Toxic Femininity and Toxic CRT – The Counter Revolution Underway

A modest suggestion for an addition to the Counter Revolution, what Communist / Marxist / Socialist theory calls the “Reactionaries”: Be The Mirror. Find something they do, and reflect it back at them, perhaps with a bit of magnification.

Do NOT let polite rules or manners get in your way. You are not here to set an example, they will just exploit that as a weakness.

So, if they show up at your rally with whistles and bull horns, show up at their rally with country music and bongos (or whatever…).

In that light, I also think it is important to reflect their attempts at mangling the language back at them. We saw an example of this in the term “Super Straight”. I don’t know who invented it, but they defined it as ~”A Straight person who is so super straight that they do not find sex with a Trans person interesting or attractive”. After all, if they can create 37 genders with their own names and anyone is empowered to choose their gender, then we are equally empowered. Turns out it worked very well with various SJW types blowing stack over it (one even cursing and saying they wanted to kill every Super Straight person; so you know it drives them around the bend.)

Note that this does not mean I have any complaint about what folks choose to do with each other. I have a couple of kids via helping a few lesbian couples have a family. I’m advocating for EVERYONE having EQUAL right to choose. Even Super Straights. My credentials as “Middle of the bird” and Libertarian are pretty strong.

To that end, I suggest that instead of speaking of SJW Feminists or Feminism and seeming to criticize it, speak of Toxic Femininity. I, for one, am in favor of many of the goals of Classical Feminism. I put hundreds of hours into a Feminist run facility in Berkeley, even doing TV spots for them, so I have a history of support for Classical Feminism.

The goals of classical feminism are now mostly attained in the west, BTW… even the notorious “pay gap” is now a fiction. By law, people are paid the same for the same jobs. Any statistical artifact is a residual of people choosing different career types. More women want to work with babies in a Day Care facility at low wages than are willing to put on a Diving Dry Suit and clean out sewer blockages by swimming in sewage. Guess what, they have different pay grades…)

I’m also going to start prefixing CRT with “Toxic” as well. As in “Do not teach my child Toxic Critical Racist Theories”.

I’m sure you can all elaborate on this theme over time as other slurs and slanders are applied to Traditional American Values and Roles.

That’s the basic posting. Now for some fun examples of the Reactionaries in action. Brie Larson (who names their kid after a cheese, anyway? Would you want to be named Cheddar Smith or Havarti Jones? But I wander…) was chosen by Disney to be the New Captain America. Deliberately Gender Bending a classical W.W.II era macho male hero into a gender bent something or other. Needless to say, the P.C. was strong in the movie, very woke, and in the process of going very broke…

She also was in another movie that flopped horribly and in a speech moaned that a swap of a lead woman classical character from a White Redhead to a Black Woman was also a box office Super Flop. (Some people are slow learners about “Get Woke, Go Broke”, but eventually they will run out of other peoples money to burn.)

So in this video, a quasi middle of the road guy (Dave Cullen) who like History Preserved when it comes to characters, but mostly just likes a good movie with decent plot and action unsullied by Gender Bending, Toxic Femininity, and Woke Crap, rips her a new one over a speech to the Wokerati of Hollyweird. He does a wonderful job, IMHO.

Dave Cullen does an interesting more intellectual look at just why the Wokerati are so hard at work cranking out Sucky Woke Crappy Movies. The notion is that they are intended to destroy the classical heroic characters and narrative and make the way for replacement with PC Woke Crap. I can see some logic in that. Never forget that a fundamental of Marxist Revolutionary Theory is that ALL the old must be destroyed so you can then create the Socialist Workers Paradise. Folks like to talk about China having a 3000 or 4000 year old culture, but never forget the Cultural Revolution that destroyed most of it, so that Maoist Culture could replace it. China, today, has about a 60 year old culture. So I can see much truth in what he says:

FWIW, Brie Larsen also had some kind of run-in with another movie critic on EwTube that I watch from time to time, having some sort of Twitter War with him. He is another “White Male”, so maybe that’s enough to piss her off. I don’t remember the name of his channel (it just pops up some times…) but next time it pops up I’ll see if I can add a link here.

In Conclusion

There you have it. One Small Step for The Resistance. Take their propaganda terms, bend fold spindle and mutilate them into the truth, and reflect them back. Brie Larson is NOT “Stunning and Brave”, but rather “Stunned and Boring” with her Toxic Femininity. CRT is Toxic Critical Racist’s Theory.

When in doubt, laugh at them and make jokes about them. Having NO sense of humor at all, they get really really pissed if you are having a good time and they are shown to be Negative Nellies wallowing in self pity and the Diversity Hire Misery Swamp.

Want to see a GOOD movie with a black lead? I loved Beverly Hills Cop. Full of laughs, and full of truth too. Made a bucket of money in the process…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Arts, History, Movies & Media, Political Current Events, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Toxic Femininity and Toxic CRT – The Counter Revolution Underway

  1. Canadian Friend says:

    The not too bright and very emotional ( actually it was fake emotion obviously ) woman in the first video that complains about white males, she may as well complain that people who have testicles are mostly males, or that people who have blue eyes and blond hair are mostly white

    or that most fish live in the sea or that most wheels are round or that most apples are not oranges

    of course most things are made or done by white males, has she never heard of western civilization???

    while we were building cathedrals that were as high as 12 story buildings most other races were living in mud huts and had not yet developed a written language, a calendar or mathematics

    so of course we have invented almost everything,

    we may not have invented blues and jazz, but blacks only invented those genres of music because they played on the things white men had invented such as pianos, guitars, saxophones, speakers, amplifiers, microphones, recording equipment such as reel to reel tape, vinyl records, et cetera

    anti white people don t make any sense

    they may as well complain that it is unfair to blacks that Eskimos(*) invented igloos!!!

    those self hating white leftists are very very stupid, yes stupid

    (*) I know we are no longer supposed to call them Eskimos, as it means more or less ” eat fish ” or eat raw fish” but they did eat raw fish so how is that racist??? what if Eskimo meant live in snow and ice house, would that be racist too? The world is going crazy!!!!

    PS: I wrote this comment very quickly, I know it is not a great comment, I know it is not my best comment, but my point still stands…things are what they are NOT because of racism!!! things are what they are for a BILLION other reasons….Greeks did not figure out the earth was round because they hated blacks….Europeans did not figure out gravity or electricity out of hatred of blacks….if today white males control so much it is NOT out of racism…only an ignorant and very very brainwashed person thinks that racism explains everything.

  2. John Hultquist says:

    I like the “toxic” prefix but probably won’t have much chance to use it.

    Related: I think using “97%” when ever and where ever you make a WAG helps to dilute the message those that started it intended.
    Going back in time – – 97% of doctors recommend Lucky Strike;
    97% of Democrats are toxic;
    97% of dead people did not vote in the last election;
    97% of stories about dumb schists are from Florida;
    97% of Chicago politicians end in jails;
    and so it goes.

  3. The True Nolan says:

    When I hear anyone mention “testosterone poisoning”, I always say that there is no such thing. It is only a fantasy dreamed up by people suffering from “estrogen hysteria”.

  4. Jim Masterson says:

    @ John Hultquist

    Ivory soap is 99 and 44 100ths percent pure! It’s all stupid nonsense and advertising silliness!

  5. H.R. says:

    @Canadian Friend: If that was a crap post, I eagerly await your next crap post. Good stuff 👍👍
    @The True Nolan (I still prefer Jason Calley, BTW) – “estrogen hysteria”… I will have to use that one when the occasion arises.

    Women contemporaneous to me had a gripe over equal pay for equal work. They also had a gripe about employers not being particularly accommodating in regards to pregnancy. They were expected to drop the kid and be right back to work or… otherwise, just don’t come back. And employers were reluctant to hire women for some key, better paid positions, because they expected them to quit and stay home if they had a kid. Better to hire a man because he wasn’t going to get pregnant.

    So women had a lot of legitimate gripes. But my wife and the aforementioned women contemporaneous to me freely discussed the fact that they thought feminism had gone off the rails. They, on the main, were not interested in STEM fields. But don’t tell them they couldn’t do it if they wanted to. They just knew more women didn’t want STEM careers than did. And they were rightly pissed off if the ones interested in STEM fields were discriminated against. Simple, basic equality stuff, eh?

    And they didn’t want say, fire departments, to adjust tests so women could pass. That really pisses off the Mrs. They were all for women firefighters, if they could pass the same, classic strength tests for the job of firefighter. Mrs. H.R. and contemporaries knew there were only a handful of women who could pass the strength and endurance tests. So there was nothing to be upset about if only a few stations in a large city had a women firefighter. Hey, if the house is on fire, they (the Mrs. and contemporaries) wanted someone who could haul everyone’s ass out the second floor window and down the ladder, not some quota-filling hire.

    I can only go by Mrs. H.R. and a few of her friends now, but they are dead set against quotas based on anything, and in regards to your comment, Jason, they just don’t ‘get’ modern feminism.

    When I get a chance, I’ll point Mrs. H.R. to your comment and see if she finds it pretty much on the money regarding today’s feminism.

    She might like “estrogen hysteria”… or I might be sleeping on the couch for a while 😜🤣🤣🤣
    ,@ Power Grab, Annie, BethTheSerf and the other readers here of the female persuasion – Please weigh in on the topic of Feminism of the ’60s and ’70s vs Feminism of the ’90s and 2000s and on.

    I’ve got a small sample size; Mrs. H.R. and her couple of longtime female friends that go back to grade school. So I am sure I’m pretty accurate on their view that feminism has gone off the rails, but the sample set is very small, homogeneous, and a bit isolated. A broader picture is needed here.
    .As the members of Possum Lodge (Red Green Show) say at the start of their meeting:

    <"I'm a man…

    but I can change…

    if I have to."

  6. YMMV says:

    The most toxic feminists are actually men who think they are women. I would feel sorry for them if they were not so toxic. Because they never will be real women.

    But the most alarming revelation was the astronomical rate of suicide among post-surgery transgenders, particularly after a decade. The post-surgery suicide rate wasn’t 25% higher than normal, which would have been disturbing enough. Nor was it 50% higher. Nor was it 100% higher. It wasn’t even 250% higher, which would have been, or should have been, a screaming alarm for the medical community and public alike.

    Nor was it 400% higher, or 600% higher. It was nearly two thousand percent higher.


  7. Tammly says:

    Well ‘Canadian Friend’ you are the first person I have heard or read who has the same opinion as me. As Cammile Paglia said, ” if civilisation had been left to women, we would all still be living in grass huts. I say, if an alien landed in sub Saharan Africa 100 years ago and expected the development of penicillin and the microchip, he would have had a bloody long wait.

  8. beththeserf says:

    Yes, HR I am a feminist but of the school of equality before the law, not making some more equal than others as in Animal Farm and in real life by authoritarian social planners…two legs better than four legs or sometimes vice versa, depending on who gets to choose at the time, it might be your turn to be less equal. LBTGT should keep that in mind when making demands for extra rights before the law.

  9. rhoda klapp says:

    “That really pisses off the Mrs. ”

    You’re a poet and completely unaware of it.

  10. Steve C says:

    About 25 years ago, the school I worked at had some building work done by a small local firm. The firm turned out to be a couple of lesbian ladies, who were built like … well, builders, and who did a decent job. Any bloke silly enough to make any “inappropriate” comments around them was liable to find himself knocked flat out on the floor, which sounds like a pretty good working definition of equality!

    I’ve seen the same sort of figures as YMMV about (especially MTF) transsexual suicides, and when you consider that the average male body is of an awful lot heavier build than the average female body perhaps it’s not surprising that “transition” is so difficult for them. Particularly since, apparently, transsexual blokes tend to be my sort of size (6′ and chunky) rather than petite and slight. Easier for FTMs – there are more smallish men than huge women, and as testosterone gives them a beard and a deeper voice they don’t have the same credibility problem in “passing”.

    I almost like this newfangled “self-declaration” of oneself as something else, but it doesn’t go far enough. Okay, so now I can self-declare as a woman, but I’d only really be interested if I could self-declare as an extremely rich woman. Actually, as a 70-y-o bloke, I’d quite like just to be able to self-declare as being about 25 or 30-y-o again, but brutal reality does insist on showing up the flaws in the methodology. ;-)

  11. philjourdan says:

    The term “Femi-nazi”, coined by the late Rush Limbaugh, seems to be prescient in its application. You can call it “Toxic femininity”, but the description is the same. Anti-Feminists is also applicable. They seek to destroy the gains women have made.

  12. YMMV says:

    Toxic Trans. The L and G want out of LGBPTGQIAAA+

    “The rainbow seems to be melting, and some of those colours are dripping away. And it is entirely and absolutely the fault of the mindless trans lobby mob who do nothing but shout people down if they dare to dissent.”

    At the “everybody knows” level, the L and the G have problems with the traditional macho male behavior. Guess what kind of behavior the T has, in particular the MTF group, which is by far the biggest.

    Which brings me back to the woke movies. Which I do not watch, so bear with me if I get this wrong. The women heroes in the new Hollywood movies mostly look like women who would appeal to the macho male. As in comic books, Playboy, and decals on trucks. Take Gal Godot as Wonder Woman.

    Note, no glasses, bookish studious looks. Not an accountant, or even a secretary.
    Superman on the other hand, had his Clark Kent side, his ordinary man side.

    From Wikipedia: William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph, struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. “Fine,” said Elizabeth. “But make her a woman.”

    Interesting idea, I wonder where it got lost. From what I see, this is not at all what the woman superheroes in current movies do. Now they are just macho men in women’s bodies. Strong enough to fight Hulk. Macho enough to want to fight. How woke is that?

    Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.

    Where is the strong woman — we can take it as given that the woman has to be strong. None of this damsel in distress who has to be rescued by a man stuff — who can win by diplomacy and rational argument and public speaking ability? Not in the movies. The caring woman who can bring fighting sides together instead of encouraging fighting?

    There is lots of blather about privilege. White male privilege mostly, but I will let you in on a secret. The real privilege is in attractiveness. Especially in Hollywood.

    ‘Lookism’ is a term that describes differential treatment of people with varying degrees of attractiveness; it hurts those who are considered physically unattractive, while attractive people are able to get unfair advantages. This form of discrimination is often swept under the rug, yet it is rampant.

  13. Power Grab says:

    @ HR

    Yes, I was alive and needing to select a direction for my college studies when classical feminism was a big deal. I never identified with the Helen Reddy song “I Am Woman,” though. My dad was the breadwinner until we two oldest offspring entered college at the same time. (I was 16 when I started because…well, it’s a long story. I won’t tell it right now.”) So my mom went to work at an insurance agency. Over the years, she ended up getting trained as an insurance professional with some of those letters after her name. But even before she went to work, and there were 6 of us living in a 3 bedroom house with 1 bathroom, I never considered us deprived. We were homeowners, not renters. We took family car vacations. We even all went to Six Flags Over Texas because Mom saved up enough S&H Green Stamps to buy the tickets for all six of us. Dad bought his first guitar with S&H Green Stamps. My oldest sibling and I both picked it up and could do some stuff with it. But our major instrument was the piano. Dad’s mom helped us buy that and pay for the lessons.

    My mom was a stay-at-home mom. She was a good cook. We all had supper together.

    One time I asked my mother what she thought would be a good job for me. She said, “Well, executive secretaries, legal secretaries, and medical secretaries all make good money.” When I asked my dad’s mother (a public school teacher), she talked about computers. “They will need people to fix them,” she pointed out. She also had been president of the Business & Professional Women group, so her view was broader.

    I always planned to attend college, but I wasn’t one of those highly motivated students. I had some outstanding skills, but I figured I would just get married and raise a family, like my mom. So I was over 30 years old before I got married. Marriage just didn’t happen early for me, even though the guy I dated after I graduated from high school made me want to get married. I waited a really long time, but then I ended up married to a Porsche-driving gold digger dude who squandered all my inheritance and drove me into bankruptcy. He never helped pay our expenses, even though he generally made 6 times as much as I did. But since he was a farmer, I guess his greatest financial goal was to not pay taxes. When he started to threaten me, I took our kiddo and walked out. He wasn’t actually doing much work by that time, so I don’t how he managed without me as his meal ticket and rent payer.

    I don’t know if I’ve spilled my guts about that before on this forum. But I said it to be able to make the point that being a “liberated”(?) woman didn’t really pay off for me during my 19 years of wedded misery. So I don’t look fondly on those cultural changes. From where I sit, it appears that guys favored “women’s lib” so they could get someone to support them in the style to which they wanted to become accustomed.

    When I think about it, I figure I’m lucky to have gotten out of that marriage with my life and my kid and my two bachelor’s degrees. I don’t know if I’ve told the stories about the AK-47 (or AR-15) and the one ton pickup that my ex almost backed over me with. That was before I refused to buy him “a house to retire into”, so I figured it was just stupidity and/or clumsiness.

    I always tell people who ask about my thoughts on this issue that I lived on the “cusp” of women’s lib. The variety of jobs was just starting to open up, but I wasn’t one of the girls who had always wanted to be an engineer or race car driver or whatever. I had the idea that I shouldn’t work in a job that required “banging one’s head against the wall” to solve problems. I figured if my excellent skills couldn’t meet the challenge, then I would be better off in something less challenging.

    Eventually, though, after spending several years typing faculty research papers (usually journal articles for economics journals), and seeing that my writing and editing skills were probably better than some of theirs, I wanted a change. I had loved my first computer class (FORTRAN IV) back in the days when my flagship university didn’t even offer a degree in computer science, so when I decided to go back to school, I got a degree in MIS. So I work as a computer professional. I reckon I can thank the women’s libbers for that opportunity.

    But I still don’t like it when guys refuse to carry their weight and contribute to the success of the family!

    Insofar as how women can “lead” in this culture, I don’t like it when TV and movies only show women who are just trying to be substitutes for men. I happened to binge watch a few Donna Reed Shows a couple of weeks ago while I waited for some mindless stuff to execute. I really don’t remember seeing a woman fix a situation by making men think they had the ideas that made a solution possible. I’ve heard talk of such things, but I had not seen it modeled.

    That show, and the Andy Griffith Show, were ones that showed the viewer how to solve (sometimes stupid) problems without getting into a knock-down-drag-out fight or killing anyone. I guess they don’t know how to make shows like that anymore. Too bad.

    I get the impression that modern shows are intended to make everyone get so mad (or crooked) that they take a whack at everyone they disagree with. I watch as little modern shows as possible, but I get the impression that in modern shows the perps don’t get caught and punished, and the victims get treated just as badly by the system as by the perp.

    Sorry to be so long-winded. I like guys. I really do! I just don’t trust them.

  14. The True Nolan says:

    @H.R. Sounds like your wife and my wife have very similar views. Equality before the law — good idea, basically pretty simple, so why do so many people think that the way to achieve “equality” is to make the laws apply unequally? Again, (and it is a bad habit on my part) I find myself trying to use logic and sweet reason to understand people who are neither logical nor reasonable. Something which has been pointed out before by our host and others is that we have passed the point where reason and discussion is a help. Facts don’t matter, logic does not matter, reason does not matter, and increasingly it becomes impossible to even stand aside and say “you do your thing and I’ll do mine”. I do not think anyone here WANTS a fight. Most of us just want to be left alone. But being left alone is the last thing that The True Believers In Absolute Equity have planned for us. It takes two people to end a fight, but it only takes ONE to start a fight, and the progressive liberals seem determined to have a fight. Sigh… As E.M. points out, if we use their words, it must be in a use against them. Or, as an alternative, we must choose our OWN words and refuse to use the neo-logisms and warped definitions of the day. Better yet, do both. Trans-woman? “I’m a man. That means that I am a trans-trans-woman, and if a trans-woman is REALLY a woman, then a trans-trans-woman is really a trans-woman. Right?”

    One other small observation, one which I think I may have mentioned before. Have you noticed how over the last decade or so it has become so very common to have female characters slap male characters? I am not talking about self defense, or battle scenes where characters are fighting for their lives, but rather cases where women slap men because the man was not subservient enough, or said something which the woman did not want to hear. Invariably the man falls back and never responds other than with a confused or frightened look. Just keep an unwritten tab on the slaps. When you see it, say out loud “women hitting men for no reason”. Do the same thing for the opposite, say out loud “men hitting women for no reason”. After a few weeks you will be surprised at how common the “women hitting men for no reason” is, and at how rare the “men hitting women for no reason” is.

    We are being programmed. We are being taught that men no longer fight back, that men cower, that men look to women for leadership and protection.

  15. The True Nolan says:

    By the way, here is an interview (quite old now) with Aaron Russo, a Hollywood film maker and producer. Between about 29:00 and 31:00 or so he discusses what a member of the Rockefeller family told him about the origins of the Women’s Rights movement.

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    @Power Grab:

    Interesting, my first computer class was FORTRAN IV too… and before there were “Computer Science” degrees. (Choice was Electrical Engineering, Math, or Econometrics / Business with a computer emphasis).

    IMHO there are Jerks of both sexes. Lots of guys have horror stories of a marriage to a Sweet Young Thing who then spends all their money and THEN demands a divorce + alimony for life. Rinse and repeat… I figured my job was to assure my spouse was not such. We’ve been married a long time now ;-)

    FWIW, guys I know all love a competent strong woman who is also able to be feminine as a movie character and as a life mate. Very few guys really want to be carrying a weak loser for life (and those guys often “have issues” of their own…). Thus the success of movies like Wonder Woman and Catwoman.

    Per “Working Women”: One of the minor drivers for this, IMHO, was just the desire of The State to get more tax revenue. The whole push to have women’s domestic work be “paid work” is not to give women independence and income, it is to tap that labor supply as Taxable. (They successfully moved guy’s car repair to taxable by making it illegal to do a lot of the work yourself. No touching any of the common areas that need work, such as fuel handling, air intake, smog bits, A/C without specific laws and licences and such applying… so now most of that is done in a shop, not in your own garage). Marriage is about sharing the workload of running a household. Each contribute something. I do the yard work (though it’s a mess right now…) and the spouse cleans the house. I do all the cooking. She does the laundry. It’s a partnership. Luckily, it seems most in the society saw through that particular ploy. For professional jobs, it was a good idea to broaden the pool

    FWIW, my last colon cancer check up was an all female surgical team. From Doctor to Nurses, not a guy in sight… Best prostate exam I ever had was a lady M.D.; worst was a fat fingered ham handed guy who squished the sucker and I had trouble peeing for a week until it recovered. The lady was able to gently palpate, feel nothing was wrong, and have me barely notice. I’ll take the small hands and high precision of a female surgeon over a male any day. Yes, I’m now biased due to superior performance. Best G.P. I’ve had was a Black Lady (who unfortunately retired several years ago as she was a couple of years older than me). Happy to talk over what all was wrong. Not in a hurry. If you asked some question she was not prepared for, would just say “Give me a minute, I’m going to go look that up” and would hit a book in her office and be back with the answer in a few minutes. I’ve had male G.P.s bluff their way through things or just try to blow off my question / concerns. So yeah, call me a bigot, I like women doctors best as they do a better job including listening.

    One interesting trend I’ve noticed as a result of OTT Feminist Ranting? Guys saying “OK, you don’t appreciate me doing horrible scut work, then I won’t.” Other guys now doing the “MGTOW” thing. or Men Going Their Own Way. Essentially deciding that “Women are just not worth it” and choosing to disengage from them. I think it is wrong and over reacting… OTOH, I’ve not been on a date in 38 years, so maybe it IS that horrible. Frankly, at this point, I’m not even sure how you can say “Hey, want to get coffee or a dinner together?” without face slaps, lawsuits, fired, Social Media Banned, etc. etc. So I get their point, sort of…

    So guys can, and are, just quitting the game. Very hard these days to find guys willing to do the truly horrible jobs that, in prior years, they at least got Macho Points for being able to do it. Want me to do Deep Sea Diving in crap water? In the ’60s I seriously considered “Professional Diver” as a carrier path. Part of the attraction was the way it was seen as hazardous and hard work only Real Men ™ could do. Now? Sorry, not interested in things dangerous or dirty or hard where all I’m going to get for it is a rude look and “Ewwww” from lady’s at the bar…

    Oh Well.

  17. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve had enough martial arts training that anything coming at me just gets blocked before I have time to think about it. There was a Brown Belt woman who out ranked me by one belt, so I ought to have been able to counter some of her stuff fairly easily. What I learned was that the lighter weight of the arm and hand meant the impact had less effect, BUT, that also meant so much speed I did not have time to effectively block it if I did ANY thinking about it. That was were the auto-block rule got delegated to the brain stem…

    Even with that, she could “point on me” pretty much anytime she wanted as a feint, block, actual pointing strike set still worked against me…

    So one other change settled in. The “Men do not strike women” training of most of my life got ditched. Women are just a different kind of assailant if they launch a strike.

    So some woman does the usual wind up slap? That has enough lead time I can block it easily, and will. Depending on context, they might end up laying on the floor after a “block, step, grab, laydown, counterstrike set-up wait to see if delivery is needed”. (I’ve done that with a jerk guy at a hockey game, BTW… so it isn’t exactly a hypothetical).

    Basically, yes, the movies are trying to condition that, but “reality just is” and reality will be different…

    Oh, and never get into a knife fight with a woman. If she knows what she’s doing, there’s little hope for big and slow over small, fast and slashing. Lucky for me it was rubber practice knives…

  18. jim2 says:

    @Power Grab – your story is mega-times better than any fake movie about super-women. You are a real one!

  19. jim2 says:

    Ditto the Fortran and double-ditto the lady endocrinologist. I thought my male GP was trying to harvest my prostate!

  20. cdquarles says:

    Old folks club for the win. FORTRAN IV classes!
    It sounds to me as if the male physicians had poor instructors during their training. If you are looking for nodules, you are going to miss them if you use too much force; whether you’re talking breasts or prostates.

  21. H.R. says:

    @Power Grab – I replied to you (and Beth) with a “thanks” for adding to my small sample size and had some additional commentary.

    Alas, it all disappeared into the WordPress wormhole and somebody with eleven fingers on each hand about 3 or 4 galaxies over is puzzling over it. *sigh*

  22. The True Nolan says:

    @Power Grab Your deadbeat husband sounds rather like my wife’s first husband (but NOT ME!!). She had inherited some wealth when both her parents died and Hubby#1 made very good use of it until it was mostly gone — at which point he simply disappeared. When she tracked him down a couple of years later (living with another woman in another city) for filing divorce papers his response was “let’s not be hasty!”

    On the other hand, some 20 years ago, a friend of mine THOUGHT he had a good marriage, and he and his wife both made pretty good money. One day his wife of 11 years walked in, told him she was unhappy and wanted “a little time to think about things”, and “OH, here are some bills…” She then laid down $75,000 worth of credit card bills she had run up without his knowledge. Eventually the total was closer to $125K. A few days later she got him fired from his job, and within a week she had moved into her boss’s apartment. Turned out she had done the same thing to her FIRST husband as well.

    The point? Men and women REALLY are equal in most ways — including treachery and lying.

    @E.M. RE prostate exams, I have never had an exam by a lady doc — but DAMN, I had one old MD who must have been using a wooden fork on me. He never even kissed me, not even on the neck.

    MGTOW — I have a friend who went MGTOW. He is a slightly smaller than average African American man in his late 30s (maybe 40s now) and really bright. We became friends when we realized that we were both proponents of Austrian Economics. Women were not interested in him. Too short. Too Black. Too conservative. Too smart. By the way, that “too Black” is not a slur, not an exaggeration. Many women, even Black women, prefer a man who is more coffee colored, not eggplant colored. And too short. Women prefer taller men — although I think that men can compensate with a high enough income. Maybe every $20,000 a year is worth one inch of height. As he put it, “The juice is not worth the squeeze.” He was a GOOD man, and would have made some woman a very good husband, but none of the women worth marrying were interested in HIM. So… MGTOW.

    Like many of the commenters here, I was raised that “you never hit a girl!”. I changed that when my son was growing up. He was raised that men and women have equal rights and EQUAL RESPONSIBILITES as well. I told him “you have no right to start a fight, but if someone hits YOU, you have every right to respond in whatever manner you wish. Man, woman, younger, older, doesn’t matter. NO ONE has the right to lay hands on you.” A few years later he was at a club with a rather pretty young woman. Another patron, a lesbian woman, was jealous and just walked over and punched him. To quote him, “I really didn’t have time to think about it. The next thing I knew, I had her down on the ground with my hands around her throat.” Luckily that is where it ended, and there were enough witnesses that saw her hit first. My response? “Good for you. She doesn’t get to hit you just because you are a man.” I have had other men disagree with me on that, and some have even given purely pragmatic reasons, but I have yet to hear any ethical reasons.

  23. jim2 says:

    Dedicated to weary prostates everywhere …

  24. E.M.Smith says:


    Oh, that’s a good one!

  25. Power Grab says:

    @ jim2, HR, EM et al:

    Thanks for the kind remarks. :-)

    If I’d known we were going to talk about women hitting men, I would have added another item.

    In high school, while sitting in the auditorium watching a rehearsal of “1984” (an older classmate I dated was playing the nemesis of Winston Smith), a guy who was in my class and, achievement-wise and stature-wise, was on a par with the guy I dated, came over and sat down next to me. Then he started to trash talk me. I got up and walked to another section. He followed me and repeated the same behavior. I got up and walked to the farthest section. He followed me. I didn’t sit down yet while he continued to make innuendoes. I swung to slap his face with my right hand. He blocked my hand. I immediately slapped him with my left hand.

    We were both stunned and just stood there looking wide-eyed at each other. That was our last encounter, IIRC. Pity. I actually admired him. But he always seemed to be with another girl who was a classmate, and I wouldn’t have wanted to come between them. But she and I both had auburn hair, so I always wondered if it was my hair he liked. If he had ever approached me with civility, I would have been happy to talk to him. But I refuse to continue associating with a fellow who is disrespectful like that.

    That is the only time I’ve ever struck a guy. I doubt that it even left a bruise. I didn’t have my whole weight behind it. I didn’t even think I would connect since he blocked my first strike.

    Some years later, my sibling and I may have been talking about that incident. I’m not sure, but I remember my sibling said that our mom “didn’t worry about” me because I “could take care of” myself. I am not sure why she said that. But I do remember my dad told me one time that I was heavy handed.

  26. Power Grab says:

    @ TTN:

    You’re very insightful! I am appalled at the behavior of those women you mentioned!!

    I’m glad to hear you’re not of the Deadbeat Husband variety.

    And, EM, I’m glad you and your spouse have been doing so well for so long.

    I’m all too willing to applaud those who have achieved a long-lasting marriage, and still enjoy each other’s company!

    In fact, the other day a co-worker (whose husband also works in the department) made the comment that she and he had been “dating for 33 years”. But they’ve been married for 25 years, if I remember correctly. I had to stop and think about that. Then I went, “Oh! I get it!” What a great thing to say about your marriage!

  27. The True Nolan says:

    @Power Grab “dating for 33 years”. My wife and I have been married for 19 years, and yes, we still have a “date night” on Friday. We go out for dinner together and usually at some point in the afternoon before we go, I will casually comment to her that “I think I might be going out tonight with my girlfriend…” and often as not she will inform me that that’s fine with her as she is “planning on going out with her boyfriend as well.” I am blessed to have her in my life — and I try to remind her that that is exactly how I feel. Which brings me to a small side diversion; there are a LOT of people who will treat you badly when you treat them nice. Be kind and helpful to them and they will take advantage of you and then insult you for being nice. We have all met such people. My opinion? If you find someone doing that to you, treating you badly when you treat them nice, RUN AWAY, LEAVE THEM IN THE DUST, DON’T LOOK BACK. People like that are poison. Don’t think you can reform them, JUST GO. On the other hand, if you find someone who is nice to you when you are nice to them, keep them close. Sure, if you treat them bad they may do the same to you, but you’re not going to do that, are you? You can have a wonderful relationship with them. All you have to do is just be nice to them. And life will be good. :)

    Another thing (and I stole this from Willis Eschenbach) is that I will sometimes refer to my wife as “my gorgeous ex-fiancé”. It’s true! She is! She became my ex-fiancé when we married.

  28. MarcusZ1967 says:

    Dave Cullen has a Bitchute channel called “Computing Forever”

  29. MarcusZ1967 says:
  30. E.M.Smith says:


    So true…

    @Power Grab:

    For about 37? Maybe 38 years next month… I’ve told my spouse “It took me 30 years to find someone who I’d want to marry. I’m NOT going to find someone else sooner than another 30 years, and by then, I’ll be too old to change. So YOU are stuck with me.”. Near as I can tell, she didn’t believe me. Yet it is true.

    There’s a “Cute Young Thing” at a bar in Florida. I was there with Florida Friend. He was flirting with her, me a little just to pretend I was “in the game”. There came a “moment”. She asked, “didn’t you say you were married?” I got to say ~”Yes, I am married. Very Married. I’m like the dog on a chain barking at you in the front lawn. I’m at the end of my chain, but I still have a Great Bark!”… She understood. I’m not a threat. I’m not a player. I’m just a guy who like to remember being a player… So it goes.

    I’ll never ever have a “relationship” with anyone like I have with my spouse. Just not going to happen. But from time to time I like to remember what it was like, once, 40 years ago, to be “a player”… but I also know that an “almost 70 something” guy with thinning grey-ing hair is not a “catch”. So I know that any “Sweet young thing” expressing interest is just looking for a bigger tip, is a “Gold Digger”, or is similarly inclined. And I’m not. Oh Well. I often wish I was not so boring. Yet I am. Nothing is ever going to change that. Bark as I might.

  31. YMMV says:

    “Oh, and never get into a knife fight with a woman. If she knows what she’s doing, there’s little hope for big and slow over small, fast and slashing.”

    Expanding on that theme, DarkHorse Podcast Clips reads a few paragraphs from the book “Freedom” by Sebastian Junger. Those paragraphs go into why a big slow heavily equipped army is no match for guerrillas with hardly any equipment. We’ve been fighting WW2 for almost a century. No wonder we always lose. This metaphor can be expanded even further. Perhaps that is why it is not just the armed forces which are losing.

  32. The True Nolan says:

    @YMMV “We’ve been fighting WW2 for almost a century.”

    I tend to think that WWII ended sometime around 1988. Unfortunately, the Nazis won.

  33. YMMV says:

    OK, I could have phrased that better. It was referring to the generals always fighting the last war, or rather fighting with the mind set of the last war. Except by now, they are many wars behind. The weapons are modern but the mind set is not.

  34. The True Nolan says:

    @YMMV “The weapons are modern but the mind set is not.”

    I do not think the weapons are even still physical. In fact, I think the weapon IS the mind set.

    You may find the following pdf to be too tin-foil hat for your taste, but it makes some very interesting points about the shift from weapons that go BANG to weapons that are displayed on a TV screen.

    Click to access SILENT%20WEAPONS%20for%20QUIET%20WARS.pdf

    Consider the current COVID vaccine chaos. Is it a treatment to keep people healthy, or is a genocidal poison? Imagine it is a bioweapon — not the virus, but the vaccine. What better way to win a war than to convince your enemy to commit suicide? Sun Tzu would be jealous.

  35. YMMV says:

    @The True Nolan, clearly we are talking about two different concepts of wars.

    For wars with actual physical weapons, this list may not be the best but it gives something concrete: — few of those are fighting another country with a decent army. Mostly those wars fall into the guerrilla war category, which we do not do well. And if you think of BLM, Antifa, etc like that, we do not do well with that either.

    I think you are more focussed on the war the Deep State is fighting against citizens, with the help of Davos, Soros, UN, WHO, and so on. As you almost said, we fought WW2 and Deep State won. Nazi, Commie, same thing, Totalitarianism, and we mostly did not notice.

    But back to Woke … When did we notice that “sex” became “gender”? The story of how that happened is incredible:
    You might want to read the one before that too:

  36. The True Nolan says:

    @YMMV I think the the shifts in hardware mirror shifts in mindset. We talk about “generations of warfare” where WWII is 3rd generation and the insurgent guerillas are 4th generation. As you say, we are still fighting 3rd gen war against 4th gen opponents. But 4th gen is effective not only because of the mobility and inexpensive hardware. It is effective because the mindset of the 3rd gen prevents its hardware from being utilized effectively. For example, the 4th gen Afghanis have (no matter how we try to finagle the words) defeated both the Soviets and the US, the two most powerful 3rd gen armies in the world, and yet either army could have completely defeated the Afghanis in 30 minutes by the use of overwhelming nuclear attack. Can’t kill the insurgents? Just kill everyone. The 3rd gen hardware was capable of winning, but the ethical and legal entanglements made a simple win impossible. If Genghis Khan (1st gen) had nukes, he would have used them and then had a good night’s sleep. The shift in military strategies is not just a shift in hardware, but is a shift in hardware AND mindset which is triggered by the opposing hardware AND mindset. I think there is every reason for 4th gen to become more popular, and with the increasing uses of small inexpensive drones combined with 3D printing, 4th gen become even more powerful. So what will be the reasonable response to 4th gen? What will the 5th gen war be like? Since the growth of digital info (yes, even in places like Afghanistan) makes 4th gen more effective, I would think that digital info might be the weak link, the Achilles Heel of 4th gen. 5th gen might attack the insurgents not by things that go BOOM but by ideals like “violence never solved anything” or “one government is just as good as another”. Or maybe 5th gen will seek to destroy the social cohesion which allows 4th gen insurgence to hide out, to disappear in the crowd “like fish swimming in the ocean” as Mao phrased it. Maybe streaming movies and news which show multicultural, gender flexible, atheistic plot lines. 4th gen only survives when it has some level of public acceptance.

    You are absolutely correct that we have been stupidly fighting WWII against insurgents. (Maybe the biggest reason is that the war was not really meant to be won, but rather to generate vast profits for the politically and economically well connected. If that is the case, then we can say that the war in Afghanistan has been an overwhelming success!) And you are equally correct that small and fast can often (not always!) beat big and slow — but I doubt that even small and fast insurgents will win forever. There are already other forms of warfare waiting in the wings. In fact, I think that some of those forms are already in regular use all around us. Just my opinion…

    Oh, those articles about John Money? CREEPY guy, and a really good example of the weaponization of ideas. Maybe he had his own personal motivations, but one can easily imagine a more sinister scenario where such ideas are injected into the public by larger powerful groups (not necessarily other nations) behind the scenes.

  37. Steve C says:

    The mention of John Money (and yes, I recall his name was everywhere in the “sex change” literature for years) reminded me of an article I transcribed from a magazine about 25 years ago, below.

    My own interest in the subject was piqued in my late teens by newspaper reports of the life & times of April Ashley, a former sailor who “transitioned” in the sixties – more interest arising from the discovery later that the surgeon who did her deed was a (genetic) female who had gone the other way. April went on to marry a minor aristocrat, though when he later realised the implications for the continuation of his line he had the marriage annulled, the judge declaring that Ashley was a man. (She went on to have a fair old life, and was certainly not in danger of becoming a TS suicide.)

    This article was the first I’d seen which suggested that there were actual physical differences between transsexual men and normal men, though it still remained unclear whether the difference arose pre- or post-treatment. Any errors in transcription are wholly mine, and apologies for the length of this comment.


    Brain differences found in sex change “men”
    David Concar
    New Scientist, 4 November 1995

    Men who have sex change operations may be acting on a deep-seated urge “programmed” into the very fabric of the brain, according to a study of brain tissue from transsexuals who left their bodies to science. Dick Swaab and his colleagues at the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research in Amsterdam say they have identified a brain structure that varies in size between ‘normal’ men and men driven to change sex.

    Swaab and his colleagues believe their finding could explain why some men have such strong feelings of being born the wrong sex. All other attempts to find a biological basis for transsexuality have drawn a blank. Previous studies have reported brain differences between men and women and between gay men and heterosexual men. But this research is the first attempt to explain transsexuality in terms of brain structure. The findings will reopen the debate about the potential pitfalls – social as well as scientific – of seeking simple biological explanations for things as complex as sexual identity.

    The researchers examined slices of brain tissue from 42 people; including six who were born male but changed sex later in life with the help of plastic surgery and “feminising” hormones such as oestrogen. Only one major difference came to light between the brains of normal males and those who had changed sex. A tiny cluster of cells known as the “bed nucleus of the stria terminalis”, or BST, was half the size in transsexual men as it was in normal men. The same cluster is usually smaller in women than in men. In effect, the transsexuals had a female-sized BST.

    Swaab and his colleagues, whose results appear in the current issue of Nature, believe that the size of the cluster may influence what sex people think they are. But they stress that it has no bearing on sexual orientation. Some transsexuals in the study had slept with men, others with women. Yet all had “feminine” BSTs.

    The researchers do not know whether women who change sex have masculine BSTs, or whether feminine BSTs cause transsexuality in men. The small size of the brain structure could be caused by other biological events linked to transsexuality.

    Nor is it clear how or when BSTs become feminised in the brains of transsexuals. One possibility is that it happens after the decision to change sex has been made, as a result of hormone treatment. Swaab’s group says this is unlikely because some transsexuals had stopped taking oestrogen and their BSTs had not returned to their former size. They suggest instead that fluctuations in the hormones that affect foetuses in the uterus are more likely to affect the size of the BST.


    Re the mention of the BSTs not returning to their former size on cessation of oestrogen treatment, there seems no reason that they should: a man taking oestrogen for awhile will grow breasts, but if he stops, the breasts remain. Similarly, a woman taking testosterone will grow the beard and body hair (and her voice will break), but again the effects remain if the hormone treatment is stopped. Once these things (beards, boobs, etc) are triggered, they remain, either way. What complex creatures we are!

  38. E.M.Smith says:

    Nature sets out to create females. Testosterone, at the right time during fetal development, shifts the development to create a male. This includes both the physical parts and changes of the brain. IF at that time, you give the male fetus an estrogen flood and / or suppress the testosterone and / or the fetal genome is defective at making the needed testosterone receptors, you get “not a man child”. The degree of this varies with the individual, the location of any defect (whole body or just the brain) in the testosterone receptors and the amount of any hormonal flux.

    This has been known for a long time. (Very old memory for me for learning it. 1970s? 80s?). There have been animal experiments done to prove it up. There have been human studies on individuals of various “issues”. In at least one case (in the text I was reading at the time) a “woman” presented with reproduction issues. She had essentially most of the expected parts, but… On genetic examination they found she was XY but lacking a testosterone receptor. This meant her “ovaries” were actually testes and nothing was going to work right. In another case, an XY and anatomically male person was found to have defective brain receptors for testosterone. IIRC in a third case, an anatomically male XY patient was found to have been exposed to an estrogen flood in the womb and was “confused” about gender… I think this was from my older sister’s Abnormal Psychology book that I read when she came home from college one summer… It’s at least 40 year old memory, so could be a bit off on details.

    As nature is both 1) Never perfect and 2) Likes to experiment: I would fully expect a reasonably large part of the population to have “oddities” of all sorts with nature testing if deleting a particular mechanism still works and it can save the energy, or not.

    With that said: I’ve frequently said “Boy, Girl, or Doorknob, if something rubs things the right way it will feel good.” Being confused about that fact probably causes as much angst as actual biochemical issues (in that I’d expect a whole lot more “normal” types to be faced with the fact that it feels good regardless… and then wonder about themselves.) I expect Sex Robots to exacerbate this trend and the effects…

    So “bottom line”: It is well known that there ARE sex linked differences in male and female brains, and that at a key step in the fetal development a Testosterone Flood happens that makes a male brain. Anything that interferes with that step results in a “less male” to “non-male” brain. Is that the same as the BST? I have no idea. It may be more diffuse and the BST is just one little part they found showing the effect.

  39. cdquarles says:

    Old school here, and backing up what our most gracious host has said. If you have at least one Y, you are male, regardless of what you look or feel like. If you don’t have a Y, you are female, regardless of what you look or feel like. Developmental anomalies/birth defects are *accidents* that happen occasionally. There is no need (except politically) to upset nature’s applecart, here. There are two sexes for the sexually reproducing species known as humans. There are three genders that apply to inanimate objects or concepts such as parts of speech. The rest is a psychological operation designed to destroy the current culture, and thus, society.

    The bed nucleus is just a part of this system. Steroid hormones are powerful chemicals that are part of what allows growth and development of multicellular vertebrate animals, particularly mammalian ones. They affect gene expression and regulation, among other things.

  40. YMMV says:

    I’m with cdquarles on this, but nature is messy. Besides XX and XY there is also (rare) XYY and XXY, but even ignoring that, nature is messy. (Those would be good pronouns, XX and XY).

    I can see why the IOC essentially gave up on this.

    Click to access 2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

    1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.
    2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
    2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
    2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).
    2.3. The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
    2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months.

    Note: they do not say it, but it is said by others elsewhere that that testosterone level is five times higher that what is usual for a woman.

    The other thing they do not say here, but do make clear elsewhere, is that no surgery or chemical treatments are required to transition, for human rights reasons. Wikipedia has the interesting history of sex verification at the Olympics here:
    It was so messy they gave up. Like so (2015): “The ruling found that there was insufficient evidence that testosterone increased female athletic performance.”

    Variations in pairings of inherited chromosome, other genetic aspects, and pre- and postnatal physical development at subcellular to organ levels mean some people are not unambiguously female or male. Fetuses start out as undifferentiated, then the SRY gene ( which is usually—but not always—located on the Y chromosome) turns on a variety of hormones that differentiate by the time of birth the newborn as a male baby. But sometimes this differentiation does not occur while other times the SRY gene is located on a different chromosome: People with two X chromosomes can develop hormonally or phenotypically as a male; and people with an X and a Y can develop hormonally or phenotypically as a female.

    They say the devil is in the details. Sometimes you don’t want to look too closely.

    This has got attention recently because of Gavin/Laurel Hubbard. He/she competes in the 87 kg class. I looked at photos of the other women in that class. Hmmm. He/she is going to need all the testosterone advantage he can get.

  41. jim2 says:

    Anyone allowed in women’s showers, spas, dressing rooms or such like must not have a penis or balls. Just sayin’.

  42. YMMV says:

    It’s a brave new world, scratch that, crazy new world.

    the AMA’s Board of Trustees has recommended that all American birth certificates identify new babies only as “X,” with the biological sex kept in a secret place for record-keeping

    In Canada, you are whatever you say you are. In prisons even.
    In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to make sure transgender inmates are placed in prisons based on their gender identity.
    “in December 2017, the CSC adopted an interim policy of placing transgender inmates according to their preference, “regardless of their anatomy (sex) or gender on their identification documents, unless there are overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.”

    Guess what. the (real) women inmates don’t like it.
    Shortly after Bill C-16 was passed, a simple affirmation of identity as a woman — no surgery, no hormones, just a pronoun change — became sufficient to request, and usually get, a transfer.
    Gender identity has become a sacrosanct principle in Canada, with trans inclusivity privileged over sex-based security claims. Transwomen with a history of violent crime are not disqualified for transfer, even though we have no evidence that an individual’s psychopathology disappears with a change of gender identity. A serial pedophile; a serial sex offender; a contract killer; a child killer; a murderer: All have been approved for Canadian women’s prisons or halfway houses.

  43. yarpos says:

    Re that Twitter war between the critic and that outstanding character actor Brie Larson , it was very likely The Critical Drinker on Youtube. A very funny Scot with an incisive view on story telling and a willingness to call out BS and lack of talent when he sees it. Low hanging fruit , I think they call it.

  44. Steve C says:

    ^^^ I wonder how many female prisoners self identify as male so they can enjoy doing their time in a men’s prison …

  45. E.M.Smith says:


    I do like Critical Drinker… But I think it was The Quartering. I need to find the video he did on it…

  46. YMMV says:

    “Oh, and never get into a knife fight with a woman. If she knows what she’s doing, there’s little hope for big and slow over small, fast and slashing.”

    Well, that didn’t take long, the end game in Afghanistan.

    The U.S. and allied soldiers didn’t really have any substantial motivation to fight. Their enemy, the Taliban, had a clear motivation: Allah and everything that this cruel medieval superstitious šit contains. The result of the war in Afghanistan couldn’t have been different. Like the U.S. itself, the puppet government of Afghanistan – and it has been unquestionably a correct description of that “official government” that collapsed today – wasn’t really willing too hard or sacrifice much.

    The Taliban was ready to sacrifice a lot, including their lives, and their advances accelerated in recent days. A much smaller army of poor, lo-tech fighters has defeated the world’s largest and most hi-tech army. Hours ago, the puppet president resigned, evacuated Afghanistan, and the Taliban announced that it also controls the Presidential Palace. They plan a full-blown Taliban government, with no transitional intermezzo.

    The only problem with this is that it implies that Afghanistan is a country. It’s not. The Brits drew a line on a map, but that doesn’t unite those different and isolated ethnic cultures into a country. “puppet president” is correct. This video does a good job of explaining all that.

    Or alternatively, the 1975 movie “The Man Who Would Be King”
    (Rudyard Kipling, John Huston, Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer)

    Back to Motl (link above):

    However, things quickly began to evolve in wrong directions. First, I became very dissatisfied with the political correctness of politicians including George W. Bush. That guy basically refused to articulate the essential and unquestionably correct fact that it was primarily an attack of (radical) Islam against the West and its values. Second, the transformation of Afghanistan wasn’t making clear advances and I abruptly became certain that almost no one in Afghanistan actually wanted a regime of the Western type (and it’s just wrong and futile to try to impose something on populaces that just don’t want the gift). Third, it was getting extremely costly – the total expenses have surpassed one trillion dollars which, as far as I can say, is much greater than the market price of Afghanistan and everything it contains (including the inhabitants).

    And ex-president Karzai recently commented:

    The invasion of the US-led coalition in Afghanistan back in 2001, after the tragedy of 9/11, was welcomed by a significant part of the Afghan population that wanted to free themselves from “extremism and violence” of Taliban rule, Karzai said.

    The support of the locals was one of the factors that led to America’s “immediate success” in its war against Taliban. “We began to look forward with tremendous hopes,” the former Afghan president said. Yet, these hopes were dashed by the US troops and the way Washington conducted its ‘war on terror,’ he believes.

    The US actions also shattered all hope for political reconciliation during the times that his own government was in power, Karzai recalled. He explained that his cabinet gave many former Taliban fighters a pardon and that had convinced them to settle down and start a new, peaceful, life.

    “Then, the US suddenly began to attack the Taliban homes and attack villages – and they forced them to flee the country. It was this violence against the Afghan people in the name of fighting the Taliban that led me to calling the Taliban our brothers,” the former president said. “Things went wrong. They began to re-emerge and the part of the population went with them.”

    One thing you can say about the Taliban: they will not have that “now what?” moment when they realize they have won. They already know exactly what they will do to govern the country. And now it will be a country.

  47. Under Taliban rule, women in Afghanistan will be treated worse than cattle.

    But you will not see North American feminists lifting one finger about it, they only care about themselves.

    The more we punish men to please feminists, the more feminists complain this world is a patriarchy and we need to do more for women.

    North American feminists are the most pampered, most coddled women in the history of the world, yet the more we give to them, the more they complain that they are oppressed.

    North American feminists are a joke, but a sad one… that is contributing to the destruction of Western Civilization.

    One day in the future when historians look at the many factors that caused the fall of Western Civilization, they will have to admit feminism was one of the major factors.

    An emasculated feminized male population bossed around by irrational spoiled rotten angry b****es cannot keep a civilization strong for very long.

    Just compare military recrutment tv ads from Russia and China to those of the USA.

    Feminism – one of the many heads of the leftism monster – is slowly killing us.

  48. E.M.Smith says:

    Leave it to Motl…. “šit” a Czech word that is pronounced “Shit”…

    Oh, and “The Man Who Would Be King” is an excellent movie. I just love it. One of the few I can watch repeatedly.

  49. Steve C says:

    Re. Toxic CRT. I don’t know about “The Counter Revolution Underway” – I just came across this on Occidental Observer, from a couple of days ago: “What we’re up against: White liberals rejoice at Whites becoming a minority”. Warning: Powerful emetic.
    There are a LOT of seriously brainwashed “useful idiots” out there. It’s gonna have to be one hell of a counter revolution.

Comments are closed.