Green Ideology as Class Warfare

November 27, 2023John Hinderaker

I generally think of green dogma as something that the gentry class imposes on the rest of us–you peons have to live more poorly, never mind my yacht and private jet. But there is another side to it, as well, as we see in the Guardian: environmentalism as a manifestation of class envy. The article describes green angst in the advertising industry:...........There is nothing sustainable about electric vehicles. On the contrary, they are extraordinarily resource-intensive......To Read More.....

A Question For Homosexual Activists

May 22, 2023 By Mychal Massie @ Daily Rant

Watching television recently, I hit the pause button on the remote control and called to my wife.  I said: “Take a look at this and tell me what you see.”  She looked for a moment at the children’s commercial I had paused; then answering, proceeded to tell me.  I explained that she had missed the demonic subtlety of the advertising industry, specifically relating to advertisements for children.

I pointed out to my wife that the advertisement intended for young grade school age children, had a little boy and girl each with a rainbow colored lei around their neck.  I noted that the mother wore a lei of all purple flowers.  Purple represents priesthood and royalty; while the man wore a lei that was essentially just boring and dull.  The symbolism could not have been more pronounced for those with eyes to see.

The advertising industry is complicit in the anesthetizing of the malleable minds of many young people, because they don’t appreciate the evil that lurks behind the advertising they’re ingesting.  It inculcates impressionable minds where public school teachers leave off for the day.

I consciously use Google as little as possible.  That said, today Google had a mural of sorts on their search engine page depicting a young ‘something’ carrying the rainbow flag.  The person in the depiction appeared androgynous, which I’m certain was no accident.  The other depictions were same sex young people coupling and I suppose the other two depictions were intended to be trannies.

The attempt to portray insanity as normative is an attempt to anesthetize the masses vis-a`-vis public mediums, public school classrooms and teachers, and shaming people into silence.  The silence then masquerades as acceptance.  Albeit, I suspect the acceptance is often fatuous.

The question is: why is this being promoted on such a massive scale at this time?  Why this relentless attempt to convince the weak-minded public that hebephrenia, schizophrenia and dysmorphia are entirely normal and acceptable, when in reality they’re emotional and psychological disorders that require treatment?

A question that begs an answer is: If this supposed madness is normal, why has it taken millennia for the abnormal behavior to present itself?  Homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia and bestiality have been known for millennia before the birth of Christ.  But, a quick research into sexual abnormalities dating back to antediluvian period finds no quantifiable zeitgeist of the uncontrolled urge for men to identify as women and vice versa.  I’m addressing all of recorded history.  What makes humans in this period of the 21^stcentury suddenly aware that they suffer from being in the wrong body?

Obviously sexual perversion and debauchery isn’t something new.  Said has been around since not long after Eve succeeded in having Adam disobey God. That the homosexual activists err in their attempt to claim erasure of the record of this sexual perversion conceals the record of heterodoxy distinctive from that which has been understood to be true throughout time.  It isn’t concealed nor has it been erased.  It never existed!  And if it did, it was an immeasurable fantasy.

There’s something else that I believe is of note.  Insanity and psychological disorders don’t nor have in all of recorded history overtaken the minds of entire populations.  Not even during the periods replete with the purging of those suspected of being witches; which I argue was only marginally different than the systematic extermination of followers of God and Christians, which continues in Moslem countries, Communist and Socialist countries and The United States today.

If we were to believe this damnable mental illness were the epidemic it’s portrayed to be, we would have a pandemic that made Covid19 look like a mild outbreak of allergies from tree pollen.  Notwithstanding, the fact that the alleged Covid19 pandemic was a hoax perpetrated upon a public bullied and frightened into accepting as real.  Well, the overwhelming majority of the public at any rate, but I digress.

The methods being used to force participation and acceptance of what amounts to mental illness is unparalleled.  Many Christian churches tolerated sexual perversion and debauchery.  Some taking the position that the practice of such heathenism didn’t change the immutable Word of God.  It was something the people would have to give account for when they stood before the Lord God.  It amounted to an uneasy détente between the Church and those practicing sexual perversion behind closed doors and those parading it in public.

But, this isn’t about deviancy in the bedroom.  It’s the guerrilla intention to force conversion on children, reinvent family and blackmail other nations into the acceptance and practice of this sickness.

There’s no biblical precedent for acceptance of this behavior.  There’s no sane reasoning for the mandating of acceptance. There’s no justifiable way to reason employees are forced to participate in what under any other conditions would be viewed as mental illness or lose one’s employment, suffer public/media ridicule, threats against one’s family, governmental attacks against private businesses, ad nauseum.  Where’s our right to say no?  Where’s our right to abide by our consciences and maintain fidelity to our theological beliefs?

Why is it that those who disagree with aberrant lifestyles are portrayed as pariahs?  When did it become acceptable dictate everyone must agree?

We have the right and the responsibility to protect our children and families from being forced to accept the unacceptable.  This isn’t about hating the persons; it’s about unapologetically hating every thing they represent.  This isn’t just about their attempted deconstruction of family; it’s about their commitment to redefine family.

About the Author

Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here

I’ll have a side of fries and wokeness with that burger

September 20, 2022 By Robin M. Itzler @ American Thinker

With recent “yuge” changes in commercials, Robin Itzler reached out to a leading marketing company and asked if she could sit in on a commercial planning meeting with several of advertising’s best and brightest participating. She taped the meeting to share with American Thinker readers. (This is satire.)

“Good morning. We’re here to create the special 90-second commercial that will run during the October World Series. Now, remember, our burgers are the best tasting thanks to our unique secret family sauce. Plus, we have a 99% satisfaction customer rating. Okay, any ideas for the commercial?”

“Let’s have the restaurant filled with happy customers eating their delicious burgers.”

“Sounds good.”

“An average restaurant can seat 45 people so let’s make sure there are at least 20 Black customers.”

“But Blacks are just above 13% of the population.”

“Doesn’t matter. We don’t want Black Lives Matter protesting.”

“What about focusing on the mouth-watering hamburgers?”

“I think at least 10 people should be Asian.”

Image: Meeting (edited) by freepik.

“No, they should be Hispanic.”

“I need at least one transgender. Will someone trade me a Black, Asian, or Hispanic for a trans?”

“People, let’s focus on the secret sauce recipe that makes the hamburgers taste so delicious!!!”

“It’s no secret that if we have one transgender, we need at least one gay.”

“What about a close-up of a couple of hamburgers?”

“What about a close-up of a couple of gays or lesbians?”

“Here’s an idea. Let’s have a Hispanic gay couple and an Asian lesbian couple.”

“I am still looking for someone to trade a Black, Asian, or Hispanic for a trans.”

“We need at least one non-binary person. Can anyone give up a Black, Hispanic, or Asian for a non-binary?”

“I’ll trade you a Hispanic for a non-binary.”

“Here’s an idea. How about a non-binary Hispanic eating a delicious Burger with his/them Asian lesbian friends?”

“Listen up folks! The burger’s secret sauce recipe goes back to 1865. It was served to Abraham Lincoln the same day the Civil War ended.”

“Wow! I did not know that!”

“Bravo—that is an incredible story!”

“There must be a lot of pride knowing that sauce helped create this multi-million-dollar company.”

“Speaking of pride, does anyone think there should be a pride flag in the restaurant?”

“We should have kids studying trans pride while eating their burgers.”

“Are those kids going to be Black, Hispanic, or Asian?”

“Let’s make them Middle Eastern. Tell wardrobe the girls wear hijabs, and the boys wear yarmulkes.”

“The secret sauce! Is anyone focusing on what makes these burgers taste so good?”

“It’s no secret we need to run this by Al Sharpton to get his blessing. We don’t want people outside the restaurant screaming, ‘No justice! No burger!’”

“Is anyone listening to me!!! This is a burger commercial! Our sauce is from a plant native to the Midwest so …”

“Oh my God! We forgot Native Americans!”

“Take one of the Jewish kids. Tell wardrobe to change the yarmulke to a headdress.”

“….Uh, we still have just one more customer role to fill.”

“People, we didn’t even mention our 99% customer satisfaction!”

“I’m satisfied we covered everyone.”

“Let me check my notes.”

“I think we’re fine.”

“What about one White male?”

“Let’s have the White guy holding a Bible and an assault rifle while wearing a Duck Dynasty T-shirt.”

“Don’t you think we should focus more on the burgers rather than the diversity of customers?”

“We have no choice. Have you seen all the other commercials?”

“There’s hardly any White people in commercials anymore. If we don’t do the same, they will call us racist.”

“Exactly who will call us racist?”

“They will call us racist. T-H-E-Y.”

“Our commercial will win an award for diversity!”

“Especially if we film this on Martha’s Vineyard.”

“I give up! After the camera pans around the room highlighting customer diversity, this leaves us with only three seconds to devote to those mouth-watering burgers.”

“Sounds good to me.”

“Me, too.”

“Will anyone even know this commercial is about our burgers?”

“This could be an award-winning commercial.”

“Just make sure you run the script by our Diversity, Inclusion, Equity & Safe Spaces Department.”

Robin Itzler is a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com.

Enforce rules against false and misleading organic claims

FDA must no longer let organic food growers, manufacturers and sellers get away with lies

Paul Driessen

A couple years ago, the US Food and Drug Administration sent a “Warning Letter” to Nashoba Brook Bakery, advising its owners that listing “love” as an ingredient in their granola violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The product was “misbranded,” because “love” is “not a common or usual name of an ingredient,” FDA said. Such deceptive labeling practices could mislead consumers and are not allowed.

FDA has also warned and cited companies that make “unfounded,” “unproven” or “unsubstantiated” claims about their products. FDA is committed to “protecting the public health by taking action as needed against companies that deceive consumers.” It will not let companies say cannabidiol “has been linked to the effective treatment of Alzheimer’s disease,” if they don’t have solid evidence to back the claim up.

Claiming your product is better or more effective than a competitor’s is also “misleading” if there is “no evidence” to support the claim. Labels and advertising must be “truthful and not misleading” – or else.

FDA policies are equally clear in the arena of organic, conventional and biotech (genetically modified or engineered, GMO or GE) seeds, ingredients, products, manufacturing, distribution and sales. The agency’s published guidance states that “false or misleading” food labeling includes “the statement ‘none of the ingredients in this food is genetically engineered’ on a food where some of the ingredients are incapable of being produced through genetic engineering (e.g., salt).”

“GMO-free” claims, FDA says, can also be “false and misleading” if they imply that a certain food “is safer, more nutritious, or otherwise has different attributes than other comparable foods because the food was not genetically engineered.” Claiming a food is healthier or better tasting, because it’s organic, would fall under this guideline of “different attributes ... because it was not genetically engineered.”

However, in stark contrast to the way it polices other food, drug, cosmetic and medical device industries, the FDA has let the $52.5-billion organic food industry and pro-organic, anti-conventional farming, anti-biotechnology interests routinely and flagrantly ignore agency rules. Their ads, websites and campaigns deliberately mislead consumers and denigrate competitors with multiple falsehoods.

1. No dangerous chemicals. The Whole Foods website falsely claims: “All organic foods begin as crops grown without toxic persistent pesticides which can end up in soil and water, as well as in your food.”

Copper sulfate has multiple pesticide and fungicide applications in organic farming; it persists in soil, is the most common chemical residue in organic foods, and can damage human brains, livers, kidneys and stomach linings. The EU found it can cause cancer but didn’t ban it because organic farmers have “no viable alternatives.” Natural and synthetic pyrethrin pesticides are powerful neurotoxins, highly toxic to bees, cats and fish, and linked to leukemia and other health problems in humans. Rotenone is a highly toxic pesticide that can enhance the onset of Parkinson’s disease. There are many more examples.

Moreover, GMO crops use 37% fewer chemical insecticides and herbicides than conventional versions of the same crops (because biotech crops have systemic or internal biological protections against insects). Indian farmers who plant GMO cotton have doubled their cotton production, dramatically reduced insecticide use and prevented over two million pesticide poisoning cases a year.

2. Biotech foods threaten human health. Organic interests consistently claim that GE foods cause higher incidences of everything from cancer and autism to diabetes and obesity.

Scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide have found that biotech foods are as safe and healthy as foods produced by conventional breeding, including: the World Health Organization, European Food Safety Authority, British Royal Society, American Medical Association, and US National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.

More than 100 Nobel Laureates in chemistry, medicine and biotechnology have likewise said crops and foods improved through biotechnology are “as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.” Worldwide and with over four trillion US servings of foods containing at least one biotech ingredient, “there has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption.”

3. Organic is more sustainable. Organic interests claim their methods increase soil health and organic matter, enhance natural fertility and ensure long-term sustainability.

In reality, organic crops require more land, water, hand weeding, chemicals and expense to generate the same amount of food. Expanding organic farming would cause further wildlife habitat loss and reduced biodiversity, when we are trying to protect natural habitats and feed Earth’s seven billion people.

Biotech crops allow farmers to produce more food, from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods and climate change, than is case with conventional crops – and certainly with organic crops. GE crops achieve much higher food yields per acre – whereas organic farms require 40% more land to as much as 70% more land to produce the same amount of food as their conventional or biotech counterparts.

Biotechnology also enables farmers to grow Golden Rice, which prevents malnutrition, blindness and death in African and Asian children. Greenpeace commits eco-manslaughter by battling this crop.

4. Organic foods are tastier and more nutritious. This assertion is likewise unsupportable.

Stanford University and other studies have repeatedly found that organic foods are no healthier or more nutritious than conventional or GE alternatives, while taste tests in Germany discovered that “discerning” foodies could not tell the difference between organic food and McDonald’s chicken nuggets!

But despite these facts, the endless campaigns of false, misleading, unsubstantiated claims, full-frontal attacks on biotech and conventional farming, and outright lies are clearly working. Thousands of companies pay the Non-GMO Project big bucks to get “GMO-Free” butterfly emblems on over 55,000 products – including salt, orange juice, tomatoes and other items that have no biotech counterparts.

US and EU consumers actually think organic food is better, tastier and more nutritious than conventional or biotech food – and are willing to pay up to 50% more for “organic” milk, bread, fruits and vegetables. Less than 40% of American adults believe genetically modified foods are safe to eat.

Many of the most outrageous activist campaigns are funded directly or indirectly by organic and natural food companies and allied foundations. They’re often conducted along or in coordination with lawsuits against glyphosate (Roundup) and campaigns against neonicotinoid pesticides and biotechnology, to expand organic industry market share and profits, and drive entire companies and industries out of business. Non-GMO Project director Megan Westgate proudly proclaims her goal is “to shrink the market for existing GMO ingredients and prevent new commercial biotech crops” from ever being introduced.

The FDA says trying to enforce its rules would force it to go after every container and company that make false, misleading, deceptive, pejorative organic claims. That’s nonsense. It would only have to go after a few of the biggest, worst, most prominent violators. Others would fall in line pretty quickly.

A few Warning Letters could tell organic farmers, manufacturers and retailers to cease making these claims or marketing their products until they provide replicable, convincing, peer-reviewed evidence that organic foods are chemical-free, safer, more nutritious, more eco-friendly than conventional or GMO varieties – and that GE crops have harmed people or the environment in demonstrable ways.

Organic producers and retailers could also be required to test their foods for residues of toxic organic chemicals. Give them six months to comply – and follow up with legal actions, major fines, and requirements that every miscreant issue front-page and top-of-their-website admissions and apologies.

The FDA, EPA, Agriculture Department and Federal Trade Commission have shown little tolerance for other industry violations. Big Organic should no longer be exempt from truth in advertising rules. 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate and environmental policy.

Hall of shame: Advertisers sign up for boycott of Tucker Carlson for telling the truth on illegal immigration

By Thomas Lifson December 19, 2018

Tucker Carlson has been peerless in his coverage of the issues raised by the caravan of Central Americans that announced its plan to storm the border and demand amnesty from within our territory, gaining automatic freedom to be released for a hearing sometime in the future, thanks to current law. Thanks to his reporting and interviews with local officials in Tijuana, we learn that locals sound distinctly Trump-like in their anger over being besieged by:

people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us.  They're bringing drugs.  They're bringing crime.  They're rapists. ;And some, I assume, are good people."

........................... HuffPost seems to approve of the boycott and repeats the common distortion of conflating illegal aliens with immigrants.  But it usefully provides a list of advertisers trying to silence Carlson for me – and maybe you –  to boycott.  Go and read the whole thing, but here are numbers one through three:............Read more