They need Christ more than ever; instead, they seem to have Simon bar Kokhba come again

Friends, and
To all those defending Israel:

Every time I write one of my essays here, the world is exponentially worse than it was when I wrote the last epistle. I despair of it. God is gonna have to fix it.

• The American government is a disaster; it is totally NOT representing the American people.
• The Catholic Church is a disaster, if you count the official Church as the full Catholic Church, that is. If you think Bergoglio is pope or his regime in remotely CATHOLIC, then I despair for you.
• But I certainly despair of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It's a hopeless mess, and has been that way since the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. For Israel, it would take a King Solomon come again to try to bring either justice or peace to this fiasco, or most importantly of all, they need Jesus. (I'll probably be labeled an "antisemite" for saying that. Imagine my response.)
  

If anyone ever needed Jesus...

If anyone anywhere ever "needed Jesus", it is the Jews and Arabs. But instead of Jesus, the Israelis got Simon bar Kokhba come again.

1. Ok, so who was Simon bar Kokhba? A warrior, the last of the Zealot types Our Lord Christ knew a century earlier. Zealots were those Jews who wanted to fight the Romans with war (or terror, however you want to put it), like the Irish Republican Army wanted to fight the British. They had their big moment in 66 A.D. when the First Jewish War began. Zealots held Jerusalem for four years before the Romans destroyed it – and most of them, along with a million or so other Jews – in 70 A.D.
2. Barabbas was one of these insurrectionists 40 years earlier in Jesus' time. St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary and the composer of St. Mark's gospel, describes Barabbas (in 15:7) as “The man named Barabbas [who] had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” That would definitely be a Zealot.
3. Simon bar Kokhba himself was the last and maybe the greatest – in terms of power and cruelty, if not military skill – of all Zealots. He fought the Romans (when they tried to ban circumcision and force Jewish assimilation) and "the greatest rabbi of the time", Akiva ben Yosef, apparently claimed for him Davidic descent and might have given him the name bar Kokhba, which means son of the star, a messianic reference. 

Whatever about all that, when the Romans finally defeated bar Kokhba in 135 A.D., they killed 800,000 of his followers, and probably more than a million Jews died, all told. So, the Jewish people collectively chose Barabbas instead of Jesus, and 40 years later the Zealot leaders of 66 A.D., and in 132 A.D., Simon bar Kokhba. All these Zealots did was lead the Jews to catastrophe. Now they have Benjamin Netanyahu. 

The Jewish perspective

From the Jewish perspective, it ought to be a simple calculus. "We want our own nation, and we want it to be a Jewish nation, not a country where 'Jews also live'". After the bar Kokhba revolt, Jews remained scattered for two millennia, basically, and while often persecuted, they also took advantage of what opportunities they could, as well. That in itself caused them to be hated. It was like a curse: they're dispossessed and despoiled, a stateless nation who thereby incur contempt and loathing; yet when they become wealthy bankers and powerful influencers, they're hated all the more. A no-win situation.

Maybe they should not have chosen Barabbas. Or the Zealots of 66 A.D. Or Simon son of the Star, heir of David. Or just maybe Pontius Pilate got the last laugh when he maneuvered them into shouting "Crucify the Peacenik and give us the terrorist!" 

Zionism

Eventually, toward the end of the 19th century, European Jews began the Zionist Movement. The Jews supporting this romantic colonization theory (not all that many did, actually) left Europe and entered the Ottoman lower Syrian desert by hook and crook and began removing – none too gently one can surmise – many of the native inhabitants. (Jews in Europe often bought the land from Turkish absentee landlords living in Istanbul, and then European settlers showed up who told the locals to clear off.)  

1. Again, they wanted their own state – a JEWISH one – and European Jews who embraced Zionism planted European Jews in the southern Levant. 
2. Did the Zionist promoters have a plan about the Arabs? I don't know. Did they suspect the locals would rebel? I don't know.
3. The whole Zionist idea was so quixotic that most everyone probably thought it would fail, I would guess.
   
4. Events in Europe under the Nazis and the horrors of the Holocaust sort of eventually proved the Zionist argument, however, or so the non-Muslim world thought. The Catholic Vatican II Church has certainly bent over backwards to apologize to Jews for the Holocaust, that's for sure. But the problem was, the Jews had planted their colony among Muslims (originally the area had numerous Christian Arabs). 
5. And the Muslims had an insane, religiously founded hatred of Jews. That was the kicker. (Why Muslimsfrom their beginning hate Jews more than Christians is the subject for another essay. Suffice it to say "Muslim Judgement Day" is the day they get to kill all the world's remaining Jews.)
   
6. But as the Nazi tide rose, the Jews kept coming and "making the desert bloom", even as the British occupiers of the region after World War I opposed them. 
7. Eventually, when the British "mandate" expired, the Jews declared the State of Israel after WWII. At first and for many decades, it was a Socialist Eastern European-style "state", mirroring the ideas of it settlers, many of whom were from Eastern Europe. Ideological, yes; romantic, maybe, but not the booming economy it has since become.
   

The Return of the Crusader States?

Though the Muslims often enough bring them up, I'm always amazed that Westerners – especially Jews – never mention the Crusader States. That's probably because Israelis don't want to be considered associated with "Crusaders" under any circumstances, and because of the sad fate of those states.

Going on almost 1000 years ago, Western Europeans invaded the Levant in their Crusades. They wanted to free the Holy Land from Turkish Muslims who had recently set up shop. Their success was so-so, but they did capture territory (killing Jews and Muslims in the process, which both Jews and Muslims insist we remember: there's no "forgive and forget" with either) and so they set up a series of Crusader Sates – one was the "Kingdom of Jerusalem". These began to create a Little Europe in the desert heart of Islam. They implanted European law, counties, sheriffs, the whole shebang. The Muslim powers of all stripes could not tolerate that, so they kept attacking the Europeans and over 100 years or so, destroyed them. Every single one of the would-be colonists that weren't killed or didn't flee, were enslaved. Always remember Islam was founded on slavery and was and is essentially, quintessentially a slaver system. 

• Medieval Europe was essentially different than Ancient Europe in that
• A, the Medievals had Christianity and 
• B, they didn't have slavery (except in rare instances, like pre-Norman Gaelic Ireland). On the other hand...
  
• Islam has ALWAYS had slavery and it always will. Why? That's because while Christianity didn't condemn slavery in its beginnings, it became repugnant to own fellow Christians as slaves: we're all parts of the Body of Christ, after all; whereas... 
• Islam's raison d'être was to bestow on the original Arabs – a violent minority in the vast seas of people they conquered – the divine right to steal everything everyone else had: including the people themselves.
• N.B. This violence works for Muslims. It always has. It does now throughout the world (except in China: see Uyghurs, Chinese treatment of and Islam's ignoring of). One example: Muslim immigrants into England have enslaved hundreds of girls, especially; it is a national tragedy and horrific scandal, though you don't hear the mainstream media howling about it because everyone fears Muslim VIOLENCE. Anyway, slavery: that's why Islam was founded, really, to be honest.

Judaism and Islam for Outsiders

While Judaism has always maintained its separateness from surrounding cultures, basing that on its religious identity and beliefs, its special covenant relationship with God, Islam sort of mirrors that in a darker mode. Islam has always been a consensus-driven, self-isolated monocultural civilization living off the theft of entire nations, a herrenvolk taxing Christians and Jews to death, and so of course after the initial seventh-century conquest, Islam turned the Fertile Crescent region of the Near East into desert. (The conquerors were allowed to graze their herds of goats and camels wherever they wanted, you see?) 

In effect, the Muslim powers had destroyed the previous "Europeanized" Levant after their initial Muslim conquest in the 700s. That area was once the HEARTLAND of Christianity, and a rich region on every level: cultural, agricultural, linguistic. The Muslims invaded, conquered, dispersed and enslaved. And monoculturalized. Example: Alexandria on the Egyptian coast was always the second largest city of the ancient Greco-Roman world, vying with Rome or Antioch or later Constantinople. Yet within a generation of the Muslim Conquest, it was a fishing village. That's history.

So the modern-day Jews, seeking a Jewish nation-state "Tackled the Islamic Camel", as it were. In essence, they actually "stole something back" from the Islamic Empire and wow, THAT is NOT allowed. 

And also, in so doing, they revived the ancient rivalry between the brothers Isaac and Ishmael. Religious Jews (a minority of Jews, you know) still claim to be direct descendants of Isaac through his second son, Jacob, whom God renamed "Israel". Arabs claim Ishmael, Abraham's first born, as their ancestor. Both sides base their claim to the land on being heirs of these two sons of Abraham. Of course, the kicker to that is:

• A: Jesus Christ came along and said the "Chosen People" were chosen precisely to be the womb of the Messiah, i.e. to birth the young Jewish girl who said yes to Gabriel. So, their long existence was fulfilled in her Fiat to God.
• B: From a Jewish perspective rejecting such theology, they base their claim to the land on God's giving it to Abraham's descendants through Isaac. The kicker to that is Moses warned them they were to be careful to obey all of God's strict moral laws. They only ever did that for a few generations at a stretch, however; most of the time, they lived as they live in Israel now: it is a modern culture, meaning one with lots of sex behavior against the ancient commandments, like homosexuality, abortion, and so on. That concert that was attacked on October 7 exhibited a huge Buddha statue, for example. That doesn't justify the Hamas attack, but the God of Moses would zap them for it as He did of old. And maybe He is. Or if a modern-thinking person argues God is not concerned about their behavior against His ancient Covenants, then the God of revelation no longer exists. And if He has "evolved" or no longer exists, then what right can they claim to the land? See the conundrum they have? (A no-win situation, again.)

Israel bears the "five minutes of hate" right now...

Right now, it is Israel bearing the "five minutes of hate" of the world's propaganda. It seems the old Jewish war cry of "Antisemitism!" doesn't work as well as it did. Like "racism" in the U.S., it has probably been used once too often. 

Importantly, though, the ultimate source of this madness lies in Muslim culture and xenophobia. Oh, to be sure, the Jews are not blameless, either. They chose to enter an ancient minefield and planted a garden in the midst of it. They planted a tree in salted earth, a rose bush in a corral of hungry goats. They dared challenge the 1700-year-old Islamic Imperialism. Look what that has brought them. 

It has brought them continual or near continual state of war – certainly global political machinations and ceaseless spycraft and behind-the-scenes maneuvering – remains perpetual. It has also affected all the rest of us, all of non-Jews. 

• Terrorism has made life in the West miserable.
• It is the justification for the infamous "Deep State/Intelligence Community" of other nations' control of their people, such as the spying on every American via the vote on this awful FISA-702 law Congress just renewed. And it just never stops because of Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews, traditionally ingrained in that religion, and spreading terrorism far and wide nowadays, giving the "spies" the right to seize control. But also because of Islam's intrinsic xenophobia.

Islam

Muslims hate Christianity & Christian civilization. Not as much as they hate Jews, but still, it is enough. Read John Zmirak on the attack of that bishop in Australia, and why the bishop and his people are in Australia in the first place at The Stream. A most excellent, and depressing, article.

Right now, it is self-evident that Israel is losing the Gaza war (or front or operation or whatever one calls it) – many insist it is genocide, which the Israelis consider a "blood libel", but the claim of genoide is being made, nonetheless. If true, Israel has lost what it cannot regain. Meanwhile, the West Bank is hyper-tense and war is breaking out with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Persians and Israelis are lobbing missiles at each other.

I certainly can't speak to allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza. Twenty-percent of the Republic of Israel's population isn't Jewish, but Arab (Muslim and Christian). So, they obviously weren't genocidal in the past, though yes, Zionism has always wanted a JEWISH state (Islam merely wants an Islamic world). Many argue right now the new Simon bar Kokhba strives for a "Greater Israel", which would include territory (like Gaza, but much more besides) as a buffer to protect the country.

A Serious Query

What do people hating Israel want? Or what do its critics want it to do? Do they want the Jews to leave? Do they want them to confess: "Yes, we stole your desert land and created an semi-apartheid state in which we made the desert bloom as it once did before you Arabs came because after two thousand years of being robbed, murdered, and treated as pariahs, and finally slaughtered in mass by the Europeans in the Holocaust, we thought we needed a JEWISH homeland. Yet we admit we simply don't have the right to live anywhere." You want them to do that? That seems to be the idea.

Well, one can counter argue: how about we give the Americas back to the Indians. North, South, and Central – just give it back and leave. All Irish Americans can return to Ireland and all Slavic-derived Americans can go back to Russia and so forth and so on. How about that?

One can also ask quite seriously: How can any set of people mentally survive such total war, decade after decade? I don't defend genocide on either side or genocide at all in general: but in such a no-win, Hell-on-earth mess, it's no wonder they've all gone – or are going – mad. And remember that in a Muslim culture, a man can have more than one wife, and thus a LOT of children. Gaza's population explosion growth is phenomenal, and the percentage of young people is astounding. Western cultural norms, especially degenerate modern ones, can't remotely keep up in terms of number of children per father. And just how can a father be a father to 10 or 15 or 20 sons from different women?

Bottom Line
Israel either survives or it doesn't. Islam will certainly survive. Until it doesn't. But Israel? It most certainly will go the way the Crusader States did unless they nuke the Muslims. Maybe even then. It is not hard to imagine "the world" once again slaughtering Jews in rage, this time for starting a nuclear war. Iran could start using nukes and it would be a different story, somehow, wouldn't it? Or maybe the world would finally turn against Islam and decide the heirs of both Isaac and Ishmael need to depart these earthly coils.

One way or the other – unless both sides convert to Christ and forgive each other, which is, of course, very unlikely outside pure miracle and probably the Second Coming – mass slaughter will once again turn the region back into desert, and Simon bar Kokhba's unquiet ghost, and Barabbas's wandering spirit, all of the old Zealots so frustrated by Rome, will drag their chains through the empty kingdoms of Pluto once more.

AnP

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? Women certainly betray themselves...

Amici,

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? As abortion is such a horrific evil, the short answer is Morally, yes. But then the longer answer is politically not quite – or not immediately – when you cold-heartedly consider that "politics is the art of the possible."

Unfortunately, Trump keeps digging his own political grave. He took just the bait and answered an abortion question that will kill him with Pro-Lifers: he said he would not sign a federal abortion ban if it reaches his desk. See Lifesitenews for details. This is an "unforced error" since any federal abortion ban is impossible politically in the foreseeable future. What a fool Trump is. No conservative American politician speaks "unscripted" about abortion. Ever. Such called-out questions are traps.

Abortion should be banned outright, of course, but politically in the United States, that can't be done – not without another Civil War at least – that's the Democrats for you: they build up an evil like slavery or abortion till the only way to fight it is to fight it, literally. But then, that's what they want you to say so their "Deep State" can arrest you for threatening violence.

Consider: the U.S.A. has two parties, although they're basically a UniParty, and more or less alike in a great many ways, and nowadays under the control of U.S. Intelligence Bureaucracies. Regarding abortion, though, one wing of this UniParty is willing to restrict abortion a lot more than the other wing – more or less; recently a lot less. The other wing, the Democrats, unabashedly now want abortion up to birth, and even after. Thus, as a pro-Lifer, I have to vote for the side that is more willing to restrict it; I cannot (and have never) voted for the other side.

• HOWEVER, I am no fool, either. Abortion politically is like slavery. As John Daniel Davidson so eloquently points out here. The American nation cannot exist half abortion and half pro-Life. It will become all one or all the other, just as with slavery. We see that happening in "red state" Ohio and Kansas. Davidson's essay is a fascinating and insightful article well worth the time to read.

The 2024 Election

Well, in terms of "normal" American politics, former President Donald Trump looks to be winning the 2024 presidential campaign, except for the fact that the Democrats will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to keep him from swearing in January 20, 2025. Remember: the American election system is completely unstable. Election theft and fraud remain endemic to it. Since Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 from the feckless Richard Nixon, we've actually had a number of true coup d'états: Kennedy by the gun (two Kennedys, actually, if you remember RFK), Nixon by lawfare (remember "Watergate"?), Reagan – almost by the gun a few months after his inauguration, and by lawfare rendering him impotent in his second term (remember "Iran-Contra"?) – and so on and so forth, till Trump's first term, where The Powers That Be tried to render him impotent via lawfare (remember "Russian Collusion"?, and then they finally brazenly stole the 2020 election. (And have you never noticed how no one tried to assassinate Carter, Clinton, or Obama? Gee, how curious. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over a carnal escapade, but the Democrats impeached Trump what, three times – once for a phone call?) So, with a record like that, and with all the unbridled lawfare against Trump, we can expect disaster this November.

And now maybe Trump himself has shot himself in the foot over abortion. Now multiple times, as noted above. Pro-lifers across the nation groan in true heartache. In the process, though, did Trump really betray all the pro-Lifers who have supported him through all the devilish hell he's been subjected to? Or is he the Machiavellian politician – as was Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent – just trying to win? See Lifesitenews for details of Trump's new abortion position (if you're not already sick of this). Trump has a stubborn streak. Note that he's never admitted the rush to Covid vaccines was a disaster. Despite the growing evidence, he won't budge on that. But now he won't budge on his pro-abortion positions that he is staking out.

First thing to consider and weigh in the scales is that the Democrats, i.e. the party who booed God at their convention years ago, the Left, the Communists and godless hoards galore who have completed their "long march" (the term is Mao's) through our institutions and academies, have won the propaganda war – largely but not entirely – on abortion. 

1. Tens of millions of women seem to regard killing a child as absolutely untouchable. And I mean, they are adamant about baby killing as were the terrible Erinyes, the Furies of Ancient Greece.
   
2. Any politician who wants to ban abortion will be defeated, and most politicians on the Right who even bring limiting it up get lambasted by the mainstream media (a.k.a., the Democrats' lap dogs). Therefore, Republicans are backing off of abortion, as John Zmirak astutely explains in this column. So it is that Trump probably thinks, "Why should I stick my neck out?"
   
3. Yet abortion as a universal carte blanc right, as in France? We've come a very long way from Bill Clinton's infamous call in 1992 for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare", that's for sure. No Democrat today could repeat Clinton's line without being ripped to threads by the pagan furies that seem to possess Leftist women, and many not so leftist women.
   
4. The Left has spent, and will spend, immeasurable oceans of money to promote "Women's Reproductive Rights", and pump money into red states like Ohio and Kansas to garner state constitutional changes mandating unlimited abortion (and also bring on "gay rights" and "sex change" and so on). It is as though the Supreme Court ruling opened Pandora's bag (yep, Panni had a bag, not a box.)  
5. It's obvious that abortion has become the spear point the godless use to pierce the hearts of millions, especially women, regarding the sanctity of life, turning living hearts into stone. "Who among you would give your children a stone if they asked for bread?" Well, today, they stone 'em to death, just kill them, or mutilate their young bodies. 
6. Just as with slavery by 1860, abortion has gone beyond any sort of civil discourse now. Beyond civil discourse, or even rational discourse. It's taken on quasi-religious tones; indeed, it is the worship of Moloch, Ba'al, and Satan in the technological age.
   

Trump the Fool

Against this seeming juggernaut from Hell, Trump plays by its rules. All Trump had to do in terms of callow political expedience was stop soon after he started on his abortion statement. Yes, were he not going to remain 100 percent pro-life, he should have begun as he started out: i.e., abortion is now, thanks to the Supreme Court, a states-right issue. He did start with this. Then he should have stopped and said: "I'm not running for governor of a state, but as president of the nation, and as a nation we have absolute Armageddon hanging over us economically, Armageddon in a fight against Communism within our own Federal government, and obviously Armageddon with our insane foreign wars! We need to focus on those national issues first and foremost."

All of that is desperately true. How hard would that have been?

• That should have been that. But no. Trump brought up Democrat talking points, like the infamous "rape, incest, or health of the mother" smoke and mirror. It's a fraud. Had he had to open his mouth on that, he could have said regarding "rape, incest, health of the mother", that that's for the states to work out in their legislatures. But no, he had to endorse those "exceptions".
  
• That's a grotesque cop out, as well. Donald John Trump should meet and have a long, long talk with Rebecca Kiessling, a woman, a lawyer, a pro-life fighter, who was conceived via a rape. Watch her profound eight-minute presentation here. Donald Trump, you should be ashamed. Political expedience or no.
  
• In terms of IVF, Trump has actually endorsed it! IVF is the artificial fertilization system that creates dozens of fertilized eggs/zygotes in order to produce ONE child, Trump should have been honest and declare, "I don't know much about this and I'll have to research it for myself, in terms of science and religion. When I know what I'm talking about, I'll form an opinion." 

Simple. Again, simple re: political expedience. Morally lame in the extreme.

Abortion is absolute evil, and we are nowhere near getting it banned

Now, obviously, my Machiavellian-inspired suggestions above would be a "cop out". A political dodge. It's what Stephen Douglas tried 150 years ago. Machiavellian maneuvering to get elected. Morally, abortion remains an absolute evil. One stands either appalled by abortion, sickened, horrified, and want it to end, or one can say he's uncaring about it, or one is a worshiper of Moloch (like so many Leftists in the world and Democrats in America) to the loss of one's soul. Those are the three options. No others exist.

Many pro-Lifers say we have to elect Trump, or the country is lost. I tend to do that myself because it is true, but then, what kind of country would we be saving? An abortion horror? A narcissistic nirvana of stunted "juveniles for life"? Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0?

• Abortion is the only crime where the absolutely innocent one gets the death sentence. Also, fully 97 percent of all abortions, it is said, occur BEFORE 15-weeks. Mainly are now done chemically; i.e. "the morning after pill". This little factoid is crucial to understand because it shows how pointless the Left's manipulation of Conservative politicians is: they don't do it to "keep abortion legal" at all, they fight this fight to manipulate women and win elections. The whole thing is one big fraud.
  

IVF

And finally, Trump highly touts the execrable IVF method with creates extra zygotes then kills them (after freezing them).

That, readers, is not merciful. It's the height of narcissism. Yes, it is. Think about it. I feel very sorry for couples (and yes, I mean a married man and woman!) who cannot have kids. Any healthy person would feel sorry. But what person possessing any sort of moral mind or with a moral soul at all wants to have ten or twelve kids just to "harvest' one of them? That's sick in the extreme. Purely diabolical. That's like killing babies to test drugs, etc. 'For the greater good, many must die." Bovine guano.

And Trump covered himself in it. Was he ever truly pro-life? He was a pro-abortion Democrat for most of his life. Did he have a real conversion? God knows, and God will pass the judgment. 

Clearly, everyone can see that Biden won't last even the summer, let alone to November, and that Kamala Harris is a complete idiot. (That's been proven again and again out of her own mouth. And her uncontrollable laughter is freakish. And unnerving.) The Democrats will replace them when expedient. But whoever they run for the presidency, he or she will be "more of the same" as Biden and Harris. Thus we find ourselves between Scylla and Charybdis. If Trump isn't elected, the country is finished. Yes, but again, what country would be saved, really?

Then there's the women who make abortion possible

Do not mistake me. Women are easily manipulated by men. Worthless, immoral men want cheap carnal "full-body contact with women" and for the past 100 years have worked on women's self image to get it. Abortion exists almost solely because guys want to carnally take advantage of gals, and pay no penalty. Read that sentence again. It's part of the over-all contraceptive culture that is hollowing out our civilization. That's why men scientists developed "the Pill" in the first place. Women test subjects DIED in testing it. But they sold it as a "freeing" of women, a "liberation" of women. But that was all a lie. It enslaves women to endless male predation.

Nowadays, abortion owes a lot of its unshakable, iron-clad position in America (and Europe, etc.) to the support of women. Unmarried women tend to be Leftist anyway, and then again, married "soccer moms" have tended to vote Democrat because that party cynically cries up the poor and downtrodden and supports abortion, as well. American Jews have traditionally voted Democrat for protection from what they saw as an aggressive Christian culture; women vote Democrat because they are taught to feel like a threatened minority, as well.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt owed his second to fourth elections largely to women who voted for "that handsome, feline man". 
2. And of course he flooded the country with bureaucrats to "look after" everyone. 
3. Women elected FDR the second time in 1936, when his policies had left the country in a worse state than when he came in. (Women, and the Republicans, who ran utter non-entities against him.)
4. Women elected Jack Kennedy (voted for him enough that he only had to steal the vote in Illinois), and women voted for Bill Clinton and Obama, the "Metrosexual".
   
5. And today, Democrats keep harping on the "Alpha-Male" Donald Trump and what a threat to women he is. (Anyone who knows Trump knows this is not true, except maybe per aborting them.)
   

Women and the State

Also, many women tend to vote for "the state", a paternal state that promises to look after them and their children; see this excellent Ann Barnhardt essay here. There's also this. 

Now, of course, the country has millions of sane women, conservative women, patriotic women. And a Catholic author, Kimgerly Begg, writes about them and why they tend to "give in" to peer pressure here: Survey: Most Young Women Hold Conservative Beliefs But Hide Them. I recommend this very thoughtful article; it is fascinating.

Conclusion

But this is our situation. Because worthless miserable Leftist godless men, ruthless ideologues and narcissistic hedonists, have been manipulating women ceaselessly for generations so that women tend to vote against their own self-interests. Again, it is much like Jews who reflexively vote for Democrats. Now, the flood of "tranny" men who insist on pushing women out of sports and gyms and toilets and even redefine the female sex entirely may finally drive home to women how wretched their conditioning has been. Maybe. Maybe not. The incredibly blatant antisemitism that's everywhere now might get Jews' attention, too. Maybe. Maybe not.

Truly, everything is such a mess that only a full return to God can save what's left of our civilization. But where is the Roman Catholic Church? Read that John Zmirak article linked to above for that. It ain't pretty. And our situation is dire.

AnP