The Problem with Globalism

Globalism is ideologically driven. The philosophy at the heart of globalism is utopianism. It is the same philosophy that drove Communists in the 20th century, and it's the same philosophy that drives globalism. There is an innate desire to return to Eden, but they are trying to do so without God and they will fail. This is why all man-made utopias are Satanic in nature.

Just from a practical standpoint, world government has the same inherit flaws as big government. The larger government gets the more it demands from its citizens, and the more freedoms it takes away for the sake of the state. The concentration of powers makes it more prone to abuse. That is why our Founding Fathers created the separation of powers. The separation of powers at the national and local level, combined with individual sovereignty, are the greatest obstacles and opposition to tyranny. With a world government there are no such checks and balances. In World War 2 a dictator like Hitler was stopped by individual nations working together. But there is no one to stop such a dictator should he arise in a world government, and this is exactly what will happen.

There is also something to be said of disunity. In the 16th century, Europe was broken up into hundreds of city states. But it was this disunity that created competition and economic growth that was unrivaled anywhere in the world. It's what drove the West to dominate the rest of the world for the last 400 years. Compare this with the single monolithic empire of China. At one point in history China was poised to dominate the world, but they closed off trade and became stagnate. And compare this with ancient Rome. The Roman empire was an inferior version of Greek civilization whose only significant invention was concrete. There was no real growth because the empire sucked up all available resources to sustain it. The fall of Rome was actually a blessing in disguise for the West.

The point being disunity is actually more beneficial to growth, progress, and prosperity than any empire, or world government. And with world government it's strength is also its greatest weakness. Everything is so interconnected that a weakness in one part adversely effects everyone else. It's like Christmas tree lights, when one light goes out they all go out. So when world government fails, everyone fails.

The Problem with Equality, Redux Edition

“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.” —Alexis de Tocqueville

Today equality comes in many forms: diversity, multiculturalism, LGBT rights, political correctness, and so on. No matter the form equality is deeply rooted in Marxism, although it has broadened in use and application from the days of Marx and Engels. In theory, equality sounds good. Who doesn’t want to make things equal and seemingly fair for all? Yet, in practice equality is deeply flawed, and creates more problems than it solves. Lets look at the various ways in which equality actually creates more inequality, and problems where problems did not exist before.

Gender equality
The Left has been on an unholy crusade to abolish masculinity and femininity as they see these as social constructs. In their worldview, men and women must be equal in all respects, even if it means denying reality. Nothing exemplifies this more than what has become of women’s sports. Female trans-athletes, that is biological males, have been dominating against biological female athletes. The reasons should be obvious. Biological males have certain physical advantages that no amount of hormones or surgery will negate. So how is this fair to the other female athletes? You see to make something equal, you have to make something else unequal, which ultimately defeats the whole point.

In reality, equality doesn’t exist in nature. Some people are taller than others, some are stronger, some are smarter, and so on. Life isn’t fair, but that’s the way it is. However, we all have individual strengths and weakness that makes us unique and ultimately complimentary to one another. But since equality is not natural, it must be forced through coercion. Forced equality ultimately erodes personal freedoms and becomes antithetical to a free society.

Marriage equality
Lets consider what marriage equality has done to marriage. In order for same-sex marriage to be legitimatized it meant marriage had to be redefined. In doing so it opened Pandora’s Box for marriage to be redefined indefinitely. And if marriage can mean anything to anyone, it no longer means nothing.

Legitimizing same sex marriage also created a host of new problems that didn’t exist before. Consider the cake bakers who did not wish to contribute to same-sex marriages out of their religious convictions. Note that their contention was not that they would not bake a cake for homosexuals, only that they did not wish to contribute to their weddings. These bakers then became liable to lawsuits to force them to comply. Photographers, florists, and other business were also targeted. In another example of equality causing other inequalities, homosexuals gained a right to marry, while people of faith lost a right to disagree with it. The biggest blow has been that of religious freedoms in general.

Economic equality
Perhaps no greater damage has equality done than to that of economics. Socialists believe that wealth should be distributed equally. That no one should be wealthy, because that is unfair to the poor. In actuality, such as system creates a greater degree of inequality by eliminating the middle class and making everyone equally poor. You are left with a small elite class ruling over the impoverished majority.

The problem with socialism is it does not cooperate with human nature. If the haves are forced to share with the have-nots, it kills ambition and drive. The have-nots have no incentive to work hard since they are guaranteed a slice of the pie regardless, and the haves will not work hard since the fruits of their labor will be given away anyways. Ultimately, it breeds mediocrity, and collapses under its own weight.

On the other hand, capitalism cooperates with human nature by offering incentives. In fact, inequality is necessary for a healthy economy. If we’re all equal and can be never be anything more, what is there to work towards? Free markets guarantees equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

Capitalists have been accused of being greedy, but greed is a product of human nature not of capitalism. Capitalism actually harnesses those less desirable human traits like greed and laziness into products and services that benefit mankind. As Winston Churchill put it, ”Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried. Capitalism is no different from anything else in this world. It is imperfect because imperfect men created it. Humans are not perfect, nor are they capable of perfection. Avarice and greed are not unique to capitalism (they are products of human nature). They were present in the USSR, and they will be present in any man-made system.”

Cultural & moral relativism
Cultural relativism is another form of equality. Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another. To the cultural relativist, all cultures are created equal. To them the United States is no better than Sudan or Libya, where slavery is still practiced today.

Herein lies another flaw of equality. For all things to be made equal, there can be no difference between right and wrong, or good and evil. There can be no truth or moral absolutes, everything has to be subjective and relative. Good has to be equal with evil, and evil equal with good. What’s left is a society where ethics and morality are based upon social norms and public consensus that are forever changing.

There can be no justice with cultural & moral equality. For it would be impossible to judge someone justly because what is right for one person is wrong for another, and vice versa. With cultural relativism it would be impossible to judge someone like Hitler for the Holocaust. This also highlights the reason morality must be based on a higher power, and not on human whim that changes like the breeze.

Diversity
Diversity is an example of applied equality that seems fair on the surface, but is not. Diversity seeks to include people from different ethnic and social backgrounds. However, it does this at the expense of alienating other ethnicities, namely Caucasians and to a lesser extent Asians.

The problems with diversity are many. No longer are people chosen based upon character and merit, but something superficial as the color of their skin. It encourages polarization as different ethnic groups have to compete with one another, creating tribalism, which always invites conflict.

Multiculturalism is a subset of diversity. It too seeks cultural equality by alienating the host culture, often by being antagonistic towards it. Ultimately, diversity doesn’t create unity but the exact opposite. What’s more important than diversity is having a common culture with shared values and beliefs. Only with a melting pot does peace and prosperity prevail for all.

The only true equality
In the end, the only equality we are guaranteed is equality under the law, and equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. There is, however, something better than equality and that is fairness. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are in fact two separate things. Equality, because it does not come natural, must be forced by taking away something from somebody else. The scales will be balanced, but it is hardly fair to those whose rights, freedoms, wages were given away to somebody else.

True fairness, on the other hand, affords everyone the same opportunities equally. It does not guarantee anything, only provides the means for everyone to obtain it. For example, in a fair society everyone has the opportunity to become wealthy, but not everyone will become wealthy. It is dependent on many factors, including the life choices we make. Being fair is not always fair, but it does guarantee a free and prosperous society. In the words of Milton Friedman, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

How to spot an SJW movie

I’ve watched as social justice warriors (SJWs), aka cultural Marxists, have slowly taken over the entertainment industry from games, to comic books, and now movies. Over the years I have observed their methods and tactics. The way they think and the way they act. I’ve come up with seven ways how to spot an SJW movie:

1) A strong emphasis on feminismLead characters are often portrayed as feminist. Ironically, they often have very masculine traits. The women are always strong, aggressive, and courageous. They are what’s been termed Mary Sues, they have no character flaws and are good at everything, even beating up men twice their size without breaking a sweat. Conversely, male characters are often portrayed as weak and inept so as to not overshadow their female counterparts.

2) Identity politicsPolitics have always been in movies, though generally not real world politics unless it was integral to the story. However, what’s changed is the focus on identity politics, which is pandering to specific groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, politics, etc. to the detriment of everyone else. Identity politics are added to SJW movies rather it is integral to the plot or not.

3) Politics before profitsSJWs will always put politics before profits because they are anti-capitalists. The most important thing to them is not how much money they make, but using movies to push their agenda and spread their message. To that end, they attach themselves to franchises that are already successful, because otherwise they know no one would buy what they're selling.

4) Bolshevik marketingBolshevik marketing is when they give the audience what they think they should want, and not what they actually want.

5) Gender, race, and sexuality swappingThe gender, race, and sexuality is often changed in long established characters to pander to various groups, even though they don’t represent the core audience. Hence, there is a strong emphasis on diversity. It’s gotten so bad that even characters set in medieval Europe are portrayed by black actors. This also highlights the use of revisionist history in SJW movies.

6) Attacking the audienceThe old adage the customer is always right is no longer true. When an SJW movie is rightly criticized for identity politics or for just being plain old bad, the writers, directors, producers, even actors are not above attacking their own audience. They routinely call their fans racist, sexist, or whatever ist and phobe they can think of.

7) Enviable declineWith the emphasis on political correctness, originality and creativity take a back seat. Is it any wonder then we see so many sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes. SJWs are incapable of creating good content. Combined with alienating and attacking their own fan base and decline is enviable. The saying get woke go broke is true. When an audience is disenfranchised they will seek out alternatives. An example of this is the once flourishing comic book industry, which has been hijacked by SJWs to the point where it is on the verge of collapse.

What is happening in movies may seem trivial at first. But in many ways the decline of entertainment is a reflection of the decline of Western civilization. It’s not just movies either, but it’s apparent in our art, music, architecture, and culture at large. Movies are just the latest front in the culture war. It’s important because as the late Andrew Breitbart pointed out, “Politics is downstream from culture". The cultural Marxists understood this, which is way they have infiltrated every influential organization including academia, media, entertainment, and politics. The best thing we can do is to not fund them, and find alternatives. This is especially true when it comes to SJW movies.

More on Climate Change

I believe in change change: summer, fall, winter, spring. This climate is changing and always has been, that's nothing new. It goes through cycles and extremes. For example, a period of unusually warm weather from about 800 to 1250 was followed by centuries of extreme cold, known as the little ice age from 1300 to 1850. In 1816 a volcano eruption was responsible for a year without a summer that resulted in major food shortages in the northern hemisphere. The ancient city of Ephesus was once built on the coastline, but is now is five miles inland. If there's one thing we can learn from history is that (climate) change is inevitable.

There are things which affect our climate which we have no control over, such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. We have only been keeping records for 150 years or so, the last 20-30 being the most reliable, and cannot determine what is normal. But what we have gleamed from the past is that climate has always fluctuated and always had extremes. This has led to mass extinctions in the past as well, all without man's intervention.

True science is never settled. We have observed so-called "crises" in the past: a new ice age, acid rain, ozone layer deterioration. Funny how you never hear about those things anymore. Even the term global warming is outdated in favor of "climate change". But there are people who are using climate to push an agenda. Here's what a Soviet disinformation expert had to say:

"Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack
against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment
may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to
undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to
introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting
communist values. -Natalie Grant Wraga"

One of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has said as much. He left the group because it had been hijacked by radicals to promote a Communist agenda. Green is very much the new red.

I would add that scientists are not perfect. They are human, and like all humans they can be wrong, and their views can be skewed by agendas, ideologies, and group-think. I'll leave you a really good example of this with a quote by Micheal Crichton:

"This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians, and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H.G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort. They were, of course, supporting eugenics. -From: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous, Michael Crichton, 2004."

The Dark Agenda of the LGBT

That time of year is upon us once again. Pride Month is in full swing as rainbow colors are prominently displayed to inescapable proportions. In recent decades the LGBT has transformed itself into a socio-political movement, exacting tremendous influence in politics, academia, entertainment, and the culture at large. But there is a seedy dark agenda at work that many people are unwittingly supporting. To uncover this, we will take a look at a few LGBT pioneers to discover the common threads that unite them:

Irwin Allen Ginsberg was a gay activist who influenced the counterculture revolution of the 60s and 70s. He was an avowed Communist who admired Fidel Castro and promoted drug use. He was also a supporter and member of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). He said, “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance. . . . I’m a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too — everybody does, who has a little humanity.”

Harvey Milk was a prominent gay activist who has been venerated in the gay community. He challenged activist Gilbert Baker to design a symbol for the 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade, and the rainbow flag was born. In California Harvey Milk Day is recognized as a day of special significance for public schools. The irony is that Harvey was guilty of statutory rape of teenage boys. It’s no surprise then he was also a supporter of NAMBLA. Harvey himself began having trysts with grown men beginning at the age of eleven. It’s also a little known fact that he associated with cult leader Jim Jones, who later compelled his followers to commit mass suicide.

Larry Kramer is an LGBT rights advocate and author who financed the Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies at Yale University from 2001-2006 at a time when such studies were viewed with skepticism by academia. Karmer is also a supporter of NAMBLA. In a 2004 speech he spoke of a “sweet young boy who didn’t know anything and was in awe of me. I was the first man who [had sex with] him. I think I murdered him”. The implication here is that Kramer may have spread HIV to him, which he discovered he had contracted in 1988.

Henry “Harry” Hay was a prominent American gay rights activists and Founder of the Radical Faeries, which blended new age spiritualism, anarchism, and paganism. He was also an avowed communist, Marxist, and socialist. He supported the inclusion of NAMBLA in gay rights marches.

Emma Goldman is accredited with being one of the first woman to advocate for homosexuals long before the general public. She was also a Communist and anarchist who promoted violence.

Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which first advocated for homosexual and transgender rights. He was a liberal, humanist, and socialist.

David Thorstad is a communist, socialist, and homosexual rights activist. He is also a founding member of NAMBLA.

Alfred Kinsey was a sexologist, among other things, who is accredited with launching the sexual revolution and changing social and cultural values in the United States and abroad. Kinsey was, in a word, a pervert. He wanted to erase all moral boundaries under the guise of pseudo-science, and his personal life reflected this.

Kinsey was a homosexual sado-masochist who “pleasured” himself by ramming large objects (like toothbrushes, bristle-end first) into his urethra while squeezing his testicles with a rope (yes, really). He frequently had sex with his male colleagues, and traded wives. He regularly used his own wife for all manner of deviance for the camera at his Institute for Sex Research, which he founded in 1947.

In one of his reports, he affirms pre-adolescent sexuality using data collected from men who had sexual contact with younger boys. Kinsey was happy to report that his statistics showed babies as young as four to five months had the capacity to achieve repeated orgasms in a limited period of time. He conjectured that if the moral restrictions against pedophilia were dropped, that rapid orgasm rates of pre-adolescents would be over fifty percent.

If you haven’t noticed by now, there are repeated themes of socialism, communism, and in particular pederasty with the founders of the LGBT movement. Recall that among the 45 Communist Goals, as read into the Congressional Record of 1963, were to “Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.” and “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The LGBT distanced themselves from NAMBLA fairly early on, though likely it was only for appearances sake. The time wasn’t right and the public would have never accepted it. However, as former curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles said, “If we reject the boy lovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, [and others]. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.” Note that Walt Whitman wasn’t only gay he was a pederast, and Oscar Wilde wrote about his sexual encounters with young boys. The ancient Greeks were also notorious boy lovers.

The argument to normalize homosexuality was that they were born that way. However, this argument can easily be applied to normalizing pederasty and pedophilia. On May 5 2018, medical student Mirjam Heine essentially gave this argument at a TEDx talked entitled: “Why our perception of pedophilia has to change.” Heine said, “According to current research, pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation, just like for example heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile. No one can cease being one.”

Today we see ever increasing attempts to normalize pedophilia. The far-left website Salon has given a pedophile a platform on more than one occasion. Gay activists have called for lowering or even eliminating the age of consent for some time now. The left-wing Washington Post tweeted a post gleefully celebrating a 10 year old drag queen. Vice Magazine has also posted a video celebrating child drag queens. The 2017 movie “Call Me by Your Name” portrays a romance between a 17 year old student and a 24 year old man. These are but a few example of how the needle is slowly being pushed toward normalization. The ultimate goal being to eliminate ALL moral restraints.

If anyone doesn’t think it couldn’t happen, there are people who though the same thing of same sex marriage just a few decades ago. But, if there is any doubt one look at history shows us that pederasty and pedophilia was commonly practiced in ancient (pagan) societies. So if same sex marriage can be accepted, without any historical precedent, how much so pedophilia & pederasty, which does have historical precedent.

It’s time to unmask the LGBT movement for what it is, a Trojan horse painted in bright rainbow colors to introduce and indoctrinate an unsuspecting public into ancient paganism. And rather people who support the LGBT realize it they are being used. They are supporting a very radical leftist agenda whose aim is to destroy all social, cultural, and moral norms. Such a debased society would not endure for long.

Destroying the ethical eating argument

What is ethical eating?
There is a segment among the vegetarian and vegan communities that contend that eating meat is morally wrong, and eating vegetables is not only more ethical, but more environmentally friendly as well. Not all vegetarians and vegans hold this view of course, but those that do believe themselves morally superior to those that don’t. They have essentially turned a diet into an ideology, and an ideology into a quasi-religion.

To preface, I don’t have a problem with vegetarians or vegans. If someone prefers to eat only vegetables, that’s their prerogative. To each their own. However, I do take issue with those who turn it into an ethical argument. These are who this article is aimed at. This may seem like a strange topic to cover at first, but it does tie into environmentalism and climate change.

Ethical vegetarians and vegans will contend the same reasons for not eating animals are the same reasons for not eating humans, i.e. the meat is murder argument. So let’s consider this. Ethics is defined as “a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.”  When ascribing ethics to a diet it becomes a religion of sorts. This explains the religious zeal militant vegans and vegetarians have against meat eaters. So, that begs the question of what makes eating vegetables so ethical. What do they base it upon besides emotion and opinions? Lets first address the issue of killing animals for food.

Is meat murder?
The ethical eaters often confuse killing with murdering, but they are two separate things. Murder always involves killing, but killing does not always involve murder. The distinction is that murder involves malice, which is defined as “a desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.” When humans kill animals for food, there’s no malice or ill will involved. Animals are killed for sustenance and more often in times past, clothing. Therefore, the meat equals murder argument is only a fallacy designed to demonize meat eaters. Incidentally, many of these same people who show such compassion for animals don’t show the same compassion for unborn babies, but that’s another topic altogether.

Another problem with equating killing animals with murder is that human life must, by necessity, become devalued and lowered to that of animals. This is because animals are a lower life form, and can never be anything more than that. They can’t sympathize, emphasize, or show compassion and mercy. They have no moral sense of right and wrong, only instinct. Unlike humans they can’t philosophize and question the nature of reality or ponder the meaning of life. They have no inner desire for a greater purpose or the need to worship a higher being. They have no hopes, dreams or aspirations, but humans do. These are but a few of the vast differences between humans and animals. So the meat is murder argument turns humans into animals, stripping away everything that makes us unique and special, including our ability to ponder topics such as these.

With that in mind, if we run the meat is murder argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion, shouldn’t it also be morally wrong for animals to eat other animals? If we are all equal then why are animals held to a different standard than humans? To acknowledge such a contradiction would be to admit that humans and animals are different.

Plants don’t like to be eaten either
Rather one eats meat or vegetables for sustenance, the end result is the same. Something once living is eaten so that something else might live. Such is the cycle of life. And, as it turns out, plants don’t particularly liked to be eaten either. Experiments on the thale cress plant indicate that it knows when it’s being eaten, and releases a mild toxic to deter predators. And this defense mechanism isn’t unique to the thale cress.

Many plants we eat produce anti-nutrients which act as a protective mechanism, and interfere with the absorption of nutrients. They can also cause a host of other problems in the human body. Without going into too much detail, these anti-nutrients include phytic acid, lectins, oxalates, saponins, and phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens, which are found in flax and soy, mimic human estrogen. Not only do they cause birth control effects in insects, but they cause hormone imbalances in humans. Incidentally, most vegetarian dishes contain soy, which has been shown to lower testosterone in men. Soy is also one of the most genetically modified crops, with copious amounts of pesticides. So, with all that in mind, since plants don’t like to be eaten and they can’t run away like animals, the case could as easily be made that it’s less ethical to eat vegetables. Of course, I'm being facetious to make a point.

Is eating vegetables better for the environment?
Now we get to the crux of the matter. The second issue is the belief that ethical eating is better for the environment. To the contrary, agriculture also contributes greenhouse gases and pollution. For example, rice is the second largest crop in the world, but rice paddies are also a significant source of methane emissions. Then there are the fertilizers we use to grow crops, which contribute greatly to the increase of nitrous oxide in the environment. The runoff from fertilizers also pollute our lakes, rivers, and oceans. The pesticides used to ward off insects to increase crop yields also kills bees, which are important for pollination. Not to mention the negative health effects that pesticides have in humans. All this is to not demonize agriculture, but to make the point that everything humans do will have an impact on the environment. There’s no getting around that.

Not enough farmland to feed the world
There is another consideration. Vegetables alone may not be able to support a world population of seven billion people and counting. We have already cleared an area roughly the size of South America for crops. In order to clear more crop land would require cutting down rain forests, which destroy plant biodiversity, and destroy animal habitats, leading to extinctions.

To compound the issue, not all soil or climate is conducive for growing crops. The World Bank reported in 2010 that only 37.7 percent of the world’s total land area is considered agricultural land. Some climates are too cold, while other climates are too hot. Other factors include soil composition, rockiness, and altitude. Then there is urban development, which limits the amount of available farm land. All this is to say that meat helps to offset global food consumption.

Cows, public enemy number one
Since we’re on this topic, cows have been a big target because of their emissions of methane gas. Direct emissions from cattle represent 2 percent of total U.S. greenhouse emissions. Globally that number increases to 6% when feed production and land usage are factored in. However, there are important considerations that are ignored when it comes to cattle and methane emissions. Cattle that are grain-fed produce fewer emissions than those that are grass-fed. Cattle intended for slaughter typically spend two-thirds of their life grazing, which helps with things like erosion, and the rest is spent grain-fed, which reduce methane emissions. Also, as beef production has gotten more efficient, so too has carbon emissions from cattle declined.

But is methane emissions from cattle really a problem? Contrary to popular belief, methane, like carbon dioxide, is not a poisonous gas. Methane is a natural non-toxic gas that comes from the earth, animals, even humans. Methane is touted as a concern because it absorbs the sun’s heat with even more efficiency than carbon dioxide. However, atmospheric water already absorbs the heat that methane could, and the same heat cannot be absorbed twice. Moreover, the amount of methane that makes up our atmosphere is infinitesimally small, only 0.00017 percent. There’s actually three times more helium in the atmosphere than methane. Plus, methane dissipates after 12 years. In the end there is no evidence that methane or carbon dioxide emissions have replaced the natural forces that are responsible for climate change thought earth’s history.

If anyone thinks that methane from cattle is still a problem, there are viable alternatives to beef without the need to go meatless. The other red meat, ostriches, only have one stomach so their emissions of methane are considerably lower. As an added bonus, their meat is low in fat and cholesterol and high in protein and iron.

Conclusion
To summarize, eating vegetables are no more ethical than eating meat. Nor is it more environmentally friendly to eat vegetables. Rather our food comes from animals or vegetables they both equally have an impact on the environment. But advances in technology are making both more environmentally friendly. And finally, the methane emitted from cows and the danger it poses is largely over-exaggerated. So don’t feel guilty about eating a juicy hamburger once in a while, or if you prefer, an ostrich burger. Bon appetite!

Save the planet?

I keep hearing environmentalists and democrats (i.e. the left in general) talk about saving the planet, but what does that really mean? And why do all their “solutions” to save the planet end up being anti-human? They don’t even try to hide their disdain for people anymore as they seek to curb the population and human activity. When they say they want to eliminate carbon emissions that would mean eliminating you and me because we all breathe out carbon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has even questioned “Is It Still OK to Have Kids in Face of Climate Change?” Ahh yes, it begins as a “suggestion”, then later becomes a mandate. They act as if carbon is a poisonous gas, it’s not. People breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon, while plants take in carbon and give off oxygen. It’s a perfect symbiotic relationship. In reality, if we did everything they wanted we would be back living in caves and eating bugs to survive.

One of the things that really irks is their demonization of plastics. I am old enough to remember in the 1980s they had a campaign to switch from paper to plastic bags to “save the trees”. Well, they saved the trees I guess, and now they want to eliminate plastics because they are not biodegradable. Funny how all their “solutions” end up creating more problems. I especially dislike this push to replace plastic straws with paper straws. I guarantee this will not do anything except make people “feel” good about themselves, like they have actually accomplished something.

The whole thing started because of a 9 year old’s campaign to “Be Straw Free”, started in 2011 by Milo Cress. Yes, people are now taking advice from a 9 year old. In his campaign he says that Americans use more than 500 million drinking straws daily, enough to fill 125 school buses. The media has ran with this number, but it was one big estimation. In truth, no one knows how many straws Americans use daily. Even Cress didn’t know, he called straw manufacturers asking for their “estimates” and just divided it by 365. And just like magic that number has stuck and become an actual statistic.

In terms of human waste, plastic straws would probably not even register. And even if you got rid of every plastic straw in the United States, it still would not stem plastic straws from other countries or plastic consumption in general. In reality, plastics are a wonderful invention. They can be made soft or hard, clear or opaque. They can be molded to any shape and form, and can be more durable than glass. People living hundreds or thousands of years ago would have killed for something as lightweight and versatile as plastic, yet today we have taken it for granted. And guess what, plastics can also be recycled.

Back to the crux of the matter. There is a misnomer that we should be saving the planet, but in reality it is humans who need saving FROM the planet. Anyone who has spent time camping, away from civilization, with only the bare essentials will soon discover how harsh and unforgiving nature can be. Humans have built civilization and technology to help insulate us from nature. We made houses to shield us from the elements. We built air conditioners to cool us off from the scorching heat, and keep us warm during the blistering winters. Even then we are not immune to the wrath of Mother Nature. There are hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, hail storms, earthquakes, and so on. All of which take a toll on human life.

So you see, humans are really the vulnerable ones in all this. The earth has been here long before humans, and it will be here even if every human disappeared tomorrow. The planet will take care of itself, it’s humans who need saving from the leftists.

Why conservatives shouldn't use the term "homophobic"

I will occasionally see well meaning conservatives using the Left's vernacular. This is a mistake because the Left manufactures words to create a false narrative. Among these are words like "sexual orientation", "toxic masculinity", "white privilege", etc. The list goes on and on. These words didn't exist a couple of decades ago (sometimes less), but now have suddenly become a part of our lexicon. When we use these words we give legitimacy to them and the narrative behind them. Another word I often see used is homophobia or homophobic. Where did this word come from?

It was coined in the mid-1960s by a psychologist named George Weinberg. And while Weinberg was a clinical psychologist, homophobia was not a clinical term. Basically it was something Weinberg constructed from two separate root languages, Greek and Latin. It was picked up by two homosexual activists, Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke, who were friends of Weinberg, and first printed in a porn magazine called Screw (magazine) in 1969. Yes, a porn magazine. So the first use of this word wasn't in some medical journal or clinical research paper, but in a two-bit porn magazine. It was then picked up by Time Magazine a few months later where it gained more exposure and was eventually adopted by the Left.

Today, this word is used as a pejorative against anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle or the LGBT agenda. It's past-time that we stop using the Left's vocabulary. And if your ever called a homophobe just remind them that it's a made-up word, and pejoratives and ad-hominem attacks are for people who don't have an argument.