Orange Man Bad.

A new peer reviewed scientific study has suggested that Liberals in Canada are having fewer male babies because they are too traumatised about Donald Trump becoming the US President.

That’s right, Orange man is so bad it caused NPC babies to come out all girly.

The study, published in the scientific journal BMJ Open, claims that Trump’s election can be associated with a temporary shift in the sex ratio of newborn babies, but only in politically liberal areas, and not in conservative territories.

The author of the study Ravi Retnakaran told Wired that he got the idea for the test from reading about how stressful events, such as 9/11, had affected the sex ratio of newborns.

“I felt this apprehension in society that immediately harked back to September 11,” Retnakaran, a clinician at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital, said, adding “And that’s when the light dawned in my head, and I wondered if [Trump’s election] could have the same sort of effect on the sex ratio.”

The study analysed all births in Ontario before Trump’s election, immediately after, and over six months later. The lowest ratio of boys to girls was recorded in March 2017, but only in liberal locales of Ontario, and not conservative parts.

“We were looking for a very specific signal,” Retnakaran noted, adding “The stratification we did based on liberal-leaning parts compared to conservative-leaning surprised us because we didn’t know if that would be there or not.”

Fertility expert Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield commented that “Maybe this research says more about liberals in Ontario. Maybe they should chill out more.”

Noting that while the study only establishes correlation, not cause, Pacey  did concede of Canadian liberals that “if their stress hormones went up in the same way that people react badly to terrorist attacks, then I can see this mechanism operating.”

So there you have it, something else crazy Liberals can blame on Trump. Although being responsible for more girls being brought into the world is probably something the President would be very proud of.

“Facts ignore ideology”

In a set of rather bizarre tweets on Sunday, notorious atheist Richard Dawkins argued that eugenics, the practice of selective breeding supported by the Nazis, would work perfectly well if applied to humans, because it works on animals.

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” Dawkins wrote.

“Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology,” he added.

It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Okaaaay, Mein Führer.

Sensing that his comments would generate immediate backlash and Hitler comparisons, Dawkins clarified that he wasn’t advocating for eugenics, merely acknowledging that it would be a very effective practice.

“For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy,” he said.

“I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.” Dawkins explained.

A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

Dawkins has previously made his thoughts on eugenics clear, writing that he suspects “that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.”

“Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular.” Dawkins continued, adding “The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible.”

“But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as ‘these are not one-dimensional abilities’ apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.” Dawkins urged.

“In the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase.” Dawkins further asserted.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?” the evolutionary biologist stated.

Dawkins’ latest considerations on eugenics quickly opened up a torrent of disbelief.

Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, was one of the first to respond:

So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids. https://t.co/jycoxZQJFP

— Greg Epstein (@gregmepstein) February 16, 2020

Others joined in:

This eugenics crap is so dangerous. In the US it lead to forced sterilizations of women in the South — sometimes against their wills, often without their knowledge — that became so common that they came to be referred to as “Mississippi appendectomies.” https://t.co/TKFQGFc0dL

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) February 16, 2020

While Richard Dawkins is a noted biologist, his science on eugenics is bad. We turned magnificent wolves into pure breed dogs with severe genetic defects causing joint and heart problems and cancer. In fact, many Cavalier spaniels develop mitral valve and neurological disorders.

— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) February 16, 2020

I have literally never seen an argument against eugenics that hinges on the idea of whether or not it "would work." The issue is what would it mean to say that eugenics "works," which you conveniently have not defined. Care to elaborate on what a "working" model of eugenics is?

— Rani "Laura Palmer Eldritch" Baker (@destroyed4com4t) February 16, 2020

You absolute pin-headed simpleton. It doesn't work in practice because too many of the goals turn out to be arbitrary fantasies, and too many of those fantasies are the pet projects of abusive bigots who fuck up any civilization they get their hands on. Are you new here? Christ.

— Scott Lynch (@scottlynch78) February 16, 2020

what does 'work' mean, richard

— Shaun (@shaun_vids) February 16, 2020

You're gonna start talking about 'useless eaters' next. We see you.

— Mike Stuchbery 💀🍷 (@MikeStuchbery_) February 16, 2020

yes, facts ignore ideology, except in this instance because your definition of “works” would necessarily be influenced *by ideology*

— Avery Edison (@aedison) February 16, 2020

This is racist trash, Richard. The analogy you draw here between the ideology of eugenics and the domestication of cows or horses is false, dangerous, and historically illiterate.

— Dan Hicks (@profdanhicks) February 16, 2020

NBC News celebrated the prospect of “millions” of people getting a microchip implanted in their hand as a likely future outcome.

The segment is introduced by pointing out that people who have taken the chip do not need to carry keys, ID, credit cards or money.

It points out that embedding microchips in humans has long been a feature of dystopian fiction like Black Mirror, but that in Sweden “the microchips are already here.”

The piece also celebrates how the same contactless technology has “made cash pretty much obsolete in Sweden.”

A woman is seen receiving an implanted microchip while commenting, “I thought it would be fun, right?”

“The process is simple and swift, a pinch of the skin and in a matter of seconds the chip is inserted – the transformation is completely, the reporter Sarah Harman breezily comments as a man receiving the implant says he felt no pain.

In a half-hearted stab at objectivity, the piece then features two brief interviews from Swedes who offer lukewarm opposition.

With 5,000-10,000 people having already been chipped in Sweden, a biohacker then predicts that “millions of people will find it very valuable” to get chipped in the future.

“Human microchipping may be our future but in Sweden it’s already a reality,” concludes Harman.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————