Nature, Tooth, claw And All

Yesterday, by accident, at night, I read about the barbaric things done to women in Israel by the Hamass terrorist attack on 10/7. I enjoin you not to follow that link, if you don’t want my nightmares last night.

And I woke up and was thinking… well, about a lot of things.

The only thing unusual about the way Hamass treated those women (and children) is that they killed most of them. Unusual, I mean from an historical perspective.

I was thinking of the rape of the Sabines, upon which the founding of Rome rested. Bunch of young braves, (given Romulus and Remus’s origin probably expelled from some community for being outlaws) claims land, then kills all men in a neighboring tribe and kidnaps every woman: crone, pregnant mother, young woman, barely pubescent child, rapes them and sometimes — sometimes — marries them. “Marries” them.

There are certain beats to this horror throughout history. And variables. Whether old women are killed is a variable. How young the age of “women” kidnapped is another. We know for a fact Plains Indians kidnapped girls as young as 6 and subjected them to the same treatment as all women. The horrific beats of this treatment included beatings, starving and serial rapes. It might or might not include the killing of the first child born. (Why? well, because it could be the woman’s murdered husband’s.) And everyone was subjected to this, from very young to very old.

The purpose, evolutionary was to break these women, to give them what was later described as Stockholm syndrome, so that they would, by the time they were given to a single man, cling to him as a protector and give him all their loyalty. So that they became willing broodmares for those who had killed their own families in front of them.

These stories are no longer told. Not the deep past ones because women have been lied to and told of some mythical past of powerful women who could have whatever men they wanted and no one was “judged.” (Oh, and there was no property, etc.) Marina Gimbutas should take a bow for her fraudulent insane theory of pre-history here. You know, the one where all the bulls heads were interpreted as uteri and she sold the story of a great, pacifist feminist religion, which somehow — inexplicably — was destroyed by the evil patriarchy, even though every one, men and women were much happier under matriarchy. (Everyone who really, really, really wants the crazy people to stop rewriting Eden and calling it science join me. We’re going to throw plastic ducks at them till they stop. This might stop us having to buy a fleet of helicopters. In minecraft.)

And even the relatively recent incidents in American history are never mentioned, because that would be raccciiiiiis. They were neither rare nor did they use to be hidden. If you check your local library you’ll probably find some in the older local history books. But they are so taboo to even be mentioned that some young twit on twittex was talking about how there was no rape in the Americas before the white men came. White men invented rape.

In a way she’s correct, but only so far as the concept of rape demands the acceptance of women as beings who can say no and have personal agency. This was utterly unknown for most people’s throughout history until the advent of Judaic-Christian morality and it was surpassingly rare until Western Civilization became a thing. And therefore there was no “rape” because you can’t rape a table or a chair, and women were perceived as things, just as those objects are things.

I’m fairly sure this is still going on in most of the world, where tribal culture prevails, but again, it would never be mentioned, because “racism.”

(And yes, as the dog returns to his vomit and the sow to her mire, someone will come to explain to me that the poorly understood and less well known culture xyz of the deepest Amazon had in fact the deepest respect for women and– Maybe. But that’s not the way to bet. In the immense variety of the human race, it’s bound to have emerged and disappeared a few times. But for any given culture until western Civ, that’s not the way to bet.)

But it actually has zero to do with race. It’s all culture. ALL culture. And it’s baseline human, before Western civilization.

Because that’s fairly recent, insofar as the history of the world goes, you probably are descended from at least 25% of such couplings, regardless of where you’re from. Given my ancestry and the wars involved, probably more.

The fact that women are weaker, men are stronger and that women are the only ones who can bear that precious commodity: the next generation, sets us up for this dynamic. To be fair to most human cultures throughout history, aka tribal cultures, men weren’t exactly non-objects either. A few of the men, the ones who managed to rise above the others might have agency and be considered human beings, but anyone who was poor, vulnerable, or just not part of the tribe, was a thing, to be disposed of or pushed around as it suited his “betters.” (Our “betters” still think this way.) And it had nothing to do with patriarchy that women rarely (though sometimes, but very rarely) made the class of deciders and pushers-around. It had to do with physical strength, in a day and age where everything from producing food to defending yourself depended on that.)

That is the state of nature — human nature — red in tooth and claw. If you were a woman you were always, your whole life, at risk of a raid, and having your entire family and community destroyed, and being subjected to a fate literally worse than death.

We’ve risen above it in pockets of time and places here and there, by effort and civilization. Western civilization.

But we’re teaching innocent children — particularly females — the opposite of that. We’re teaching them that if they help destroy the civilization that protects them and makes their lives peaceful, and allows them the dignity and choice that humans should have is the oppressor. We’re teaching them that if they destroy it, they will revert to Eden, where everyone was free, didn’t have to work and there was no sin.

And with what glee these pampered daughters of good and plenty have set to work.

Teach the children well. Not tenderly, but well. Which includes making them aware of the horrors of the past.

Lest they come again.

259 thoughts on “Nature, Tooth, claw And All

  1. The disservice and betrayal of the young by manipulative elders teaching the nonsense you mentioned, should be treated as any other form of child abuse.

        1. If you think that you, or anyone else, is “oppressed” in the USA, you need to stop dropping bathtub acid.

          Idiot.

        2. I’m just saying that if we used their rules instead of ours, we wouldn’t be in the trouble we’re in now. The left has completely betrayed the social contract. So now to keep them from destroying the world we’ll have to likely do worse than my suggestion for the past.

    1. And it’s usually taught by people who have no real idea how hard it is to farm, or gather and hunt enough to not die in winter, or be easy prey for a sickness because you’re hungry and weak.

  2. That idiot James Cameron (creator of Avatar) apparently believes that pre-historical human women hunted game as much as their male counterparts. 😆

    Of course, they did this while pregnant and rearing children. [Sarcastic Grin]

      1. I wanted to say that that Utopia was supposed to be satire… But then I wasn’t sure If I’d actually read it, or some other similar book from the same era.

        1. It sounds like there is some debate over whether it was intended as satire or not. It also sounds like it became popular after More’s death, so it sound alike he did not speak to that.

          But when Mom was in school it was presented seriously.

        2. Etymologically, it means “no place.” If he had prefixed it EU-topia, then it would have been “good place.” Eu (also pronounced “you”) as in eustress, for instance, indicated beneficence.

          At least theoretically. He was an educated person who would have known the difference between the prefixes, and one presumes his intended audience would have as well. On the other hand, spelling wasn’t exactly standardized at that time, so who knows.

    1. James Cameron is an Artist. Anything within his Art is something that he knows very, very well.

      The problem is that outside of his Art…he knows very little. If anything at all.

        1. Only good part of the movie was the ‘villain’ played by Stephen Lang.

          A song from Tim Curry could have elevated it even more, but that would be too self-aware.

          (That was a reference to Hexxus from Ferngully)

  3. Sometimes, when the black dog is barking loud, I hope for these white woke liberal women to live under the rules their oppressed pets would force on them.

    But I have daughters who aren’t woke and if those “oppressed” barbarian scum get anywhere close to forcing their “rules” on my family, it’s utter total war, and that would happen well before the woke idiot moron women would get a taste of their “utopia”.

    1. Frankly, “white collar liberals” would be a more accurate targeting shorthand. Blue collar liberals have different failure states, as do conservatives of any flavor.

      The Progressives are giving folks bad habits, it’ll bite us if we don’t keep an eye out.

  4. I’ve studied enough history and biology to know that outside of a few very rare circumstances, women’s lives prior to Judeo-Christian civilization and Western civilization in particular…well, “nasty, brutal, and short” is an understatement.

    How common “death in childbirth” was, even if it wasn’t “helped” a little.
    Almost unrelenting day-in, day-out labor. It wasn’t as brutal as male labor, but it was often very consistent. And continuous.
    In most times (including the Arab/Islamic world today), two dozen camels or a good destrider are worth more than a young woman.
    Oh, and rape. Can’t forget every flavor of that kind of abuse, including spousal rape.
    Killing and crippling/maiming of recently-married women by their families to keep the dowry and have them marry another woman (I remember hearing about this in India, but I’ve also heard stories like this from China and Japan).
    Sutee and similar “honor killings” of “unnecessary” widows that are semi-condoned by many civilizations.

    And far too many women have been taught that these eras were the time of the mythical and beautiful matriarchy where women ruled men and “let” the big, nasty brutish men think they had power…

    Fools.
    Idiots.
    And…I can’t help but feel sympathy for them when the real world hits them in the face.

    (Interestingly…stories that a number of the people still being held by Hamas were the guests of honor at multiple gang rapes are popping up a bit, then dropping off the radar. I wonder why…)

    1. Our own government has suggested that one of the reasons why Hamas stopped releasing hostages was because the women still being held were raped repeatedly, and Hamas doesn’t want them spreading the word.

        1. The silence from the so-called feminist groups is deafening, and when they do say anything, it is the “believe all women” crowd denouncing the women raped by Hamas as liars. In other words, the feminist groups are Jew hating bigots who would have gladly helped the Nazis run the gas chambers.

          1. I understood how morally bankrupt the “feminist” movement was when it was proven that Bill Clinton had his way with Monica Lewinsky. Zero ambiguity or “he said, she said,” there was evidence, there was proof, and there was the example to be made that nobody was above the law.
            And most of the feminist groups, who would have organized a lynch mob if this was a Republican?
            Did.
            Nothing.
            In fact, they attacked anyone that tried to find out what was going on and to bring out the truth.
            …so, anybody that calls themselves a feminist is instantly lowered in my opinion.

        2. There are Ham-Ass supporters on TikTok and ‘renamed but totally still Twitter’ spewing that October 7 was a Jewish hoax. Either none of it ever happened, or the Jooos raped and murdered their own women and children just so they could blame it on the pore innocent Palestinians.

          And they’re not getting laughed off the Intertubes.

          Such beliefs are literally unthinkable for decent, civilized folks, but not for the Leftroids.

          1. It must be frustrating to be Hamas. “Look at this awesome piece of Jew-killing we did. Yeah!!!! We rule!!!”

            Westerners: “We know it was really in Israeli conspiracy”

            Hamas: “Wait – what?”

      1. The world is divided into those who know already and those who refuse to listen.

        More likely they wanted to go back to fighting.

    2. During their time in India the British came up with a simple solution to this conflict between the two cultures:
      “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”
      General Sir Charles James Napier

      1. These days I prefer Vlad the Impaler’s response to the Turks when they did not remove their head-coverings in his presence because it was their custom not to: “Let this strengthen your customs, and keep them in your own lands where they belong.”

        Then he nailed the head-coverings to the heads.

    3. — And…I can’t help but feel sympathy for them when the real world hits them in the face. —

      That’s one of my few consolations.

  5. I remember listening to a series of clasp la Greek culture and social structure and the lecture touched on a legal proceeding that had been illustrative of how things were structured.

    The case was a man had caught another man in the act of having an affair with his wife and had beaten him to death. A lot of the case actually revolved around why the wife was sleeping in the front of the house instead of in the back where she would have been inaccessible. Turns out she had just had a baby, and was complaining of being in enough pain that the walk down all the stairs to reach and nurse the baby was too much for her, so they’d temporary moved her bed out of the women’s quarters into a front area without any stairs between her and the newborn. Which was why it was easy for the guy to get in from the street and into where she was.

    I’m listening to this and thinking, “Wait, if she just had a kid in a difficult birth and was still in a lot of pain, hth is she carrying on an affair?” As near as I could tell from the description, there was no particular affair, it was just some guy walked in off the street and started doing it, until the husband caught him and popped his head off. Her agency wasn’t even a point of consideration to the entire proceeding.

    1. There’s a place in the law of Moses where if a man and woman are found having sex (or the man is raping her) in a town, both are to be killed because the woman could have called for help. If the rape takes place in the country, the woman was spared and the man executed, because the people were to assume she screamed but noone heard her.
      Interesting.

      1. There’s also the follow-up question that many of us ask about the “woman caught in adultery” incident in the New Testament – i.e. they caught the woman (“in the very act”, we’re told), but where was the man? He was also supposed to be stoned to death.

      2. @ DorothyDimock – another remarkable law from Moses, which you will not find in any other “primitive” culture, is in Deuteronomy
        21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

    2. The Code of Hammurabi has some interesting laws regarding the treatment of women, and inheritance, and children, and suchlike. They get… surprisingly specific with some of the scenarios.

      The preface to the laws hold that they are for the protection of the weak against the strong, and to further the wellbeing of mankind.

      It seems to me that the the tone behind the laws is “This thing happens, it’s not conducive to good social order, so here’s the punishment intended to discourage it”; more than “This is an offence against gods and/or the natural order.”

  6. “I’m fairly sure this is still going on in most of the world, where tribal culture prevails, but again, it would never be mentioned, because “racism.”’

    Completely certain. Take a look at the nooz. Read between the lines. Like the bit of business with the “youths” over in France I think it was, and their little murder spree. Or the story about the immigrant that raped and murdered his Western “girlfriend”- that story has become so maddeningly common.

    I have utterly no doubts about this at all. Tribal culture is alive and well in much of the world outside the gaze of Western Civilization.

    Civilization is a fragile thing, but its foundations are steeped in blood and mountains of corpses. That foundation was ripped from the bloody claws of violent, immoral bastards. Not peace loving fairies and nymphs. Not noble savages. Not proud and moral and cultured natives. Western Civilization is de facto better.

    Respect of individual liberty. Property. Nation of laws. Limited government. Right to own weapons. Freedom of speech. Moral standards- real ones, not the false ghouls that prance around in the skins of respected institutions.

    Never in the history of the world has this strange alchemy existed. There have been hints, here and there. The Founders cribbed from every good idea that they could find. But nowhere else is the idea of liberty so firmly entrenched that the bastards are still driven mad by its very existence.

    Even the greatest foes of America are unconsciously steeped in the ideas of liberty that they grew up with. Not that they would extend them to you of course. But the ideas are there. They are out there in the world as well.

    Why else would everyone want to come here? Sure, there’s the economic opportunity. That draws all sorts. But why stay? Why make this home?

    Because freedom is intoxicatingly good. And a crushing responsibility, besides. It feeds the soul and nourishes the character. It is better to be anyone in America than someone anywhere else. Our prisoners live better than the average dirt farmer in Africa, wage slave in China, or penniless peasant in Russia. Our poor people get fat. Our idiots get elected to high office…

    1. One of the states in western Germany has averaged a reported rape/day all of this year. Those are NOT native-born German males doing 98% of that. If it is a group? Not native Germans. The horror in Munich’s public garden park? Not native Germans. “In our culture it’s not illegal” has become the default defense, or so it seems some days.

    2. “That foundation was ripped from the bloody claws of violent, immoral bastards. Not peace loving fairies and nymphs. Not noble savages. Not proud and moral and cultured natives. Western Civilization is de facto better.”

      And even that took many pointed reminders.

      “Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing
      Wrenched it, inch and ell and all, slowly from the king.

      Till our fathers ‘stablished,, after bloody years,
      How our King is one with us, first among his peers.

      So they bought us freedom-not at little cost–
      Wherefore must we watch the King, lest our gain be lost.”

      https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/old_issue.html

      1. And the friendly looking ones can be the most dangerous of the “Good Folks” as humans (and others) might be fooled by their “harmless” appearance. 😈

      2. Neither does some of the left.
        Me, I take Poul Anderson’s vision to heart. It seems safer.

          1. He had several, but when he was writing fantasy, the fairies were beautiful, intelligent, soulless…and knew it. They could be good friends,or they could turn on a dime and betray you. What did they have to lose?

  7. Respect generally means recognizing power … and that is going to include harnessing that power.

    With the sex that forms and births the future of the race, that’s gonna be rather dehumanizing.

  8. There is an excellent historical author named Prit Buttar–not even a historian by profession, mind, but a retired German dentist–who has written a number of excellent books about the Eastern Front of WW II. Not exactly cheerful fiction, mind you, but they’re very clearly written, well-sourced, and not hard to follow. In particular, the one he wrote about the fall of East and West Prussia and Pomerania in 1944-45 goes into some depth about how exactly the Red Army treated the people they ran across….not just the Germans, but the Poles they were “liberating” along the way as well.

    Let’s just say the record of the rear-area units of the Red Army as they swept west from Moscow to west of Berlin is only rivaled by what the Japanese did to Nanjing, or what the Germans did as they swept east from Berlin to near Moscow–except the Germans, being obsessed with their “racial purity,” committed very few rapes (in fact, it was a capital offense to rape a “subhuman,” i.e., any Slav or Jew). The Soviets, who didn’t give a damn, committed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Oh, the higher-ups, Zhukov and Rokossovsky and Konev, did try to put a stop to it. For their front-line fighters, anyway. But the millions of rear-area soldiers were allowed to run wild. And what they did is not taught widely today because ONLY NAZIS WERE BAD but the Red Army could’ve taught the Einsatzgruppen a few things.

    1. There’s a reason why the memorial in Berlin to the Soviet Army was locally referred to as “To the Unknown Rapist.” The one in Vienna was called, “To the Unknown Looter,” at least when I asked. I suspect it had/has other names.

    2. I can’t seem to find it now, as all of the searches return with info about the official meeting. But I once read that the real first contact between US and Soviet troops in Europe happened before the famous Elbe River event. According to the story, some American troops mistakenly wandered into the Soviet zone. They found a village with a lot of dead civilians, and then met some Soviet troops. The Soviets weren’t actively hostile, but were decidedly unfriendly. The Americans realized their mistake, and withdrew from the area.

      Neither side mentioned it, as they wanted a big PR event, which they got with the handshake at the Elbe River

  9. I blame Feminism destroying stay at home motherhood and the downfall of the education system.

    When mom was able to be Room-Mother and volunteer, in and out of the classrooms etc, they knew what was going on.

    Also, sending women in wholesale lots to college meant they had to “use their degrees.”. And since women, by and large, gravitate to the humanities, they were able to get huge numbers of them indoctrinated.

    And then they had to work outside the home leaving kids at daycare where they learn to just listen to any adult in charge and not get family values from home.

    So NOW everyone has Stockholm Syndrome without the trauma of rapes. They believe what they are told to believe lest they be thrown out of the tribe.

    1. There is a books called The Two-Income Trap (and yes, Elizabeth Warren is one of the authors, but in this case she is writing in the area of her expertise.) The “trap” of the title is in treating two separate incomes as one large income, and then putting necessities such as housing or food on that greater income.

      It sounds backwards, but it’s economically safer to waste the safer income than it is to put necessities on it. That’s because with two incomes, there are two points of failure, not one. If you have one income for necessities and the other for fun, when things such as job loss, protracted illness, or injury happen, the second person can step up. Which is something they can’t do if their income is already encumbered.

      Think of that when you note how people with one income are pressured to get both partners in the workplace.

      Anyway. A “house spouse” of any stripe is more economically sound, even for childless couples. And once you get kids in the mix, oh yeah. The more kids, the more economically sound it is to have someone stay home with them.

      1. Yes. This is what saved us. Mostly because I made very little — although normal or above average for other writers at the time (look it up). The high mark when things were going well was about 12k a year until about 2008 — and it wasn’t regular. So we mostly used it for our “vacations” in Denver, books, movies and putting the kids in fun classes and such.
        Oh, and clothes.
        But when Dan was unemployed in 03, we could pay mortgage from several months for 7k for audio rights to my short stories from a now defunct company.

        1. That is what got us in ’02 – ’03. Not that we were living to both incomes. We weren’t. We were living to the higher income, which went away, suddenly. Up to then we were living to the “higher” salary income, minus 401(k) (once he had one). Using OT, and my income to stash in my 401(k), IRA’s, college fund, and finally savings for vacations or expenses. Latter which we never spent all of it. Did the same when we reversed (except my income was his salary + 20 hours/week OT). Which is why we survived without touching any of the accounts that triggered not only taxes when used, but penalties. Cut back all expenses (didn’t help that in ’03 – ’05 we had to support two households, even if the second household rent was the RV travel trailer hubby lived in, rental spot, VS apartment rent) that I could (we also bought a car for hubby to commute with, fuel savings paid for that).

          We were fine until severance (a joke) and unemployment ran out. Then it was $1k/month drain on regular bank savings (not even our outside already taxed saving account got touched, but it was close). Note, where he was assigned? Was 6 AM – 6 PM, 5 days a week. That is 4 hours, every day at OT rates. His net salary was still $1k/month less than what we needed (some of that could have been made up by stopping contribution to the 401(k), but not all). I was off from fall ’02 – winter ’04, when I finally got a job. Stopped the bleeding. Did not replace the former salary however and we now were relying on some of my salary, which made building up the losses, slower than we liked (as in never. OTOH 24 years VS the next 8 years at ’90 – 95 salary, to build it back up.)

          Yes. With all that. In hindsight, we were way, way, ahead of most caught up in the ’02 – ’03 crisis.

      2. Hubby and I raised 6 kids with one very small income. It was more important for me to stay home and raise the kids. And hubby was very adamant that if we started down the road of two paychecks we’d never be able to quit. I married him because he’s smart.

        To add a small amount to the family budget, I babysat and hubby did odd jobs, whatever we could find. And we made do.

        Had I been in the workforce, at least half our kids would have been sacrificed to the god of a paycheck.

        But yeah, I was a “traitor to my sex” because I wasn’t out making money for the “patriarchy”.

        I did go back to work after the kids were mostly raised. So we’re saving for retirement now like we couldn’t do before.

        Staying home with young children used to be a thing that mothers were encouraged to do.

        Back when young children were considered important and not something to sacrifice lest they get between you and “Your goals”.

      3. It is a trap, and a damaging one. I’ve viewed it as such for a long time. It makes couples feel compelled to both bring in a large paycheck to support their lifestyle, and thus makes it impossible for one of them to properly raise their kids.

    2. @ SusanM > “I blame Feminism destroying stay at home motherhood”

      https://babylonbee.com/news/mormon-family-proud-oinks-one-income-nine-kids

      IOWA CITY, IA — On the other end of the spectrum from “DINK” (Dual Income No Kids) families, local Mormon parents Logan and Stacy Jensen have proudly claimed the rare title of “OINKs”, meaning a family with one income and nine kids.

      “We’re just living the OINK dream,” said Stacy. “Our lives overflow with life, laughter, and Costco peanut butter. It’s a beautiful thing.”

      According to sources, the couple had considered stopping at eight kids, but the term OIEK just did not make any sense. “It doesn’t roll off the tongue at all,” said Logan. “We’re so thankful we had what’s-her-face and made it to OINK-land.”

      Though a rarity in modern culture, sociologists say OINKs were quite common up until a few decades ago. “In some sense, in the traditional subsistence farming culture, most families were ‘NINKs‘ – meaning no income and nine kids,” explained sociologist Amy McGrath. “During the Great Depression, we saw TINKs as wives and children were forced into the workforce, creating three-income families. In years past, being a DINK by choice would have been a shameful thing. The stability of NINKs can devolve to TINKs, but no one ever imagined it would lead to DINKs.”

      At publishing time, the Jensen family had sat down to a greater feast of blessing than any voluntary DINK could ever imagine.

      Note the emphasis on “voluntary,” as I know many people who would have loved having more, or any, kids.
      And many who were double-working couples through necessity.
      But as a former IT professional who retired to become a full-time mother (making us OIFK), the gist of the post is sound.

      1. Absolutely, there is a huge difference between not being blessed with as many kids as wanted and deliberately killing off the blessings one is offered.

        The difference in mindset is huge.

        I remember the shock I felt when a woman told me about how disgusted she was with her daughter for not getting an abortion and killing off her first grandchild because it would affect her daughter’s “whole life” and how much she still resented that grandkid over a decade later. Her daughter was a happy stay at home mom with 5 kids. But she was “wasting” her degree.

          1. A grandma who better be in good health until she doesn’t wake up in the morning. Forget not getting visits to the nursing home (that definitely will happen). She’ll be warehoused in the absolutely worse existing cheapest nursing situation that can be found. Or just put out onto the streets.

            Let me guess. This is a grandmother who complains “they never visit, never invite me over”. Well duh.

            My MIL wasn’t this far bad, but I did see how they treated their other grandchildren (at least 3 of the 5 didn’t have to see them regularly, they were 1000,-ish, miles away). Then she complained, the entire visit, when we brought our son by that “she didn’t get to see him as much as my mom did”. Well duh. Mom is a mile away. MIL was 100 miles. Plus, interaction was maybe 15 – 30 minutes, of the hour or two we tried to stay, every weekend until moved her in with daughter, then once a month. Those minutes were newborn – toddler minutes. Didn’t help when son went through his “stranger danger” phase, either. Funny however he never screamed in terror when we would go to my sister & BIL house, where he could play with his cousin, afterwards, on the same monthly trip.

  10. The only reason these Liberal/Marxists are angry is because they wish they were the ones doing the raping. That includes the Liberal women, why? Because all they are is hate. I personally wish them nothing but Karma and an eternity of burning in hell. In all truth, nothing can compare to the evil they are doing to the world today, and no punishment is too great. If you don’t want to kill them, put the fuckers in zoos. I would also like to burn their universities down around their ears with them still inside.

    1. What gets to me is the women – women in positions of power – calmly telling their fellow women they are evil bigots for not accepting “trans women,” beating them in competition. They should “lose gracefully,” rather than insist women’s sports be limited to biological women.

      1. Queen Bee women are very hateful to every other woman.

        The sooner a young lady learns to ignore the mean girls, the better.

      2. It’s a weird throwback to subservience as a female virtue. But the Left is consistent that way – intersectionality means women must always bow down to other “oppressed identities” in order to be good allies.

  11. Reading about the horrific treatment of Israeli women and children on October 7th reminded me … after I got over being sick to my stomach … of what raiding Comanche war parties did to Texan and Mexican families in the 18th and 19th centuries. Pretty much the same orgiastic killing, rape, torture, looting. Gang rape of women, taking hostages now and again ransomed, or sold as slaves to other tribes. When the last of the warrior Comanche were finally run to ground and forced to surrender and go to the Reservation, the Army commander who led the force ordered that their food stocks be destroyed, and their horse herd run off the cliffs. That was it for the last wild Comanche – no food, no horses, they had to surrender or their families would starve.
    Very few Texans felt all that sorry. They had fought a bloody fifty-year long war against the Comanche, and the Mexicans for even longer. I won’t weep for the Poor Pitiful Palestinians for much the same reason.
    There is one rather nasty footnote to the Comanche custom of gang-raping captive women, in order to break their resistance. (TH Fehrenbach made note of this in his history of the Comanche.) It is surmised that on several occasions, a war party gang-banged a woman with VD. And then brought the disease back to their home village, where it infected their wives. It was a hard enough life for the wild Comanche, and now it meant that their women were infertile. This was one of the reasons they kept and adopted captive children, now and again – because their birth rates were catastrophically low.
    This is usually omitted from current Indian-sympathetic literature.

    1. Another fact omitted from current Indian-sympathetic literature is that “Comanche” technically isn’t the tribe’s name. They called themselves “Nʉmʉnʉʉ” which translates to “The People” or “The Human Beings.”

      Comanche is the Spanish bastardization of the Ute’s name for the tribe: “Kɨmantsi,” which translates to “Enemy.” And that’s how most every other Native tribe referred to the Comanche, as “The Enemy.” And from everything I’ve read about them, they more than earned the title.

      1. Most tribal cultures refer to themselves as, “The People.” That generally makes everyone else and “other,” and the closer ones are usually referred to as “enemy of some sort.” The other “others” generally are referred to by some sort of description, such as, “the ones who live in mud houses,” or, “the fat heads,” etc,

        1. China’s name for itself quite literally is “Middle Kingdom”. And that’s not used in a way similar to Tolkien’s Middle-Earth. It means that China is the center of the world.

          1. Try “Central Kingdom”

            “Middle” is a grotesque western mistranslation.

            It helps to understand that the “non center” isn’t “edge” but more like “poop”.

            Now it is better understood.

        2. I enjoyed Diane Duane’s variants when she did her Romulan ST books. The Romulans called humans, “Them, from There,” and Klingons were, “More of Them, from Somewhere Else.”

      2. I just did a quick search on how tribes got their names & found the following:
        The name Sioux is an abbreviation of Nadouessioux (“Adders”; i.e., enemies), a name originally applied to them by the Ojibwa.
        The word, “Navajo,” is likely derived from the Pueblo peoples, meaning “enemies of the cultivated fields.”
        Many of the eastern tribes labels for “Americans” was the same as “big knives” or “long knives”
        My tribe’s name for themselves is:
        Above label deliberately not entered since my tribe does not have their own written language and refuses to appropriate anyone else’s language in matters like this one.

    2. Puts rather a different twist on my Dad’s comedy novel about a French-Comanche named Pierre.

    3. The Comanche split off from the Shoshone, either because there was mutual agreement or because they were kicked out. The Shoshone were pretty orderly farmers, so the Comanche being so wild and hunt/war-oriented was a drastic societal change.

  12. I have a friend in her 20s. Her parents are from Bangladesh but she and her siblings were born and raised here. For a long time she was active in one or more online groups trying to get changes made in Bengali law because they have the bighest level of rapes per capita where numbers are reasonably reliable. They also have the 2nd highest for or bride murders. India is the hughest. She stopped the first when several of the old ladies at her mosque told her that someone was looking for her and there was a price on her head.
    She also got an arranged marriage wih some guy rom Bangladesh. After the one trip to meet and marry him she came back. H8s family lives way out in the boonies and want her to come visit. Her old network for the rapes gave her numbers. The area he is from has an unusually high number of young wives from the cities or overseas who fall downstairs 47 times. So she is married cannot divorce her husband the only boy in his generstion of all allngirls is living it up in the big city on his families money and refuses to come stateside….except if she gets a good enough job so he can atay home and go to school….
    There is a lot more and none of it good.

    1. I know a woman in an arranged marriage who is actually happy with her husband (he’s that rarity where he is genuinely a good fit for her and pretty Westernized), but is very much against the tradition in general because she Has Stories. And she knows very well how lucky she is with her spouse.

      1. I worked with two Indian folks who had arranged marriages happen while I worked with them, one guy and one woman, both engineers in SIlicon Valley. They, and the Indian coworkers who had gone through it before, all said it depended on how hard their family worked when they did the screening and selection process. They said they trusted their parents and insisted they could veto if they really had a problem, but all had stories of what happened when families didn’t do de diligence or got lazy or greedy.

        The guy, after a few years of marriage and kids here, ended up getting told he was moving back to India so his wife could have servants to keep their house and yard, the way she was raised. Seems like he’s still happy, and successful back there leveraging family connections no doubt, though he was originally not thrilled about not staying here.

        The woman seemed to treat it like a dating service, going through some large number of proposed candidates with her mom until the family and she settled on the one she married. No complaints echoed around to me through the grapevine about her.

        On the other hand I worked with Indian tech people who told me no freaking way would they go the arranged marriage route, even when some were getting pressure, “come home and meet so-and-so” – Not gonna. They were looking mostly in the Indian community here (though one married a blonde Swedish woman), but doing their own shopping thank-you-very-much.

    2. She could probably get a divorce under US law, in which case her male relatives would be expected to kill her.

      We’ve had several cases like that in DFW over the years, and I’m sure its under counted.

      1. Even under Bangladeshi law and Koranic law she can initiate a divorce as it has been over a year since he has touched her…..if they ever actually consumated. However, that is time and money….and he wouldnt have to return the bride price.
        This is the second time for her. The first time, at 18 she married an American who ‘converted’. He took the bride price and vanished. What information they found indicated that he had worked the scam many times under different names.
        So her family is probably not down with this…..saving face and all.
        Also she has a younger ‘brother’ the right age to have been hers from the first marriage. I think he is hers but again to save face her parents are raising him as their own.
        Anyway, its a mess.
        Her next younger sister also got married, to another American Muslim, who is black which shocked me because no matter what the Koran says most Muslims treat blacks as lower than animals. However, he grew up here and went to their mosque his whole life and has a good job so I guess it is working.
        I have two Nepalese coworkers who are also in arranged marriages. The one, I am fairly convinced is extremely abusive but it is all very circumstancial and they both quit. The second seems to be working very well, though she is extremely flirtatious or was until she had her baby, to the point where I think she is a pain for him.
        People.

    3. I know two women, decades apart, with identical stories: They met Muslim men in the ’70s who were here for graduate study (one Iranian, the other Egyptian). They were intelligent, educated, charming, and thoroughly Westernized. They got married and had children. When the older boys were about 10, the husbands suddenly developed a hitherto unexpressed desire that their sons meet the family back home, over summer vacation. They’d be gone 2 weeks, tops. In one case the wife went with them; when she realized that the husband had no intention of ever coming back, she had to pull a jailbreak to get her passport and get out. In the other case, the wife had work obligations and didn’t make the trip. Except for brief supervised visits, they never saw their children again.

      1. There’s a book and movie about a similar story – Not Without My Daughter. An American woman married an Iranian. After a few years, he took his wife and daughter home to meet his family… and then revealed that they weren’t returning to the US. The story is about her attempts to smuggle both herself and her daughter out of Iran, finally succeeding after a few years.

        The woman subsequently wrote the book about her experience.

  13. As has been said here, “You can’t childproof the world, so you must worldproof your child.” And that includes taking seriously things like religion, culture, and trusting your gut when it screams, “Run away, run away!”

    Believing someone when they explain that, oh, all non-tribe members are fair game is just showing proper respect for that culture. [Insert rant about State Department idiots who don’t take seriously theocracies and faith here.]

    1. Cousin married an Indian (dot, not feather). He went home, expected her to send money. Then send their two boys. HaHaHeHe. Boy did he not know his wife. He got divorce decree papers. He did not have to sign them. Done deal. Also owed child support, not that a dime was seen. No visitation unless he came back to the US, and then only supervised. OTOH his signature was required for adoption (when she later remarried). That didn’t happen. Not even bribes. When each of the boys turned 18, they legally changed their last names to their stepfather’s name.

  14. Clan of the Cave Bear perpetuates the myth. Only Neanderthals treated women as property. The real people had matriarchies where the women controlled who was their partner, and the spirit contribution to their babies. Until declared that the male impregnated the female. Then men had to control the women (implied at end of last book). Snort. Never that way. Not ever in the history of human kind. Never. Until now. Only now, with civilization, can women, and men, choose their partners. Arranged marriage stopped when, exactly? Some civilizations and cultures, it still hasn’t stopped. That is setting aside the history Sarah outlines. If someone tries to tell me about how the America’s natives (pole to pole) worked under the matriarchy and didn’t know rape, my responses will be “You mean Quanah Parker’s mother volunteered to be his mother?” Answer. Hell no. She was a white captive subject to slavery and degradation we will never know before becoming the property of Quanah Parker’s father (who may or may not have been a chieftain warrior, that Quanah Parker earned through his own deeds in battle, and followers, as was the Apache way). Same as any *captive, women, children, and even men.

    Even Outlander (D. Galbaldon) perpetuates the myth (she is usually so good with her research) and the look see into eastern tribal life. The matriarchal council of grandmothers. But what is also made clear, but I can see readers glossing over this fact, was that the council only held sway over internal tribal domestic matters, and limited at that. No control over captives. Or that captives were taken or killed. Even a women wanting to eject an unsuitable spouse needed not only the backing of her women folk, but the men to enforce it. If the latter backed her spouse? Not happening.

    ((*)) Parker was a white woman. But the Apache didn’t just wage war on white settlers. Before there were white settlers there were the Spanish. Before there were the Spanish, there were the Pueblo, and Navajo, etc. There is a reason why the Apache word for Navajo, and the Navajo word for Apache, while not the same word, mean the same thing: “Enemy”.

      1. It went off the rails there.
        I knew it was a loss when the heroine’s foster mother went looking for, “rattlesnake root,”…in Europe.

        1. Eh, I read it when I was a teenager, I wouldn’t have noticed that. But there was obviously suspension of disbelief once it came to the magic visions and such.

        2. heroine’s foster mother went looking for, “rattlesnake root,”…in Europe.
          ……………

          I take it “rattlesnake root” isn’t found, in Europe. Um. Okay. Never accused that author of doing in depth research. I would have never known. Heck even a Neanderthal to today’s human, cross (Durc) was, when Clan of the Cave Bear was written, was total fiction, which even I knew that. How many walled the book because of that? A fact that was changed well after most if not all the books were written. Neither fact changed the books. I have problem with the explicit sex and preaching in the later books. But that is me. Obviously, MMV, and all that.

            1. Snakeroot is in Europe, but I don’t think it’s the same plant.

              Hooboy, plants with the same common name but different species and genus are a problem for herb stuff.

              1. Now I’m torn between hoping they at least look the same, because that is a clever variation on the “give them the exact same name”, and not wanting to go look.

          1. One of the things that bothered me about Clan of the Cave Bear and the second novel was how the travelers would be greeted by the tribes they met. Hey, it’s strangers passing through! Have some food, get some shelter, enjoy our women! These tribes were barely surviving a brutal climate and deadly hunting. Welcoming small groups of roaming men would have been very unlikely.

            I never read the last book. By the time it came out, the series was already irrelevant.

            1. how the travelers would be greeted by the tribes they met.
              ………………..

              Oh. Heck. Even the Clans themselves. One big scattered family with a reunion every 7 years. (Yea. Right.) Fantasy. It is what-if-fantasy on another world, that only seems similar to ours.

        3. I only read the first Clan of the Cave Bear book… for me it went off the rails when it became clear that the Neanderthals didn’t actually know where babies came from — they had sex, but hadn’t yet figured out that it directly caused pregnancy — yet they had a medicine woman knowledgeable about birth control?

          1. I hate to have to point it out, but a knowledge of abortifacients (of which I understand there are several, of varying degrees of effectiveness and toxicity) has nothing to do with a knowledge of how pregnancy occurs. There are quite a few diseases/health conditions today for which the root cause is unclear or unknown, but for which treatments exist.

            1. I further hate to point out, but there were NO CONTRACEPTIVES. I got in more arguments with feminists on panels on this than I care to mention. There were only, as Bob C points out, abortifacients.
              What he’s not saying or has never seen in action is that the edge between abortifacient and kills the mother is so narrow that they really weren’t commonly used AT ALL.
              Also, I beg to argue with him on this. Primitive people would know where babies come from. THERE were ANIMALS ALL AROUND.
              Also, granted this was in the days when it was assumed the Neanderthals were dumb. seems to be the other way around as in smarter and more creative than homo sap but perhas Odd, like us.

              1. Yep, that’s what “varying degrees of toxicity” was intended to note. Basically, all or almost all drugs can be lethal depending on dosage and individual sensitivity; abortifacients score rather high on that scale.

                As far as knowing where babies come from, you’re probably correct; people are observant and there are plenty of “if this, then that” examples around, even if the time lag, combined with the cycle of fertility, would tend to disconnect action from result. But my intent, regardless of the final comment, was to note that such knowledge had nothing to do with knowledge of abortifacients; one can know how to “fix” something without knowing what caused it.

              2. All medicines are poisons.

                The human dietary niche in toxicology is gneralists, who eat a wide range of things poisonous to other animals, in small amounts so as not to need ability to cope with LOL huge doses of whatever natural pesticide is in the plant.

                Sooner or later, a human population that gathers is going to eat a lot of something for a generation.

                Mutations that make infants a lot more fragile to poison, or mutations that make the mother a lot more robust to some poison, would tend to get weeded out during that poison’s generation of dietary preference.

                This will tend to evolutionally select for similar toxic doses for a mother, and for the child that she bears.

                In theory, agriculture could potentially break that linkage.

                In practice, control over population size seems to more frequently occur as a result of behavioral customs.

      2. I’m not sure if I read Cave Bear (might have had my first exposure to the Valley of Horses), but it seems to be one of the first books I ever walled. OTOH, I never quite walled any of Erich von Daniken’s books; they were quite amusing to teen-aged Pete. Looks like any I might have bought (I blame the SF Book Club) got tossed long ago.

        1. Oh, they were amusing to teen Steve too. 😎

          Especially when I brought them to the Presbyterian private school and raised a few of the more interesting ones during our one period a week Bible class.

          It was conducted by the head Coach, who was also a minister. The push up numbers were EPIC.

      3. Semi-off the rails until the last two books. Then it really went off the rails. I skipped a lot, a very lot, of scenes (no fading to black). Sigh. Actually enjoy some of the fan fiction (which do fade to black), especially the “Durc Journey/Stories” and “How I would have written …” essentially last two books. Been awhile since I’ve been on the fan fiction site.

        Semi-off because mostly descriptions of landscape, animal populations, and the journey Ayla makes, including relationships with the animals she raises. Then the different cultures met. If more equal between men and women than could have been (other than the Bear Clans), at least not outrageous. Even went as far as to show what happens with perceived Amazon tribe (for lack of better term than the neanderthal clans); i.e. not good. Of coarse Ayla rides to the rescue (she is the heroine after all). The last two books OTOH, way, way, off the rails.

      1. Marie Renault actually did a fairly good job in, The King Must Die. Theseus encounters one of these matriarchies where the high priestess “marries,” a champion who is spoiled and pampered for a year, then sacrificed by the next champion. When he accidentally becomes champion, he spends his year preparing to overthrow the system, which he finds mildly ridiculous. He gets the enthusiastic support of the local men, and out goes the matriarch.

      2. And the truth of the past is, in many cases, an ugly, wretched thing. There were indeed shining examples of charity, courage, dignity, and trust. But there was, and there are today, many many rotten things going on in the wider world.

        Disguising such things is what ones does with children. Small ones. You teach the children well to be strong, to be wise, to be perspicacious, trustworthy, and har working.

        When you teach them history, don’t leave out the blood and guts. They’ll pay attention to that stuff. It makes history less boring. It also makes the lessons stick, if you do it right.

      3. At least Galbaldon keeps it to a small non-critical section of the story. Yes, Claire is a modern woman in the past. That is the point. She is a WW2 front line nurse swept up into the past. Then she returns to the future, raises their daughter through the 50’s through the 70’s before returning to the past, not just as a nurse as before, but an accomplished surgical doctor. Same with her daughter, not a doctor, but an engineer, who ultimately follows her into the past. They are modern women in the past. Them acting like modern women get them into trouble more often than not. As told to Claire, by another time traveler (who dies in the past) “I should of known you were from the future. You are not as afraid as a woman now should be.” (probably not quoted correctly). Bre explains her attitude as “being raised as American”. Not incorrect. But while the person she is telling that to takes it as 1700s American. No, ’50s – late ’70s college educated, taught to be herself, woman. The two do not equate. Not even close. But not a failure of the story. That is part of the point of the story, besides getting a glimpse of the historical times and people. The past is a different country.

        1. IIRC The main female character became a time traveler because the author was unable to write the female main character as a “woman of that time”.

          IE The author knew her female main character didn’t act/think as a woman of that time would act/think.

          1. The author knew her female main character didn’t act/think as a woman of that time would act/think.
            ……………….

            Yes. Exactly. I did not know that was the reason. I just know that Galbaldon does make it clear that Claire, Bre, even Roger, are different because they are from the future. Even the two children, for all that Jeremy’s early years were with his parents and grandparents, Claire and Jamie, in the 1700’s (also differences that hilariously are depicted in the future “the guinea pig was dead”, when he skinned it). But when Amanda faces the older woman with “needs to be flushed down the toilet” with a foot stamp? OMG I almost lost it, I was laughing so hard. Because I could absolutely visualize a 4 or 5 year old, early ’80s, raised, taken back to the 1700’s, doing exactly this. Then the absolute shock of the 1700’s, 50’s something woman’s reaction.

      4. The Marxists believe the moslems will “come to their senses” like everyone else, come the Revolution, and build Communism.

        The moslems believe the Marxists will slave like everyone else they hold in their right hands. “You got the dictatorship part right, just the wrong self selected elite”.

        The Left courting Islam is amusing. One side singing the Internationale, the other grinning about “plowing fields”.

      5. This is making me wonder what a matriarchy actually WOULD look like. And what kind of alien species might make it work. (Hawk base the way we’re ape base, maybe?)

        1. If it was human based, it wouldn’t last long. The in-fighting, the paranoia toward other women, the favoritism and downright brutality toward those who might threaten their children would drive the society apart in short order.

          I could see a possibility in a semi-nomadic type culture where the boys leave at puberty. Like elephants. That wouldn’t work with humans. You’d just end up with roving bands of unsocialized men who do whatever they please.

  15. Too much of this is failures In parenting // fathering in particular. I was very clear with the daughter that a very strong woman could probably hurt me but I, an old fat man, could certainly kill her. Likely with one shot since I know how to throw it. I also made sure my sons knew this. There’s a reason we were taught , and it had to be taught, not to hit girls

    Too many young women in the west have no idea how close to ruin they are when they mouth off to male strangers in bars

    1. This is one of the things that I have to remind people of when I write my stories about females in combat.
      Men are going to beat most women up, everything being equal. They might take more damage from some women versus others…but in any fight without weapons, the guy is going to win, more often than not.
      There’s ways to get around it, but the easiest and quickest is simple-use a gun.
      And if that don’t work, use more gun.

      1. There’s a reason that the female warriors in mythology usually carry bows. Far easier to stick him full of holes before he can get close.

        1. To a certain extent. But the person with more strength can use a more powerful bow, which will shoot farther.

          1. That is definitely possible. But in most of those stories men are using swords and axes, not bows.

            The man coming at you may be stronger, he may even have the longer bow, but still better to take him from a distance rather than give up because winning is “impossible.”

          1. Unless the man has a longer, heavier spear — which he can use just as well as the woman can use a lighter spear. It’s really hard to have a ‘fair’ fight between a man and a woman without post-Industrial Revolution weapons. Guns, tanks and jet fighters make marvelous equalizers. Even then, if operating the weapons requires physical strength (see mortars and artillery) men have an advantage.

            Or, like the elite woman soldier in one of my stories, genetic engineering and nanotech augmentation. Although a man with the same benefits would still win a physical fight.

            Nature has not been fair to women.

            1. Actually, given that men tend to naturally die younger than women, nature has made up for it in other ways.

            2. I think Damon Runyan said it best: “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.” 🙂

      2. Sam Colt made them equal, or something like that. Have to wonder how much of western culture ‘treatment of women grew out of that. Christianity, sure, but an armed woman can take down the strongest man. Changes things.

        1. The saying, as I recall it, is “God made them Man and Woman. Sam Colt made them equals.”

      3. Consider handicapping a MMA fight between top ranked fully trained and experienced men and women. How many pounds advantage to the woman before the fight is 50-50 odds?

        85 lbs?

        100 lbs?

        More?

        1. Almost certainly more. Olympic power-lifting records suggest that the difference at that level is about 30-50% in favor of the man, so I’d start by a weight bias in the woman’s favor.

        2. I remember a few years ago I was dining at a bar with my sons, and the sports showing was MMA fighting. The women were on, and I was watching and thinking “Ouch, that must really hurt.” Then the men of the same weight class came on and it was like “OMG – they’re going to kill each other!”

        3. and the problem is the lighter the guy to face her, the faster he will tend to be and still likely to absorb more damage before going down. Points only? okay, depends on length of match, as women in fights often toss more punches per minute, but submission/KO/TKO? she’ll need to be a freak in size and speed,

  16. Judith Brown wrote a theory of how women’s work is allotted in preindustrial communities. She found that if the community relied on women for a given type of labor it had to be compatible with the demands of child care. Like breastfeeding. She suggested these activities have the following things in common: they don’t demand rapt concentration and are relatively dull and repetitive; thye are easily interruptable and easily resumed if interrupted; they don’t place a child in potential danger and they don’t require her to range very far from home.
    Hence, spinning, weaving, sewing and cooking as, “women’s work.”
    Anyone with sense can imagine the consequences to a band of hunters if a baby starts crying just as they’re about to attack a mammoth.

    1. Now, now. That’s just the patriarchy talking. Didn’t you hear how all the pre-industrial societies were glorious utopias run by peaceful women? wags finger And don’t you dare bring up any of the history you were taught! We have feelings!

  17. It was hinted at in the 2008 DreamWorks/Spielberg mini-series “Into the West”. In one of the middle episodes, the protagonist, who has been.living in the western US, and has married a native woman, returns back to his family in the East. Inspired by his stories, a number of the members of his extended family decide to make the trek west.

    On the way, the protagonist gets smallpox, and is left behind with his brother as a caretaker to avoid infecting anyone else in the wagon train. This ends up saving the brothers’ lives, as the train is attacked shortly thereafter by a local tribe, who kill all but one of the women (a cousin of the protagonist, played by Keri Russell, IIRC,). The woman in question is taken as a prisoner, and ultimately ends up marrying one of the men who captured her.

    The sequence is treated with kid gloves. There’s no indication of rape, and it’s made clear that her captor falls in love with her. But after she marries him, she’s never mentioned again, suggesting that she never leaves the tribe. And even without that, the implications are disturbing when you start to think about them.

  18. Tribal cultures tend to be very merciless with their neighbors. It’s actually a good strategy for long term survival of the tribe when competing against a near-peer. The more vicious and shocking an encounter is, the less likely the other tribe will encroach on your territory. And grabbing the women-folk is also a good strategy since it introduces new genes to the tribe, thereby reducing the chances of nasty inbreeding effects.

    But when the tribe encounters someone much, much stronger, such behavior becomes a detriment to the tribe. Because that much stronger entity will take offense and come back with the intention of wiping out the barbarians.

    Israel is a Western Civilization, with a very strong military. Because of international backlash they’ve been limiting their power against the Palestinians for decades. After what the Palestinians broadcast themselves doing to Israeli civilians, anyone supporting the Palestinians needs to be thrown back into school where actual history is taught. I would criticize them further and offer less subtle actions, but I assume we’re all already on the FBIs list, and I probably shouldn’t antagonize them further.

    May God look after Israel.

      1. I’ve heard it said that Islam was “made to order for tribal societies”.

        Various tribes could join Islam and see the outsiders (non-Muslims) as somebody that it was OK to hate/raid/conquer.

      2. Islam is perfect for societies that adhere to the classic raid/tribal models of warfare.
        “Civilized” warfare nations will tear Islam apart the moment they can pin the raiders down for a moment.
        And if the “civilized” people don’t care about appearances…it gets messy, fast.

    1. The IDF is prepping to flood the tunnels with seawater. (As I predicted)

      Ponder that for a bit.

      I bet they do so slowly. Very.

      That isn’t a mercy. Because by then they will be done with such niceties. And they will demonstrate “reprisal” for the ages.

      Apparently, no one stopped to consider

      “what if we drive the Israelis to be as ruthless as us?”

      And

      “What if they decide they don’t care what others think?”

      Whoooooossshhhhhhh

      1. They never believed that the Israelis would become as ruthless as them. They see that as a weakness of the West.

        Of course, the Israelis still haven’t become as ruthless as them. And the Israelis are still winning quite handily. Given that this is not the first time that the Israelis have invaded Hamas-owned Gaza, I’m not sure why this didn’t occur to Hamas.

        1. Very, very seriously, because they believe Allah is on their side so any apparent victory means they will ALWAYS be victorious. They don’t realize the devil has never kept faith with his followers.

          1. In Holly Chism’s Modern Gods series, it turns out that Muhammad never met Gabriel. The Being that he met was the Greek god Ares. 😈

            Oh yes, in her books Ares is a complete asshole (but is getting better). 😉

      2. There was an old comic, Sue Storm (The Invisible Girl–I think this was before she renamed to Invisible Woman) against Dr. Doom. One of her lines was “Have you ever stopped to consider just how dangerous my force fields would be if I played by your rules?”

        Hamas et al would be well advised to take those words to heart.

        1. Did she say “I find your lack of faith disturbing” right before she filled Doom’s lungs with zero O2 fields?

          “What Victor? Cat got your tounge? Oh there is its. yuk……”

      3. It just occurred to me…

        When the Israelis are done, forget ever growing anything in that part of Gaza again for a long time…

        1. They already have an issue with over using the water table so that salt infiltration is happening.

            1. Yes, it’s rather telling that the Israeli’s can turn the same places the Arabs have deserts into bountiful productive farmland. Why, it’s almost as if the Palestinians would rather wage war and be considered victims than work on bettering themselves.

          1. You mean like they don’t build command posts under hospitals?

            This is simply another form of Perfidy: Put military assets under civilian infrastructure so that destroying them harms “innocents”.

            1. You’re correct, though I think in this case the tunnels are largely restricted to the urban areas. There is some farming done in Gaza (though not enough to support the population), but I don’t think that area is fortified.

              Still, when all is said and done, Gaza City might not exist in ten years. But the ground might be unusable for farming.

              1. That’s where a map of where the IDF drones saw Hamas bailing out from would be interesting. We already know it was in a much wider area than they thought it would be.

                1. iirc the IDF was a bit surprised at the number and spread of the smoke and dust from them blasting a particular tunnel. Tunnel and complex above it go boom, (shockingly not a hospital ) and dust, smoke and pressure waves popped up all over the place. Footage was from a drone.

                  1. That would explain why they are flooding, instead of blasting, then. Less chance of accidentally flattening the city before they wanted to.

                  2. I am put in mind of a scene from Hogan’s Heroes (Though the Hamas version is far less funny. ) they are looking to place a decoy. And Hogan insists it be in one spot and ONLY one spot, and it’s an odd one for their purposes. “Why there?” Asks one of the men. “Because it’s the only spot we don’t have a tunnel under.”

      4. I got a wild idea a few nights ago. It would be difficult, and expensive, but — flood the tunnels with liquid nitrogen. The pressure build-up in the deepest parts of the ratholes would be epic. Between that and the cryogenic cold, no bunker would survive. I figure 200 million gallons of liquid nitrogen would fill most of the space, freeze everything solid and push out all the oxygen.

        1. One (two?) issue(s) they are dealing with, driving the IDF’s slow flooding strategy, is they are pretty sure all the tunnels are interconnected, and that there are hostages still being held in tunnels in northern Gaza.

          The slow flooding gives Ham-Ass hostage holding subgroups time to evacuate the hostages.

          There are already Israeli media stories about IDF overhead drone operators watching Ham-Ass pop up over a much wider area than had been expected once they started the pumps, confirming their theory of vast tunnel interconnection.

          1. The slow flooding gives Ham-Ass hostage holding subgroups time to evacuate the hostages.
            ………………..

            What I was speculating when first read the flooding post here. Glad I waited to say something that this was likely what was happening. Good for IDF.

            1. Well, and as 11B-Mailclerk noted, fast flooding might be scary, but slow is psychological warfare.

              Apparently the Ham-Ass response was to pour out all at once through every available exit hole, with a few attacking the closest IDF units while the majority tried to scatter.

          2. The problem with this is I could see Hamas releasing videos of hostages chained to the floor of tunnels….in rising water. “Keep flooding and your loved ones die slowly and horribly,”

            1. And that they haven’t done that is a pretty good argument that the remaining hostages are already dead or moved outside Hamas control in the tunnels.

            2. Cut to TV of a handful of some senior Ham-ass nailed up on crosses, with more waiting in pens.

              “aaaaaaiiiiiiiiiii……”

              Announcer: “And here is some footage from ‘safe’ countries where…” KABOOM! “… we of course never flew ….”

              “And your kin can be next. Or, turn them loose.”

            3. I am afraid of this too. Or worse. Not releasing pictures and still leaving them down there to be found later.

              1. “It sucks to be a hostage”.

                No government can long endure that allows hostage taking to steer it. Counter-punch with a greater outrage, and keep on with original plans. -no- negotiations. Not even for me nor mine.

                ” The enemy shall be punished for their crimes. If they take hostages we will endure greater casualties just to live-capture, try for crimes, and execute the perpetrators. The executions will be neither quick nor pleasant. The longer they are about it, the worse shall be our response. Will will neither negotiate, nor turn asisde from objectives.”

      5. After flooding, detonate several hundred pounds of high-brisance HE in the water in each tunnel, to shatter any remaining “blast-proof” doors.

    2. Hmm. It’s obviously possible to go from tribal to civilized so I assume then it’s possible to regress as well. I wonder if a post-civilization tribal community would be worse than a pre-civilization community.

      1. Quite possible. Retained knowledge of how to make some nasty stuff, and how to set up advantages, etc. I suspect the baseline of technology/knowledge never FULLY reverts, but has setbacks that still climb. Morals and ethics? Those just might drop below the previous worst, alas.

        1. The status of western Europe after the fall of Rome supports that; they kept much of the military knowledge; steel weapons, artillery (the mechanical sort), etc., while morals and ethics generally took a severe hit (not that Rome, especially Imperial Rome, was a paragon of virtue and rectitude).

          1. Rome had “virtue”. Almost any culture does. What it had was different from yours. That is not the same as “none”.

            The Apache had virtue. But not our virtue. Rome had virtue. Just not ours. When Rome lost interest in its virtues, it fell apart. When that region found new virtue to upohold, and did so, it recovered.

            You cannot hope to defeat or repalce anything you do not understand.

            1. I understand it quite well; all cultures have norms, even the CCP. Imperial Rome, especially after Constantine, violated its own stated values, just as the current US administration violates those of the Republic. But I’d hardly call either virtuous, any more than I’d call the Aztecs virtuous in any civilized sense.

              No, there is no universal rule of morals and ethics, but I’d argue that some, despite the whines of “liberals” and other moral relativists, are more conducive to the welfare of the individual than others. Later Imperial Rome was less so than the Roman Republic, or even the Triumvirate. And we’re currently on a downslope in the US. IMHO, of course, and YMMV.

      2. IMO a post-civilization tribal community would be worse.

        A pre-civilized tribal community would likely have some customs and traditions that limited what a tribe member could do to other tribe members (developed over time).

        The post-civilization tribal community might have “forgotten” such things as they lost civilized behaviors.

              1. Nor did I. Reference?

                Not that it matters; his books are still quite good, and IMHO don’t reflect that attitude.

                  1. OK; thanks; I get “This page isn’t available” for that link.

                    But I’d note that, until objective data became widely available, “this will kill us all” was a common theme, even among supposedly-rational people; when almost all of the claims are saying that, and there’s little or no contradictory information around, it’s difficult to argue against.

                    1. I did get the link. Comments made March 2020. So, yes. All gloom and doom. The “groups” (both FB and not) I follow on Stirling forbids modern politics. Discussions on books, and a lot of “what-if” but not politics, nor am I a FB “friend”. There are alternative groups (FB and not) that do allow modern politics, where I am sure the pandemic “discussions” came up.

                      His books have just enough “correctness” (obligatory gay couple) to appease the publishing PTB. I just roll my eyes. Doesn’t take away from the stories, or the what-if plots. And the stories all are “fade to black”, on the icky stuff (grin), but not the gory details of battles (generally boring, to me), or the “food porn” (from Emberverse series, due to lack of food, let alone any variety, for a long time – “Oh. Look it is endless (*stone) soup for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Again.”).

                      ((*)) Whatever is available that is edible goes into.

                    2. If you haven’t yet, try “Conquisatdor” and “The Peshawar Lancers”; both are very good, as is the original “Nantucket” trilogy that’s the flip side of the Emberverse series (although I’d like to see sequels to all of those).

                    3. I’d like to see sequel to “Conquisatdor” (one book), and more books from “Nantucket” (3 books). I’ve read “The Peshawar Lancers”, but don’t care if there is a sequel or not.

                      Emberverse (starting with “Dies the fire”) has 15 books, essentially 4 series. Wasn’t too thrilled with the reason for the collapse, even though there had to be a something’s thumb on the scale. Too woo woo. At least most the story lines are human reactions to the situation, and I like the main characters, even as they switched from Mike, Juniper, etc., to Rudi, Maddi, and company, to their children.

                    4. I didn’t construct that very well; “all of those” wasn’t intended to include the Emberverse series.

                    5. ” it’s difficult to argue against.” How many predictions of doom have you encountered in your life up to now? How many have come true? Was that difficult?

                    6. Now answer this question: Do the people with the power to ruin your lives in the name of those scenarios give a single f*ck whether you believe them or not? That’s not difficult to answer either. NO.

      3. Something the judges who keep claiming that we are evolving to a better society that does must punish criminals so “brutally” need to learn. We can devolve, too. Civilization is the result of generations of good choices, including the punishment of evil. One generation’s bad choices can wipe it all out.

      4. “I wonder if a post-civilization tribal community would be worse than a pre-civilization community.”

        They’d have some serious grudges, I expect. That would be worse.

        1. Look at how a handfull of Scotts clan grudges warped so badly the fabric of the US Revolutionary War in the US South. Things got seriously ugly. And if you miss the whole old-courty spawn it seems insane.

  19. If woke College students and antifa really wanted to punch Nazi’s in the face they would start with their own professors and the presidents of their colleges. Then move on to all the members of the liberal media. That they haven’t already show what little Hitlers they really are. Burn down Harvard and Yale if not literally, then financially.

  20. This topic is one of about five that convinced me, an honorably-discharged US Veteran, not to purchase or own firearms. I have always had poor impulse control, I am (or was) a darn fine marksman, and Chemo made me crankier, so I decided that not being tempted to produce room temperature fellow-travelers was a better path. I assume I would regret even a “righteous” encounter of that sort.

    YMMV.

    1. Respect. That’s the proper way to do it.

      The problem with regret is that it always comes -later-, and doesn’t help you keep your finger off the trigger -during-.

      1. Yes. And I respect even my life too much to take away another’s. I know that might be different than you meant; but I’m kinda left-handed about a lot of stuff… 😉

  21. By Sharia law, if a woman accuses a man of raping her she needs 5 (?) male witnesses who actually saw the rape.

    I think most people can see the problem there.

    1. Given the demonstrated behavior of the Gazans, a woman might not only be able to find that many witnesses, but get them to confess to participating as well.

      1. “Confess” is the wrong word; in their case “boasting” would be a better fit, since they’ve done nothing else since 10/07.

    2. ((waggles hand))

      Kind sorta. Rape is a capital offense under Islam. The problem is that any capital offense requires 2 male witnesses for conviction. It is a D&D level rules interaction.

      1. And any woman “won by your right hand” (ie, in war, raid, or sudden jihad on the non-Muslim girl next door) is not rape. And your own daughter by a non-wife isn’t rape. And an animal isn’t rape unless you cook and eat it afterward, and that doesn’t count if you are starving. And so on.

        1. And boys are not men, which is how they avoid the capital punishment there too. As the marching song of the 40th Pathans (now part of the Punjab Regiment of the Pakistan Army) has it “There’s a boy across the river, with a bottom like a peach, but, alas, I cannot swim.”

          1. To varying degrees. I’ve heard that before 2001, the Taliban had cracked down on this practice in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, when they got chased out, it popped back up from where it had been hiding.

    3. A bit off.

      Women are to men as 2 is to 1 for witnesses. So 3 needed. Also applies slave to master, and “book”-non-Muz to Muz, etc.

      And “lust” is 7/8ths her fault anyway

      And getting raped is still adultery.

      You get the picture. Even if she is triumphant, her kin kills her.

      1. It’s been a while since I read their book. There was a separate rule for rape, and as I remember the number was higher than the witnesses needed for other crimes. That’s why I put a question mark after the number.

  22. Just had a sight picture pop in my head, building like a computer chip, then a flash of a Maltese cross, Germany maybe. All to do with computers, or tele communications, really weird.

  23. To be fair… The Romans did not want to murder all the Sabine tribe. They held a festival with games, invited the Sabines, and then planned to grab some girls and ride off with them. (Hence all the horse themed events, and the dedication to Neptunus Equester.)

    The Roman guys grabbed girls from two other cities as well, got into a three-cornered war, beat the two smaller cities and took them over, and finally the Romans and Sabines reconciled because babies were coming and they feared becoming kinslayers.

    Now, how much of that was history rather than legend, we don’t know.

    1. The Book of Judges ends with the tribes raiding their fellows who did not assist them in wiping out the children of Benjamin (they went full Sodom). The other tribes had repented and the surviving Benjamites needed wives, and they needed to be Hebrew wives, so they found towns that hadn’t participated in the killing and stole their women.

  24. “The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors”

    Western civilization is the light that holds the Night back …

  25. Amazing! Thank you for adding this insight to my recent reading of the book of Leviticus.no wonder the Jews are hated so … by eveyrone.

  26. “Yesterday, by accident, at night, I read about the barbaric things done to women in Israel…”

    How to deal with demons, a snippet:

    “I’ve blasted many a demon in my time, Little One,” she said proudly. “The big trick with them is not to get pulled into their game. If they can get you hating them, they can suck you in, and you become a demon yourself. Hate is corrosive, it’ll burn away your mind if you let it.”

    “How do you keep from hating them?” asked Brunhilde. “I kinda hate them already, and I haven’t even seen one yet. They terrorized poor Leda and Panda. That makes me angry!”

    “Think of it this way Brunhilde,” said Syn. “What, exactly, can you do about the creatures that hurt the probe girls?”

    “Kill the crap out of them!” said Brunhilde, flexing a well-muscled shoulder.

    “Will that change what happened?” asked Syn, stopping dead in the pathway and fixing Brunhilde with a penetrating look.

    Brunhilde looked into Syn’s eyes and experienced a major shock of realization. “No. It won’t. Will it?”

    “Ah, look at that,” said Syn with satisfaction. “She sees it.”

    “That is magnificent,” said the Eldest, looking on proudly.

    “But what can we do?!” demanded Brunhilde in outrage. “We can’t let them hurt us, that’s insane!”

    Syn put a firm hand on Brunhilde’s arm, got a real grip on her to emphasize her words. “We cannot change the past. I would if I could, but I can’t. All I can do is stop the demons from hurting anyone else. I must be professional about it. When you clean the sink at home, do you hate the dirt? Do you revenge yourself upon it for being what it is?”

    “No,” said Brunhilde, understanding. “I just clean it.”

    “That is the correct stance for what we do here,” said Syn, releasing her grip and putting her arm around Brunhilde in a fond embrace. “You see? We do not seek vengeance. We are cleaners. We mop up the mess.”

    “OH!” exclaimed Brunhilde loudly. “It’s an information attack, isn’t it? They attack our minds with their atrocities! They recruit us by making us hate them!”

    “There it is, the realization,” said Syn. “My work here is done, Little One Brunhilde. You now understand everything needful to defeat the evil. When you master that knowledge, you will become a big stuffy Elder like me.”
    [snippet ends]

    This is the essentials of Western Civilization’s method to deal with barbarity. You just clean it up. That is what Israel is doing in Gaza. If they wanted vengeance they’d have it by now. So, while it is necessary to know what has gone before, it is not good to dwell on it. You can’t change it. Nothing can change it. All you can do is clean up.

    And if cleaning up looks like fighting HamAss to the death because they won’t surrender, right to the very last one hiding in the very last hole in Gaza, that’s what you have to do.

  27. A reminder which regime and party are the ones acting like fascist dictators:

    https://nypost.com/2023/12/07/news/biden-proposal-to-seize-drug-patents-slammed-by-gop-lawmakers-and-economists-he-is-the-dictator/

    Yep, Team ObamaBiden is threatening to simply seize the patents of pharmaceutical companies that it believes is charging to much. Never mind that it violates the Constitution, patent laws passed by Congress, and international intellectual property protection treaties to which the USA is a party.

    Every time Democrats call their political opponents fascists, they are projecting.

        1. They have fiddled with courts, so it probably is not going to be a matter of chance.

          It will probably be deterministic, but unknown.

          Whether the specific chain of people has lawful civilized principles, and the courage to stick with principles, or does not.

          We shall see.

          Basically, where there are people with no principles, or bad principles, or no courage, they need to be replaced, or bypassed.

          When we find out, with real knowledge, about the specific person, we will have a better case for replacing.

          In theory, if the whole formal system employs only crooks, it can be bypassed by changing our own behavior.

          Very frustrating situation, but it is not like grounds for hope are impossible.

Comments are closed.