Linkage: 2 May, 2017 #TheTriggering

I know you think I’m insane when I say that left-wing statists have to be eliminated from the population for the human race to survive. I’m not. Here’s a good example of why the left has to die for normal people to live.

We’ve reached a point where I no longer cringe or feel surprised whenever I read one of these stories anymore. Erika D. Smith, a writer for the Sacramento Bee, wants to do away with laws that punish people for deliberately infecting their sexual partners with the HIV virus. She argues that these laws are incompassionate, uncaring and intolerant:

Over time, that vague fear of AIDS that I once had has been replaced with an understanding that HIV is a chronic illness that can be easily managed with medication. It’s no longer a death sentence. What’s more, it’s highly unlikely that someone with an undetectable level of HIV in his or her blood, which is pretty common these days for undergoing treatment, will transmit the virus to anyone else.

Heck, hepatitis C kills three times as many people as HIV does.

But in California and more than 30 other states, dozens of laws remain on the books to punish people who willfully expose others to the virus. To this day, people still get charged with felonies over HIV and go to prison for five, 10 or even 20 years. In some states, those convicted must register as a sex offender for life.

These laws aren’t “compassionate,” “caring” or “tolerant” toward people with HIV or AIDS. They’re fear-based holdovers from the days of the “gay plague,” which in many ways, the Reagan administration callously let happen by ignoring the disease and its victims for far too long.

http://ageofshitlords.com/sjw-wants-decriminalize-infecting-people-aids-deliberately

Would you believe Erika D. Smith is an overweight black woman? Of course you would. “She previously worked for The Indianapolis Star in Indiana, where, as metro columnist, she covered issues related to neighborhoods, community development, public safety and diversity.”

Their reasoning is pretty plain. One is that threatening to punish people for transmitting HIV does absolutely nothing for public health. It only encourages people to hide their status or not get tested at all. You can’t be charged with infecting someone with something you didn’t know you had.

Another reason is that research shows that the laws are applied unfairly.

White men, for example, make up 40 percent of the people diagnosed with HIV in California, but only 16 percent of the individuals who’ve had contact with law enforcement over it, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

Meanwhile, black women make up only 4 percent of the Californians diagnosed with HIV, but account for 21 percent of people who have gotten in trouble for it. A good number of them are sex workers, turning a potential misdemeanor prostitution charge into a felony.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d-smith/article146529814.html

Archived at: https://archive.is/Kf78b

It seems like we can’t even go a month without some stupid journalists falling for a prank anymore. This is starting to become a trend. At least once a month, /pol/ makes shit up to troll journalists, the journalists fall for it, normies believe the journalists and then get offended by something that is completely fabricated, making them look like idiots. It works like literally, every single time. Trolls have either become too smart, or the general population has just become too dumb.

About two months ago, 4chan trolls on /pol/ set out to convince journalists that the “OK” sign was a white supremacist symbol. Calling it “operation OKKK”, they set out to convince internet users, mostly on Twitter, that the OK sign had been co-opted by Neo Nazis.

Users were advised to create fake social media account of “basic white girl names” and spam the social media sites, accusing the sign of being racist. “Leftists have dug so deep down into their lunacy. We must force [them ]to dig more, until the rest of society ain’t going anywhere near that shit”, the user said:

In no time, an article appeared online, titled “The OK sign is becoming a white supremacist symbol“. The author of the article said he had no idea how the sign became an alt-right symbol, but suggested that Pepe may be to blame:

It’s unclear exactly how the OK symbol got started as an alt-right meme, but it may trace back to a version of “Smug Pepe,” a meme in which Pepe holds his chin. In one variation he’s instead making an OK hand gesture, reminiscent of Trump.

Even The Independent took the bait this week, accusing two white house correspondents of being white supremacists for making the hand sign. The Independent also pointed to Pepe as the possible source of the “hate symbol”

http://ageofshitlords.com/4chan-trolls-media-fall

I’ve been saying this for years. “Change” is not always good. “Change” has become another Orwellian word used to manipulate the useful idots.

This week is only two days old but so far it has been quite extraordinary in regards to the make up of sport in Australia. Yesterday the headlines screamed of an imminent power shakeup at the top of the Australian Olympic Committee. The president of the committee is John Coates and he has held the position for a staggering 26 years. He has held this position for so long not due to torturing and executing his competitors but by the simple act of doing a very good job.

But the one constant that the progressives desire is change for the sake of change.

And as always they pull the old political trick of equating change with progress. In other words, if you’re against change then you must be against progress because all change is inherently good.

The headline read, Powerful Women call end to Coates Reign. What women, powerful or not, have anything to do with calling a halt to anything is of course ludicrous. But logic takes a holiday when the wymens are on the march. And who is the individual that these powerful women are putting up as a replacement? Why a woman of course.

https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2017/05/01/its-either-sport-or-revolution/

Now that years have passed, we are seeing the tip of the iceberg of the forgeries of “scientific opinion” that came our way during the consumer boom years of 1920-2000. In particular, it seems that the dietary advice of our big newspapers was just plain wrong, such as the Satanic Panic over saturated fats:

The authors, led by Dr Aseem Malhotra, from Lister Hospital, Stevenage, wrote: “Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong.”

. . . . .

In other words, what was considered “settled science” and “everyone knows that” has become recognized as a false solution, which both wastes time on the irrelevant and obscures the necessity of the actual solution, which seems to be “walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food.”

Some might wonder how illusions like this have persisted for so long. The answer is that in a hierarchy based on popularity, instead of strict realism, whatever seems appealing to the herd will become dogma, and anyone who resists the dogma becomes an ideological enemy. Only with generational change do the illusions fade, because otherwise, those who oppose them find themselves ignored.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/is-anything-in-the-media-true-anymore/

The best comment on this post:

Missy says:

This is just natural selection. If you can’t figure out when you are being lied to, you’ll be weeded out of the long term picture. The grand prize winner is: there is no such thing as race.

As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. Newly unearthed documents reveal what they didn’t say: A sugar industry trade group initiated and paid for the studies, examined drafts, and laid out a clear objective to protect sugar’s reputation in the public eye.

That revelation, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, comes from Dr. Cristin Kearns at the University of California, San Francisco, a dentist-turned-researcher who found the sugar industry’s fingerprints while digging through boxes of letters in the basement of a Harvard library.

Her paper recounts how two famous Harvard nutritionists, Dr. Fredrick Stare and Mark Hegsted, who are now deceased, worked closely with a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, which was trying to influence public understanding of sugar’s role in disease.

The trade group solicited Hegsted, a professor of nutrition at Harvard’s public health school, to write a literature review aimed at countering early research linking sucrose to coronary heart disease. The group paid the equivalent of $48,000 in 2016 dollars to Hegsted and colleague Dr. Robert McGandy, though the researchers never publicly disclosed that funding source, Kearns found.

Hegsted and Stare tore apart studies that implicated sugar and concluded that there was only one dietary modification — changing fat and cholesterol intake — that could prevent coronary heart disease.

Their reviews were published in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine, which back then did not require researchers to disclose conflicts of interest.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/

This is an archived version of this video as the original channel hosting it has been removed from CenshorshipTube for “copyright infringement”.

Orwellian Lingo: copyright infringement (disagreeing with SJWs)

How many fucking times have I told you morons to eat real food (if the food comes in a box it is not real) and exercise? About a fucking hundred times I’ve told you.

Heart experts have been criticised for claiming it is “plain wrong” to believe that saturated fat clogs up arteries.

Three specialists argued that eating “real food”, taking exercise and reducing stress are better ways to stave off heart disease than cutting out dietary saturated fat.

Writing in a respected journal, they maintained that inflammation is the chief threat to arteries and there is little evidence linking saturated fat consumption with heart disease, diabetes and premature death.

But the editorial, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, attracted scathing criticism for being “simplistic”, “muddled” and “misleading”.

The authors, led by Dr Aseem Malhotra, from Lister Hospital, Stevenage, wrote: “Despite popular belief among doctors and the public, the conceptual model of dietary saturated fat clogging a pipe is just plain wrong.”

Dr Malhotra and colleagues Professor Rita Redberg, from the University of California at San Francisco, and Pascal Meier from University Hospital Geneva in Switzerland and University College London, cited a “landmark” review of evidence that appeared to exonerate saturated fat.

. . . . .

However the authors found an ally in Dr Mary Hannon-Fletcher, head of the school of health sciences at the University of Ulster, who described the editorial as “the best dietary and exercise advice I have read in recent years”.

She added: “Walking 22 minutes a day and eating real food. This is an excellent public health message; the modern idea of a healthy diet where we eat low-fat and low-calorie foods is simply not a healthy option.”

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/