segunda-feira, 23 de abril de 2018

Ambientalistas Tarados: Ecosex e Banho de Floresta

Costumavam chamar os ambientalistas de melancias, por serem verdes (preocupados com o meio ambiente) por fora, mas vermelhos (comunistas) por dentro. Agora, eles acrescentam a perversão sexual.

Dr. Briggs nos apresenta novidades estúpidas do mundo ambientalista: Forest Bathing (Banho de Floresta, simplesmente caminhar pela floresta) e Ecosex (sexo, sexo mesmo, com a natureza).

Vejam parte do artigo dele:

From Forest Bathing To Ecosex, Earth Day Sure Has Changed

To Save The Planet, Have Sex With The Planet?

By WILLIAM M BRIGGS Published on April 21, 2018 • 8 Comments
Earth Day is a good time to note that environmentalism is growing creepier.
Take the queer practice of “forest bathing.” Forest bathing “doesn’t involve actual bathing, the kind with water. It’s figurative bathing. You soak in the wonders of the forest.” How? By walking slowly.
We used to call forest bathing “taking a walk.” That was long ago in less enlightened times before mankind learned how to turn commonplaces into marketable experiences.
Amos Clifford, the mastermind behind the movement, leads forest bathing sessions for $50 a stroll. Or for $3,400 you can learn how to be a forest-bathing leader. Clifford also wrote Your Guide to Forest Bathing.
Clifford claims forest bathing “can produce mental, emotional, and physical health benefits” and says your gentle footsteps will “connect with nature as a way to help heal both the planet and humanity.”

Dirty Talk

My tree didn’t extend its intimacy beyond a chat. This would have been disappointing to Sarah Ensor. She quotes approvingly from the Ecosex Manifesto in her peer-reviewed paper (put out by Oxford University Press), “The Ecopoetics of Contact: Touching, Cruising, Gleaning“:
“[Ecosexuals] make love with the earth … . We shamelessly hug trees, massage the earth with our feet, and talk erotically to plants … .” Such an approach, which counters mainstream environmentalism’s ascetic imperatives by advocating unbounded pleasure, playfully indexes one of the foundational impasses inhibiting the development of a queer ecocriticism: the conflicting status of embodied desire — and thus of touch — in its two constitutive fields. (ellipses original)
This standard academic gibberish masks a real trend. Ecosex is on the move.
According to the page “Here come the ecosexuals!” hosted by the University of California of Santa Cruz, a public institution, an exosexual is “a person that finds nature romantic, sensual and sexy.” Sexecology is “a new field of research exploring the places sexology and ecology intersect.” (The home page is not linked and is definitely not safe for work.)
The Ecosex Manifesto insists that “being ecosexual is our primary (sexual) identity” and that ecosexuals are “polymorphous and pollen-amorous.”
There is a helpful guide for ecosex newbies: “25 Ways to Make Love to the Earth.”
Tip #2: “At first you may feel embarrassed to be lovers with the Earth. Let it go. It’s OK.”
Tip #7: “Circulate erotic energy with her.”
Tip #18: “Bury parts of your body deep inside her soil.” This is to pre-experience what happens when (Tip #25), “death brings you closer together forever.”

Save the Planet for What?

This isn’t about self-indulgence. This is, says Vice, about saving the planet and “combatting [sic] climate change.”
You strap on surgical masks with glued-on moss formations, then pervert yourself with the soil. This will drop atmospheric temperatures. We aren’t told how.
Ecosex is not to be confused with ecosexuality, which is about the “sustainable” choice of “environmentally-friendly,” and presumably expensive, “bedroom paraphernalia.”
What’s confusing about this distinction is that sex — actual sex — requires no paraphernalia whatsoever and is by definition the very nature of sustainability.
Lost in these bizarre practices is that the best way to celebrate Earth Day is a prayer of thanksgiving for the bounty which we receive. Send this article to your tree-hugging friends to remind them.

quinta-feira, 29 de março de 2018

Trump Briga com a Amazon.

Trump acusa a Amazon de não pagar impostos estaduais e locais, de usar o sistema de correios dos EUA de forma exploradora e de fazer muitas pequenas empresas perderem negócio.

Ele está certo nesses aspectos? Com certeza.

Ele tem motivos escusos para atacar Amazon? Não sei, mas no que ele disse, ele está certo.

O problema para mim é que o que ele disse vale para muitas empresas, como a Starbucks (que destrói muitos pequenos cafés nos EUA e no mundo), supermercados gigantes (que destroem pequenos negócios nos EUA e no mundo), grandes lojas de departamento...

O dono da Amazon é o homem mais rico no mundo, certamente ele pisou em muitos concorrentes para chegar a esse ponto. Não tem jeito, a partir de um certo nível de riqueza e poder, para ganhar maias, você tem que destruir os concorrentes. Certa vez, eu coloquei aqui no blog, uma série do History Channel sobre os mais importantes ricaços dos EUA, e a história é sempre a mesma, depois de um certo estágio, passa-se a destruir concorrentes usando qualquer método, lícito ou ilícito.

As críticas que fez Trump são as mesmas que fazem os teóricos do Distributismo.

Em todo caso, nenhuma empresa gosta de brigar com o Estado, pois o Estado tem ferramentas destrutivas e o mercado não gosta de ver uma empresa sendo atacada pelo governo.

E assim as ações da Amazon perdem valor.

sexta-feira, 23 de março de 2018

100 Intelectuais Franceses Alertam contra Totalitarismo Islâmico

Um grupo de 100 intelectuais franceses assinam documento denunciando o totalitarismo muçulmano, no jornal Le Figaro.

Entre eles, há o excepcional Rémi Brague. Leiam qualquer livro de Rémi Brague, ele é demais, mencionei ele no meu livro Teoria e Tradição da Guerra Justa (Vide Editorial).

Também assinou o documento o premiado escritor Boualem Sansal (escrevi um artigo em que trato de um livro dele chamado 2084).

Além disso, vale menção do historiador Alain Besançon, diretor de estudos da Escola de Altos Estudos em Ciências Sociais.

E também de Ibn Warraq, que escreveu vários livros sobre o Islã.

Aliás, hoje teve mais um ataque terrorista muçulmano na França.

O site Jihad Watch traduziu o texto para o inglês e colocou todos os nomes dos assinantes.

Vejam abaixo.

"We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.
That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.
Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.
Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.
We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.
This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.
What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.
Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.
Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”
But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?
Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?
All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?
Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.
What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?
For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.
On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.
This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.
Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.
Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.
Waleed al-Husseini, writer
Arnaud d’Aunay, painter
Pierre Avril, academic
Vida Azimi, jurist
Isabelle Barbéris, academic
Kenza Belliard, teacher
Georges Bensoussan, historian
Corinne Berron, author
Alain Besançon, historian
Fatiha Boudjahlat, essayist
Michel Bouleau, jurist
Rémi Brague, philosopher
Philippe Braunstein, historian
Stéphane Breton, film maker, ethnologist
Claire Brière-Blanchet, reporter, essayist
Marie-Laure Brossier, city councillor
Pascal Bruckner, writer
Eylem Can, script writer
Sylvie Catellin, semiologist
Gérard Chaliand, writer
Patrice Champion, former ministerial advisor
Brice Couturier, journalist
Éric Delbecque, essayist
Chantal Delsol, philosopher
Vincent Descombes, philosopher
David Duquesne, nurse
Luc Ferry, philosopher, former minister
Alain Finkielkraut, philosopher, writer
Patrice Franceschi, writer
Renée Fregosi, philosopher
Christian Frère, professor
Claudine Gamba-Gontard, professor
Jacques Gilbert, historian of ideas
Gilles-William Goldnadel, lawyer
Monique Gosselin-Noat, academic
Gabriel Gras, biologist
Gaël Gratet, professor
Patrice Gueniffey, historian
Alain Guéry, historian
Éric Guichard, philosopher
Claude Habib, writer, professor
Nathalie Heinich, sociologist
Clarisse Herrenschmidt, linguist
Philippe d’Iribarne, sociologist
Roland Jaccard, essayist
Jacques Jedwab, psychoanalyst
Catherine Kintzler, philosopher
Bernard Kouchner, doctor, humanitarian, former minister
Bernard de La Villardière, journalist
Françoise Laborde, journalist
Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, essayist
Dominique Lanza, clinical psychologist
Philippe de Lara, philosopher
Josepha Laroche, academic
Alain Laurent, essayist, editor
Michel Le Bris, writer
Jean-Pierre Le Goff, philosopher
Damien Le Guay, philosopher
Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, jurist
Barbara Lefebvre, teacher
Patrick Leroux-Hugon, physicist
Élisabeth Lévy, journalist
Laurent Loty, historian of ideas
Mohamed Louizi, engineer, essayist
Jérôme Maucourant, economist
Jean-Michel Meurice, painter, film director
Juliette Minces, sociologist
Marc Nacht, psychoanalyst, writer
Morgan Navarro, cartoonist
Pierre Nora, historian, editor
Robert Pépin, translator
Céline Pina, essayist
Yann Queffélec, writer
Jean Queyrat, film director
Philippe Raynaud, professor of political science
Robert Redeker, writer
Pierre Rigoulot, historian
Ivan Rioufol, journalist
Philippe San Marco, author, essayist
Boualem Sansal, writer
Jean-Marie Schaeffer, philosopher
Martine Segalen, ethnologist
André Senik, teacher
Patrick Sommier, man of the theater
Antoine Spire, vice-president of Licra
Wiktor Stoczkowski, anthropologist
Véronique Tacquin, professor, writer
Pierre-André Taguieff, political scientist
Maxime Tandonnet, author
Sylvain Tesson, writer
Paul Thibaud, essayist
Bruno Tinel, economist
Michèle Tribalat, demographer
Caroline Valentin, essayist
David Vallat, author
Éric Vanzieleghem, documentalist
Jeannine Verdès-Leroux, historian
Emmanuel de Waresquiel, historian
Ibn Warraq, writer
Yves-Charles Zarka, philosopher
Fawzia Zouari, writer

terça-feira, 13 de março de 2018

Al Gore e o Guia Politicamente Incorreto da Mudança Climática

Acaba de ser lançado o livro acima, disponível a partir da próxima semana: Guia Politicamente Incorreto da Mudança Climática.

O autor, Marc Morano, é fundador do Climate Depot, site crítico da hipótese de mudança climática.

 O site Daily Wire destacou a parte do livro sobre Al Gore que ficou trilionario com divulgação dessa hipótese tão frágil cientificamente, que engana desde o papa Francisco até o professor do seu filho de 3 anos.

Al Gore tinha uma renda de 1,9 milhão de dólares quando foi candidato a vice presidente em 2000. Em 2007, com sua campanha climática e investimentos em companhias "ambientais" sua renda passou a ser de 100 milhões de dólares.

Vale à pena comprar esse livro, ler e dá para a escola do seu filho ou para o padre de sua diocese.

terça-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2018

Dr. Happer (Professor Emérito de Física): Modelos Climáticos NÃO Funcionam e talvez Nunca Funcionem.

Parece-me que Dr. William Happer colocou a questão climática em seu devido lugar. A previsão climática de aquecimento ou esfriamento é ficção científica, não é ciência.

"Só o cérebro humano é mais complexo que o clima."

Robôs e Mercado Financeiro

Ontem, o mercado financeiro dos Estados Unidos caiu forte, por conta de expectativa de elevação das taxas de juros, uma vez que a previsão é de crescimento muito forte de 5,4% no primeiro trimestre, também de baixos resultados em algumas empresas importantes, como a Apple, mas também por conta da ação de "inteligência artificial" no mercado financeiro.

Isto é, inteligência artificial (AI) está sendo usada por inúmeros bancos e hedge fundos para vender e comprar ações, ontem se viu que essa AI está acelerando as perdas do mercado. Essa AI que essas instituições usam são semelhantes, não são diversificadas como seriam os humanos.

Em resumo, não são humanos que estão comprando ou vendendo ações diretamente, eles estão deixando isso para "robôs", programas de computador.

E o pior que os sites de empresas que fazem a gestão dessa AI (chamadas robo-advisers) caíram com a forte demanda para explicação e deixaram os clientes sem resposta.

Vejam relato da Bloomberg sobre AI no mercado financeiro.

Robots in Finance Bring New Risks to Stability, Regulators Warn

Banks and hedge funds that rely on artificial intelligence threaten to inject risks into the financial system that could exacerbate a future crisis, according to global regulators.
The financial industry’s rush to adopt AI raises the potential that firms will become overly dependent on technologies that herd them toward the same view of risks and could “amplify financial shocks,” according to a study published on Wednesday by the Financial Stability Board, a panel of regulators that includes the U.S. Federal Reserveand European Central Bank.
“AI and machine learning applications show substantial promise if their specific risks are properly managed,” the FSB said in a report that called for additional monitoring and testing of robotic technologies designed to lessen human involvement. “Taken as a group, universal banks’ vulnerability to systemic shocks may grow if they increasingly depend on similar algorithms or data streams.”
The FSB, headed by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, said that many of the technologies are being designed and tested in a period of low volatility in financial markets, and, as a result, “may not suggest optimal actions in a significant economic downturn or in a financial crisis.”
Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that aims to imbue machines with aspects of reasoning. The term now includes machine learning, which is the ability for computers to learn by ingesting data, and natural language processing -- the ability to read or produce text.
The world’s biggest banks and hedge funds are embracing the tools, driven by the availability of major new sources of data that can be analyzed quickly with computer power and at the same time a desire to cut costs and employment levels. Management consultant Opimas LLC estimated in March that AI would result in a cut of 230,000 workers at financial firms worldwide by 2025, with the hardest hit being 90,000 people in asset management.
Firms are using AI and machine learning to assess the credit quality of borrowers, price insurance contracts, automate interactions with clients and estimate the risk of trading positions, the FSB said. Hedge funds relying purely on AI and machine learning technologies are growing rapidly and have about $10 billion in assets under management, the FSB said, citing an estimate from a unnamed financial firm.
The FSB said technology’s potential to cut costs and drive new profits is even creating an “arms race” among firms to demonstrate their use of AI.
In the process, firms may be relying on a small number of third-party technological developers and services. If those were to fail, the effect would ripple across the wider financial system and contribute to major disruptions at large financial firms at the same time.
“These risks may become more important in the future if AI and machine learning are used for ‘mission-critical’ applications of financial institutions,” the FSB said. “Moreover, advanced optimization techniques and predictable patterns in the behavior of automated trading strategies could be used by insiders or by cyber-criminals to manipulate market prices.”

quarta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2018

Nunca George Soros Gastou Tanto com Lobby

Inimigo em praticamente tudo que Trump faz, George Soros nunca gastou tanto em lobby do que no primeiro ano do governo Trump.

Soros usa sua organização "Open Society" para apoiar grupos pró-imigração, pró-aborto, pró-eutanásia, pró-gays, contra gastos de defesa, e outros que apoiam políticas e países de esquerda. Ele é ligado umbilicalmente ao Partido Democrata dos EUA, que faz opinião severa a Trump, gasta muito em apoio aos democratas. Eles fazem que que chamam de "resistência" a Trump.

Além disso, Soros é húngaro e a Hungria não anda gostando das interferências dele, e isso fez Soros gastar muito dinheiro em lobby.

Vejam relato do Free Bacon

George Soros Spent Record Amount Lobbying During Trump’s First Year

Open Society Policy Center poured $16.2 million into lobbying efforts in 2017

Liberal billionaire George Soros spent more on lobbying during President Donald Trump's first year in office than he has in any previous year, disclosure forms show.
The Open Society Policy Center, a D.C.-based 501 (c)(4) nonprofit that focuses on domestic and international advocacy efforts and is a separate entity from Soros's Open Society Foundations, poured $16.2 million into lobbying throughout the entirety of 2017.
Soros's group reported spending $4.6 million during the first half of 2017 on its lobbying efforts. During the third quarter, Soros added $1.25 million to the total. Most of the lobbying expenditures—$10.3 million—were spent during the fourth quarter, which spans from October 1 to December 31.
Soros ramped up his efforts as the year progressed by pushing funds toward issues that have been seen as a direct attack on the deep-pocketed financier, such as Hungary's Bill on Foreign Funded Organizations (LexNGO), a crackdown on foreign-funded organizations in that country.
Hungary's parliament approved the law that targets foreign-funded NGOs in June of last year, saying they could "threaten the country's political and economic interests and interfere with the functioning of its institutions."
While the legislation does not mention Soros, who was born in Hungary and has given money to a number of NGOs in the country, by name, Hungarian politicians have said that they wanted to "sweep out" organizations tied to the financier, Bloomberg reported.
Soros also pushed funds to lobby on the Restricted First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, and the Preventing Preemptive War in North Korea Act of 2017, among others, according to the disclosure forms.  The Open Society Policy Center lobbied the Senate, House of Representatives, State Department, National Security Council, and the Department of Defense last year.
"We make different grants each year depending on what is happening in Congress and there was a lot going in 2017: Protecting immigrants and refugees, preserving fairness in the tax code, advocating for criminal justice reform, pressing for disaster relief for Puerto Rico, and promoting a progressive U.S. foreign policy," said Jonathan Kaplan, a spokesman for the Open Society Policy Center.
Between 2002 and 2012, the policy center reported spending a total of $19,120,000 lobbying Congress and agencies, an average of $1.9 million on lobbying per year. The most Soros had spent on lobbying prior to last year was $12.4 million in 2014.
The group's disclosure forms also show that Soros has recruited the help of a number of outside lobbying shops in the past including Orion Strategies, the Mitchell Firm, and Glover Park Group, all D.C.-based firms, on top of its three in-house lobbyists.
The Open Society Policy Center hauled in $17 million in contributions in 2015, according to the group's most recent tax forms. During that year, one of the group's largest grant disbursements went to the Advocacy Fund, an organization that helps to navigate "lobbying, political and funding rules to win campaigns for social change," in the amount of $800,000.
The Advocacy Fund is involved with Demos, a New York-based public policy organization whose board of directors is chaired by Amelia Warren Tyagi, the daughter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). Indivisible, one of the most prominent anti-Trump groups today, is also listed under the Advocacy Fund's projects.
Gara LaMarche, who sat on the board of directors of the policy center during the time covered by its most recent tax forms, and is still a member of its board, is now the president of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive donor club where Soros is a founding partner. The alliance consists of wealthy liberals who each vow to steer hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to progressive groups.
The Free Beacon attended the group's secretive fall investment conference held last November at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, Calif. and obtained confidential documents at the retreat where the group was planning its next steps in the "resistance."
Soros, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), headlined the event.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), a potential Democratic presidential hopeful for 2020, introduced Soros with a "special videotaped message." Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) also delivered a video message to the group.  Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D.) and Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D., Minn.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), were in attendance.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), not listed on the agenda, was also spotted at the resort.
David Brock, the former conservative investigative journalist turned Clinton loyalist and founder of Media Matters for America, was also not listed in the agenda but was present at the gathering.
Brock held his own donor conference at the Turnberry Isle Miami resort in Aventura, Fla., last January where he huddled with more than 100 liberal donors to map out how they would "kick Donald Trump's ass."
The Free Beacon obtained the private and confidential memo Brock handed out to donors at the event outlining his four-year agenda to attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Shareblue.