Humans adapted to sudden and rapid climate change

'Republicans are mostly, but not entirely, on the side of merit & freedom'

A video shared on X claims that the Houthis have sunk or targeted 171 vessels. The Houthis successfully targeted 171 ships linked to Israel since October 2023. Love the Yemeni khanjar triangle ? pic.twitter.com/yD8aWTdQDs — PVT (@hoaxvstruths) July 19, 2024 Verdict: Misleading There is no evidence Houthis have not sunk 171 vessels or successfully hit 171 […]

If you haven’t read Selco’s paperback, paperback, The Dark Secrets of Survival, now is the time. Where are we right now, at what point in history? “First they fascinate the fools, then they muzzle the intelligent.” Bertrand Russell about how fascism started. It is more and more each day about fascinating the fools and muzzling the intelligent. “Fools” are fascinated with shiny and irrelevant stuff, sports, gambling, games, TV shows, irrelevant political discussions, following the “influencers,” and stuff that in general, gives them feeling about how their life is good or how they have influence over the things, or how they even can decide something. How they are supposed to be important, how they “matter.” “Fools” are not necessarily fools, just ordinary folks with ordinary problems. Being in a situation where they have to fight for food every day and discovering they have been blind, fooled by the system that they are “important” can cause them to change. “Intelligent” people might seem a bit more wise than fools, but they understand how stuff works, so they keep their mouths shut. If they talk too much, they’re going to be shut down or muzzled. “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” (George Orwell, “1984”) We are being played from one end of history when folks did not have too many rights and freedoms into another end of history wwhen people gonna be stripped and being stripped of rights and freedoms. And it will happen all in the name of rights and freedoms. You are being shushed down in the name of freedom of speech. Rights are being taken away from you in the name of other people’s rights. Freedom is being slowly canceled in the name of “the fight for freedom and democracy.” In this beautiful world of freedoms and rights, you need to stay stupid, love war, and you need to watch what you are saying (posting), or you might slowly die of unemployment. Who is more sick, the system or the people? To continue in the same spirit of the above, it is not only where the system and society are driving (or pushing you) but also about how modern systems work or how fragile they are. A few weeks ago hospital network close to me (a few other institutions, too) suffered cyber attacks, some say from Russian hackers. As a result, all data about medical records, surgeries data, donor banks data…everything was affected. Some services did not work for quite some time, some surgeries were postponed, and similar. Officially, the problems were solved in a few days. Unofficially, they lasted much longer, and it was pretty chaotic because all data was unavailable. A few days ago, something similar happened, but on a much, much larger scale. It is still unknown how large it is and how much it will influence everyday life, and for how many people. They say that a faulty security update caused thousands of Windows systems worldwide to crash, so a bunch of things simply do not work, impacting airports, banks, and TV broadcasters… You may say it happens and people will continue to live, yes and it is not a big thing unless you need emergency surgery and no data available about you, or you have scheduled cancer treatment that needs to be postponed…or simply you are without food and without cash with a bank card that does not work. And remember this (as it looks in this moment) is still a small thing, a small failure. Can you imagine complete and worlwide failure? The system is fragile. The system is operating in a way that you do not need to bomb it in order to destroy it. The bad guy just needs to“pull the plug“in the right place to start chaos. Maybe someone pulled a “small” plug just to test things the other day with this “blue screen of death?” Maybe someone wanted to shut down everything but they failed? The big plug will be pulled sooner or later simply because someone will do it, and bad things will happen. Now, about people… You all watched the video of the shooting at Donald Trump. Shots were fired, and how many people took cover (except Mr. Trump)? How many people at least lad down to make themselves smaller targets? Very few. There is active shooting. Nobody exactly knows what is happening, how many shooters there are, what kind of weapons are being used, and what more gonna be used. The majority of people are standing up, looking at what is happening, and recording scenes with cell phones. Bit weird right? It looks like the majority of people in SHTF will die simply because they will try to record SHTF on their phones. It is not only about the system. It is about ordinary people too. We become idiots mostly, with zero survival instincts, and the better and more modern life we have, the longer and more painful the fall we will have when SHTF. Now, combine those people with times when the big plug gonna be taken out… What do you think will happen then? About Selco: Selco survived the Balkan war of the 90s in a city under siege, without electricity, running water, or food distribution.  In his online works, he gives an inside view of the reality of survival under the harshest conditions. He reviews what works and what doesn’t, tells you the hard lessons he learned, and shares how he prepares today. He never stopped learning about survival and preparedness since the war. Regardless of what happens, chances are you will never experience extreme situations as Selco did. But you have the chance to learn from him and how he faced death for months. Read more of Selco’s articles here. Buy his PDF books here. Buy his #1 New Release paperback, The Dark Secrets of Survival here. Take advantage of a deep and profound insight into his knowledge by signing up for his online course SHTF Survival Boot Camp. Learn the inside story of what it was really like when the SHTF with his online course One Year in Hell. Find his website here: SHTFSchool.com Real survival is not romantic or idealistic. It is brutal, hard, and unfair. Let Selco take you into that world. The post SELCO: “The Majority Will Die in SHTF Trying to Record It on Their Phones” appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

After I posted a job opening on LinkedIn last summer for my new online journal, New Guard Press, the social media site removed the listing, citing “discrimination.” My crime? I wrote that my post sought “young writers who believe in our mission of reviving American culture.”  A label on that job posting for New Guard Press in my LinkedIn account still says it was “removed for discrimination.” I originally got the notification on July 4, 2023.   This was not the first time I had trouble with LinkedIn’s Jobs section. Two days earlier, I had received the same notification for an almost identical job posting. I appealed, asking LinkedIn to take a second look. I hoped that a more reasonable person would review the job posting, see that there was nothing remotely discriminatory about it, and return the post to the platform.   Twelve minutes after I requested a review of the earlier post, I got another email. LinkedIn confirmed that my job listing did in fact violate its “Jobs Terms and Conditions.”   After capitulating and removing the word “American” from the job description (a decision I now regret), I tried to post an entirely different job. Following this, I got an email July 7, 2023, saying that my ability to post jobs had been suspended for a week.   In August, LinkedIn banned me for another six days for “recurring violations of our Jobs Terms & Conditions and Quality Job Post Guidelines.” By this point, I had found out that LinkedIn doesn’t have accessible customer service. The only option is to direct-message LinkedIn on X (then still called Twitter), which I did after getting banned a second time.   Thirteen days later, I got a message back saying: “It looks like this has already been resolved.  Please let us know if you still experience issues.”   Keep in mind that when all of this took place, New Guard Press had not published a single article. It was barely more than an idea in the head of an 18-year-old in rural southern Ohio who wanted to build a publication for young conservatives.   Some may dismiss this incident as just a flaw in an otherwise good algorithm that keeps the LinkedIn community safe and professional. Even if that were so, LinkedIn has annual revenue north of $13 billion. If removing a job posting on the Fourth of July because it contains the word “American” is a flaw in its automated system, surely LinkedIn has the means to rapidly fix that flaw.   But more to the point, behind algorithms are human beings with ideas.   After LinkedIn removed my job posting for New Guard Press, I made a post on my personal account containing screenshots of a job posting by Planned Parenthood for a “Lead Clinician” that openly included performing abortion as part of the job description. My personal post included screenshots from a job posting by Indiana University Health titled “Academic Ob/gyn and trans/Gender Health Hybrid Position” and one from Rush University Medical Center looking for a “Gender Affirmation Advanced Practice Provider.”  LinkedIn allowed the listings for these two paid positions to remain on its website but removed my posting for an unpaid job at a new publication, New Guard Press. It’s clear that LinkedIn isn’t even pretending to be politically neutral.   “LinkedIn is not only as woke as other social media companies, but probably even more so,” The Heritage Foundation’s GianCarlo Canaparo and Daniel Cochrane wrote for The Daily Signal in April. “And it doesn’t hide it,” they added. “On the contrary, LinkedIn devotes a great deal of its resources to publicizing its ideological bias.”   LinkedIn “regularly publishes blogs touting its commitment to DEI,” Heritage’s Canaparo and Cochrane noted. “It produces hundreds of videos and classes to teach other people how important DEI is. It celebrates the DEI awards it wins from left-wing groups.”  This suggests that LinkedIn took down my job postings not because “reviving American culture” is discriminatory, but because LinkedIn discriminates against conservatives.   If LinkedIn truly wants to be a respected professional platform, it should at the very least fix its algorithms, so they don’t flag the word “American” as a form of discrimination. And if LinkedIn truly wants to be a beneficial part of the online landscape, it should do away with policies that enforce the Left’s political agenda.    The post I Got Banned by LinkedIn for Using ‘American’ in a Job Posting appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Gaslighting Over Kamala as Border Czar Has Begun

As Elvis famously crooned: “Wise men say, ‘only fools rush in.’ But I can’t help falling in love with you.” It’s both a romantic song and, according to a new study, a massive red flag – as it turns out that “rushing in” to love may correlate with a higher chance of infidelity in relationships.With the exception of aromantic folks or the extremely unlucky, most of us will “fall in love” at least once in our lives. The process and experience is different for everyone: for some of us, it’s a gradual and rare realization; for others, it’s an immediate and passionate rush. However it comes to you, though, so far appears to be something of a unique character trait – one that researchers have come to know as “emophilia”.“Important individual differences when falling in love pertain to how easily (i.e., how rapidly) and often (i.e., how many times) one falls in love,” explains the study. “These two factors (i.e., how easily and often) reflect one intercorrelated phenomenon, which [is] denote[d] emophilia.”“The two factors of emophilia (i.e., easily and often) are […] normally collapsed into one dimension, due to the high correlation between them,” it adds.So far so good – but it’s important to note at this point that not everyone is convinced that “emophilia” is a real thing. In fact, the researchers themselves went into the new study with a healthy dose of skepticism: “The research on emophilia that has been conducted is quite limited, with few studies, all of which are conducted by or in collaboration with [social psychologist Daniel] Jones,” they point out in the paper, “and most of them include North American samples.”“Given the replication crisis in psychology, it is important that findings are supported by separate studies,” they write. “Further, cross-cultural studies are needed to establish emophilia as a universal trait.”The new study does go a little way towards remedying this, being carried out among Norwegian and Swedish volunteers rather than Americans or Canadians. It’s a variable that might have proven crucial to proving the existence – or otherwise – of the phenomenon, as “love”, and our ideas around the concept, are known to be dependent on culture. Consider the popular idea, for example, that romantic love should go hand-in-hand with friendship and comfort – characterizations that one 2011 study says are virtually unknown in, say, Russia or Lithuania, where “love” was suggested to be conceptualized more as a temporary "fairytale" than in American participants.Basically, before the researchers could start investigating whether emophilia was linked to infidelity, they first had to make sure it was actually a thing for everybody, rather than just being a quirk of North Americans. So, using newspaper ads, they recruited more than 2,600 study participants and sent out online surveys measuring romantic information, personality traits including the “dark triad” and “big five” clusters, and levels of emophilia.The latter category was investigated using the Emotional Promiscuity Scale, or EPS: a “two-factored scale [that] measures how often and easily a person falls in love,” the researchers explain. The first result was encouraging: a quick statistical analysis of the EPS responses confirmed that it’s a pretty reliable measure for emophilia.That checked, the team moved on to investigating the links, if any, between emophilia and other personality traits. For all you hopeless romantics out there, the results may be reassuring: while emophilia had a small positive correlation with Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and a slightly stronger one with narcissism, it was also had a small positive correlation with positive traits like extraversion, agreeableness, and openness.The main question, though, was how emophilia affects your love life – specifically, is it positively associated with a person’s number of romantic relationships and times being unfaithful? The answer appears to be yes.As the team points out, this may not be surprising. “The tendency to fall in love easily and often […] might lead the individual to engage in new romantic relationships more frequently,” they write, while “falling in love easily and often may also explain emophilia’s association with unfaithfulness, as it may lead the individual to develop romantic feelings toward someone outside their relationship.” It’s depressing news for those who love love – but don’t lose heart just yet. Because of the way the study was conducted – being cross-sectional, and based entirely on self-reporting – it’s impossible to say for sure that emophilia causes infidelity or higher numbers of relationships. Indeed, as the researchers themselves point out, it could be precisely the opposite.“It might be that instead of emophilia causing the number of relationships/affairs, the direction could be opposite, in which scores on emophilia were at least in part a consequence of the number of relationships/affairs,” they suggest. “One can reason that those who have been in many relationships, and/or cheated many times, might reason in hindsight that they might also have been in love many times, as it is common, and it is probably more socially desirable, to view relationship formation/cheating as being related to love.”The study is published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. 

Popular culture is full of scientific myths. No, the average person does not only use ten percent of their brain; sugar doesn’t make kids hyperactive; and your hair and fingernails don’t continue growing after you die. But there’s one in particular which, on the face of it, seems to have at least some scientific basis: the idea that men can tell when women are ovulating by their scent. It’s an idea that seems to pop up every decade or so. Here’s a study from 2020 that supports it, for example; here’s one from 2009 saying the same. Another study, this time from 2004, reiterates the idea;  here’s one from 2001 suggesting it’s true; you can even go all the way back to 1975 and find papers still saying the same thing. Men, it seems, can smell fertility in women.But just how accurate is this factoid? According to the results of a new study, potentially not very: “Using frequent odor samples from the same women and hormonal assessment of fertility, we assessed potential fertility-related shifts in axillary body odor in a twofold study combining perceptual and chemical evidence,” write the authors. “Overall, there was no compelling evidence that female fertility positively affects male odor ratings.”In fact, not only can men probably not pick up on the changes in a woman’s scent throughout her menstrual cycle, but those changes may not even exist at all: “The chemical composition of a woman’s axillary odor was not affected by her current fertile state,” the team discovered, or her "fluctuating ovarian hormone level.” All of this adds up to the question: where did this notion ever come from?Well, one clue may be in the methodology of this study versus previous research. “In most studies, men assessed fertility information of one woman over her cycle, thus simulating repeated encounters with the same woman,” the authors explain. In contrast, the new study “aimed to investigate whether men are able to detect female fertility from a single encounter.”To that end, the male participants in the study were given 24 odor samples to rate over two separate sessions. No man received a sample from the same woman twice; the samples were distributed completely randomly, and rotated around the room systematically until every man had sniffed every woman.And the results, if anything, showed precisely the opposite of what you’d expect. “In contrast to our predictions, axillary odor was descriptively evaluated as both less attractive and less pleasant at higher conception risk,” the authors noted – though the effect was very weak. Overall, they concluded, “we found no compelling indication that men’s perception of female axillary odors varies with female fertility.”But another reason for the discrepancy between previous studies and the new paper is even more basic. “The majority of [prior] evidence lacks a direct assessment of female reproductive hormones, reliable hormonal confirmation of ovulation and depicts considerable inconsistencies in estimating the fertile window,” the authors point out – or to put it another way: nobody actually checked if the women really were ovulating when they thought they were.This paper, on the other hand, confirmed where in their fertility cycle female participants were via both urinary and saliva samples. Not only that, but the team utilized cutting-edge technology to objectively evaluate the women’s aromas: “Chemical profiles of women’s axillary odor, measured with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry […] were used to assess whether changes in the abundance of chemical compounds occur in association with female fertility,” they explain. Combine all this with the well-documented publication bias against null effects – that is to say, people aren’t that interested in reading studies that don’t tell them weird things like “men can smell when you’re ovulating” – and it basically adds up to a never-ending circle of confirmation bias. So, it may be true that men can subconsciously tell when a woman is ovulating – but not an unfamiliar woman, and not by her scent alone. All in all, the most we can conclude is “more research needed” – including, as the team points out, revisiting some of the old results that got us here in the first place.“We are certainly still at the beginning of understanding the physiological interaction between the gradual fluctuations in fertility and ovarian hormones across the ovulatory cycle and women’s body odor,” the paper concludes. “We strongly encourage further disentangling the physiological basis as well as the social function of olfactory cues to female fertility in humans with the robust methods we have at hand.”The study is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

On Tuesday, CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta brought on political analyst Van Jones, who had a lot of praise to give Vice President Kamala Harris following President Joe Biden’s endorsement of her campaign. Jones described Kamala as a “winner,” a “heartbeat of hope,” and claimed she’s had the best 48 hours in American political history. Acosta began the segment by asking Jones if he thought Donald Trump would “be able to siphon off enough black men to perhaps make a difference” in the upcoming presidential race.     Jones listed several “African American women who are the pillars of the Democratic Party” and stated: They touch people, they counsel people, they help people, and they orchestrated and engineered this outcome, not because Kamala is a black woman, but because they could not see the Democratic Party in disarray and they want to make sure that if there's going to be a loose ball, it landed in the most capable hands. Jones tried to explain that Kamala would be successful as president because she is “someone who's won as district attorney, someone who's won as attorney general, someone who's won as senator, someone who's won as vice president. A winner who has delivered over and over again.” Harris won her race for attorney general in deep blue California by less than one point. Yet, Jones continued, “But then what happened was, nobody necessarily predicted, was we spent three weeks sitting outside the ICU with a death watch for democracy. Watching what would happen after that debate if Donald Trump were able to get back in the White House and it was terrifying.” Portraying Harris as a savior, Jones exclaimed, “Then suddenly a crack open of hope. One little heartbeat of hope. Kamala Harris raising her hand and saying, ‘I'll take care of this’ and you saw an explosion of support and energy.” Jones declared that “young people have taken over TikTok for Kamala Harris” and have made it a “Kamala mania.” He made one last push for Harris as he concluded: This will go down in history as the most successful political effort over a 48-hour period in the history of the United States. There has never been -- there has never been an effort that secured the nomination this quickly, money this quickly, enthusiasm this quickly, it took over pop culture this quickly, and we are on day two of Kamala Harris. Harris also dropped out of the 2020 Primary before Iowa, so perhaps Jones should take it easy. Click "Expand" to view the transcript: CNN Newsroom 7/23/2024 10:04:25 2 minutes 28 seconds JIM ACOSTA:  Yeah and Van, I do want to ask you about this call and the importance of it as well, because I mean, one of the things that a lot of us were talking about before the big shakeup at the top of the Democratic ticket was whether or not Donald Trump was going to be able to siphon off enough black men to perhaps make a difference in that race had it been Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. Has that changed now? How do you make the case that that should change? VAN JONES: Well, I think it's changing and I think that a couple of things are likely to happen. First of all, you know, when you talk about a Donna Brazile, a Karen Finney, a Jotaka Eaddy. These are African American women who are the pillars of the Democratic Party. They do the hard work that nobody sees. They touch people, they counsel people, they help people, and they orchestrated and engineered this outcome, not because Kamala is a black woman, but because they could not see the Democratic Party in disarray and they want to make sure that if there's going to be a loose ball it landed in the most capable hands. Someone who's won as district attorney, someone who's won as attorney general, someone who's won as senator, someone who's won as vice president, a winner who has delivered over and over again. So they engineered the football getting into the right hands and that was the first step. But then what happened was nobody necessarily predicted, was we spent three weeks sitting outside the ICU with a death watch for democracy watching what would happen after that debate if Donald Trump were able to get back in the White House and it was terrifying. It was 2025. It was this horrible speech that he gave. And then suddenly a crack open of hope. One little heartbeat of hope. Kamala Harris raising her hand and saying I'll take care of this and you saw an explosion of support and energy. You know black folks are getting a lot of credit of course, but you have young people who have taken over TikTok for Kamala Harris. You have KamalaMania on Tiktok. You have suburban women who are breathing a sigh of relief. You have a whole – and you have black men taking a different look at the Democratic Party.

Moore to the Point - Coup-Contrecoup