Vatican pushes back on gender theory

It’s nice to see the Vatican pushing back at least a little bit on at least one topic.  On June 12th, in the middle of Pride month, they released “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM” which is to serve as an aid to Catholic school teachers on how to deal with the topic of gender theory.  National Catholic Reporter did a nice writeup on the document:

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican office responsible for overseeing Catholic educational institutions around the world has blasted modern gender theory, claiming in a new document that it seeks to “annihilate the concept of ‘nature.’ ”

In an instruction released June 10 as LGBT people globally are celebrating pride month, the Congregation for Catholic Education calls the idea of people’s gender identities existing along a spectrum “nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants.”

Labeling the biological differences between men and women “constitutive of human identity,” the office also questions the intentions of those who identify as intersex and transgender.

“Efforts to go beyond the constitutive male-female sexual difference, such as the ideas of ‘intersex’ or ‘transgender,’ lead to a masculinity or femininity that is ambiguous,” states the document.

“This oscillation between male and female becomes, at the end of the day, only a ‘provocative’ display against so-called ‘traditional frameworks,’ ” it continues.

The document, which carries the title “Male and female he created them,” was released by the Vatican June 10 without prior announcement. Described as an aid for Catholic schoolteachers and parents, it is signed by the educational congregation’s leaders: Italians Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi and Archbishop Angelo Zani.

The educational aid does not carry Pope Francis’ signature, and the text makes no reference of the pontiff reviewing the document.

Groups that minister to LGBT Catholics immediately criticized the document. New Ways Ministry, one such group, called it a “harmful tool that will be used to oppress and harm not only transgender people, but lesbian, gay, [and] bisexual people, too.”

And further down:

The new document, which is 31 pages in length, does not speak of accompanying transgender people. It instead issues fierce warnings and criticisms of how children and young people are being educated today.

The text opens by saying that society is facing “an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality.”

It then claims that cultural “disorientation” has destabilized the family as an institution, “bringing with it a tendency to cancel out the differences between men and women, presenting them instead as merely the product of historical and cultural conditioning.”

The heart of the document critiques modern society’s detachment of an individual’s concept of gender from their biological sex.

“Gender theory … speaks of a gradual process of denaturalization, that is a move away from nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of the human subject,” it states.

“In this understanding of things, the view of both sexuality identity and the family become subject to the same ‘liquidity’ and ‘fluidity’ that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual,” it continues.

The text claims that genetic studies have shown that male and female embryos differ “from the very moment of conception.” In cases where a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, it says “it is medical professionals who can make a therapeutic intervention.”

“In such situations, parents cannot make an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society,” it recommends. “Instead, medical science should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least invasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to establishing the person’s constitutive identity.”

Retelling the Genesis story of God creating humans in his image as men and women, the document calls for a reaffirming of “the metaphysical roots of sexual difference.”

Of course Pope Francis didn’t sign the document.  The document makes too much sense so why would he?

It is nice to see the biggest Christian institution push back on this.  Setting aside Catholic/non-Catholic differences, all Christians need to unite.  We are at a dangerous time in society and infighting is not going to help at all.  Western Civilization is under attack, and Christendom, being the main pillar of the West, must band together to try and take back what is ours.  We as Christians also need to be more vocal about uncomfortable topics like gender theory and transgenderism.  Staying silent to some shows complicity and approval.  It allows these ideas to slowly creep in; subtly at first but eventually growing in confidence and strength as they gain more ground.  Stand firm in what you believe.  Be vocal.  It is not an act of love to watch someone do something harmful to themselves and encourage it.  Just like it is not an act of love to encourage an alcoholic to continue drinking, it is doing the individual no favors if we encourage them to mutilate his or her body as if it was something completely normal and acceptable.  Love sometimes requires telling difficult truths to those we care about.

Let this also serve as a stark warning that what you may take for granted in what our schools are teaching our children may not line up at all with what they are actually teaching.  This was a document for Catholic schools.  There are some horrendous things going on in public schools right now that many parents would be outraged if they discovered this is what their children are being taught.  Do you really want your 10 year old daughter competing in a condom race to see how quickly they can put on a condom?  Do you think it just ends there?  What do you think a school putting these events on is teaching your children about sex education?

It sounds cliche but our children really are the future.  At such a young age their minds are the most malleable, and the values and ideas that are instilled into them now serve as a foundation for how they conduct themselves and live the rest of their lives.  If we allow our educational system to plant seeds of degeneracy and teach values contrary to Western Civilization and contra Christian values they will never learn what truth and beauty are, and never gain the crucial faculties to combat the evil that they will be bombarded with every step of the way.

Trying to Play God Has Consequences

And it will not end well.  China, at the forefront of CRISPR technology and experimentation, could be shortening lifespans of babies the technology has been used on…the exact opposite of what they’re going for.  Via MIT Technology Review:

When the Chinese scientist He Jiankui created the first gene-edited children, he dreamed of improving the world. He believed the genetic alteration he added to twin girls born last year would protect them from HIV. Human embryo editing, he said, would bring new hope to millions.

Instead, he may have put the twins at risk of an early death.

A new report finds that genetic mutations similar to those He created, to a gene called CCR5, shortens people’s lives by an average of 1.9 years.

“It’s clearly a mutation of quite strong effect,” says population geneticist Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, who made the discovery while studying DNA and death records of 400,000 volunteers in a large British gene database, the UK Biobank. “You can’t have many mutations that do that, or you wouldn’t live that long.”

The finding offers a warning light to anyone else seeking to enhance human beings. That’s because many genes have more than one role, and scientists tinkering with the balance are likely to cause side effects they didn’t expect or want.

In February, variations in the same gene were linked to recovery of memory after stroke, meaning it could have a role in changing brain function, too.

“To go ahead and alter the germline based on partial understanding is not responsible,” says Feng Zhang, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in CRISPR, the powerful gene editing tool employed in the Chinese experiment. “It’s another piece of information that we shouldn’t be so careless.” 

It is not hard to see how easily this could get rolled out on a massive scale without proper vetting.  How can you even properly vet this without literally an entire lifetime of observation on those who have had this done to them?  Do you think they would really wait an entire generation before rolling it out en masse?  Once you realize that, it’s easy to see how easily they apply that same logic to other things as well: 5G, new pesticides, etc etc.  NN Taleb’s approach to food and beverage consumption certainly has some merit.

r/K Theory

If you’re not familiar with r/K theory it is well worth picking up Anonymous Conservative’s book on the subject.  Viewing politics, or many aspects of life for that matter, through this prism can be helpful.  This may alleviate some of the frustration you may have when trying to understand why the other “side” does not understand your position at all.  This is a small sample of the theory as laid out in chapter 1 of his book.  His blog is worth checking out too.  He posts daily examples of this linked to news stories.

The theory of this book is that there is a simple explanation for the origins of political ideology.  Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.

Biologists have long recognized that two different psychologies exist in nature.  These two psychologies each guide the organisms which hold them to pursue behaviors which will be most likely to yield survival and reproduction.  These psychologies are referred to as reproductive strategies, but they are really deeply imbued psychologies.  They frame how an organism views the world, how it views its peers, and how it behaves as it moves through life.

The study of these psychologies is often described using the shorthand “r/K Selection Theory.”  Both the “r-strategy” and the “K-strategy,” as they are referred to within the field, are psychologies which yield behavior that is custom tailored to a specific environment.  In humans, as in nature, the r-psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers.  This is a condition which reduces the advantages of producing fit offspring, in turn favoring the fastest and most prolific reproducers, regardless of offspring quality.  By contrast, the K-psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive.  This produces an increased selective pressure favoring the survival of more advanced and fit specimens.  It also reduces the advantages of producing copious numbers of less fit offspring.

Although the presence of absence of resources may vary within a population over the short term, over the long term these two environmental conditions will usually accompany either the presence or absence of a constant, high mortality, most frequently predation.  Predation lowers population numbers and prevents overcrowding, thereby increasing the per-capita resources available to each individual.  This prevents the onset of resource shortage due to overpopulation.

It is for this reason that the r-strategy, which is the evolutionary origin of liberalism, is most often seen in nature within prey species.  Meanwhile the K-strategy, which underlies conservatism, is most often seen in species which are not preyed upon.  This is in fact, the biological “Conservatives think like lions, liberals think like lambs.”  Lions are a K-selected species which exists sans predation.  As a result, each new lion must compete with its peers to acquire a share of the limited resources available to the population.  As a result, lions evolved to exhibit a K-type, competitive/aggressive psychology that intensively rears offspring to compete.  Sheep, by contrast, are a more r-selected prey species, surrounded by fields of grass they will rarely, if ever, fully consume.  This is reflected in their less belligerent, more pacifistic, more freely promiscuous nature.

One species exhibits a psychology which is belligerent, competitive, and sexually restricted and selective, so as to compete for limited resources and produce the fittest offspring.  The other exists as the exact opposite, simply trying to turn resources into offspring as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness.  Each is perfectly designed to compete with peers in their respective environment.

The r-strategy entails five main psychological traits.  Each trait is designed to help an organism out-compete peers in the r-selected environment of free resource availability.  This psychology exhibits a psychological aversion to both, competition with peers and the competitive environment.  It also exhibits a tolerance for, or embrace of, promiscuity, low-investment single-parenting, and early onset sexual behavior among offspring.  It will also tend to not exhibit any group-centric urges, such as loyalty to in-group, or hostility to out-group.

Of these five traits, (competition aversion, promiscuity, single parenting, early onset sexuality, and aversion to group-centrism/ethnocentrism), political leftists exhibit a tolerance of, or an embrace of, all five.  Indeed, as we will show, these five urges explain the entire liberal platform of issue positions.

Liberalism seeks to quash competitions between men (from capitalism, to war, to citizens killing criminal attackers with privately owned firearms).  Liberalism also adopts a lax attitude towards rampant promiscuity, if it is not actively embracing it.  Liberals tend to support single parenting, such as was seen in the debate over the TV show Murphy Brown’s glorification of single motherhood.  Liberalism exhibits a tolerance for, or an embrace of, ever earlier sexual education for children as well as an ever more serialized media environment to which children are exposed.  Liberals tend to rejecte ethnocentrism, and view a tendency towards a pack mentality as an odd and foolish evolutionary throwback.

On top of all of this, at the heart of most liberal policy is a fundamental perception that resources exist in limitless quantities, and that any shortage is not inherent to the finite nature of the world.  Rather, any shortage must be due to some specific individual’s greed altering the world’s nature state of plenty, which would otherwise be able to easily provision everyone with a comfortably high level of resources.  This is a psychology designed to avoid danger, and focus the individual on reproducing as fast as possible.  In our ancient evolutionary environment, absent birth control and abortion, this would produce large numbers of offspring, beginning early in life, and it would be perfectly adapted to r-selection, where every offspring would have food and survive.

The K-strategy entails an embrace of five opposite psychological traits.  K-selection favors an aggressive embrace of competition, and the competitive environment, where some individuals succeed, and others fail, based on their inherent abilities and merits.  It tends to reject promiscuity in favor of sexual selectivity and monogamy, and it will strongly favor high-investment, two-parent offspring-rearing.  The K-strategy also favors delaying sexual activity among offspring until later in life, when maximally fit.  Finally, in its most evolved form, K-selection will tend to imbue individuals with a fierce loyalty to their in-group, to facilitate success in group-competitions.  Competition, shortage, and conflict are the evolutionary origins of the pack mentality, and they are ever present in the extreme K-selected environment.

Clearly, conservatives favor competition, from capitalism, to war, to armed citizens fighting off criminals with personally owned firearms.  Conservatives accept that such competitions will produce disparate outcomes which will be based on inherent ability and effort.  Conservatives favor a culture of monogamy over promiscuity, and they tend to desire a culture which favors high-investment, two-parent child-rearing, as evidence by the conservative uproar over Murphy Brown, as well as the growing debate over “family values” within our culture.  Conservatives also tend to want to see children protected from sexually stimulating themes or sexual education until later in life, so they will be more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity until they are mature.  Of course conservatives have always viewed liberals as exhibiting diminished loyalty to their nation and its people because to a conservative, patriotism, and support for “one’s own,” is a vital moral quality in peers and its expression can never be too exaggerated.

Again, this is a psychology, designed to house one’s genes in carefully reared, highly fit, competitive machines.  It is perfectly adapted to confront conditions of resource limitation, where one’s only means of acquiring resources is to be better at competition than your peers, and to do whatever it takes to not be the individual who failed to succeed.

Why do the r and K reproductive strategies exist?  How exactly does each strategy offer advantage to the individual who exhibits it?  Let’s take a closer look at r and K in nature.  Suppose you have a field, and it produces enough grass to support 100 r-selected rabbits.  A group of owls moves in however, and keeps the rabbit population at only 20 rabbits, in a field which produces enough food to support 100.

Now this environment offers specific advantages and disadvantages to each rabbit.  The owls will shorten each rabbit’s average lifespan.  As a result, Darwinian selection will favor rabbits which reproduce fast and early.  If a rabbit waits to mate, it will be eaten, and that sexually procrastinating trait will be culled.  As a result, those rabbits that produce the next generation will have no compunction about mating as early as possible.  In this environment, “teenagers” and “children” mating is simply normal, as anyone who feels otherwise is eaten prior to reproducing.  Mating earlier also offers a numerical advantage in offspring production, which is advantageous when the competition is about producing as many offspring as possible.

Conflict is an unnecessary risk, since each rabbit already has vastly more food than it can eat.  Those who compete will waste time and energy fighting for something which is already freely available elsewhere.  Those who fight will risk injury and death, while those who do not fight will enjoy the same freely available food, absent any risk, simply by fleeing to another green pasture.  The fighters and competitors will produce fewer offspring than those who avoid competition’s risk and will find themselves numerically out-reproduced by the more prolific individuals who avoid conflict and competition.

Under r-selection, monogamy is disadvantageous, since to impregnate only one mate, and then see the few offspring you have with her eaten, is to see yourself fail, in Darwinian terms.  Monogamy will only produce so many young.  Thus in this environment, one is best served by producing as many offspring as possible, by as many mates as possible, beginning as early as possible.  IN that way, it becomes likely statistically that come of your numerous children will survive to reproduce.  Since under conditions of r-selection, these are the traits Darwin rewards, these are the traits which will emerge within a species placed within an r-selecting environment.

Since producing high numbers of offspring is the goal, it is also advantageous to not waste too much time on rearing any one offspring.  The goal in r-selection is mass production, as early and as often as possible.  Those who produce more offspring, even less fit offspring, out-compete those who do not, since fitness is unimportant when resources are free and there is no competition.  As a result, high-investment parenting for extended periods will give way to investing as little as possible in each offspring’s rearing, so one may dedicate oneself to the actual act of reproduction, and produce as many offspring as possible.  Since resources are freely available, and aggression an competitions are rare, offspring do not require much education or protection anyway, and they may be turned out of the home relatively early to fend for themselves.  Males will also abandon impregnated females with offspring so as to pursue their highly promiscuous mating strategy.  You see how free resources can actually devolve a population, reducing greatness.

Since there is no competition, there is no need to ally with anyone else to compete for resources.  As a result, these rabbits will not evolve any group-centric urges, or emotional connections to their peers.  Indeed, the very notion of in-group or out-group would be puzzling to them, if you could communicate the concept.  Each rabbit is wholly on their own – at most a part of a global rabbit warren.

As a result of all of this, in this environment a population will evolve to avoid conflict and competition, mate with as many partners as possible, mate early, and not invest highly in any one child, while feeling loyalty to no one.  The emphasis, as so many biology textbooks will assert, is to produce quantity over quality when producing offspring in an r-selective environment.

Now supposed we zoom out from the field, and zoom in to a nearby forest.  There, several packs of K-selected wolves exist in harmonious balance with a deer population.  Once these wolves reproduce, there will not be enough food to support the entire population of wolves, so some wolves will die due to starvation.  This creates a different selective pressure entirely.  Here, to survive, a wolf must aggressively compete with his peers for a share of the limited food available.  Those who avoid conflict and competition, in hopes of stumbling on non-existent food elsewhere, will die from starvation.  The wolves who survive will be those who go after any food they see, even if they have to try and take it from another wolf by force of violence.  Thus, such a K-type psychology will evolve to exhibit a more aggressive, competitive nature, more accepting of violence, and more accepting of inevitable disparities in competitive outcomes between individuals.

Of course a wolf’s success, in Darwinian terms, will revolve not just around surviving and mating, but also around producing offspring who survive and reproduce themselves.  From a Darwinian perspective, if a parent survives and mates, but all of their offspring die due to competitive failure, the parent may as well have no bothered reproducing at all.  As a result, K-selected wolves will evolve a psychology designed to invest heavily in a few, highly competitive offspring.  This will produce a small number of offspring that are likely to outcompete their peers, rather than a larger number of lower quality, competitively incompetent offspring.  Those wolves who mate randomly and often, with any mate they happen across, will see their numerous haphazardly produced offspring killed off by the fitter offspring of those parents who carefully sought out the fittest mate possible, and then competitively monopolized their mate’s genetic fitness through monogamy.  As a result, this K-trait of careful mate selection, and competitive monopolization, will emerge spontaneously as Darwin works his magic.

Young wolves will evolve to wait before entering the competition for a mate, so as to make sure they are as competitive as possible and are not simply killed by their older competition due to their immaturity.  Parents will also evolve to discourage such early sexual precociousness in their young, so their young will be maximally mature (and maximally attractive to highly fit mates) when pursuing their own lifetime mate.  Likewise, parents will evolve towards high investment, two-parent (or even pack) rearing, so as to better protect their offspring until they are ready to compete, and to carefully prepare them for the rigorous competition with peers which awaits them.

Intense K-selection often evolves into groups of individuals competing with other groups, since this is a more effective way to acquire limited resources than working along.  As a result, K-type organisms will tend to evolve into groups of individuals who exhibit pro-social traits, such as loyalty to in-group and disregard for out-group interests.  This is why K-selection produces packs of wolves, family groups of elephants, pods of dolphins, and prides of lions, all of whom care deeply for each other, while mice, antelope, deer, rabbits, and any other r-selected species will not exhibit any sadness should one of their ranks fall prey to a predator.

Since rabbits exist at the bottom of the food pyramid in nature, and are preyed upon fairly consistently by a wide range of predators (from owls, to hawks, to foxes), rabbits never truly experience the K-selected environment for any extended period.  As a result of eons of fairly consistent r-selection pressures, they express a consistently r-type psychology throughout their species.  Other species, which have existed for long periods under conditions of limited resources, will be highly K-selected in their psychology and behavior.  Still other species can exhibit a mix of r and K-type psychologies, due to a variety of unique environmental conditions, among them having a history of living in varying environments with periodic resource abundances and resource shortages.

Man is a higher level species on the r/K spectrum, but it is easy to see historically how groups and individuals could shift on the spectrum depending on the conditions of the time.  Looking through this filter, it is easier to understand the shift towards r-strategy for some when we introduced the welfare program into the United States, for example, which in some ways acted like the “unlimited resources” spoken about specific to r-type selection.  Once you understand the theory you will start to see examples of it all over the place.  I highly recommend checking out his book.  As always, people will point out exceptions to the rule and think they’ve somehow debunked an entire area of study that on the macro generally works out very well.  Think of it as a useful heuristic.  If nothing else you may become less frustrated if you can ascribe one’s behavior to a deeper biological mechanism.

United Airlines is converged

United Airlines is the latest to kowtow to the SJW narrative.

Welcome Aboard, Mx.: United Airlines Continues to Lead in Inclusivity by Offering Non-Binary Gender Booking Options

March 22, 2019

CHICAGO, March 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — United Airlines today announced it has become the first U.S. airline to offer non-binary gender options throughout all booking channels in addition to providing the option to select the title “Mx.” during booking and in a MileagePlus customer profile. Customers now have the ability to identify themselves as M(male), F(female), U(undisclosed) or X(unspecified), corresponding with what is indicated on their passports or identification.

“United is determined to lead the industry in LGBT inclusivity, and we are so proud to be the first U.S. airline to offer these inclusive booking options for our customers,” said United’s Chief Customer Officer Toby Enqvist. “United is excited to share with our customers, whether they identify along the binary of male or female or not, that we are taking the steps to exhibit our care for them while also providing additional employee training to make us even more welcoming for all customers and employees.”

As part of implementing these new changes, United has worked with the Human Rights Campaign and The Trevor Project on employee training initiatives. These initiatives include teaching employees about preferred pronouns and the persistence of gender norms, LGBT competency in the workplace and other steps to make United an inclusive space for both customers and employees.

“At the Human Rights Campaign, we believe being acknowledged as the gender you identify with is part of treating everyone with dignity and respect,” said Beck Bailey, acting director of the Workplace Equality Program. “By providing non-binary gender selection for ticketing and the gender-inclusive honorific ‘Mx’ in user profiles, United Airlines is taking an important step forward for non-binary inclusion.”

People often say “why do you care so much?”.  The more ground we cede to this utter nonsense the harder it is going to be to take it back later.  Again, capitulating to this more-than-two-genders BS is only adding to the delusion of these people.  We cannot give into their fantasy, their mental illness.  These people need professional help and our compassion.  Playing along with their illness is not helping.

What’s the over/under on how long it takes before a flight attendant or gate agent uses the wrong pronoun on one of these unhinged people and gets sued for millions?

Child Abuse

From an article recently posted on the Christian Post:

Eight year-old Jack Wilson was on a weekend visit to his grandparents’ house in mid-December 2016 when he informed his grandmother that his name was really Jacquelyn.

“Grammy, my name is Jacquelyn,” he complained as he walked into the room and sat down at the kitchen table for lunch. He had just received Christmas presents from friends of his grandmother addressed to “Jack” and was visibly upset.

“Why is that your name?” Amanda Wilson, his grandmother, asked in response as she set a plate of chicken and rice in front of him.

He replied: “Because I’m a girl now.”

“What makes you think you’re a girl?” she inquired.

“It’s my gender,” he said.

She pressed him: “Well, what’s a gender?”

He stared back at her, puzzled, and said: “I don’t know.”

Amanda Wilson hasn’t seen her grandson in two years and each day she longs to hold him in her arms and hug him but can’t. Her daughter, Marissa, and her spouse began believing that little Jack was really a girl around three years ago and because Wilson doesn’t agree they’ve cut off all contact with her, no longer speak, and don’t allow her and her husband to see him.

Shortly after Jack turned 7, Marissa and her spouse excitedly announced on social media that Jack was a girl and they couldn’t wait to start him on puberty blockers in two years when he turned 9. They posted a picture of Marissa’s spouse and Jack outside a children’s hospital that is home to one of the 55 transgender clinics now operating in the United States.

The social media account Wilson’s daughter had was deactivated and Wilson no longer has the exact words of her daughter’s happiness about starting Jack on puberty blockers but she still has the picture.

At Wilson’s request, The Christian Post is using pseudonyms in this report and has changed or removed identifying details in order to maintain her anonymity. Although she was baptized as a Methodist, Wilson is not a subscriber to any particular religious faith but chose to speak with CP because she felt it was important that the voice of a grandmother is heard as more parents speak out about their heartache of losing their children to what many are calling a transgender “social contagion.” She has reached out to many secular journalists to no avail.

In 2008, Marissa, who lives just outside of Portland, Maine, was in a relationship with a man, became pregnant and gave birth to Jack in 2009. That relationship ended soon after Jack was born and just a few years later, when Marissa was 26, she came out as a lesbian and started dating a woman. Approximately 16 months later, they married in June 2013. Seven months into that marriage her spouse came out as transgender and changed her name to a male name and started taking hormones. The couple separated last year and now share custody of Jack.

What do you call this if not child abuse?

As mentioned in a post last week, as Christianity has been systematically removed from western civilization so has any moral imperative to be honest.  We have seen this most notably in politics and science, to name just two examples.  Without any higher moral impetus to tell the truth, money and ego have pervaded the science community and resulted in a reproducibility crisis, amongst other things.  Another area that has been hit hard, because the science community is unwilling to tell the truth about many things, is more extensive research on “uncomfortable” topics.

There are many verboten topics in science including IQ with respect to race, sexuality, and honest climate science.  Within the past few years there has been a concerted effort to pervert sexuality.  They tell us it is on a spectrum, that there are more than 2 genders, and that homosexuality is inherently natural.  Before I go further I should say I do not have a dog in this fight, other than wanting the best for our society.  I am on a journey to seek the truth, and not turn away from it regardless if it makes me uncomfortable or reveals hard truths that are painful to swallow.

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural.  Clearly it cannot be the norm, or else we would not survive as a species.  My guidance on the matter comes from the Bible.  But we need to do far more research into the topic.  While many people are convinced that it is entirely genetic that is highly questionable.  There are some studies, though hard to confirm in this day and age, that have studied identical twins.  One of them is straight and the other is not.  If this is true, then it clearly cannot be entirely genetic.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is we need better studies on sexuality in general.  We need to understand how one becomes homosexual.  We need to better understand the underpinnings of what makes one think they are transsexual.  And we need to be honest and truthful about the results that we find.  Going further, if what we do find suggests it is something mental or points to mentally unstable people, perhaps we need to reconsider who should be allowed to be able to adopt and raise children.

Again, this is an uncomfortable topic and I am merely searching for the truth.  If we can’t even talk about the subject we have a major problem as a society.  I don’t want to have to say that we shouldn’t allow some people to be able to adopt children and others not.  But if there is consistent evidence that points to negative outcomes for the children being adopted, the entirely innocent party in this, the topic needs to be revisited.  This to me is a clear cut case of child abuse.  At least one, if not both, of the parents have serious issues, and they are foisting these issues onto an innocent child.  There is no way in hell this kid thinks they are a girl on their own.  It is being placed in their heads by the parents.  And no.  It is not brave.  It is not admirable.  It is disgusting.  They are poisoning this child’s brain with this vile garbage.  Socially (and soon unnaturally) engineering him into being what THEY want to see him become, not with the best interest of him in mind.  Can we please use some common sense and call this what it is, rather than kowtow to the sick fantasies of the parents?

TENS is falling apart

It should never be this way, but there are a few areas of science that are untouchable for one reason or another.  Questioning climate change will get you ridiculed and potentially risk your career.  Other topics, like the investigation of IQ and differences across races, is subverted to the point that it is hardly studied at all anymore, and like climate change is career suicide.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another sacred cow that is all too often accepted as scientific fact.  But the theory is falling apart, and more than 1,000 brave scientists are risking their careers to sign a dissent statement about it.

Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

The theory of evolution by natural selection, much like climate change, is one of those topics every lay person takes for granted assuming it is true because lots of scientists say that it is.  And like climate change, you are roundly laughed at or worse if you even remotely question its validity.

If you are willing to keep an open mind, consider watching the three videos below.  One is a debate between Vox Day and biologist Jean-Francois Gariépy.  It is Vox Day essentially positing his theory to JF about why he doesn’t think TENS is a realistic possibility.  What is interesting about it is he is coming at it from an economist point of view, as that is his background.  In short, the math doesn’t add up.

The debate goes a little bit off the rails so I’m also including a follow up video by Vox Day here where he goes into more detail and breaks down his line of thinking a bit more for those who did not understand the debate.  It is also clear that JF is dodging the question, but decide for yourselves.  And lastly, another video by VD…the nail in the coffin of human evolution.

Pure Evil

An old article from 2015 is circulating around voat about reports of Planned Parenthood keeping aborted babies alive to harvest organs.  This is the hill worth dying on, folks.  This is pure evil.  And it is not debatable.  Shame on any pro-choicer who defends funding this institution.  Enough with the pleasantries.  IT IS NOT OKAY TO KEEP BABIES ALIVE TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS.  I thought I was once pro-choice for very early abortions.  No more.  Via the article:

In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthoodpersonnel and practices.

And a little further down:

California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat, said the Center for Medical Progress, which is calling for the federal government to cease its $500 million a year support to Planned Parenthood and for it to be investigated.

“Today’s video is especially gruesome, and it shows, once again, the barbarity of what takes place at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country,” said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, one of several congressional panels investigating Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that all the videos are “disturbing,” and his committee’s investigation will look into whether “any federal funding supported transactions involving fetal tissue.”

“Top-level employees of Planned Parenthood admit to changing their procedures to harvest intact bodies of unborn children for body-part trafficking,” said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.

Mr. Franks and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, also said Wednesday that they have written to 58 Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are seeking 10 years of data about all abortions, late-term abortions, “born-alive” infants, fetal tissue collections and any modifications of abortion techniques to “increase the odds of preserving intact fetal tissue and organs.”

Five states — Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and New Hampshire — already have defunded Planned Parenthood.

The video is posted below.  It is a little gruesome at parts, especially from the 5′ 30″ mark going forward.

The article was from 2015.  Planned Parenthood’s annual report from 2017-2018 shows that they are still well funded over half a billion dollars a year from the government.  That is your tax money, folks.

PPFunding2018PieChart

PPFunding2018

This is what happens when you turn away from God.  People can roll their eyes; once upon a time I would have too.  But it is true.  Since we have turned away from Christianity can we honestly say we are better off as a country?  Have we really progressed as a society?  No.  Christianity instilled a moral compass that has been eroded to the point where you are shamed if you question the KILLING OF BABIES.  Where some people will honestly justify this, like it is an acceptable moral position, saying a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body.  NO.  The moment you decide to make a bad decision, the moment you choose to get blackout drunk and sleep with someone you probably don’t even know, you have made your decision.  When another life now depends on your own, you do not have the right to kill it.  Shame on us for ever allowing it to come to this.  Where we cannot even hold that moral position without caving to some BS about “my body my choice”.  It is not progress to kill a human life because a woman wants carte blanche to sleep with as many partners as she wants and then not suffer any of the consequences of her actions.  Even worse is that we are all paying for it.  Why are we funding birth control measures?  Why are we funding abortions?  Yes, Planned Parenthood receives federal reimbursement through Medicaid.  Medicaid covers abortions.

Enough is enough.  Do not commit the sin of omission by sitting idly by knowing what you now know about the situation.  Write your state representatives.  Do not be afraid to call out pro-choicers, feminists, or anyone else who will try to justify this unjustifiable position.  Vote out the politicians who support funding Planned Parenthood.  Consider moving to states that will not fund this.  The reasons continue to pile up for why I should leave California and move back to New Hampshire.  California is at the very heart of all of this.  We all need to step up and take action.  Merely shaking our heads and saying how terrible it is is not enough.  Spread the word.

More abortion atrocities

This time in Virginia.  A bill has been proposed there to abort up to…and after…birth.  Via freebeacon.com:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

“Or physical health,” Tran said.

“Okay,” Gilbert replied. “I’m talking about the mental health.”

“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”

“Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?” Gilbert asked.

“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran said.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating.”

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said.

And a little further down:

Northam continued by saying government shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn’t be telling women what to do.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should or shouldn’t be doing with her body,” Northam said.

I don’t need to be a woman to know that it’s fucking MURDER to abort a baby 10 seconds before a woman gives birth.  Lady, that is not your right.  Do these people have any compassion at all?  How utterly self-centered and morally deprived does one have to be to take the position that this is okay?  This is pure evil.

Again, as with the NY abortion law, this country may not be worth saving if this is the direction we are going to go.  I do not want to live in a country where this becomes acceptable.  We have to fight back against this.  Literally murdering children.

Are people enjoying the civilization we have now since we removed Christ from the equation?  Is this really better?  Do people really feel like we’ve hit some kind of moral nirvana, some higher level of moral consciousness, since we became a post-Christian nation?  I for one do not think allowing babies to be murdered seconds before they are born, or after they are born, is a step in the right direction.  I will post this video once again as long as the link stays up to remind people what a third trimester abortion entails.

NY approves horrific abortion law

Something those at CNN will no doubt applaud as progressive and some great step forward.

On the 46th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, New York state passed a law to protect women’s access to abortion if the historic case is overturned.

“Today we are taking a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own personal health, including the ability to access an abortion. With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body,” said Gov. Andrew Cuomo after signing New York’s Reproductive Health Act on Tuesday night.
Not only will the law preserve access to abortions, it also removes abortion from the state’s criminal code. This would protect doctors or medical professionals who perform abortions from criminal prosecution. The law also now allows medical professionals who are not doctors to perform abortions in New York.
“The old law had criminal penalties. It was written that the doctor or professional could be held criminally liable,” Cuomo said during an interview on WNYC Wednesday.
The law also addresses late-term abortions. Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, they can be performed after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.
“It’s about the health and safety of the mother and it’s always been the point where the conservatives wave the flag, they want to roll back Roe v. Wade — this is not gray here it’s black and white,” said Cuomo.
Atrocious.  This is not progress.  This is a disaster and morally reprehensible on so many levels.  Essentially they’ve legalized 3rd trimester abortions.  They now allow less qualified people to perform abortions.  And they’ve removed it from the criminal code so if a woman is assaulted and the baby and/or the mother dies the consequences are much less.
This whole notion of “my body, my choice” bullshit has gone way too far.  How about this ladies, if you make terrible decisions why not live with the consequences of your actions?  Getting blackout drunk and sleeping with numerous random partners will have consequences.  The fact that we’ve removed said consequences does not absolve the bad behavior.  It’s clear that these women clearly aren’t mother material in the first place, but it’s disgusting to think that they’d end a life, a defenseless life literally depending on you to survive, because, welp, “my body my choice”.  Please spare me the BS about the health concerns.  The amount of sketchy stuff that goes on in abortion clinics, as we’ve seen with Planned Parenthood executives bargaining to sell baby parts, does not give me any hope that they’ll have strict guidelines at all regarding the health issue.  Mental anguish will surely be enough to “warrant” this 3rd trimester abortion.
Nope.  This is pure evil.  A baby can be delivered prematurely months before they are due.  This is not just a few cells.  This is a baby.  The fact that this even needs to be discussed shows you how deep the moral rot is in our country.  Remove Christianity from Western Civilization and this is what you get: celebration over being able to abort a baby minutes before it’s born.
I’ve tried to temper my judgement for people defending this in the event that maybe they just don’t know what goes into a 3rd trimester abortion.  Share this video, if it even survives on YouTube, on 3rd trimester abortions.  Gruesome stuff.

Did you know boys can have periods too?

I don’t even know where to begin on this one so I’ll just post part of the beginning of the article.

Boys can have periods too, children to be taught in latest victory for transgender campaigners

School children will be taught that “all genders” can have periods in new sex education lessons, in a victory for transgender rights campaigners.

The advice to teachers was approved by Brighton & Hove City Council as they try to tackle stigma around menstruation.

The new advice follows a council report which said: “Trans boys and men and non-binary people may have periods”, adding that “menstruation must be inclusive of all genders”.

Bins used for menstruation products will be provided in all toilets for children, according to the report.

It also calls for transgender students and pupils to be provided with additional support from a school nurse if needed.

The report recommends that “language and learning about periods is inclusive of all genders, cultures, faiths and sexual orientations. For example; ‘girls and women and others who have periods'”.

Brighton & Hove City Council said in a statement: “By encouraging effective education on menstruation and puberty, we hope to reduce stigma and ensure no child or young person feels shame in asking for period products inside or outside of school if they need them.

If I wasn’t quoting it directly from an article you’d think I was making it up.  This is the bizarro world we live in.  2018.  The article of course doesn’t go into specifics about how boys can have periods.

I have to believe, God I hope, that if the normal population found out what their children were actually being taught in schools they would riot.  I think most parents believe school is more or less the same as when they were in it.  That roughly the curriculum hasn’t changed much.  Instead, we’re raising an entire generation of kids who will come out of school having never been challenged of their beliefs, been told they can be any gender they want, and that anytime one feels threatened they should retreat to their safe space.  This will not end well.

%d bloggers like this: