Clichéd Valkyrie

There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs. --Thomas Sowell.

[Clichéd Valkyrie @ClichedValkyrie]

@AntiCommieBecca @Clarity2020 The more important question is: who exactly is going to kill them??!!

[For Women Scotland @ForWomenScot]

As pointed out by Ms Hunter (& brilliantly ripped up by @WingsScotland), the number of people claiming to be trans-id males in Scotland is 3,088 (transmen = 3307 not specified = 3111).

This actually makes certain offending & prison stats so very much worse. Let's have a look!

[HeCheated.org @hecheateddotorg]

What is "trans"?

1. A person with "gender dysphoria"?

But we're told you don't need "dysphoria" to be "trans" and many people who are "dysphoric" do not pretend to be the opposite sex.

2. Anyone who says they're "trans"?

But "trans" activists often say "he/she" isn't really "trans." Those sex offenders who identify as women after going to prison are just pretending to be "trans." So apparently it's not based on self-ID either.

3. Someone who has "transitioned" to the "opposite gender"?

I thought they were always the "opposite gender" from the moment they were born, so that can't be it.

4. Someone who has taken steps to look like the opposite sex?

If that's true, then how could a child possibly know they're "trans"? It's based on actions.

You can't be "trans" prior to "transitioning" so how could a child understand themselves to be a person who has injected themselves with exogenous hormones, for example, if they have not yet injected themselves with exogenous hormones?

5. Someone with the brain of the opposite sex?

Physically impossible. And they reject testing regarding this, probably because studies show values measured in their brain scans are largely consistent with average values of those of their actual sex.

6. Mismatch between their sex and "gender"?

I've heard these are separate things, so how can there be a mismatch? There are over 20 "genders" so how do we know which "gender" is supposed to go with which sex?

I've heard sex is a spectrum rather than binary, so this means there actually aren't two sexes anyway, so again, how on earth can there be a match or mismatch if there is a contiuum in which no two people are the same anyway?

It's all very confusing...

[Progressive Misogyny @JustMisogyny]

🏳️‍⚧️TRANS LOGIC🏳️‍⚧️

A man is a woman if he has gender dysphoria.

A man has gender dysphoria because he's not a woman.

Therefore, a man is a woman because he isn't a woman.

[Zachary Elliott @zaelefty]

People often claim 1.7% of the population is “intersex,” neither male nor female, but here’s the actual data.

88% of that number involves late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia, an adrenal gland issue causing higher testosterone in unambiguous, usually fertile males or females!

The next most common one is 47:XXY Klinefelter Syndrome, making up only around 5% of the total. This is a male specific sex chromosome disorder, resulting in unambiguous males with testes that have lower T and impaired sperm production.

The next most common is 45:X Turner Syndtome, making up around 2.35% of the total. This is a female specific sex chromosome disorder, resulting in underdeveloped ovaries, heart issues, and more.

Further down the list we get to something like XY Swyer Syndrome, so rare it makes up only 0.05% of the total. This involves an XY embryo that is unable to differentiate the gonads into testes due to gene mutations, so the embryo develops no differentiated gonads. Genetic networks then develop the Müllerian duct system—oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina, vulva—resulting in a female.

We could go on, but you get the point. The claim that 1.7% of the population is neither male nor female is a complete lie. Not only is the majority of this statistic made up of unambiguous males or females, but even the rarer disorders in the list result in male or female pathways.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement.

Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier.

Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème.

Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs.

Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours.

La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Belfast Tonight. Britain Tomorrow. The Trajectory Is Set.

On Monday night a man was pinned to a residential street in north Belfast and stabbed repeatedly in the face and neck. Members of the public intervened. One used a hurling stick. By Tuesday night three houses and a Middle Eastern supermarket were burning. Infants were carried from neighbouring properties. A police vehicle was set alight. Politicians called for calm.

Remember this night. Not because it is exceptional. Because it is not.
This is where the road leads. Not in twenty years. Now. Belfast has experienced serious immigration-related disorder for three consecutive years. The same cycle every time. Attack. Outrage. Disorder. Calls for calm. Nothing. The next incident. What is playing out in Belfast is not a malfunction. It is the destination. A state that cannot name the cause manages the consequence instead, and calls it governance.

Now project forward. Not with imagination. With arithmetic. Over 200,000 people have arrived by small boat since 2018. The majority are unvetted young men from countries with no cultural alignment with the host society. They are housed in communities without consent. Dispersed without warning. The removal rate is four percent. The government knows the other ninety-six percent are staying. It has decided to manage that fact rather than reverse it. Every year the number grows. Every year the concentration deepens. Every year the friction increases.

In ten years those concentrations will not be streets. They will be districts. In twenty years they will be cities within cities, governed by parallel authority, answering to parallel loyalties. We have watched this happen in France. The banlieues were built accommodation by accommodation, retreat by retreat, until the French state no longer entered them except in force. Britain is on the same road, travelling faster.

The trigger events will multiply. One policing incident. One foreign conflict landing on a British street. One court case, one arrest, one viral video. Any spark will do because the kindling has been laid by policy and left to dry by neglect. The riots will not be contained to one city for one night. They will spread, as they spread in France, as they spread across England last summer, because the grievance is not local. It is national. And the anger on both sides will harden with every cycle.

Public order will not hold at current trajectory. The police already negotiate where they once enforced. Investigations are quietly dropped. Reports go unfiled. The state keeps the peace by lowering the bar for what constitutes peace. That bar will keep falling because the alternative requires confronting what the political class has spent thirty years refusing to confront.

The political system will bend to the new demography. It already has. Candidates selected on foreign conflicts. Councils controlled by sectarian bloc voting. Representatives answering to communal leaderships rather than constituents. That process will accelerate as the demographic weight shifts.

And somewhere in this trajectory a trigger event will occur that cannot be managed. A mass casualty attack. A riot that becomes an insurrection. A video so barbaric it breaks the remaining political consensus around managed silence. After that the response will be less controlled, less proportionate and less reversible than anything a government could have delivered by acting fifteen years earlier when the choice still existed.

Britain is not sleepwalking into this. The eyes are wide open. The trajectory is known. The choices being made are deliberate. Every week that passes without a closed border, a functioning removal system and an honest political reckoning is a week in which the future described above becomes more certain and less avoidable.

Belfast on Monday night is not a warning. The warnings came years ago and were ignored. Belfast on Monday night is the bill beginning to arrive.

[Why Lie @TheNewBacklash]

You tried to unilaterally redefine the other 99.7% of the population.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

Even Arab leaders admit it.

Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see.

Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective.

Ok, so let us set that aside.

Now watch this.

In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada.

Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance.

He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises.

The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978.

This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel.

When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias.

The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return.

This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today.

If you value the truth, please share.

[Possum Reviews @ReviewsPossum]

This isn't even an exaggeration. The talking points that get you labeled a 'Nazi' today were just vanilla Democrat talking points not even twenty years ago.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Muslims do not need to conquer the West by offensive jihad, which they cannot legally declare without a caliph. They need only grow numerous enough, and push hard enough, that the West is forced to resist them, and then call that resistance the aggression that activates defensive jihad, the personal duty of every believer, requiring no permission from anyone.

Defensive Jihad: Turning Expansion into Self-Defense

Link to the article in the comments.

[Róisín Michaux @RoisinMichaux]

Single-sex services for women are disappearing in Europe. Here's how it's being done:

There are two main ways via which single-sex spaces and services are slowly going extinct in Europe. The first one is, obviously, by allowing anyone to identify as the opposite sex. Once a male person is in a female-only space, let’s say a youth hostel dorm room for example, it is no longer a women-only dorm room. It is a mixed-sex dorm room. He may have had his nads removed, or he may even be wearing a dress covered in flowers. It is a mixed-sex dorm room once both males and females are allowed to sleep in it.

If you tried to get such a man out of the room, and return it to its status as a women-only space, you would be accused of discrimination against him on the basis of his gender identity (though depending on your legal jurisdiction, which in turn depends on the speed at which your country’s equality legislation is being transed, this may still be called discrimination on the basis of “gender” or even sex-via-gender reassignment, even if the “reassignment” involves nothing more than the flowery dress).

If a company, or service of any kind, tries to maintain a single-sex policy, they will likely have to battle it out in court as soon as a disgruntled transvestite sniffs out their heresy. And so in order to avoid being dragged to court by such men (and such women), companies and services are pre-empting legal action by just making everything mixed-sex, like the Germans are planning to do in new building regulations. Problem solved.

And while the end of women-only yoga classes might not bother you that much, there are some services that really (really really) need to remain sex-based, and they are underpinned by the same equality laws that are currently under threat.

First a little background: equal treatment laws are mandatory in EU countries. I can’t refuse to sell a man an ice cream from my ice cream van, just because he’s a man. You can’t refuse to polish a woman’s Fabergé egg because you only polish men’s Fabergé eggs.

Except, and this is crucial, sometimes you can discriminate on the basis of someone’s sex. And I bet you can guess what those circumstances are. It must be, as the TERF Islanders put it: “a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim”. This teeny tiny caveat, variously worded, carries the weight of women’s safety and dignity in public spaces and services in European countries. You can deny a man access to a women’s prison or rape crisis centre, and you can refuse to hire a man for a job in (for example) a residential care home if that job involves washing the intimate parts of delirious old ladies or intellectually disabled children (whose families can request female-only intimate care).

Do you know why a family of an old checked-out woman might wish for their mother’s genitals be tended to by someone female? You bet you do. Not All Men yadda yadda yadda. Save it for yer wife. Enough men are . that even gender-equal Scandinavian utopias can legally advertise for those jobs for women only. And men also have the right, for privacy reasons, to wish only to have men tend to their bits. And that’s utterly reasonable.

But by expanding equality protections to include men masquerading as women and vice-versa, the burden is on the management of such facilities to justify why they are excluding variously-identified people. The only country that has gone to court to establish in law that sex refers to biology, not identity, is the UK, but service providers eager to please noisy activists are ignoring it, leading to a bit of a crisis. Oh you’ve not read about this major policy issue in the newspaper, or seen a debate about it on the news? That’s not an accident.

Men stayed out of women’s spaces because both society and the law punished them if they did not. That norm is disappearing, and the law is disappearing — or being tortuously reinterpreted into nothingness — along with it.

[Zachary Elliott @zaelefty]

Here’s your reminder that the bimodal differences between the sexes can only exist because sex is binary.

A bimodal distribution has two modes and implies two groups being compared. Two separate distributions of a given trait. One for males. One for females.

[Emma Hilton @FondOfBeetles]

It is the definition. ‘Female’ denotes the reproductive role associated with large gametes. We also use the word to describe the cells,tissues, structures and even whole individuals that effect this reproductive role.

This is not ‘reducing gender and identity’. It is describing the sex of a human being.

And just in case you missed it, someone’s sex really is reducible to reproductive role, because that’s the definition of sex.

How many times….

[Zachary Elliott @zaelefty]

The common objection to JK Rowling’s scientifically accurate definition is “you’re reducing females to their biology”

These purposefully obtuse chucklenuggets never apply this fallacious logic to other definitions.

We don’t hear them objecting to the definition of human by saying “don’t reduce me to my species” or to the definition of adult by saying “don’t reduce me to my age.”

Although more and more of these delusional people love objecting to their age and species as meaningful categories.

Either way, defining a category does not imply rejection of all other aspects of the person.

[Dries Van Langenhove @DVanLangenhove]

A very sad announcement.

I have just been convicted a second time for 'hate speech' and it is only due to a technicality that I could not immediately be sent to jail —to the judge's frustration.

In an ironic turn of events it's actually thanks to my previous prison sentence (for memes in a private group chat) that I am now still free —in a physical sense, at least.

Call me naive but I didn't think they would take it this far, given that this precedent criminalises many of the arguments used by even the most moderate politicians critical of mass migration.

In February 2024 I gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven wherein I linked mass migration to crime and a deterioration of our quality of life. Every single point I made was 100% the truth and based on scientific evidence.

Cynically, even the judge that convicted me admits as much by writing in his verdict: “Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.”

That's a lot of words just to say he wants to send me to prison for speaking the truth.

Even the regime media write: "It did not matter to the court that Van Langenhove was quoting scientific sources. The judge argued that Van Langenhove's main message was that a big part of the societal problems like insecurity, housing shortages and lowering educational standards are due to mass migration."

You may think the regime media are being sympathetic to me in the first sentence, but in reality they are warning people: even if you speak the truth, if you go against our narrative, we will crush you in every way possible.

Both the public prosecutor and the judge did not present a single real argument as to how or against whom I would have incited hatred. So even if I would accept their crazy, dystopic law, I still did not break it.

The only argument they present is that I created a "hostile atmosphere of us versus them” in regards to migrants. But even this silly argument (which is not even a punishable offence) is not true. To me, the deadly disease is self-hatred and one of its worst symptoms is replacement migration. My enemy is thus NOT the migrants themselves but those orchestrating the mass migration.

Sadly, in Belgium, evidence is not needed and ‘vibes’ are enough to put someone in jail.

Given the fact that I have another court case coming up in September and that I have a dozen active criminal investigations for hate speech, time is running out for me. I have already paid more than €420,000 in legal fees and there is no ending in sight. I have been in an intense battle of attrition for eight years and must now regroup to make sure I can still win.

If you want to help me, you can do so via the links below. If you can help in other ways, please contact me via DM.

If you live in a country that still has free speech, never let them touch it, however noble they make the motives sound, because this is where it leads to.

[Sam Morgan @CrunchAlias]

Remember: "trans activism" is the idea that no one can ever tell what sex anyone is, but everyone must be able to tell what sex someone is pretending to be.