Still About Men And Women

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Look, we’re in the middle of moving, going to bed late, waking up late, and I am just barely up and dressed at almost noon. I’m not functioning too well.

BUT I still must ask: Are you guys okay? You, there, on the other side of the screen? Because from where I am, you guys — not commenters here. At least I hope not — are losing your damn minds.

Like half the commenters on the right are shrieking about taking the vote away from women because hardcore, crazy feminists and social media posturing idiots are defending a mass murderess of children.

No, I’m not going to say “not all women” because if you don’t know it’s not all women who want to murder their children, you should be fitted with a straight jacket and put in a padded cell.

What I’m going to say is: Has none of you learned to recognize a psy-ops yet? How often do I need to shout it from the rooftops?

It doesn’t surprise any of you that some many “women” — fifty cent army, bots and pudding heads — are shrieking that all women should have the right to murder their children? As in… at all? This is all super cool with you, and totally representative of the sentiment of 99% of mothers who, btw, raise healthy children to adulthood?

(And yes, here, full disclosure, for much of my kids’ teen years I’d say “When you’re eighteen, if I let you live that long.” BUT we all knew it was a JOKE. Like my joke that I was going to hold my (by then six one, finished at six four) younger son out of the window by his ankles and shake him till he stopped being an idiot.)

But Sarah? A psy-op from WHOM? Oh, dear. Actually it is multiple intersecting psy-ops with the runners of each jumping on the bandwagon and doing their best to push it, because it SERVES THEIR PURPOSE.

1- first and most numerous and probably most powerful (We should all be grateful the money from USAid has been throttled down, or they’d be funding armies of bull dykes burning cities, because BLM worked so well for them in 2020) is the Democrats. They’re out of ideas. They’re out of gas. They’re out of voters, which is why they’re clutching fraud to their chest like a life preserver. BUT BY GUM if they can stoke a war between men and women and tar the right as women haters (with the cooperation and help of a lot of the idiots — I repeat, idiots. Not to say retards because people suffering from mental retardation are blameless. These fully-functioning humans are beneath them morally. AND intellectually)… well, women will vote for them for the same reason I voted for Trump in 2016 (when I didn’t know him.): This sucks, but least likely to harm me, personally. (I’ll add they tried to stoke exactly this battle over ABORTION and found out that most women aren’t really THAT interested in their right to murder their offspring, and therefore they still lost 2024.)

2- The other half of the red green alliance. For some reason, probably because this is the year of the bad idea bunny, or perhaps because people who are drowning catch at the stupidest straws, Islam has become convinced they can take us, and hold us. (Heaven help us. It would be the illustration of biting off more than they can chew, but it would fundamentally change us too.) They view it as a personal offense that we have unveiled women (also that we keep dogs. Also … well, everything.) They would love nothing less than to convince American men that women should be veiled and confined to the house. It would make their sharia platform WAY more palatable.

3- China. I’d say Russia too, but they are more broke these days and their ten kopek army is probably smaller. Why? Because infighting in the US is good for them. Because the democrats winning is good for them. Because Americans not reproducing is good for them.

And if you’re chafing at the first and saying “So the right wing can’t rebuke women, because they won’t vote for us? They don’t vote for us anyway.” I say again: IDIOTS. Arrant, blatant, running towards the precipice screaming “you can’t tell me not to jump.” That bullshit is bullshit from beginning to end. a) you don’t know women don’t vote for the GOP. The difference, statistically between MARRIED women and men in DECLARED voting record is… minor. And all of it is subsumed by fraud. Note declared. The vote is secret. This is exit polls. Women, particularly single women in mostly leftist enclaves will say they voted for the left. Question: Of the left and the right, which is more likely to commit violence against those who don’t vote for them? You do the math.

And if you say you know a lot more liberal women than men? We all do. But they are of a type. Usually young or old (older than me, and I’m turning 64) this year. And both of them are running software that was installed in higher education and infused with feminism and victimhood. A lot of them might also be masking. Look, again, women are more likely to VOICE the accepted opinion. Because women crave social approval more than men (in general, blah blah, continuum, you know the disclaimers.) It’s the software in the head saying “You’ll never survive as a lone wolf(ess) you need social approval from the band.

Second, what do you think you’ll gain by tarring all women with loony leftist desire to sacrifice children? Let the left call for child murder. Do not assume all women are on that side. If you do you have nothing to gain. If you don’t you stand to gain all the women who are on the left out of habit and stupidity and who will suddenly go “The fuck is wrong with these people, actually?” and who might be red pilled.

Look, yes, there are a lot of women behaving badly online. You, yes, absolutely, should call them out. You should call their behavior what it is: Savage, vile, and anti-survival.

What you shouldn’t then do is jump to the conclusion that all women should be stripped of civil rights. And this is coming from someone who in times of extreme stress has said she’d be willing to give up the vote if it stripped all them bitches of the vote too. Until her husband reminds her some men are commies too.

How many women are even on social media? As a percentage? We who are relatively speaking extremely online tend to forget not everyone is. But the percentage might be maybe around 25% for the younger generation. And by that I mean: people who are on social media, and actively involved, beyond posting “pictures of Junior for grandma and the aunties.”

How many of those women are calling out solidarity for a woman who murdered her three children? Not even all of those, just a vocal minority.

How many of those calling out solidarity are ACTUALLY calling out solidarity for the act and not saying “Wait, we don’t know all the facts of the case, her husband remarried suspiciously fast, and…. um…. what the hell was going on, actually?” Because while the act of murdering your own children is, traditionally and through history awful and horrifying (And I don’t even want to think about it, because it hurts) we do have a system of justice that weighs everything.

Look, if you told me: “No matter. We’re killing everyone who kills children, to make this not happen again. Once we know they done it, we take them out back and shoot them.” I’d say the idea is maybe too rash, and the Supremes might protest, but…. OTOH, well, it might help curb this type of thing, so maybe…

But that’s not the system we have. And I can see psychiatrists and psychologists — professions dominated by women — calling out for more information and a more tempered opinion.

Which doesn’t amount to “Let women kill babies. She done right.” or even “it’s all the husband’s fault.” Just “Let’s find out more about this.”

Am I in this camp? I don’t know. I haven’t read enough on it to be in any camp, and I’m constitutionally inclined (not the US constitution, my constitution) to “Take her out back and shoot her.” Like all women who suffered through infertility, women who kill their own children are our particular and declared enemies. I think. Psychologically.

But I can understand the women and men who are in that camp, and I don’t think they’re monsters, unlike the ones who think mothers want to kill their kids all the time. (And not just, say, when they mow the carpet. Or make a bomb that creates a six foot crater in the backyard. Or… What? They’re in their thirties. I obviously just shouted loudly at them in a Latin mother way.)

I, personally, and as a matter of passing interest would like to know what psych medicines if any this woman was on, because some of them are notorious for creating mass murderers. (Which yes, this is. Women mass murderers usually prey on children and the elderly.)

BUT again, the monsters — and bots, and 20 kopek army, and whatever the hell — calling for women to be able to murder children are despicable. And you’ll find it’s probably because they want to push “Well, see, this is why we need abortion up to your water breaking and beyond.” Like you can solve murder with more murder.

But it’s not a war between men and women. It’s, as always, a battle between civilization and Marxist barbarians grabbing at any passing event to promote their hellish cause. Stop helping them.

The funniest and MOST INSIGHTFUL article I saw from the right on this wanted to ban women from social media.

This is of course impossible, and also likely to cause much furore and backlash by itself, which will if not make it possible for the left to win (they mostly win by fraud. No, really. Hence the hysterical fight against voter ID) possible for the left to hide its cheating under a plausible wave of indignation. The author of the article (I’m lazy but you can probably find it. I think it was townhall. I could be wrong) himself says that of course it’s impossible.

BUT it is the most insightful article because…. women.

Look, men and women are different. From each other, of course, within the group (we’re not Marxists. We know that) but mostly, in aggregate, different from each other as groups. Different enough that I have often non-ironically wondered if Heinlein was right and we’re merely symbiont species. And again this comes from a woman who is closer to male in brain organization. Close enough to be more masculine than the most extreme feminized men on the other side.

But women in general have a huge weak spot that’s probably evolutionary (because a pregnant woman can’t survive alone if kicked out of the band.) They crave mass approval and applause. They want to be in good with the vast majority of people. (I think I can be absolved of this, given 2020.) They also tend to be cowards, when asked for an opinion in public, and again say what they think will be approved/praised.

I think on the other end of the scale from me this is scary-stupid. Like, women will change their entire lives and do reprehensible things because they think it will get them approval.

And I’m not claiming complete exemption here, even me. I remember being young and worrying that people would think I let my husband control me, and therefore doing a lot of shitty counterproductive nonsense to prove I was my own woman, for instance. Because that’s how the brain is wired, and that was the perceived judgement from society.

This is why women consume more fashion, obsess over their appearance, distort their kids’ upbringing to make their kids seem to be “good” in whatever way is fashionable (see all the women transing their kids) etc. etc. etc.

This tendency of women is responsible for most of the evils of the west, yes. And yes, it’s a problem. And why I, episodically go on my rant about giving up suffrage if them bitches are stripped of it too. Hold on for why this would be wrong. Deep breath.

OBVIOUSLY this tendency is exacerbated by social media, particularly the vapid CCP owned, bot-infested climes of Tic Toc. I am still disappointed we didn’t keep Tic Toc banned. Yes, yes, free speech. BUT CCP owned and controlled. Nothing in our Constitution requires us to facilitate enemy psy-ops.

And yeah, if there were a way to ban women from social media that weren’t a major attack on everyone’s social liberties, I’d even consider it.

But it is written “the idiots shall always be with you.” and even if you could ban women, the extreme of feminized men would be just as bad.

Now why this tendency to seek approval doesn’t mean we should ban women from voting (Or not necessarily. I too have my moments.): The actual voting record, as far as we can tell (which ain’t very far) shows that married women are pretty dang close to men.

This means the tendency can be overcome by rationality, life experience and education/growth.

Which means that yes, women have this vulnerability and they should be taught they have it, and how to overcome it.

Not, you know, have our education system lean into it and teach them that they have to be feminist shrieking harpies to be “free” and “not slaves of patriarchy.” And all the other nonsense. Which exacerbates it by giving girls a permanent victimhood complex and teaching them safety is on the left. AND WE’RE PAYING FOR THAT. You and me.

If your kids are in school from elementary on, read all their materials. And be ready to pull them out and homeschool them, for the love of… well, your kids.

And stop with the crazy attempts to remove the natural issues women face: pregnancy, birth, vulnerability by making men more vulnerable and having the state help women all along the line. No more advantage to women in custody or divorce. No more DEI promoting of the minority that’s actually a majority. No guilting of women that want to have children.

These are all things that the state (various states and nations, really) has done to make women “stronger”, but evolution is millions of years deep. Women are always going to feel vulnerable and be susceptible to mob pushing. The way to fix that is not to remove their disadvantages but to make them rational, thinking beings. Which we know they can be.

The solution is not to take the vote from women. The solution is…. equality. Treat men and women as being alike. Don’t demonize men. Don’t coddle women. Teach them the virtues of the West. Teach Marxism for the horror it is.

The hour is late, and as this psy-ops proves, a lot of you are susceptible to enemy propaganda.

It’s time to stop aiding those who would divide us to conquer us.

179 thoughts on “Still About Men And Women”

    2. Mental Illness has become a fad and a culture. This displeases me as a person with a smidgen of common sense, and also a person with enough depression to qualify. Nobody should want to be ill. That shit is awful.

      More than that, nobody should want other people to be ill. This seems like it should be rather basic and proper.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. Yes they are distinguished by little triangular noses, little triangular ears, soft fur (usually), quadrupedal motion (mostly) and are commonly found in images and videos throughout the Internet. Last I heard, they had uplifted and were pushing this human dude to produce spaceships to take them (and a few lucky caretakers) somewhere else, as there’s bugger all for intelligent life here…

      Like

      Reply

      1. She gave away over a million books to kids. I’m pretty confident they were good books. Starting a all those kids on reading is Making a Difference in very good, very big way. Letting them know that someone cares enough to address the book to them may also be a very good thing.

        We’re saying goodbye to a hero.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. She gave away over a million books to kids. 

          At least once, to the monkey-shrieking outrage of the Woke, who found the books to have insufficient LGBTQP propaganda.

          Like

          Reply

    4. Truly the end of an era. I think she was the last of the country stars to grow up hardscrabble in the mountains, like the first generation (Mother Maybelle Carter and Co.). She did her best to leave the world a better place than she found it, G-d bless her.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. She did indeed leave the world a better place. Folks not from around here might know of her work helping families after the fire that claimed so many homes. That was only one of the many things she did, and never spoke of.

        Because that’s just what you did when people needed help. You helped, and then moved on so they could move on, too.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Apparently she had another initiative called “Storybook Trail,” which was setting up trails with a line of signs telling a story, so that kids could get the wiggles out while reading. They set up a bunch along the highways in Ohio, at rest stops.

          I think this was smart, because some kids really do everything better, if they can get some large muscles moving.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  4. They thrive on noise and division. Instead of following the noise, no matter how calmly and matter-of-factly delivered, it’s best to sit, watch, wait, and when the noise dies down a bit, investigate. I also want to know what drugs these women were or were not on, as well as the other details. Not to absolve them but to see if there is a broader pattern here – because if there is one, finding it now is better than noticing it later.

    It’s rather difficult to “stand and wait” as Milton put it, but you do tend to learn more that way sometimes….

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. “Like half the commenters on the right are shrieking about taking the vote away from women because hardcore, crazy feminists and social media posturing idiots are defending a mass murderess of children.”

    I’m not loving the idiots having sympathy for the child k1ller. That’s a bridge too far, and I’m keeping a little list. Her own kids? Nope. No extenuating circumstances, no redeeming the perpetrator. Jail, never to be seen among us.

    Having said that, I’m of the opinion that the social media Leftosphere is exactly as much a psy-op as the Rightosphere. They are both equally liars, manipulating their audiences, selling their own brands of snake oil.

    The thing to remember about snake oil is that it’s a fake remedy. It doesn’t do anything. They’re stealing your time and your money.

    And similarly, let’s not forget that all these propaganda efforts exist on a continuum that stretches from billboards and newspapers to Russia invading Ukraine with live ammo. The creeps pulling the strings are more than happy to k1ll you if you won’t go along.

    So, am I okay? No, not really. I’m living in a country where the leadership is happy to see our economy crushed and our lives destroyed if they can squeeze some political advantage out of it. Win the next election, right?

    And it’s been that way my whole life. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? That was another creepo politician playing chicken with Armageddon to get a few points in an election. Same thing, different day.

    I’m old, and I’m having Deja Poo. I’ve seen this sh1t before. And every time I see it, nobody else does and they all tell me to shut up. Kinda getting on my nerves.

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply

        2. She’s a fruitbat!

          And sad to say, it looks more and more like Tucker Carlson is also a fruitbat. Unfortunate.

          Out of all of them, fricking crazy man Alex Jones is right more often than not. How about that, eh?

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          3. Phantom Said

            She’s a fruitbat!

            That sir is an offense to fruit bats everywhere, who are just large, goofy bats universally loved (well except for Chiroptophobes like my younger daughter, who sees them as terror with 4′ wingspans). Though Candace Owens hanging upside down and chowing down on a mango would be an improvement…

            Like

            Reply

    2. Read a piece on Twitter today suggesting Carney was installed to pull Canada into the EU, so Brussels could access your resources.

      Have no idea, but it sounded plausible. Particularly given the obviously ginned-up “trade war,” just in time to raise prices before the midterms.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          4. ugh

            bastards like this are gonna have us enforcing control over an American co-prosperity sphere, are they not?

            Hopefully I am just having a moment of dooming and blackpill.

            Like

            Reply

            1. The good news Bob is that some of the Canadian provinces (e.g. Alberta) love Ottawa even less than we do. Even better news is much of South and Central America has tried communism/ socialism (communism lite) and now knows it is a false religion. That said I do NOT look forward to a world that resembles Kratman’s Caliphate or Stirling’s Stone Dogs even if we get North America and South America and the 7 armies/turn that entails.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

        2. With regards our political and opinionmaking classes, you could remove “in the EU” from that and still be correct

          Like

          Reply

      2. I recall seeing an (apparently real) clip of Governor Carney a few years back describing himself as “European”, which is an interesting thing for someone who is now in charge of Canada to call himself . . .

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Enforce the Monroe Doctrine. No hostile European or other Powers in North or South America. And “friendly” ones should be encouraged to embrace independence for any here.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      3. I read a quick bit earlier today linked on Instapundit stating that Carney approached the US about restarting the Keystone Pipeline project. Trump eagerly accepted the idea. But when the trade negotiators met, the Canadians walked away because the US wasn’t granting them enough trade concessions.

        This was a possible plan to sell Albertan oil to their closest and richest neighbor… and they balked because the US apparently didn’t treat it like the Canadians were doing the US a massive favor.

        It’s absurd when you think about it. The current Canadian government whines about the US every chance it gets, but seems bound and determined to stick it to the US every way it can. Given their attitude toward Beijing these days, I suspect there’s an awful lot of CCP influence at play.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Explanations can be constructed where the decisions between Mark and Charlie are neither stupid nor insane.

          Mostly, I think Charlie is quite ilrede.

          My feeling is that a single afterwards deduction from the outside will not explain the original decision, and process.

          Communism corrupts the official information, bypassing a nonfunctional official reality with a load bearing shadow economy. During regime failure, the regime’s manipulation of information is irrational, and the resulting decisions are irrational. I’ve been way overpredicting this sort of information problem.

          I think I would have personally had some problems navigating ‘current events’ of the last five to ten years if I were for the whole period entirely wedded to the idea that I was modeling rational actors who were operating on the same information I had.

          It makes a ton of sense that many actors cared a lot about non-predictive ideas, and have become lost in superstition and anger when it comes to manipulating the future.

          Of course, if I have a simple neat explanation, I could mostly be fooling myself.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. The hilarious part is that the Crown considered Canada to be the *good* part of British America – the chartered companies were quite profitable for everyone. Whereas the southern colonies had mostly been an annoyance, contributed little to the British economy, and had to be repeatedly reminded about the whole “tax” concept, often at gunpoint.

          At once time, the Crown tried to trade all of what are now the Atlantic states for the island of Grenada, but the French wouldn’t take the offer.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Well, are current government loves to remind us about the whole tax concept, at gun point. I always laugh when some Demmy says they don’t take taxes at gun point, and then I point out what happens when you don’t pay your taxes.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

      4. “…was installed to pull Canada into the EU, so Brussels could access your resources.”

        Yes. Little bro is a WEF-er.

        But you will notice that there has been -zero- effort to actually sell any of those resources to Europe. Not even gas, which they need rather badly.

        So I think this is all about screwing with #TheDonald as a favor to the Lloyds of London/Swiss banker crowd.

        Hard to say though, because it’s still possible they’re just idiots. I can’t discount plain abject stupidity as a factor. >:(

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. My understanding is that they’re selling a lot of stuff (including some of the oil) to the Chinese. And in return, they by things like the highly flammable Chinese EVs.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

    1. A true Southern Lady, that one. She’s the example that many a young girl in the South looked up to for as long as I can remember. May her people be blessed. May everyone that came to know her be the light that shines upon the world now.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  7. Condolences to Dolly’s family; I saw her once, during the Porter Wagoner years, at a little bar in south Alabama. Or maybe a big bar. 1971 was a long time ago.

    —

    About that “How many women are even on social media? As a percentage?”

    Holly Mathnerd, that wonderful OCD person, needed to know that to recalibrate her brain.

    See https://substack.com/inbox/post/212447770, but the results of the math for Twitter user mothers is

    One point four percent.

    Even if every single mother in my estimated female-and-maternal share of Twitter’s hyperactive cohort supported Lindsay Clancy, I would still be looking at approximately 1.4% of American mothers.

    And they don’t all support her. Given what we know about how full of bots Twitter is, I could make a rational case for it being well under half of that — but I can’t back it up with data, so we’ll work with 1.4%, knowing that the actual number is not 1.4%.

    It is some unknown fraction of 1.4%.

    That is what my brain had started interpreting as women. Worse, as mothers. The two concepts bounced around in my head, conflating and combining.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  8. Yesterday on her Substack, Holly MathNerd put out a statistical analysis. Starting by getting a rough number of how many accounts are posting about the Clancy case, filtering them for ones that claim to be adult human women who have children and live in America, and assuming that all of those are who they claim to be and none are duplicates or foreign actors or bots…

    It still only reaches about 1.4% of the total population of American women who are mothers.

    Sampling bias is very real. The way the internet amplifies posts, we hear from the ones who (a) already care enough to make a crazy video or rant about it, and (b) are outrageous enough to get reshared by critics.

    All this to say, I hate the “wahhh all women suck” guys as much or more than those grasping at straws to insist that it’s impossible for a woman to harm her own kids so it’s actually the husband’s fault. The second group is being emotional; the first group is ALSO being emotional but pretending they aren’t because they’re Big Manly Men and men can’t be emotional. Right. But my rights and basic human decency must be put into question because they’re having an emotional fit. (Can you hear my eyes rolling from over there?)

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  9. I figure this garbage will, in the absence of a truly catastrophic outbreak of general insanity (side-eyes 20th century), likely sort itself out in due time provided some sort of social hygiene can be worked out. What shape that takes without going off the deep end I don’t know. The old ways of simple quarantine don’t work too well in the age of antisocial media. Maybe when the AI scam collapses it takes some of that garbage with it, I don’t know.

    And failing that, listen for trumpets…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  10. a) It was not me.

    b) Yeah, I’m not okay, and I am also okay. I do hurt a little inside. But, I am orienting to reality around me (I think), and I do not think I am desperate to hurt others because of feelings. Things are okay to good for me, and can get better.

    c) She was almost certainly on psych meds. I do not trust that info, because her lawyers are trying to go for blaming the caregivers, but some of this does actually seem to be documented.

    d) Thinking that sex is a particularly natural and inviolate political faction is extremely wacky. If one wrote a textbook about this, one might put sex in their an example of something that does not make sense.

    e) Most of each sex are literal strangers to me, or to any other given individual.

    f) I cannot really account for the non-ergodicity in the people that I have experienced. My self selection, and their self selection had some sort of statistical consequence, that I do not model accurately if I assume that I encounter people through Gaussian white nosie processes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. I never liked weighing in on these big criminal court cases. Aren’t these about an individual committing or not committing a crime? I don’t see the point of extrapolating out from that an indictment to an entire group of people, however tenuously related they may be. The fact there there are lots of bots and wumaos stirring things up isn’t a surprise, either.

    “Not all men” and “Not all women” should be an obvious starting point that shouldn’t even need to be said.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. It’s not so much about the case itself. There are always men and women who do bad things, including to their kids. The fuss is about the (seeming) number of women who are supporting her actions. Supposedly over a million dollars has been raised for her legal defense.

      There have also been attacks on men who protest the (seeming) support on behalf of her dead kids (without getting into the “All women need to be locked up for their own good!” territory). But this isn’t exactly new. It reminds me of some of the attacks on supporters of the video game Pragmata, which I mentioned a little while back.

      On another note, it occurs to me that this mess all seems to be perfectly timed to push the Jason Arday story out of the public’s eye.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. Yup. It seems (there’s that word again) like a lot… until you see the percentage and realize that it’s quite a bit smaller than the estimated number of genuine psychopaths in the US population.

          I saw a headline the other day talking about a rally against Japanese PM Takaichi in Tokyo. The population is turning against her remilitarization of Japan! She’s on her way out! There were… uh… 15,000 protesters (stated in the headline, and possibly inflated)… in a city of over 14 million people (not mentioned in the headline; and many more living in the Greater Tokyo area). Yeah, no. It was an insignificant drop, only notable because there were almost certainly people who were delayed because the rally was blocking their way.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Japan has a pretty serious problem with CCP-funded protests. When protesting the American military’s Ospreys was a big deal 10-20 years ago almost all of those were CCP-funded commies. It would be a safe bet to say that most of those 15,000 (if there even were 15,000) were there at the behest of the CCP.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Despite the funding, I’ve heard that there aren’t that many Japanese communists. The 15,000 in attendence might have represented the entire Communist population from the surrounding areas.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. Back in 2007-2009 I worked for an English teaching company based in Warabi in Saitama. Warabi’s (dubious) claim to fame was its communist party mayor. It doesn’t seem like they’ve made serious in-roads since then, but it’s now over 10 years since I lived there. Other than that, animus remains between the Japanese and the Chinese. News over the last few years has featured foreign tourists in Japan, with the Japanese not appreciating the sort of tourism Chinese people generally engage in.

                Like

                Reply

          2.  It was an insignificant drop, only notable because there were almost certainly people who were delayed because the rally was blocking their way.

            Pretty sure that those “impact analyses” were relying on people applying that truism from marketing 101: “For every customer who took the time to file a complaint, x were equally unhappy but just stopped using the product.”

            Where x is between 10 and 100.

            Like

            Reply

  12. One big irritant is that the most active voices – often fringe – are the most active, be they people or bots or “yes.” Garbage tweets and posts overwhelm more thoughtful tweets and posts. It gets old quick. I think the rule of thumb is”If it says ‘always’ or ‘never’ it is probably incorrect” applies here. “Every man/woman/llama/goldfish-of-color” is pretty much not going to be true.

    I stay out of current events if I can. I have enough headaches already. Too, since I can’t be on TwitX, FaceSpace, and whatever because of safety concerns, I miss all the froth and furor.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Folks’ choices in how they interact matter a lot, too.

      For example, TwiX doesn’t push this stuff at me, because I block the rage-bait. So it “learned” that isn’t good for interaction.

      Helps that I don’t surf the algo much, too.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  13. It’s being driven by the tok of tik, i.e. the Middle Kingdom, so three three three.

    The others are tagging along because of course, for the reasons enumerated, but anything that gets amplified on that platform is driven not simply by their algo, but by human intent, and that intent is the intent of the CCP State Security folks embedded in their “company”.

    The Throne of Heaven certainly knows the U.S. midterm elections loom, and the previously working-every-summer funded-riot chaos vanished thanks to interdicting that funding by DOGE etc, so they are using the levers they still have to inject chaos into the system of their main enemy in the leadup to November.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  14. I have seen comments on Twitter that say the lady has been absolutely stuffed with a long list of drugs. Which, to me, would be a mitigating factor. But not enough to keep her out of prison for a long, long time.

    I worry that thanks to artificial hysterias like this we could see women lose rights. I remember a historian on Twit (I wish to goodness I had copied out his long post) who said basically he’d been studying late Persian history – Sassanid? – and one of the defining qualities of the culture just before it fell apart was that women, particularly female entertainers, wielded enormous influence. I don’t remember if he thought that might be a useful marker for a society about to molest the poodle.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. The psych meds can only be an excuse to the extent we are willing to hold the prescribers at least partly responsible for the outcome. If they are granted that kind of power over another person, they should have at least the responsibility that a Professional Engineer has for the outcome.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. One more reason to be picky about the GP in your life. Also a reason to avoid solving problems by pill.

        “Doctor, that prescription is a treatment. How do we cure this? What does the end state look like?”

        Ten days of Penicillin to cure Bronchitis is one thing. Effectively permanent pills without at least trying to change the underlying condition for the better beyond temporary mitigation is suspect.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. True, and I’ve run into it several times jousting with the pharma/medical industry.

          On the other hand, diagnosing “you’re sick because you’re fat, you eat sugared toxic waste, you don’t exercise, and you drink and smoke too much” is almost completely useless. Most patients are well aware of that anyway. They just want a pill or a shot, or maybe just someone to listen to their complaint. Major lifestyle restructuring isn’t their idea of “medicine.”

          Like

          Reply

    2. Women became powerful in Sparta just before it fell apart. The ruthlessly enforced “all men live the same, in common” fell apart. Factions formed.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The effects of Sparta being so dominant, and thus wealthy, helped reduce that Spartan warrior ethic, but the slicing off and freeing of the Messenian helots cut out all their free labor and left nobody to do the real work to support those elites. A pyramid scheme needs all the suckers that make up the base of the pyramid.

        It always gets me that by the time the Romans took over Greece, Sparta was basically just a tourist attraction.

        Like

        Reply

  15. Myself, I am not okay most days but that’s normal enough that I can function. This engineered conflict between men and women sounds rather funny in light of the sideshow act going on about not being able to define “woman” for purposes of confusing people underpants gnome style. It’s rather not when you consider the damage done to young girls and boys in the name of cheap politics and tawdry attempts at manufactured uniformity in the face of disparate and desperate diversity- true diversity that exists whether you like it or not, because human beings, while social, tend to express their own individuality most vociferously at the most inopportune times.

    I’ve been fooled many a time and learned better. That latter is most important. I’d rather work with a man what had made his own mistakes and knows how to bounce back than one that never made a one. I’d rather have the Trump of today that learned from all the backstabbing and liars and assassination attempts and now gives zero shits about it, just gets on with doing what he wants to get done.

    A problem, not necessarily the problem, is that too many folks have never learned for themselves how to recognize and deconstruct propaganda. Both the obvious propaganda- viz Covideo series- and not-so-obvious, like the subtle fuckery of the fed and whatnot. When you can’t even see the fraud because all there is is fraud, whoever is ringing the alarm yelling “fraud!” is going to get tossed out. That’s been an issue for a long time now.

    On the upside though, a good bunch of the normies have gotten wise to at least a few hoodwinks and mindfuckery manifesting as humble media and the like. We shall see if such translates to action in the upcoming days, midterms and all.

    Like

    Reply

  16. When your sons were 6 foot whatever were you in a two story house? Because otherwise the mind boggles even harder than otherwise. And otherwise is already boggly.

    Jolie LaChance KG7IQC unstagehand@yahoo.com

    Like

    Reply

  17. “Islam has become convinced they can take us, and hold us.”

    I don’t think they can succeed, but it’s a real danger, and no joke, especially with the traitorous left hollowing out Western culture from within. You’ve probably all heard this only-mostly-a-joke…

    A cowboy, a Muslim, and an American Indian are sitting in an airport, waiting to board a flight. The Indian looks out the window and sighs sadly: “Once my ancestors roamed all of this land beneath these runways, but now we are few.” The Muslim looks at the cowboy and the Indian and boasts, “Once we were few, but my ancestors took many lands, and now we are many! What do you have to say to that?”

    The cowboy looks out from under his hat and says slowly, “Well, we ain’t played cowboys and Muslims yet.”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

      1. Yes, that’s what I was actually thinking: not that them taking over is likely, because they’re not capable, but that the attempt (if they’re crazy enough to really try, and they might be) will put a *lot* of people in danger. Cowboys vs. Indians took a long time to resolve, and a lot of people didn’t survive it.

        Like

        Reply

        1. A problem with modern ‘education in america’.

          Many Americans do not explicitly realize that we still basically think that we just need kill enough of them for the survivors to accept living in peace.

          As long as we think this way, both communism and other technocratic utopian gamesmanship have some serious hazards when intellectuals and politicians are playing with policy.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. History shows that when it comes to militant Moslems, ‘kill enough of them’ means all of them. Anything less is just kicking the can down the road a bit — and not as far as you’d like to think. They believe it is their sacred duty to subjugate the entire world with the sword.

            Like

            Reply

    3. “Islam has become convinced they can take us, and hold us.”

      It doesn’t really matter if they can succeed or not. If they think they can, then we’ve already lost the deterrence, and we’ll have to go to the violence. It’s only a matter of when, not if.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Something similar applies to the Left. Difference is that there’s a smaller number of “true believers” willing to die for the glorious revolution vs Allah.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  18. Comes to mind, about that 1.4% number.

    I would find it surprising if that number was true, and not drastically inflated by bots, or stuff.

    It is small enough to be a noise level psychopath rate among American women.

    However, I just think it might be pretty rare for that many American women to get together quickly to say something new and risky.

    Which is less a woman thing, and more about American adults.

    I expect a small number of non-prison adults to be pretty disturbed and risk takers. I would expect more to be careful about what risks they take. Becuase it seems obvious that what we generally have evidence of is calculated risk taking, not careless risk taking.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. “I would find it surprising if that (1.4%) number was true, and not drastically inflated…”

      Yes, me too. If only because a mother with small children does not have time or spoons left for posting crap on X. Been there, they don’t.

      I seem to recall a number that something like 7% of Twitter was real humans. There was this story here https://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.com/2022/03/no-one-is-listening-to-your-tweets.html that found 75% of Americans had never tweeted, and less than 1% overall watched the lamestream news.

      And we know for sure that bots and sock puppets are -rampant- on Twitt-X, and guys posting from foreign nations posing as Americans.

      So yeah. It’s a psy-op.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. While it’s not a fair sample, I know a pretty good chunk of women with kids on X– and only one has even mentioned the case, with horror.

      The guys are much more likely to weigh in, but even then it’s not much. Mostly I see guys, responding to guys, responding to a guy, who has a screenshot of an e-thot saying something dumb.

      This is likely because when I see folks being histrionic lunatics for clicks, I block them. My interaction with the crazies is usually “someone I follow made a sane comment in a thread.”

      Like

      Reply

  20. Six. Foot. Crater. I had to read that three times…

    I shall never complain again about what my son got up to in his “tender” years.

    Well, even that would be forgiven, now that he has told me that I’ll be able to drive people crazy with pictures come around late April / early May.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    2. Younger son. Four years old. Fortunately he’s a GOOD BOY. (He really is. He wanted to make a new explosive. He says he read the recipe somewhere. And what’s when I stopped having refinishing chemicals on hand.)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I thorough search of my high school library yielded workable recipes for multiple kinds of practical mayhem.

        There were also three works that included shit so scary I still regret leaving them on the shelf. One was a novel of a jilted person improvising individual bio mayhem, with complete descriptions of how to. Not mass area effect but pretty good ways to whack someone with great horror. What The Actual F……. The other two were much, much worse.

        No one ever made the national news. Probably a good thing so many classmates were hardcore burnouts.

        Like

        Reply

      2. And now you have Indy…. who’s a good reason to KEEP not having refinishing chemicals on hand…. 😸😸😸

        I think the Author is trying to tell you something.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  21. As I often do, I’m going to ignore the topic (for now) and instead just make fun of the clanker’s lack of understanding of the subject matter it’s depicting.

    There are so many things wrong with the weapons, tactics, and so on in that image that it’s hard to list them all, and in fact I won’t even try. The man and woman in the center are the only ones I’ll focus on, except for a couple brief comments about other parts of the image. First, the guy in the lower right-hand corner. He’s got a sword and shield, perfectly sensible, but why is his sword still in its sheath? Oh look, he also has a sword in his hand. So he’s wearing one sword while holding another one, which would argue for his planning to do two-sword style at some point, except that he’s also holding a shield in his off hand, which will hinder two-sword style. Then there’s the block of women on the left. A mix of bows and pikes, well, that might make some sense. But why are there four pikes in the back of the formation? They’re not going to do any good there; they should move to the front, and swap with that archer in the front line who’s going to get herself stabbed. (And notice the woman behind her whose bow seems to have gone invisible).

    But the main thing that drew my attention was the woman in the center of the picture, the one whom your eye is supposed to be drawn to. (Good composition, BTW. I’m making fun of the mistakes, but I should acknowledge that the composition works well). Here we have another case of two-weapons-and-a-shield: a sword, still sheathed, strapped to her belt, and a mace in her hand, plus a shield in her off hand. But… just what kind of a way to hold a mace is THAT?!? Does she think she’s going to stab her opponent with the pointy end? Or throw it at him? That grip wouldn’t even make sense for a sword: maybe it would if her hand were flipped around (hold a sword the normal way, then raise it to a high position with the point aimed towards your opponent, and your hand will be flipped around from the position depicted in that picture), but not in that position. Hold a sword in that position and grip, and it would be pointed at the ground rather than at your opponent when you bring your arm in front of you to a normal combat position. That grip doesn’t make sense for a mace, either: a mace pointed at the ground in normal combat position doesn’t work any better than a sword.

    The guy, on the other hand, looks almost fine: he’s holding his sword left-handed, but that’s not a mistake. Except… if he’s left-handed, why is he wearing his sheath belted on his left side, where he would draw it with his right hand? If he’s right-handed, why did he switch to his left hand for this fight? Unless he’s pulling an Inigo Montoya: “I am not left-handed!”

    That’s enough for now. If I went through all the problems with this picture I would write an essay. And the image isn’t the point anyway, it’s just a silly illustration meant to make you laugh.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Didn’t look until just now.

      Why are all three of the central figures devoid of any armor, while every other figure has at least something, if not a lot? (Well, technically the shield is ‘armor’ for he woman center left.)

      Right, move the archers off the front rank. Flanks so they don’t have to shoot over the spearmen.

      I had Grok check – left side, bearing the “Or, a lion rampant Purpure” is quite like de Lacy. Nobody real – and no, I did not think the pic represented a real event – seems to have used the eagle on green.

      Background walls might be Carcassone, which is a good representative choice.

      Like

      Reply

    3. Harrumph! The sheathed one is the “for show” sword, normally worn for parties and formal functions. It’s tres gauche to use something like that in combat. It could get scratched or dinged, and then you’d lose status. You use a utility sword for actual fighting. Just make sure you’re not in one of those cities that enforced a 1-cubit blade length, though.

      Like

      Reply

    4. ”So he’s wearing one sword while holding another one.”

      Anyone who has played any quest-type games knows you pick up all the loot you run across until it tells you that you can’t carry any more.

      Like

      Reply

  22. Got a post stuck in moderation. Can you take a look?

    On less serious notes, video game publisher Paradox announced a couple of new games today. One is a grand strategy game that people are jokingly referring to as “Fallout, but the technology advances.”

    The other is a SimCity clone… but with Legos.

    Heh.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. From the name “Lego Skylines”, it’s more like a variant of Cities Skylines (which until just now I hadn’t realized was published by Paradox), but with Legos. That’s one I would definitely play if I still allowed myself to play video games (I gave up video games cold turkey, for life, more than a decade ago, once I realized I was showing all the signs of actual addiction to them).

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, that’s correct. The developer is also the developer of Cities: Skylines 2 (which had a rocky start, but has reportedly been doing better lately). But I referred to it as a SimCity clone because Cities is a derivative of SimCity, and more people are familiar with the name of the latter.

        Though it’s also worth noting that the most recent SimCity game (released in 2024) is an update of the game version released in 1999, which gives you a good idea of how well *that* franchise has been doing…

        Like

        Reply

          1. I bailed out of the online/phone “SimCity Buildit” where yet another “update” with new “feature” wrecked my carefully built and balanced city, and would have required spending serious money (At least $150-$250) to fix it, versus just scraping the ground level and starting over.

            Just awful to see SimCity wrecked thusly.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

        3. I was an avid player of SimCity 4 way back when and posted regularly at Simtropolis.com. During the long buildup to the (non-Maxis-developed) 2013 SimCity, the developers promised all sorts of things and made it sound like the biggest reason the game needed to run online through EA’s Origin service was because the simulation was so complex no local machine could handle it. The servers couldn’t handle the initial player load, and then some ambitious computer-literate players found out the Origin requirement was merely there for DRM and that it was totally possible to play it on your home PC without logging in to EA Origin. That was when SimCity died. All we wanted was SC4 with curvy/diagonal roads, and instead they gave us a steaming pile of SC2013 and lies. The only “new” SimCity-branded game is the boring phone app version. To this day, I hold nothing but extreme hatred for EA in my heart for what they did to Maxis.

          Like

          Reply

  23. I thought it was interesting that this one (very tragic) criminal case was being raised to international news while other similar sad/horrific/evil cases weren’t. And I think it’s because the case lends itself to being used to further inflame, divide, and engross the population.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  24. Lots of Dolly tributes out on X. The best story is Nobunaga’s, on The Book Lady.

    But the best music….Dolly Parton did a cover of Stairway to Heaven. It will make the hair rise on the back of your neck.

    It’s better than the original.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. [blank look] I’ll have to track that one down.

      I had always thought Elvis should have done a cover of Three Dog Night’s “Never Been to Spain”, and decades later I found out he did. Tracking it down as a disappointment. Unfortunately, he slaughtered it.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Like

        Reply

  25. My problem is that I’m stuck in the middle of the madness here.

    When you’re in an office where a woman with clear mental issues isn’t challenged or required to get help…

    When your dating experience has been one shit trap or Kafka trap after another after another after another…

    When it seems like every news channel is “we should feel sorry for this poor woman,” who as far as I can tell is either clinically insane or so far beyond standard morality that she needs to be isolated…

    The temptation to give all of these liberal white women to some serious Islamics becomes really positive…

    Except I don’t think even Islamics deserve to have liberal white women inflicted on them.

    We’re unfortunately living in a world where most of the major social mechanisms are very female-game-theory friendly. The social sniping, the innuendo campaigns, the psychological knife in the back, the Toaster Fucker theory of interactions, the illusion of goodness if you look good…I swear that if I could make social media vanish in a puff of logic, I would gladly accept missing Twitter and the occasional good bit of Instagram for everything else being gone.

    Only thing I can do now is stay sane and dodge the worse of the madness.

    Like

    Reply

    1. On dating: You may have been hard-wired in childhood to be attracted to insane. When you feel that glandular “WOW!”, teach yourself to unleash the rational to find the … there it is… psychosis.

      Then let the rational you find one that seems practical and good for the role, but doesn’t make your trousers (and brain!) uncomfortable from glandular surge. Then learn to be attracted to -that- person.

      My original taste in Women was …. epically tragic. Now I do -much- better.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  26. I have occasional felt moments of fellowship for the “repeal the nineteenth” crowd; however there is no way in hell that my leftwing brothers deserve to vote and I don’t.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    2. What gets me about “repeal the 19th amendment” posts is that I have spent my entire life trying NOT to be a stereotypical woman who follows the crowd, gossips about others, doesn’t accept blame for anything, is overemotional, etc. Etc. And I have to wonder why I bothered, and what I did all this for, if I’m going to be lumped in with these twits and treated like an irrational b**** no matter what I do. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, they used to say back in the day …

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I think my “favorite” argument for “repeal the 19th’ is that men are easily manipulated, hormonal retards who will be controlled in an instant by any sane woman.

        Like

        Reply

    2. 20-odd years ago, yes. And blogs, and even usenet.

      Nowadays the term seems to be reserved exclusively for “corporate walled garden” outfits, most of whom operate onder at least partial government control.

      I’d pay cash money to see some Fed trying to tell Our Hostess what do do on her own blog.

      Like

      Reply

      1. And they have been 20 very odd years, haven’t they? 😜

        Who could have predicted any of this back in the summer of 2006? The SPLC funding Antefa and the KKK? FBI ‘special assets’ rioting in the Capitol building? The Democrats whipping up 15 million fraudulent votes to install a brain-dead zombie and a cackling cretin in the White House, then opening the border and giving 20 million illegal aliens more rights than natural-born American citizens?

        If that don’t boggle the mind, your boggler is broke. 😡 Although I think mine is just getting worn out.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  28. The best argument for repealing the 19th is that the most sensible women I know have at least entertained the idea. But whether or not it would help (eh), it’s politically impossible, so not worth serious discussion. (You just know some idiot’s going to turn it into a platform and cause all sorts of problems.)

    Weirdly enough, women talking about it might be one of the best ways to break the blackpill spiral over the Clancy case. It’s a sign that the speaker is sane, self-aware, and capable of independent thought, so she becomes instant proof that not all women are nuts like the Clancy defenders, with no arguing or confrontation required.

    I’m not sure what the ramifications are of doing that at scale (see: idiot, platform), but it’s an interesting effect.

    More generally, I’m curious if social media by itself is enough to produce the swell of psychos we’ve observed or if that required TikTok intervention. Do you get this type of thing with just likes/shares, or does it require an algorithmic push?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. Let us never forget it was ‘Teh Patriarchy!!’ that enacted the 19th Amendment in the first place. Most women couldn’t vote until after the 19th, remember?

      “We gave ’em the vote, and look what they did with it!” ☹️

      If only there were some way to ensure that everyone voting was competent to decide our future. Maybe have an EEG at the poll, and a poster:

      YOU MUST HAVE THIS MUCH BRAIN ACTIVITY TO VOTE 😜

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I’ve been saying this for years. Also the 13th amendment, Roe vs Wade (all male court), etc, etc.

        White men (heterosexual, Christian) are the ONLY people who have had power and VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to give it up or extend it to others. Ever. And instead of acknowledging that fact, we choose to decry them for ever holding it. Meanwhile people strut around like they took it, but that’s never been the case.

        Like

        Reply

    3. It’s a sign that the speaker is sane, self-aware, and capable of independent thought, so she becomes instant proof that not all women are nuts like the Clancy defenders, with no arguing or confrontation required.

      I admire your optimism, and would say it’s certainly worth a try.

      Of course the response I got when I posted Hollymathnerd’s article on the math, was “She’s wrong because she hasn’t counted all the women who don’t post their support on social media”

      These guys that are invested in blaming all their problems on all women who ever existed aren’t going to be convinced by women being reasonable.

      They’re going to convince themselves that the reasonable woman was not-reasonable. Why? Because it doesn’t agree with their idea that women are incapable of reason.

      And then they’re going to accuse other men of white-knighting, if those other men did find the woman’s reasonableness persuasive.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. Not indulging in reason, at least.

          And they’re very easily manipulated by users of both sexes.

          If they’re trying to get you mad, that’s usually the case!

          Like

          Reply

      2. From a quick skim of the article, they’ve got a point. She’s putting a rough cap on the number of American women you’re hearing Clancy support from, not the number who actually support Clancy. It’s a useful calculation to counter a specific type of blackpill (social media = real world), but it says nothing about the broader concern.

        The scariest data point isn’t the women going nuts on TikTok. It’s the quiet anecdotes about how “all the women at my office support Clancy”. If a substantial fraction of the real, everyday population is falling for this, we’ve got a problem.

        That said, (1) the real proportion is nearly impossible to measure, (2) the only data we have is from skewed or manipulable sources [social media and unverifiable anecdotes], (3) we’ve got plenty of sane women right here, in case anyone needs an existence proof, and (4) blackpilling is usually wrong and never useful.

        So, as stomach-churning as this case is, the guys freaking out about it are likely wrong, and I suspect the discourse will move on in a week or two.

        Like

        Reply

        1. If you want extra data, you can look at the Go Fund Me for her parents’ travel expenses.

          31,800 donations. Donors are from all over the world. A quick skim of the donor list shows that of the named donors, probably a quarter are men.

          That is not a lot of supporters, and it puts the lie to the idea that only women support this, that most women support this, that American woman support this.

          Like

          Reply

      3. To clarify my earlier point, I’m talking about reasonable men who are despairing from the horror of the case. I’ve seen a few guys go from “Man, the dating market is tough” to “Do any good women exist at all?!” in the past week. Which isn’t logical, but it’s the kind of thing your hindbrain starts to believe when you see a vocal outpouring of support for a child killer.

        My bet is that you can snap them out of it by reminding them that good women exist, and the quickest way to do that is women commiserating about the case. (Vs. arguing that the men are wrong. Even though that’s true, it’s an intellectual response to an emotional wound and thus harder to make stick.)

        But yes, this won’t help with the men who have a real axe to grind.

        Like

        Reply

        1. it’s the kind of thing your hindbrain starts to believe when you see a vocal outpouring of support for a child killer.

          That’s the point of the article. That the vocal outpouring is fake and way smaller that it looks, but that it’s inflated by the algorithm to keep people outraged and prevent them from working together.

          How easy it is to snap men out of it depends on how terminal their terminal-online-ness is.

          The terminally-online do not have any counterexamples because their entre existence and all their data sources are online.

          And even when they encounter a reasonable woman, online, they either deny that she’s a woman, or that she’s reasonable.

          Like

          Reply

  29. Hi Sarah

    O/T and FYI

    FWIW – a way with words “A snappy answer to a stupid question

    I dearly love J. K. Rowling’s intelligence, wit and superb choice of repartee. This is one of her best, as she responds to a “woke” gender warrior trying to browbeat opponents.

    “Text copied from image J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling Female means possessing the reproductive system that produces eggs instead Of sperm. It is irrelevant whether said system is defective, immature or surgically altered. I just described every female on earth.

    SpeakOutSister @speakoutsister • Aug 22

    Every time I’ve traded biological arguments with the “gender critical” not ONE of them can define female in a way that doesn’t exclude a lot of non trans women.

    1:16 PM . Aug 22, 2026 • 2.1M Views”

    https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCp49YoodBRwLYHe6aOoi_JPm2QLhxmjd3M3zsS69i9_jFrPVMDIgdXUw6ozrsebmszWKL7yAwoZEq0ywtrlpCRBZQ8vr6eqBlwnr5QcHrrmld4mUp9rGNl-FVJQywa5LsQ_N3avB_Umim-BwaQQfihZq0OH5EO-o87pc1U4NYd-kwBLENWneOtHmjVXE/s500/Rowling%20on%20women.png https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-snappy-answer-to-stupid-question.html

    Like

    Reply

  30. it’s not all women who want to murder their children

    —

    During the 1980s my mother worked for the county Social Services as a temporary foster parent. Among others, she got the “dumpster babies” which were found every year or so and took care of them until they went to a regular foster home or orphanage.

    We don’t know that it was the mothers who dumped them, of course. But consider:

    1. the baby made enough noise to be heard outside the dumpster, over traffic noise. (or was still alive when discovered by a dumpster diver)
    2. there were other women fostering similar babies
    3. that was just one county in a not-very-populous state

    My guess is that’s only a fraction of the ones who got hydraulically compacted by a garbage truck.

    There seems to be some social default about parents always wanting the best for their children. That is incorrect. Just because someone has a baby doesn’t mean they’re not evil or crazy. And there’s certainly no shortage of either.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. All mammal females murder some of their babies. We don’t know why really, and it’s …. heartbreaking.
      I think evolutionarily speaking, they should meet with the harshest penalty of the law.

      Like

      Reply

  31. One theme in your post is that for various reasons women are highly attuned to social threats and that affects voting patterns AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS about voting (which could be lies to avoid social pain).

    I think you are directionally correct on all that. I won’t judge this dynamic morally (I am a dude). But I also won’t pretend it is not there or let people who would do me and mine harm (incidentally or in many cases very purposefully) manipulate it while I play by Queensbury Rules.

    This is all to say that women DO make political choices based on social pressures and many of those choices, at aggregate national level, are TERRIBLE and DANGEROUS.

    Given all above, making clear, from the right, that there are hard negative social consequences for consistent political stupidity over a sustained period is long overdue.

    Effects of that will be overinclusive (“not all women…”) but that is partly why “collective punishment” works: it deputizes the sane in the in-group to police itself.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yes, but so do men. It’s bullshit to think all women are the same.
      No, I’m not policing other women? Are you out of your mind? We’re not a collective entity.
      This is the equivalent of claiming that all men are responsible for rapist scum.
      Kindly remove the collectivism from your eye, and behave like a civilized human being. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I wonder how many here can remember the phrase “That’s no way to treat a lady”?

        In times past, men did see that part of their role in life was to “smack down” their fellow males who “mistreated women”.

        Yes, it’s wrong to blame all men for rape, but when female Lefties go after men for being willing to help out women who obviously need a “helping hand”, then problems will happen.

        Oh, awhile back some Loud-Mouthed Female was complaining about male passengers who didn’t stop male assholes which is ironic. What’s really stupid about her complain is her complaint happened just after an Idiot Prosecutor had charged a male passenger with murder after the passenger had stopped a kook who was causing problems in a subway car and the kook died.

        Like

        Reply

    2. Sure thing dude, right after you head over to that table over there and get your bits chopped off.

      Since forcible rape is quite harmful, and causes serious issues problems, and is overwhelmingly done by males, you gotta accept your social consequences to show you’re sincere.

      Like

      Reply

  32. Universal Suffrage, with no obligations or qualification, isn’t a very good way to run a society. it is somewhat better than “No one votes”, in that we are occasionally able to dismiss, with a minimum of commotion, the ding-a-lings put in government. Both produce, with certianty, government by ding-a-ling.

    Heinlein and moreso Kratman wrote on the alternative of a selective franchise based on qualifying for it, and what might thus result. Certainly thought-provoking. But absent very kinetic events (and those seldom turn out well) I see no practical way to get there from here.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I still propose my Powerball Lottery System.

      Run the Powerball until a valid Social Security Number occurs. That person fills the next available public service slot.

      Objectors say, “what if that person was evil, retarded, ignorant, or criminal?”

      My usual reply is, “How could we tell the difference between that and the ones we allegedly vote for?”

      It might not be a *good* method of selecting political figures, but it would for-damn-sure be a representative method.

      Though as George Carlin said, “You know how dumb the average person is? Well, half of them are dumber than that!”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Draft people into the government! Because the ones that want to control everybody’s lives are exactly the ones that shouldn’t be allowed to.

        Or, as I’ve been saying for a while now:

        Most days, I think we’d get a better government by picking 535 people at random.

        On bad days, I’m certain we’d get a better government by picking 535 people at random from lunatic asylums.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. I basically don’t think that gun control jurisdictions should, as a matter of principle, be counted in state or federal elections.

      Treating suffrage as the same as the Christian ‘Children of God’ was a latter invention, not fundamental to or necessary for a republic or for a democracy. It is a luxury that a Christian people can voluntarily adopt, but it is neither mandatory to Christianity or to human rights or to making such governments function.

      I’m against gun control.

      I do not want to litigate election law.

      I think we will have to litigate election law in other ways, but maybe we can kept it to litigating as few and as narrow questions as possible.

      Like

      Reply

  33. I’ve been thinking about this, and thinking about this, and thinking about it some more. And, I suspect the root problem is there are no high trust environments for men and women to interact in person any more. And I don’t know how to fix that.

    Peeling that onion back, I think the cause there is, while under the letter of the law, men and women are equal, under the practice of law, they are not. Even an accusation of improper behavior can bar a man from most employment, especially high paying careers, or send him to jail, and can do it, basically for free. With the latest ‘innovations’ in legal practice, she does not even have to be the offended party; she can levy accusations on behalf of a party, even if the party themselves were not aggrieved. (I expect the next innovation will be allowing men to levy accusations on behalf of nonaggrieved women, for her own good, of course.)

    I’m sorry if that sounds a bit bitter. It is a bitterness at the legal practice as it stands now, and those who perverted and abused it, rather than men or women in general. I am someone who believed in justice and law. And I’ve watched it slip into the penumbra of hell, or found perhaps it always was there, and it hurts.

    And I cannot fix it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. No. You are absolutely right. The solution is equality UNDER THE LAW. And that means the preferential treatment of women MUST end.
      It is now rampant and ridiculous. And it has to stop. We have to make men and women equal under the law while admitting htey’re very different.
      The current project of the left to make women into men manque has mangled both sexes.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. Something to keep in mind with reporting on stuff like this… frequently they are citing one of the lawyers involved.

      My favorite example was a case where they quoted a single activist as both ‘a lawyer’ for the accused, a ‘representative of a law firm’, and the head of Nice Sounding Group, I think the last one had a name for him, though not his legal name.

      It was all the same guy.

      And it turned out his “falsely accused” client was on video and had bio evidence showing it wasn’t baseless at all, but that didn’t hit the news cycle.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  34. Personally, I detest “trial by journalist,” whether I think the accused is guilty or not. I’d like to see a news blackout on all trials, enforced by ferocious punishment for anybody blabbing.

    OJ Simpson walked mainly because the black news media started painting him as a poor brother being picked on by Da Man, and the jury got wind of that. Derek Chauvin was convicted (twice for the same crime, and if that isn’t double jeopardy I’m the King of Romania!) because the “news” media in Minneapolis and elsewhere was utterly invested in the idea of the Evil Cop Killing This Poor Black Man For No Reason What So Ever. And Minneapolis burned for it.

    That said, my own take on this case is pure Hanover Fiste: “Hanging’s too GOOD for her! BURNING’S too GOOD for her! She…should be TORN…into LITTLE BITSY PIECES…and BURIED ALIVE!”

    Like

    Reply

  35. Speaking of psyops, over on the insta of grams, someone referred to the rash of contaminated lettuce incidents as “another milestone in the American Century of Humiliation”.

    Tacking “American” on the front of a historically traumatic period of Chinese history ought to be an obvious 50 cent army tell. It has a real “I know what you are but what am I?” feel to it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  36. In all truth I lost my mind when The Brain Dead One was elected. Since then it has all been which insane thing was going to happen next. I’ve just lashed myself to the mast and roar in laughter when the media sirens sing and sob. There is nothing that makes me happier than their tears.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment