The world is going to Hell in the proverbial hand basket.
David K. Li reports for The New York Post, Nov. 27, 2015, that according to a sickening new report from Tier im Recht, an animal welfare group, more Swiss people are having sex with horses.
Switzerland has an estimated 110,000 horses living on 18,000 farms.
In 2014, there were 105 cases of the maltreatment of horses in Switzerland — 10% percent of which (10.5 cases) involved people abusing horses by having sex with them. But Tier im Recht believes that the number of unreported horse abuse cases is likely much higher, given that so many Swiss are involved with equestrian activities.
Experts estimate that 10,000 people in Switzerland are “predisposed” to zoophilia, the new PC term of bestiality, according to the 20 Minuten newspaper. Switzerland has a total population of 8.081 million in 2013. Andreas Rüttimann, Tier im Recht’s legal expert, told reporters that the rate of bestiality with horses “is relatively elevated compared with other types of animals.”
Overall, there were 1,709 incidents of abuse against animals in Switzerland in 2014, up from 1,542 from the previous year.
To clean our palate and restore our soul, here’s the breathtaking scene from Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, of Gandalf summoning Shadowfax, the magnificent “lord of all horses”.
I don’t recall how I happened upon this story…and I’m almost sorry I did. Yet it is an example of the lengths feminists will go to seek attention and to prove just how whacky they are.
WARNING: This is not for the faint of heart. Do not continue reading this post if you are eating or just ate. TRUST ME.
There’s a woman by the name of Zoe Starvi who, according to her Twitter bio, is an “Anarchist. Feminist. Queer. All angry. One of the nastiest trolls on here (apparently) She/her/hers. Views not representative of anywhere I work, obvs“.
The hashtag alone should give you notice to proceed with caution (and an empty stomach).
The Daily Mail caught this tweet and reported on the aftermath it caused on Twitter. Here’s the story (your last warning!):
I don’t think I’ll ever be able to eat sourdough bread again…
When a feminist blogger found herself suffering from a vaginal yeast infection, she made the unusual decision to use the unwanted bodily fluid as an ingredient for making bread.
Zoe Stavri, who writes under the title Another Angry Woman, has documented the details of her unusual baking experiment on social media and it’s caused something of a furor (shocker, not).
The feminist, who admits to having a ‘slightly perverse sense of humor’ and a ‘keenly scientific mind’, realized she was suffering from the yeast infection. Rather than resolve the issue with conventional treatment she would make the most of the additional yeast she was producing.
Using a sex aid to retrieve the yeast from her vagina, Stavri used it as a base ingredient for sour-dough, a loaf which often takes several days for the ‘starter’ dough to ferment. The experimental baker added her self-made ingredient to flour and water and then watched as the fermentation process began, taking pictures along the way.
Here’s her review of the final product:
“It tasted like a pretty damn nice sourdough bread. Not the tangiest sourdough I’ve ever eaten, but solidly tasty. I really, really liked it. After having a little bite, I ate a slice with butter. The bread was still slightly warm and the butter soaked in and it was absolutely heavenly. A lot of people on the internet seem to be under the impression it would taste like cunt. Of course it fucking didn’t. The only thing that really tastes like pussy is pussy. Given that this is a loaf of bread, obviously it didn’t taste like pussy. Learn biology, buddy.”
I cannot go into any more detail without wanting to throw up. If you feel so inclined to review the whole process, read her blog here.
If you are thinking of trying this recipe for your next family meal – don’t. HuffPo UK spoke with Dr Helen Webberley from Oxford Online Pharmacy who issued a few words of caution. She told HuffPost UK: “While moulds and funguses have been used in cooking for years, we should never consider eating anything that could contain human genetic material. The vagina hosts numerous bacteria and organisms, some of which can be infective. This is clearly a health hazard.“
2. Psychopathy is not a psychiatric diagnosis: Though the term psychopath is often thrown around in criminal justice settings and hypothesizing media, psychopathy is not a recognized psychiatric or psychological disorder. Instead, psychopathy is recognized as either a subcategory or extension of antisocial personality disorder.
3. Hallmark attributes of a psychopath include a lack of empathy for others, selfishness, lack of guilt, and a superficial charm that manifests exclusively to manipulate others. It should be noted that those attributes, except maybe lack of guilt, also characterize pathological narcissists or the Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
4.Psychopathy, contrary to popular belief, does not occur in a either/or binary way. Research has suggested that the condition occurs on a spectrum of more or less — from minor psychopathic tendencies, to moderate or severe characteristics. Some psychopaths may possess certain characteristics of the condition, but not all, and even among severe psychopaths, some manifestations of the “disorder” may be missing.
5.Psychopaths and sociopaths aren’t the same: Though both conditions are associated with a poor sense of “right and wrong” and a lack of empathy, there are a few key differences between them. According to Dr. L. Michael Tompkins, a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center, the difference lies in having a conscience. A psychopath simply doesn’t have one, he told WebMD. They will steal from you without feeling a twinge of guilt — though they may pretend to if they’re caught, so they aren’t “found out.” A sociopath, on the other hand, will understand that taking your money is wrong and may feel remorse, but it won’t be enough to stop their deviant behavior. That means a psychopath has even less regard for others than a sociopath. Another difference between the two lies in the psychopath’s incredible ability to blend in. They can come off as charming, intelligent, and may even mimic emotions they really don’t feel. “They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Tompkins said. Sociopaths are more likely to come off as “hot-headed,” and may act more impulsively, demonstrating to others their lack of normal empathy.
6.Psychopaths aren’t always violent: The most important characteristics of a psychopath revolve not around violence, but around lack of empathy, selfishness, and manipulation. While some psychopaths may use these traits to commit crimes, others rely on their manipulative nature and ability to charm for other things. Many psychopaths actually find great success in the business world thanks to their ruthless nature — a disproportionate number of CEOs are actually psychopaths. Some other popular career paths for psychopaths include politics, law, media, and being salespeople.
7.Psychopaths are over-represented in prison: While not all psychopaths are violent, many violent people are psychopaths. Researchers say there is an abnormally high number of psychopaths in prison. Some studies suggest 50% to 80% of prisoners meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder, and 15% of prisoners can be expected to be psychopathic, compared to the 1 to 5% expected in the general population. There isn’t much available research on serial killers and mass murderers, but it would be a reasonable assumption that psychopaths are quite over-represented in those populations as well. That’s because a psychopath’s personality makes it easy to act on violent urges or ideas that empathy, guilt, or fear would stomp out in a normal person.
8.Female and male psychopaths may be very different: Psychopaths studied in prison are usually male. Scientists and psychologists have suggested many reasons for this, ranging from the biological to the simple idea that women can get away with crimes more than men because society is less likely to expect psychopathic behavior among them. Though studies have concluded that the few female psychopaths available for study are just as dangerous as their male counterparts, the way their condition manifests may vary. For example, women are more likely to express their psychopathy through behaviors that are often mistaken for other mental illnesses — another clue as to why there are relatively few identified female psychopaths.
9.Psychopathy is not easy to diagnose because there is no brain imaging or biological test that can inarguably identify a person as a psychopath. But the amygdala may play a significant role in psychopathic tendencies. Certain brain structures have been identified as key players in the processing of emotion and empathy — the lack of which is centrally important to psychopathy. Frontal brain regions have been suggested as relevant in psychopathy, particularly the amygdala. Associated with emotional reactions, decision-making, and fear, the amygdala has been identified in several studies as having reduced integrity or function in those scoring highly on the psychopathy checklist. In one of these studies, people with severe antisocial personality disorder showed a distinct thinning of the cortex and deformations in the amygdala.
10. The most commonly used device for identifying psychopaths is the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R), a 20-item inventory of personality traits and recorded behaviors, developed by Dr. Robert D. Hare in the 1970s. the checklist is administered in a semi-structured interview format, and operates on a point system based on whether a behavior (e.g., pathological lying) can be reasonably matched to the subject. The subject is assigned a score between 0 and 40, with 40 being the maximum psychopathy and 0 the minimum. The cutoff for being labeled as a psychopath is 30 in the United States and 25 in the UK.
So, are you ready to find out if you’re a psychopath?
Below are the 20 traits of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). For each attribute, give yourself a score of 0 to 2, where 0 = “not at all descriptive of me”; 1 = “somewhat descriptive”; and 2 = “describes me perfectly”.
When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the “perfect” score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.
So, what’s your score? Take our poll!
But there’s actually a simpler test for psychopathy.
Read this question, come up with an answer, and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question.
A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met a guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing. She believed him to be her dream guy so much, that she fell in love with him right there, but never asked for his number and could not find him. A few days later she killed her sister.
Question: What is her motive for killing her sister?
[Give this some thought before you answer]
She was hoping the guy would appear at the funeral again.
If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This test was devised by a famous American psychologist who used it to determine if one has the same mentality as a killer. Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly.
If you didn’t answer the question correctly, good for you.
If you got the correct answer, please let us know so we can take you off our email list!
Instead of a pic of a psychopath, I chose the one below — the antithesis of psychopaths’ lack of empathy:
Egg harvesting: the sale of a woman’s fertilized egg(s) for implantation in another woman who is unable to reproduce but who would bear the child; or
Surrogacy: the artificial insemination and renting out of a woman’s womb to bear a child who, upon birth, will be surrendered to the renter.
TPR has become a booming and highly profitable “fertility industry” in many countries, including the United States, where there is virtually no regulation.
Another country is Nepal, which experienced devastating earthquakes last April and May. The earthquakes exposed a little-known surrogacy industry in Nepal when Israel sent a Boeing 747 to repatriate Israeli citizens after the first quake on April 25 (in which an estimated 8,000 people died), among whom were 15 babies born to surrogate mothers there. Eventually 26 babies were air-lifted out of Nepal to Israel, but none of the mothers. Another 100 women pregnant with babies for homosexual Israeli clients remained behind.
Michael Cook reports for BioEdge, May 16, 2015, that since surrogacy for homosexuals and single parents is illegal in Israel, they have turned to surrogacy agencies abroad.
India and Thailand had well-developed surrogate-mother networks. But after scandals both countries imposed onerous restrictions on overseas clients. So the Indian agencies moved their clinics to Nepal. Surrogacy is against the law in Nepal, but this only applies to Nepalese citizens. So Indian women have been going to clinics in Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, to bear babies for Israeli clients.
Alon-Lee Green wrote an op-ed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the exploitation of surrogate mothers in Nepal:
“How can it be that none of the human interest stories or compassion-filled posts [about the earthquakes] mentioned these women, who came from a difficult socioeconomic background, some from Nepal and some from other poverty-stricken areas of Asia just to rent their wombs (not sell their ova, since the fathers generally prefer European genetic material)? Who now, like the babies they’ve just had, are also stuck in the disaster zone?
. . . the attitude toward these women, or more accurately, the lack of one, in the midst of the earthquake story sheds light on exactly what’s problematic about surrogacy: The surrogate mothers have become a commodity, yet another product to be bought on the open market. Or to be more precise, these women, their wombs and their time have become commodities for Israeli men.”
Once the surrogate babies are brought to Israel, they face further difficulties. Because their biological mothers are not Jewish (the ova were purchased from the US, South Africa and other countries), the babies must undergo conversion to be considered Jewish. But most rabbinical courts are very reluctant to allow the children of single-sex couples or single parents to convert.
Normally, a healthy young woman produces only one or two eggs per month, but third-party reproduction calls for more — the goal is to generate as many eggs as possible, sometimes dozens, at once. To do that, women who sell their eggs must undergo weeks of painful self-injections of carcinogenic synthetic hormones and other drugs followed by surgery for egg retrieval.
In the case of women who rent out their wombs as surrogate mothers, they must undergo a similar regimen of dangerous and painful procedures to prepare their bodies for implantation and gestation.
All of these procedures to which the egg provider and surrogate are subjected pose serious health risks.
Short-term health risks include:
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), characterized by difficulty breathing, excruciating pelvic pain, swelling of the hands and legs, severe abdominal pain and swelling, nausea, vomiting, weight gain, low urine output, and diarrhea. OHSS can be fatal.
Cancer, especially cancer of a woman’s reproductive organs—ovarian, breast, or endometrial cancers.
Intracranial pressure from ingesting Lupron, which is given to both surrogates and egg providers. Lupron is not approved by the FDA for fertility use (it is used to treat men with advanced prostate cancer). Lupron is a Categorical X drug, which means that if a woman gets pregnant while taking the drug, the fetus will be harmed.
Then there are the problems for the babies birthed by surrogate mothers. Sloan writes:
Surrogate births intentionally sever the natural maternal bonding that takes place during pregnancy. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published a study in June 2013 that found that “the absence of a gestational connection to the mother may be problematic.” The study also noted that children’s problems may be underreported by the procuring parents who wish to “present their children in a positive light.” The biological link between parent and child is undeniably intimate; when severed, there are lasting repercussions for both parties. […]
For the sake of donors’ privacy, the children have no right to information about their genetic history, despite obvious life-long ramifications for their health and medical care. In addition to frequently not knowing who their biological parents are, they have no way of knowing about any siblings they may have.
Lastly, but not the least, there are the problems for a society that engages in third-party reproduction. They include:
The sale of women’s bodies (eggs & womb) for profit. How is third-party reproduction different from prostitution?
The commodification of human life: The selling of children is illegal in the United States and many countries. But isn’t surrogacy the sale of children as well?
Despite considerable health costs and risks to third-party reproduction women, there is virtually no regulation of the fertility industry in the United States. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) issue recommendations that are strictly voluntary and therefore unenforceable. For example, they advise that women undergo no more than six stimulated cycles, yet some undergo ten. There are no national registries to track the health of the women who sell their eggs or rent their bodies as surrogates.
For the above reasons, the U.S. has become a popular destination for international fertility “tourism.”
Federal and state governments meddle and interfere in just about every aspect of life in the U.S., but not the fertility industry. Sure makes you wonder why.
Well this turned into a terrible situation, especially for one of the babies.
Melissa Cook/Photo via NY Post
A Georgia man hired Melissa Cook (age 47) for $33,000 to have a child by in-vitro fertilization using his sperm and the eggs of a 20-year-old donor. The woman, from California, was implanted with three embryos. The “dad” became overwhelmed when he learned she was having triplets — and demanded the woman abort one of the fetuses while threatening her with financial ruin, Melissa claims.
“They are human beings. I bonded with these kids. This is just not right,” Melissa Cook told The Post. They learned she was having triplets when the embryos babies were around 8 or 9 weeks. He almost immediately began to raise concerns, and they have grown increasingly threatening, she said.
Cook, a mother of four — including her own set of triplets — is now 17 weeks pregnant. She also had a fifth child as a surrogate. According to California law, aside from life-threatening exceptions, fetusesbabies can’t be aborted once they become “viable,’’ or around 20 weeks.
The dad’s lawyer, Robert Warmsley, says “the dad understands, albeit does not agree, with your decision not to reduce,” which he wrote in a Friday letter to Cook, who has never met the sperm donor.
Apparently they have an agreement, hence the threat of financial harm. “As you know, his remedies where you refuse to abide by the terms of the agreement, are immense [and] include, but are not limited to, loss of all benefits under the agreement, damages in relation to future care of the children [and] medical costs associated with any extraordinary care the children may need,” the lawyer warned.
The surrogate received another letter from Warmsley on Tuesday urging her to schedule a “selection reduction” — abortion of one of the fetuses babies — by day’s end.
Cook wrote an emotional letter to the dad, “The doctor put in three healthy embryos . . . The chances were high they were all going to take. You knew I was 47 years old. If you knew you only wanted two babies, then why put in three embryos?” According to her contract, Cook is entitled to her $33,000 pregnancy fee for one baby, plus an additional $6,000 for each additional child.
Given the pressure she’s under, Cook said she was wavering on her decision to keep all three babies. “I have to reduce. I’m scared. I don’t want to suffer,” said Cook, who is split from her husband and lives in Woodland Hills, Calif. (What about the baby’s suffering?)
Jennifer Lahl, head of the Center for Bioethics and Culture, a group that opposes surrogacy, said the Cook case is the first she’s aware of in which a surrogate mom has gone public to expose the pressure she’s under to undergo an abortion.
The dad’s lawyer declined comment to the New York Post.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of the United States of America, understood by our Founding Fathers as an “unalienable right” given to all human beings (“endowed”) by God (“their Creator”). As stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
An alarming percentage of U.S. Millennials, however, as many as 4 out of 10, support government censorship, i.e., abridging the Constitutional right of freedom of speech of anyone who makes public statements “offensive” to “minorities”.
Millennials are those born between 1981 and 1997 who are 18 to 34 years old in 2015.
Jacob Poushter reports for PewResearchCenter, Nov. 20, 2015, that American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.
The poll comes at a time when America’s colleges and universities increasingly restrict free speech, in the name of racial and ethnic equality, “safe zones” and protecting delicate students from “micro-aggression”.
The survey asked people whether they believe that their fellow citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things.
While Americans as a whole are less likely to favor government censorship of free speech than other countries, U.S. Millennials stood out as the group that most favors censorship. Here are the survey results for Americans:
Overall, 28% of Americans are pro-censorship; 67% support free speech.
40% of Millennials are pro-censorship vs. 58% pro-free speech.
The elderly (ages 70-87) are most pro-free speech: 80% are for vs. 12% who favor censorship.
Women are more pro-censorship (33%) than men (23%).
Democrats are more pro-censorship (35%) than Independents (27%) or Republicans (18%).
Non-whites are more pro-censorship (38%) than white non-Hispanics (23%).
The less educated — those with only a high school education or less — are more pro-censorship (31%) than those with some college (29%) and those with a college degree or more (22%).
Here’s how Americans compare with Europeans. No wonder Europe, especially Germany, seems helpless before the tide of Muslim “refugee” invaders.
It appears young Americans are just waiting for a demagogue to mold and mobilize them into a new Hitlerjeugend (Hitler Youth), Communist Youth League, or Maoist Red Guards.
Just when you thought things couldn’t get more politically correct….
The Ottawa Sun has a story that will leave you flabbergasted. Because of “cultural appropriation”, student leaders have pulled the mat out from University of Ottawa students. The teachings of the free on-campus yoga class could be seen as a form of “cultural appropriation” and hence, offensive.
The instructor, Jennifer Scharf, had been offering free weekly yoga instruction to students since 2008. She was shocked when told in September the program would be suspended, and saddened when she learned of the reasoning.
Staff at the Centre for Students with Disabilities believe that “while yoga is a really great idea and accessible and great for students … there are cultural issues of implication involved in the practice,” according to an email from the center. “Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced,” and which cultures those practices “are being taken from.”
The centre official argues since many of those cultures “have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy … we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves while practising yoga.”
Scharf said the concept does not apply in this case, arguing the complaint that killed the program came instead from a “social justice warrior” with “fainting heart ideologies” in search of a cause celebre. “People are just looking for a reason to be offended by anything they can find,” said Scharf. There’s a real divide between reasonable people and those people just looking to jump on a bandwagon. And unfortunately, it ends up with good people getting punished for doing good things.”
Student federation president Romeo Ahimakin denied the decision resulted from a complaint. He said the student federation put the yoga session on hiatus while they consult with students “to make it better, more accessible and more inclusive to certain groups of people that feel left out in yoga-like spaces. … We are trying to have those sessions done in a way in which students are aware of where the spiritual and cultural aspects come from, so that these sessions are done in a respectful manner.”
Scharf offered a solution, suggesting she change the name from yoga to “mindful stretching,” since that would reflect the content of the program and would “literally change nothing about the course. I’m not pretending to be some enlightened yogi master, and the point (of the program) isn’t to educate people on the finer points of the ancient yogi scripture,” she told the Sun.
Student leaders, apparently having nothing better to do, debated rebranding the program, but stumbled over how the French translation for “mindful stretching” would appear on a promotional poster, and eventually decided to suspend the program.