Category Archives: professors and intellectuals

Swedish professor says cannibalism is a way to combat climate change

This dude takse the climate-change hysteria to new levels.

Magnus Söderlund is a behavioral scientist at Stockholm School of Economics in Stockholm, Sweden. He describes himself in his profile on ResarchGate as “Professor of Marketing and Head of Center for Consumer Marketing at Stockholm School of Economics. Magnus does research in consumer behavior-related areas, often with experimental methods, and with an interest in how consumers are affected by various marketing activities.”

On September 3, 2019, at the Gastro Summit on food of the future in Stockholm, Söderlund conducted a powerpoint presentation titled “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?,” in which he said we must “awaken the idea” of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combatting the effects of climate change.

Sweden’s TV Channel 4 reports, September 3, 2019, that (via Google Translate):

The “Gastro Summit – about the future of food” is being held at the Stockholm Fair. There, behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund holds seminars that make most people raise their eyebrows. They are about the possibility of eating human flesh – to save the climate.

Swedish-American writer/reporter Celia Farber reports for The Epoch Times that Söderlund argued that since food sources will be scarce in the future, humans must break down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh, and be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting–among them, human flesh. He called the taboos against cannibalism “conservative” and people’s resistance to it as a problem that could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to eat worms and insects, then to tasting human flesh.

In his talk at the Gastro Summit, Söderlund asked the audience how many would be open to the idea of cannibalism. Not many hands went up; some in the audience groaned.  When interviewed after his talk, Söderlund reported brightly that 8% of conference participants said they would be open to trying human flesh. When asked if he himself would try it, he replied: “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it.”

Söderlund suggested that eating pets and insects would be easier sells before cannibalism.

Farber concludes:

What Söderlund does not mention, curiously, is the long documented science—the biological effect of cannibalism.

A tribe called the Fore lived isolated in Papua New Guinea until the 1930s. They believed in eating their dead rather than allowing them to be consumed by worms. This led to an epidemic of a disease called “kuru, or “the laughing death,” caused by ingestion of human meat. This disease was not caused by a pathogen, but rather, a “twisted protein,” (according to an NPR report) that tricks “other proteins in the brain to twist like it, damaging the brain’s cerebellum. Researchers compared it to Dr. Jekyll’s transformation. The last victim of kuru died in 2009.

Whoever is in charge of Sweden’s Public Relations is doing an abysmal job. Unless the new brand is that this small Northern country, obsessed with atheism and political correctness, is now cooler than ever for re-setting all previously known boundaries of “noir.” And madness.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Iowa college ‘accepts’ resignation of Antifa professor who wants to kill all Evangelical Christians & clock Trump with a bat

Amidst the wasteland of Left-infested colleges and universities, a small college in Iowa is standing tall — Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Last Thursday, August 22, 2019, reacting to complaints about an adjunct English professor at Kirkwood Community College, Jeff Klinzman, KCRG TV9 contacted Klinzman. Klinzman told KCRG, “I affirm that I am Antifa,” and said in an email he makes no apology for what he has posted online:

  • On the Facebook page for “Iowa Antifa”, Klinzman posted a litany of far-left statements and conversations, including a threat to “clock” President Trump “with a bat”.
  • On his Facebook page, in 2012 Klinzman stated his desire to “stop evangelical Christians,” including a poem that said, “Kill them all and bury them deep in the ground“. because of what “what evangelical Christians are doing to this county and its people fills me with rage, and a desire to exact revenge.”

The Secret Service told KCRG they are aware of Klinzman’s social media posts but would not confirm if they are investigating it as a threat to President Trump.

Klinzman has since scrubbed much of his Facebook page, including the post calling for killing all Evangelical Christians. But Klinzman still lists his “likes” for far-left organizations, including, “Antifa Nebraska,” “Heartland Antifascists,” “Antifascist USA,” “Iowa Antifa,” “Iowa City Democratic Socialists of America,” and “U.S. Democratic Socialists.”

Kirkwood Community College acted swiftly.

On August 23, a day after the KCRG report, Kirkwood Community College President Lori Sundberg released a statement saying that the college had accepted Jeff Klinzman’s resignation:

As you may be aware, it has come to light that Jeff Klinzman, an adjunct professor in our English Department, has received criticism for opinions he has expressed online and in the news media. Some of those opinions were expressed as far back as 2012, while another about the current President of the United States, was made more recently. The news of these opinions has drawn considerable attention from many inside and outside of the Kirkwood community just as we embark on a new school year.

Kirkwood Community College leadership has been assessing this matter in recent days, especially its potential impact on our learning environment.

With the safety of our students, faculty and staff as our top concern, we made the decision this morning to identify an instructor who will take over the one course that Mr. Klinzman was to have taught this semester. We have spoken with Mr. Klinzman this afternoon about this matter and have accepted his resignation.

I understand that our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom may be supported by some and criticized by others. I also understand that in today’s climate, some may use this decision to support broader arguments about free speech on college campuses. That’s why I want to be very clear with you the reasoning behind this decision.

It is Kirkwood leadership’s assessment that the attention this matter has garnered has the potential to create an environment that is disruptive to our mission. Our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom has nothing to do with the substance of his views or his right to express them. Rather, our decision is based solely on our commitment to fostering a safe learning environment for our students, faculty and staff.

I also want to be clear that Kirkwood Community College fully supports Mr. Klinzman’s right to articulate his views in whatever forum he chooses. This action does not in any way prevent him from continuing to engage in the expression of free speech. However, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy, or hampers our ability to deliver on our mission, we will always do what is necessary in service to our students’ pursuit of a higher education.

Campus Reform points out that in her statement, President Sundberg’s reference to “our decision to remove Mr. Klinzman from the classroom” suggests Klinzman’s resignation was not voluntary. Indeed, The Iowa Standard reports that “According to a comment left on a post by Iowa Antifa, former Kirkwood Community College professor Jeff Klinzman said he resigned at Kirkwood’s request.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Yale U. professor: Darwinian theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of species

In a recent article published in the Spring 2019 issue of the Claremont Review of Books, David Gelernter, professor of computer science at Yale University, maintains that the Darwinian theory of evolution is not just accepted as “settled truth,” it is “the basis of a worldview” and a “replacement religion”.

The problem is this: Although called a “theory,” Darwinism is not a scientific theory because it neither predicts nor explains what it means to explain, which is the actual origin of species, because:

  1. Darwinian evolution is “gradual, step by step” as new life forms evolve gradually from old ones “in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life.” However, fossils of those predecessors of new life forms cannot be found. Instead, the fossil record shows the opposite: “In general, most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” During the Cambrian explosion of around half a billion years ago, for example, the fossil record shows that a striking variety of new organisms — including the first-ever animals — just “popped up suddenly”.
  2. At the molecular biology level, according to Darwinism, evolution is the consequence, over millions of years, of small good-for-survival (“natural selection”) mutations to genetic information within cells which are passed on to the next generation(s), thus changing the future of the species. Inventing a new gene by mutation requires inventing or creating a new protein. But it has been calculated that the mathematical odds of creating a new protein stable enough to be useful are zero, which means that the odds of producing “a single promising mutation in the whole history of life” is also zero. 

Gelernter concludes that “The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer.” That intelligent designer did not act just once, but “interferes repeatedly,” which suggests (what Thomas Aquinas called) “the first cause” must have a purpose — “some sense of the big picture of life on earth.”

David Gelernter

Below are excerpts from Gelernter’s essay, “Giving Up Darwinism“:

Darwinian evolution is . . . basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?

Like so many others, I grew up with Darwin’s theory, and had always believed it was true….

Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption—all life-forms descend from a common ancestor—and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection . . . conceived to be operating blindly over hundreds of millions of years….

Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer…. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

Meyer doesn’t only demolish Darwin; he defends a replacement theory, intelligent design (I.D.) … [but]  never uses religious arguments, draws religious conclusions, or refers to religion in any way….

Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one….

Darwin himself had reservations about his theory, shared by some of the most important biologists of his time. And the problems that worried him have only grown more substantial over the decades. In the famous “Cambrian explosion” of around half a billion years ago, a striking variety of new organisms—including the first-ever animals—pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a mere 70-odd million years. This great outburst followed many hundreds of millions of years of slow growth and scanty fossils, mainly of single-celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and half billion years ago.

Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated…. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.

But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting—and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.

The trunk was supposed to branch into many different species, each species giving rise to many genera, and towards the top of the tree you would find so much diversity that you could distinguish separate phyla—the large divisions (sponges, mosses, mollusks, chordates, and so on) that comprise the kingdoms of animals, plants, and several others—take your pick. But, as Berlinski points out, the fossil record shows the opposite: “representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification on those basic themes.” In general, “most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged.” The incremental development of new species is largely not there. Those missing pre-Cambrian organisms have still not turned up.

Some researchers have guessed that those missing Precambrian precursors were too small or too soft-bodied to have made good fossils. Meyer notes that fossil traces of ancient bacteria and single-celled algae have been discovered: smallness per se doesn’t mean that an organism can’t leave fossil traces…. The story is similar for soft-bodied organisms…many fossils of soft-bodied organisms and body parts do exist. Precambrian fossil deposits have been discovered in which tiny, soft-bodied embryo sponges are preserved—but no predecessors to the celebrity organisms of the Cambrian explosion.

This sort of negative evidence can’t ever be conclusive. But the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified….

Darwin’s main problem, however, is molecular biology. There was no such thing in his own time. We now see from inside what he could only see from outside….

Darwin’s theory is simple to grasp…variation occurs naturally among individuals of the same type—white or black sheep…. A sheep born with extra-warm wool will presumably do better at surviving a rough Scottish winter than his normal-wooled friends. Such a sheep would be more likely than normal sheep to live long enough to mate, and pass on its superior trait to the next generation. Over millions of years, small good-for-survival variations accumulate, and eventually (says Darwin) you have a brand new species….

[M]olecular biology…explains (it doesn’t merely cite) natural variation, as the consequence of random change or mutation to the genetic information within cells that deal with reproduction. Those cells can pass genetic change onward to the next generation, thus changing—potentially—the future of the species and not just one individual’s career….

But what does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it. Only if… Darwinian evolution is creative enough to do that is it capable of creating new life-forms and pushing evolution forward….

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene…. Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA….

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon…. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution….

Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge…. He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words…The odds bury you. It can’t be done…. The odds against blind Darwinian chance having turned up even one mutation with the potential to push evolution forward are 1040x(1/1077)—1040 tries, where your odds of success each time are 1 in 1077—which equals 1 in 1037. In practical terms, those odds are still zero. Zero odds of producing a single promising mutation in the whole history of life. Darwin loses….

You don’t turn up a useful protein merely by doodling on the back of an envelope, any more than you write a Mozart aria by assembling three sheets of staff paper and scattering notes around. Profound biochemical knowledge is somehow, in some sense, captured in every description of a working protein. Where on earth did it all come from?….

There are many other problems besides proteins. One of the most basic, and the last I’ll mention here, calls into question the whole idea of gene mutations driving macro-evolution—the emergence of new forms of organism, versus mere variation on existing forms.

To help create a brand new form of organism, a mutation must affect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play later on as the organism grows. But mutations to these early-acting “strategic” genes, which create the big body-plan changes required by macro-evolution, seem to be invariably fatal. They kill off the organism long before it can reproduce. This is common sense. Severely deformed creatures don’t ever seem fated to lead the way to glorious new forms of life. Instead, they die young….

Meyer explains: “genes that are obviously variable within natural populations seem to affect only minor aspects of form and function—while those genes that govern major changes, the very stuff of macroevolution, apparently do not vary or vary only to the detriment of the organism.”….

Darwin would easily have understood that minor mutations are common but can’t create significant evolutionary change; major mutations are rare and fatal….

The exceptional intricacy of living things, and their elaborate mechanisms for fitting precisely into their natural surroundings, seemed to cry out for an intelligent designer…now that we understand so much cellular biology, and the impossibly long odds facing any attempt to design proteins by chance, or assemble the regulatory mechanisms that control the life cycle of a cell….

If Meyer were invoking a single intervention by an intelligent designer at the invention of life, or of consciousness, or rationality, or self-aware consciousness, the idea might seem more natural. But then we still haven’t explained the Cambrian explosion. An intelligent designer who interferes repeatedly, on the other hand, poses an even harder problem of explaining why he chose to act when he did. Such a cause would necessarily have some sense of the big picture of life on earth. What was his strategy? How did he manage to back himself into so many corners, wasting energy on so many doomed organisms? Granted, they might each have contributed genes to our common stockpile—but could hardly have done so in the most efficient way. What was his purpose? And why did he do such an awfully slipshod job? Why are we so disease prone, heartbreak prone, and so on? An intelligent designer makes perfect sense in the abstract. The real challenge is how to fit this designer into life as we know it. Intelligent design might well be the ultimate answer. But as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

NeoMcCarthyism: University of California has a new ‘diversity’ political test for faculty hires and promotion

In 1950, the California Legislature created a McCarthyite Committee on Un-American Activities and enacted the Levering Act, requiring all state employees to sign “loyalty oaths” but specifically aimed at the University of California’s faculty. 31 tenured professors were fired for refusing to sign it.

In 1967, California’s Supreme Court voted 6-1 declaring the Levering Act to be unconstitutional.

Fast forward 52 years.

Now it is the Left who are engaged in the same McCarthyism that they decry. The unconstitutional Levering Act has returned in a new University of California (UC) policy requiring new faculty hires as well as applicants for promotion to pass a political test of the Left.

Dan Walters writes in CalMatters.org, July 30, 2019, that although UC’s Board of Regents officially declares that “No political test shall ever be considered in the appointment and promotion of any faculty member or employee,” a new UC policy is doing exactly that.

As part of its “commitment to diversity and excellence,” UC’s administrators are telling recruiters for faculty positions to take “pro-active steps to seek out candidates committed to diversity, equity and inclusion.” Applicants for new faculty employment and promotions must submit “diversity statements” that will be scored “with rubrics provided by Academic Affairs”. Only applicants who achieve a scoring cutoff will be be considered.

To illustrate, the academic affairs department at UC-Davis says that diversity statements from tenure-track faculty applicants should have “an accomplished track record…of teaching, research or service activities addressing the needs of African-American, Latino, Chicano, Hispanic and Native American students or communities.” Their statements must “indicate awareness” of those communities and “the negative consequences of underutilization” and “provide a clearly articulated vision” of how their work at UC-Davis would advance diversity policies.

Jeffrey Flier, former director of the Harvard Medical School, is among the respected academics who see the inherent contradictions and perils in UC’s new political litmus test. Flier wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

As a supporter of the original goals of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, my skepticism toward this policy surprised a number of friends and colleagues. But it is entirely inappropriate to require diversity statements in the process of appointment and promotion. Such requirements risk introducing a political litmus test into faculty hiring and reviews.

It’s not unreasonable to be concerned that politically influenced attestations might begin to re-emerge in the current hyperpartisan political environment, either in response to politically driven demands for faculty to support populist or nationalist ideas, or from within the increasingly polarized academy itself. Since progressive/left identifications are dominant in the academy, especially in the humanities and social sciences (as well as in administration), politically influenced litmus tests could easily arise in that sphere.

Ironically, given its already overwhelmingly liberal faculty, University of California’s new “diversity” litmus test would only make the faculty even less ideologically diverse and more totalitarian.

H/t California Political Review

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Colorado State U. language guide: America, American, male, female among words to avoid

The Left’s language police is busy in taxpayer-funded Colorado State University, in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Ethan Cai reports for Campus Reform, July 17, 2019, that the Inclusive Communications Task Force of Colorado State University (CSU) compiled an  Inclusive Language Guide, listing a slew of words and phrases to avoid, and appropriate replacements. The ostensible purpose of the guide is to help “communicators practice inclusive language and [help] everyone on [its] campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.”

CSU denied that the Inclusive Language Guide is an official policy, required practice, political correctness, or grammar policing, but claims the Guide is merely “intended as a resource to help our campus community reflect our Principles of Community, particularly inclusion, respect, and social justice” and to help “everyone on our campus feel welcomed, respected, and valued.”

Below are some “non-inclusive” words to avoid:

  • “America” and “American”: The guide claims that since America is more than just the United States, referring to the U.S. as America “erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.” The CSU guide suggests using “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” instead of “American(s)”.
  • Gendered words and phrases to avoid include “male”, “female”, “ladies” and “gentlemen”, “Mr./Mrs./Ms.”.
  • “Straight”: According to the CSU language guide, the term “straight” when used to describe heterosexuals “implies that anyone LGBT is ‘crooked’ or not normal”.
  • The term “normal person” should be avoided because it “implies that ‘other’ people… are not whole or regular people.”
  • “Handicap parking” should also not be used because it offends disabled people by “minimizing personhood”. Instead of “handicap parking,” use the term “accessible parking”.
  • Other offensive words and phrases to avoid are “war”,  “cake walk”, “eenie meenie miney moe”, “Eskimo”, “freshman”, “hip hip hooray!”, “hold down the fort”, “starving” and “policeman”.

Aaron Allen, a third-year student at CSU, said: “What about the term ‘African-American’? Should I not use that term to describe myself?”

Azhar Majeed, spokesman for the free speech advocacy nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Campus Reform that while “it is possible that the speech of some students will be chilled if they are confused into thinking that the document represents official policy of the university . . . I think it would be unlikely that any student carefully reading the guide would be mistaken and led to believe they could face disciplinary action for their speech.”

If we go by precedents, despite Majeed’s assurance, CSU students have every reason to fear there would be “disciplinary” consequences if they refuse to abide by the Inclusive Language Guide. See:

Indeed, Nicole Neily, president of Speech First, points out that “even though these guidelines are suggested and not mandatory, they place students in the uncomfortable position of reciting politically correct talking points that they may not agree with. Words like ‘American,’ ‘male,’ and ‘female’ are used every day by billions of people around the world. When these students graduate, they’re in for a rude awakening!”

In a statement to Campus Reform, CSU spokesman Mike Hooker said:

The version that Campus Reform, the Collegian, and one of our employees have shared online was a preliminary draft that was still under construction/revision back in October when the student newspaper posted it, and the language in question was removed before the document was finalized and released in January by the people who wrote it. Attached is the final version of this guide which was created as a resource for members of the CSU staff who had specifically requested this guidance. The old (October) link from the Collegian which you have in your original story from Wednesday was the preliminary draft that was still under discussion among internal members of the involved group.  The preliminary draft was also posted by a CSU employee for discussion purposes back in the fall (not the final attached here that the people working on it eventually agreed on in January) and it never got taken down.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

American Psychological Association to promote adultery, swinging & orgies

Psychology is already at best a soft, if not outright pseudo, science.

Now the American Psychological Association (APA) is venturing into the non-scientific, non-empirical domain of morality by giving their approval to adulterers, swingers, and orgiasts.

In 1985, “a group of pioneering LGB psychologists and their allies” at the APA founded Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian and Gay Issues, for an explicitly nonscientific, political reason. Div. 44’s mission states:

Div. 44 (SPSOGD) is committed to advancing social justice in all its activities. The Society celebrates the diversity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and gender nonconforming and queer people….

Div. 44 has over 1,500 members, and “represents” all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 11 foreign countries “on every inhabited continent.”

The latest Div. 44 initiative is the Consensual Non-Monogramy Task Force, the goal of which is to “promote awareness and inclusivity about consensual non-monogamy and diverse expressions of intimate relationships. These include but are not limited to: people who practice polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical, non-monogamous relationships.”

The AMA task force’s justification for its promotion of open marriages, orgies (“polyamory“: “the practice of having sexual or romantic relationships with two or more people at the same time”), swinging, and “relationship anarchy” (whatever that is) is that everyone should have the “liberty” to find “love and/or sexual intimacy” without “social and medical stigmatization”.

The goal of the task force is to “generate” (pseudo-scientific) research and disseminate propaganda — “advocate for the inclusion of consensual non-monogamous relationships in the following four areas”:

  • Basic and applied research
  • Education and training
  • Psychological practice
  • Public interest

In other words, the American Psychological Association intends to use pseudo-science to promote adultery, swinging and orgies in schools/universities (“education”), in the offices of psychologists, and in the media (“public interest”).

You are forewarned.

H/t The Daily Signal

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Sunday Devotional: I am sending you like lambs among wolves

Luke 10:1-12, 16

At that time the Lord appointed seventy-two others
whom he sent ahead of him in pairs
to every town and place he intended to visit.
He said to them,
“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few;
so ask the master of the harvest
to send out laborers for his harvest.
Go on your way;
behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves.
Carry no money bag, no sack, no sandals;
and greet no one along the way.
Into whatever house you enter, first say,
‘Peace to this household.’
If a peaceful person lives there,
your peace will rest on him;
but if not, it will return to you.
Stay in the same house
and eat and drink what is offered to you,
for the laborer deserves his payment.
Do not move about from one house to another.
Whatever town you enter and they welcome you,
eat what is set before you,
cure the sick in it and say to them,
‘The kingdom of God is at hand for you.’
Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you,
go out into the streets and say,
‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet,
even that we shake off against you.’
Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.
I tell you,
it will be more tolerable for Sodom
on that day than for that town….
Whoever listens to you listens to me.
Whoever rejects you rejects me.
And whoever rejects me
rejects the one who sent me.”

Our Lord said: “I am sending you like lambs among wolves.

He also warned us: “And you will be hated by everyone because of my name” (Mark 13:13) and “If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you” (John 15:18).

So it shouldn’t surprise us that Christians are being persecuted across the world and even in First-Amendment America:

But for enduring the world’s hatred and persecution, we are told to “rejoice” because “your names are written in heaven”. (Luke 10:18) As Jeremiah 17:7-8 says:

Thus says the LORD:
Blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD,
whose hope is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted beside the waters
that stretches out its roots to the stream:
it fears not the heat when it comes;
its leaves stay green;
in the year of drought it shows no distress,
but still bears fruit.

Be strong!

See also “Without baptism, we are abandoned to the wolves”.

May the peace and love of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you,

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

School expels student for saying there are only 2 genders, male & female

Remember my post of June 17, on a teacher kicking a student out of class for saying there are only two genders, male and female?

The student took this video of the confrontation with the teacher (you can read a transcript of the confrontation here):

According to YouTuber Lyndron Perry, aka I,Hypocrite, who first publicized the above video on Reddit, which then quickly went viral, the student’s name is Murray. He’s 17 years old, in his last year of high school, and the school is in Scotland.

It is said the school is Mearns Academy, a 6-year secondary (high) school in Laurencekirk, Aberdeenshire, Scotland.

In a Skype call on July 1, Murray said the high school first suspended him for one week for recording the teacher, then extended the suspension by another two weeks. The school assured him he could return after the suspension when the media hub-bub would have subsided, provided Murray refrain from contacting or speaking to the press.

Although Murray complied with the school’s prohibition against speaking to the press, after the three-week suspension, the school expelled Murray.

H/t Voat

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Sunday Devotional: You were called for freedom!

Galatians 5:1, 13-18

Brothers and sisters:
For freedom Christ set us free;
so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.

For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters.
But do not use this freedom
as an opportunity for the flesh;
rather, serve one another through love.
For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement,
namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
But if you go on biting and devouring one another,
beware that you are not consumed by one another.

I say, then: live by the Spirit
and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. 
For the flesh has desires against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh;
these are opposed to each other,
so that you may not do what you want.
But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters…so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.”

Let those words ring in your ears, and in the ears of all despots, in America and across the world, who are bent on imposing their will and dicta on us, always cloaked in the cover of “good” intentions, whether they be the Marxist false siren of utopian communism, or the neo-Marxist “climate change” save-the-world cultists, or the LGBT-pronoun cultural-Marxists of ivory-tower academe.

For our freedom comes not from men, but from God. As it is said in Sirach 15:14, 16:

God in the beginning created human beings
and made them subject to their own free choice….
Set before you are fire and water;
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.

Thomas Aquinas conceived an act of free will to be any thought, word, deed, desire, or omission that comes from a person acting with full knowledge of what s/he is doing, “who is free to act or to refrain from action, and who gives the full assent of his will to the act.”¹ The essence of free will, therefore, is choice—the favoring of one thing and the eschewal of another—informed by reason.

But God’s supreme gift of free will does not mean license, the freedom to break rules or principles, to “do as thou wilt” — that first temptation “to be as gods” whispered by the serpent in the first Garden. As Sirach 15:17-20 reminds us:

Before man are life and death, good and evil,
whichever he chooses shall be given him.
Immense is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power, and all-seeing.
The eyes of God are on those who fear him;
he understands man’s every deed.
No one does he command to act unjustly,
to none does he give license to sin.

The gift of free will is terrifying, for when it is exercised to evil, the consequences are disastrous.

Terrifying though it is, free will is given to humans (and angels) because only by freely electing to believe in, obey, honor, and love God do the preceding acts have authenticity and meaning. For what good is a love that is coerced? As St. Thomas put it, “Man has free will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards and punishments would be in vain.”²

Choose wisely! Choose to be good.

Psalm 119:1-5, 10

Blessed those whose way is blameless,
who walk by the law of the LORD.
Blessed those who keep his testimonies,
who seek him with all their heart.
They do no wrong;
they walk in his ways.
You have given them the command
to observe your precepts with care.
May my ways be firm
in the observance of your statutes!
With all my heart I seek you;
do not let me stray from your commandments.

May the love and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

~Eowyn


¹Paul J. Glenn, A Tour of the Summa (Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1978), p. 99.
²Summa Theologia of St. Thomas Aquinas, Volume One (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), p. 418.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Teacher kicks student from class for saying there are only two genders

“O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. ‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’ ‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?'” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

On June 14, 2019, someone on Reddit posted a link, since deleted, to a video on YouTube, with this claim: “My teacher kicked me out of class for saying there are only 2 genders“. Fortunately, I’d saved the link to the video before the Reddit poster deleted it.

The video appears to have been taken by the student of his private meeting with the teacher after the teacher had kicked the student out of the class for insisting that there are only two genders, male and female.

The video shows a visual of the teacher looming over the seated student. You can hear the back-and-forth argument between the two.

The video begins with the teacher responding to the student: “You’re entitled to your opinion…. It’s not very inclusive…. I’m sorry, but what you were saying was not very inclusive and this is an inclusive school.”

The student apparently had defended himself by saying he got it from a website.

Teacher: “I’m saying that website has an agenda.”

Student: “Well, that’s your opinion.”

Teacher: “That is my opinion and that is an opinion which is acceptable in the school….”

Student: “There are just two genders.”

Teacher: “You are choosing to make an issue of this…. Keep quiet! …You were clearly given an opportunity not to pursue it. You choose to do so.”

Student: “Yeah, because I think it’s –”

Teacher: “You choose to do so.”

Student: “I think it’s silly to have anything other than two genders –”

Teacher, raising his voice: “Please keep that opinion to your own house, thank you.”

Student: “So you get to put your opinion out in the classroom….”

Teacher: “I’m not putting my opinion out. I am stating what is national school authority policy. Okay?”

Student: “Of course it’s not scientic whatsoever.”

Teacher: “Not every policy is scientific, sorry. Not every policy is scientific, buddy.” The teacher again points out that the student wasn’t being “inclusive”.

Student: “You can’t come out here and say that I’m not being inclusive.”

Teacher: “I said what you just said [was not inclusive]….”

Student says, as the teacher turns away: “If you want to have a discussion about it, we could have done it — had a discussion. You don’t have to kick me out of class…. I state something I believe in and you kicked me out of class. For 30 minutes I’m waiting….”

Teacher: “You can make an official complaint.”

Student: “I’m not gonna make an official complaint….”

Teacher: “I know what you think and I know what the authority thinks, the authority’s point of view. I know very clear that we make no discrimination on the grounds of gender….”

Student: “I wasn’t making a discrimination, I’m simply saying there are two genders, male and female. Anything else is a personal identification.”

Teacher: “I’m sorry, but you chose to make an issue of making a point which is contrary to policy.”

Student: “You made the issue when you complained about the website, sir. And I responded by saying there are only two genders.”

Teacher: “Yeah, you can choose, but you’re making bad choices.”

Student says, as the teacher walks out of the room: “I’m making bad choices. Okay. Well, can I take my bag and go to the…. Okay, I’ll stay here. Thanks for wasting my time.”

The teacher turns back to say: “Buddy, I am not wasting my time, you are.”


No one knows where the video was taken. The teacher has a strong Scottish accent; the student also has one, though much less pronounced.

Assuming the school is in Scotland, when the teacher refers to “national school authority policy,” he probably means this — on May 8, 2019, the Scottish government issued the letter, “LGBT inclusive education: guidance to education authorities May 2019“. The letter says:

On 8 November 2018, Scottish Ministers accepted in full the recommendations of the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group. The 33 recommendations cover the professional learning of teachers, practice and guidance, school inspections and anti-bullying….

The Scottish Government, in partnership with COSLA, is committed, through the delivery of the recommendations, to a fully inclusive education for Scotland’s children and young people. Many of you will already be taking steps to achieve this aim. We are issuing this intermediate guidance note to help you build upon existing good practice, make clear that education should be LGBT inclusive and encourage you to work collegiately and in partnership with your learners to enhance LGBT inclusivity….

Signed:

John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
Stephen McCabe, COSLA Children and Young People spokesperson

WTF does “education should be LGBT inclusive” mean? Does it mean acceding to every lunatic idea of the Left?

Someone on Twitter says the school in the video is Mearns Academy, a 6-year secondary (high) school in Laurencekirk, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. On its website is an emblem certifying the school as a “rights respecting school”:

By “rights” is meant the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child  (UNCRC). Among the “rights” stipulated in the UNCRC are the “right” of non-discrimination on the basis of gender, but also the “rights” of freedom of expression, and freedom of thought and belief.

Clearly, the school in the video and all schools in Scotland do not include a respect for students’ right to freedom of thought, belief and expression among its “national school authority policy”.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0