Swedish scientist suggests cannibalism to combat climate change
One Swedish scientist has “raised the bar” in offering every person a tangible way to save the world. And, because it’s a progressive approach everyone will love it, right?
Up until now, we have been asked to make small behavioural changes to “help save the planet” by governments, influencers, celebrities, and, all those incredibly woke individuals. These changes include: eating less meat, recycling, using LED light bulbs, driving electric vehicles, etc. All of these behavioural modifications allow us to remain in our comfort zones while simultaneously giving us that sense of accomplishment in our contribution to “the better good.”
The psychology behind these initiatives is fantastic because we believe that the facts have been scientifically proven. Because of this, we do not need to dig deeper, nor find out whether these changes will actually produce any good.
But now that societies across the world have modified their behaviour, implementing these very acts into their daily routine, it’s time we upped our game and we pushed ourselves out of our comfort zones. Enter cannibalism!
Yes, apparently, it’s time we started eating our friends and family in order to save our planet. No longer is having one less child enough, nor is sending millions of dollars overseas in contribution to population control. No, cannibalism is apparently now on the table for consideration. Don’t believe me? Well then, let’s take a look at what happened this week in Stockholm.
On September 3rd to the 4th, the Gastro summit on the future of food was held in Stockholm. In this summit, the behavioral scientist and marketing strategist, Magnus Söderlund, from Handelshögskolan (College of Commerce) presented his talk entitled “Food Of The Future: Worms, Grasshoppers or Human Flesh?”
Söderlund stated that people must “awaken to the idea” of eating human flesh as a way of combatting the effects of climate change. So to everyone trying to cut down on your carbon emissions by abstaining from beef, driving a little less, or recycling your glass bottles, your acts just don’t cut it anymore.
In his talk, Söderlund advocated for the breakdown of ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating our fellow humans’ flesh. He even goes so far as to state that these taboos against cannibalism stem from the more “conservative” ways of thinking.
When Söderlund was asked if he would try human flesh, 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.” It’s fascinating that a behaviour psychologist would propose such a regressive notion as cannibalism under the guise, of what some might say, is the most progressive subject of our day: climate change.
The very practice of cannibalism can result in an incurable and fatal disease called Kuru; a neurological disorder where you eventually lose all bodily control. It seems bizarre for a scientist to push for a practice that has, time and time again, been proven to produce significant harm to anyone who practices it.
Söderlund continued, “people’s resistance to [eating human flesh] is a problem that could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it.” As food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting. What’s bonkers is that his presentation was even shown on Swedish State Television. Imagine turning on your device to see someone telling you that at some point in time we should all start eating human corpses. You’d probably think it was a joke only to then cringe upon the realization that it was an academic discussion.
I love the Swedes, but their so-called “progressive” society is starting to look a bit like a hot mess of regressive practices. On this subject alone, it could actually cause people to go insane. Yet people around the world continue to gaze at in awe at anything labelled as “progressive,” especially if it’s coming out of Europe.
Nowhere in that rallying cry “do your part for the planet” does cannibalism have a place. If you really want to save the world, you should do your research. Many programs and initiatives that have been started and enforced by governments produce a limited impact. However, they do stroke the egos of elites and places the power in their hands. While some initiatives may look good on paper, that does not mean they are in reality.
Prince Charles is known for many things, one of them being an outspoken climate change activist. He recently travelled to Davos for the World Economic Forum last week where he met with activist Greta Thunberg.
Upon his arrival, he drove an electric Jaguar car to the Swiss resort where the convention was being held. Prince Charles gave a speech on Wednesday in which he urged world leaders to take “bold and imaginative action” when it comes to their environmental practices according to the Daily Mail.
It was an appearance and a speech that didn’t corroborate very well with the Prince’s lifestyle. The Ministry of Supply revealed that in just the 11 days leading up to the convention Prince Charles took three flights on private jets and one additional flight via private helicopter for the purpose of official government business.
The Paramount Business Jet calculator, a program that allows passengers to understand and calculate their carbon emissions tallied that the air travel of those 11 days alone amounted to 162 metric tons of carbon emissions. That is 18 times the amount that the average Brit uses a year, and it cost approximately 270,000 British Pounds.
Clarence House spokesman said, “Global travel is an inescapable part of the Prince’s role as a senior member of the Royal Family representing the UK overseas.
“When he travels he does so at the request of the British Government. He does not choose the destinations any more than he chooses the means by which the journeys are undertaken.”
A source from within the Royal circle defended the Prince saying, “The Prince has been campaigning against the dangers of global warming for 50 years. As soon as there is a more efficient way of travelling, bearing in mind all the factors involved, he’ll be the first to adopt them.”
However, Muna Suleiman, of Friends Of The Earth, said: ‘Climate targets can’t be met without cutting pollution from aviation emissions, and private jets are a particularly wasteful way to travel.’’
Prince Charles had a Bombardier Global Express fly 944 miles from Austria to pick him up from his Birkhall home in Scotland. He was then flown to Muscat, where he paid his respects to the departed Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said on behalf of the Queen. He then flew 750 miles by private jet from Scotland to Switzerland for the Davos summit days later.
Following the speech, he travelled 1,740 miles to Israel. A private jet was chosen for security reasons and the Prince only accepted the Davos invitation because it was on the way to Israel according to Royal officials.
Not a week goes by when Jessica Yaniv isn’t in the news for committing a crime or doing something so morally abhorrent it might as well be criminal to do so.
Yaniv’s deplorability is depthless. Yet despite the wall-to-wall coverage of Yaniv’s activities both online and in the real world, the self-described “trans rights activist” has managed to elude any serious repercussions from the law.
Writing for Human Events, I previously described Yaniv’s attempts to manipulate the law as state-enforced sexual assault. I stand by it. Yaniv, who is male-to-female transgender, attempted to subvert law enforcement to do her bidding by taking them to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and essentially trying them for anti-trans bigotry when they refused to provide their genitalia-waxing services, male-bodied transgender persons.
Despite eventually losing the case, the legal ramifications to Yaniv were minimal and Yaniv has only gotten worse since then—and the lack of any severe repercussions has only emboldened her misbehaviour.
Not only has Yaniv tried to subvert the law to force women to wax her male genitalia—she’s now using the law to try and silence her detractors. She made false allegations of sexual assault on The Post Millennial’s Amy Eileen Hamm, who has brought a civil suit against Yaniv.
She also assaulted Canadian journalist Keean Bexte. One might hope that the time she spends roaming about in a motorized scooter will soon come to an end as she was finally arrested over the assault. The footage of the attack was caught on camera, which should be an open and shut case for any prosecutor in the B.C. courts.
That isn’t the only felony charge Yaniv faces, either—having previously been charged for possessing illegal weapons, which she proudly flaunted (and arguably used to threaten) YouTuber Blaire White during a live-streamed interview late last year.
Yaniv has proven herself dangerous to young people. The Post Millennial has profiled in detail allegations by a young woman who alleges that years prior to attaining notoriety over the “wax my balls” scandal, Yaniv—then going by the name Jonathan—had attempted to sexually exploit her when she was underage.
Observers, including myself, remain skeptical that Yaniv will see any actual jail time. Her actions would have landed anyone else behind bars long before now.
Why is it that Yaniv can escape the long arm of the law? A public menace, Yaniv enjoys unspoken protections from the law—not merely as someone who identifies as transgender but as a transgender activist, who makes every action taken against her an action that weighs against the trans rights movement as a whole.
Indeed, the LGBT-friendly media—at least in the form of the internationally read PinkNews came to the apparent defence of the accused child sex predator and public menace. As Celine Ryan detailed for The Post Millennial, the progressive publication chose instead to smear Blaire White, who has been outspoken in her criticism of Yaniv.
Unlike Yaniv, White is openly conservative and doesn’t regard herself as any sort of “trans activist.” In other words, White isn’t the right kind of trans. Yaniv, a colossal fruitcake and aggressively woke social justice activist is everything publications like PinkNews look to champion.
Labels, to some, matter more than substance—and therein lies the problem with those in law enforcement who care more about optics than they do about meting out justice. Just as no plan survives contact with the enemy, no politician, judge, or police officer who acts against Jessica Yaniv is going to emerge unscathed due to the protection she is afforded by the privilege of the labels she wears.
There’s nothing just about social justice.
The New York Times endorsement of both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president has been lauded and critiqued, but no take is quite as inane and Lauren Duca’s. Writing for The Independent, Duca takes an essential tack linking womanhood with virtuosity, love, nurturing, and maternal values. These are what Duca believes we need in the highest office, and apparently qualities which are the purview of women at large.
Duca believes that women will bring “unconditional love” to the conference table. She thinks women have less greed and avarice, and that while “the divine feminine is beyond that binary, best understood as the force of nurturing,” gender is a social construct.
It’s surprising that both of these views can exist concurrently within one cohesive ethos. Gender isn’t real, apparently, because it’s made up by society to sell us prescribed notions for what men and women are, but femininity brings with it a form of divinity that is localized within women and those who believe they are women, even though womanhood isn’t really anything specific. Are we all clear? No?
Duca opines: “America, as it stands, is not even pretending to be a free country. We are living in an oligarchy structured by the hierarchy of the white, supremacist patriarchy, and this is where toxic masculinity has led us.”
How can a person of such privilege, who gets to write for fancy platforms, teach adjunct classes, and traipse around the world on tour for a book that doesn’t even sell any copies, claim that America is not a free country? How can a person who has benefited so greatly precisely because of her status as an identitarian grievance monger make the assertion that we live in a white supramacist oligarchy? Isn’t this all getting a little old?
Under the guise of elevating women, Duca puts them right back in their place. Probably she thinks she’s lifting women up by saying that they can achieve world peace and stop World War 3 before it’s begun in a way that men, with their penchant toward toxicity, haven’t been able to do. If men aren’t better suited to office on the basis of their sex, then neither are women. Sex isn’t a characteristic upon which votes should be based.
If a woman were elected on the basis of her sex, and she didn’t magically fix all the social ills with one SCOTUS nom and a few passes of her magical bill signing pen under the light of the full moon in the Rose Garden, how could the US ever justify electing another? Women are fallible, not magical. Y’know, just like other people.
Women are people, with aspirations, faults, wishes, wills, and a drive to succeed. To count them as anything other does their humanity a disservice. Duca writes: “I think it makes a difference if the person at the helm of this transformation is a woman, because of the lessons learned by anyone who has a female perspective on our crisis of toxic masculinity.”
But that doesn’t actually mean anything.
Duca, of course, has been a longtime culture warrior on the woke side—a true believer who has offered up hot take after hot take espousing the most incoherent of woke talking points like “Sean Spicer’s Emmys Cameo Wasn’t a Joke—It’s Dangerous,” or “Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America.”
Duca then had her own turn in the barrel, when her entire NYU class revolted because she was not woke enough. Apparently she hasn’t learned the lessons that you can never be woke enough, and that the woke will devour themselves in the end.
The word “woke” has been bandied around in progressive circles since the early 2010s. Ironically, “woke” has become a pejorative term used to denigrate those who signal their virtue without doing much to advance any progressive cause. Woke individuals are, as the rule (that I just invented) goes, more concerned with making themselves look good and using their platform (or building a platform) to abuse others under the guise of combating social injustice.
None of this has, of course, gone unnoticed by the woke progressives who use the term without any sense of irony whatsoever. In an op-ed for the Guardian, writer Steve Rose opines that the word “woke” has been “weaponized by the right.” But whose fault is that, exactly? It’s certainly not the fault of those tired of being moralized and lectured to that they might repurpose the term to mock those who engage in cancel campaigns against any celebrity or public figure guilty of perceived unwokeness.
Citing the Merriam-Webster, Rose says that the term “woke” refers to anyone “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” And much like the term “political correctness,” the term has come to mean the opposite of what it means—or so he claims.
But is that truly the case? Those who elevate themselves through wokeness have little interest in combating social injustices and simply use it as a shield for their own bigotry, and to shut down dissenting opinions. Their wokeness, if it exists at all, is performative.
This isn’t to say that one can simply go about spouting racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise bigoted remarks without pushback from any decent and reasonable person. Decent and reasonable people don’t care about being “woke.” “Woke” individuals, as it were, cultivate their entire personalities around the fight for social justice without much to show for it besides preening at everyone else on Twitter.
Wokeness has become a social status symbol more than anything else, and the “Right,” or the “unwoke,” or whatever you want to call us continue to be reasonable people while rubbing our lack of wokeness in the face of those who rally around the hollow symbol.
Case in point: Guardian writer, Steve Rose, attacks actor Laurence Fox for—you guessed it, unwokeness. He writes:
“Laurence Fox nailed his colours to the latter mast this weekend, doubling down on his defence of the privileged white male on last week’s Question Time to a Sunday Times article under the banner ‘Why I won’t date ‘woke’ women’. Toby Young piled in, applauding how Fox was ‘terrorising the Wokerati’, while the Sun last weekend branded Harry and Meghan ‘the oppressive King and Queen of Woke’.”
Rose argues that rather than simply rejecting the concept of wokeness, detractors of the term, like Fox, only criticize wokeness as “way of claiming victim status for yourself rather than acknowledging that more deserving others hold that status. It has gone from a virtue signal to dog whistle.”
On the contrary, any individual who makes claims to wokeness isn’t so much of a victim as they are a participant in the race for social status. Being unwoke doesn’t give you an entry pass into a separate league of oppression.
Laurence Fox has been outspoken in his lack of wokeness, simply speaking his mind and saying it like it is with no regard for how supposedly offensive it is to not be mindful to those who hold wokeness up as a virtue in and of itself. He isn’t claiming to be a victim—like any decent and reasonable person, he’s rejecting victimhood entirely. And it’s working.