Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧

AGW Climate Sceptic, pro free speech, pro medical choice, professional dowser.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@SeptimusBPrime @MasterMaliq Methinks you need to learn. You cannot separate the two

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@MasterMaliq No, it’s a cult. Like Scientology is a cult. Religion comes from Latin religare to bind back to the divine, ie a spiritual journey. There is no spiritual journey in Islam, only daft rites and rules.
Islam is a cult because of the apostasy rule.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@MasterMaliq I’ll take a different view. It’s the idea that God (Allah) is a separate being. And a rather terrifying one at that. Common of course to Christianity and Judaism. It’s only when you recognise that God is pure consciousness that you can get a proper perspective on life

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@TomCatonthePiss @lembitopik When you look over 15000 years the increase isn’t that unusual. Try Younger Dryas for example. The greenhouse gas theory is only one of at least 15 different things that can cause this.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@Robert45348939 @lembitopik You’ve forgotten that the greenhouse effect is logarithmic and decreases with increasing co2.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@PSoffe1 @lembitopik Read the actual IPCC reports, not the summary. You’ll get a different story. And it all depends which scientists you listen to. Looks like you are cherry picking your scientists.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@TomCatonthePiss @lembitopik That’s not evidence for human caused climate change

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@MasterMaliq God isn’t to be worshipped. You are God. God is pure consciousness, the essence of all beings. Islam and Christianity have an external God. But even in the bible it says the kingdom of heaven is within.

[Stand Up To Marxism @StandUp2Marxism]

Most people have no idea what Critical Social Justice is, most have never heard of it.

Yet, you are living under this ideology right now, and have been for years.

It is the mainstream ideology of the modern progressive Left that is subjugating Britain and the entire Western world.

It is not a harmless academic theory. It is a revolutionary force that has captured our institutions, rewritten our culture, and declared war on the foundations of Western civilisation itself.

If you care about freedom, truth, or the future of your country, you need to understand it, before it finishes the job.

Critical Social Justice is a subversive, authoritarian Far-Left identity grievance ideology derived from postmodernism and critical theory.

It is the belief that systemic oppression is embedded into the very foundations of Western civilization, and that every disparity in every outcome, both historical and present, is proof of that oppression.

Thus it views the foundations of Western civilization (Western culture, history, heritage and laws, Judeo-Christian values, and white historical majorities) as the primary sources of both past and present global oppression.

It further regards core Western knowledge, such as scientific and historical fact, and Western cultural norms, including the nuclear family, gender, race, sexuality, meritocracy, freedom of speech and common sense, as mere “social constructs.”

These social constructs are seen as invented fictions designed and maintained to uphold systems of oppression.

As such, it holds Western civilization and its institutions accountable for the full spectrum of historical and contemporary ills, encompassing colonialism, slavery, racism, patriarchy, poverty, epistemic violence, environmental racism and climate change.

Therefore, it frames humanity on a global, civilizational, social, cultural and human level through a rigid oppressor-versus-oppressed binary.

Any cultural institution, person or perceived “social construct” from the West is deemed an oppressor.

Any cultural institution or person from the Global South, or any ideological belief antithetical to perceived Western “social constructs” (e.g., trans), is deemed oppressed.

This is then broken down into an identity-group-based grievance hierarchy known as intersectionality.

The conclusion of this belief is that the emancipation of humanity can only be achieved through complete and total emancipation from Western civilization.

The goal of Critical Social Justice is the complete deconstruction of all perceived systems of Western oppression and all perceived “social constructs,” and their reconstruction into a post-national, identity-group-based collectivist equity regime.

This is implemented through mechanisms such as “DEI,” “anti-racism,” the trans agenda and decolonization, which serve as methods to seize and redistribute rights, opportunities, identities and privileges from the oppressors to the oppressed.

Critical Social Justice is not merely mistaken or misguided. It is evil.

It deliberately inverts truth, weaponises identity, and seeks the total destruction of the very civilisation that produced unprecedented freedom, prosperity and human dignity.

This ideology is everywhere. It is the reason police ignored Henry Novak’s dying pleas. It is why Jason Arday was elevated far beyond his capabilities, a promotion that ended in his suicide. It explains why the invasion of illegal migrants is left unchecked, why our history is being rewritten, why two-tier policing and two-tier justice are enforced, why children are being used as human experiments in transgender medical trials, and why free speech is being crushed.

Every absurd news story of the past few years, from “dogs are racist” to “decolonising Shakespeare,” exists for one reason.

Critical Social Justice.

[𝐍𝐢𝐨𝐡 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠 🇮🇷 ✡︎ @NiohBerg]

Illegal immigrants are now leaving behind toddlers in the water to drown, and also raping and killing women on the boats as they cross.

This is why 99% of them are fighting age men.

Most women and children don't survive.

Say hi to your new neighbours.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@ClimateWarrior7 Echo chambers will be the death of the West. And Blue Sky is the worst

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Le post qui m’a inspiré mon texte sur le wokisme, qui a fait 80 millions de vues et a été repris par des dizaines de médias dans le monde — étrangement, très peu en France —, ne venait pas de nulle part.

Il est venu d’une conversation avec un intellectuel français, ancien ministre, extrêmement intelligent.

La question était simple.

Comment la gauche a-t-elle pu gagner pendant soixante-dix ans en Occident, alors qu’on savait déjà que le socialisme est une catastrophe ?

Sa réponse m’a arrêté.

« C’est très simple. Ils ont mis Hitler à l’extrême droite. »

À partir de là, le piège se referme tout seul.

Quiconque veut vendre du libéralisme et de la liberté se retrouve, par construction, dans le camp d’en face. Et le camp d’en face, c’est le nazisme.

C’est pour ça qu’ils traitent Elon Musk de nazi.
C’est pour ça qu’ils collent Javier Milei à l’extrême droite.
C’est pour ça qu’une Sarah Knafo se fait traiter de xénophobe et de raciste. Ils n’ont pas encore osé « nazi » : elle est juive. Si elle ne l’avait pas été, ça serait déjà fait.

Le tour de passe-passe est vieux. On a redessiné la carte. On a collé le mot « droite » sur le cadavre du XXe siècle, puis on a déclaré que tout ce qui n’était pas collectiviste touchait ce cadavre.

C’est pour ça que Milei a dit que Hitler était socialiste. Que le nazisme, c’était du national-socialisme. Que le fascisme, lui aussi, est un socialisme : « tout dans l’État, rien hors de l’État ».

C’est pour ça que la leader de l’AfD dit maintenant, à voix haute, que Hitler menait une politique de gauche. Qu’il n’était pas un libéral. Qu’il était l’État contre la personne.

La vérité commence à éclater un peu partout.

Pas parce qu’une mode a changé. Parce que le cadre mental qui tenait depuis 1945 se fissure. On ne peut plus interdire la question en criant « nazi ».

Cet empire du mensonge est en train de s’effondrer. Et c’est ça qui va le faire tomber : pas une bagarre de clans, le rétablissement du vocabulaire.

Les dettes des pays occidentaux ne sont pas un accident de parcours. Elles sont le bilan de décennies de politiques qui promettent la protection et livrent la dépendance.

Le wokisme n’est pas le cœur du système. C’est l’écume. La dernière couche de justification morale d’un collectivisme à bout de souffle.

Le vrai clivage n’est plus gauche / droite héritée de 1945.

C’est Contrôle contre Liberté.

D’un côté, tout le collectivisme, quel que soit le nom : socialisme, national-socialisme, planification, wokisme d’État.
De l’autre, ceux qui veulent laisser les gens construire.

Nos ennemis ne sont pas des mauvaises personnes. Ce sont de mauvaises cartes mentales. La reconversion est possible.

Il est temps de rendre les mots.

Et d’aller construire.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Ce qui est marrant quand je dis que Hitler était un socialiste, c’est que les gens pensent que je troll.

Pas du tout.

Et Milei non plus.

Il vient de le dire sur LCI. Hitler et Mussolini étaient des socialistes. Les commentaires explosent. Comme à chaque fois.

Pas parce que l’affirmation est folle. Parce qu’elle casse un meuble sacré.

Dans beaucoup de têtes, socialisme = le bien commun. La bienveillance. Le partage. Le camp de ceux qui « pensent aux autres ». Un mot moral, pas un mécanisme.

Alors si tu colles ce mot sur le petit moustachu, tu ne fais pas de l’histoire. Tu profanes une identité. La dissonance est violente. Donc tu « trolles ». Donc tu es de mauvaise foi. Donc on sort le Godwin à l’envers.

Le problème, c’est que le socialisme n’est pas une humeur.

C’est une structure.

Qui décide quoi produire, à quel prix, pour qui, avec quelle matière première, à quel salaire. Le marché, ou un comité.

Hitler a choisi le comité.

NSDAP : Parti national-socialiste des travailleurs allemands. Ce n’est pas un surnom inventé en 2026. C’est le nom.

Programme de 1920, déclaré inaltérable : abolition des revenus non gagnés par le travail, brisure de l’esclavage de l’intérêt, nationalisation des trusts, partage forcé des profits, communalisation des grands magasins, expropriation foncière possible. Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz. L’intérêt commun avant l’intérêt particulier. L’antithèse exacte du libéralisme.

Une fois au pouvoir : fixation des prix, gel des salaires, plans quadriennaux, contrôle des changes, allocation étatique des devises et des matières premières, Reichswerke Göring, travail obligatoire, syndicats indépendants remplacés par un front d’État.

Les industriels étaient encore « propriétaires ». Comme on est propriétaire d’une voiture dont l’État choisit la destination, le carburant, le tarif et le chauffeur. Mises l’a décrit en direct : ils étaient devenus des *Betriebsführer*. Des gestionnaires. La propriété n’était plus qu’un titre.

Ce n’est pas du capitalisme avec un drapeau moche. C’est de l’étatisme. Donc du socialisme de fait.

Hayek a un chapitre entier là-dessus : *The Socialist Roots of Nazism*. Deux espèces du même genre. Le collectivisme. Seul le critère d’exclusion change. La classe d’un côté. La race de l’autre. Même outil : l’État total.

Pourquoi ça trigger autant.

Parce que si Hitler est un socialiste, alors le mot que beaucoup utilisent comme boussole morale n’est plus innocent. Il faut alors admettre une chose insupportable : le slogan le plus généreux du XXe siècle a habillé les pires machines.

Les gens ne défendent pas un tableau Excel. Ils défendent l’idée qu’ils sont du bon côté. Qu’ils aiment le partage. Qu’ils ne sont pas « ceux qui s’en foutent des autres ».

Je n’attaque pas ça.

J’attaque le logiciel.

Toute forme de socialisme / collectivisme finit de la même manière. Pas par malchance. Par design.

La promesse est toujours la même. L’État allouera mieux que le marché. Plus juste. Plus humain. Pour tous.

Sauf qu’aucun comité, aussi brillant soit-il, ne peut avaler l’information que les prix agrègent en temps réel. Le prix du blé, du fer, d’une heure de travail, c’est des millions de décisions compressées. Remplacer ça par un plan, c’est remplacer internet par un mec avec un cahier.

Mises, 1920. Hayek, 1945. Jamais réfuté.

Le plan dérape. Pénuries. Files. Marché noir. À ce moment-là, le pouvoir a deux options. Admettre l’erreur et lâcher. Ou doubler la dose.

Il double.

Plus de contrôle pour combler les trous. Plus de surveillance pour tuer le marché noir. Plus de censure pour taire ceux qui nomment le dysfonctionnement. Puis un bouc émissaire, parce qu’un plan qui échoue ne peut pas être coupable. Il lui faut un saboteur.

Le juif. Le koulak. Le bourgeois. L’ennemi de classe. L’ennemi de race. Le détail change. La mécanique non.

Allemagne nazie. URSS. Chine de Mao. Cambodge. Corée du Nord. Cuba. Venezuela. Éthiopie de Mengistu. Roumanie de Ceaușescu.

Peuples différents. Époques différentes. Drapeaux différents. Même résultat.

Environ 100 millions de morts pour le communisme au XXe siècle. Plus le national-socialisme, qui a utilisé le même levier d’État avec un autre critère d’élimination.

Ce n’est pas « on n’a jamais vraiment essayé ». On a essayé une vingtaine de fois, sur quatre continents, pendant un siècle. Zéro exception propre. Zéro contre-exemple.

La tyrannie n’est pas un dérapage du collectivisme. C’est son équilibre.

Ceux qui y croient encore ne sont pas des monstres. Ils ont hérité d’un slogan magnifique collé sur une erreur de calcul. Les mauvaises idées détruisent d’abord ceux qui les portent. Ensuite les autres.

Le plus gros scam idéologique d’après 1945, c’est d’avoir collé Hitler dans la case « extrême droite » pour laver le mot socialisme. On a brûlé le mot nation. On a recyclé le logiciel.

Résultat : dès que tu parles de limiter l’État, on te sort le peintre.

Milei ne trolle pas. Il remet le diagnostic à l’endroit.

Le vrai clivage n’a jamais été gauche contre droite.

C’est collectivisme contre liberté. Contrôle contre responsabilité.

Le marché n’est pas parfait. Il intègre l’erreur humaine et la corrige en continu. Le plan concentre l’erreur au sommet, puis interdit de la nommer.

La porte existe. Elle a toujours existé. Laisser les gens créer, échanger, entreprendre. Construire un système qui émerge des têtes dispersées, pas d’un comité qui se prend pour une religion.

Le XXIe siècle n’a pas besoin d’un second laboratoire avec un meilleur branding.

Il a besoin de bâtisseurs.

Choisis le logiciel. Puis construis.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂

in plain English

1. Carbon has a fingerprint.
Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers.

2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air.
When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it.

3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13.
Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number.

4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone.
Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel.

The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6.

5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption.
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true:

- For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy.
- For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists.
- For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth.
- For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy.

The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist.

6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources).
The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero.

7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion.
The conclusion rests on three things only:
- counting atoms,
- the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and
- the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records.

The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature.

8. What is actually happening.
Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources.

Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@PhilipProudfoot No they are ‘refugees’. Please use the correct apostrophes

[Chris Quartermaine 🇬🇧 @chrisquart7]

@Blobby162095 @realMaalouf The state called Palestine consisted of a lot of Jews and not many Arabs. Very low population. Then a lot more Jews came. They cultivated a barren landscape, and then lots of Arabs came to help work those lands. Those Arabs came from Egypt etc, you call them Palestinian

[Queen Bee @KingBobIIV]

My friend just sent me this YouTube about Cornwall. Its absolutely WONDERFUL. I feel fired up, and so proud 👏

If you ever wonder why I am so passionate. And feircly protective about my beloved home and people, culture, language and history, watch this and you'll understand.

https://t.co/5ype4Ktszi

[StuffNNonsense @StuffNNonense]

@TomLondon6 The irony here is palpable.

That so many have fallen for the propaganda in 2026 reveals some of how it worked in 1936.

Goebbels himself would probably be envious of how effective the genocide lie is, and how easily it is regurgitated by the useful idiots.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Please remember. Cancer is just a peaceful unchecked division of cells. We really need to worry about Cancerism, which has nothing to do with Cancer.

Cancer is peaceful.
Cancerism is violent.

[Gad Saad @GadSaad]

Dear Mr. @Jesse_Leg, what are you calling "Islamism" is 90% of Islam. Please stop using this strategy to soften the blow against criticism of a religion. There is no Islamism. There is no radical Islamism. There is no militant radical Islamism. There is just Islam. Individual Muslims may choose to live peacefully. That's not because they are practicing some beautiful & peaceful version of Islam. It's because they happen to be peaceful people. I don't know how many more times I need to repeat this.