The Gender fluid Cult

The Gender fluid Cult

Once upon a time life was simple. We had to fight for survival, had only time for hunting/gathering and procreation. Very simple, a female coupled with a male and got as a result offspring.

For as yet not completely understood reasons ( best theory for beta males not to be attacked by alpha males) bi/homosexuality became a survival trait and the trait withstood evolution.

Nowadays we are free from the fight for survival in some nations, too much free time on our hands so a new generation has been generated which overestimate their own importance. Searching for grounds to support their entitlement there is group that tries to justify their ‘uniqueness’ by building on the simple principle of 2 genders that procreate to keep the species from going extinct to some inexplicable notion that genders don’t exist but that there is a spectrum of genders.

Obviously this has to be added to the upcoming redaction of the DSM since it has no basis in reality but a lot in abnormal psychology. Can be put somewhere with personality disorder.

That the person in question imagines they are in a gender spectrum doesn’t mean such a spectrum actually exists. And by the intense media attention given many an impressionable person will easily be convinced that he/she/it also has this disorder.


Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.

Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.

So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.

Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.

From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.

GMO & (lack of) Common sense

GMO & (lack of) Common sense

Just as the rabid anti-GMO proponents don’t like it if people whose main staple is rice (mostly the below poverty population) get enough vitamins to prevents major illnesses, they now have another victim in their sights: the banana eaters!

The GMO Banana

I wrote about the GMO banana controversy here. Bananas are a staple crop in parts of the world, including East Africa where it can represent up to 70% of calories consumed. Vitamin A deficiency is also common in this region. According to National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) acting director Dr Andrew Kiggundu, 52% of children under five in Uganda suffer from Vitamin A deficiency, while iron deficiency accounts for 40% of deaths in this age group.

The idea is to engineer a banana cultivar native to the region so that it produces more beta carotene and iron. The cultivar is already adapted to the region, and the locals are already heavily growing and relying upon this staple crop.

Further, the GMO is being developed by the Ugandan government, NARO, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This is primarily a humanitarian project created by the local government and farmers.

In other words – the project is a perfect nightmare for the anti-GMO crowd. There is no corporate greed, no agricultural colonialism, no patents, no pesticides, and no environmental issues (no potential for contamination or cross breeding). Further, not only are there no health risks, this GMO plant is designed to address a critical health issue in the region.

In this way the GMO banana is similar to golden rice, another attempt to use GM technology to address vitamin A deficiency by fortifying a staple crop.

Full arcticle


Why immigrants get confused

Why immigrants get confused

USC students required to detail sexual history before registering for classes

A mandatory online course at the University of Southern California (USC) asks students to disclose the number of sexual encounters they have had over the past three months and teaches students to ask for consent by saying “how far would you be comfortable going?” and “would you like to try this with me?”

In an email obtained by Campus Reform, students were told they must complete the Title IX training in order to register for courses in the spring.

“This course is mandatory, and you must complete it by February 9, 2016. If you do not complete the training by this date you will receive a registration hold until the training is complete,” the email stated.

Many universities require students to complete a course on Title IX, but some students at USC are worried the online course they are required to take is too intrusive.

“It was just full of super personal questions,” Jacob Ellenhorn, a student at USC, told Campus Reform.

Despite some students being uncomfortable with the content of the course, the campus-wide email assured students they would “enjoy the assignment.”

“We believe you’ll enjoy the assignment, and that this training is in line with our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans. It is an innovative, engaging, and informative online course, created with students for students,” the email stated.

The course begins with a detailed questionnaire that asks students to reveal how often they are having sex and using drugs or alcohol. The survey also asks students to specify the number of sexual partners they have had in the past three months.

After revealing both the number of times they have had sex and with how many different people, students are then asked to state whether or not they used a condom.


“It kept on saying that drunk people cannot give consent. In one scenario both the man and the woman were drunk but the video still blames the male for the assault. I found that a little confusing,” Ellenhorn said.

In a subsequent portion of the course, students are encouraged to “challenge gender stereotypes” and question the validity of “traditional thinking.”

“When someone’s appearance or behavior do not ‘line up’ with traditional thinking, how does traditional thinking ‘line up’ with everyone being born free and equal,” the course states, suggesting “traditional thinking” does not endorse ideas of freedom and equality.

The course also touches on the topic of sexual assault and offers tips to students who have been accused of sexual assault. The first tip suggests students admit they may have “crossed a boundary” even if they don’t remember the event.

Complete idiocracy


Lipophobia and the bad science diet

Lipophobia and the bad science diet


The lipophobes, however, proved to be remarkably adept at bobbing, weaving and altering their message in the face of the challenges. The American Heart Association continued to find new ways to prosper from lipophobia. In 1988 it deleted the provision in its charter prohibiting product endorsements and began offering, for a fee, to endorse any food products that met its guidelines for fat, cholesterol and sodium. In final form, the AHA campaign sold the right to use a “Heart Check” symbol and say “Meets American Heart Association food criteria for saturated fat, cholesterol and whole grains for healthy people over age two.” For this, it charged fees ranging from the US$2,500 it cost Kellogg’s for each of the more than 50 of its products that qualified (including such nutritional dazzlers as Fruity Marshmallow Krispies) to the $200,000 that Florida citrus fruit producers paid for exclusive rights to the symbol, cutting out their competitors in California. The Florida producers now ran ads saying, “Fight Heart Disease. Drink Florida Grapefruit Juice.” In 1992–93 ConAgra, the hydra-headed giant involved in practically every stage of food production, gave $3.5-million to the AHA, ostensibly to make a television program on nutrition.

By the end of the 20th century, however, the AHA’s calls to reduce heart disease through diet were sounding rather threadbare. There was still no evidence that low-fat diets prevented heart disease. In 1996 the American College of Physicians came out against the AHA program of screening all people over 20 for high cholesterol. It said that it resulted in young people being put on low-fat diets that rarely reduced cholesterol. Others began pointing out that the AHA campaign to have people adopt low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets led to increased consumption of calorie-dense foods that contributed to obesity and diabetes, both of which were risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Then, in 2000, another fat panic gave lipophobia yet another boost. This time it was about trans fats, which were in the hydrogenated oils used in making everything from French fries to Doritos to granola bars.


Then, in late 2008 came an apparently crushing scientific blow. A new theory claimed that the main culprit in heart disease was not fat, but inflammation. Statins were effective, it said, because they reduced levels of a protein, called high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), that contributes to inflammation in the body. The crucial risk factor for heart disease was therefore not cholesterol, but elevated CRP, which has nothing to do with fat in the diet.

In July 2009 another study tried to alter this theory by reducing CRP to the role of an indicator, not a cause, of heart disease. Inflammation remained a villain, but whether it was cause or effect was unknown.

With cholesterol’s role now unclear, it seemed highly unlikely that Keys’s diet-heart theory would ever be resurrected.

In February 2010, the press reported on a meta-analysis of 21 lengthy studies, comprising 347,747 subjects, that concluded that there was no association between saturated fat consumption and the risk of heart disease.


Climate hypocrisy in Paris (and elsewhere)

Climate hypocrisy in Paris (and elsewhere)

The United Nations will tell us to consume less, while leaving behind a carbon footprint that could choke a horse

TORONTO – A week from now, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a gaggle of provincial premiers, territorial leaders and opposition politicians will fly in to the United Nations’ latest international meeting on climate change in Paris.

The conference, to be attended by more than 80 world leaders and 50,000 participants, including 25,000 official delegates, will run from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11.

In those 12 days, including air flights to and from Paris, this meeting, ostensibly devoted to reducing man-made global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change, will generate enough GHGs to power a small African country for a year.

While the UN will no doubt claim the purchase of “carbon offsets” will reduce the meeting’s massive carbon footprint, the truth is that if these people actually believed their rhetoric that the world faces an imminent, existential threat from climate change caused by GHG emissions, they would stay home and hold the meeting by videoconferencing.

As it is, the example they are setting for the world is appalling in its hypocrisy — a UN meeting that is an ostentatious display of excessive consumption, whose message is we must consume less in order to save the planet and ourselves.

Instead of walking the walk on reducing consumption, the UN will repeat what it has been doing for almost a quarter century on climate change, ever since its Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

That is, holding meetings in virtually every popular tourist destination on earth, including Geneva, Kyoto, The Hague, Montreal, Bali, Copenhagen, New York, Buenos Aires, Berlin, Nairobi, Marrakech, Milan, New Delhi, Cancun, Durban, Doha, Lima, Bonn and now, Paris.

In other words, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, the definition of insanity.

Because the UN’s approach to addressing climate change by imposing top-down, global treaties to reduce GHG emissions, has been an abject failure.

Between 1990 — the base line year for global GHG emissions established by the Kyoto accord — and 2011, global emissions increased 42%. (Canada’s, 19%.)

Nothing that has come out of these endless UN meetings — from the international carbon credit system which is overrun by fraud and organized crime, to carbon pricing schemes like cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, to wind and solar power — has worked.

The only time global GHG emissions slowed — briefly — since 1990, was in the wake of the 2008 global recession, caused by massive financial fraud by Wall Street banks in the subprime mortgage derivative scandal.

That led to a global credit freeze and a world-wide recession.

The reason the 2008 recession slowed emissions — as opposed to the UN holding endless meetings anywhere there are five-star hotels and three-star restaurants — is that in a recession people have less money to buy the goods and services produced using fossil fuel energy that generates GHGs.

Thus, when consumption declines, so do GHG emissions.

While Europe portrays itself — and will again in Paris — as the global leader in reducing GHG emissions, the only reason it can make that claim is through smoke and mirrors.

That’s because Europe crafted the 1997 Kyoto accord — which expired in 2012 — to recognize 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions.

By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its industrial GHG emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by European countries.

It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.

The purpose of the Paris meeting is to produce a new global treaty on reducing GHG emissions to replace the Kyoto accord.

Because such political heavyweights as U.S. President Barack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending, the UN will declare whatever deal comes out of it a great success that will save the planet.

Then the more than 80 world leaders scheduled to attend — including Trudeau — will return home and pretend to implement whatever it is they agreed to, without actually lowering GHG emissions.

Canada has been doing that ever since Jean Chretien was prime minister.

That’s why, if Trudeau was to implement Canada’s current GHG reduction plan that has been submitted to the UN, he’d have to shut down the equivalent of 58% of Canada’s oil and gas sector by 2020 and 100% by 2030.

Which is a good illustration of the fantasy world the UN lives in when it comes to climate change.


Common sense prevails: Denmark abandons green dream

Common sense prevails: Denmark abandons green dream

Denmark is slowly retreating from some of its most ambitious, self-regarding climate initiatives. In an unforeseen attack of common sense, the government is readying to end its generous tax breaks for citizens who buy low-carbon vehicles because of the expense imposed on the public purse.

This will triple the retail price of electric cars like the popular Tesla (Model X pictured above) and remove their competitive price advantage against standard fossil fuel-powered models.

A draft budget proposed last week would extend an existing 180 per cent automobile tax to electric vehicles and place their pricing alongside all other standard competitors.

Bloomberg reports the country will also make diesel vehicles more attractive by cancelling a pollution levy, according to provisions in the 2016 budget draft. The government is defending the measures by saying they will help businesses save money and create more jobs.

“Things have to be done with reason,” Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen told reporters after the draft was unveiled in Copenhagen on Tuesday.

Denmark’s move marks its latest retreat from measures that had once put the Scandinavian country at the forefront of policies designed to promote renewable energy. The three-month-old centre-right Liberal government led by Lars Løkke Rasmussen has already said it is abandoning ambitious CO2 emissions targets and dropping plans to become fossil-fuel free by 2050.

Denmark’s government has also flagged a pull back from decommissioning coal-fired power stations. That policy shift was revealed on Sept. 2, the same day U.S. President Barack Obama made a global appeal for urgent action to fight climate change.

Mr. Frederiksen argues that tough decisions need to be made against the backdrop of a widening budget deficit and subsidising green power projects is no longer financially viable.