Heyyyyy.

This is fun, huh?

Women add so much flavor to public society! How did men manage for thousands of years without having women in the government, I wonder?

The Hill:

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) made a series of allegations of sexual abuse, rape and voyeurism perpetrated against herself and other women by her former fiancé and three other men in a personal — and highly unusual — speech on the House floor Monday evening.

Mace, who has served in the House since 2021, spoke for nearly an hour in the lower chamber, accusing four South Carolina men of being “predators” and displaying their names and photos on a poster board on the House floor.

“You have bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell. It is nonstop, there are no connections, so I and all your victims can watch you rot in eternity,” Mace said on the House floor, in a speech she said she titled “Iron Sharpens Iron.”

Wtf?

Freaking based.

She made a number of specific allegations, including finding thousands of intimate photos and videos of women and underage girls that were captured without their consent. Mace also said she was raped herself after blacking out one night, and believes she was “purposefully incapacitated.”

Mace pulled out props throughout the remarks, including handcuffs — “if anyone would like to arrest me for standing up for women, here are my wrists” — a glass to show the size of the two drinks she had the night she says she blacked out, and a camera she said was hidden at the property owned by two of the alleged assailants.

Mace also went into further graphic detail, but The Hill has not independently verified the allegations. While Mace said she has evidence to back up her claims, she has not yet presented it.

What happened to “believe all women”?

We believed Madam Shovel Jaw when she said Israel was defending itself by mass-murdering babies, we might as well believe this goofy horseshit as well, no?

At least this is funny.

When I say this is just the “tip of the iceberg” this might be an understatement.

The calls and texts coming in are offering valuable information and helping to identify more possible victims – it is overwhelming.

We will keep your information confidential. Call or text us at… pic.twitter.com/4Qa1Q2xVsP

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) February 11, 2025

We believe all types of retarded gibberish without evidence. This is no different.

I believe all of it.

Frankly, I wish all Congresspeople just used their position to enact personal vendettas. That would be a lot better than serving special interest groups.

If I ever get into Congress, I’m gonna give a speech about Pakistanis who sold me shitty coke in Barcelona and the old guy who kicked me out of the rec center when I was 11, and I’m going to act super dramatic, like it’s the most brave and important thing anyone has ever done.

If anyone asks me for evidence, I’ll accuse them of wanting to do another potato famine against my people.

This must be what the kids mean when they talk about “ogre mode.”

Truth brings peace, even in all of its brutality.

Headed to the floor now to give the speech I wish I heard as a young girl.

Hold the line. Always. pic.twitter.com/lyj0IE2Y6F

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) February 10, 2025

You cannot allow sluts.

They will destroy everything.

And the only thing they understand is murder. Anything else you do to them as punishment they will just enjoy.

AP:

A Pakistani man suspected of killing his U.S.-born 15-year-old daughter in a so-called honor killing after she apparently refused to stop sharing videos on TikTok appeared in court Thursday in the southwestern city of Quetta, police said.

The man, who was arrested Wednesday, recently moved his family back to Pakistan from the United States, police said.

The shooting happened on Tuesday in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province, said Babar Baloch, a local police chief. He said the father of the teenager initially suggested that an unidentified gunman had killed his daughter, but after he was taken into custody for questioning he confessed to the crime.

If we want to save America, we need to legalize honor killings.

America’s left-right divide, which would be better described as the Democrat-Republican divide, is somewhat convoluted. People have what are called “belief clusters”; this is a phenomenon where people who feel very strongly about some series of issues will develop other beliefs based on the fact that they perceive that people “on their team” share these beliefs.

The structure of these clusters is fundamentally American. While they are shared in a large part by other Western countries, that is simply due to American influence. Countries with less American influence culturally, such as France, have a rather different definition of the left-right divide, while someone like Nigel Farage in the UK is effectively a carbon copy of an American conservative (Farage is somewhat more liberal on social issues, but we’re going to be doing broad strokes here).

It is clearly illogical that a leftist would root for both the Ukraine and Palestine, given that the Ukraine and Israel are both proxies for a globalist Western hegemony. Just so, it is illogical that a “small government conservative” would support massive corporations partnering with the government to crush the middle class. But Russia and Israel have been packaged together as “white oppressors,” and multinational corporations writing US government regulations has been packaged as “free enterprise.” Positions have shifted some because of the rise of Donald Trump, and this has been generally positive for the right. Conservatives have become more critical of big business and the “Project America” empire-building strategies of the neoconservatives. Meanwhile, in response to Trump, the left has entered into a hysterical tailspin, acting purely on emotion and developing positions that would not make sense to the historical left.

However, despite the seemingly arbitrary clustering (which is in fact not arbitrary but based on manipulation by special interest groups), there is an underlying identity to both left and right. Excluding some strange outliers, you can follow logically why each side believes what it does, and when an issue pops up, it’s not difficult to determine which side of it people will fall on. Clearly, leftists were going to support BLM and coronavirus brutality, while rightists would be against these things.

Simply, the underlying divide between the two sides is based on masculine vs. feminine impulse. Although he doesn’t frame it in those terms, you can find a good analysis of the thinking of right and left in Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind.” Haidt lists six moral concerns that people feel intrinsically, and provides documentation showing that politically liberal people drastically prioritize fairness and harm-reduction over loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Conversely, conservatives care about these things much more equally, while slightly prioritizing all of them over fairness.

The divide lines up between masculine and feminine impulses rather neatly. Women tend to be nurturing and largely disregard harsh realities (men who have feminine traits tend to follow women on this), while men understand that the world isn’t fair and you need authority based on hierarchy in order to maintain order. Support of stricter social norms is also in line with a prioritization of order. Certainly, voting patterns show this, with women always voting more in favor of socialist and utopian type policies and men endorsing more traditional concepts of social and economic order. Married women tend to vote conservatively, while men raised by single mothers (or weak/absent fathers) tend to lean left.

The entire modern left-right divide is only possible because of the enfranchisement of women. The end of this project is necessarily absolute tyranny.

Natural Left and Right Positions

There are core issues which the left and right will always hold naturally, based on these primary feminine and masculine impulses each side has. All of these issues are ones that do not require any facts to understand, and can be understood purely based on an immediate emotional reaction to the thing. (As we will explain below, if the issue is complicated and requires facts to grasp it, marketing campaigns can be launched to create angles and convince either side to support anything.)

Innate masculine values are embodied in religion. “Justice, Truth, and Beauty” are often listed as the highest moral values in the Christian religion, and this would be the case for all major religions the world over, excluding Hinduism and Judaism (the the latter is not really a “major religion,” but rather a small, fringe cult that is only major in the sense of its global influence, which is greater than that of all other religions combined). Note that while Buddhism is often portrayed in the West as a lovey-dovey religion with feminine values, this is plain nonsense drummed up by the likes of the fake philosopher and scam artist Alan Watt as well as other 1960s-era perverts. However, the fetishization of Hinduism by the hippies (the hippies representing peak feminine values) was on-point, as Hinduism is a religion that denies the objectivity of truth and celebrates the ego. Excluding the cult of the Dali Lama, most Christians would agree with the underlying moral framework of Buddhism. The same would be true of Islam or Confucianism, if the underlying values were to be separated from their cultural contexts.

While the hippies dabbled in “Eastern Mystic” nonsense, Atheism became the de facto religion of the left, as atheism is purely a celebration of the self and a denial of all natural order and authority. In the atheist moral framework, higher values are replaced with ostensibly utilitarian notions. Justice is replaced with “equity,” truth is replaced with “lived experience,” and beauty is replaced with “individual preference” and “perception.” It is all just vapid egoism, which is the defining character of the feminine spirit.

We will go through a few simple examples of things that are innate to each orientation.

In-Group Prioritization

The right will always view things in terms of in-group and out-group, which naturally leads to racism and nationalism. Conversely, the left, with their extreme prioritization of fairness, believes that all people on earth are the same, and therefore if one group is more successful, they should be punished for that success in order to level the playing field.

After the Reagan Revolution, it was primarily the Republican Party that was pushing for mass immigration, claiming that this would be good for the economy because it was good for mega-corporations. However, during the Bush years, the immigrants were still ghettoized, and it was rare that suburban whites ever even saw them, so the in-group defense mechanism had not yet triggered.nDuring the Obama years, it became visibly clear that the country was being overwhelmed with foreigners, which led to a massive backlash against immigration by the right. Unfortunately, the right is still afraid of being called “racist,” and most will not say “we don’t want these people here because they’re a different race.” However, the Elon Musk H-1B debacle has really opened up some room for the right to define what it means to be American, and the answer to that is going to have to be: “a European person or I guess an African descendent of slaves, although that second group is different.”

Jews have gotten away with effectively claiming to be part of the in-group of whites by visibly looking similar to whites and by pressing the ridiculous and totally emotionalized falsehood that there is something called “Judeo-Christian.” The opposition of right-wing whites to being called “racist” is simply extended from the fact that while they don’t prioritize “fairness” as the highest value, they do think it is important. Rightists also prioritize personal agency, and therefore want to avoid judging people on immutable characteristics. However, it is not long ago that right-wing whites were aggressive in their declaration that their in-group was a racial category, so I am certain we will get back to this point in the near future.

I am very thankful for Vivek Ramaswamy denouncing whites as pathetic losers. Ramaswamy was viewed by right-wingers as being “us” because although he didn’t look like us, he talked like us and seemed to value the same things we value. When he then claimed that Indians are superior to white people, everyone immediately recognized him as “not us,” and surely made the connection with his visual appearance. This is a huge step in the right direction.

Ben Shapiro as a member of the “Jewish right” and his media corporation “Daily Wire” are really the only remaining relevant forces in political culture still pushing the idea that “America is a series of ideas.” Right-wingers, being supporters of order and the sanctity of natural hierarchy, do not typically have an affinity for abstract notions of identity and are going to default to “blood and soil” nationalism. “Nation of ideas” is a concept without any intrinsic meaning, without any hard reality behind it, and therefore it is something that will appeal to the feminine nature of the left, as they can nihilistically imagine that it means whatever emotions they are feeling at any particular time.

The left also believes that they are tasked with spreading equality to all people on earth, and building a global utopia that transcends in-groups completely, a world where everyone is exactly equal to everyone else, the purest form of fairness. This utopianist theory posits that everyone will live in peace and never suffer harm. Because whites have tended to have a higher standard of living historically (although that isn’t really true now, it’s a lingering perception), the left does not think it is enough to raise up brown people, and must also drag down whites (and increasingly Asians) in pursuit of this utopia.

The Objectivity of Crime and Punishment

The right-wing or masculine-oriented mind will always prioritize order based on heirarchy, and therefore they will always have a strong sense of justice. This means that they will not have a particular sympathy for criminals.

The leftist agenda to turn criminals into victims has gotten very extreme in recent years, with such concepts as “restorative justice” being put forward (and acted upon) to make the argument that black people should not be punished in the same way as whites. However, this attitude of “sympathy for criminals” goes back to the introduction of the “insanity defense,” which allowed criminals to claim they are not fully responsible for their crimes because they have mental problems. The companion of lessening a punishment because of the criminal’s personal problems is the federal “hate crimes enhancement,” which says you are committing a worse crime if you do it while feeling a certain emotion (this allows whites to be targeted and punished more severely).

For right-minded people, a crime should be punished the same across the board, as creating these modifiers turns justice into something subjective, when it should be objective. This largely bypasses the inane academic debate over whether consequences for crime should be punitive or a deterrent. It should obviously be both, but justice is an ends in and of itself.

When the George Floyd fiasco happened, many on the right were doing events in support of the cops. This was natural enough, given that the left was claiming that there shouldn’t be any cops (they’ve memory-holed it now, but that was actually the argument being made at the time). However, the right is not associated purely with cop-worship, and is always prone to supporting vigilantism when it appears that the cops and the larger justice system are not working.

Daniel Penny, the man whole subdued and choked out a violent black on the New York subway, was universally supported by the right, as was Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot several violent antifa members at a BLM protest, while the justice system that attempted to prosecute these two was viewed as acting tyrannically against justice. Luigi Mangione was more controversial on the right, though many viewed his killing of a criminal insurance boss as justified (while Ben Shapiro was out defending insurance companies).

The pro-authority impulse among the right can be twisted into supporting tyrannical behavior, as it was after 9/11, when most conservatives supported giving unnatural and abusive policing powers to the federal government.

Currently, the left is giving large support to the federal cops and intelligence agencies as they view them as working to help oppressed groups and prevent authoritarianism. This is the result of a major campaign by the media to highlight members of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other federal agencies as anti-racists opposed to the patriarchy. Given that the federal cops have never really promoted natural and objective ideas of justice, it is logical enough that they find their support base among the left.

Paternalism (Which Should Really be Called “Maternalism,” Frankly)

While pro-order and therefore pro-authority, the masculine mind has strong inclinations towards personal responsibility and man’s personal agency. The nature of hierarchy demands competition, and therefore individuals must be responsible for themselves. This leads to strong beliefs about the importance of personal freedom, and opposition to state paternalism.

The feminine left on the other hand believes that the government should be a kind of “mommy” figure, taking care of the population as if they are children. When women first got the right to vote, the first three things they did were ban prostitution, child marriage, and alcohol. The alcohol thing didn’t stick (even while it is heavily regulated, including a lunatic age restriction and “drunk driving” tyranny), but prostitution and child marriage remain illegal. Leftists have also pushed for seat belts, motorcycle helmets, forced insurance, smoking restrictions, vaccination mandates, the pension system, the entire welfare state.

Right-wingers tend to react negatively to any program that seeks to tell individuals what they are allowed to do in their own lives if those choices are not impacting others.

The absurdity of the left’s pro-abortion slogan “my body, my choice” was put on full display a few years ago when they pushed for vaccine mandates. The left has never believed that a person’s body is their own, and the slogan was designed to sell the idea to people based on an appeal to notions of personal liberty. Again, the first thing women did once enfranchised was use the state to regulate what people were allowed to do with their bodies. On a basic level, women do not respect personal autonomy, because they operate on maternal instincts and when politically enfranchised, treat everyone like little children. When a woman “nags” a man, that is fundamentally what she is doing: attempting to correct his behavior as she would correct a child reaching to touch a hot stove. The entirety of women’s political behavior amounts to a state-level nagging operation with the purpose of controlling other people’s bodies.

The rightist instinct to defend personal liberty was bastardized when the government/media pushed for legalizing homosexuality, which should have triggered right-wing notions of sanctity and purity, but was overwritten by the drive for individual freedom. Given that it is now clear that homosexuality is not a “victimless crime,” this is all being reevaluated. It would have been clear that normalizing homosexuality would infringe on children if people had looked at the data, and many Christian groups were spreading that data at the time, but the data is always irrelevant when it comes to public opinion on literally anything. It had to become obvious that homosexuals are predators before anyone would understand it.

The opposite happened with child marriage, where individual liberty was overwritten by a false sense of the sacred and pure. Leftists have successfully argued that child marriage violates the purity of girls, and therefore most right-wingers are opposed to it. The data shows that girls being sent by their fathers into early, often arranged or semi-arranged marriages, leads to happy families, while allowing a girl to go around having sex with whoever she wants leads to suffering for the girl and ultimately a total collapse of society. But that data is not relevant to the political discourse. (While the right has begun to reverse on the homosexuality issue, but it might be a while before people are willing to question core feminist doctrines designed to create a sexual utopia for women.)

Arbitrary Left and Right Positions: Opposition and Support for Various Wars

Political instincts are based on the masculine-feminine dichotomy, but the masses are not particularly clued-in on very much, and therefore when the issue is in any way complex and requires facts to understand it, marketing campaigns can be used to sell them various things based on these underlying drives.

Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, became known as “the father of public relations” after he developed a method to use psychological techniques to appeal to the base drives of humans in order to sell them products. (There is a good documentary series about this called “Century of Self,” which I highly recommend.) All marketing is designed to appeal to various drives, and in theory, anyone can be sold anything if the marketer is good enough at his job.

Let us consider the political divide in relation to the base of support for various wars through the lens of how they were marketed, as this is likely the easiest place to analyze how simple it is for the government/media to convince either side of anything not grounded entirely in an immediate and instinctive reaction by using a framing that appeals to their base orientation.

If we exclude the evangelical-Zionist obsession with Israel (which is a big and largely separate issue, which I will touch on later), the Middle East wars were sold to conservatives on the basis of a need to protect the homeland from strange foreigners who want to hurt our people. They were also sold as revenge for 9/11. Self-defense, hostility towards out-groups, and serving justice to enemies are all concepts you would view as masculine.

Liberals were largely opposed to the Middle East wars, because they viewed them as harming people. Obviously, all war harms people, but they were opposed to the idea of innocents being caught up in the violence. Women and feminine-minded men take a very nurturing view of brown people, who they view as less capable of defending themselves and therefore in need of protection. They viewed the wars in the Middle East as bullying type behavior by a strong force against a much weaker one.

There was also masculine-oriented opposition to the Middle East conflicts, represented by the Ron Paul movement. The framing there was that America was wasting resources on wars that didn’t benefit Americans and we weren’t even getting revenge against the people who did 9/11. It was also consistently pushed that the government was using the wars as an excuse take away people’s personal liberties. “Neoconservative” was largely understood to mean “Jew,” and it was put forward that we were fighting wars for an out-group. However, all of this required an intellectual analysis of the situation, which meant that it couldn’t ever be a popular position, because in a universal suffrage democracy, everything in the popular mind must necessarily be reduced to base emotions largely disconnected from facts. The masses of people do not have the time or the inclination to understand anything beyond the surface level, and they will generally go along with whatever they hear from the people in the media who they agree with on things they understand better, to wit, “Rush Limbaugh is right about the Democrats and the gays, so he must be right about these Middle East wars.”

Before the Middle East wars, conservatives viewed Russia/communism as a legitimate physical threat, a superpower that had the capacity to take over the world. While this also lines up with masculine impulses, it is fundamentally different than the reasons for supporting the Middle East wars. Russians didn’t look different, which made them less offensive to the in-group prioritizing mind than Middle Easterners, but the fact that Russia could realistically win a war against America made the conflict appealing to conservative Americans.

While leftists might not all have outright supported communism (although many did), they largely opposed the Cold War mentality, and certainly opposed the various proxy wars, most notably Vietnam, which flared up during the Cold War. There was the same pity for the Vietnamese as “weaker,” and the general sentiment about the Cold War was that “we should all just get along,” the schoolmarm type impulse that women have. (Women will always try to prevent competition between boys, while men will typically encourage it, even when it can involve physical harm. Women’s attitude towards war is often based on viewing both sides as little boys who should stop fighting on the playground.)

Fast forward to the Ukraine war, and things had flipped, with the liberals aggressively supporting it and conservatives largely viewing it as a pointless waste. There were various political variables involved, and it simply came down to the powerful people who wanted this war realizing that they should focus the marketing for the war on liberals rather than the conservatives who had traditionally been the war-supporting type.

Though the marketing campaign ultimately did come down to appealing to leftist “fairness and harm reduction” emotional motivations, this was not initially obvious, and it clearly could have gone either way. When Barack Obama was running against Mitt Romney, he mocked the Republican for claiming Russia was a threat, saying “the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back” (“X called and wants Y back” was a popular joke template after the turn of the millennium). Baby Boomers remembered the Cold War, and could have at that time been convinced to view Russia as a threat, which Romney tried to do. However, when Trump became popular, and was seen as a real threat to the establishment, the left began pushing the idea that he was in league with the Russians. This whole thing appears to have originated with the neoconservative Bill Kristol, who initially commissioned the “dirty dossier” about Trump, which was later handed off to the Clinton campaign. Obviously, Trump was despised by the left, who viewed his masculine persona as representing all of the things they oppose, and through this marketing campaign, Vladimir Putin and all of Russia were classified by the left as part of a “fascist alliance” that opposed homosexuality, feminism, and other leftist values based on fairness and caring for the weak.

Because of the way things had already been framed since 2015, by 2022, the left was very ready to support a war against Russia, so this is where the bulk of the marketing campaign for the war was focused (note that much of this leftist anti-Russia material was also spread during the State Department-backed revolution in the Ukraine in 2014). The Ukraine was framed, almost entirely falsely, as a bastion of leftist values, including homosexuality, feminism, and multiculturalism, under threat from a very bad masculine culture which sought to enforce draconian Christian authoritarianism on them. Putin and Trump were effectively the same person in the minds of Democrat voters. While the left may tend to oppose violence, the claim by the people marketing the war was that Putin was trying to exterminate everyone in the Ukraine and therefore the only option was for them to “defend themselves.” The fact that it was the Ukraine that started the war all the way back in 2014 was not relevant, because again, facts are never especially relevant to these narratives.

There was (and to some extent still is) an attempt by right-wing politicians and media organs to sell the Ukraine war as an extension of the Cold War, presenting Russia as a real threat to America in the same way the USSR was. However, most people on the right took the masculine view that what happens in the Ukraine is none of our business and we shouldn’t be wasting our national treasure on it while creating unnecessary conflict with a foreign nation that should be an ally. The fact that the marketing for the war had been so focused on the Ukraine being a homosexual and feminist “democracy” country and Russia being a Christian patriarchy also effectively made this particular war impossible to sell to conservatives.

Finally, the new wars in the Middle East, started by the Jewish state of Israel, have created a situation where both the right and left are reverting to the positions they held after 9/11. This is a nauseating development, as it seems it could destroy all of the progress that was made with MAGA and the opposition to foreign wars that was created by that movement. Trump’s masculine arguments against wars basically hinged on the fact that America is already the most powerful country in the world and therefore any war is a waste of our time and money, and people in wars all over the world should be expected to deal with their own problems, as none of it has anything to do with us. But the Israel issue has flipped that entire narrative on its head.

What’s more: Ben Shapiro and others on the “Jewish right” in America have taken this opportunity to push leftist-style thinking onto the right. Much of the propaganda involved in the marketing campaign for Israel’s wars has to do with Israel being a helpless victim which needs to be protected. What’s more, the “Jewish right” has successfully called for censorship and “canceling” of people who oppose the war, with feminine-oriented claims about how “speech hurts people.” Senator Josh Hawley, an “AIPAC Republican,” successfully lobbied for the Congressional TikTok ban based on the claim that “China” was allowing Americans to see images of what Israel is doing in to people in Palestine.

The reason that the right is endorsing Israel’s war, and calling for the US to do more to help Israel slaughter people, is that the Jews have successfully campaigned to make conservatives believe that Israel is effectively a part of America, that they are members of our in-group and therefore we should consider an attack on Israel as an attack on America. Further, Moslems are always going to be viewed as an extreme “out-group” due to their vastly different culture and physical appearance.

It is certainly frustrating to see the American sliding back into this neoconservative mindset, but it’s simply obvious that it would be just as difficult to convince them that Israel is no different than the Ukraine as it would be to convince a leftist that the Ukraine is no different than Israel. There is a timeline on which the right would be supporting the Ukraine and the left supporting Israel. The Ukraine war could have been sold as the return of the USSR and a threat to the American homeland, and therefore supported by the right, and Israel’s wars could have been sold as a group of feminists and homosexuals defending against barbarous Islamofascists, and thus supported by the left. The views people develop on these “complex” issues involving facts are based on the nature of the marketing campaigns pushed by the government/media.

Women’s Love for Rules Manifest as Tyranny

Political leftism has become tyrannical, and although Trump might be a bright patch on a dark road, it is clear that we are destined to live under a complete tyranny if things continue on as they have been going.

Another important aspect of feminine nature is that it is geared towards consensus building. This is a function of the way women naturally interact with one another in a community. Anyone who has observed women’s behavior knows that they will constantly compliment one another, and they will reach agreements with a kind of hive mindset. Although women have low respect for masculine notions of establishing order from hierarchy, women are obsessed with control, and obsessed with rules, again as a result of their desire to treat everyone like children. Because women lack an internal moral compass, they do not place a qualitative value on rules, instead simply loving rules for the sake of being able to enforce them. Women will glob onto the established power structure, regardless of what it is.

The “coronavirus pandemic” scam and the extremist paternalism that went along with it was the apotheosis of the nanny state, where women succeeded in being able to treat everyone in society like a little child. The government was able to enforce a dress code in the form of the mask mandates, and able to tell people when they were allowed to play outside through the lockdowns. This kind of attack on basic human freedom, the government locking people inside of their houses ostensibly in order to protect people from themselves, was the most extreme tyranny in all of recorded history and it was only possible due to the feminization of our society.

The masks and lockdown movement then led into a forced vaccination movement. (One can argue that they never actually “forced” anyone to take the vaccine, though that was what many were calling for. But they certainly did coerce people, firing them from their jobs if they refused and restricting their movement in public places.) The obsession with forcing the vaccines on people then led to an alliance between the left and the multinational pharma giant Pfizer. Many noted that the left had previously been strictly opposed to large corporations and the medical industrial complex in particular, but this was another situation where the marketing was key to perception.

The flip-side as we know was that the right rebelled against pharma and the medical industrial complex, and this has led to the right embracing Bobby Kennedy and taking positions similar to those of a 1990s health food hippie lady. We should remember that a few years ago, right-wingers would have had a positive view of pharma, believing marketing campaigns about how these are entrepreneurial companies using the free market to cure disease. As something of a health fooder myself, I view this as a very positive move for the right, and it is interesting that it came about as a direct result of the overreach of the left.

Another example of the brutal rules-mongering of the nanny state was the censorship agenda. People may forget that the original claim regarding the necessity of abolishing the free speech rights of Americans was that if you said mean things on the internet, people would read it and kill themselves. They then claimed that if you were racist on the internet, you would trick people into committing mindless acts of violence. The final big push was related to the pandemic scam, when people were told that if they voiced disagreement with government policy regarding lockdowns, masks, or vaccines, people would die as a result.

The stated ideology behind all of this censorship is that individuals do not have the ability to process information, and therefore words that they read on the internet can possess them and cause them to do things. This is a complete denial of human agency and a denial of free will itself, and it certainly brought into question the core premise of democracy, which claims that everyone in society is a fully actualized individual capable of determining how the government is run. The government and media claimed that mass censorship is necessary for democracy to function. The conclusion you would have to draw there would be that if people cannot objectively look at information and they will make decisions purely based on whatever information is put in front of them, then by censoring everything other than the mainstream media, we are creating a situation where the mainstream media dictates the behavior of the people and the direction of society as a whole.

The coronavirus insanity and the crackdown on the freedom of speech demonstrate toxic femininity manifesting as outright tyranny.

Women’s Enfranchisement Must be Revoked

Having a society which is divided into two halves is patently ridiculous and unsustainable, especially given that one of the two sides is made up of people totally disconnected from reality who lack even a basic interest in understanding what makes a healthy environment in which humans can flourish.

The solution to this problem is facially obvious: women must be disenfranchised and removed from civil society, or at least from public life. There is no real way around that. Leftism as it exists today is the embodiment of toxic femininity. The men who have these views are a small minority of males, and would be irrelevant if they did not have empowered women fighting alongside them. What’s more, the overwhelming majority of leftist men would not have this disposition if it were not for the empowerment of women making these ideas acceptable.

We also have a system where boys are forced to be controlled and viciously abused by women throughout their entire childhood and well into adolescence. These men then go to live their entire lives as servants to women. The mother is the first tyrant. Even if an American boy has a father in the home, which many do not, the father is almost certainly completely subservient to his wife. Further, schools are packed full of women, and most boys have little to no input from adult men. This ends up breaking many men, causing them to develop a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where they identify with their abusers.

When confronted with the truth about the nature of women and how it has shaped our dystopian reality, some on the right will revert to blaming all of these problems on the Jews. While I am personally very comfortable with blaming things on the Jews, people who attempt to blame Jews for the behavior of women are simply incapable of emotionally dealing with the reality of what women will become if you incentivize all of their worst instincts in the way Western society has done.

It’s true that virtually every bad idea on the left or the right originates with the Jews, but Jews are a very small part of the population, and they would not be able to wield the influence they wield if it were not for a large part of the population being willing to go along with them. The primary population that goes along with them is white women. We now have all of these nonwhites in our country, and many of them are willing to vote Democrat and support various agendas, but how did they get into our country in the first place? It is a result of the enfranchisement of women.

No country that has maintained masculine values has opened their borders. It is only white countries and all of these countries are feminist countries where the discourse is totally dominated and directed by women. It was Angela Merkel who opened the gates in Europe and flooded the continent with millions upon millions of poor, violent, useless “refugees.” Recently, Georgia Meloni in Italy ran on a platform of getting rid of the immigrants (a “right-wing woman”), and she ended up more than quadrupling the amount of new arrivals and has yet to deport anyone.

I have often pointed out that if you look at the pictures of pro-immigrant protests, you will notice that if you only look at whites, at least 9 out of 10 protesters are women. The men who are there generally appear to be husbands or boyfriends that were dragged along, or men who showed up to try to meet women because they know these protests have a more favorable sex ratio than anything else in society.

You’ll see the same thing if it’s a BLM protest, a pro-Ukraine protest, a pro-vax protest, or a protest supporting anything else you hate. Meanwhile, recent large scale protests against immigration in the UK and Ireland, and the Canadian anti-lockdown protests a few years ago, are overwhelmingly male.

Obviously, this should not be surprising if we understand leftism as the embodiment of toxic femininity.

It’s fair enough to say that “not all women think this way.” That is clearly true, but it is also irrelevant. Saying “not all women are toxic supporters of the globalist-Jewish agenda and therefore we should allow them to participate in public society” is like saying “not all blacks are criminals, therefore I’m going to walk around in dark allies on the Southside of Chicago at night.”

The participation of women in public society, and the way that this has created modern political leftism and triggered a cascading wave of more and more extreme tyranny, is the core of what is happening in the West. This is difficult to confront, because there is no obvious solution to this problem, but it is the truth.

Now that Donald Trump has vaccinated the public against the woke mind virus, there are once again a statute of limitations on sexual abuse hoaxes!

Harvey Weinstein didn’t get any statute of limitations, because of the woke mind virus.

Harvey tried to fight the woke mind virus and the court showed everyone pictures of his deformed penis.

Now the woke mind virus has been vaccinated against by Donald Trump’s new Operation Warp Speed.

The Guardian:

Prosecutors said on Friday that they will not file charges against Marilyn Manson after a years-long investigation of allegations of sexual assault and domestic violence.

The Los Angeles county district attorney, Nathan Hochman, said the allegations were too old under the law and the evidence was not sufficient to charge the 56-year-old shock rocker whose legal name is Brian Warner.

“We have determined that allegations of domestic violence fall outside of the statute of limitations, and we cannot prove charges of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt,” Hochman said. “We recognize and applaud the courage and resilience of the women who came forward to make reports and share their experiences, and we thank them for their cooperation and patience with the investigation.”

Nearly four years after the investigation began, the then district attorney, George Gascón, said on 9 October that his office was pursuing new leads that added to the “already extensive” file that authorities had amassed.

LA county sheriff’s detectives said early in 2021 that they were investigating Manson for incidents between 2009 and 2011 in West Hollywood, where Manson lived at the time. The investigation included a search warrant that was served on his West Hollywood home. The case was initially turned over to prosecutors in September 2021, but the Los Angeles county district attorney’s office requested more evidence-gathering and the investigation resumed.

The identities of the women police and prosecutors spoke to were not revealed, but the Game of Thrones actor Esmé Bianco – who sued Manson in a case that has been settled – said she was part of the criminal investigation. Before the decision not to prosecute, she criticized how long the process was taking at a rally for Hochman, who was elected soon after.

This bitch played one of the whores in Game of Thrones, then she dated the BDSM shock rocker guy and gets really surprised he is abusive!

Who cares about that bitch? I wish he would have abused her much worsely!

In 2021 his former fiancee, the Westworld actor Evan Rachel Wood, named him as her abuser for the first time in an Instagram post.

Wood and Manson’s relationship became public in 2007 when he was 38 and she was 19, and they were briefly engaged in 2010 before breaking up.

Oh yes, an age gap, such abuse!

How could she know the extremist was extreme, when she was a mere child of 19 years young?

We need to put these sluts in jail for these hoaxes if we truly want to eradicate the remaining infected cells of the woke mind virus.

They cause all these problems, waste police resources, waste how much money from the people they accuse, then they just walk free with many accolades from the woke establishment?

We have to smash the wokies and we need to start by smashing the sluts who do these rape hoaxes.

Donald Trump is trying to vaccinate the world against the woke mind virus, but the Europeans are having a negative reaction to the vaccine and having woke myocarditis from the DNA changes caused by this Warp Speed vaccine against woke.

Now these wokies in Europe are claiming that women don’t have to have sex with their husbands.

Do women have to do anything in the woke world?

The Guardian:

A woman who refuses to have sex with her husband should not be considered “at fault” by courts in the event of divorce, Europe’s highest human rights court has said, condemning France.

The European court of human rights (ECHR) sided on Thursday with a 69-year-old French woman whose husband had obtained a divorce on the grounds that she was the only person at fault because she had stopped having sexual relations with him.

The ECHR held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the woman’s right to respect for private and family life as part of the European convention on human rights.

What about the human rights of men to have sex?

What wokie wookie wrote this law?

The woke kikes?

It ruled against France, saying a woman who refuses to have sex with her husband should not be considered “at fault” by courts in the event of divorce.

The court identified the woman only by the initials HW, saying she lived in Le Chesnay in the western suburbs of Paris. The woman did not contest the divorce, which she had also sought, but rather complained about the grounds on which it had been granted by a French court.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR said any concept of marital duties needed to take into account “consent” as the basis for sexual relations.

“The court concluded that the very existence of such a marital obligation ran counter to sexual freedom, [and] the right to bodily autonomy,” a court statement said. “The applicant’s husband could have petitioned for divorce, submitting the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as the principal ground, and not, as he had done, as an alternative ground.”

Woke women are refusing to have children, and the governments are complaining about that and offering them endless bribes and meanwhile they are so woke they won’t enforce men’s right to sex!

The woke mind virus is going to obliterate Europe and then people will realize that woke was wrong and they will realize patriots were right for forcing women to have sex.

January 2017. I was recovering from my hysterectomy. This was when I was at my sickest. My body ate its own weight and I was down to 120 at 5’9”. I spent 6 years after this sick & disabled.

This is when I decided that I would pursue being my true self. Losing everything possible… pic.twitter.com/2Obw89xWkR

— The Pissed Off Lawyer (@legaltweetz) January 23, 2025

Are these women all trying to become f-to-m trans?

Why are they removing these body parts?

Is this just the result of birth control pills? Because everyone knows this happens?

Or is it from the vax?

The Guardian:

Women in Britain are paying up to £11,154 for a hysterectomy in a private hospital, amid huge delays for NHS gynaecological care, research reveals.

The cost of undergoing the procedure privately has soared by 19% from £7,385 in 2021 to £8,795 last year, at a time when NHS waiting lists have risen sharply.

The disclosure has prompted claims independent sector healthcare providers are taking advantage of long waits for health service treatment by increasing their prices.

The number of women waiting for care in an NHS hospital for conditions such as fibroids and endometriosis more than doubled from 360,400 when Covid struck in 2020 to 749,329, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has shown.

In November 584,607 women in England were on an NHS gynaecological waiting list, with 20,809 of them being on the list for more than a year, which led to a growing number of women going private to beat delays.

Women undergo a hysterectomy to treat problems linked to their reproductive system, such as heavy periods, fibroids or chronic period pains. More than 40,000 women a year in England undergo a procedure on the NHS, mainly those in their 40s and 50s, though numbers are falling.

The cost of the operation in a private hospital rose across England, Scotland and Wales between 2021 and 2024, an analysis found. Prices rose by 22% in the south-west of England in that time and by 18% in the West Midlands, according to the research by MyTribe Insurance Experts, who track the cost of private healthcare.

The highest price for the procedure being charged last year by a private hospital was £11,154 in Yorkshire and the Humber and lowest was £6,420 in the south-west, the firm said. In Yorkshire and the Humber– the most expensive region – a hysterectomy cost an average £9,765, followed by the east of England (£9,709) and Scotland (£9,355).

Why are these media so concerned about the price?

Why are they not asking why this is happening?

Katie Lennon tragic testimony.

She was given hormones and a double mastectomy as a teenager and eventually got a full hysterectomy.

Why do people think children can make decisions like these? pic.twitter.com/PkZUM3OYFR

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) December 24, 2024

#ICC Prosecutor @KarimKhanQC announces applications for warrants of arrest in the situation in #Afghanistan for the Supreme Leader of the Taliban, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and the Chief Justice of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”, Abdul Hakim Haqqani.https://t.co/zpCmoBEQvb pic.twitter.com/9FHF0bVqAJ

— Int’l Criminal Court (@IntlCrimCourt) January 23, 2025

Jeez.

These ICC people are ridiculous.

It’s now an international war crime to get sluts under control?

It’s deserving of the same kind of attention as a genocide?

AP:

An Afghan women’s group on Friday hailed a decision by the International Criminal Court to arrest Taliban leaders for their persecution of women.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan announced Thursday he had requested arrest warrants for two top Taliban officials, including the leader Hibatullah Akhundzada.

Since they took back control of the country in 2021, the Taliban have barred women from jobs, most public spaces and education beyond sixth grade.

…

An official in the former Western-backed administration warned the Taliban leadership was likely to exploit the decision for propaganda purposes by framing it as proof of their strong faith and resilience.

“They may tell their followers that their beliefs are so powerful they have provoked the collective opposition of global powers,” Mohammad Halim Fidai said on the X platform. Fidai was a governor of four provinces before the takeover and now lives outside Afghanistan. “This decision could inadvertently serve as a badge of honor or credibility for them.”

Just absurd.

It doesn’t matter, the Taliban wasn’t going anywhere that would enforce this.

But it’s just gross that simply enforcing the norms of sexuality, which were the standard for every civilization on earth until a few years ago, would be considered the same as the crimes of Bibi Netanyahu.

The decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) sends a significant political message and has the potential to increase political pressure on the Taliban. However, from a technical and practical perspective, implementing this decision appears to be highly challenging.…

— Mohammad Halim Fidai🇦🇫 (@Mhalimfidai) January 23, 2025

This is the law in Islam, and it is the correct law.

Why should a girl be 10-years-old with no husband?

That is pathetic decadence.

The Guardian:

Iraqi MPs and women’s rights groups have reacted with horror to the Iraqi parliament passing a law permitting children as young as nine years old to marry, with activists saying it will “legalise child rape”.

Under the new law, which was agreed yesterday, religious authorities have been given the power to decide on family affairs, including marriage, divorce and the care of children. It abolishes a previous ban on the marriage of children under the age of 18 in place since the 1950s.

“We have reached the end of women’s rights and the end of children’s rights in Iraq,” said the lawyer Mohammed Juma, one of the most prominent opponents of the law.

The Iraqi journalist Saja Hashim said: “The fact that clerics have the upper hand in deciding the fate of women is terrifying. I fear everything that will come in my life as a woman.”

Activists said they feared the law would now also be applied retroactively to cases filed in courts before it was enacted, affecting rights to alimony and custody.

Raya Faiq, spokesperson for the feminist group Coalition 188, said: “We received an audio recording of a woman crying her eyes out because of the passage of this law, with her husband threatening to take her daughter away unless she gives up her rights to financial support.”

Child marriage has been a longstanding issue in Iraq, where 28% of girls were married before they turned 18, a 2023 UN survey found.

While marriage is presented to some underage girls as a chance to escape poverty, many of the marriages end in failure, bringing lifelong consequences for young women, including social shame and a lack of opportunities because of unfinished schooling.

Instead of tightening laws against underage marriage and helping girls from poorer backgrounds to complete their education, the new law allows the marriage of minors according to the religious sect under which the marriage contract is concluded.

For Shia Muslims, which make up the majority in Iraq, the lowest age of marriage for girls will be nine years old, while for Sunnis, the official age will be 15.

Fifteen?

What sort of ultra-cuckodry is this?

How many men do you want your wife to have fucked by the time you marry her?

The age has to be nine.

Anything beyond that is pure sickness and totally evil.

These whores think the American party is going to go on forever. 

At least they are admitting that this is the result of decisions made by women, instead of claiming it is somehow an “economic issue” (while the poorest countries in the world have the highest birthrates).

Brussels Times:

The number of babies born in Brussels dropped sharply last year due to potential parents’ fears for the future, migration out of the city and other demographic trends.

A report published by the regional agency Perspective Brussels on Monday shows that there were 13,987 babies born in the Brussels-Capital Region in 2024, down by 757 since 2023 and by 4,600 since 2010, the year when the city’s fertility rate peaked.

The report refers to the drop as an “unprecedented demographic situation”. The Region has always had a lower fertility rate than the rest of the country but the trend has accelerated due to a number of demographic changes. according to the Brussels Institute for Statistics and Analysis (IBSA).

The report identifies four main reasons why Brussels residents choose to reproduce less, or not at all. A portion of residents are choosing to have fewer children out of fear of an uncertain future caused by “economic, geopolitical and climate instability.”

Women want to have babies later and later, and while this reduces the amount of babies born to young mothers, the decline is not offset by a high natality rate among older women. The overall rate therefore decreases.

…

Brussels is an ethnically diverse city and 45% of “women of childbearing age” (between 15 and 49) are of non-Belgian nationality. This group’s fertility rate has fallen at a faster rate than that of Belgian women, which IBSA says is a result of the majority of new arrivals to Brussels being of European origin. New arrivals therefore have fewer children than previous waves of immigration.

But hey, no big deal. It’s women’s freedom if they decide to abandon their only duty and go around fucking random men for twenty years instead of having children. We have to respect their valuable rights for some reason. No one has explained why, but there is some reason I’m sure.

We can just replace the missing children with hateful and cruel people from Arabia and Pakistan.

It’s going to work out fine, because humans are all totally interchangeable units.

Besides, Moslems have a superior culture to whites. Seriously, if Indians have a superior culture, than surely the Moslems must, because Islamic culture is vastly superior to Indian culture.

]]> https://www.anglinarchive.com/2025/01/20/lithuania-number-of-births-reaches-lowest-level-ever-in-2024/ Mon, 20 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0000
At the time of writing, he have independently confirmed that feminism exists in Lithuania

Low birth rate, huh?

Have you tried giving women more and more and more and more and more? And more and more?

I’ve heard that works, because the birthrate is an economic problem, even though the birthrate is inverse correlated with economic prosperity in every country that isn’t a religious dictatorship.

LRT:

Preliminary statistics show that last year saw the lowest number of births in Lithuania’s history since 1990. Financial strain and cultural changes lead to young people delaying having children or opting for childless families altogether. Can this be reversed?

Karolina Butrimė, a mother of five from Kaunas, jokes that she will receive a state pension when she turns 65. But it’s not all because of her.

“Everyone has been very positive. I remember only one incident [to the contrary]. We were sitting in the park of the Kretinga Winter Garden with children. I was expecting my fifth child, four children were running around me. We were all happy, playing. And a woman walks up and says: All of them are yours? I was so proud: Yes, they are all mine. And she says: What an idiot. And walks away,” Butrimė laughs.

Today, most families opt for one or two children. An increasing number decide not to have kids at all or delay childbearing.

According to preliminary data from the State Data Agency, 18,979 babies were born in 2024, fewer than any other year since 1990.

Not just the lowest since 1990, but lowest since records began

Social Security and Labour Minister Inga Rauginienė says one of the reasons is that people cannot afford to raise children.

“Life is getting more expensive and our young people are calculating: it is extremely difficult for a young family to buy a house. You have to have an adequate amount of income, so young people work more than one job to save up for the first start. This is why family planning is postponed until later,” she tells LRT TV.

While Lithuania offers one of the longest maternal leave periods in the EU and relatively generous benefits, Butrimė notes that money is not the only factor in deciding to have children or not.

…

Lithuania’s fertility rates have been consistently dropping in recent decades. In 2023, the fertility rate stood at 1.18, well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

While Lithuania’s population has slightly increased in recent years, it was due to migration, including returning Lithuanian expatriates.

Boguslavas Gruževskis, sociologist and director of the Centre for Social Sciences, argues that raising the fertility rate will require, first and foremost, educational efforts.

“Formation of value attitudes in the educational system. This is very serious work for the ministries of culture and education – to really show people that the primitive satisfaction of material needs is a very lowly thing,” he tells LRT TV.

A popular Lithuanian song in 2000 had a line saying “there are only three million of us in the world”. Back then, it was an underestimate – Lithuania’s population at the turn of the millennium stood at 3.5 million. Today, it is 2.9 million and, according to projections, could drop to 2 million over the next 50 years.

The whole of Eastern Europe is going extinct.

Quick, we need to give women more and more and more.

Shit’s bad and getting worse