UN trying to Censor All Criticism of the Climate Agenda

The United Nations likes to present itself as the guardian of truth, scientific integrity, and the common good. Its leaders talk grandly about peace, prosperity, and shared global challenges.

But a shocking whistleblower reveal suggests something very different: that the UN — in partnership with other global elites — is now actively trying to censor criticism of the climate agenda, shutting down debate rather than fostering it. (Gatestone Institute)

The claim comes from Desiree Fixler, a former member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Responsible Investing and a sustainability officer at a major bank. According to Fixler, during her time inside climate policy circles, she saw firsthand how dissenting views are not just dismissed — they are effectively suppressed. What’s more, she argues that power brokers within the UN and the WEF have no interest in debating the assumptions underlying climate policy — because the narrative serves broader agendas of control. (Gatestone Institute)

At the COP30 climate conference in Brazil in 2025, leaders pushed a “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” billed as an effort to fight misinformation. On its surface, that sounds reasonable — who could oppose accuracy in science?

But the problem is deeper than accuracy. According to the whistleblower, this effort is less about truth and more about controlling what people can hear, read and think about climate change at precisely the moment when some platforms like Meta are rolling back heavy-handed “fact check” censorship. (Gatestone Institute)

Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, warned that when taxpayers are asked to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on poorly conceived climate policies, there should be open debate, not suppression of dissent. Yet this is exactly what appears to be happening. (Gatestone Institute)

Fixler didn’t mince words in describing this environment. She said people who raise objections to the prevailing climate narrative are often dismissed as “denialists” without engagement with their arguments. They are not encouraged to present evidence; they are shut down. (Gatestone Institute)

She has argued that the global push for “net zero” emissions and the broader climate agenda is not merely about protecting the planet — it is also about consolidating power through mechanisms like stakeholder capitalism, a WEF concept that mixes corporate and state influence in ways critics say erode traditional free-market principles and democratic accountability. (Gatestone Institute)

According to Fixler, the people most affected by climate policy — ordinary citizens struggling with high energy costs and stagnant economies — are nowhere to be found in these discussions. Instead, the debates are dominated by elites who repeatedly claim authority based on consensus lines written into speaking notes rather than on robust, independent engagement with evidence from the real world. (Gatestone Institute)

Meanwhile, the UN continues to push the narrative that “the science compels climate action,” with leaders like Secretary-General António Guterres reiterating calls for dramatic emissions cuts and accelerated transitions — assertions that carry moral weight precisely because alternative views are being sidelined. (Gatestone Institute)

This is not a small disagreement among experts. It is a problem of incentives: when powerful institutions become arbiters not just of policy but of acceptable thought, dissent is no longer just unwelcome — it is excluded.

That’s not debate.
That’s censorship.

Whether one agrees with Fixler’s conclusions or not, the underlying issue she raises demands scrutiny: who gets to decide what counts as acceptable climate discourse, and why should a single international body have the authority to shape that decision for the entire world?

In a free society, even unpopular or uncomfortable ideas should be debated openly. When powerful institutions try to suppress questions instead of engaging them, the real casualty isn’t climate science — it’s trust in the institutions that claim to lead us.

Why aren't they marching for Iran?

Week after week, Western cities have been held hostage by noisy, disruptive pro-Palestinian marches. Roads blocked. Businesses shut down. Police stretched thin. Protesters chanting slogans that slide effortlessly from “anti-Israel” into outright antisemitism, all while decrying a fictional “genocide” in Gaza.

We are told these marches are about human rights. About compassion. About standing with the oppressed.

And yet today, as Iranian citizens flood the streets of dozens of cities, openly demanding the overthrow of their Islamist rulers — as the regime fires live ammunition into crowds of unarmed civilians — there is silence.

No marches.
No sit-ins.
No campus occupations.
No outrage.

The death toll is no longer disputed in principle, only in scale — whether it is 2,000 or 12,000 murdered Iranians scarcely matters to the moral point. A regime is killing its own people in plain sight. Women, students, workers — shot for demanding freedom. And the self-styled humanitarian movement that claims the moral high ground cannot even be bothered to show up.

This is not an oversight. It is a revelation.

Because if these protesters truly cared about human rights, Iran would be impossible to ignore. If they opposed “colonialism,” they would be marching against a theocratic dictatorship that crushes women, jails dissidents, executes gays, and rules by terror. If they opposed civilian deaths, they would be screaming about the regime actually pulling the trigger on civilians right now.

But they are not.

Instead, their rage is meticulously focused. Israel must always be the villain. Jews must always be implicated. Islamist regimes, by contrast, are treated with indulgence, excuses, or silence — no matter how brutal their crimes.

That tells us everything we need to know.

This movement is not animated by universal principles. It is not driven by concern for human suffering. It is a single-issue obsession, one that collapses the moment the victims are inconvenient and the perpetrators do not fit the approved narrative.

Human rights, apparently, only matter when Jews can be blamed.

The courage of the Iranian people deserves admiration and support. The silence of the Western protest class deserves something else entirely: exposure.

Because nothing exposes moral bankruptcy faster than knowing when to shout — and when to look away.

Watch Iranian woman calling out the failure of the Pro Palestinian progressive's mob to march to support the Iranian people.

Here is a second video of another Iranian woman warning Australians of the dangers of radical Islam.

https://youtu.be/Om8SR4A-W_8

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 3 of 2026

  

Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

• When Freedom Fights Back: Venezuela and Iran at the Crossroads
  
• Perverse Incentives: How Good Intentions Go Bad
  
• CES2026 reveal of production ready humanoid robots by Hyundai and Boston Dynamics
• Iran Revolts. The Media Turn Away.
• Why Aren't They Marching for Iran?
  
• UN Censoring Criticism of Climate Agenda
  
• Watch "I built an autonomous drone umbrella"- genius

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb

Iran Revolts. The Media Looked Away.

The streets of Iran have been filled with courage and defiance in recent weeks. What began in late December as economic protests — sparked by surging inflation, collapsing currency, and skyrocketing prices — quickly transformed into something far broader: a nationwide challenge to theocratic rule and centuries-old clerical control. Protesters across more than 180 cities have taken to chanting “Death to the dictator” and other slogans explicitly demanding regime change. (HonestReporting)

This is not merely another protest over bread prices. It is, as many analysts have noted, an existential confrontation between a repressive, autocratic system and ordinary people willing to risk death for dignity and freedom. Yet much of the Western mainstream media barely covered it, and when coverage did emerge, it often misrepresented the motives and meaning of the movement. That failure is not accidental; it is moral.

From Silence to Misrepresentation

In the early days, many leading news outlets gave the story minimal attention. A protest movement that spread from Tehran bazaar strikes to include students, merchants, workers, and families was barely mentioned in major front-page news. In some cases — such as The New York Times — there was no front-page coverage at all even as protests expanded nationwide. (HonestReporting)

When the story could no longer be ignored, the reporting shifted — not toward the heart of what was happening, but toward a narrative reframing that softened or distorted it. HonestReporting documented how networks and newspapers began to amplify the Iranian regime’s talking points, such as claims that protesters were mere vandals or pawns of foreign powers, rather than a mass movement demanding the end of clerical rule. Rather than centre the voices of the demonstrators, these outlets gave space to the regime’s interpretations. (HonestReporting)

Reducing a Revolution to Economics

One of the most common distortions in coverage was reducing the uprising to economic grievances alone — inflation, currency collapse, and cost of living — without acknowledging the deeper political dimension. Yes, economic hardship lit the spark, but the fire spread because millions realised that the system itself was the source of their misery. Many demonstrators explicitly linked economic ruin to the authoritarian structure and clerical power of the Islamic Republic. (ABC)

The danger of this simplification is that it collapses a political revolution into a consumer protest. A real uprising — one that threatens entrenched autocracy — should be reported as such: with focus on slogans, chants, political demands, and the people making them.

Withdrawal into Excuses

When challenged about the lack of meaningful coverage, journalists offered excuses that exposed deeper contradictions. BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson suggested that footage from social media needed careful verification before being used, a curious stance considering how little coverage was given even to fully verified reporting. Meanwhile, Channel 4 spokespeople cited the difficulty of entering Iran as a reason for sparse reporting — yet the same outlets regularly cover other conflicts with similar access issues. (HonestReporting)

Such responses reveal a reluctance to confront a politically inconvenient reality — that Iranians are openly challenging both economic collapse and the theocratic system itself.

A Pattern of Moral Asymmetry

This failure does not stand alone. As HonestReporting notes, similar asymmetries have appeared in coverage of other Islamist movements and conflicts, including Gaza. When critics of Islamist regimes suffer or rise up, their voices are too often muffled or contextualised through detached frameworks, while other global stories are prioritised. (HonestReporting)

This is not merely editorial disagreement. It is a moral failure, where the media’s frameworks and biases obscure the lived reality of people risking everything for freedom.

What the World Is Missing

The Iranian protests today are not a fleeting strike over prices. They are the most serious challenge to clerical rule in decades. The protesters — young and old, men and women, united across class and region — have answered repression with persistence, courage, and defiance. Despite internet blackouts, violent crackdowns, and regime narratives, the movement continues to grow. (HonestReporting)

Yet readers in the West are left with partial stories, softened narratives, or economic explanations that miss the ideological core: a people rejecting a system that has ruled through fear for nearly half a century.

---

Conclusion: Media Integrity and Moral Responsibility

If this uprising succeeds, historians will remember the bravery of ordinary Iranians. They should also remember the reluctance of much of the Western press to report it honestly. Moral responsibility in journalism means telling stories that matter — especially when those stories unsettle comfortable narratives and challenge powerful ideologies.

Iran’s revolution is not just an Iranian story. It is a human story — of a society pushing back against repression, struggling to be seen, and insisting that its voice be heard.

And the world deserves reporting that meets it.

ATLAS: Hyundai and Boston Dynamics Reveal Their Humanoid Robots at CES 2026

The era of humanoid robots is no longer just 'coming', it is here. At CES 2026 in Las Vegas, Boston Dynamics and Hyundai Motor Group unveiled the production version of their new Atlas® robot. No longer just a research prototype, this fully electric humanoid is now a production-ready machine designed to revolutionize the way industry works.

Take a look at their release video.