You’re blocked by FedEx.

That’s weird. Of all the political dissident blogs I’ve ever encountered mine is just about the most moderate. I guess even moderate dissent is now forbidden.

I have taken to objecting, when it comes up, to pedophile [sic] Dissident’s ongoing NAMBLA nonce [sic] musings and catamite portrait [sic] posts.

Yet again, you hurl the same incendiary epithets at me, and offer the same libelous, unsubstantiated, unfounded characterizations of my comments. As if through mere repetition, these somehow gain any substance or credibility. As I wrote in my response to your June 22nd recycling of the initial attack you had lashed-out at me with back in early March,

I reiterate, once again, my confidence that no careful, fair review of the relevant parts of my commenting history, taken in their proper context, could reasonably be taken as supporting any of your assertions or insinuations. Quite the contrary, I would aver.

By now, I have posted a number of detailed rebuttals to the repeated libelous attacks upon me that Mr. Errican has now posted across several different threads. Perhaps my most concise response to-date is this one from June 25th. I would urge everyone to, at a bare minimum, carefully read through that comment of mine, in its entirety. Linked within it is a lengthy comment of mine from April that I would also place among the most essential for properly understanding me.

Returning, for the moment, to my June 23rd rebuttal that I quoted from above, I noted in it that (to-date, and to the best of my awareness) neither Mr. Errican nor anyone else have,

made even the faintest attempt at articulating any reasoned, substantive objection to or criticism of any of the images of boys, or sentiments, thoughts and views concerning boys that I have posted.

And, thanks for keeping track of that number. Not weird in the least!

It is trivial to go to your commenter page and search for “Troll: Corvinus” Note that can result in an undercount ; )

As for the rest of your comment, thanks for the chuckle. I think you have passed the event horizon of the Corvinus singularity–parody is indistinguishable from the real thing.

You’re blocked by FedEx.

Italian, German, American, British, etc. politicians don’t think in those terms anymore. To the core they are mostly opportunists, blank slaters and effective altruists and as always handmaids to capitalists, in this case globalists

It’s the nature of democracy. Politicians will always be opportunists because democracy is essentially political prostitution. They’re handmaids to capitalists for the same reason that prostitutes hope to find a john with a well-filled wallet.

Politicians are just like whores except that some whores probably really do have hearts of gold. And most whores are in their own way honest. If they offer you a particular sexual service for a particular sum of money they’ll probably give you what you paid for. Politicians are like the dishonest prostitutes who promise you a good time and then don’t deliver, and then steal your wallet.

In the case of prostitutes it’s the dishonest 5% who give the rest a bad name. In the case of politicians it’s the dishonest 99% who give the rest a bad name.

Expecting anything but lies and cynical opportunism from a politician is hopelessly unrealistic. And always has been.

I feel like you might benefit from more curiosity; but I do like your comparison of Trump to Rodney Dangerfield’s character from Caddyshack. Shame that so many contemporary Jews think that they have left this side of themselves behind.

Donald Trump, with his zest for life, was everything, in themselves, that they deny. They saw him and saw their shadow. Like most humans, this was too much for them. It sent them crazy.

A number of observers have pointed out that Trump’s zest for life is very Jewish. A traditional toast is LaChaim. (la – to, chaim – life).

His recognition of The Golan Heights and relocation of the U.S. Embassy drove violent Muslims and their sympathizers crazy. It got him a great deal of praise from observant Jews, including the Orthodox in the U.S.

There is a great deal of inertia in terms of individuals and their party identity. Voices like Rashid Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are leading the DNC into open Anti-Semitism. If democracy in the U.S. survives, there will be a trend away from the National Socialists Democrats.

PEACE 😇

effective altruists

What is dwelling in the unexplored deeps of the “effective altruist”?

So let’s see how you do with answering my question. Why are there 10,000 Bret Stephenses for every Stephen Miller in the U. S.?

Politics is where most moderns go to convince themselves that they are good people and to project their internal tensions onto the public stage.

The fact that Jews strongly trend technocratic Democrat is because, like a lot of educated moderns, they have come to wholly identify with their abstract self.

Donald Trump, with his zest for life, was everything, in themselves, that they deny. They saw him and saw their shadow. Like most humans, this was too much for them. It sent them crazy.

We’ll get to that.

We’ll see.

I will answer your question.

First I don’t accept your presentation of what they are thinking.

Italian, German, American, British, etc. politicians don’t think in those terms anymore. To the core they are mostly opportunists, blank slaters and effective altruists and as always handmaids to capitalists, in this case globalists. They have no more concern for traditional Italians, Germans, Americans, Brits, etc. than you do. As to why they think that way, I think that we need to go back to the Enlightenment. Of course, emancipation of the Jews was a part of the Enlightenment so I have done the heavy lifting part of finding the Jew.

So let’s see how you do with answering my question. Why are there 10,000 Bret Stephenses for every Stephen Miller in the U. S.?

“I hate to encourage anyone to respond to the troll Coronavirus, but this is a very good comment”

That’s hilarious on your part. I responded to nebulafox, you call me a troll. He provided me with his line of thinking, which I appreciate. See, that is how conversation works. You should learn something here, rather than have your stereotype sustained by confirmation bias 🙂

“Says the man who is one of the quickest to reach for the troll flag. 21 on just the first page of your comment history at the moment.”

Here is but a sample of the comments I believe are worthy of the “Troll” designation. I would say that level-headed people would think the following statements are based on raw emotion and are irrational. Perhaps you think different. And, thanks for keeping track of that number. Not weird in the least!

–Taylor won’t name the Jew. He’s just as useless as Murray the Moron or Murron. Problem is Jews are smarter and use money & influence to manipulate whites. Whites Built vs White Guilt.

–The US is a soft military dictatorship. The military couldn’t account for $2 Trillion on 9/10/2001 as Rumsfeld announced on TV. Today, they can’t account for over $20 Trillion. Where did that currency go? How much went to Israel? 911 happened to cover up their theft by killing the Navy investigators stationed at the pentagon who were looking into the situation. Their offices were the direct hit. Their data backup site in building 7 was destroyed to get rid of evidence.

–Sandi Morris is also a mudshark, like many collegiate+ female athletes. The best move is to keep your daughter out of collegiate sports entirely.

–The best ways to limit Jewish power would be first, to make dual citizenship a disqualifier for every government job from teacher to mailman to politician. Second to enforce ethnic quotas.

–Thank God we defeated Hitler! Can you imagine living in a world of open borders, credit card usury, government-approved riots, sleight-of-hand tricks by a (((central banking cabal))), no freedom of speech and grooming children? Where your race is demonized for its evil, unforgivable achievements, culture and traditions?

–The first time Enlightenment thinkers got into government, they immediately committed a genocide of Catholics in the Vendee. These thinkers are the source of liberalism that needs to be purged.

“Of course, you receive even more than you give. Which should also be a clue ; )”

That I am on the right track regarding the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Thanks for your endorsement!

Several people asked about defending yourself from the cancel culture.

This book is a useful starting point.
Unassailable: Defend Yourself From Deplatform Attacks, Cancel Culture & Other Online Disasters
by Mark E Jeftovic
http://www.amazon.com/Unassailable-Protect-Yourself-Deplatform-Disasters/dp/1999285212/

The book’s focus is on people making their living putting content on the internet. However it has some application to everybody using the internet.

Its focus is on protecting access to your internet resources. For example, a key point is, are you the legal owner of your domain name? Is your main email address based on that domain name, or do you use your email address at the whim of some globalist corporation that caters to the deep state?

While a hosting service can still dump you if you own these, at least you could move them to a different hosting service. If you don’t own them, then its easy for the cancel culture to pressure the corporation, which does own them, to take them away from you.

The book doesn’t address issues such as the cancel culture smearing you and getting you fired. Its one thing to be smeared, its another thing to be smeared after you’ve lost access to your internet related resources.

~
The book is only 189 pages long, so its more of an overview than an how-to-do-it book. Still, the author makes a lot of recommendations on who to use, and who to avoid, when making arrangements for the resources you use.

Given how many businesses and people who have been deplatformed in the last year, these recommendations are worth a lot more than the cost of the book. To put it another way, the author shares insight into who is and isn’t likely to burn their customers, when pressured by the cancel culture.

About half the book is on the concepts, which will be useful for most people. The deep state, thru the cancel culture, is basically conducting hybrid warfare against people objecting to the billionaire backed narrative. Most people aren’t used to thinking of vulnerabilities, fallback positions, and recovery options in a warfare context, and its not something you want to learn thru trial and error.

This books walks the reader thru the issues, and then thru the options. Then you can decide what is appropriate or feasible for your circumstances.

To give you an idea of my personal priorities, I can’t afford to upgrade to something newer than windows XP, but I own my domain name and email address, and my data is thoroughly backed up.

I’ve been writing about 3 pages a day for several decades now. If I lost that, it couldn’t ever be replaced. Most pictures people keep can’t be replaced.

~
The book doesn’t discuss disaster recovery scenarios. There are natural disasters like floods, and human disasters like your computer being confiscated. Its good to think these thru ahead of time, and walk thru each step and the resources needed to accomplish that step.

There are 2 separate categories of info: historical data like pictures, and data you need to restore the technical resources you use every day.

For instance, if all of your computers and phones were confiscated (and backup devices near the computer), and then a couple days later your hosting service dumped you, then how would you get back up and going again?

Some people have said that they are too small and insignificant for anybody to pay attention to. In an age where scapegoats are manufactured, I don’t think that is a safe attitude anymore.

Part of my plan is having a backup on a USB device which can be plugged into any computer. In that backup are key facts in a TXT file, which can be viewed in any text editor, which I need for recovering after a computer disaster.

What would you do if the first backup turned out to be bad media, and then somebody spilled coffee on the second backup? The saying about trouble coming in 3’s is based on the fact the first trouble increases stress and chaos, which increases the chances of more mistakes and accidents.

For most people a reasonable compromise is a set of 3 backup media, and using them on a rotating schedule. Meaning the first backup goes on device A, the next on device B, the next on device C, and then the next backup is put on device A. So all 3 devices have a fairly recent backup, and if only 1 device was usable for restoring the data, then at least it would be a fairly recent backup.

Its nice if the backup media are big enough to hold several backups, so if you backed up a corrupted file, then maybe in an older backup the file was still usable.

~
The book doesn’t cover anonymous access to the internet. I figure this is like waving a flag asking the government to investigate you.

I’m not organizing protests, or advocating assault or property destruction, and since I’m disabled I can’t be fired. So I figure its better for me to be reasonably open about what I do and say.

If I had a job, then it would be different story because I criticize a lot of the sacred cows in the US, and would be vulnerable to the cancel culture.

For about 30 years my go-to resource for computer and internet security is http://www.pcmag.com

Muslims have penetrated the top levels of government and are pushing for open borders.

My experience of Muslims is that they tend to be enthusiastic about further immigration from wherever they came from. They also often visibly swell with pride and ambition at the idea that the number of Muslims in their vicinity is growing; but they are a minority voice with minority influence.

You’d be better off asking what is it with the Italian and German elites that makes them think that they, and their people, are so special, that they can disregard centuries of history, and try to sustain a liberal polity based off diversity, instead of coherence.

You would be better saying France & Germany. Muslims have penetrated the top levels of government and are pushing for open borders. I thought France was moving towards reality, but the recent elections indictate otherwise.

Italy is coming to terms with the “Muslim Problem” (1)

If parliamentary elections were held in Italy now, the national conservative and Eurosceptic Brothers of Italy (FdI) would end up in second behind, the anti-immigration Lega Nord. This follows from a survey of electoral preferences conducted by SWG. Currently, 20.1 percent of voters would vote for the Brothers of Italy party, while Lega Nord has the support of 21.4 percent of Italians.

The current Italian government is likely to fail in the near future resulting in a new round of elections.

PEACE 😇
__________

(1) https://rmx.news/article/article/voter-preference-for-anti-immigration-parties-in-italy-is-rising

It’s much easier for you to characterize anyone whom you personally disagree with in that fashion.

Says the man who is one of the quickest to reach for the troll flag. 21 on just the first page of your comment history at the moment. Of course, you receive even more than you give. Which should also be a clue ; )

We’ll get to that. First, let’s answer my question.

You’d be better off asking what is it with the Italian and German elites that makes them think that they, and their people, are so special, that they can disregard centuries of history, and try to sustain a liberal polity based off diversity, instead of coherence.

You’d be better off asking

I think that I’m better off asking why it is that for every Stephen Miller in the U. S. there seem to be 10,000 Bret Stephenses. 🙂

Very few countries allow mass immigration. Even fewer allow it without substantial national considerations. It is this tiny group that Israel is not in. There’s nothing special about not being in a tiny group. Israel is rather more ordinary than Germany or Italy.

You’d be better off asking what is it with the Italian and German elites that makes them think that they, and their people, are so special, that they can disregard centuries of history, and try to sustain a liberal polity based off diversity, instead of coherence.

At first I thought that the JQ would be under the Minority Populations label then I realized that that would definitely not work. Jews are a unique minority and separate from all the rest, They cannot be subsumed under minorities. They have their own nation state with strict immigration controls and a robust nationalism while the rest of us have to contend with open borders and a hounded and vilified nationalism. The only rationale that occurs to me is: we are special and you are not.

Yes, as I summarise here:

https://www.unz.com/article/critical-race-theory-as-a-jewish-intellectual-weapon/#comment-4746311

I must be a little too dense to get what you are suggesting. Are you saying that we can/should discuss Jews under all the categories? There are no categories where we shouldn’t be finding the Jew(s)?

Just pick one of those topics, work out if you are for or against more or less of it, then, whatever binary you don’t pick, put the Jews on. Easy!

You should consider the possibility that you don’t know what rebutted means.

Here are some synonyms for rebut :

deny, contradict, controvert, repudiate, counter, attempt to refute, attempt to discredit

Those commenters’ offered non sequitur objections barely even count as attempts to discredit my cited assessment.

I didn’t understand the silent majority in the 60’s, I don’t understand their silence in the face of severe persecution from the woke face of the deep state, and I don’t understand the silence about doing something to continue this group.

There is a management theory that you can whack 5% of a group, without triggering insurrection. However, if you do this 14 times, then only 48.8% of the group is left – less than half of the original group. Currently there doesn’t seem any end in sight to the slow pogrom against the silent majority.

To me, this lack of action seems suicidal, but overall the silent majority doesn’t seem to have a death wish. So I’m back to not understanding the lack of action.

I really wish somebody would help me out here.

~
I wonder if an inclination towards stewardship is in part genetically based. I’ve always been inclined to take action to shift things in a more constructive direction.

Regardless of that, genetic inclination can be overcome. The silent majority needs to be woken up and encouraged to become active stewards for their culture and future.

~
As the billionaires chop society up into hash using dozens of divide-and-conquer wedges, I’ve been trying to figure out where I fit into all of this.

I share some of the core values of the silent majority such as a work ethic, honesty, respect, not butting into the private lives of other people, and working hard to support families and raise healthy, moral children.

However, aligning myself with a demographic, which isn’t resisting the pogrom against them, seems like a poor choice.

It would be a better choice, if the silent majority would wake up, and stop being silent. Unfortunately, nobody seems to understand why they are silent. Until this is understood, the efforts to wake them up are unlikely to be successful.

I really wish somebody would help me out here with increased understanding.

even under the auspices of the state.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to sit here and say that we believe that the government is oppressive and malevolent while not raising any objection to giving it the power of capital punishment. I guess I’m just not ready to storm the Bastille. Yet.

–Jews

After all this is still TUR.

concise assessment of historic Nazi motivations, actions, and outcomes has yet to be rebutted by Dissident, nor by original commenter Jack D, whom I addressed in that thread.

You should consider the possibility that you don’t know what rebutted means.

Dissident’s people, which is Jews plus the majority of decent, intelligent Whites (and the decent, intelligent fraction of all races) certainly outnumber “your people� 🙂

Hmm. Are all those people proud pedophiles?

You may want to familiarize yourself with Dissident’s comment history before calling him “your people”. Unless you are already aware, and share his proclivities. ðŸ™�

https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-msm-tries-to-explain-the-racial-wreckening-on-the-roads/#comment-4737666

Thank you, V. K. Here’s my response (should it be approved) to Almost Missouri which explains why commenter Dissident is in a hysterical tizzy upon seeing my particular handle:

https://www.unz.com/anepigone/an-age-when-vibrators-are-sold-on-the-high-street/#comment-4749565

A.M., thank you and V. K. Ovelund for your gallant defense of me as a commenter in general—I appreciate the sentiments.

Background on commenter Dissident’s off-topic attack on me:

I have taken to objecting, when it comes up, to pedophile Dissident’s ongoing NAMBLA nonce musings and catamite portrait posts. Dissident is not happy about this.

Here’s his latest obsessive-compulsive post in that onanistic vein:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/anti-beautyism/#comment-4748647 (#277)

I get a sputtering mention under the MORE tag, LOL

Is the malignant audacity of a Hitler fanboy to assume some imagined perch as a self-anointed moral arbiter and avenger of some evil that is entirely a figment of his fevered imagination going to be further indulged?

Returning, tangentially, to the decidedly indelicate sentiment that zundel referenced: a giant f[–]k you. As repellent as I generally find such vulgarity…

Links to Dissident’s (typically bizarre) reply to my first comment telling him to desist his perverse posts, and copious search results of the word “boyâ€� in Dissident’s comment history:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-msm-tries-to-explain-the-racial-wreckening-on-the-roads/#comment-4737666 (#40)

As for the past “genocide� topic in question, my concise assessment of historic Nazi motivations, actions, and outcomes has yet to be rebutted by Dissident, nor by original commenter Jack D, whom I addressed in that thread.

Dissident’s people, which is Jews plus the majority of decent, intelligent Whites …

You took the bait, thus making my point for me. Thanks. Such demonstrations of tactical flattery are quintessentially Jewish. Unfortunately, eventually, some gentiles start to notice.

Decent and intelligent are to you nothing more than clever synonyms for pliable and gullible, of course.

But who knows? Maybe you are winning, anyway. We shall see.

I haven’t been stopping by as much as I used to (as you might have guessed by the fact that I’m just seeing this 8 days after it was posted), but I’ve visited sporadically for a long time; since well before you were on Unz.

So many bloggers I followed have called it quits. Inductivist, OneSTDV, Roissy/Heartiste, GucciLittlePiggy…

You and Sailer were pretty much the only two left.

Best of luck to you. I hope you and your family are on to bigger and better things.

You should set up a donation page to accept some parting gifts.

Barring that, please accept a heartfelt thank you for the many years of clear analysis and witty writing on interesting topics. God bless.

Thank you, Mr. Unz, for creating the new open thread for those of us privileged to be “existing members of the AE community”.

As can clearly be seen, there have already been a number of different, distinct topics already discussed in this thread, and it can only be expected that the number of topics that will be covered going forward will expand. In consideration of this and how unwieldy such a large thread covering so many completely different, often unrelated topics can be, I would like to suggest the following, assuming it could be done without placing undue burden on you.

Create several different topic/category-specific threads, plus one miscellaneous thread as a catch-all for anything that does not fit under any of the specific ones. The topics would presumably be those that have been the most frequent at AE’s blog. The following is a suggestion for some fairly broad categories:
– Electoral and Other Domestic Politics, Policy and Concerns
– Immigration and Foreign Policy
– Economy and Trade
– Minority Populations (for all discussion concerning various racial, ethnic, national or religious minorities and their relation to the majority population)
– Sexuality, Fertility, Family Formation, and Child-Rearing
– Culture and Religion

Some of the above could perhaps be merged, while others could perhaps be further split. I have no idea of what the relative costs to you are of creating and maintaining more threads vs. fewer. Nor do I have any idea how difficult or complicated implementing such an idea at all might be for you. If at all formidable, then, let me reiterate, I would not expect you to take any such burden upon yourself. If, however, creating at least a few separate threads would not be too difficult, then doing so would be much appreciated, not only by myself but, I am sure, others as well.

I appreciate your willingness to find creative ways forward.

Unfortunately, now I can’t comment on that open thread.

So I’m going to have to stick to responding to comments made in this thread.

“That’s obvious, I presume some are working for the other side, whether officially or unofficially�

You have an active imagination.

“The agents/opposition/whatever won’t be Coronavirus-type trolls“

It’s much easier for you to characterize anyone whom you personally disagree with in that fashion.

Dissident’s people, which is Jews plus the majority of decent, intelligent Whites (and the decent, intelligent fraction of all races) certainly outnumber “your people” 🙂

I don’t think Dissident has anything to fear from the likes of you lol. But your threats are cute 🙂

It’s likely above my paygrade to pull it all together, but I am convinced that bureaucracy is working to destroy us.

I agree. I think that’s just in the nature of bureaucracy. As bureaucracies get bigger they get more oppressive and more intrusive. Even if the bureaucracies comprise people who are honest and sincerely believe they’re working in the best interests of society they will still become more oppressive and more intrusive and will end by turning society into a totalitarian nightmare.

Of course if those bureaucracies also include a significant number of people who are actively malevolent then you have a much bigger problem. But even a benign bureaucracy will be destructive.

And the bigger the nation state the bigger the bureaucracy and the bigger the bureaucracy gets the more impossible it is to control.

I want nothing to do with any publisher who would cancel Andrew Anglin.

After posting the above, I realized that I went too far.

Ron Unz has repeatedly proved his fairness and reliability during these past�25 years, so I assume that if (for some reason) he discontinued Anglin, he’d have a good reason.

The old traditional society wasn’t that bad – a women could still be a mathematician or doctor if she wished. Our family doctor when I was a child was a woman who must have graduated in the late 1920s.

But… she was unmarried and childless, as well as being a great doctor. If only that intelligence and compassion could have been passed down.

I know an elderly former nurse who gave up the job on marriage. But her children are two doctors, a nurse and a senior civil servant. Men just can’t do that, we’re reliant on you lot to step up to the plate.

Your suggestions are good. Thank you for coordinating. I go to the Open Thread and to your blog.

You and I are simply enemies. How high you are willing to escalate the conflict between your people and mine is up to you; but the conflict, which has gone poorly for my people, will go even worse for yours if you persist. We outnumber you, and while in several respects your people bring more human capital per capita than do mine, the difference will not be enough.

I suggest that you stop escalating while you still can.

The comment of Jenner Ickham Errican to which you object is entirely reasonable. You can only make it out to be unreasonable by neuroticism combined with typically Talmudic contortions. Of course, the contortions hardly bother you because, as the Talmud teaches, you do not even believe that Jenner and I have proper souls.

You are why I am an anti-Semite. If anti-Semitism is what you want, you’re doing great. I think you’re a total jerk.

What is wrong with you? Why can’t you just act a little more like Ron Unz? If you did, this entire conflict would just go away.

TMI

Stop it!

One of my critical principles on the modern world is based on size and scale.

It’s likely above my paygrade to pull it all together, but I am convinced that bureaucracy is working to destroy us.

it came up when I hit the “print� button.

Ah, good.

Good news, the Wayback Machine is apparently not lost yet!

Let us not celebrate prematurely. Perhaps that was just a fortunate oversight on the part of the digital book burners that a second copy of the text is hidden within the “print” function. After all, the full text used to appear automatically, and I suspect 99% of readers don’t have the persistence to root around for a copy hidden within the scripts.

The bottom line is, do we want to be involved with anything that is involved with Andrew Anglin? For me, now that I’ve framed the question this way, the answer is NO.

For me, YES.

I am not a big follower of Anglin’s, but this is more a matter of style than substance. Aglin is a creative, clever fellow and a good writer. He often has interesting things to say—and, in his ideological lane, there are few who say it better.

He’s trying to save my people and civilization from the fate that otherwise awaits them. His prescriptions may be imperfect but whose prescriptions aren’t? I like him. He’s got the right enemies, too.

I want nothing to do with any publisher who would cancel Andrew Anglin.

One of my critical principles on the modern world is based on size and scale. I’m convinced that as institutions increase in size they become less humane and less responsive to real human needs. It seems to me that there is perhaps an ideal organic scale for human societies which has been short circuited by technology, especially the greatly increased mobility of the 20th century.

I agree. And that’s why I’m not as worried as some people about declining birth rates. It’s arguable that when you have nation states with populations numbered in the tens of millions (or in some cases hundreds of millions) it is inevitable that you end up with alienated atomised populations and regimes that are oppressive because they just can’t function any other way.

In the long term it’s possible that much smaller populations might result in a more civilised healthy society. And this doesn’t have to be achieved by high mortality. Lower birth rates can achieve the same results much more humanely.

Obviously smaller political units are also desirable but I have no idea how that can be achieved. But it’s the reason I quite like the idea of seeing countries like the UK breaking up.

If you’re interested we could continue this discussion on the Open Thread.

He essentially said that Jews were responsible for the communist takeover of Russia

Was there not a major Jewish contribution, indeed, perhaps the decisive contribution in personnel, ideology and capital, from Jews [yes, NAJALT] to the Bolshevik/Communist takeover of Russia?

Did the Bolsheviks not practice bloody and widespread genocides before anyone had heard of Nazis?

Did the Bolsheviks not explicitly plan to make their “revolution” global?

Was Germany (and the rest of the West) not explicitly in the attack corridor for the Communist expansion?

The Nazis decided to strike first rather than wait for the next stage of Bolshevism. This isn’t a secret or a retcon; it is what they explicitly said at the time. Was that the right thing to do? Apparently not. But in an age of genocide-or-be-genocided, one can see why they might go that route when faced with an existential threat. After all, it wasn’t just German-Russian thing or a Jewish-Gentile thing. The Turks had (successfully) genocided the Greeks and Armenians out of Anatolia, the British had successfully genocided the Boers out of power in South Africa. Arabs have long been genociding Berbers, Bantus have long genocided Twa, Indian tribes long genocided each other, etc., etc. Like slavery, genocide has been business-as-usual for most of history. Recently, we supposedly decided that we’re gonna stop doing that from now on, which doesn’t actually seem to be working out, except that the genocideers have gotten more suave in how they go about it.

But again, the more pertinent question here is, are we now making these threads into places where we lodge the accusations and do the pre-work for future show trials against anonymous commenters?

It’s still up when I checked a couple minutes ago. I couldn’t figure out at first how to get to the text of the article, but it came up when I hit the “print” button.

Good news, the Wayback Machine is apparently not lost yet!

So if somebody set up a blog on blogger, then this community could at least temporarily move there.

At the moment I’m trying to transfer some of the recent very interesting discussions here to the Open Thread. I see this as a temporary thing. If we can keep this community of commenters going for a while on the Open Thread maybe we can buy ourselves a little time to think of a long term option. So if you go to the Open Thread you’ll find several comments that I’ve left there that relate to our recent discussions.

I know that the Open Thread is probably not a long-term solution but I’d encourage people to use it as a short-term refuge.

So if you’re interested the relevant One Thread posts are Numbers 285, 294 and 295. And @Iffen’s comment, Number 287.

That basic line of thought is one that has struck me as well.
To me it seems that a compelling case could be made against things like vaccines and other advanced medical innovations for increasing populations in an unsustainable way which does not necessarily lead to greater human fulfillment projected into the long term.
It has always been striking to me that fully formed and functional societies do not require large population bases. Examples would be the Italian or Greek City States which had citizenry sometimes numbering only in the tens of thousands, yet having all the attributes of well rounded civilization.

One of my critical principles on the modern world is based on size and scale. I’m convinced that as institutions increase in size they become less humane and less responsive to real human needs. It seems to me that there is perhaps an ideal organic scale for human societies which has been short circuited by technology, especially the greatly increased mobility of the 20th century.

Beyond the eugenic biological argument I think there is an underlying philosophical change in one’s outlook on life when health, comfort, and risk aversion are the norms. It seems to me that a higher danger/ risk environment leads to potentially more of a “Carpe Diem” attitude in life. I am really disheartened at the flaccid listlessness and lack of drive in many of the youngest generation coming up. It seems far worse than when I was even growing up, (which was not that long ago). I seems to come from an overprotective and over-structured environment choking off the drive for initiative and exploration. This is even seen in the many instances of younger generations being more hostile to things like free speech and more accepting of coercive political programs.

It seems to me that life may have had a tad more urgency when it was not uncommon for otherwise healthy young people to be struck down by accident or disease. This doesn’t seem to be an entirely bad thing to me since I don’t think that seeking the greatest comfort is our highest goal in life. Suffering has value too.

As you allude though, both yourself and myself have benefited from modern medicine, so this line of argument may be considered disingenuous by some. However, I have a relatively dangerous line of work personally, and having come within striking distance of biting the dust a couple times have found that it’s only made me more set on living my life without moral compromise. My kids have a relatively “dangerous” old school upbringing too, living in the middle of nowhere, so we’ll see what results that produces.

I am personally opposed to the death penalty, although I understand your line of reasoning. My objection is more theological in nature as I don’t think that we as humans have a right to kill another human in cold blood, even under the auspices of the state. That should be reserved for God alone. Even in cases of the seemingly irredeemable, it seems that the possibility for repentance must remain.

I see that the content in the link to the archive.org article that I cited has been wiped. Apparently the Left has finally carried out their threat censor hatefacts even from neutral platforms like the Wayback Machine. To complete my comment (which was referring to the 9th and 10th paragraphs of this classic), and so that Mr. Locklin’s hilarious article will not perish from the earth, I am reproducing it below the “MORE” tag. His original article also had many internal hyperlinks (and humorously placed images), which I won’t reproduce, partly because it would be very time consuming, and partly because I suspect that the content at the other end of those hyperlinks has also already been purged in the Left’s digital book burning campaign.

Yes, sorry. I must not have clicked “publish” on that comment.

I should have said Attwood saw how life transformed for women in the cities in Iran and extrapolated out. I assume she knew about life for women in countries with even more oppressive attitudes to women too.

Britain didn’t actually turn into Airstrip One, but Orwell was not crazy to look at various forces in British society, how the USSR had turned, and extrapolate out.

I’m not a fan of HMT, but I still don’t think it was an insane book to write. The women who convince themselves that the US is just like it now, they are mad, but they are also very few.

I think that’s a mischaracterization.

I went back a re-read and I think that you are doing more mischaracterization. He essentially said that Jews were responsible for the communist takeover of Russia and because of that they had it coming and deservedly so.

I offered the definition of “reasonable dystopia� as 1984 was to the USSR.

Eh? Dude, this is the first time anyone has mentioned the USSR on this page. It’s also the first time you’ve used “reasonable” on this page.

It seems that part of your discussions are occurring inside your own head, and only part of it occurs on the page where everyone else can see it. If you prefer keeping your arguments to yourself, that’s fine, as it does save time. But it would have been nice to know that dialogue was only open to mind-readers.

I then argued that HMT is to various Muslim countries at the time, as that was.

Except it wasn’t, as already described, and anyhow Atwood specifically and explicitly intended it as a critique of the US, not of the Taliban, which no one had ever heard of when she wrote it. As a critique of the US it was laughably off target and it gets further off target every year.

Meanwhile, the zealous and intolerant forces seizing control of government power are Atwood’s own followers and fellow travellers, some of whom even dress up as characters in her book as a performative display of their fanaticism.

So as a piece of “speculative fiction” it’s an utter failure. At best it is just an extrusion of her own paranoid delusions, or possibly, as someone speculated above, her submission fantasy. But it has inspired many people to carry out the kinds of injustice and oppression she wrote about, only for the opposite purpose for which she described. And she likes that kind of injustice and oppression just fine.

It may interest you to know that the individual whose comment endorsing you is seen in the screenshot you posted happens to be an unabashed defender of the Nazi genocide.

I think that’s a mischaracterization. If you read the original in context, it is pretty clear he is saying something more like, “in an era of competing genocides, the Nazis (temporarily) won first place.”

But perhaps a more important question is, are these threads now a forum where we try to set up other blog commenters for future show trials? Include me out, as dfordoom says.

I just wanted to see if I got swarmed by nutters!

I did my part.

“I am more and more convinced that many of the commenters here are not who they present themselves to be.”

That’s obvious, I presume some are working for the other side, whether officially or unofficially. Remember the German court case I linked to where out of 200 top NPD party leaders, 30 were state agents.

The agents/opposition/whatever won’t be Coronavirus-type trolls. More likely to be people accusing others of not being radical enough, stirring the pot. Or encouraging everyone to leave, who knows? Wilderness of mirrors.

So if somebody set up a blog on blogger, then this community could at least temporarily move there.

I already have a political blog on Blogger and it would be inconvenient and confusing for me to try to run two political blogs.

Anyone who wants to follow my blog or leave comments is of course very welcome to do so. Comments are moderated (which in my opinion is absolutely essential) and my moderation policies are slightly stricter than AE’s schoolmarm.

If anyone wants to write a guest post they’re welcome to do so. At the moment the blog is set up with myself as the only authorised poster and I don’t want to fiddle with those settings at the moment (although I’d certainly consider it in the future) but if you email a guest post to me I’ll publish it (under the pseudonym of your choice of course) as long as it passes muster with my schoolmarm.

The blog mainly focuses on social issue stuff (the family, political correctness, censorship, marriage, sex, education, history, Wokeness in popular culture, the politicisation of science, etc). It has a modest following and a few decent regular commenters. I check it every day so the longest you’d ever have to wait for a comment to be approved would be 24 hours (I have to do things like sleep).

Anyway that’s what I personally can offer at the moment. If you missed the link to my blog last time here it is again –

https://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com/

It may interest you to know that the individual whose comment endorsing you is seen in the screenshot you posted happens to be an unabashed defender of the Nazi genocide.

(And not just of Jews; in the comment linked above, the estimable Mr. Errican acknowledges that,

Hitler’s Wehrmacht also killed many, many Red Army (and civilian) goyim

, before immediately going on to posit,

perhaps he was unimpressed with Slavic capitulation to Jewish revolutionary troublemaking.

)

And that’s the reason why we should think about trying to set up a new blog/community elsewhere.

My blog remains available for that.

I can’t promise to write every day, nor can I promise to write things that people here will find interesting; but since Unz is getting dangerous, I think that’s just what I’ll have to do.

There is no place here that can serve as a substitute. Sailer’s moderating policies are way too flakey and glacial-paced to support decent conversation; besides, I don’t care for Sailer anyway. I’m banned from commenting on Karlin. I am not going to touch Anglin. Nobody else really has an acceptable atmosphere.

I guess that’s a wrap, folks.

I would be easy for me to write a long post speculating on those issues. However its probably not appropriate, its definitely not germane, and we are running out of time.

The bottom line is, do we want to be involved with anything that is involved with Andrew Anglin? For me, now that I’ve framed the question this way, the answer is NO.

Where do we move to now?

Who is going to set up the new blog?

~
Occasionally I see a few articles on how the left is being sabotaged, but they don’t reference a toolbox for coping with it. I haven’t ever seen an article on how the right is being sabotaged. What a lot of innocents in the deep state wilderness.

However this is a long-term issue to be dealt with, after we’ve moved to a location that won’t expire in a couple of days.

~
AE – exactly when is the plug going to be pulled on this group?

Probably its best to reply in GMT time, to prevent confusion.

I use this website for setting my watch, and checking what the GMT/UTC time is:
http://www.time.gov

Okay, I just outed myself – I live somewhere in North America. LOL

CJ Hopkins is a good writer who was kicking the truth about Corona. Why should he be dropped?

As I understand it he left voluntarily because it was no longer safe for him to be associated with Unz Review. In the country in which he lives being associated with Unz Review could potentially earn you a long prison sentence.

That’s the real problem. That’s the reason the sane sensible contributors and the sane sensible commenters are leaving one by one.

And that’s the reason why we should think about trying to set up a new blog/community elsewhere.

We need to realise that Unz Review is increasingly seen as an extremist site that sane sensible people can no longer afford to be associated with. Because increasingly it really has become an incredibly extremist site. And as the sane sensible contributors leave they’re being replaced by new contributors who are full-on extremist nutters.

It seems the mid 20th Century was an exception to the rule. Monogamy was socially enforced and marriage and children fell into place for most men. After the sexual revolution we returned to the haves and have nots.

I think that’s true. It was a unique time in which most men could get decent well-paid secure jobs. Secure being the really important factor. For the only time in human history most men were very attractive marriage propositions for women.

While the Sexual Revolution did play a part in ending that golden age the most important factors were the disappearance of those decent well-paid and the ending of job security.

It’s also crucial to remember that the ending of job security affected not just the working class but the lower middle class.

I guess “unicorn” doesn’t mean to you, what it means to me!

Recently C J Hopkins was dropped and Andrew Anglin was added.

Andrew Anglin is a known informant and agent provocateur who engages in rather deceptive commenting practices to stir the pot, and his inclusion here at TUR is one of the reasons why I am very leery about being on this website at all anymore. The Daily Stormer is full of sock puppets and unicorns who basically turn the com-boxes into a kaleidoscopic house of mirrors, and that character has penetrated into TUR in recent years.

I am more and more convinced that many of the commenters here are not who they present themselves to be. “Rosie,” for instance, is a unicorn and a troll whose comments are for some reason approved on Sailer’s blog even before my own. And have you noticed how many longtime commenters have left lately, within the last few months? It’s almost as if they decided, their purpose now served, to up stakes and preserve operational security.

CJ Hopkins is a good writer who was kicking the truth about Corona. Why should he be dropped?

This is all very unsettling and I don’t think I am comfortable with it anymore.

The effects are real, but the effects are small and just averages, except at the extremes.

You need a maths problem solved or else it is the end of the universe. There is a man and a woman to pick from. Do you pick the man, or do you give them both a maths test to see who is better?

The current system, of if the man does better, you decry sexism, is even more stupid; but the old traditionally sexist one, was wrong too.

I’m not sure if TUR is a good fit for this blog community anymore.

Recently C J Hopkins was dropped and Andrew Anglin was added. If you aren’t familiar with them, read their commenters and compare them. This is on top of the comments in post #242 about the history of commenting on TUR. That post gave me a lot to think about, and it took a while to think thru the implications and adjust to them – adjusting to them took a lot of effort. This is the fastest I can do things.

There are all kinds of reasons not to use blogger. However dfordoom says its quick and easy. Right now we need REALLY QUICK. Later on, if somebody finds a better blogging solution, then we could move there.

~
Google is part of the upgrade treadmill mafia, where you upgrade, or die. So a few years ago they intentionally broke the last version of Firefox that supported windows XP, which is what my computer runs. In this light, its amazing how many websites I can still access, use, and make purchases on, without any problems at all. In general, I can still use most websites, except for the trendy sites and globalist sites – this alone says a lot.

I will upgrade to new everything, after I get some money from the VA, which won’t be anytime soon. Shortly the local library will reopen again (they have been excessive in their wokeness and screwing the not-privileged) and probably I could go there to post comments on blogger.

There probably aren’t many people, still running XP, who are interested in continuing this blog community, so overall this isn’t a blocking issue to this community moving to blogger – REALLY SOON.

~
So if somebody set up a blog on blogger, then this community could at least temporarily move there.

Once the blog is setup, probably the person who set it up could delegate almost all of the work needed to sustain the blog. So setting it up isn’t likely to be a major ongoing time commitment.

The bottom line is that somebody, who isn’t running XP, has to set up the new blog on blogger.

It seems the mid 20th Century was an exception to the rule. Monogamy was socially enforced and marriage and children fell into place for most men. After the sexual revolution we returned to the haves and have nots.

I hate to encourage anyone to respond to the troll Coronavirus, but this is a very good comment. The ideas were very well expressed by the good Professor Beaumeister here. Note that he wrote in a more innocent age, all of nine or so years ago – no one now would argue that mostly male CEOs or inventors meant men were ‘better’ than women, it would be prima facie evidence of the institutional and structural sexism inherent in …

http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.

Again, there is a reason for this, to which I shall return.

For now, the point is that it explains how we can have opposite stereotypes. Men go to extremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Want to think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, the inventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better than men? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers.

In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.

Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,� he might miss his only chance.

Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

His comment about “women who played it safe” still applies, which is why the average woman in the West was conservative in the 50s and is ‘radical’ (as dictated by MSM) now. “Go along to get along”.

I like your description. I just note that Dante could be mighty petty about who he placed in eternal damnation.

It’s starting to look like the open thread may be the only option we’re going to be left with if we want to continue at UR. I’ve just left a comment there (it’s comment 285 on Open Thread 5). It’s not an exciting comment. I just wanted to see if I got swarmed by nutters!

Mark Stoneking’s 2014 DNA analysis shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that more women than men successfully reproduced throughout the majority of human history. We, as a species, have a wider variety of female ancestors than male ones.

This should not be shocking, on a number of levels. Men can theoretically get dozens of women pregnant within a single month. Whereas a woman can only pregnant from a single man for 9 months. That’s just biology at work. This drives male competition for women rather than the other way around. In primitive societies, that means the likely result is going to be some men dominating the gene pool and other men losing out on the mating game entirely.

As for the rest: just go take a look at the proportion of male to female CEOs and billionaires, and male to female homeless and mentally ill people.

The irony is, I don’t disagree at all with feminist talk about “glass ceilings”. They do exist, and for most of human history, used to be a lot stronger. They just don’t notice the other part of the dynamic. And I don’t think that focus is cynical. If you happen to be a Type A personality who has the abilities and drive to make it to the top, the ceiling is naturally what you’ll pay attention to, not the net. But they miss the fact that a man in the converse situation from theirs doesn’t really have an “opt out” option like they do. “Fragility” and “privilege” have little to do with why men respond so poorly to a lack of professional success or are unlikely to take pink-collar jobs: that’s a death sentence in attracting women, and they know it, regardless of what the New York Times claims. And that ties to the biological reality that if they make crucial “mistakes”, they won’t reproduce at all.

Women have their own challenges, which are neither inherently better or worse. They are just different, with a different set of trade-offs that benefits or penalizes people individually. Among the unstated trade-offs is this: as a woman, you don’t have to get as much right in your perceptions about the opposite sex. I suspect that is part of the underlying growing male bitterness about mainstream discussions about gender.

I’d agree about Dostoevsky. Tolstoy is who you want to go by if you are a fundamentally well-adjusted, normal person. Dostoevsky is the guide for people who aren’t, which are a minority of the populace. I mean that without condemnation! You need both.

But the Comedy… not as much. One of the interesting things about the Comedy is that Dante had multiple purposes for the work that might not come across to modern readers upon first glance. One of them was to serve as an encyclopedia of sorts. This was before Petrarch or the Greek exodus from the fall of Constantinople into Italy, remember. Dante had to teach himself and assemble his own education from scraps in a way that, say, Machiavelli never had to do. Dante found the medieval notion of life as a “vale of tears” profoundly repugnant, but also knew that most people would not have his patience or discipline to go hunting for general knowledge. The Comedy, written in Italian rather than Latin, was meant as a way to help people there.

(He allowed himself no false modesty-and he noted in Purgatorio that Pride was the circle he feared the most, for good reason.)

For the Inferno in particular: it’s the most grubby, psychologically weird, “human” part of the poem. Of course it is. Hell is meant to be baseness incarnate. The dead can’t dissemble. What they were in life, they can’t hide as they could when alive. Now, there’s no question that Dante started the Inferno from an extreme low point in life, and it was a personal work. But it’s pretty remarkably free of his own neuroses, and to a limited extent, his own biases. Among the few condemned in the Inferno treated with genuine respect and retaining some of their heroism from the world above are Farinata degli Uberti, the leading figure of the opposition in Florence from the previous generation, and Odysseus, the great big bad guy for a man who prided himself on being the heir of Virgil and had no access to the Iliad or Odyssey in his life.

What it instead shows in vivid detail is hell not just as a literal, physical place in the mind of a medieval, parochial Catholic, which Dante unquestionably was. But as an apt insight into the consciences of the damned. Each circle of hell’s punishment is not accidental: from the lustful being blown about the winds, showing their lack of self-control over physical appetites, to the traitors whose souls were so frozen that they violated the most sacred bonds in life, to family or guests or benefactors. It is an insightful treatise of self-destructive behavior, and how men engaging in it both love and fear it.

A lot of negative social change has in fact been driven purely by technology.

I completely agree with this and will push it to the next degree: negative social change has been driven even by medical technology.

It is not easy to acknowledge that the world might be a better place if the modern medicine that has saved my life, my wife’s life, and some of my children’s lives did not exist, but unfortunately the message of Mouse Utopia has only confirmed personal observations. In an earlier, more tragic state, in which early death was a common fact of life, it would seem that the robust and the well rounded preferentially survived, with eugenic effect.

I just went off on a tangent there, but can add little directly to your original point, which seems to me both correct and significant.

Here is another, even more sharply divergent tangent: the death penalty is simpler, more traditional and less cruel than extended incarceration. Any crime that merits a prison sentence longer than ten years should probably again as aforetime be punished by the hangman’s noose. (I would prefer to be hanged, at any rate, than to spend�20 years among muscular negro felons at the state penitentiary.)

Sad, but understandable. The internet sucks now so it’s no fun, and 2020 made it a little too obvious that ignorance of hard reality isn’t really the issue (because the real issue is deficiency in moral courage), so there’s no point explaining anything unless you get off on it.

Good luck out there in the desert of the real.

I believe that our discussion was whether The Handmaid’s Tale was a reasonable dystopia, once you look at some of the conditions women live in around the world, and in recent history.

If you look back through the thread, I offered the definition of “reasonable dystopia” as 1984 was to the USSR. I then argued that HMT is to various Muslim countries at the time, as that was.

I stand by this.

We can argue the relative degrees of obvious oppression in different places and times, but, while I may have details wrong or right, I don’t think they are going to be inaccurate enough to invalidate my broader point.

I also don’t see a sensible way of measuring those disparities with an accuracy suitable to make more than the general point that I was trying to make.

HMT is to conditions that some women lived in at the time as 1984 was to conditions that some people lived in at the time. Both were not an exact picture of anywhere in the world, certainly not the country they were set in, but that’s OK.

This “discussion” started when I pointed out that your assertion that The Handmaid’s Tale was an accurate depiction of life in contemporary Saudi Arabia was utter bollocks. Rather than refute or concede the point, you repeated a bunch of mass media tropes about a different place that I hadn’t mentioned, a place thousands of kilometers away from the place that I did mention, a place you apparently have no direct knowledge of either. When I pointed that out, you doubled down with the irrelevant strawmen, accused me of saying things I didn’t say, and brought in what is apparently your idiosyncratic (mis)interpretation of a different discussion thread we had.

So it is not really accurate to say you are ending this discussion, since avoiding what I actually said while randomly expostulating on your personal hobby horses (neuroses?) is not a discussion as traditionally understood. Ah well, I tried.

As I’ve said before, I’ve found some of your commentary interesting and admirable. But for whatever reason, I failed to conjure any of that up from you on this subject.

Why have a significant number of women been participating in this blog

I’d argue that it is an “insignificant” number, and circling zero.