Archery Post n. 4 – Yes it can kill a man

I can tell that I am going to be hooked on archery, and as with all things I get interested in, whether for a season or a lifetime, I tend to get obsessive about them until I master them. By labelling the posts chronologically anyone interested can find them by simply searching for “Archery Post n. X”. And those of you who are bored stiff by them instead can skip them easier.

I think it would be interesting for other novices to see the progression from “knows absolutely nothing” to wherever I get up to. I also have headings in these posts so you can quickly skim over things and skip some parts if they are not interesting to you. 1

The first three post were not labelled but here they are in order:

Archery Post n. 1 – Brand new idea

Archery Post n. 2 – Learning Super-Basic stuff

Archery Post n. 3 – Kids and my new glove and better shots

In this post, I will tell you about my latest 5 shots, just taken, at the end of a long day and with low light, so not ideal, but basically I placed a cardboard box at 50 metres away from me and tried to hit it. The first shot went wildly wide and I couldn’t find the arrow. Second and third shots were close but missed and on the fourth I also lost another arrow. However, the fifth and last shot I not only hit the target, but I also understood why I seem to have lost the other two arrows.

It zipped through the box as if it was a bullet and went so deep into the ground behind it at a shallow angle that only the fletching was barely visible under the grass.

I fear I may find the other two arrows only when the tractor tries to trim the grass…

But… the important thing is that I learnt that the bow is a lot more powerful than I thought.

For a start, I kept shooting high because I expected the arrow to drop a lot more than it does. At 50 metres it’s really about as flat shooting as a handgun I would say.

Here is the box I used and where I hit it.

And here is the surprisingly very neat and small exit hole. Considering the back flap was not closed flat but was more or less open as in the picture, to hold the box up, I expected the fletching to tear through it more as it’s pretty hard little rubber fins.

Anyway, I am now down to 6 arrows as 3 are somewhere in the field. the first one I lost was entirely my fault for assuming weakness and arrow-drop that the bow does not have. I shot about two feet above the target, missed the backstop entirely and the arrow sped off into the forest, underbrush and downhill, so it could be anywhere from 50 to a couple hundred meters into forest, tall grass, or anything in between.

The area was safe for me to fire and miss in obviously, but that arrow might be found by archeologists one day. the last two I lost today… maybe if I trim the grass myself with a trimmer…

Another arrow I broke the tip off pulling it out of a dead tree I shot it into. That one, and another two I took out the point from, I gave to the three kids who want to try archery too (Monkey 10, Young Viking 6, and the Pink Astronaut 5 [she went out to practice by herself earlier today when I was working apparently]).

It got dark and I obviously need to rethink my target practice area, trim the grass in a good area that is uphill and clean, and stuff the box with old plastic bags, maybe some foam or something else to “catch” the arrows into it too.

In any case, I really like this bow thing.

And to paraphrase and butcher Obi-Wan Kenobi, the way I see using a bow is thusly:

It is a more elegant weapon; for a less civilised age.

It absolutely is more elegant. And the idea of getting stuck with a barbed, poisoned, or even just razor-edged hunting arrow, is less appealing than getting shot. Even if objectively, survivability of an arrow is almost guaranteed to be higher.

And that instinctive shooting thing is getting better all the time. the new arrows are on order, and now I am preoccupied with how to get a target area that will not make my arrows disappear in the low grassy undergrowth.

If I had more time I think I’d probably spend a couple of hours out there just perfecting a few things.

In any case, I am very pleasantly surprised and am now convinced this thing is definitely not a toy.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So… Piglet has decided to rename herself Fruit Bat in honour of now being 5, and she does pretty much try to live only on fruit if we’d let her. But in reality her coolest name, which she came up with when she was 3, is [her give name] Danger, the Pink Astronaut. Which may sound like a bit of a stripper name, but is a vast improvement on her first iteration which was Dirty Astronaut (she does make an unholy mess whenever eating).

Anyway, Monkey (10) has been sick but as they all saw me shooting the bow they all wanted one of course, so I made hers first but she’s not used it much. The YV gets disheartened quickly if he doesn’t achieve immediate success, but he’s also tired today and possibly coming down with what his older sister has, so he fired a few shots with the one I made him, satisfied when he hit the target a couple of times.

The Pink Astronaut however, was out there for a while by herself, practicing, and well, I’ll let you see for yourself .

As for me, I am definitely getting better and now that I got the driving gloves, although they are OJ Simpson tight, make using the bow a pleasure now. No more cheese-grated fingers for me. The combination of little red plastic tubes and driving gloves works perfectly.

I have also decided to go with instinctive style of aiming/shooting and although this was from about half the distance I have been firing from, about 15-20 metres (70 feet or so) I actually basically hit the target once.

The glove fingers point to the piece of light-coloured bark I was aiming for.

And thanks to the glove I can now hold the bow at full draw for a much longer time without it being a struggle or painful, which obviously makes for a much better shooting experience.

I still need to settle on, or find, a way to aim that is naturally good for me, but I think that will come with more experimentation and better (feathered) arrows; which are on order.

I am pleasantly happy with how well archery has slotted in with my imagined perception of what it would be like.

I think I will set up a better/proper target, in a location that makes arrow retrieval easier when I miss, and a consistency that makes arrow retrieval easier when I hit too.

The classic target is a bale of hay I believe, and there are plenty of those around, if not on my farm.

I’ll keep you updated. My long-term aim is foggy presently, but for now I’d like to be able to consistently hit a human-sized target at 40-50 metres.

Any of you who are archers, feel free to chip in and critique to your heart’s content.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I put my abysmal ignorance in all things archery due to the fact that my Red Indian heart is just not used to the white man’s fancy bows of the modern era.

So that’s the reason for all my idiotic mistakes, but I write this in the hope that out of my 600 or so half-shadow-banned readers, there may be one or two who want to take up archery (it’s not expensive and it has many benefits at least for me mentally) and might be starting from zero, just like yours truly.

So… total number of arrows fired as of last post was 11. That has now increased to 16, with five more shots earlier this morning after I had fixed a few things I had been completely missing before.

All of these details below, and in case you don’t care at all, I just have a few pictures at the end of the current target progress, with which I am quite pleased.

So… first the finger protection.

The ones I tried so far kind of sucked and my simple work-gloves I use on the farm were adequate.

This stuff (see image below) not only looked terribly gay, but the leather pad on it is so thick and unwieldy that I couldn’t feel the bowstring effectively and I think reduced sensitivity to the point I never even tried to use it after merely pulling on the bowstring a couple of times with it.

It was also mostly useless because they must be made in China and for children or something as my man-sized hands barely fit in them. So I split them open most of the way and tried to use them with only the side of the finger-glove, ignoring the thick leather pad. this was better but the adjustments I would need to do would be too much of a hassle to bother.

I then tried something that looked like a cheapo, non-workable thing, some Chinese made little rubber tubes…

Instinctively though… they looked like they would work. My main issue is that if I could do it repeatedly without issues I’d prefer to pull on the bowstring just with my bare fingers, as it gives me a better feel for everything, but at a 60 lbs pull, when you let go of it, the bowstring basically tries to slice off the pads of your fingers.

Now, as it turns out, these little plastic things actually work rather well. I can still feel the boosting after a few shots, and I did get a blood blister, but in all honesty I get all sorts of little dings, so I am not even 100% sure this was caused by the bow, but I can’t think of anything else that would have done it and I noticed it only after using it, so I guess it may well be the cause. Still, it’s all quite tolerable, even so, I have ordered leather (or likely faux-leather) driving gloves, as a thin extra layer for the fingers would not go amiss. I’ll let you all know how it goes when I use them.

As for the bow itself, I had missed quite a few things.

The “silencers” of felt to be placed at the tips of the bow as shown below,

And the bit of cowhide on the arrow rest. which has to have the direction of the hair going in the same direction as the flight of the arrow. I had no idea originally what the little piece of furred leather was for, but in doing a tiny bit more research, it became obvious this is what the self-adhesive backing was for. I cut the original piece in two so one is for the side of the bow and one for the arrow-shelf on it as shown below.

Lastly, the arrow nocking tabs (or whatever they are called). there is actually a tool to make sure you get the position right (a perfect 90 degree angle between the arrow and the bowstring, but I just used a scale ruler and a protractor, and I think it came out fine.

And here are the results of my 5 shots from this morning.

The first one was just over the tree trunk, the next two were low, and missed the tree-trunk altogether, but the last two (numbers 2 and 3 below) were close to the target. Although the arrows have a simple point, they get stuck into the wood hard enough you can’t just pull them out, hence the hammer and chisel you see in the picture.

Arrow 1 was the one I had fired yesterday and left in overnight. So number 2 was worse, but number 3 is pretty good. I was slightly closer to the target, so maybe 37 metres or so instead of 40 metres. That’s roughly 120 feet instead of 130 feet. The target is the little yellow leaf placed under a vine on the left of arrow 3.

And for perspective, here is my hand to show the distance between the leaf and the closest and last arrow I fired today.

There is still a LOT I need to learn, however, you might notice that the arrow that is closest is missing one of the fins, as I mentioned in the previous archery post.

I genuinely think I am more accurate with hat arrow than with the ones where the plastic fin bashes the side of the bow and as a result deflects in a somewhat random way. And in all honesty, I am not sure 2 fins instead of 3 makes all that difference.

I am sure some actual experts would anathemise me and label me a dirty heretic unfit to own a bow… but… all I care about is how accurate I can get with my own way of doing things.

Main issue I have so far is that there is no easy way to aim. I get the best results when I sort of “sense it” without really aiming in any specific way other than by literally just trying to perceive where I want the arrow to go. I am not sure that is a good way to do things, and I know a lot of people say you should find a spot on your face to “weld” a part of your drawing hand to so as to have good consistency, but I find that doing that tends to make me shoot even less accurately.

Anyway… this is more about Archery from a complete novice than anyone is likely to care about, so thanks for reading if you got this far.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

So we have a new semi-neighbour, a Sedevacantist, who bought a really nice house with some land that goes right up to a river that flows nearby, about a half-hour away from us. He lives in America so he was only here for a couple of days to sign all the paperwork, and then he had to go back, so we had him over for lunch.

Aside the fact it may have put him off having more children (he has two), as with any new person that enters the house, the kids pretty much assaulted him with questions.

Aryan Girl, of course, being suspicious by nature of any foreigners, quietly sneaked up to my home office while I sent off a work email quickly just before lunch and said:

“Dad… I am not talking to your friend, because he might be a bad guy.”

Basically she said that because she has not yet seen any war films set in WWII. If she had I am fairly sure she would have stopped him at the door and shouted:

“VERE AR YOR PAPERS! SCHNELL!”

I reassured her that he was indeed a good guy, and after that it was difficult to shut her up.

At one point though, the Young Viking asked him what was his favourite thing.

Our new friend asked if he meant thing or food, and YV said “either” but he also qualified it could be anything even off this planet. I realise now in hindsight he was trying to give the man (and us all really) a hint.

Our guest explained he didn’t know about anything off planet as he’d never been to space, so he expressed what was his favourite food instead. After he listened carefully, the YV said:

“My favourite thing is God; because he made everything.”

Which left us all open-mouth stunned.

Keep in mind that although I am a hardcore zealot, because I understand the contrarian nature of our kids, I do not impose anything on them. We hardly do grace at mealtimes, and half the time it’s one of the kids that reminds us to do it. We had friends that had a preemie baby and our children would without fail remember to include him in our daily prayer at mealtimes. We did not skip a single grace in the period for a few weeks until the little boy went home to his family and was out of danger.

But all of that is their own doing. I will answer questions of theology as best I can and they have been to church several times despite it being two hours were, from their perspective, they have to sit quietly while understanding nothing of what is going on as it’s either Latin or Italian of a nature that is hard to grasp even if they were fluent, which they are not.

I taught them how to cross themselves and to act respectfully in church and how to pray , and that’s about it.

I think the YV learnt to pray properly as he listened to my explanation and he told me later the things he prayed for happened, so I think he is starting to see how things work, in great part due to his natural stoicism and aspie-level logic processing.

Even so, his answer stunned me as much as it did everyone else. But it’s that kind of simple yet profound faith that makes men powerful without being weak in the face of adversity or trouble.

My son is exceeding any hopes I had for how he may turn out that I could possibly ever have imagined.

Thank you Lord.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

NB: Skip my explanation/excuses if you just want to get to the archery bit heading. It’s fun.

So, it’s become apparent to me that at least until a solid routine is in place, the training will not be… well, routine. And with the kids, school runs, extra dance classes runs (for the one kid), work, the farm, and general crap that happens always, 1 it’s not really going to happen… or at least not immediately.

I go to bed exhausted, and want to still maybe have a conversation with the wife, or watch a piece of Dexter Resurrection with her (in 5 minute stints, because she passes out as soon as she relaxes, poor thing), and I have always been a light sleeper so…I also get woken through the night, (one kid has a bad dream, another coughs, another gets up in the night to go to the bathroom, the little one wakes up for a change or some boobage, and so on) then wake up and hit the computer, or whatever needs doing, after sorting the school run, and breakfast, together with the wife.

So yes… always being on the backfoot will do that, but it will not always be this way, and even if it is, so what? The point is: find a way.

So… I have felt that just some generic movement will be good, so I looked into Tai Chi a bit, and I think I like it, I can see it being something worthwhile for the first time, but I struggle with the concept of it only being related to health and I can’t see the martial application of it, and that… I have come to discover, presents a problem for me. I mean in a way it’s just like karate katas but in some kind of slow motion and far more flowing instead of the staccato type movements common to katas; and it’s true that nothing quite relaxes me as doing things martial. Except that… my ignorance of Tai Chi means that I don’t see any of the movements as relating to anything martial.

Which leaves training alone in Systema, which aside some bag work, is mostly fitness exercises, so again, the mindset is different as there is no opponent to synch or “push” against with. Even if not actually fighting each other, training with other people is helpful, there is a sense of a kind of “resistance” even if it is not an opponent in a real terms, it is still something or someone to give you an intent. For some it can be just teamwork, and while there is a sense of camaraderie with people you train with, for me it was always mainly the fact of having what I suppose is an “opponent”. Not in a competitive way with the other person so much as a way to measure my own efforts against multiple other points of reference.

The kids have been asking me to teach them, so I do a little tiny bit of instructing and pad work with them now and then, but teaching is not training, it’s teaching, and them being little, it is not even any kind I can really get active in, plus it just eats into my time too.

But… I bought myself an early Christmas present and it came early.

The Archery Bit

Mine has the name SHARROW, but in the USA I can’t see any functional difference from what is called GLURAK there . The only difference I think is that mine came with almost all all the accessories you actually need to start:

• The bow stringer tool
• The string protection/silencer strips (which I didn’t know what they were for until now when I saw the picture when I did the search for the bow on amazon.com instead of the Italian site, so I now need to unstring my bow and put them on)
• String silencers (again, I had no real idea wha these are for until now I saw the name of them)
• And finally string nock markers (I got two but no special pliers, which I am not sure you need)

I also didn’t get any of the gloves and finger protection things, and though I have bought a bunch of them now, so far, they all suck, so not willing to recommend any of them, but I will once I find what works. For now I will say only this:

• You definitely need both some kind of finger protection for the hand you pull the bowstring with, as well as some kind of arm/hand protection for the hand/wrist/forearm that hold the bow itself.

And having just pulled and released the bow-string right now at 3 am in the silence of a house with everyone but me asleep, and without any of the “silencers” mounted on the bowstring, I didn’t realise how loud a noise it makes, since I only fired it outside for now and wasn’t really paying any attention to that.

Anyway, while I realise merely shooting a bow is hardly any kind of physical exercise at all, it is having a VERY salutary effect on my mind, and probably achieving the same kind of mental state I would achieve if I knew more about the martial aspect of some Tai Chi movements and could relate them to some combative aspect.

I of course knew absolutely NOTHING about archery before I bought the bow and did only a minimal amount of research before buying the bow I did, mostly to try and understand what kind of draw-strength/weight I should go for.

All the videos I saw of pasty British individuals, emaciated by the lack of firearms in their police-state, multi-cultural, pedophile-rape-friendly state, invariably told me a beginner should get a weaker draw-strength bow so as to get proper form, blah, blah, blah. The American videos primarily made by steroid infused would be ninjas, had robot-like compound bows of up to 100 lbs or more draw strength, using some mechanical thing to release the bowstring.

So I made a few decisions right off the bat.

I was NOT going to go for a compound bow. While I am sure they can provide a lot higher draw-strength that can be accurately fired, the main point there, to me at least, seems to be to have the highest draw-strength you can pull in order to have the most “powerful” bow possible, that you can still shoot accurately, because once yogurt past the heavy point of the draw, with a compound bow, the pulleys make it only a 15 lbs or so pull to keep it there as you aim.

With a traditional bow, when you are at maximum draw, you are also at maximum weight of pull, meaning the longer you try to aim for the longer you have to keep the full weight of the draw steady.

But here was my reasoning… Instinctively, while the killer instinct aspect of me of course wants the most powerful bow, some other instinct in me, the one I would call the hunter instinct, made me realise that having powerful bow in and of itself wasn’t the main point. First of all, I would never hunt with a bow. I saw firsthand what shooting animals with arrows is like (crossbow and bow both) once from my dad who used a crossbow on a chicken when I was little, in Nigeria, and another time years later from a guy we took hunting a single and only time, in Botswana.

I find bow hunting to be cruel. I wouldn’t even use it on a snake. The only creatures I could see anyone reasonably using a bow on would probably be politicians. Even then, I’d worry about them surviving it, so yeah… it’s strictly target practice for me, so there isn’t really a real killing/martial aspect to it other than the mental discipline and physical skill to learn.

I was also reminded, years ago, of when training in karate-do and becoming familiar with pretty much every aspect of Japanese samurai culture, I recall that archery had a whole philosophy of mind when aiming, releasing and striking a target. I had never used a real bow other than a few times as an early teenager when my dad bought my brother and I some simple recurve bows, which I doubt had a draw pull of more than 15 lbs if that. But I have fired a lot of rifles. And to my mind, there is a distinct parallel way of doing that. I think the sense of taking a measured, aim, long range shot with a rifle, and firing an arrow at a target are very similar from the mental aspect of it. And nothing quite relaxes me as much as shooting.

I grew up with hunting. The very first memory I have is of firing my dad’s .38 special at a puddle. Dad was 24 and I was 2. The next memories I have are of helping him clean the shotgun and walking besides him when he and I went hunting. Again I was between 2 and 3 years old. I recall a bird he shot and another time when walking beside him I saw a fox in the distance, which was about as tall as I was then, and pointed to it and shouted to my dad “Dad, a wolf!” I didn’t know what a fox was. My dad raised his shotgun to shoot it, it ran off somewhere and my dad sprinted off to chase after it. I assume now to get to place where he could see it again from and shoot it, but I could not keep up no matter how fast I ran, and my dad soon disappeared from sight in what was afield with some forestry around it. I remember I couldn’t run anymore, because it was pointless, I couldn’t see him anymore and had no idea where he had gone, leaving me in that field with what I thought was a wild wolf roaming around, and I had started to cry, thinking I had no idea where I was or how to get home, we were far, as we had come here by car, and now my dad had disappeared, and it would be night soon, and there was a wolf out there somewhere.

A few minutes later of course dad re-appeared, shotgun over his shoulder, asking me why I was crying. And many, if not all certainly most, of my other childhood memories often have hunting elements in them.

Hunting is different than mere killing.

There is a synergy with nature in it I think, if done properly. And in a way that I think is perhaps similar to Red Indians, even by age 15 or so, when I’d go duck hunting with my dad, I had reached a point where the killing of the animal was something that was felt as somewhat excusable only if you ate the animal. That had always been the case, we never killed for mere “sport” and I always had only contempt for “shooters” who did, whether for a “trophy” or to feel like “hunters” when they never tracked anything and just shot from a car with a scope on their rifle.

I never used a scope on a rifle because if you couldn’t get within shooting distance of an animal with open sights, what kind of “hunter” were you anyway? I only started to use scopes once I started shooting at targets instead of for hunting.

And there is a skill to it, of course. Reading the wind, adjusting for distance, reading the distance in your scope reticle, not the fancy electronic ones, the original mil-dot ones, and so on. It’s truly relaxing.

And I figured archery must be analogous.

I have so far, fired the bow only 11 times, and I can say it is. It is a different set of physical skills, but the mindset is, to my view, almost identical.

Anyway, back to my choice of bow, which that whole interlude was designed to explain to you.

My original first thought was to get this one instead , I am not sure if the link to amazon Italy will work for American readers, so here is a screenshot:

In the end I went for the one I did because I figured if I screwed up on the draw-strength maybe with the one I got I could get a slightly longer string and reduce the pull or somehow maybe just replace part of the bow and tone it down, because hint he end, against most of the advice I saw online, I went for what I thought given my size and so on would be a fair draw-strength, which is 60 lbs.

And I am glad I did. It is a pretty hefty draw, and the first time I fired the bow, (without any glove or sleeve protection, the tips of my three fingers I pulled the string with certainly felt it. Not so much on the pulling, but on the release, the string has a tendency to want to slice off the tips of your fingers, and on the hand holding the bow, the string will leave a mark when it makes contact after the arrow has shot off and the string strikes the left hand. So yeah, you need gloves. I have since been using the same leather work gloves I use on the farm for working in the field and they work fairly well, though I still feel it on the fingers after a few shots.

Of course, being novice I got the wrong arrows. They should have been with feathers at the back instead of the plastic version, because with a traditional recurve bow, as the arrow shoots past, the feathers flatten, but the plastic fin does not, so it bounces off the bow and screws up the arrow’s flight path. I even experimented with cutting one fin off all together and that arrow certainly went straighter than before, and it made me wonder just how important the little fins at the back of the arrow actually are. I mean I am sure there must be some utility to them, given the centuries of firing bows and people putting them on, but in my one test, I couldn’t see that the arrow flew any differently with only two of the fins instead of three. In fact, in my case it seemed to be a net improvement. And sometimes, I find, being new at something nd thinking differently bout it, you find a way of doing things that others haven’t tried just because “it’s not done that way” and no one ever tries to see if it really is the only or best way of doing things. So I will experiment more.

But anyway, I am pleasantly surprise with myself and the initial ability with the bow.

Even though I have the wrong arrows (better arrows have been ordered), I have been able to realise I tend to shoot high and to the left, and adjusting for that have found I can be more consistent despite the undoubtedly many errors I am still making. So at about 40 metres (Roughly 120 feet) I can probably hit a man-sized target half the time. I was aiming for the yellow leaf and of the 10 shots I fired, these two came closest.

The target was the yellow leaf at Cicci’s elbow (my nickname for Piglet, who just turned 5).

And this was the best shot so far:

Given that’s at roughly 40 metres/120 feet or so, am using the wrong arrows and I still haven’t put the arrow nock markers on the bowstring yet (mostly because I wonder if there is a science to where/how to place them) 2 it’s not too bad I think.

There is also to be said that with eh bow I bought, because it came with all the necessary bits to put it together nicely, I feel more confident that I probably di ok for a first bow. And besides, if I really like this activity, I can always get the one whose look I like better too. They make them with a 60 lbs draw strength too.

I am still trying to find the most suitable thing to use for the hand-protection, because the stuff I got so far is either hobbit-sized, so doesn’t work on my hands, or somehow removes too much sensation for my liking from my fingers and so being able to have a good “feel” for the bowstring. Which… maybe is supposed to be meaningless or you’re supposed to sense it in a more general way or something, but for me right now, feel very relevant to my ability of being able to release the string properly and with as little variance as possible.

I’ll update you when I eventually settle on a way to achieve that without losing my fingerprints permanently on the right hand.

A funny thing is that I noticed over the last few years, one of the guys that does Systems at a high level that I met in Canada, with whom I don’t have much contact aside seeing his Facebook posts over the last twenty years, has obviously taken up archery a few years ago. He has won some competitions and so one and I saw those posts over the years. He’s Greek, and I liked his way of teaching as well as generally his philosophy of life. I wondered if it was just a kind of middle-age search for meaning, or something else for a few years. And I didn’t make the connection until after I had fired the bow and thought about the mental aspect of it, but I get it now. Maybe old warriors just get more meditative in their training and aspects of things martial. It makes sense. It’s a kind of return to the purity of hunting but without the killing of anything.

And it certainly stills my mind. I find myself thinking about the bow, and shooting the arrows late at night, first thing in the morning, and so far the kids, the girls especially, seem to like watching and helping me retrieve the arrows when I miss. None of them can even budge the bowstring on my bow of course, but we have lots of bamboo, so I’ll make them all their own versions and see how they do.

The boy is somewhat less interested in watching and I also think he would prefer the immediacy of guns, patience not being one of his virtues (then again he has my and his mother’s DNA, so he was doomed from the start on that score).

Maybe it’s the elegance of it, but the girls so far seem to be into it, which is another unexpected aspect of it all.

So… I am not sure this post qualifies as a fitness/training one, and I keep failing miserably on the eating front too, though I have cut down a lot on anything sugary/carbs based, I inevitably find it near-impossible to feel satisfied with my eating habits while in a family context. Then again, while there are aspects of monastic life (in the SŌHEI sense) I crave, I also realise I would never trade family life for it.

The right way, as my grandfather always said, is to find the balance in all things.

And I find that archery may just give me that sense of balance that may allow for balance enough to navigate the daily chaos in such a way that I will be able to slot in more of the type of training I know will be beneficial than I am now. At least, it feels that way and I think it is early days but it’s having an effect already.

I will certainly keep you updated on this.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I don’t just call her Aryan Girl because she has perfectly blonde curls and her mother’s stunning blue eyes, and an angelic face.

She also has the demeanour of a little rule-following Nazi with impeccable memory. And some of the rules she knows I have no idea where she learnt them. Especially considering she is two years old.

We’re off to get pastries for her newly five year old sister and it’s just me and her in the car. It’s just up the road so I sat her in the passenger seat. As we get to the stop sign up the road, I see no cars either side, it is a little sleepy village after all, so I gently roll through it…

“DADDY! THAT WAS A RED STOP SIGN AND YOU JUST WENT THROUGH IT!”

The look of outraged accusation in her angelic face was fulminating. It couldn’t have been worse had I been a curly haired and hooked nosed Jew trying to pass a border post out of the ghetto.

After the initial shock of thinking how the hell does she know about stop signs and wondering if perhaps she’s learned to read by herself, I couldn’t help but laugh as we went down the hill.

“Daddy, you PIGLET!” That’s her way of showing disapproval without being too harsh, a half smile on her face. As we roll up to the stop sign at the bottom of the hill before the village, and I’m still laughing, I do the exact same thing and roll through it…

“DADDY! YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN!”

It’s unconceivable! I obviously need to be put up against a wall in front of a firing squad.

I can’t fault her at all, after all she’s absolutely right, and I tell her so. We get to the piazza where the bar is with the pastries and there is a squad car of carabinieri checking cars. I park literally next to their squad car. They know me and I know them, but I still have a two year old in the passenger seat, despite the seat belt and all. I fully expect I will now be rightfully crucified for my multiple crimes. And I fully expect my little Nazi would make uncle Adolf proud by telling the gendarmerie what a reckless felon I am.

The carabinieri carefully pretend to not have seen me. Probably just as well, if it were up to Aryan Girl I should probably have been whipped in the town square as an example to other vicious criminals.

You can see why the Germans always thought the Italians were an undisciplined bunch of too human catastrophists though.

I had best get myself in shape fast.

Maybe learn a few German commands.

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Because I talk about things you are not supposed to know. And we have been hovering at the 600 subscribers mark for months with 3-4 of you subscribing at a time (daily even) and then a few others unsubscribing but silently, without any message of it which was not the case before, so… either way, this is not news to me. YouTube did it to me for years and even my own OG blog had been hacked and infiltrated and for over a year was being shadow-banned internally. That is settings on the blog were changed to curb the search engines from finding posts. Specifically anything related to actual Catholicism and the Talmudians, but because people kept telling each other about the blog and navigating to it individually, not due to algorithms but because of word of mouth or sharing links, the readership had continued to grow organically anyway. And so…

…as some of you know, a year ago my OG blog was severely hacked by state actors because it was near election time and because most of my readers are Americans, and because I named the Talmudians as the vile creatures they are, and mentioned the vile stuff they do, their constant lies, subterfuge and mass-murder and discivilisational efforts towards the West in General Catholicism in particular (which is why the Novus Orco clergy are…well…New (but always pedophile) Orcs, instead of Catholics), and absolutely against the last few remaining actual Catholic clergy (1958 Sedevacantist Totalist clergy and the associated laypeople).

Telling the truth about the real causes of war in general, who starts them, who perishes in them and the real reasons behind them is something intentionally kept from you.

It is —along with how money (and fiat money especially) works— the most guarded of secrets. You need to spend time digging things up, finding the odd ostracised and excised historians that dared tell the truth and had their lives ruined for it (David Irving for example) you may need to dig up websites that had a bunch of evidence and proof for alternative versions of what you have been taught at state-sponsored schools. Websites that may have been wiped off the internet and then even off the wayback machine. You may have to take out a calculator and do some basic maths involving ovens and crematoriums and realising reality is not a theory, and so certain physical things are just not possible.

But I came across two people who made two statements that are very succinct and if you ponder them a bit may have the same power of finally removing the veils of lies from your eyes as reading me and my blog does over time.

I cannot credit them directly sadly, unless they specifically read here and give me permission to do so as it appeared in a place that asks to keep the people in it private, but their statements alone are powerful, together, they are truly exceptional, so ponder these two things in the order presented:

And:

Think about that. And realise Israel receives something like 35k a year for a large part of the people that live there from Germany. Because of reparations supposedly. Not to mention a bunch of other billions from their diaspora hard-working colleagues that fund and prop-up and control the entirety of the US government. Yes including your current puppet-president. And of course through that control almost all of the European puppets and thus the world.

Anyway, I’ll leave you with two thoughts:

ONE: The OG blog is up, we recovered it all thanks to a good friend who had put in place all the security measures I had asked for long ago, and it mirrors everything I write here so when the rug pull happens (and I have no doubt it will once the current shadow banning becomes ineffective) you can still read it all and keep following me. The link is at the top of this blog or if you can’t see that on mobile it’s thekurganblog.com so book mark it and go there unprompted by algos if you want to keep reading me regardless of what happens down the line (the new version is gonna be harder even for state actors to take down, though, of course, not impossible, but I figure they will need me to have a few hundred thousand followers before they do that). And…

TWO: Ponder this miraculous thing!

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Sitting at the table…dinner time

Now there needs to be a little interlude. The Young Viking (YV) hates multiple textured foods. His mother has forever been trying to make him eat all sorts of “towers of taste”… the English abomination of mixing a bunch of foods into one forkful. Instead of savouring the actual taste of the thing you are eating, instead of covering it up with a bunch of other tastes and sauces and condiments.

But the YV knows what he likes. Plain meat. Plain pasta. Never cheese unless it’s on pizza. Never raisins in anything unless they are on their own. Never yoghurt.

And so he has eaten his chicken breast and his mother wants him to try a bit of sauce in his pasta (for the 100th time) or maybe it was chicken soup with vegetables. And this is where his last 4 years finally bubble up.

YV: No, I don’t want to taste it. Because every time, you say (in sing-song voice) “try it, you can’t know if you don’t try it at least once” but I do know, that it’s disgusting. And then I try it and it’s disgusting! And I’m right!”

Sense of conviction: 11,000.

The room went silent in a slightly stunned silence. Except for my spontaneous laughter.

Me: “Ah, there it is. That Filottian conviction. And yes, you’re right my son. And don’t let anyone tell you different’”

YV: “Yeah. I know I’m right!”

His mother looks at me, abject defeat in her eyes, she shakes her head in resignation.

Indeed.

The Young Viking is clearly Venetian too.

Buon sangue non mente.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

NOTA BENE: This article also serves the purpose of warning everyone to be careful concerning ANY lawyer you may need to hire. They are notoriously completely illiterate, can’t read if their life depended on it, are plagued by the arrogant belief they are smarter than you (never been the case since I have not met one with an IQ that is within striking distance of mine), and will completely fuck up your case because they get some harebrained idea of what your case is about based on maybe the last case they won, or lost, or the alignment of the planets, or what Bob the janitor told them yesterday. And in fairness Bob probably has a better chance of representing you. So, please take note of just how desperately this supposed lawyer “argues”. And enjoy the Kurganing.

The last (immediately previous) post was somewhat generic about how lawyers really can’t read. And I pointed out that Kate (the Kryptogal lawyer) is no exception, and made a total hash of misrepresenting an article, then running with that misrepresentation by arguing an issue no one had said anything about either way.

So if you want to full story, read the previous post, but even more entertainingly, read the comments under that post, because they show better than I ever could the absolute incapacity of lawyers to read, especially female lawyers (yes, all lawyers read badly, but women lawyers truly suck at it), and a s bonus you get to see how “efficaciously” they “argue” they (non-existent) points.

But don’t worry, in one of her comments she obviously gets the upper hand, because she says I am rude. RUDE, dear readers! RUDE! Someone pass me some pearls to clutch.

(And as an aside, so much for the hard-nosed, business-like, ability of female lawyers she was “arguing” [more like shrieking] for. I mean, lady, you really haven’t even begun to see the inkling of a beginning of rude from me. And the one comment you picked to say that on really was not rude at all. Just pointing out a factual observation, which remains the same one: YOU CAN’T READ.

But I’ll also add that you can’t do math, or argue worth a damn. I would hire a blind street-preacher before I hired you for a lawyer.

But let the Kurganing begin.

Quick summary:

Helen Andrews wrote this article (which is quite good) which basically argues that the ginormous feminisation of all sorts of industries will pretty much collapse western civilisation. If you are able to read for context, the summarised version makes the following basic points:

1. The feminisation of all sorts of industries is ideology-driven and not a meritocracy. [My note: If you were to dig deeper into this you would find that (((the usual suspects))) have started, pushed and will continue to push for this pervasive feminisation in the West, but that’s outside the scope of her article.]
2. Women make their decisions based on general narrative consensus based on emotions, feelings and whatever they have been brainwashed into feeling good or bad about, and ignore objective facts, reality, math, and anything else that might make them feel bad or wrong about anything. She makes examples of this kind of behaviour, and while she doesn’t mention the whole #BelieveAllWomen idiocy, it’s fairly clear that overall that is a perfect example of what she means.
3. She states that when this gyne-centred chaos of emotions pervades the legal profession, we are all screwed and society will essentially collapse, because you can’t have a society work when the rule of law is constantly varied, changed, or based on feelings, emotions and random scrambled brains that sit in the female cranium.

Kate, argued, at some length, in a wall of text note that while she “agreed” with most of the article, she completely disagreed with… well… let me quote her verbatim (each time so you can’t say I am misrepresenting her:

Version 1 of her objection ( from her note here ):

I think her piece is likely correct about excessive passive-aggression and consensus-based intimidation in the domains of academia and psychology/social work, and also perhaps in media.

But I have a huge problem with her statement that her greatest fear is in the legal world. I’m sorry, but no, that is the last place you will see this. Women who choose to become lawyers are at the tail end of being disagreeable, adversarial, and enjoying arguing. It is literally their entire job to fight and argue with people all day, tell people they’re wrong, AND they have the be comfortable doing so on behalf of people they think are bad or just jackasses, regularly. Their whole mode of operation is adversarial, not consensus.

Ok, so Kate thinks women lawyers do not do passive-aggressive stuff or conform to consensus based narratives based on intimidation (we must say here SOCIAL intimidation, since no one was talking about putting guns to heads, so in essence, the social stigma of being perceived to be counter-narrative [because fats are facts even if no one likes them especially]). Cool. I mean she’s obviously flat out wrong, and Helen made a perfect example of the Kavanaugh hearings to point this out. And it is absolutely obvious that both female lawyers and even more so female judges, make their decisions based on the usual social proof rather than facts and reality and math far more so than men ever do. We know this. Anyone that doesn’t know this probably believes men can give birth and ANYTHING they think is IRRELEVANT, because they are wrong, irredeemably stupid and will never get better. The fact that they may also be a large majority is also completely irrelevant to normal, thinking, sane people too, and only confirms the 5 laws of the esteemed and brilliant Professor Carlo Cipolla, to whom a monument should be built in every town on Earth.

But ok, at least we have Kate’s view, right?

Well… not so fast…

Version 2 ( from this comment here ):

I really don’t see how that contradicts anything I said. Yes lawyers fight in a civil and professional way. They don’t get their feathers ruffled by threats or negotiation or mere disagreement. I never said arguing was nasty, it’s the total opposite of that, you must be able to argue in a totally emotionless way that doesn’t impact you. Andrews point is that women can’t even stand to express disagreement AT ALL. Every lawyer tells other people all day that they disagree and I’ve never met one who’s scared to do so. This has nothing to do with being rude or nasty, that will obviously just be counterproductive. It has to do with Andrews’ claim in the original article that women can’t even stand to state a disagreement and will just roll over and go along with the group rather than admit they disagree on anything.

Oooo…kay…. So her actual, real, point this time is that Helen says (according to Kate) that women… what is it? Ah right: “Andrews point is that women can’t even stand to express disagreement AT ALL.” and: “Andrews’ claim in the original article that women can’t even stand to state a disagreement and will just roll over and go along with the group rather than admit they disagree on anything.”

Riiiight… except…if you read that whole article ( here again for convenience ), you will see NO SUCH ARGUMENT made by Helen. What she does say is that women will tend to gang up on people and act as a general group of harpies. Nowhere does she say they will not express disagreement. In fact, quite the opposite. Let’s quote Helen here to prove the point:

It’s quite clear (even to illiterate Sentinel Islanders by now) that Kate is PROJECTING. And projecting something Helen never wrote. In fact Kate made that shit up right out of thin air in her own head.

Helen never wrote that women will not disagree “AT ALL” as Kate put it. Nor did she write that women can’t stand to state a disagreement. She did no such thing. She specifically stated that women will do all of the above but in a more sneaky, underhanded, indirect, and socially cohesive way (among the general consensus of the emotional female herd) than men do. So of course when Kate is told she’s fucking terrible at reading comprehension, and not just by me but by another lawyer (male though, so he can at least read! I’d hire that guy. A Lawyer that can read is like a doctor that actually practices medicine instead of sell pharmaceuticals: rare!) thusly:

The Big Ugly says to Kate:

If you don’t see how what I wrote contradicts what you said (”It is literally their entire job to fight and argue with people all day”), then I don’t know what to tell you. I wrote a rather lengthy post explaining how, in many situations we commonly encounter, lawyers do not argue with anyone and we certainly don’t argue “all day”. In fact, arguing in some of the situations I described would be counterproductive.

So she shifts the goal posts again…

Version 3. ( From this comment here ):

JFC you all didn’t read Andrews piece. Her primary claim is that women cannot stand to state or admit disagreements and prioritize going along to get along in all circumstances and therefore will just keep their mouths shut and go with the herd. That’s her primary thesis, that women are built to find it emotionally intolerable to argue about anything, express their real opinions, or disagree if it might harm a relationship. All of that is true! It is also true that women who choose to become lawyers are at the tail end of not being like that..what are we even talking about here…less than half of a percent of US adults are lawyers, and less than half of them are lawyers so…0.2% of the population lol.

Again, she’s just making shit up. Helen writes no such thing. But Kate agrees with it anyway (the things she says Helen wrote [but actually didn’t])! Isn’t that grand?!

So what we have here, just to keep it straight for y’all, is Kate making now the third accusation (falsely) against Helen, (i.e. making shit up in her head) but then also magnanimously agreeing with it! (i.e. agreeing with her own imaginary fantasy article), only to go on to say that female lawyers however are super-special type of women who are made of DIFFERENT AND STERNER STUFF! GRRRRLLL power boys, and don’t you forget it! Because female lawyers are disagreeable and argue!

Which nowhere did Helen say they don’t do. She expressly stated they DO argue. Meanly, underhandedly and essentially UNFAIRLY and UNJUSTLY, just to push their own emotion and consensus driven fake and nonsensical narratives. Which is why it’s a terrible fucking idea to have them be lawyers or worse judges instead of them making nice sandwiches and feeding and raising a bunch of babies, which they excel at.

See the difference Kate? I mean I know you can’t, because you can’t fucking read at all, that is now clear, but it’s rhetorical, for the readers here to have a good chuckle at.

In that same comment, (you really should read the comments in that post, they are hilariously self-revelatory of what a shitty reader Kate is) she goes on to say:

Version 4. (Yup, two different takes in one comment!)

Andrews thinks that if women were a majority of lawyers they’d what…she doesn’t even explain it. Somehow start ignoring their clients’ demands and just start doing whatever the other women in the office seem nice and not mean or something?? Makes no sense, the clients pay the bills. She gives no indication of precisely how it is that if .3% of adults in the US practice law are women instead of .2% that is somehow going to radically change the actual laws or enforcement of them or whatever. The actual laws and enforcement of laws gets decided via the political process, not lawyers representing their client.

So…wait…what is Kate’s point now? That Helen doesn’t even have a point? That female lawyers ignore their clients? I know, it’s hard to keep up with her goal post hyper spacing isn’t it?

But if you have had enough experience with women, you will note this is what happens when they are wrong, dead wrong, absolutely fucking wrong, and everyone knows it. They panic. They start to do the female monkey squid ink tactic. Shit your pants, then fling the excrement on all the walls and on everyone in the hope some of it sticks or you can escape in the noxious cloud while declaring victory! There is no more sense to be had here. It’s all just image control now.

And the Big Ugly guy replies:

Wow. You’ve really proven The Kurgan’s point about lawyers not being able to read. You say, “Andrews thinks that if women were a majority of lawyers they’d what…she doesn’t even explain it. Somehow start ignoring their clients’ demands and just start doing whatever the other women in the office seem nice and not mean or something?”

That’s not what Andrews said and she did explain her concern. Her point was not about if women were a majority of lawyers. Her point was about a feminized legal system (think judges) and her concern was that a feminized legal system would make decisions and rulings not based on the written law but based upon feelings and desired outcomes regardless of the rules and laws. She even gave examples of that occurring in Title IX cases and the Kavanaugh witch hunt.

So Kate pivots (as female lawyers and women in general are won’t to do) and like a Jew arguing about the numbers of Jews killed at Auschwitz, 1 spins a brand new tale as if none of the previous things and her positions, even happened.

Version 5: (from this wall of text comment (squid ink mostly) here):

Sorry, this doesn’t parse because Andrews expressly tied her fear regarding a mass of female voters pushing for laws to not be enforced to the legal profession itself becoming majority female. The two are totally unrelated as our country not enforcing laws is a political issue and has nothing to do with lawyers who represent a clients’ interests.

So now it’s a completely different take… She says Helen said that a mass of female voters pushing for various laws to NOT be enforced, would (according to Helen as understood by Kate) lead to the legal profession becoming majority female. But Kate argues, these two things have NO LINK WHATSOEVER.

Despite the fact that Helen explains PRECISELY what the link is. Once a profession is no longer permitted by social mores (mostly voted in by female voters and their feelings) to do it’s actual job, and instead has to kowtow the line of the mostly effeminate, feminised, female imperative of their fucking idiot feelings, then, guess what? Men don’t want to be part of that illogical shitshow and as a result the profession degrades into a majority female because men opt out of that nonsense. She makes explicit examples, like the psychological profession.

So let’s quote Helen again a little bit at length, because we need to show just how outright intentionally dishonest Kate is:

So… yeah, Kate is just making shit up as she panics into an emotionally frustrated, probably acidic little harpy.

The big ugly notices again, and at the end of her wall of squid ink where she comes up with her fifth reason she objects to Helen’s article, he writes:

The Big Ugly writes:

Helen’s point is simply that females are more likely to disregard the law to reach a desired outcome based on their feelings. You may disagree, but that’s her point.

So…caught out 5 times out of 5 what will this enraged, combative, oh-so-smart-and-effective female lawyer do?

Well, what I said in footnote 1, of course. And just go back to Version 1 as if it was more valid now…

Version 6 (Version 1 re-issued from this comment here: )

I think you either didn’t read her piece or didn’t read my note the OP has a problem with, where I specifically objected ONE SENTENCE of hers: “If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.” That makes no sense. The Title XI tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings had nothing to do with the legal profession being majority or minority female, it had to do with political will on campuses and in Congress.

Quite rightly, The Big Ugly lawyer guy is now beginning to understand: Kate can’t read!

The Big Ugly writes:

Do you know what ethos means? The Title XI tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings had everything to do with deciding accusations based upon feelings and disregarding the rules and law in order to reach a desired outcome. That is what she is describing as the feminized legal system.

So what do you think Kate will do now?

Yup.

Version 7! ( From here ):

Yes I know what ethos means and it has nothing to do with the first clause of the sentence you keep ignoring which was the precise clause I disagreed with and you keep wanting to pretend it isn’t there. Just give up! I disagreed with one clause, you want to pretend it isn’t there and that I disagreed with the entire rest of the premise of the article, which I also expressly did not. In fact I said she’s mostly right. I disagreed with one specific sentence and one specific clause and there is simply no direct link or even possible causal chain of events wherein the thing she said she’s afraid of (females being a majority of the legal profession) leads to the outcomes she’s afraid of (political bodies and campus tribunals enacted by political fiat driven by women and white knight men liberals start disregarding due process and evidentiary standards).

So now it’s just one sentence! No, actually the first clause of that sentence only!

What’s the sentence?

“If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.”

So…she’s disagreeing with the IF of if the legal profession becomes majority female? Fuck knows, because it’s just ONE sentence. With ONE point. Which is basically, in layman’s terms: Women ruin everything.

And when they ruin the legal system it’s gonna sting.

The Big Ugly actually makes a solid and succinct point again ( from here ):

The Big Ugly writes:

Lawyers become judges. When the majority of lawyers are women, then the majority of judges will be women soon enough. Once the majority of judges are women, then we’ll have the feminized legal system she is worried about. Her concern is not solely about political bodies and campus tribunals. Her concern is that the legal system will be just like them once women become the majority of judges and lawyers.

As I said everyone that has even remotely read this now understands Kate is making shit up.

And even the consistency and texture and smell of the shit she is making up. They can tell what she imagined for breakfast based on the autistic analysis we have now done of Kate’s fantastically made up shit.

So will Kate give up? Oh no…

nope. She makes yet ANOTHER totally irrelevant (and false) non-sequitur :

A tiny itty bitty percentage of lawyers become judges, they are subject to strictest vetting standards (most of would never qualify lol I’d be off the list just for my substack comments), and they have already been nominated at gender parity for quite a while.

And of course, MORE squid ink, her comments are small essays mostly, so be sure to enjoy the full thing at the link, lest I be accused of selective quoting.

The Big Ugly is not fooled and leave the scene after a last efficient shot :

The big ugly writes:

What percentage of judges are lawyers?

Most judges are elected by people who have never even heard of them before. They just vote straight down ticket. There are five federal district court judges in DC that were born outside of America. There is a judge on the US Supreme Court who cannot define a woman because she is “not a biologist”. I disagree that there are strict vetting standards for judges.

Now you are disagreeing because the women you know don’t fall under this personality type. I thought you said “I disagreed with one clause, you want to pretend it isn’t there and that I disagreed with the entire rest of the premise of the article, which I also expressly did not. In fact I said she’s mostly right”. Seems like you’re just changing your argument because you lost the last one but want to keep on arguing anyway.

I’m done with this. Have a nice night.

So she’s done now, right?

Oh you foolish mortal.

I had made this comment you see…

And that is one of her shorter replies… And she accused ME of lying… I told you this silly bitch projects didn’t I? Go on Kate, show me what I lied about. Be specific.

So of course… well…what’s a Kurgan to do, if not a kurganing?

So now, at the 8th iteration (or 9th?) iteration she FINALLY, FINALLY GUYS (ahahaha, sure…) states her specific objection!

“If females become the majority of the legal profession” That’s it. No THEN after the IF. No logic at all. What the fuck are you objecting to Kate? The (partial) sentence? The font of it? How the light of your monitor shows it in your eyes?

We want to know!

No Kate, anyone sane knows it’s the whole sentence, which continues to say:

“I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread.”

And you have ZERO argument against that. ZERO.

You hate that it’s true. It makes you feel stupid and incompetent that someone points out that female lawyers are basically too stupid, incompetent, and tribal (seeking consensus opinion of other women) to run the legal system. And that IF it ever becomes majority female it will be a giant shit-show for everyone, women included.

The reason you get so upset about it and write walls of text against it, is precisely because, as you have. demonstrated here in absolute fucking spades, YOU are precisely that type. Argumentative, illiterate, ineffective, and emotionally driven by your FEELINGS, instead of reality.

So… now that I so generously EXPLAINED it all to you, and how you function, like only a man can, dry your eyes, go take a pause from your keyboard. Take a cold shower —because it wouldn’t do to do the other thing while you tell yourself just how much you hate me! Plus, it’s just not fair to hubby!— and reflect on your errors and then go get a pat on the head and be a good girl and maybe change career. For the sake of your clients at least, if not larger society.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Kryptogal (Kate) wrote a stunningly self-unaware piece related to the article by that basically says: Women Ruin Everything. And it’s written by a woman, so take it up with her, feminists. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Kate (as much as I like anyone on sub stack) but that doesn’t mean I will not point out her obvious errors. In fact, if I didn’t care at all about her writing I wouldn’t comment on it. Unless it’s unhinged…then a Kurganing may be warranted.

So, as a prologue: I’ll post all the links, but then, since reading is hard, I’ll also summarise it all for you in digestible size and format.

Here is the article by Helen Andrews about how the feminisation of the West means it’s going all to Hell .

And below is a quote from Kate’s note posted on it .

As an aside: You can ignore completely the Dick Hanania she refers to, as he’s some whiny bitch that says Trump has broken the rule of law, blah, blah, some faggoty shit. Not because I am a Trump supporter in any way, Trump is just the latest puppet of the (((tribe))), he’s just fighting for sect A instead of sect B of the Synagogue of Satan, and I don’t care about the complete kabuki theatre that is American (and as a consequence, global) politics either way. I am saying Dick is irrelevant because he can’t think straight if his life depended on it.

Kate’s partial note is quoted below:

Richard Hanania

argues against the Helen Andrews’ piece based on the valid point that men are subject to their own irrationalities and stupid group behavior, just of a different sort. I think her piece is likely correct about excessive passive-aggression and consensus-based intimidation in the domains of academia and psychology/social work, and also perhaps in media.

You can sort of see Dick is irrelevant from this part already. Anyone stupid enough to argue that the literal builders of civilisations across the globe in every single case, regardless of cultures (i.e. MEN), have their own “irrationalities” as if they were comparable to the irrationalities of the ones who whenever and wherever they became “in charge”, managed to collapse that culture/civilisation EVERY SINGLE TIME in the entirety of human history, and usually within two generations tops (i.e. WOMEN), is obviously some faggoty retard, white-knighting for hairy-legged, unfuckable feminists, in the desperate hope of ending his perennial inceldom.

But I have a huge problem with her statement that her greatest fear is in the legal world. I’m sorry, but no, that is the last place you will see this.

Uh…wait…see what Kate?

let’s backtrack a bit and see what Helen ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT THIS, Shall we?

Here it is:

And what does Kate have a problem with exactly? Well, she tells you…

Women who choose to become lawyers are at the tail end of being disagreeable, adversarial, and enjoying arguing. It is literally their entire job to fight and argue with people all day, tell people they’re wrong, AND they have the be comfortable doing so on behalf of people they think are bad or just jackasses, regularly. Their whole mode of operation is adversarial, not consensus.

Kate seems to think Helen is saying that the law being filled with women will collapse civilisation because (supposedly according to Helen) women want to have consensus and Kate is saying female lawyers just don’t work that way.

But Kate is also a lawyer, so we know she can’t read.

What does Helen ACTUALLY SAY? Here is Helen again:

Do you see anything in there that is saying the West will collapse because of consensus among female lawyers? I sure don’t.

In fact I see very clearly a solid fact, which Helen identifies by example if not by calling it out in excruciating detail specifically (but really, close enough). Helen is saying precisely what she already stated above. Women will NOT follow the rule of law. They will NOT do the logical, objective thing. Instead they will be guided by their emotions, their biases and their personal vendettas against, men, God, life in general or the weather that day, as women are won’t to do and DO do.

The REASON that men are the main enforcers of discipline in the home with children, is precisely because if dad says: “Don’t do that or you’ll get a spanked ass.” If the kid does it, guess what…they get a spanked ass. Women are basically constitutionally incapable of following through. They mostly either lose their shit and go overboard when it’s not required or find some excuse not to enforce the promised consequence. As a result, kids know to generally ignore the warnings of mom to a much greater extent than those of dad.

In pretty much most normal, well functioning families, “Do I need to call your dad?” Is about the most effective way a mother can get her kids to do as they are told there and then.

And the same applies to the law, and life in general.

I mean… have you EVER considered the absurd statement #BelieveAllWomen?

Has there ever been a more absurd comment in the history of humanity?

Aside the fact ALL human lie, so the comment is completely idiotic on its face, guess what the thing women lie the most about is? The kind of life-altering things that matter:

– Yes, it’s your baby.

– He’s just a friend.

– I would never divorce you.

– He raped me.

– He is a child molester and that is why I divorced him.

Men will tend to lie to women more about the nature of the relationship they want to supposedly get into (in order to get into the woman, even if only for a few minutes), or perhaps about various minor issues in order to keep the peace, or have a minute to themselves.

The interesting thing is that if you ask a group of women (that are sitting together) if they trust men more or women to be more honest, they will all say they trust women more. But as a group of women individually, away from other people, and most of them will say they trust men more. If you’re surprised by this… it’s because women LIE. They lie even to themselves. Constantly. The prime example known to most is that they will tell men all the time they want a guy with X, Y, and Z attributes then end up with a guy who has the exact opposite of those attributes.

But does Kate ever engage with what Helen ACTUALLY said?

Nope.

Guess why?

Yeah… because she’s a woman, and gets all emotional and… can we guess what else she gets? Go on… you know you can do it… did you say… yes you did, didn’t you? That’s right! She gets all SOLIPSISTIC about it.

Behold:

At least twice a week I have a client call me and say what amounts to “I’m going to send this face-saving and conciliatory email to (our opponent) but then I want you to call them and scare the crap out of them and bring down the hammer.” That’s standard. Badgering people to pin down facts and suss out the truth is also standard, as is constantly telling people you disagree with them, issuing threats, and dismissing and not getting rattled by threats pointed at you (which is also all day every day).

“I am not like that! I am the exception! and women are all like me!”

Well, yes Kate, they kinda are… but you’re missing the point.

So women lawyers are about the least likely to do kumbaya emotion stroking or mean girl social pressure you will find! They opted to spend their lives working in a system premised on being adversarial! They’re a professional bitch for hire, that’s almost like the job description lol. NO ONE wants to hire a passive, pushover, “nice” lawyer. And I’ll just say I’ve seen clients fire their lawyers plenty of times bc they didn’t think their lawyer was being aggressive enough, but honestly I haven’t seen that happen to a female attorney.

All that Kate is saying here is that women lawyers are particularly nasty pieces of work that will argue well past what a man might. And I don’t disagree. Female lawyers tend to think their being a lawyer is enough to mean their arguments, regardless how superficial, illogical, or emotion-driven are the RIGHT ONES! And have you ever seen a woman argue? Do they give up just because they are flat out wrong, reality goes counter to what they say, as do facts, eyewitnesses and God Himself? Nope. They just double, triple and quadruple down.

And Kate here missed the point completely.

Helen is indeed a woman, but she, unlike most of her sister-women, has actually made a cogent and well thought out point.

People incapable of being rigorously objective and logical, as well as willing to make the difficult choices required in order to ensure just consequences, will absolutely destroy the legal profession and justice system.

I mean, not that government justice systems are ever actually just.

But if women run things, they are certainly going to get a lot less just. And we really ALL know this to be the case. The fact you might not like it, is beside the point.

The fact women may be MORE intractably argumentative than men is also beside the point. because guess what… that too is NOT a feature in a legal system meant to represent justice. You know what is? Good judgment. Objectivity. Logic. Proportionality. All things women basically suck at, as a group, when compared to men.

“BUT I KNOW A GUY/WOMAN WHO….”

Yeah. No one cares. Learn what statistics mean.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here