A Swedish behavioral scientist has taken climate change alarmism to another level, advocating for “eating human flesh” in order to combat the food shortages he expects to result from climate change and population growth.
At the Gastro Summit, a summit for the ostensibly climate-change-induced apocalyptic future of food, in Stockholm on September 3rd to 4th, Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund held a talk titled “Can You Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” to advocate for the idea of, and tear down the social taboos against, eating human flesh to combat climate change.
According to The Epoch Times, “He refers to the taboos against it as “conservative” and discusses people’s resistance to it as a problem that could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it. He can be seen in his video presentation and on Swedish channel TV4 saying that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting—among them, human flesh.” When Soderlund asked the audience if they would consider eating human flesh, he claims 8% was willing to consider the idea. In my opinion, 8% of the audience is about 8% more than the alarming threshold.
The idea that we will need to eat human flesh because of food shortages is both insane and idiotic. It comes from a theory that dates back to 1798 from Thomas Malthus, who claimed that human population growth will outpace food production. Unsurprisingly, the opposite happened. The population is nearly 8 times higher today than it was in 1798, and the rate of people starving has fallen drastically. Additionally, obesity, a side effect surplus of food, has become a problem in many developed countries. Further, we currently have enough food to completely end starvation globally if distributed properly. As The Guardian pointed out in 2014, “we produce enough to feed the global population of 7 billion people. And the world produces 17% more food per person today than 30 years ago, and the rate of food production has increased faster than the rate of population growth for the past two decades.”
In another win for the Trump administration, border crossings fell by nearly half in August, and have fallen 60% since May. According to Politico, this is due to President Trump’s plan to force Mexico to stem the flow migrants across the border. Politico writes:
“President Donald Trump’s plan to force Mexico to stem the flow of migrants across the southwest border of the U.S. appears to be working.
Border arrests, a metric for illegal crossings, plummeted to 51,000 in August, according to preliminary government figures obtained by POLITICO Wednesday, down more than 60 percent since a peak in May. And border watchers say it’s largely because of an agreement Trump struck with Mexico in June. Mexican authorities, backed by the newly formed National Guard, are now cracking down on migrants traversing Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala, monitoring river crossings and stopping buses carrying migrants from Central America through Mexico. At the same time, the U.S. is making tens of thousands of asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their applications are considered.”
While this drop in illegal border-crossings is a great achievement, 51,000 migrants illegally crossing the border is still 51,000 too many, that is about 1,650 per day. This policy relies on Mexico to enforce their laws, meaning it the sustainability of this success is unknown. The wall is still needed, but still this success in immigration policy for the Trump administration shows that Trump’s policies are working well.
Former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s support of the Iraq War has caused him problems in his run for presidency, so he has begun lying by claiming he opposed the war early on.
Despite Biden supporting the war until 2005, he said in the second Democratic presidential debate on July 31: “I did make a bad judgment, trusting the president saying he was only doing this to get inspectors in and get the U.N. to agree to put inspectors in. From the moment ‘shock and awe’ started, from that moment, I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress and the administration.”
And then again, in an interview with NPR on September 3rd, Biden said: “President George W. Bush “got them in, and before we know it, we had a ‘shock and awe.’ Immediately, the moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment.”
Even though he lied about his support for the Iraq War multiple times, The Washington Post fact checker refused to give him any Pinocchios because his campaign claimed that Biden simply “misspoke.” The Washington Post outlined how it was not until 2005 that he said his vote for the war was a mistake, but “Even when he finally said in 2005 that the vote was a mistake, he again faulted Bush for how he waged the war, not the decision to start it in the first place. Not until 2008, when he was Obama’s running mate, did he forthrightly say the war should not have been fought.”
Clearly, The Washington Post is playing favorites here. Even if Biden somehow managed to misspeak multiple times by claiming, and describing in detail, how he opposed the war initialing, zero Pinocchios is an extremely generous rating.
During an outdoor town hall in New Hampshire on Friday, a man asked 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) how she will “diminish the mentally retarded actions” of President Trump. As the audience laughed and cheered, Harris laughed and responded “Well said. Well said. I plan to win this election, I’ll tell you that.”
Using "retarded" as a slur and an insult is never, EVER "well said", @KamalaHarris, no matter who it's against and no matter the larger point being made. It's ALWAYS a betrayal of the disability community.
— Kendally Brown (@kendallybrown) September 7, 2019
Kamala Harris was then asked about the comment on Saturday by CBS News’ Caitlin Huey-Burns, Harris replied: “It’s an incredibly offensive term, and as someone who has a long-standing relationship of advocacy for our disability community – in fact, I have a whole policy proposal on it that I have been working on for quite some time that we rolled out weeks ago – it’s offensive, and you would think that in the year 2019, people would have a much better understanding of how hurtful a term like that can be, but also the history behind it, which is a history of really ignoring the needs and the realities and the capacity of our disability community.”
Huey-Burns then asked: “You didn’t correct him though. Did you hear him?”
And Harris responded: “I heard him talk about the other stuff, and then that came later, and it was not something that I really heard or processed or, you know, in any way condone, that’s for sure.”
When my staff played the video from my town hall yesterday, it was upsetting. I didn’t hear the words the man used in that moment, but if I had I would’ve stopped and corrected him. I’m sorry. That word and others like it aren’t acceptable. Ever. https://t.co/mNmo1hyNpW
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 7, 2019
Obviously lying, Harris claims she “didn’t hear the words the man used,” but somehow heard everything else. She practically endorsed the man’s use of the word “retard,” saying “well said” as the audience cheered him on and laughed.
During CNN’s climate change town hall, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said he “very, very strongly” supports population control legislation, suggesting mass abortion is needed to address climate change.
“Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years,” an attendee told Sanders, claiming the planet cannot sustain such growth. “I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians but it’s crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact.” She asked, “would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?”
“The answer is yes,” Sanders said, “The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.” “And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are – that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control is totally absurd.” “So I think especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support.”
So, Bernie Sanders wants to fund abortions around the world, “especially in poor countries.” This shouldn’t be a surprise, he is a socialist and socialism always ends in the countless deaths of poor people, who are vulnerable to government tyranny. If federally mandated population control is what Bernie wants, then maybe we should start with Bernie Sanders himself. He is the last person in this world that should have ever reproduce, so let’s make it a law that his four kids can’t have children. That way we save nature and humanity all in the same sweeping motion!