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.

A Race to the Bottom

As the Government shutdown continues to drag on one thing seems apparent: those opposing the wall are hoping their constituents aren’t paying attention or just don’t care.  Consider a few of the facts presented by President Trump in a letter President Trump sent to Congress earlier this month:

  • In fiscal year (FY) 2018, 17,000 adults at the border with existing criminal records were arrested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border agents.
  • In FY2017 and FY2018, ICE officers arrested approximately 235,000 aliens on various criminal charges or convictions within the interior of the United States—including roughly 100,000 for assault, 30,000 for sex crimes, and 4,000 for homicides.
  • We are now averaging 60,000 illegal and inadmissible aliens a month on our Southern Border.
  • Last month alone, more than 20,000 minors were smuggled into the United States.
  • The immigration court backlog is nearly 800,000 cases.
  • There has been a 2,000 percent increase in asylum claims over the last five years, with the largest growth coming from Central America—while around 9 in 10 claims from Central American migrants are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the applicant has long since been released into the interior of the United States.
  • In FY2017, roughly 135,000 illegal and inadmissible family units arrived from Central America. Of those, less than 2 percent have been successfully removed from the country due to a shortage of resources and glaring loopholes in our federal laws.
  • So far in FY2019, we have seen a 280 percent increase in family units from FY2018.
  • 300 Americans are killed every week from heroin—90 percent of which floods across our Southern Border.
  • Illegal immigration is a humanitarian crisis: 1 in 3 migrant women is sexually assaulted on the journey northward to the U.S. border; 50 illegal migrants a day are referred for emergency medical care; and CBP rescues 4,300 people a year who are in danger and distress.

That is an airtight case that there is a problem at the border and that a wall is one of many things that needs to be done to help curb the problem.  Then consider that through restructuring NAFTA we are saving billions of dollars (Mexico indirectly paying), or consider the staggering amounts of wasteful government spending that occurs on a daily basis.  Or how about the amount of money we spend on foreign wars that we shouldn’t even be a part of?  Or this; Rand Paul recently tweeted that we give foreign aid to China and borrow money from them to pay them back…

screen shot 2019-01-12 at 8.54.58 am

The point being that we waste so much money on so much crap that even if the wall was a complete waste of money, $5.7 billion dollars is less than a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we spend each year and why not give it a shot to see if it does anything?

It gets even worse.  Chuck and Nancy, the two-headed monster that is the mouthpiece of the opposition party, voted for fencing several times, as did then Senators Obama and Clinton.  We even had the money earmarked for it and the fence was simply never built.  So we’re supposed to take Chuck and Nancy on their word that it’s immoral and just bad for *reasons* while they previously voted for it in the past?  And for the cherry on top, why is it okay that we fund a wall in Jordan but cannot do the same for ourselves?  Why is it okay for Israel to have a wall but not for ourselves?  Did you know Chuck Schumer, as well as many other members of Congress have dual citizenship and are Israeli citizens as well?  Why is it okay for them to defend their borders, Chuck, but we aren’t?

It is clear they do not care about Americans and in fact think so little of us that they think we’re stupid enough to listen to them deride the wall without noticing their past track record or their current stances in general.  It is downright insulting and shows the absolute disdain with which they view the American public.

Which leads to the thrust of the idea.  I really believe these people are hoping that they can dumb down the American public faster than they think we can catch onto their lies.  Watch a news broadcast from even 15 years ago compared to today.  You may once in a while actually find a spirited debate where opposing views are actually debated at the same time and both viewpoints being heard.  Take a look at this video of Jared Taylor talking with Donahue about race in America.  This conversation would NEVER occur today.  They would NEVER want you to hear the facts or hear the viewpoint that Jared brings to the table.  No.  Now segments are one-sided and they are so short nothing of substance is ever said before another commercial break or topic change takes place.  The “opponent” in today’s segments are usually controlled opposition (read: approved).  Sometimes someone like Tucker will get someone on where there is genuine pushback but the segments are so short that neither side can really have the time to get their point across and it often ends in a screaming match that Tucker needs to end because they aren’t getting anywhere.

This isn’t a coincidence.  The mainstream media is dumbing down the American public.  They are removing the critical thinking skills that we all once had in much greater abundance.  Couple that with distracting smart phones, shorter video clips, more commercials, and less people reading, and you get a genuinely dumbed down public.  IQ scores are falling worldwide.  Mainstream media will want you to believe that is due to climate change…but it is more likely due to the reasons stated in the Unz article.  Either way, the fact is they really are falling.  People really are getting dumber.  You are not just imagining it.  And Americans are reading less and less every year which cannot help critical thinking skills or holding attention spans.

All of this adds up to people like Chuck and Nancy thinking they can somehow justify their current position on the wall and not think anyone will notice how patently absurd it is.  Or worse, maybe they do know and just don’t think anyone will care.  Entertainment has been the opiate of the masses.  So long as people are comfortable and distracted many simply will not care about a wall or the hypocrisies of these people.  I fear a majority of the population will be in for a rude awakening when civilization as we know it begins to break down because we never addressed these problems and let them fester and metastasize to the point that they become uncontrollable.  Perhaps we have already passed the point of no return.  The trend certainly seems to be pointing that way.  But maybe it has not.  And I’m thankful we have a President who is standing his ground and genuinely fighting to reverse this trend.

The truth and free speech censorship

We discuss the importance of free speech a lot here.  There is a reason it was the first amendment ratified.  There has been a renewed effort to police, patrol, and prohibit free speech on the internet especially within the past few years.  It is something most people take for granted, as if there was no possible way that it could be taken away.

It should give one pause when specific topics or people are verboten to public discourse.  It is often said that “hate speech”, or the speech one disagrees with the most, needs to be vigorously protected the most in these battles.  And that is largely true.  Everyone should be open to the idea of seeing alternative viewpoints and hearing arguments s/he may have never considered before.  Those that think they are doing some greater good (or those using these idealistic people as puppets to further their nefarious agendas) by censoring speech cannot possibly know what is “good” for someone or what should or should not be read.  One’s opinions and ideas should speak for themselves and be subject to scrutiny.  If the idea is founded on truth it should stand up to the weight of critique.

There can be a variety of reasons why one may want to censor particular topics or speech outright.  The type of free speech censorship I want to talk about does not include obvious restrictions that should be put on children.  There are many topics that children should only learn about once they are of appropriate age.

Your “spidey-sense” should go off when certain topics are restricted or punishable by law if they are discussed.  It should raise one’s eyebrows when certain individuals or news outlets are banned or deplatformed en masse by the powers that be.

Ask yourself this: why would a specific topic or event be against the law if spoken out against?  The most obvious example of this is Holocaust denial, which is against the law in 17 countries.  You can literally go to jail if you deny the Holocaust.  Why?  The truth never needs to be covered up.  It can speak for itself.  YouTube has been particularly stringent on banning videos that question the exact details of the Holocaust as of late.  The Greatest Story Never Told used to be available on YouTube in its full form as well as partitioned out.  This is a movie about the life of Adolf Hitler and questions some of the events and the subsequent narrative of World War II and the Holocaust.  Nearly all of those videos have been removed.  Why?  Again, whether you agree or disagree with any of these topics we should all realize they should still be allowed to be shared and viewed.  Stupid ideas, ideas that are patently false, should be available for scrutiny.  They will make themselves look like jackasses if what they are saying is patently false.  That movie in particular does raise some very interesting questions and presents some compelling evidence that the official narrative may not be as true as we’re told (if at all).  It is not the responsibility of YouTube or the government to decide what is and is not the truth or what is best for us.  This level of censorship is on par with totalitarian regimes.  Do we really want to go down this road?

I did a cursory search this past week of many conspiracy theories that one hears about.  You used to be able to find countless videos on all of these topics.  Videos about Holocaust denial, Sandy Hook, Vegas, and the Parkland shooting conspiracy theories are nearly impossible to find now on YouTube.  Videos questioning the age of the pyramids and chem trails have been greatly reduced as well.  Many of these theories are patently ridiculous (looking at you, flat-earthers).  But you know what?  They should still be put up.  I’d be interested to hear their point of view and consider what they’re putting out there.  If it’s absurd they subject themselves to ridicule.  But maybe they’ll present different viewpoints or evidence not considered before.  And again, it’s not YouTube’s place to decide what is and is not acceptable for our viewing consumption.  The videos that were left on those topics were from YouTube approved sources like mainstream news outlets; hardly the institutions that will ever truly question the narrative.  Somewhat surprisingly, you can still find a decent amount of moon landing hoax conspiracy theory videos on YouTube…for now.  Not surprisingly, users exposing the pedophelia epidemic in DC and Hollywood like David Seaman and Jamie Dlux are banned outright or given strikes (and likely soon to be banned).

It gets worse.  This isn’t restricted just to historical or current events.  Questioning the validity of some scientific claims is now punishable too.  In Australia, you can now be thrown in jail for up to 10 years for speaking about the dangers of vaccines.  Why?  Isn’t that mildly suspicious?  If vaccines are so safe for us why should it be against the law to question their validity?  Especially in light of the fact that more than 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced by their peers.  We should be questioning scientific data and results more than ever now.  How long will it be before it’s against the law to question our contribution to climate change?

Whatever dark forces are conspiring to keep these topics off limits are doing themselves a disservice in that they are showing their hand and creating smoke in areas they wanted to be ignored altogether.  I, like most people, never really questioned the details of the Holocaust too much before hearing about those laws.  Similarly, in my recent posts about vaccine skepticism it was more of a curiosity for me.  Laws like this only make me more skeptical.

The truth does not need laws to protect it.  It can speak for itself.  Let people question the Holocaust or vaccines all they want.  If the evidence is ironclad that the events went down as said, or that a particular vaccine is safe for public consumption, then they do not need laws to prohibit speaking against them.  Prohibition only raises more questions.

Do not be afraid to pursue the truth.  It will never lead you astray.  Do not be afraid of what you will find.  Often times it is very ugly or depressing.  Often times the coverup is worse than the truth itself.  It is when we willingly turn away or hide it completely that we end up lying to ourselves, and when you can lie to yourself you open the door to darker evils.

China lands a probe on the far side of the Moon

Via space.com:

Humanity just planted its flag on the far side of the moon.

China’s robotic Chang’e 4 mission touched down on the floor of the 115-mile-wide (186 kilometers) Von Kármán Crater Wednesday night (Jan. 2), pulling off the first-ever soft landing on the mysterious lunar far side.

Chang’e 4 will perform a variety of science work over the coming months, potentially helping scientists better understand the structure, formation and evolution of Earth’s natural satellite. But the symbolic pull of the mission will resonate more with the masses: The list of unexplored locales in our solar system just got a little shorter. [Watch: China’s Historic Landing on the Moon’s Far Side!]

Congrats to China.  Hopefully this lights a fire under us to do the same.  Though it seems like we’re more focused on manned flight to the Moon with private partnerships.  Via nasa.gov:

Dec. 13, 2018

NASA Seeks US Partners to Develop Reusable Systems to Land Astronauts on Moon

As the next major step to return astronauts to the Moon under Space Policy Directive-1, NASA announced plans on Dec. 13 to work with American companies to design and develop new reusable systems for astronauts to land on the lunar surface. The agency is planning to test new human-class landers on the Moon beginning in 2024, with the goal of sending crew to the surface in 2028.

Through upcoming multi-phased lunar exploration partnerships, NASA will ask American companies to study the best approach to landing astronauts on the Moon and start the development as quickly as possible with current and future anticipated technologies.

“Building on our model in low-Earth orbit, we’ll expand our partnerships with industry and other nations to explore the Moon and advance our missions to farther destinations such as Mars, with America leading the way,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “When we send astronauts to the surface of the Moon in the next decade, it will be in a sustainable fashion.”

You’d think it would take us less than 10 years to develop the technology to land on the Moon if we had been there 50 years ago, right?  Why are we “building on our model in low-Earth orbit” if we should already have a model of actually having gone to the Moon?  The chief problem to getting a crew there and back still seems to be the Van Allen radiation belt, which we allegedly went through 50 years ago.  Did you know that NASA’s official position is that we had the technology, but we destroyed it, and it’s too difficult to build it back up again?  Seriously.

I’ll be making a much more comprehensive post on this in the near future, but assuming we went already this whole timeline seems unfortunately long.  The notion that there was no point in going back to the Moon after the initial Moon landings is pure silliness.

Jerry Brown thinks climate change is as serious as WWII

Outgoing California governor Jerry Brown thinks fighting climate change is as important as fighting the Nazis in World War II.  A few snippets from his Meet the Press interview:

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown warned that America and the rest of the world are falling behind in the fight against climate change and likened the challenge to fighting the Nazis in World War II.

In an interview for Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” the outgoing governor called on President Donald Trump to take the lead in addressing the issue. “Instead of worrying about tariffs, I’d like to see the president and the Congress invest tens of billions in renewable energy, in more-efficient batteries, to get us off fossil fuel as quickly as we can,” Brown said.

“I would point to the fact that it took Roosevelt many, many years to get America willing to go into World War II and fight the Nazis. Well, we have an enemy, though different, but perhaps, very much devastating in a similar way. And we’ve got to fight climate change. And the president’s got to lead on that.”

And further:

Trump’s lack of urgency on the issue exemplifies the partisan divide on climate change. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released this month found that more than 70 percent of Democrats believe climate change is both “serious” and requires “immediate action,” but that just 15 percent of Republicans felt the same way.

Overall, people are growing more and more convinced of the urgency of the issue—45 percent of all Americans said they eel that sense of urgency, the highest since the poll started to ask the question in 1999.

Do you think maybe more people are being convinced of the urgency of the issue because you, the mainstream media, sensationalize and exaggerate?  Because you use fear-mongering to push your agenda?  Do you think maybe that has something to do with it?  Check out some of the #climate change posts to see how out of control their lying is.  The reality is they have no idea how good or bad the climate really is.  Their models are consistently wrong.

Think about how absurd and utterly despicable it is to compare climate change to the events of World War II.  Think about the hubris and/or utter disregard for the reactions of people to these BS statements.  It’s downright evil to peddle this line of thinking.  It is pure fear-mongering to even suggest this is as bad as that time more than 60 or so MILLION people died.  He’s essentially asking us to destroy our economy by investing billions of dollars to combat an alleged problem we’re not even sure we have.  And sorry, polling Republicans and Democrats doesn’t make the problem all of a sudden appear or disappear.  It really does not matter what anyone thinks…it does not change whether there is a problem or not.

If the Democrats really, truly, cared about climate change, they would immediately curb all immigration to first world countries.  If the “carbon footprint” thing is still the way they’re measuring our effects (it will probably change when they realize this doesn’t really help their case as much as they hope) then why would you import more people into 1st world countries, where the carbon footprint is vastly bigger?  The sooner one realizes that today’s liberals contradict themselves on nearly every issue, the sooner one can quit wasting their time arguing with them…arguments where facts don’t matter because they fall on deaf ears or because they only understand rhetoric.

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.

More SJW nonsense in the realm of science

A couple hundred academics are decrying the appointment of Dr Noah Carl at the University of Cambridge because he expresses views that hurt their feelings.

Full open letter: ‘No place for racist pseudoscience at Cambridge’

We write to express our dismay at the appointment of Noah Carl to the Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge. A careful consideration of Carl’s published work and public stance on various issues, particularly on the claimed relationship between ‘race’, ‘criminality’ and ‘genetic intelligence’, leads us to conclude that his work is ethically suspect and methodologically flawed.

These publications, drawing on the discredited ‘race sciences’, seem nothing more than an expression of opinion on various social matters. As members of the academic community committed to defending the highest standards of ethical and methodological integrity in research and teaching, we are shocked that a body of work that includes vital errors in data analysis and interpretation appears to have been taken seriously for appointment to such a competitive research fellowship.

We are deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge. This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented. Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric. In a context where the far-right is on the rise across the world, this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.

We are also concerned that the appointment process for this fellowship was not carried out with the degree of academic rigour, diligence and respect for principles of equality and diversity that we would expect from a constituent college of the University of Cambridge.

We call on St Edmund’s College, the University of Cambridge, and the Newton Trust to issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other.

We also call on the University of Cambridge to immediately conduct an investigation into the appointment process that led to the award of this fellowship. Such an investigation, which should be independent of St Edmund’s college, must involve recognised experts across relevant disciplines, and include a thorough review of the appointee’s body of academic work.

The letter doesn’t make any mention of specific references to specifically discredit his work, just vague accusations of “racist pseudoscience”.  Ironic given that science is the exact place where ideas should be presented and rigorously attacked to see if they stand up to the scrutiny or not.  Instead, as always, they’d rather just mute people and speech they do not agree with.

Study into race and IQ is always going to be a touchy subject.  It also happens to be one of the most important areas of scientific research we could possibly be looking into right now.  Rather than vilify it, we should look honestly at the data, even if it’s not what we want to see.  It could dramatically improve everything from the way we approach the educational system to coming up with better ways to place those of lower cognitive ability into roles and jobs that maximize their potential and allow them to still have self-worth and feel they are contributing members to society.  It certainly bodes better than the current alternative we have of people on welfare spinning their wheels not getting anywhere.

This is the danger of SJWs infesting all institutions in our society.  Getting to some deeper truth is never at the forefront for them.  They’d rather can the whole topic altogether rather than potentially hurt someone’s feelings discussing uncomfortable topics.

About that whole “peak oil” thing…

The idea that one day we would hit peak oil, that point in time where the maximum extraction rate of petroleum is reached and henceforth decline from there on, like many other theories foisted upon us, seems too to be greatly exaggerated.  ScienceDaily recently put out a piece that the US Geological Survey has discovered the largest ever continuous oil and gas reservoir ever found in the Texas and New Mexico Delaware Basin.

Today, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the Wolfcamp Shale and overlying Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of Texas and New Mexico’s Permian Basin province contain an estimated mean of 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “American strength flows from American energy, and as it turns out, we have a lot of American energy. Before this assessment came down, I was bullish on oil and gas production in the United States. Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation.”

“In the 1980’s, during my time in the petroleum industry, the Permian and similar mature basins were not considered viable for producing large new recoverable resources. Today, thanks to advances in technology, the Permian Basin continues to impress in terms of resource potential. The results of this most recent assessment and that of the Wolfcamp Formation in the Midland Basin in 2016 are our largest continuous oil and gas assessments ever released,” said Dr. Jim Reilly, USGS Director. “Knowing where these resources are located and how much exists is crucial to ensuring both our energy independence and energy dominance.”

Although the USGS has previously assessed conventional oil and gas resources in the Permian Basin province, this is the first assessment of continuous resources in the Wolfcamp shale and Bone Spring Formation in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian. Oil and gas companies are currently producing oil here using both traditional vertical well technology and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

The notion that we are going to run out of oil and gas anytime soon is yet another fear mongering tactic used to drum up hysteria that a situation is much worse than it actually is.  Like global warming climate change, it was theorized that we would hit peak oil in the 1970s.  Clearly this has not been the case.  In fact, there are many who think that we’re not running out at all and that Earth is replenishing its reserves.

“Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050,” Engineering and Technology said.

 

A BP official told the magazine that “energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared.”

 

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says “with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand.” That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

 

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

 

In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the “data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically” from carbon found in Earth’s mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an “unexpected bounty ” of “natural gas and the building blocks of oil products.”

It really wouldn’t shock me at this point if this were the case and we had just been misled by those claiming to be environmentalists.

Decolonizing Mars?

A group of panelists recently held a discussion about future space exploration, specifically to Mars.  The event, “Becoming Interplanetary: What Living on Earth Can Teach Us about Living on Mars.”, was held a few months ago.  A few snippets from one of the panelists are below…the entire article can be read here.

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is an assistant professor of physics at the University of New Hampshire who studies spacetime’s origins and the stuff that fills it. She appeared on a panel alongside Brenda J. ChildBrian Nord, and Ashley Shew.

Gizmodo: What does decolonizing Mars mean to you?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: I’m trying to think carefully about what our relationship to Mars should be, and whether we can avoid reproducing deeply entrenched colonial behaviors as we seek to better understand our Solar System. This includes thinking about why our language for developing understandings of environments that are new to us tends to still be colonial: “colonizing Mars” and “exploring” and “developing,” for example. These are deeply fraught terms that have traditionally referred to problematic behaviors by imperialists with those that we would call “indigenous” and “people of color” often on the receiving end of violent activities.

Gizmodo: Do you think that we’ve been thinking about Mars exploration wrong, and why?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: I also want us to consider that as we interact with Mars, we may be precluding certain futures. Perhaps life hasn’t developed there yet. Perhaps life may develop in future. Will our interactions with Mars preclude that possibility? Do we have the right to make that choice for the ecosystem? Europeans and non-Indigenous, non-Black Americans have traditionally thought they could do whatever they wanted in an environment that is new to them. Thinking about Mars is a chance to think carefully about where this attitude has gotten us. So far, technological “advancement” has brought us many things, including potentially catastrophic global warming. Global warming is a technological development.

I want us to move away from the idea of “exploration” and “discovery” and toward understanding environments as “new to us.” Columbus wasn’t the first to “discover” or “explore” the Americas. He was just a European who didn’t understand a place that was new to him.

Gizmodo: What do the ideals behind decolonizing Mars say about science and space exploration as a whole? Who holds the power, and how can that change?

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: Decolonization in the Martian context requires asking questions about who is entitled to what land. Can we be trusted to be in balance with Mars if we refuse to be in balance with Earth? Can we be trusted to be equitable in our dealings with each other in a Martian context if the U.S. and Canadian governments continue to attack indigenous sovereignty, violate indigenous lands, and engage in genocidal activities against indigenous people?

I think the answer is no. I think we need to clean up our mess before we start making a new mess somewhere else. It’s hard for me to say “we” because I don’t think my values are represented by how scientists have handled themselves in the past, and as an Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American person, I’m a descendant of people who didn’t have a choice about coming to the Americas. But I am a member of the scientific community and right now, it seems that on the whole the scientific community has not done the work of asking itself about deeply entrenched notions about who science is for, how science is done, and how it can and should impact the environment.

I’m worried about this. Our terrestrial ecosystem is making very clear to us that our old way of doing things has pushed us to the brink of extinction. What has happened recently with the Thirty Meter Telescope and Maunakea makes clear to me that we have a long way to go before science’s approach to new activities and environments isn’t painfully entangled with colonial ideals.

OSIRIS_Mars_true_color

Where to begin.  It’s no surprise that she would immediately start blaming white people for all of our problems on Earth, as if white people were the only ones to colonize or take over other people’s lands.  Might wanna take a peek at the history books at the Mongolians to start, Professor.  Native non-white populations rape, pillage, enslave, and wipe out peoples too, Professor.

But back to the actual topic the panel was supposed to address.  I would be curious to ask assistant Professor Prescod-Weinstein if she’s so concerned about our place amongst the stars, if she wants some sort of mass genocide to keep the population of the Earth at sustainable levels?  Because that’s really the only option if she’s concerned about disturbing the natural habitat of a few microbes (if there even are any on Mars) or a few potential future microbes who haven’t had the time to develop yet.

This line of thinking is insane.  Many of these far-left types place very little value on human life.  Whether it’s colonizing the cosmos or cleaning up the environment, all of their solutions can really only be achieved by wiping out humanity.  Think about it.  Their environmental solutions, if realized to their full extent, could only be achieved by reducing humanity to a very small population or none at all.  The same goes for interplanetary travel and colonization.  At some point on Earth if we continue our current trajectory we will run out of room and resources on this planet.  Short of mass genocide the only way to continue forward is to expand to other planets.

Nature is hierarchical.  Fundamentally one must ask whether we should place humans over some, any, other lifeforms.  Of course, we do this every day.  Most people don’t think twice about squashing a bug in their home or how their burger was prepared.  That is life.  Life consumes other life.  Some lifeforms excel while others become extinct.  I truly believe many of these people think that humans are no better than an insect or microbe, in which case they are severely sick and against life.  Hoping for the demise of one’s own species is not healthy.  Whether they’d term it in that exact way or not doesn’t matter; this is ultimately what they believe if they draw such conclusions as those on this panel.  Again, they’re discussing whether it’s right to colonize planets that don’t even appear to have any life on them, let alone intelligent life.  Sorry, shame on me for ranking life at all.  I shouldn’t be “othering” like that.

The science community is very heavily SJW infested

Social justice warriors have infiltrated nearly every institution.  I’ve recommended both books before but cannot recommend them enough: Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie and SJWs Always Double Down are required reading for anyone working in the corporate environment these days.  More often than not they will infiltrate the HR department and work their corrosive ideology from there into everything.  We know they have ravished college campuses.  Sadly, they’ve made quite the mark in the sciences as well.  I stumbled across this tweet from @nature, the official twitter of the well-known journal:

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.10.25 PM

Nature, supposedly one of the most respected science journals out there, says that calling someone a male or a female depending on if they have a penis or vagina is not rooted in science.  Sigh.

This is one of the many strategies the globalists employ to bend us to their will.  These proud atheists who smugly cross their arms and pretend to know everything will constantly claim to use science as their end all/be all argument.  Unfortunately for them, the science often does not match up with their beliefs.  In these cases, why not just change the science or publish BS?  Once it’s in a scientific journal they view it as irrefutable, set in stone, almost…like a religious dogma?  Spare them the argument that science has a replication problem, meaning many of these studies cannot actually be reproduced and independently verified by another group.  Whether it’s social sciences or climate science they will try and use these as iron-clad proof of their positions, ready to cry “SCIENCE DENIER!” at any sign of one questioning them.

Of course, we are not science deniers.  And as one should do with science, we question the results.  As we should, frequently.  The scientific method is the framework to rigorously test hypotheses and correct where needed.  This new fad of pretending that gender is a social construct has gone too far.  And now that they’ve drummed up a study here and there, once it is published they will use it as irrefutable fact to further their agenda.

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.36.19 PM.png

There’s no question diversity is a strength, I read it in a science journal!

The reality is that it’s shockingly easy to get a social science paper published.  Check out this video below, two guys who got several papers published and roundly critically acclaimed…stuff they totally made up to sound as ridiculous as possible and still got them in.

Once the SJWs get their hooks in deep enough, that’s when they’ll reveal their true colors.  When it gets to the point that you cannot question what they are doing lest you want to lose your job for being a Nazi-racist-literally Hitler-such and such it is all over.  And yes, it does get that bad.  Didn’t you always want your science journals to be politically motivated, foisting their personal opinions and beliefs on you?

Screen Shot 2018-11-21 at 12.35.45 PM

%d bloggers like this: