seen that the Government has now made concessions in relation to this Bill, so while the Bill is very unlikely to proceed any further in Parliament, it has encouraged the Government to do more than it had planned in fighting both the climate and nature crises. I am pleased to see this and very proud of the work done by my Liberal Democrat colleagues and other campaigners to bring this about.

Thank you again for reaching out. I hope this explanation helps to clarify my support for the bill.

Yours sincerely,
AAA MP

Atticus: Again, AAA did not engage with any of my points. Her 2nd response is simply a longer duplicate of her first response. She did not present a single fact, it’s all just emotional tropes. The CAN Bill was dead in the water by this point. However, in light of AAA’s refusal to engage with my points, I felt an obligation to engage with her points so I decided to send another email…

3rd email from Atticus Fox to AAA MP, dated 3rd Feb 2025

Dear AAA,
I am shocked that you believe that Climate Change (CC) is an existential threat. This is an extreme view held by only a very small number of climate cultists. What is your source for such an extremist view? Can you qualify and quantify what you mean by ‘existential threat’? Do you see CC as a threat to all life on earth? In what timeframe do you feel such an extinction will take place? 10 years? 1000 years?
The IPCC certainly does not support such an extremist view. It concerns me that you, the MP for XXX, would hold such an extreme minority opinion? Have you ever researched CC? By that I mean, researched the views of climate sceptical scientists? The strictures of critical thinking demand that one should be familiar with all sides of an argument before forming an opinion. In these days of social media algorithms, many people are only directed to material that agrees with their preconceived ideas.
My concern with your extreme position is that if you genuinely believe that all life on earth is in danger of dying out, you could justify any cost of ‘saving the planet’ as being ‘for the greater good’. Is that why you didn’t quibble with my previous references to ‘de-industrialisation’ and ‘civil unrest’ (because you feel that such regressive impacts are a small price to pay ‘for the greater good’)?
The philosophy of ‘For the greater good’ allows any number of Malthusian policies to be enacted if the leader feels that the alternative would be worse.
Tell me, what is your view on the global population? Do you feel it needs to be lower….?

I have studied Climate change in more detail than most and I can tell you that the impacts you list – ‘soaring temperatures, wildfires, floods, droughts, and rising sea levels are directly affecting millions of people’ – are all totally false. Temps are not soaring. Wildfires are due to poor forestry mgt and arson. How can both floods and droughts be attributable to CC? ‘Rising sea levels’? Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the last 20,000 years, yet now it’s humanity’s fault? The Maldives are building a huge international airport so clearly neither they, nor their investors, believe that CC is an existential threat.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has NOT underscored the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. What it has underscored is the need to be self-sufficient in energy. Yet you want to prevent this by stopping the exploration and extraction of our own fossil fuels in favour of energy sources that require huge subsidies because they are very expensive. (We paid £2.4b on renewables subsidies in 2024). [AF: this was incorrect, it was more like £13billion]. On this subject, Net Zero is not going to bring down energy costs. Not only are renewables expensive but NESO has stated in their ‘Clean Energy 2030’ report that the existing gas infrastructure would have to remain operational as a backup for those periods when there is no wind or sun. This means we will have to support 2 energy systems – the gas system and the renewables system. Prices will not be coming down.

Please do some research. I believe that putting climate change in its correct perspective will also be better for your mental health. People internalise the stress that they feel about climate change.
I know that when my research led me to the truth about CC in 2019, I felt elated for weeks. I felt like a burden had been lifted from me.

One last question: would you support a referendum on Net Zero? Why not?

Yours sincerely,

Atticus

Atticus: I never heard from AAA again. Ho hum.

CDC Makes Surprising Admission

CDC: ‘Studies supporting a link [between vaccines and autism] have been ignored by health authorities’.

Yes, they have been ignored, particularly by the CDC.

If you have a baby, or you plan to have one in the future, do not consent to infant vaccinations until you are have researched the dangers (and the benefits). You will never forgive yourself if you don’t and your baby is one of the unlucky ones to suffer a major side effect, unnecessarily.

There is no other issue for which it is more important to be a critical thinker than infant vaccinations.

A good book on this subject is ‘Turtles All The Way Down’ but there are others that deliver the facts rather than the propaganda.

I’m very glad to see signs that debate on this issue might finally be possible in the near future.

Remember: not being allowed to debate something is a sure sign that you are being lied to.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

Fascism Comes Very Slowly, Then All of a Sudden

The move towards fascism has been building in the UK for a while but almost too slowly too notice. Yet, all of sudden, the reality is crashing all around us. For some reason it hasn’t had the pushback it deserves. Why is that? Well, a big part of the reason is that most people don’t know what fascism is. They think fascism is nationalists in military formation. They don’t realise that fascism is a bit more subtle than that.

Let’s remind ourselves what fascism is. This is fascism defined by Benito Mussolini, who invented it:

‘The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.’ (p. 14)

‘Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.’ (p. 32)

‘The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.‘ (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

‘The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and useful instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.‘

Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: ‘Ardita’ Publishers.

After reading these extracts from Benito that you will agree with me that the evidence of emergent fascism reveals itself with every passing day. If you are not quite at that level of understanding yet, cast your mind back to covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Also, please read up on ESG scores; stakeholder capitalism and Public-private partnerships.

People in Europe 90 years ago can be forgiven for not knowing what fascism meant in practise. We don’t have that excuse any more. So why are people supporting the growth of fascism? They support it because they don’t recognise it as fascism. We, in the West, are constantly told we live in Liberal Democracies.

“Is it not yet clear to the left that the political face of “breakdown capitalism” is fascism, albeit articulated in new and more sophisticated (progressive!) forms of violence and repression?” Fabio Vighi

However, we didn’t see it because it was all being built in the shadows. Only when covid emerged and we saw the tyranny take control did we realise that The Establishment are a LOT more organised than us. They have most of their pieces in places whereas we are a disorganised rag-tag assortment of people without any voice.

A lot of credit must go to the MSM (mainstream media). The media have been becoming increasingly politicised for years. I have long realised that this would be a problem at some point but i thought the problem would come when there was a Left wing government. It turns out there is no longer any difference between so called Left and Right wing governments.

A big factor in this subversive fascism that has crept on us is how cleverly it has been disguised. Fascism has been cloaked in the language of Progressivism. As such, the Left have been fully on board because they have been fooled into thinking the anti-capitalists paradise they have always fever-dreamed about is finally being delivered.

For all their virtue-signalling about how anti-fascist they are the left are very drawn to virtually all aspects of fascism: they like the state control of production because that appeals to their anti-capitalist instincts. They like Big Government because they think governments are there to help them and give them things. They like censorship because they’ve grown up in a world where Progressives are never censored. In short, Leftists like any and all restrictions of their freedoms that are implemented for the sake of a Progressive cause.

The only bits of traditional fascism that the Left don’t like are concentration camps and the persecution of minorities. Two more reasons that they haven’t twigged that the Public Private Partnerships springing up all around us are just a rebranding of what Mussolini called ‘Corporatism’.

As such, the authorities have been very careful to cloak their fascist objectives in progressive clothing:

• We need to protect the vulnerable (lockdown policies and vaccine policies; quarantine camps in Australia);

• We need to protect the planet (15 minute cities; Net zero; ESG scores; Removal of efficient energy sources);

• We need to help the oppressed and the vulnerable (digital ids; online censorship);

• We need to make finance more inclusive (CBDC’s).

Leftists are so stupid they cannot see the prison being built around them. Around all of us. They do not recognise it as fascism because they think fascism is right wing. As such, they have a massive blind spot when it comes to fascists spouting Progressive buzzwords like ‘sustainability’ and ‘inclusivity’ and ‘green’ and ‘our communities’ and ‘vulnerable people’ and ‘no more hate-speech’. This shows just how little leftists understand fascism. As far as Leftists are concerned fascists are people they disagree with. They have no idea that fascists are people very much like themselves because it was people very much like themselves that were fascists 90 years ago.

For me the lurch towards fascism has been very sudden but I can see that the Power Structures have been moving towards this for a long time. For them it has been very slow.

Can modern fascism be resisted? I don’t know. We are so divided, how can we possibly mount a united defence?

Different Levels of Success Were Achieved

The Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan in 2000. Over the following year, production levels fell to almost zero.

In October 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan for reasons that weren’t exactly clear. Over the next 20 years opium production ballooned, far exceeding the levels prior to the Taliban’s ban.

This despite repeated statements from the US that one of their objectives in Afghanistan was to end opium production.

The US departed from the country in 2021. Thereafter, the Taliban took control and opium production once again collapsed.

How weird. What are we to make of such a paradox?
#AirAmerica

“What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears.” ~ Oswald Spengler

https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2024/unisnar1492.html

The Pussy Pass

We are told it’s a man’s world. We are told that women are oppressed by the patriarchy. We are told that women are still fighting to achieve equality with men.

Here are some details that indicate men do not have things all their own way:

• Boys perform worse at every stage of education than girls.

• Men are 97% of the prison population, get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are more likely to be jailed.

• Men are 84% of the homeless.

• Prostate cancer kills more men than breast cancer kills women – but gets half the funding and a fraction of the attention.

• One in three domestic-violence victims are men, yet there are no shelters and almost zero support.

• Men die five years earlier and receive worse healthcare.

• Men work, on average, six hours more per week – 24 hours per month, or two extra months per year (ONS).

• Ninety-nine percent of military deaths are men.

• Ninety-six percent of workplace deaths are men.

• Ninety-nine percent of outdoor manual work is done by men.

• Around 75% of suicides in the UK are men – and it’s the leading cause of death for men under 50.

• Men are more likely to die from substance abuse.

• Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime

Every week sees stories emerge in which the rights of women are placed above those of men. As I write this piece, 2 stories have caught my eye:

One story informs us that Transgirls will no longer be able to join the Girl Guides as the Girl Guides is an organisation that is only open to biological girls. Fair enough, you think. However, the organisation formerly known as the ‘Boy Scouts’ was forced to allow girls to join in 2007 and, consequently, is now known simply as the ‘Scouts’. In the modern patriarchy, girls and women are allowed to have single gender organisations but men are not afforded the same rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7n921wyzvo

The second story concerns the killing of women in Italy. This crime is so egregious that a special law is being rushed through that impose harsher penalties on ‘Femicide’ than on those common-all-garden murders of men:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dzp050yn2o

To state there are double standards would be an understatement. The women’s movement has pushed for equality over the last 100 years and, having achieved it, pushed on to gain themselves an advantage. I’m reminded of the following adage:

‘A feminist is a woman that wants the power of a man, the privileges of a woman, but the responsibility of neither.’

Here is a powerful article on the employment headwinds that young whire men now face in Western countries:

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/

Let us remind ourselves that women can dress and behave provocatively around men but if this provokes a reaction from a man who is not attractive to the provocateur, then she can claim she has been objectified.

And what about the world of psychology:

‘Seager argued that psychology suffers from “gender blindness”, in that the profession is reluctant to consider the possibility that men have specific needs. Indeed, Seager argued, we are reluctant to think of men as a gender in their own right at all, thanks to the increasing prevalence of pop-feminism and a widely held and false notion that all men are inherently privileged, regardless of their socio-economic circumstances.’

https://www.tes.com/news/boys-underperform-schools-because-we-look-after-their-wellbeing-less

Let’s see how criminal punishments are handed out…

Spot the difference…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9127045/Florist-22-avoids-jail-luring-ex-trap-new-lover-beat-baseball-bat.html

Jury Trials: The Last Check on Authoritarian Power

The fact that the government intend to maintain jury trials only for murder, manslaughter and rape shows us that the government doesn’t care about these crimes.

No, the government agenda is much more insidious: they want control over what we say and think. They want control over who is punished and who is not.

The government is no longer prepared to allow the populace to decide which laws are fair and which should be ignored. No, the government wants to mark its own homework: to pass and enforce any legislation they choose. The objective of dictators throughout the ages is now being grasped.

Once governments have banned jury trials, they will have free reign to bring in any legislation they like, safe in the knowledge that no jury will be able will be able override it in court.
Legislation will become more authoritarian, more anti-citizen in its nature. It’s an inevitable consequence once the shackles of checks and balances have been removed.

Let’s take a look at who else banned jury trials…

• Vladimir Lenin: 1917-1922
• Benito Mussolini: 1931
• Adolf Hitler: 1934
• Francisco Franco: 1939
• Mao Zedong: 1949
• Fidel Castro: 1959
• Pol Pot: 1975
• Idi Amin: 1971-1972
• Saddam Hussein: 1970s
• Muammar Gaddafi: 1973
• Ayatollah Khomeini: 1979
• Hugo Chávez: 1999 onward (intensified under Maduro)
• Hafez al-Assad: 1970s
• Keir Starmer: 2025

‘The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule’ – Samuel Adams