Q. What's the difference between Nicola Sturgeon and the Taliban?

Written by: Miri
December 24, 2022

A. The Taliban aren't quite crazy enough to cut the bottom half of their front doors off in a bid to protect themselves from a cold (and Sturgeon really did do this, oh yes...).

Other than that, these two despotic dictators are - with the launch of Sturgeon's reformed Gender Recognition Act - now largely indistinguishable: they are both totalitarian misogynists who wish to erase women from public life altogether.

While The Taliban is achieving this longstanding elitist goal through more "traditional" means - outright banning women from all forms of formal education, and even from public parks - Scotland (and soon the rest of the UK) is using a more - shall we say - 'fashionable' approach. By couching the brutal oppression and erasure of women in trendy rhetoric about "trans rights" and "inclusion", Scotland is attempting to obscure the stark truth that, by allowing men to identify as women whenever and wherever they please, women will, inexorably and inevitably, be erased from public existence entirely.

We already see it in female sports, which now effectively no longer exist, as any mediocre or failed male athlete can simply truss himself up as a "trans woman" and instantly shoot to meteoric success beating all the girls.

Scotland's new law means men will be able to similarly transfer their natural advantages to other fields - such as business and politics - by occupying "female quotas" and pushing actual women to the side. The reformed Gender Recognition Act does not require a male to be under any kind of medical supervision to declare himself a woman, nor to have undergone any surgeries or hormone therapies, hence, a fully intact biological man, with the untampered hormonal profile of a man, can now declare himself "a woman", without the constraints that actual, biological women have to deal with - such as, having testosterone levels that are approximately fifteen times lower than men's.

Testosterone is strongly linked to competitiveness and assertiveness, and is what helps men more easily advance their careers. The so-called glass ceiling is really just a consequence of women's differing hormonal profiles, and that they typically find it a a lot harder to aggressively compete, and confidently negotiate pay-rises and promotions, than men do (the clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has said the number one issue he deals with in his clinical practice is helping professional women with assertiveness training so they can advance their careers).

Recognising that the playing field is not level, and that it's important to have representation from both sexes, many top companies and public offices put an emphasis on female quotas - in effect, acknowledging that women may find it harder to speak up, so some sort of provisions must be made to ensure they are heard, otherwise male dominance is inevitable.

However, now that men, with all their natural advantages, can fulfil the female quotas in business and in public life, by claiming that they "identify" as women (even if they look like a man, act like a man, and have a man's name, e.g., Eddie Izard), then real women will be ruthlessly cast aside - just as they have been in women's sports.

In understanding why this is happening, it's important to be very aware of two things - 1) that the ruling classes are ultra-misogynistic in the most medieval and extreme interpretation of that phrase. I'm not talking about "1950s sexism", or anything so quaint - I'm talking about a class of people who despise women with a burning intensity and who have only ever seen them as having any utility as broodmares. The "Commanders" in The Handmaid's Tale are a pretty good approximation of how the true ruling elite feel about women, and 2) so-called "women's lib" and "equal rights" were all a cynical, socially engineered ruse to lead us up to this exact point.

In the first instance, for very many centuries, the ruling classes have needed a large stable of human labour to build and maintain global infrastructure, to work in their factories, and so on. Hence, whilst they needed this, they needed women, because they needed the women to produce the workers. So, past societies were built on observantly religious and socially conservative grounds, specifically because these tend to produce large families.

Women were always more reproductively valuable than men, because 100 women and one man can potentially produce 100 babies a year, whereas 100 men and one woman, can only produce one. Hence, special protections were historically extended to women, such as not sending them off to die in wars, as they were seen as far more valuable in the production of future human labourers, whereas men were more expendable.

So, much as the elites despised women and always have, they were at least incentivised to keep them around and extend to them some protections, whilst they needed them.

However, things changed dramatically in the latter half of the 20th century, when increasing technological advances meant far less human labour was required, and so the ruling elites now had a new goal - to drastically reduce the population and do away with "useless eaters" who - as far as the psychopathic ruling classes are concerned - have no function and no need to exist once they are no longer required as slaves to the system.

The manufacture of "women's lib", therefore, was a cynical military/intelligence plot to sever women from their time-honoured roles as the lynchpins of family and community life, and encourage them to pursue independence, travel, and careers instead, for one simple reason - such pursuits dramatically reduce the number of children women have.

Social engineers have known for centuries that if you want a high fertility rate, you push conservative social attitudes (which usually go hand in hand with religion), and if you want a low fertility rate, you push liberalism and secularism.

We must never underestimate just what malevolent yet intellectually brilliant thinking underpins the creation of modern, Western life, and how meticulously the elites have manipulated us to believe that we ordinary people are responsible for the termination of staid old conservative attitudes and the brilliant brave new world of "liberation", "equality", and "inclusion" that has characterised the last sixty years.

In reality, of course, we aren't responsible at all. It's all their doing, and they cleverly manipulated our cooperation and consent by making us think, through the 1960s and subsequent decades, that we were winning important social battles by "sticking it to the man" and using "people power" to overcome centuries of evil conservative oppression.

Not at all. The reality is they staged the whole thing - effectively, modern life is one big military-grade psy-op - because they wanted to reduce the birth rate and break up families and communities, and liberal, progressive social attitudes are a far more effective way of doing that than imposing these things on people by force.

For example, if the elites outright banned having more than one child - as they did in China - it's far more likely to provoke pushback and revolt, than the technique Western elites used, of all-encompassing relentless propaganda pushing family life as oppressive and expensive, and real happiness and fulfilment as coming through independence and career.

As an astute social commentator once said, "independence and careers were sold to women in just the same drum-banging way homemaking was sold to their grandmothers". We've been propagandised into holding "modern, progressive" attitudes just as much as our grandparents were propagandised into holding the opposite, and in reality - propaganda techniques having evolved so much since then - probably a lot more.

Obviously, whether pushing homemaking or careers, the idea that the psychopathic ruling elites ever cared one way or another whether women (or men for that matter) were happy and fulfilled, is laughable. They simply endlessly manipulate the public with clever rhetoric and propaganda into doing what they want them to do, by making said public believe they are choosing it of their own free will (a political strategy known as the manufacture of consent) - because this is more effective than using the blunt instrument of brute force.

I personally am a staunch libertarian and believe everyone should be free to pursue the lives they want, but I'm also a staunch proponent of informed consent, and the notion that people need to be given the real and unobscured facts before making seminal life choices. Whilst modernity sells itself as superior to "the bad old days", by assuming that the expansion of opportunity and the normalising of more mobile lives, has made people happier and more fulfilled, all the evidence shows the exact opposite, and that at the current time, people are unhappier than they've been since records began - and this is particularly so for women.

While of course there are individual exceptions, overall, "women's liberation" has failed to deliver on any of its founding promises in terms of improving women's lives, and that is because its real founding purpose was never to improve women's lives - it was to reduce the birth rate and break up families and communities. And measured on that metric, it has been exceptionally effective indeed.

The ruling classes want to destroy all human bonds and allegiances people have to each other, so they have no identity past that of a worker-drone who exists only to work and consume - and "liberal" principles which see people leave their hometowns and communities as early as possible, and become modern cosmopolitans, constantly moving around for jobs and "opportunity", is essential to achieving that.

So-called "women's lib" and special protections for women in the workplace and public life, was only ever intended as a very brief mirage, existing just as long as it was useful to the elites for it to exist, e.g., to remodel society so women have few or no children and solitary and disconnected lives become the norm.

That having now been largely achieved, with more people than ever living alone and loneliness and isolation literally being a public health crisis, the dark magicians behind all this are now abruptly ending the illusion and revealing once again their true feelings about women.

The only real difference between the Western elites' approach to women, and that of the Taliban, is that the Taliban actually still have some utility for women, as they value high fertility and have not sterilised most of the population with a Covid injection. Women may well have a frightening and oppressive future ahead of them in Afghanistan, but at least they have one. It's better to be exploited than to be redundant, because if you are being exploited, that means someone wants something from you, and that means you have some power to negotiate with your oppressor. If, however, you are redundant - if you are seen by the malignantly evil social controllers as serving no purpose, as useless - you are in a much more dangerous situation.

I can see around me the reeling, disbelieving shock from people who identify as left-wing or liberal that the Scottish gender bill has passed, and that minority groups who once enjoyed special protections and were ministered to by the establishment for the last few decades, are suddenly being callously discarded and labelled as terrible bigots and oppressors. The slapped-like shock on these people's faces as this unfolds shows they just don't get it, because they're spent a lifetime being told how special they are, how progressive and enlightened, for being a feminist, or a lesbian, or whatever, and I want to shake them by the shoulders and shout, "can't you see?! They were just using you! They flattered your vanity to get you to go along with their schemes, and now you're no longer required, you're being thrown to the wolves." The fate of Germaine Greer being, of course, a particularly stark example of this. One minute, a pioneering and worshipped darling of the left; the next, brutally disregarded as a reactionary old bigot.

Leading on from this, why do you think homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1960s? Is it because, after centuries of homophobic oppression, psychopathic ruling elites suddenly became enlightened and decided they desperately wanted to liberate all minority groups? Of course not. It was for the same reason they created and bankrolled women's lib - e.g., that the promotion of homosexuality and other non-traditional relationships is useful in achieving depopulation goals. Prior to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and when there was a concomitant strong social stigma against it, most people got married and had children, regardless of what inclinations they might have towards the same sex.

Now that the legal and social constraints around homosexuality have been removed, many people who once would have married a member of the opposite sex and had a family, now generally do not. Yes, some gay couples use surrogates or adopt, but that is by far the exception.

That is the reason - and it is the only reason - the Western ruling elites changed the legislation on homosexuality. (And it's why countries that desire a high fertility rate continue to take such a hard line on it)

It's critical to remember that, whenever the elite make sweeping social changes, there are always two reasons for it: 1) the reason given to the public to make it palatable, and 2) the real reason.

What the social engineers have done to the West in the last sixty years is let us believe we're all triumphant social crusaders who have defeated ancient dogmas and prejudices to usher in an amazing new world of tolerance and possibilities, and that is because allowing us to hold this belief has made us smug and complacent. We as a society have blithely dismissed hardliner conservative cultures (such as Afghanistan) as hopelessly backwards, medieval relics that have no relevance or connection to our shimmering liberal utopias, and that it's just a matter of time until these ridiculous regimes are overturned and become fluffy liberal democracies like ours.

What is happening on the world stage now shows us what a dangerously baseless and naive belief that is (and in reality always was). We are not going to overturn them: they are going to overturn us, and it's happening in real time, right now. The Gender Recognition Act is every bit as regressive and misogynist as the Taliban's ban on women entering schools or parks, and it will have all the same social consequences - especially as it rapidly fans out to the rest of the UK and world, as it will.

If you study the kind of future the social controllers have in store for us here in the UK, such as "15-minute cities" and draconian restrictions on travel and leisure (as the hospitality industry continues to collapse and people continue to budget out all but the essentials), you can see clearly that these restrictions are not compatible with liberal and progressive values, which emphasise the freedom of movement, social and professional mobility, and so forth. Hence, such values are to be scrapped and replaced with something much more regressive.

Please remember that thousands of denizens of Afghanistan - the country that is currently refusing to let girls go to school or even to the park - currently reside in hundreds of the nation's hotels. No serious person disputes at this point that most, if not all, of these men are UN soldiers. So, we have trained military assets from countries with ultra-misogynist views stationed up and down the country just at the time the most misogynist and regressive anti-women legislation is memorable history comes into force.

Coincidence? I think not.

We are on the precipice of a cultural revolution very similar in nature to the one depicted onscreen in The Handmaid's Tale, and these soldiers are here to enforce it - just as they did in 'Gilead'.

And this is really is the part of the current madness that concerns me the most, because I think it's the one part people will simply not be able to reconcile as a possibility. Even as the cost of living crisis deepens, I know that people can ultimately cope with financial difficulties - most of us have had to at some time or another, and even though it may be more challenging than ever now, it's not insurmountable. Likewise, people can cope with losing their jobs or their businesses failing, devastating as this is - again, professional disappointment is something familiar to most people and we find a way to deal with it. Even the spate of "sudden deaths" is something people do ultimately have the resources to handle - tragedy and loss have always been with us and, brutally hard as it can be, we do have the capacity to cope.

But from the reeling incomprehension, the disbelieving shock, I see from many at the Gender Recognition Act (and such a reaction is of course thoroughly understandable), it concerns me that an ultra-conservative revolution is the one thing people will simply not be able to psychologically process, since the wall-to-wall propaganda directed at us since we were born has been, this is quite simply something that could not happen. That we are at "the end of history", having achieved all desirable social goals. Therefore, the idea that women's rights or those of other minority groups could be rolled back centuries into the dark ages, is inconceivable - merely the stuff of dystopian fiction.

Yet look at Afghanistan. It's happening there. It's happening in Iran. And, in reality, it's happening in Scotland. With the flick of a legislature's pen, all the "rights" and "protections" you thought you had can be extinguished in an instant.

This is precisely why no-one should ever invest any significant faith or meaning in "rights" given to them by the government. If the government can give them to you, they can take them away again just as easily, and they will, as soon as it serves them to do so.

I think the removal of women's, and other minority groups', government-protected rights is now going to advance very quickly, because they want to spring this on people in a way that is so swift and abrupt, it doesn't give them time to adapt, so they simply break instead. You can already see that, what might have started as mere ripples of social change, are already turning into an imminent tidal wave, with the historic overturning of Roe vs. Wade in the States, a move which has already lead critics to predict the same mechanism could be used to invalidate same-sex marriage (just as happens in The Handmaid's Tale).

Concurrently, Indonesia - the world's third-largest democracy - has outright banned sex outside of marriage, for tourists as well as residents.

These events are not happening in a cultural vacuum or at random. They are all connected, and are all part of a global lockstep agenda to plunge us into the kind of ultra-oppressive, controlling conservatism we have been led to believe is only the stuff of the mustiest old history books.

It's so important to be acutely aware that this is happening, and why, so we don't crumble in shock the more it advances. We have to maintain a composed and robust opposition, and any military strategist will tell you (and as we are in a war, we need to be very well aware of what successful military strategists advise), you cannot defeat the enemy without understanding his approach. Ultimately, the ruling classes now consider most of us surplus to requirements because technology and AI have advanced so far, most human beings, in their eyes, are no longer necessary, and they're not shy about admitting this.

Of the few people they do want to keep around, they're more incentivised to keep men, as men are physically stronger (so they can do the physically demanding jobs robots aren't yet up to) and don't get pregnant, which is why the world is now becoming especially hostile to women.

Obviously the above paints a pretty bleak portrait of the future, but this is only "their" future - living in their system and playing by their rules. We need to be very aware of what they're up to, as our lives are inescapably bound up with the system (we all have bank accounts, use supermarkets, go online, and so on) and we can't forge a focused solution unless we understand intrinsically what we are up against.

But that doesn't mean their future is our future. It just means there is more of an urgent need than ever to continue to develop the communities and counter-cultures many of us have been working on for at least the last three years. All throughout history, no matter how dystopian and oppressive a society becomes, there's always an alternative, always a resistance, always an underground, and there will be again. The onus on us now is to simply keep our principles, our minds, and our souls - and, of course, our front doors - firmly and fearlessly intact.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

  1. Patreon, for monthly pledges
  2. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
  3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:
[wpedon id=278]

6 comments on “Q. What's the difference between Nicola Sturgeon and the Taliban?”

  1. Reading this made me feel deeply uncomfortable - I think because you have managed to hit a deep seam of truth.

  2. Another perspective is of course Marxism. For example, James Lindsey over at newdiscourses explains the theory, published papers and people that inform education, specifically early childhood development policy aaaand ... essentially queer theory is about destabilizing identity forever, as its proponents openly state (to combat the scourge of priviledge which is "intersectional") since (as Lindsey points out) the revolution has marched its way through the bourgeoisie and the feminists and the gays, and none turned out to be adequate revolutionaries as society acquiesced to their demands, found a place for them and settled them in. He reads the papers verbatim and the psychopathy is perfectly articulated, from boehn to engles and marx, and of course back to lurian kabbalah and hermeticism, which he is now sniffing out himself with his emotional and social learning takedown tracing directly back to the channelled writing of alice bailey and lucis trust.

    His work points alarmingly to my idea that an end goal is to eliminate the verb to be from the lexicon altogether, no is, am, are, was, were, will whatsoever. No I am that I am.

    Muslims meanwhile are more tighly bound by the Quran than ever in another tactical dialectic to do with their use as mercenaries ... and soon they're likely to be beset by young English virgins seeking protections. This accounts for the different approach, outright oppression of the feminine, among those populations within the context and time frame, and that they are not the direct target irrespective.

  3. If God had intended 'wimmin' to be nothing other than 'broodmares' He surely didn't make a very good job of it

    The human female is among the most infertile of all mammals, she is only fertile for some 4% of her lifetime. Fertility experts contend that there is only a 12-hour window in the monthly cycle when conception may occur - and even then the probability is at best around 40%

    Logic dictates therefore that conception may be avoided if the fertility windows can be identified and the 'marriage act' is abstained from during those times. To coin a phrase from an old TV show, ...'we have the technology'.... It is known as NFR - Natural Fertility Regulation

    In case you didn't know, many concoctions that big pharma passes off as 'contraceptives' actually procure an early abortion. Among these are the 'pill', the so-called 'morning after' pill, the IUD, Norplant and Depo Provera. These also have associated health risks and unpleasant side effects, which big pharma and those who are in their pockets either deny or don't want you to know about

    Why is NFR kept such a big secret? Quite simply, because big pharma don't make - literally - a killing out of it!

Leave a Reply




[wpedon id=278]
©2024 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram