The Missing Pieces

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Lately, as we’ve been finding out how controlled the internet was during the Biden maladministration, and even before through the magic of the deep state, I’ve been getting a very weird impression of what is important to the left.

Oh, not through what they say, which is — granted — weird enough, but through what they don’t say. Through the things you’re not supposed to see, question, or think about.

Because, you see, recently, I realized a lot of things I’d read, a lot of rabbit holes I’d plunged down in pursuit of something that “tasted wrong” are now completely gone.

As we found in the last ten years, when the pictures of the jumpers from the towers on 9/11 disappeared from online, followed one by one by all the pictures of that day save for the airplanes hitting or the fairly-distant ones of the smoke billowing, the internet is only forever if someone with power and resources doesn’t comb through it with a fine tooth comb eliminating that which they don’t want anyone else to see.

However, in all this, again, the important thing is that you can’t do that that without leaving behind the shape of what you removed, and someone looking at the aggregate of what you removed becomes fairly sure of what you’re trying to push, what crazy theories and outright lies you’re trying to protect, and exactly how deranged and out of connection with reality your whole project is.

There are other things that have disappeared recently, but the three I remember because I’d written about them before, based on things on the net are all fairly obvious and glaring.

One is the Mouse Utopia experiment, revered for years as “proof” that overpopulation and over crowding had certain bad results (The women become whores the men become thugs would be a short hand, but yeah.) The problem is that the experiment showed no such thing. What the experiment showed is that if you took care of the mice so that they didn’t have to do anything for it this happened. To the extent mice are like men, this would be more like saying that welfare destroys society, which is an experiment we’ve been running on humans, ourselves, for about 100 years, and seems to bear true. Purposeless lives are blighted lives, and men (and mice) were made to strive.

There used to be debunkings on line. At one point I was arguing with people on our side — American conservatives love the Mouse Utopia because they view it as a condemnation of cities, not being aware that our city density is spacious anywhere else — and pointed out it had been debunked. I knew it had because I had spent one of my depressive periods tracking it.

I should have saved and archived the pages of debunkings. They’re all gone. I couldn’t ferret a single one.

I have only one proof to offer for my being right: For this influential an experiment, which changed the world by creating population control bureaus and ways to discourage population growth everywhere… why has it never been reproduced? You’d think some graduate student would have redone it. Mice are cheap. You’d probably have tried to reproduce it with monkeys or apes, too, though more expensive, more difficult to get permissions but closer to humans.

But no. Neither here, nor in countries where where animal experimentation is more unregulated. This experiment has never been reproduced. And questions about it have disappeared from on line.

Then there’s the debunking of Marija Gimbutas. Look, people, the woman was nuts. Her theories of the great pre-historic feminist utopia doesn’t pass the laugh test. She saw this in ancient Greece — Greece — and interpreted stylized bull’s heads as uteri. She was a raving lunatic on a mission to impose her view on pre-history, which by definition left no written records.

And she was debunked. Not once, but several times. She used to be the laughingstock of any thinking archeologist.

Now all that remains on the internet is reverential and treats her “discoveries” as gospel.

It’s jaw-droppingly stupid. But I guess the idea of women as an oppressed “minority” is essential to the shaky edifice of leftist cant and their bizarre idea that men and women are oppressor-oppressed and not two halves of a whole.

(And in pre-history everyone was oppressed. Even the kings lived sucky lives. Ignorance and scarcity are hard taskmasters.)

Then there’s Margaret Meade. Do I need to explain what was going on there? No there was no paradise of free love, and certainly not where she purported to have found it.

And please, those of you who know her personally don’t need to write to me — again — to tell me that she wasn’t hoaxed, she made it all up out of clear blue sky because it amused her. She might have. I don’t care one way or another. I just know she lied and gave an entire generation the idea that humans were like bonobos and it was healthful and good to sleep around with many people all the time, with no particular attachment and no emotional consequences from the act.

We know whatever she thought she had seen, or made up, that she was utterly wrong. The hook up culture doesn’t produce rapturously happy people. All it does is destroy family formation. And family instead of being a tool of oppression turns out to be protective of women, and good for young children. It’s almost like the structures evolved for a reason and like the cultures with the healthiest families are the most successful for a reason.

However, her debunkings, which also used to be fairly obvious on line have disappeared and all that’s left is respectful, hushed reverence.

Guys, look, the questioning of the moon landing, pages claiming that JFK was killed by aliens, pages claiming the greys control everything, crazy conspiracies like Tartaria, or of course, the factual page on how birds aren’t real (eh) are all still out there.

None of them are stopped. None of them are disappeared or memory holed. I bet I could poke around a few minutes and find pages claiming that Einstein was wrong, or “disproving” the existence of planets on the solar system.

So the fact that these experiments and theories have no dissenting views left on line, or not in the first 100 pages of search…. by itself tells us a lot.

That all these shaky, bizarre, outright made up things are the base of the leftist edifice and that their answer to their debunking is to make the debunking disappear is why the left has now entered its ghost dance phase.

Reality is that which doesn’t go away just because you cover your ears and scream “I can’t hear you.” Or even because you scour the internet and erase all traces of it.

Reality doesn’t actually care what you believe or how well you think you’ve hidden it.

Reality just is. It abides. And it bites you in the ass the moment you think you defeated it.

276 thoughts on “The Missing Pieces”

      2. N days and a wake-up is something military folks say when “short”, coming up on the end of a tour somewhere, or the end of their service. Very much associated with Vietnam war.

        America has a wake-up set for Monday the 20th, and it is Biden who will “Expiration of Term of Service”.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. The communists were working for the greys, and the grays had the communists kill JFK because they thought JFK was too erratic and unreliable.

    Hidden figures is about the shadowmen who the graeys and JFK had operating the ‘moon program’ behind the scenes, to fake all of the results.

    And the greays invented all of the historical record, to cover up that the so called historic and prehistoric human/humanoid artifacts were actually created by a now lost or hidden race of giants.

    The archeology programs are discriminating against humans, wolfmen, hyperintelligent apes, and against messenger spirits. They only accept lizardoids, because everyone else could reveal the dark secret that the archeologist ‘recreation’ of knapping is actually fraud. Knapping is impossible for human size hands, it takes giant hands. The knapping ‘demonstrations’ that archeologists do are all slight of hand and other stage magics.

    Gaydar stands for Gay Detectation and Ranging. This is a quantum blockchain remote sensing technology that utilizes the Gaytron fundamental particle that they do not want you to know about. Homosexuals do not spring forth fully grown from the ground, technologically they are created and grow to partial maturity inside a sort of biological tank. This is managed perfectly by an elaborate totalitarian system. The computer employs robots which wear human suits, and these robots are equipped with a gaydar. The robots use the scattering of gaytrons to track homosexuals.

    Some of the people offended by this bad pastiche of conspiracy theories and various sci fi rip offs would not be more offended by noting that many academic programs are garbage, and some of the people trained by those programs deserve only the same level of scholarly repute as some highschool drop outs.

    Liked by 2 people

        1. Yeah, kinda devalues what was supposed to be a civilian equivalent to The Medal when they hand them out as Party favors (note the capitalization).

          Liked by 1 person

    2. The Black Lectroids were -way- cooler.

      The E-4 Mafia are -way- more effective. If they existed.

      Like

  3. When you realize that Eugene Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society were mostly right.

    Also Truman, Johnson and Carter did their fair share in destroying the Middle East long term. Thanks war mongering neo-con admin types!

    And the communists were sponsored and enabled by the top tier elite throughout history.

    And we don’t know if there is any gold in Ft Knox anymore.

    The Democrats basically gave the bomb to the Soviet Union and almost all of our technology to China.

    Not to mention all the medical and food shenanagins over the last 100 years, especially since the late ’80s.

    Too many rabbit holes, too many coverups!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. the list of twentieth century intellectual innovations that have turned out to be true is significantly shorter than those that turned out to be true and most of those found true seem to have been in physics, developed by people educated under the old dispensation. Something really fundamental went wrong. Marxism is some of it, but not all.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Reader attributes some of what you refer to to Moore’s Law. It has enabled idiots of all stripes to run computer ‘models’ and call them ‘science’. The prettier the graphical output the more believable the ‘model’. And it is far more work to dig into a model to see whether its assumptions, data, and structure make any sense than it is to generate it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, I gather the concept of GIGO was entirely skipped in those idiots’ learning of the computer… <sigh> (I note that many of them also seem to be the sort absolutely flipping their lids about AI. Like it’s somehow ACTUALLY intelligent and, not still gaining data from humans, and will–at least for a good long time yet–only gain it from what humans put out there. Look, AI has some definite concerning features, but…no, it’s not really going to destroy the art/writing world, for example, like they keep screaming it is going to. Not unless people let it, that is.)

        Like

        1. Read something once where they named it accurately as Artificial Stupid. If you use false premises to set up your research in the first place, you’re going to get false outcomes. That’s just all there is to it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. And I expect they love it because it confirms their biases…

            And, as ever, it’s the usual “two completely contradictory beliefs at the same time”: Computers are gods and all knowing when confirming what they want to hear, but computers are just machines when they don’t.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I kinda like how a lot of the “problem with AI” is they put in those contradicting views, and the logic-machine gives them an answer in accordance with them.

              Like

        2. I have to disagree about AI not destroying the art world for some definitions of art world. I go around galleries about once a month and most of the art is horrible. The technique is third grade at best and the concepts are woke. AI could very well wipe out that market and we would be better off for it.

          Like

          1. As soon as a banana taped to a wall sold for 7 figures, it told all one needs to know about “art”.🤢

            Like

          1. Yeah but you’ll know the images because they’ll have more physical oddities than Count Rugen’s inbred cousins…

            Like

          2. I mean, given that I’m fairly sure my devices eavesdrop already (how else can one explain my discussing interest in <thing> and then suddenly seeing ads for <thing> everywhere…? And it’s not confirmation bias, or whatever it’s called. Usually it’s a pretty obscure <thing>)

            I will say that at least the ad algorithm on Facebook has finally figured out what I like, and I’ve found some really excellent things that way, so it’s not all bad :D

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Meant to finish that “given that they’re eavesdropping” statement with “I’m not sure it could get a whole lot worse”

              Ugh. 2nd Monday, since they made Carter’s funeral a federal holiday. And 2nd Monday on a Friday is especially bad.

              Like

      2. I don’t disagree with you, but Economics for example started to go wrong with Ricardo and certainly when they all ignored Marshall telling them to burn the math. The decisive break came when Samuelson got hold of Keynes and realized that “here lies power.” We tend to overlook the political, but Bacon realized that knowledge is power at the dawn of western science. Our “scientists” always seem to leave room for a priesthood to interpret the mysteries. That’s why the economists really hate the Austrians, no need for Harvard or Chicago priests there.

        Like

      3. My characters are going to use computer models too. But:

        “The difference between our computer models and yours is, we compare ours against reality and when we find discrepancies, we correct the models rather than pretending the universe is wrong.”

        Liked by 1 person

        2. An example of an accurate computer model is the flight control laws model that they use to enable intrinsically unstable jets like the F-16 to not fall out of the sky, because reality, wearing it’s physics hat, hammers on flying things very hard indeed.

          I suppose the models that the trading quants build to do their computer driven stock trading have to work too, since they all get fired if they do not make money – that’s reality wearing it’s markets hat doing the hammering.

          Common thread – reality with a hammer, and it either does or does not work, with obvious results.

          Like

      4. That’s what the whole anthropogenic global warming craze is: a bunch of bad models based on an unprovable hypothesis. The only thing a global warming model has ever accurately predicted is the ability of the “researcher” to rake in more of those sweet, sweet government grants.

        I knew they had given up on ever proving the AGW hypothesis when I found out, via a marketing webinar about persuasive language tactics, appropriately enough, that there had been an official rebranding and global warming was now “climate change.” (When did that switch happen? I want to say 2006-ish; at least that’s when I heard about it. What’re the odds that any information about it is still available?)

        Liked by 2 people

      6. “Modern science” doesn’t use data – they use the numbers from the previous model. SO much easier than going out and grubbing around with observations and experiments!

        Like

  8. Lying liars lie. One of their favorite ways is the Lie of Omission, where they leave things out of the tale.

    I am not even slightly shocked to hear that this extends deeply into the Ivory Tower. One of my hobby horses was gun control, the intellectual dishonesty in those “researchers” runs in the marrow of their bones.

    One thing they do is never -ever- mention legitimate self defense. They are aided in this by the Big Media, who never -ever- mention cases of legitimate self defense. Local cases rarely become national stories. Except for White Hispanics. (Still makes me roll my eyes.)

    Therefore hearing that they’ve done the same things to refutations of their holy relics like the mouse experiment, or the Stanford Prison Experiment, or a host of others, this is also “Wow, must be Wednesday.” This is my shocked face: 0.o

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Far as I’ve ever been able to tell, academics in the ivory tower are the single most hidebound, non-open-minded group out there. I think partly because terror that if the precious theories they gained their tenure on are ever debunked or supplanted by new and better ones, they won’t be IMPORTANT anymore!!!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I agree, they just plain lied about the whole thing. An utter fabrication, and a *sloppy* one. Not even as good a cheat as Piltdown Man.

        Further to your argument, if you Google “Stanford Prison Experiment” right now, your whole first page is Wikipedia which is a buff (although they do mention that there is a controversy) , and a bunch of magazine articles which are all buffs except one down near the bottom.

        Far more alarming (and damning) is that the entire trans issue is built on -worse- things than the SPE. There’s no science involved at all, but there is perversion in plenty. I try not to know about it too much, my poor stomach rebels.

        Almost as if two whole generations of shady university students figured out a way to have a really nice job with lots of perks, and all they had to do is lie. Not even lie convincingly. Just make stuff up and proclaim it, and let the “academic system” do the rest.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. I recall when NewsWeek (NewWeak, more like) had a page of quotes from the week (maybe they still do…) and quoted George H.W. Bush as saying, “I hope they all lose.” when asked about the women running for senate.

      Even freaking NPR was more honest just then and reported it in full, “Since they’re all Democrats, I hope they all lose.”

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Getting into guns and researching gun control was probably my single biggest red-pill moment. (Second to 9/11, probably; if not for that and what happened afterward, I might not have realized there was a red pill to take.) Over many years of getting “knowledge” from legacy media, I had unconsciously accepted the notion that handguns (not rifles, handguns specifically) were unacceptably dangerous to their owners and everyone around them…but I had just bought one and wanted to know for myself if I was really putting my loved ones in so much danger by having so much fun with this thing.

      Time and time again, I found that reality favored the pro-gun side — because the pro-gun people cited evidence I could check. The anti-gun people, on the other hand, had a closed circle in which they only cited each other, and the emotional manipulation quotient was off the charts. (I don’t care how you want me to feel, you idiots; I want to clarify my thinking, and for that I need EVIDENCE. And this is why they hide it.)

      And that pattern held true in the larger conservative/libertarian vs. liberal/progressive debate, too. So much of what the left believes comes down to feelings unchallenged by facts and the “because we said so” of a coterie of theorists and grifters.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. 100% this.

        What frustrates me is what is not buried are the instances when a homeowner’s gun was taken away by the killer and used on the homeowner. Never mind that wouldn’t have happened if the home owner hadn’t just threatened with the gun. Assess, whomever is a proper target (to insure it isn’t your teen, etc., sneaking in late) point and shoot. The instances where the homeowner did not properly assess (shot a family member). The instances where guns were left where *untrained children could get to.

        Now if we would need to get to the handguns we have to dig them out of the secure pond (where we keep having boat accidents).

        (* Grew up with unsecured handguns. Revolvers with zero safety features, except hammer on empty cylinder. But pull the hammer, cylinder rotates, and next is a live round. Hammer pull when down is tight, difficult. Hammer pulled back? Any touch sets it off. I knew where they were stored at home. They were in the cabinet above the dinning table in the simple camper, even when us kids were riding in the back at the table. We knew to leave any gun alone. Be it at home, other relatives, at friends, anywhere. Even guns in plain sight. They were not ours to touch. Ever.)

        Like

      2. It was some time back and I forget the exact details (alas) but there was some issue that The Left didn’t like being brought up… and after a while I’d see any post or such that brought it up get hit with a chorus of “That’s been debunked”… but oddly never a link to any actual reporting, etc. doing so. It was very much, “We tell you it’s nonsense, therefore you must believe it is nonsense. We don’t need proof. We are proof. Shut up and eat the spinach!”

        And then it happened again. And Again. And… so on.

        No wonder The Left hates Musk so hard: The Left can’t Community Note just like they can’t meme. Need substance first, and that they ain’t got.

        Like

      3. I read -all- of it. I read every gun control article I could get in the medical and criminology literature, up to about the late 1990s early 2000s before Life (TM) interfered. Had my little GeoCities web page where I posted all my findings, and where I got my first Lefty calling me a Nazi. Yep, the good ole days…

        The results of all that work was: of well over 100 actual papers and several hundred articles/commentary pieces/magazine stupidity I found SIX (6) papers which met the minimum standards of basic scientific inquiry. Of those, four found that gun control did not work at all, and the other two were ambivalent. A later meta-analysis by the US National Academy of Science reported exactly the same thing despite the inquiry board being stuffed with anti-gun authors. Their report came down to “more research is needed” because they couldn’t admit it was all lies of omission, cross-references and statistical tricks.

        Because I am essentially a trusting soul who was raised to respect authority, it took me a very long time to understand that all of the above was not incompetence.

        It’s crime. They stole the money from those grants and used it to print Big Lie propaganda in the medical and criminology literature.

        Which, amplified by the media, has created a situation in Canada where not only can you not buy a gun to go shooting, not only can you not defend yourself or your property with lethal force at all (no, you really can’t and recent court decisions prove it), you can’t even scare away the people trying to burn your house down with firebombs by discharging a firearm in warning.

        There is literally a case in Ontario where that happened, and the man was in court for years defending himself. After all the attempted murder charges were laughed out of court (there was -video- evidence) they charged him with improper storage of a firearm. Cost him nearly a million bucks in legal fees to win.

        It isn’t incompetence or stupidity. It is malice.

        Like

  9. Out of curiosity, for the Mouse Utopia that failed, what was hoax? Did they fabricate the failure, or did they do something specific to that utopia?

    Presuming the behaviors reported were reall, and the initial inputs were neglected, my initial hypothesis is they did something that broke the attachment of the mice, and that that is why the colony spiraled into destruction, rather than the over crowding. But I’m not initially sure what would do that for mice.

    Initial thought could be, separating and bottle raising the mice from near birth to near adulthood then releasing them into the utopia, or doing something that significantly stresses the entire colony through an entire child rearing cycle?

    I wonder if you could also set that off by periodically breaking up and ew shuffling the colonies so individual mice are frequently being separated from the known mice and mixed in with strangers?

    Like

    1. If I remember precisely, the behaviors were real, but he had trouble GETTING THEM TO MANIFEST. And they seemed to be tied to just giving the mice all the stuff, and the mice not having “anything to do.” I THINK that’s it. But it was years, and I can’t find it anymore.
      I just remember it wasn’t tied to “population density” which is what he claimed.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Maybe it was the increased importance of mouse ideological and religious differences. ;-). I kind of think that if post-scarcity happens, ideology and religion will soar in importance in human society so that conflict may increase if there is no way to leave the area.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Oh, I realize this is not helpful, but it’s been… FIVE years since I read about it, and I don’t remember. I have a vague idea what I’d found he’d fudged turned out to be JUST one aspect. He’d actually fudged a bunch, to get it to do what it “should” due to “Overpopulation.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Interesting. The implication is there is a way to recreate that sort of societal breakdown without a warehouse full of mice. And potentially experiment with ways to halt / reverse the collapse.

        Like

    4. The experiment started with eight mice: four males, four females. You give them all the food and water they can eat, with 256 nest boxes. The population doubled every 55 days, topping out at 2200 in the 19th month. No more mice were born after the 22nd month, and the last mice died of old age within 60 months.

      The problems:

      1. Obviously, after a few generations the mice are hopelessly inbred. (And the standard lab mouse is hardly a species with much genetic diversity as it is.) How much of the colony collapse is due to this alone has never been noted, to my knowledge.
      2. Mice are a prey species. Mouse society, such as it is, is based on the fact that most mice won’t even survive to sexual maturity. When no mice die in a geographic area, there is far more need for space than might otherwise seem necessary.
      3. The reproducing males couldn’t defend their harems from all the males. This meant females couldn’t raise well-adjusted pups. They would wean pups before they were ready or even attack them, and without a safe nesting space (remember, 2200 mice and only 256 nest boxes) they wouldn’t mate.
      4. Pups that weren’t properly raised couldn’t raise pups of their own. Between beta males refusing to fight alphas for the right to mate (they were called “the beautiful ones” because all they did was groom themselves) and females both attacking males who did try to mate with them and killing their own pups, the society collapsed.

      Personally, I think the experiment does give us useful information for how to wreck a human society:

      1. Make housing so expensive and permit so much crime that women don’t feel like they have a safe place to raise their kids.
      2. Take away any purpose in life for men so that all but the most alpha have nothing better to do than obsess over themselves.
      3. Get women out of their safe homes so they don’t spend enough time raising well-adjusted children.
      4. Make raising children a burden women take on alone and make ridding themselves of their children acceptable.

      To me, the problem with comparing the mouse utopia experiment to human society is that we have factions quite literally trying to recreate the problems that led to colony collapse in human society. If they were deliberately trying to engineer societal collapse to lead to a dramatic reduction, if not extinction, of humanity, what could they be doing differently?

      Like

      1. So you’re going to say this is what they used to figure out how to destroy us? Anyway, the point is it’s not overpopulation. I have a vague idea the population actually collapsed before it was overpopulated.

        Like

        1. Since they fed them all, it was never “overpopulated” for basic resources, just really crowded.

          Like, stack-a-prole cities. Hm.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. A kind of refute of “overpopulated” was the Walled City of Kowloon on the border between Communist China and British Hong Kong (neither wanted it). There were perhaps more than 35 thousand residents crowded into 6.4 acres of 12 to 14 story buildings that had swallowed the streets. The only daylight was on the roof and in the outside apartments. There were no police, because there was no law. Yet, somehow, they were a thriving community. Pictures and videos of it are surreal.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. It collapsed before it was “over populated” as defined by the scientist. How one can define “over populated” as not being reached when the population almost exceeds the number of nest boxes by a factor of ten boggles my mind.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. I’d forgotten that bit of well turned phrasing!

        The “beautiful ones”– that was…

        Aargh. Yeah, no, that’s a sign of stress.

        Including pain, but it’s like if a dog is licking his paws so much he goes bald there. It isn’t “beautiful” or “self improvement” or anything similarly appealing to humans, it’s a serious sign of what we’d call an adrenaline dump in humans.

        No kidding the males that got threat-response from larger males groomed constantly. The only way someone raising mice wouldn’t know about that is if they were actively removing males every time that there was conflict between males. (which isn’t a bad idea, if you’re not testing how mice interact)

        Like

    5. Creative interpretation of observed events, lack of control of what pet owners or animal husbandry folks would recognize as stress (which would cause the observed eating of offspring), the correlation between claimed reason and the result being loose.

      He did redo the experiment, a lot, but didn’t get any consistent results, and didn’t keep the original variables.

      So he’d do ABC, write down results, do ABC, and get different ones. And instead of finding out what had varied without it being realized and correcting it until he got consistent results from ABC, he then went and changed multiple variables.

      The original theory was that “overcrowding” theanimals was an issue because of direct and obvious physical reasons, like “starved to death.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I need to dig into animal husbandry.

        Is there anything know to consistently work with recovering a badly socialized animal? And how does it scale? I assume a lot of things are easy when you’ve got a couple of broken ones, and a big stable pack, and become immensely harder when the unstable ones outnumber the healthy ones.

        Like

        1. Well, a lot of the results depend on if you’re saying “badly socialized” as in they are not trained correctly, or “badly socialized” as a blanket symptom.

          To use a human example, since we can do better troubleshooting on causes in human– no amount of drilling in “pay attention” is going to make it so that a face-blind person can recognize out of context people. Careful training MIGHT be able to give them enough tools to fake it in highly standardized situations.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’m not talking about the people who have underlying developmental problems, like face blindness or autism or all that stuff. I’m talking about the people raised in environments that do not allow normal growth. The children who were raised by the microscopes of strangers who did not care about them, with custody schedules so excessively complex the adults had trouble telling where they would sleep on any given night, much less the five year old being argued over.

            We’re not talking about the pitbulls. We’re talking about the Labradors and German Shepherds who’ve been packed into boxes and never given space or time to interact with other dogs or humans outside of hyper regimented and somewhat arbitrary systems.

            I meam, we’re mostly all odds here. We’re never really going to fit. It’s what we do. What worries me is the normals have been being drilled in misery. I just seems to me that we’ve got at least an entire generation that has been raise with some intensely abusive institutions that we’re only just now starting to push back.

            What do we even do with these people?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Guess I have to be blunt.

              We can’t actually tell the ones who are raised wrong from those who have an inherent problem.

              Most of the people in here have been getting the “just try harder” for things ranging from hand/eye coordination to not switching numbers to a dozen other things, usually combined with why we are clearly doing it because we are brats, or malicious, or otherwise incorrectly socialized.

              If we figure out that no, there’s actually a real issue, and have you tried this? Have you tried that? How about this third thing? Ooh, if that worked, then maybe this will-

              That is with humans, who can give feedback. Dogs can’t talk. They are simpler in their social interactions, but it’s similar.

              The culture is messed up because people have been raised with “efficient” systems– and you absolutely should read that in the tone of a lazy guy who’s found a way to offload a bunch of work from his plate, and doesn’t care if it’s actually good enough to do the job. He “did the work”.

              You are not going to fix it with another brainless algorithm. You have to fix stuff by doing enough work to fit a solution to the individual.

              We’re not talking about the pitbulls.

              I don’t even like them, and this is flatly unjust.

              Pitbulls are largely more likely to be violent than other large dogs of similar physical ability for two reasons:

              One, that’s the fad right now, “pitbull make mean dog.” In the early ’80s, it was German shepherds.

              Two, and also the reason that I don’t like them, they are massively submissive. They are people-pleasers. They want, so much, to make people happy, that they will both do horrible things if taught that’s what to do– and they can be broken. Broken dogs are harder to heal than broken humans.

              And that is if you get someone who is actually engaging with the dog, rather than trying to make the dog fit a theory.

              I meam, we’re mostly all odds here. We’re never really going to fit. It’s what we do. What worries me is the normals have been being drilled in misery. I just seems to me that we’ve got at least an entire generation that has been raise with some intensely abusive institutions that we’re only just now starting to push back.

              The grip was far tighter a century ago. And it worked about as well– for the basic reason that individuals do try to do the right thing.

              And even after well over a century of trying to purge threats to power, the various anti-Judeo-Christian philosophies haven’t managed to remove the guidelines of what that right looks like.

              You can look at the folks who flip out about that description, too, and how they do not notice that the God of the Hebrews is the one that demanded His people treat the stranger in their land in a lawful manner, and had to repeatedly beat it through His people’s head that the sins of the father do not justly fall on the son, and Jesus taught we are all brothers, and God’s own.

              This worldview, enshrined in America’s founding documents, is so unusual as to be kinda batcrud insane. It’s high cost and low return… in immediate terms. Long term, it’s the best way to form a culture that can survive and thrive, without an outside source of resources.

              Breaking the rules gives a short term advantage. It doesn’t have a long-term one.

              Following the rules, based on these ideas, forms a slow but effective self-correction mechanism. It makes it so people can flourish…and have enough time, and space, to help pull folks up.

              Like

              1. Peace. What I’m wrestling with is, once one has identified that there is an abusive institution what do you do with the people who have been processed through it?

                We aren’t talking cases where there is a question on how they were raised. It was official policy, and we now know those policies were really abusive and destructive.

                And that whole “well try harder” thing is part of the reason I don’t entirely trust current dogma on how to recover abused people. That’s why I’m starting from the question, assume you are an animal keeper who found a kennel operating under those sorts of known horrific practices. It’s shut down and the owners are now in jail, but you’ve got 100 or so German shepards now. Is there anything one can do to get them reintroducable to human society? Or do they just put the lot to sleep? And if so, is it because there is not much they can do, or is it because the cost is not worth it for dogs?

                Like

                1. Will you please stop taking subtle attempts followed by blunter ones as an attack?

                  You keep on shutting off the listening when you do that, even when I state things very bluntly.

                  You have to handle each case on a case by case basis, STARTING WITH figuring out if they’re even hurt at all.

                  The situation started with blanket fixes; it won’t be fixed with blanket fixes. The problem has gotten this bad by confusing “I don’t like” with “is a problem;” it won’t be fixed by repeating that.

                  It has to be worked down, bit by bit, and people’s inherent dignity has to be recognized and respected. Both when that means you can’t do anything– and when it means you must do something they really won’t like.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I’ve been listening to you two arguing and feeling like you’re not even arguing in the same universe.
                    Look, what he’s saying is what I’ve said countless times on this blog: being raised by hirelings seems to be bad for kids, and damage them on a scale that often foretells the end (or a very bad period) of a civilization.
                    I’d argue the “Everyone must have a job, and women must hand off the kids to be raised by low-wage strangers” is at the root of the problems the West is going through. It damages everything from individuation of personality to family formation reflexes.
                    Where he differs from me is in thinking this damage is irrecoverable and that someone must do something about it. Judging from when this happened before, in history, people recover — I suspect humans do a lot of self-raising after maturity. I know I did — and they tend to run perhaps too hard to the other extreme to a sentimental enshrining of the family unit and mother’s love to a silly point.
                    The thing is: What will happen to the lost children? Well, if they can get jobs and start moving forward with their lives, most will be okay. If we stop holding them down, humans will recover.
                    Look, survivors from death camps got away and built a vibrant culture and rich lives for themselves in NYC (other places too, but that’s what I’m familiar with.) Survivors of day care neglect will be okay. They need clear rules, like “no, crime is not the fault of anyone but the criminal”, something to do for a living, something to do for fun, someone to love and a sense of security. That’s all.
                    Humans are resilient. They’re not widgets. And they have more resources within themselves than any planners give them credit for.
                    The kids are all right.
                    (And you two are arguing like ADD bunnies, concentrating on the details and getting all twisted. Go have some caffeine and take a deep breath. Geeesh.)

                    Like

                    1. There’s a reason I recognize the pitfalls in the line of thought, and not even close to most of them was be being on the pointy end.

                      The “I just want to fix this dang problem, decisively, make a plan and DO IT quit with the fiddly bits” seems to get worse when it’s winter, too, especially when you can see that so many people are going to be hurt, even more than are already hurt.

                      Like

  10. I’m an old lady and, come to think of it, I don’t think I have ever seen the Mouse Experiment, per se. Although I have heard plenty about it. As in, everyone knows that overcrowding leads to chaos, like the Mouse Experiment.

    Similar to the popular wisdom thatcfeminists are champions of women, even though every single thing they champion have made things objectively worse for women. Mostly because they think women are only great when they are men.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Which is — the last paragraph — part of the remote set up for the doorstop I’m editing. I didn’t even realize that was implied, until my younger fans who were reading chunks as I wrote started talking about it and laughing.

      Like

  11. Holy cow, they’re making MEADE credible again? These people are nuts. (I’m not as familiar with the other one–though I have certainly heard the crap theories of feminist utopias, and always wonder “Has that person ever MET women…?”)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. One of the feminyst “refutations” of the “have you ever MET a woman?” aspect is to claim that wimmin are only like that because raised in a PATRIARCHAL [gotta get that buzzword in there] SOCIETY. They go on to claim that womyn would be totes different if raised in a MATRIARCHY.

      [I used their tortured spellings because that kind of zealot usually does.]

      Liked by 3 people

        1. It’s the evolutionary pressures of the seraglio which, evolutionary is what women were selected for throughout most of our evolution. (For values of seraglio that are an hominid band. One male, multiple women.)

          Like

        2. By Proper Feminist Women Who Broke Free, of course.

          Those poor dears didn’t know what they were doing. Remember Talks-With-Plants and the theory that all women that didn’t agree with her were mere puppets of men? That’s just the extreme example of a view that many feminists more or less agree with.

          Like

          1. “Talks-With-Plants” made me think “Poison Ivy” (of Batman fame) but somehow I think this is referring to an actual person?

            (Not that Poison Ivy isn’t a classic sendup of man-hating–well, human hating but she really hates men in particular–feminist lunatic.)

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Once upon a time, a woman’s blog post insisting that all sexual intercourse is rape went viral. It was a subject of discussion here, and I poked about her blog and discovered it was, if anything, on the low side of insanity for her. She held that women are never ever to blame because if they do not agree with her, that just shows that intrinsically evil men have hollowed them out and are using them as puppets. (She has graphics literally depicting that to show how women disagree with her.)

              Her most off-the-wall belief (though far from her most evil) is probably when she recounts that she knows women who can communicate with plants. This, she deduces, is how men discovered the mind-altering properties of a certain plant, which need a lot of work to be usable.

              If you wish to see her in her florid gloriy:

              https://witchwind.wordpress.com/

              Liked by 1 person

                    1. Also, her delusions are hermetically sealed: any woman who tries to help her is definitionally not really in control of herself, and all men are intrinsically evil and trying to hurt, not help, her.

                      Like

                2. She was sexually exploited as a minor by someone who, even from her description, sounds like a psychopath. She was left damaged enough that she kept on attracting only exploitive men. Her theories seemed based on it.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Man. You can’t even get upset about her rantings, if that’s the case. Poor woman. And as I said elsewhere, nowadays it seems like there’d be plenty of lefties looking to exploit her even more by encouraging her to “embrace” her damage, rather than get help for it :(

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. At any rate, Talks-With-Plants, as she gets called, is something of the gold standards of crazy around here. Or has been.

                      Like

      2. had an ex-wife that used to treat me like an idiot child sometimes, telling me that my misogyny was so deeply ingrained that I didn’t “know” I was treating women badly … that I couldn’t know what I was doing … (even though I never did any of the things she accused society of …) yeah 3rd wave feminists are nuts …

        Like

        1. An all girls school–run by nuns or otherwise–always sounded to me like a special level of hell. And sure, part of that is because I am an Odd, who doesn’t act like many women typically do, but even so. Yikes.

          Like

          2. I went to Catholic boys schools, run by priests and brothers, as did my sons, and I heartily endorse them. Just about all the women in my life went to girls schools run by nuns. The batting average there is mixed, one sister and my daughter were very happy, one sister was very unhappy, and my wife could take it or leave it. I think it might be about expectations, we expected to go to single sex schools run by religious and, thus, were fully prepared for that.

            Liked by 1 person

              2. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that Marxists–whatever their gender or lack thereof–are every one of them Mean Girls. Which is the sort of woman that makes peoples’ lives hell. So whether they are regular ol’ Marxists or ones wearing a habit (and, let’s face it, Marxists have infected their share of religion as well as everywhere else) they’re still Mean Girls.

                Liked by 1 person

          3. I went to an all-girls catholic high school run by the Sisters of (No) Mercy. I know from experience and as an ODD, that putting that many women in charge is a BAD thing.

            Like

            1. The ones I’ve been around seemed better with grade schoolers than with teenagers, frankly, and better at “roughing it” in semi-missionary type outposts than in big first world communities. Never had them as teachers for anything but religion, in a school where they clearly answered to the (male) principal and the other teachers were a fairly equal mix of laymen and women. The sisters found me annoying, for the same reasons most sane people do, and the feeling was somewhat mutual, but in general they were fairly cheerful people who enjoyed their work and gave me no reason to fear them.

              Like

          4. It depends on the situation. I rather liked mine. But then, it was a religious order specifically focused on education whose charter was crafter with the help of the Jesuits*, so very much focused on “college-bound” and with a wide enough net that we had full-coverage options for the few Muslim students.

            *The thing about a Jesuit education is that it makes either very good Catholics or atheists. Especially at the college level. My one regret about my college experience is that I didn’t realize how close I was to a philosophy minor, because a philosophy course taught by a Jesuit is not a weak choice.

            Like

      1. Even Barbara Michaels (aka Elizabeth Peters) poked fun of Meade in her novels in the late 70s/80s and into the 90s. Earlier stuff was a bit more neutral, when the topic came up (which, since she wrote contemporary gothics–and poked fun of the same under the Peters pen-name–came up semi-regularly.) And while I love Barbara/Elizabeth’s stuff, she was in most other ways very much a product of her times, and was an ardent leftist in many ways, and it shone through sometimes in her books (not often–after all, she wrote to entertain and make money, not to preach). But she was also, iirc, an Egyptologist of some reputation before she became better known for her fiction, so I imagine she had at least a good line of gossip on the debunking when it happened. (She died several years ago, so no idea what her reaction to the erasure of the debunking would be. I hope it would be scathing.)

        Like

      2. A relative of mine got her degree from Eckerd College (“Ivy League by the Sea”) 10 years ago. They were required to read Coming of Age in Samoa and accept it at face value.

        Like

        2. Profess to accept it at face value.

          It’s not psychologically healthy to disassociate with what you do in class, but for some people, there’s more trouble any other route.

          Like

          1. While I can’t say I actually dissociated from the crap being pushed in my college classes, I didn’t fully swallow it whole, either. I was very, very good at saying things they way I knew they wanted them said, in papers and the like, but I never more than half (maybe 3/4 in some places) believed it. It took me a few years to get the rats that HAD taken up residence out of my head, but it wasn’t a world shattering thing for me, because I’d never fully believed in them :D

            Liked by 1 person

      3. In related vein, I read something by Jane Goodall’s son. Apparently his experience of chimpanzees and being raised by Jane Goodall was considerably different from the glowing picture written by the media of the Brave Researcher and the Gentle Primates.

        The word he used was “demons” and these days he works by the ocean.

        Grub Goodall. Poor lad…

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Yandex is pretty good for finding things that I know I can remember seeing, but waaaaaaooo does it bring up some weird stuff if anything touches on Jew anything.

      Like

        1. :laughs: It’s a good model for HUMANS!

          Which is why the various bots/scripts are generally only detected because the landmine is a literal copy paste of response, rather than “woooh wait what?!”

          Liked by 1 person

  14. Reality is like a Terminator … “It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead!”

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I actually beleive the biggest motivation to create AI is not to expand mans knowledge … but to allow those in power to filter out knowledge … to hide things from the world … the only AI search engine I would ever trust is one that gives you its results and THEN gives you everything it filtered out … (it knows exactly what it filtered) …

    Like

    1. That is exactly what the big-government types want it for. There’s a video of an interview where Marc Andreesen says the Biden administration wanted him to get on board with a plan to “regulate” AI by concentrating the whole field in two or three companies that would work hand-in-glove with the government to control the flow of information, and that’s what pushed him to the Trump side.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. That’s not their ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is euphemistically called AGI, but actually is to make a god in their own image. They already speak of it in worshipful terms: it will self-direct its own development at exponentially increasing rates. CS Lewis’s materialist-magicians was prescient.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Eh. Anyone who’s read a sci-fi book or watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation already knows the appeal of AGI. Computers that talk, force multipliers for human achievement, insights into human intelligence: Take your pick.

          There’s some degree of techno-utopianism (or -totalitarianism) in there, and there’s a vocal subset of researchers/regulators who drool at the idea of AI telling us what to do/say/think, but most of what’s driving the research is scientific inquiry and commercial applications.

          Like

      1. There you go. That’s what they -actually- want.

        Which is why I write my AIs as robot girlfriends, not robot servants/slaves/etc. Because if something is bigger than you, and smarter than you, it can kick your ass. You had better hope it LIKES you.

        Also, and this is something I lay squarely at the feet of the Left, if you manage to create a genuinely intelligent machine, which is genuinely self-aware like a Human, what is that? In Lefty science fiction we get all sorts of equivocation, hedging, Frankenstein, blah blah blah.

        It’s a person. We make new ones all the time, they are called -babies-. If you wouldn’t do something to a person, you better not do it to an AI.

        All pointless blather at this time, what they’re calling AI isn’t. And never will be, no way, no hope, no chance. Can’t happen, doesn’t matter how big a server farm they make for it.

        They’ll just have to keep doing slavery the regular way.

        Like

  16. Add Rachel Carson – the fact that there’s an environmentalist-driven ocean research vessel (R/V Rachel Carson, owned by the Packard family-run Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI)) named after the woman whose work led to all those human deaths still amazes me.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Watched Carter’s funeral. The older Congresscritters and the Christians tended to pray by his coffin or stand there respectfully a bit, but the younger Dems mostly passed around his coffin at speed. Omar did not even look at it.

    Pelosi kinda shamed a few into copying her and standing, so that was at least funeral-appropriate.

    Like

  18. A huzzah for FM’s comment about Rachel Carson, the murderer of countless African children who could have been saved by DDT but instead died of malaria. She faked it all and got lifesaving DDT banned.

    I wonder, sometimes, if the demons tap her on the shoulder and tell her she’s killed another million kids, so down a level you go, Rachel.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. I have literally read something like that, in some journal, about mosquito nets. Because the locals don’t use them for malearia netting, they use them to fish. And they work “too well” for fishing, because they allow a man to sieve out all the bugs and whatnot in the swampy crappy place they’re forced to live, and they eat all that.

            Bro was literally lamenting the environmental impact of starving people eating bugs. You can’t h@te them enough, it just isn’t possible.

            Liked by 2 people

  19. FWIW, I just this minute googled “9-11 tower jumpers” and found lots of pictures of people falling from the towers.

    Like

        1. oh, that’s horrifying. But my guess is that their return might have to do with the censorship effort falling apart.
          Well, I’ll have to buy the BOOKS on debunking the crazy people and review them, and link them on X… ;)

          Like

          1. I thought so, too. The poster seemed to be serious, as in, “Note the aesthetic values of this photograph of a falling man.” I think it was the photo actually named, “The Falling Man.”

            Ghoulish.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. There is (or was) a bronze statue in NYC of a person falling, I remember it was condemned as being in very bad taste at the time. Can find no mention of it now, so surprising right?

              All I can find is the photo you mention, being celebrated for its aesthetics.

              Liked by 1 person

  21. I remember years ago seeing a bunch of articles saying many matriarch societies or polygamous societies in the recent past – I think in the East – were imposed by conquerors or the nobility who didn’t want their subjects forming strong families, because thats a source of rebellion, while the rulers had more traditional families.

    I can’t seem to find those articles now. Am I misremembering? Does anybody know what I’m talking about?

    Like

    1. I don’t think there have been ANY matriarchal societies anywhere, honestly. They put them in pre-history because they can layer whatever fantasy on the scant evidence. It’s all just a rewriting of the garden of Eden and tiresome in the extreme.

      Like

      1. Maybe on the small scale, as in extended family group. I know there was a famous Yellowstone wolf matriarch for a number of years who ran a pack successfully. But when you start talking “societies” it gets trickier, because what’s the turning point for size, how widespread is it, and hey, how about that actual provable evidence thing going?

        Anyway, I’m on the side of “there were probably some, and from the viewpoint of the bottom group, it was undoubtedly pretty much the same as the patriarchal ones.” I mean, seriously. You end up in charge of a sizable group in a violent era, you’re going to react in predictable ways.

        And anyone who thinks that there was any point in history that wasn’t violent, well… can’t convince them otherwise, because that would mean they’d have to look at the evidence.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Hey, off-topic, but that was my original post up there, not groovy38 whatever. I don’t know where that name came from. WordPress prompted me to sign in with my email and change my password. I’ve been busy and haven’t had the opportunity to post any comments recently. I just got done working and checked in on responses.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The only thing I’ve heard about like that is a South Indian warrior caste called the Nairs. At one time, they entered temporary marriages within their own caste and with the local Brahmin caste, with the temporary husband spending his nights with the wife’s extended, matrilinear family, which was administered by a brother of the currently living matriarch. It’s speculated that this originated as a way for the Brahmins to not have to deal with their younger, non-inheriting sons, and for the Nairs to bootstrap themselves closer to Brahmin status. To the extent that the Brahmin were at the top of the social pyramid, it was possibly to their benefit to keep blood-related groups of warriors from uniting against them, especially since the the temporary husbands of the Nair women had no particular loyalty to their children, who were seen as property of the mother’s family.

      Like

        1. Eh, matrilineal societies where men have duties to both their maternal and their uxorial lineages tend to have high status for women, so there is a dash of connection.

          Like

  22. I don’t think there have been ANY matriarchal societies anywhere, honestly.

    Look for the ones where everyone lived in caves.

    Well appointed caves with cute curtains and fluffy pillows.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. It strikes me, reading the comments, that our ruling class, including the academics, have forgotten rule 2. Rule 1 is that it’s all a grift, take care of your friends and punish your enemies, Rule 2 is equally important, but they’re so entitled and removed from reality that they’ve forgotten, rule 2 is don’t sh-t where you eat.

    I grew up in NYC among the ruins of Tammany. It was well established that all positions had to be paid for and that interest was all important. It was corrupt to the core. The thing though, was that the essential services PD, Fire, garbage, etc., had to be competently run. Further, if you got paid to (e.g.,) plow the streets, then you plowed the bloody streets. Even the mob, who controlled the private carting companies, followed that rule. Sure you paid for the job, but you were expected to be able to do the job if you were in a job that would cause sh-t where people ate. Now, not so much. Given the relative proportion of women who can pass the fireman’s test given most men can’t pass the fireman’s test! or the cops test for that matter, what are the odds that all the head cops and firemen would be high on the progressive stack?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Chicago under Richard J. Daley was much like that. Corrupt as hell, but the services got done. I lost touch with the city after the mid ’70s, but it was pretty clear that the succeeding mayors kept the corruption but forgot to Do The Damned Jobs. Now, I’m not even sure they know there’s a job to do.

      Like

    3. Puts me in mind of Samuel Pepys – he ran the Royal Navy in the 1600s. Corruption and bribery were considered part of the paycheck. Pepys was considered scrupulous not because he didn’t take bribes, but because he insisted that the ships the King was overpaying for were actually built, and of good workmanship. And had competent officers.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Plus IIRC (it’s been a while since I skimmed his diaries, so I may not be 100% correct) he tracked bribes and progress and would sometimes not take the follow up bribe because that second bribe was to hide the lack of progress.

        Like

  25. What search engine are you using? I typed “9/11 jumpers” into DuckDuckGo: every link on the first page was to a story abou the jumpers, and the very first image under Images was the famous jumping man photo. If you don’t use DuckDuckGo, it might serve your needs better.

    Like

    1. I used Duckduck. (Still do.) That is interesting. It was about two years ago I found them vanished, and no one could access them. Glad that changed. And it is interesting.
      Like listening to conversations of strangers in Super Markets, this reappearance of the jumper pictures gives me the temperature of the nation in a way nothing else does.

      Like

      1. DuckDuck has been deleting/backpaging material for at least three years when they publicly decided Russian sources on Ukraine would be removed. That’s why I quit using them, not because I particularly want Russian sources for Ukraine but any search engine that decided “we’ll only show you what we think is true/agree with” is saying that.

        I’m mainly using Qwant these days. You might give it a try on these items.

        Like

  27. For what it’s worth:

    Mouse Utopia: It’s not a debunking per se, but the only discussion recently on line I’ve seen of it doesn’t use it as proof of overpopulation but as proof of utopia being destructive because it is just meaningless life with everything provided. It doesn’t use the word “welfare” but that’s the filter.

    Your reproduction question is a good one but now that we see how unreproducible just psychology is (although I think Megan McArdle’s fix there, just preface all conclusions that they work on populations of poor undergrads who want beer money, would fix a lot of it) there isn’t interest in trying to reproduce anything. There are no incentives, you get grants for new studies not reproductions, and one huge disincentive, you’ll make enemies in very small fields who can blackball you.

    Marija Gimbutas: I’m pretty sure she’s still a laughingstock. The lack of active debunking may be just how much material on pre-ancient warfare exists constituting a de facto debunking makes it less interesting. Things like Dan Davis’s video, one of many, on the Tollense Valley are effectively thumbs in her eye even if they don’t mention her by name.

    Like

    1. I’ve read several European archaeology books that say, “Gimbutas was right about this, this, and that minor thing, and one big idea. Research since the 1980s has changed other things and …” off we go. So they acknowledge what works, and dump everything else. Note that these are in German, or translated articles from people in the former Warsaw Pact/USSR, so they are sort of outside the contagion zone of US/UK academia.

      The one big idea was the existence of a settled, pre-Indo-European culture that left language traces. The rest of Old Europe? Either can’t be proven, or the archaeology and other things don’t support her theories.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Ok, I’ve tried to leave links, and WP is eating them.

    https: // gwern. net / mouse- utopia

    Remove the spaces.

    Found through Duck Duck Go. Maybe someone’s cast a spell on you?

    Like

      1. I found a critical review of the m**se utopia. Every comment I tried to post about it vanished. Which is odd, and makes me wonder if there’s some sort of a filter around you.

        I found it through Duck Duck Go.

        I will try to post a description of what I found.

        Liked by 1 person

        2. Ok, that didn’t work. The paper was on the site of a person who writes about crypto, so maybe it’s shadowbanned on a larger scale, or just on WP?

          g wer n dot net Does Mouse Utopia Exist

          Liked by 1 person

  30. It’s all about killing God and religion and replacing it with Marx, the State, Men. The bible isn’t just the word of God, it’s five thousand years of human history.

    Like

  31. Not a reply to post exactly, but I just have to share this and this seems as safe a place to avoid getting doxed.We are of course getting high winds here just like CA.  Wife driving home notes th

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Other than “GTFO at high rate of speed”, preferrably by V/STOL aircraft, I dont have much for “epic firestorm”.

        Take care, prayers up, etc.

        Like

    3. LOL, thought that was just going to be a DM email, here’s what’s missing:

      We are of course getting high winds here just like West of here in CA.  Wife driving home notes that four doors down there is heavy smoke coming out of a palm tree in the front yard,  she calls 911 but is reticent to go and knock on the door of these people we don’t know, relatively recent residents.

      She lets me know so I put on some boots and my CCW and walk down.  THe folks are surprised, they thought the smoke was just someone barbecuing.  All females and one teenage male inside come to door.  No adult males.

      Wow.  SO many things to consider.  Why was she afraid to knock on their door?  Because we didn’t know them, they appear to be several families living in the single family home based on car activity.  Which is not legal here.  There’s another home that was supposed to be a vacation rental after the long term resident died across the street, but it seems to be populated by  what likely are “undocumented” immigrants. That makes us also nervous. Maybe the fire was really inside the home after some nefarious act had occurred.  What started the fire (I suspect an errant cigarette butt, however folks have been shooting of fireworks in the desert behind the house since the fire started.). Fire department response about 5 minutes.

      Like

  32. Something like the “mouse utopia” seems to be happening in Japan and South Korea, but it’s not down to overcrowding. Modern young Japanese and Korean women do not find the prospect of traditional marriages enticing—they’d have to give up working and stay home, they’d be very likely expected to be under the thumbs of their parents-in-law, and put up with any crap their husbands or their in-laws felt like dishing out.

    Like

    1. From people I’ve talked to South Korea is all cost of living – if children are too expensive, an incentive for getting married is removed.

      Japan is complicated. When you purposely put your entire economy into deflation for decades, there are real world consequences.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. From what I hear, it’s worse– they won’t be expected to give up working, they’ll be expected to do the full time stay at home work and have a “real” job.

      While being controlled by the in-laws.

      (Source: the gals marrying ground-pounder Marines because they were so sweet and spoiled you, even after getting married.)

      Like

  34. And so much horror coming out of CA. With questions already rising about relative levels of coverage, given the poor folks in NC will be overshadowed by fire stories. If so, our media is building up an enormous reservoir of rage, and it’s going to have to come out somehow.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I just watched 5 minutes of the fire department watering a house that was completely on fire and starting to fall down. WTF, O? It’s a lost cause. Meanwhile, a block away, there was a small fire in front of another house that rapidly got bigger.

      WHILE THEY WASTED THEIR TIME (AND WATER) ON THE LOST CAUSE!

      Are they all stupid? All of them? If that’s how they’ve been managing the fires, it’s no wonder they’re out of control.

      Liked by 2 people

  35. Ma’am, you are unlikely to see this if I reply to it on Instapundit, so I am replying here. You posted this in reaction to Canadian politicians objecting to Trump’s comments about annexing our country:

    YES. BUT IS THERE A REASON TO CARE WHAT THEY THINK? GIVE THEM A M.A.I.D. REFERRAL CARD.

    Yes, there is a reason to care what we think. We’re your goddamn ally, the closest one you have in the world. If you go out of your way to piss us off, you will never have or deserve another ally again.

    Trump’s leg-pulling about ‘the 51st State’ was at least amusing. Your comment was tone-deaf and bloody insulting.

    Like

    1. For what it’s worth, I took it as being about Canadian politicians specifically rather than Canadians in general. The headline she was snarking on said specifically “Canadian Leaders Not Too Happy (etc).”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is what it is about. I don’t care about their leaders. They’re the ones who brought MAID in. They can f*cking use it and shut up. Or grow a sense of humor, but that’s unlikely for politicians.

        Like

        1. Unfortunately, politicians don’t grow anything, let alone sense. Sense of humour is right out.

          You know why they outlawed plastic straws? They need the plastic to make politicians out of.

          Like

        1. No. The ones who aren’t Trudeau are wanting better relations. In fact have read more than a few Canadians thinking “hmmm” when it comes to statehood in the US. More like one state per province VS 51st state (along with “but do we have to bring Quebec too?”), but still.

          Given a huge portion of the Canadian population is easily within 500 miles (the distance across Oregon, FWIW), or less, of the US/Canadian border, not having an international border, isn’t a bad concept. Not like US states conform to one identity across the nation, other than US. Personally not apposed to bringing in Mexico as a state either (yes, even with the headaches of corruption clean up). Sure would make the southern land border a lot smaller.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Those Canadians are a small minority, unfortunately. The founding principle of the Canadian confederation – such as it is – is hatred and fear of Americans. If you think you have too many self-hating Americans now, just wait till you add all the Canadians who were brainwashed all their lives to hate the U.S.

            Better to call the whole thing off.

            Like

            1. Whatever (not happening).

              Know a number of Canadian/Americans. Funny thing is, 100% of them are going “Yes!!!!!”. So, there is that.

              Won’t stop M.A.I.D. Individual states have that. Not universal federal like Canada. Unfortunately Oregon is one of those states who has voted it in (well greater Portland). I didn’t vote for it.

              Like

              1. Canadian-Americans are not like other Canadians. They don’t mind Americans, or they wouldn’t choose to move to the U.S. The colonies of British North America only formed a confederation in the first place out of fear that they would be annexed by the U.S. Anti-American paranoia is THE founding principle of Canada. A lot of Canadians have seen through it, but a lot haven’t, and you really don’t want to take on that many headaches at once. You think you have trouble with 12 million illegal aliens who don’t want to be American? Try adding 20 million people who so loathe the idea of being American that they would not even visit the place voluntarily.

                Like

                1. FeatherBlade: “We don’t want Canada”?

                  “Well, we don’t want Canada. Nobody’s going to try to annex any part of your country.”

                  Beat me too it.

                  I will add “Don’t want Canada involuntarily.”

                  Just like the US Virgin Islands which was purchased by the US, and other non-state territories of the US, either purchasing Greenland, or Canada, “annexing as a state” requires a referendum by those entities to become a state. Just like it did for Oregon, Washington, CA, and all other states beyond the first 13. (Leaving/divorcing OTOH is different, but that treads on forbidden territory.)

                  So, yes. The whole concept of Canada being the 51st state is a laughable joke. For Canadian’s to not take it that way is shocking to me (not being very worldly, not difficult). I think of Canadians as stronger than that.

                  Liked by 1 person

          1. There are writers on Townhall media sites who are saying that it is NOT a joke, and treating seriously the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada. Are they idiots, too?

            Like

            1. Amplifying on the foregoing:

              On Instapundit lately, there has been a rash of posts and comments mocking Canada and Canadians, insulting us, belittling us as effectively subhuman, and telling us how our country ought to be carved up for the maximum benefit to the U.S.

              When I saw your post, my immediate reaction was: ‘My God, not you too!’ But I think you would have to read the comments on Instapundit to fully appreciate why, and it does not appear to me that you do that.

              Like

    4. Under the “least said is soonest mended” principle, I’m going to content myself with asking why you act so afraid of the US treating Canada like the foreign country it is, rather than like the 51st state it isn’t, all jokes aside.

      Like

    5. Yes, there is a reason to care what we think.

      Oh, are you a politician? Because she was talking about Canadia’s current political regime, which you would know if you could figure out how to read with your eyes open.

      We’re your goddamn ally, the closest one you have in the world.

      With Castreau at the helm, no you are not. You have become a strategic risk. Stop cozying up to Chicoms and allowing terrorists to use your southern border as a free pass into our country, and we can revisit this.

      If you go out of your way to piss us off, you will never have or deserve another ally again.

      I’m reminded of a conversation I chanced to be part of in university at a bus stop. A German student was talking with a Canadian, and asking what made his country different from the US. He went on about Canada’s history, culture, place in the British Empire, and more, for quite some time. She then turned to me, asked if I was American, and asked what my view of it was. I said, “Canada likes to think they’re a different country, and we let them.”

      So, go ahead and talk big and make threats. Because it’s hilarious.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not making threats. I’m telling you that if you attack a country that has been your ally for well over a century, you will make it crystal clear that alliance with America is something worse than worthless, and other nations will react accordingly. And you are not going to annex Canada without attacking it.

        Like

        1. You were belligerent and threatening, hence you were making threats. And literally nobody is intimidated.

          You can back down, or you can continue getting mocked for your pathetic posturing. Your choice, lackwit.

          Like

          1. You call it threatening to point out the consequences of stupid actions? Poor little pumpkin, you must feel so threatened every day.

            By the way, if you called me ‘lackwit’ to my face, I would not bother making threats, but move directly to carrying them out. It’s a pity there is no penalty for grossly insulting people on the Internet, but there we are.

            Like

            1. Your tone was threatening, Captain Genius Person. Your phrasing was not “if-then”, it was “You’re gonna get it!”

              And you are a lackwit. You read what Sarah posted and thought she was talking about all Canadians, rather than the politicians she was actually talking about. You lack the wit to comprehend her not-terribly-obscure point. Therefore, you are a lackwit. Simple statement of fact, and if you find it insulting, maybe learn to read with your eyes open.

              Again, your threats are singularly unthreatening, Canuck. Do your worst, and I’ll let you know if I happen to notice.

              Like

              1. Again, I am not threatening you. But I will make popcorn and laugh if you make enemies of the whole world the way you are determined to make an enemy of me.

                If you want to attack people for their phrasing, I suggest you start by thinking about Mrs. Hoyt’s phrasing in her original remark. If not, then you have no call for attacking me. But I suppose any stick will do to beat a dog, no consistency or standards required.

                Like

                1. OK, so, you’re very slow, so let me spell this out for you, child.

                  You claim:

                  Again, I am not threatening you.

                  But just above that you said:

                  By the way, if you called me ‘lackwit’ to my face, I would not bother making threats, but move directly to carrying them out.

                  You told me that if I did thing I will gladly do until you admit that your initial read of Sarah’s very clear comment was in error, then you would carry out what you would threaten instead of threatening it.

                  That, right there, is a threat.

                  Lackwit.

                  Like

                  1. No, that is not a threat. That is a hint that you are being belligerent and insulting in a way that you would be ashamed or afraid to do in person.

                    Meanwhile, you’re impugning my intelligence again. You’re an absolute fool to do so. God knows I have plenty of faults, but a lack of intelligence is not and never has been one of them. There are even people among Mrs. Hoyt’s regular commenterrs who can testify to that. So I suggest you stop telling silly lies that cannot possibly convince anyone. You beclown yourself by doing it.

                    Like

                    1. It is literally a threat. You said you would do unspecified bad things to me if I said to your face that you are a lackwit. That is an attempt to intimidate me out of saying a thing you do not like. In other words: a threat.

                      (Are you really so monumentally stupid that you do not understand this? Even given your idiotic behavior so far, that’s a stretch.)

                      I mean, it’s not terribly threatening, coming from someone who reads with his eyes closed, cannot admit he might have been wrong, and is too much of a coward to admit that he’s making threats.

                      But yes, go on and assert how very, very, very intelligent you are. It’s very believable.

                      Like

                    2. ANYBODY would do ‘unspecified bad things’ to you if you called them names like that to their face.

                      And you’re right, it’s not terribly threatening, because it wasn’t fucking intended as a threat. I hoped I could wake you up to the fact that you are behaving with a complete and shameless lack of the civility that one would expect in a social interaction; but you do not care. You’re safe behind your keyboard and feel that you can attack people with impunity. Apparently the ONLY thing that would get through to you is if someone DID directly threaten you with physical violence.

                      What’s it like to have no social awareness whatsoever?

                      Like

                    3. ANYBODY would do ‘unspecified bad things’ to you if you called them names like that to their face.

                      No. They wouldn’t. Reasonable adult human beings would, in most cases, laugh it off or simply ignore it.

                      Ugarte: “You despise me, don’t you?”
                      Rick: “If I gave you any thought, I probably would”

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. ‘No. They wouldn’t. Reasonable adult human beings would, in most cases, laugh it off or simply ignore it.’

                      That only invites more of it. ‘Reasonable’, in this case, means ‘willing to lie down in the dirt and be humiliated because defending oneself is Simply Not Done’.

                      I have a simple policy about these things: Don’t start none, won’t be none. I am particularly touchy about aspersions against my intellectual capacity, because it is the only thing I have to get me by in this world. Attack that, and you attack me as a human being. Apparently you enjoy doing that, because you keep doubling down.

                      Like

                    5. So, in other words, you’re thin skinned and insecure. Otherwise, the opinion of strangers on the internet wouldn’t bother you.

                      An insult is like a drink. It affects one only if accepted.

                      In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.

                      Maybe you should look in the mirror and address why you allow people to live rent-free in your head.

                      Like

                    2. Is there a reason why you are inserting your yap into this?

                      Mrs. Hoyt, I appeal to you. Clearly I misjudged your remark (though I think you would do well to bear in mind that it invited such a misjudgement). But I believe you can testify that I am not mentally retarded, as these commenters accuse me of being.

                      Like

                    3. This may come as a surprise to you, but this is a public forum, not private messaging. Anyone is free to comment. You are becoming (have become) tedious and, well, you receive the consequences thereof.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. Read your own comment. This is indeed a public forum, and I am a member of the public, and I do not have to meet your standards (whatever they are) to post on it.

                      Do you stop to personally insult everyone who says something tedious on the Internet? You must be awfully busy.

                      Like

                    5. You talk about consequences, and then object to receiving some.

                      As it happens, there are folk right here in this forum with whom I vociferously disagree. Some, I’ll engage. Some I won’t. Both choices for my own reasons. Most of them are quite capable of forming a cogent argument. I may disagree with their conclusions, or even their premises, but I can respect their presentation of their position.

                      All you’ve done is engage in foot stomping.

                      “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read, or even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling”–Thomas Sowell.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    6. I’m not complaining about consequences. I’m defending myself against personal attacks and insults. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s not my problem.

                      Like

        2.  you will make it crystal clear that alliance with America is something worse than worthless, and other nations will react accordingly. 

          As if the last 50 years of American foreign policy hadn’t already made that abundantly clear to anyone with eyes. Other countries only tolerate us because we give lots of money to people we invade.

          Would it make you feel better to have someone say “We don’t want Canada”?

          Well, we don’t want Canada. Nobody’s going to try to annex any part of your country. Except the Chinese.

          Liked by 1 person

  36. Off topic, but missing piece?

    I am watching the Carter funeral on Newsmax. Various former presidents are there, same pew. All except two are silent.

    Trump and Obama are in a brisk conversation. Trump is doing most of the talking. Obama is listening, laughing, and gesturing.

    Lengthy conversation.

    Like

Comments are closed.