Christine Ford: A Singular Fraud

Christopher DeGroot breaks down Christine Blasey-Ford, her accusation, and what’s behind it.

Front Page:

[…] Ford knew what she was doing. With her background in psychology, she is surely well aware of the deep, instinctive paternalism people feel in favor of women, the more valuable sex, as it were. M. Dittman, summarizing a study published in the October 2014 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4), writes that

women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender.

…Women can be characterized as thinking “if I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as thinking “even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.”

…Men and women who automatically perceived men as more threatening or intimidating than women also had pro-female preferences, suggesting that negative male stereotypes can promote greater liking for women.

It is owing to this bias—which, being mostly unconscious, is terribly difficult to recognize, let alone discuss—that the Supreme Court confirmation process so easily became a kangaroo court. Women’s supreme biological value is such that the state’s most important business instinctively became as irrational as any teenage lover.

Nor did Ford have any scruples about exploiting the paternalism which, by benefiting women, benefits the species itself. In The Sociopath Next Door (2005), psychologist Martha Stout wrote:


After listening for almost twenty-five years to the stories my patients tell me about sociopaths who have invaded and injured their lives, when I am asked, “How can I tell whom not to trust?” the answer I give usually surprises people. The natural expectation is that I will describe some sinister-sounding detail of behavior or snippet of body language or threatening use of language that is the subtle giveaway. Instead, I take people aback by assuring them that the tip-off is none of these things, for none of these things is reliably present. Rather, the best clue is, of all things, the pity play. The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.

Needless to say, the Democrats, forever shameless, didn’t mind the “unscrupulous” Ford’s “pity play” in the least.

The entire article here


h/t PHenry.



19 Comments on Christine Ford: A Singular Fraud

  1. Ford is a university professor. There must exist somewhere video of her lectures. I would love to see a comparison of those with her “poor little scared victim” performance at the senate hearing.

  2. Virtually all of the women I’ve worked with let it be known that they’d much prefer to work with men than other women. I always worked with a crew of nine and when there was one woman on the crew, everything went well. Two or more women on the crew was always a disaster. Women don’t like other women.

  3. If women prefer their own gender so much more, then why are so many so vindictive to each other in so many ways?

    Obviously not all are like this, but if you look at any honest assessment of hating women in society, you’ll see women perpetuating it right up there will the worst of the men.

  4. My Russian wife was shocked at the way women treat each other here in America. Where she is from, women are rarely back-stabbing bitches toward one another. It’s been hard for her to adjust to the way women here treat one another.

  5. Rathaus – Great strange take on it! Shame the ‘hung drapes’ (Portieres) are not more understood, and or not more paid attention too. That being said lies the real conundrum for men to figure out.

  6. Phew, Hambone, thanks for sorting that out for me! I now completely understand! Bitches there being bitches could cost lives,,, your Right! Sincere regards to you and all

  7. she is a lying bitch. not one word that came out of that worthless mouth is true. the laws for libel and slander need to be changed so that no one can just make stuff up about someone else without proof, wheather they’re famous or not.

  8. ~When I watched the first couple of minutes of her senate testimony I was shocked that anyone took her seriously. I was surprised the room didn’t erupt in laughter. But then now days we’re living in a twilight zone.

  9. If the GOP had any balls, 15 minutes into her spiel, they’d have sent her back to Delaware to work on her tan and her story a bit more.

  10. “… her background in psychology …”

    Does being psychotic actually give one a “background in psychology?”

    Of course it was all lies. Bork, Thomas, Moore, Trump … how many others? It’s the gift that keeps on giving; no matter how often it’s pulled out of their asses or how often it fails.

    When they start to suffer consequences for their lies, they will curtail their lies – not until then. Too much profit in Mendacity (see Clinton, Obola, McCaskill, Warren, Sharpton, Jackson, Emanuel, de Blasio, Kennedy, Kerry,

    izlamo delenda est …

  11. Organgrinder……….. I felt the same way, those glasses, that hairdo the sweet innocent up talk. Phony

    Does anyone know if Grassley is going to investigate this blasé Ford plague on our society. If she gets away with this who is next? This can’t be happening in our country.

    The Clintons going to stadiums……….. ought to be afraid of a sharpshooter

  12. I call FAKE study. There was no mention of “male toxicity, smash the patriarchy, intersectionality, or rape culture”.


Comments are closed.