Leftist Women’s Psychiatric Break Over Trump Leads to “MATGA” Movement Targeting Men with Poison
“Make Aqua Tofana Great Again,” is TikTok movement featuring, a 17th-century poison used by women to kill abusive men. In turn, men are concerned about the online threats.
Before the first votes were cast, Professor Jacobson predicted there would be a psychiatric break among leftists, especially young women, if President Donald Trump prevailed in the election.
I’ve said this many times on Twitter (X) that we’re going to see a psychiatric break. We’re going to see a psychiatric break on the left, particularly among younger women, based on their behavior so far—something we may never have seen before.
His prediction was more like prophesy.
But for woke leftist women in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s sweeping victory on Tuesday, it was a day of mourning, a day to cry tears in their beers, a day to issue ominous warnings about imminent doom, a day to urge their fellow sistahs to go on a sex strike, and a day to reveal their inner urge to commit violence and murder upon the opposite sex.
A new movement has sprung from this lunacy: Make Aqua Tofana Great Again (MATGA).
The “Make Aqua Tofana Great Again,” or MATGA, movement is a recent online trend in which some women humorously advocate for “reviving” Aqua Tofana—a 17th-century poison used by women to kill and escape their abusive husbands.
Aqua Tofana, named after its alleged creator Giulia Tofana, was a deadly, undetectable poison used across Italy, gaining notoriety for its stealth and potency.
The MATGA trend has become synonymous with Tofana, seemingly emerging as a satirical expression of frustration over certain political issues, mainly targeting Trump and men who support conservative policies that affect women.
The trouble is, when you watch the video clips, it is quite easy to believe that some women might actually start brewing the combination of lead, arsenic, and belladonna, which are thought to be key components of this mixture.
Alright, this is purely psychotic. Leftists women now promoting “Make Aqua Tofana Great Again”
Aqua Tofana was a poison in 17th century Italy used and sold by women who were seeking to escape relationships by poisoning their husbands pic.twitter.com/GaAUgzJHZ0
— 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐑𝐞𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨 (@HereditRebellio) November 11, 2024
At a time when a leftist man kills his entire family because Trump won the election, the psychological damage done to this nation from Tik Tok, the mainstream media messaging, and the Democratic hate campaign cannot be overstated.
In the interest of protecting innocent men and hopefully getting some women to walk away from the needless hate brewing in their souls, I will share my knowledge as a chemical safety expert and provide some facts that may be helpful.
Aqua Tofana is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, making it easy to slip into food or drinks undetected. It was reportedly quite potent, with just a few drops being enough to kill a person.
Some symptoms arise, as the poison was apparently given in a series of doses. Aqua Tofana was designed to mimic the symptoms of a natural illness: The first dose caused cold-like symptoms; the second dose led to stomach aches, vomiting, and diarrhea; and, the third or fourth dose would be fatal.
Unlike in medieval days, we have the toxicological tools to detect the components.
- Lead can be detected through blood or urine samples.
- For arsenic, blood, urine, as well as hair and nail samples can be used.
- Belladonna poisoning, which is primarily due to its content of atropine and other tropane alkaloids, can be detected through blood or urine tests for atropine and its metabolites.
If you brew Aqua Tofana and use it, you will be discovered.
Now, our elite media may assert this is dark humor. And I sure hope it is. But given what happened with the FEMA crews ignoring the homes of Trump voters and the incidents of violence against Trump supporters, I am not taking any chances.
And it turns out men are taking it seriously, too.
Some men appear to be taking it seriously, with one advising fellow conservatives to “keep your head on a swivel”. Another writes: “Wives are threatening to poison their husbands. Waitresses are threatening to poison their conservative customers.”
Asked about the trend, the FBI said that it encouraged members of the public to report threats of physical violence to local law enforcement. “The FBI investigates federal crimes and threats to the national security,” a spokesperson said. “We will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment-protected activity.”
My advice to any woman who jumped on the MATGA train: Delete your videos, head to church, make an appointment with a mental health professional, and get your news from some other sources.
The life you save may be your own.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Seems like encouraging people to poison each other would be a violation of social media TOS, but maybe it’s (D)ifferent.
Would also seem to be breaking any number of state and federal laws that a newly taken over DoJ may be very interested in follow up on?
So long as it stays on the level of mere advocacy, it’s protected speech. But if it moves beyond that there could be a chargeable offense.
But is advocating for the murder of a large demographic of people over a platform with massive reach and then also naming the method/poison to be used still protected? Honest question, I don’t know law, that’s why I hang out here.
Yes, it is absolutely protected. A person can say in public that not only was Hitler right but that someone ought to pick up the unfinished job where he left it off. He can even specifically say that whoever takes over the job should use Zyklon B, just like the Old Man did.
In fact, in the last year we’ve had the daily or weekly spectacle of thousands of people in our streets saying exactly that, though not using those words. They identify with and support Hitler’s old allies, who have never given up the project he started, and they make no bones about it.
Or think about people who regularly say, particularly on forums like this, that the president ought to drop a nuclear bomb on some Moslem city/country, and turn it into a parking lot. That is literally advocating the murder of a large demographic of people while naming the method to be used. If the president were to take it into his head to do such a thing it would be murder. But people are free to advocate it.
For some reason I can’t reply on your post Milhouse, so I put this in my replies. I appreciate your reply.
I see this differently. Carrying on about Zyklon B in some mob/protest in general terms is far different from actually going online and telling people the actual composition of a deadly poison, how to make it, and then directly telling people to use it. That cannot be legal, protected speech.
Nesting stops after five levels, so any further replies have to be to the last fourth-level reply. That stops them from going all the way to the right edge of the page and beyond, and getting unreadable
These people aren’t giving an exact formula, and certainly not one that they’ve tested and know to actually work. But even if they were, giving information is also protected speech. That’s why the government couldn’t ban cryptography formulas, though it tried as hard as it could. Remember when people had them on T-shirts, with “this is a weapon”?
Now there may be a point at which it becomes incitement, but it’s difficult to imagine how that could actually happen in the context of social media postings. It could happen, as it did with those Rwandan radio broadcasts, but that’s a very high bar to clear.
Avoid tomato sauces if you have an Italian wife. That’s belladonna right from the start.
Technically true. When you deal in animal care you learn about all sorts of things you enjoy eating without a thought, that will kill your four-footed friends. Chocolate, peanut and macadamia products, garlic, onion, grapes, avocados.
To heck with the Italian wife, I’d worry about the mother-in-law.
make an appointment with a mental health professional,
Well that is not going to help. There was a study out there that found the most liberals on the medical spectrum were mental health professionals. I think heart docs and brain surgeons were the most conservative.
They are SOL. Darwin with take care of then.
“We will never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment-protected activity.” says an FBI spokesflak.
Everybody who believes that, get off your unicorn and raise your hand.
If these were conservatives, would anyone be surprised to see the FBI or local law enforcement scouring these posts, looking for gun owners, deciding they’re threats to society, and seeking Red Flag warrants to strip them of their 2nd Amendment rights and take their guns away?
Gaslighting bullshit.
FBI Agent Says He Hassles People ‘Every Day, All Day Long’ Over Facebook Posts
Feelgood video: watch two FBI agents get owned for it, in real time:
FBI Agents SHAMED Amid Visit to Law-Abiding Citizen Over Meme Post
Not impressed.
The first story is from Reason, which can sometimes go crazy in its hostility to law enforcement, about a terrorism supporter who once worked for a terrorist-affiliated organization, getting all upset because someone at Facebook was concerned enough about something she had posted there, took a screenshot of the public information, and sent it to the FBI who sent some agents to pay her a polite visit and chat about it. The writer calls it “hassling”, but provides no basis for that construction, so I’m entitled to put my own, less paranoid construction on the facts.
The writer tries to make something appear sinister by telling us that “Meta’s official policy is to hand over Facebook data to U.S. law enforcement” only in limited circumstances, but what was submitted in this case was not “Facebook data”; it was a screenshot of someone’s public posts.
In an update he cites a FBI official’s statement that “Every day, the FBI engages with members of the public in furtherance of our mission, which is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. We can never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity.” and wants us to think that this story somehow contradicts that statement, or that the first to sentences somehow contradict each other.
He is deliberately ignoring, and hoping his gullible readers will not notice, the difference between “engaging with members of the public”, which is what these agents did and what they said they spend all day doing, and “opening an investigation”. The FBI claims it never opens an investigation based solely on First Amendment-protected activity. I hope that is correct and I see no evidence here against it.
But it does not claim, and in fact denies, that it never engages with members of the public over such activity. It has every right to do so, and it has the duty to do so if it has any concerns. Most people will agree to talk to the agents, explain whatever it is they want to know, and they will walk away knowing (or at least hoping) that there’s nothing bad happening. I can recall several cases where that happened and then it turned out that the concerns were correct, there really was something bad happening, but the agents unfortunately didn’t pick up on it, and thus didn’t investigate further, and didn’t find out what was really happening until people got hurt. And then the public, including right here on LI, is angry at the FBI for having “missed obvious red flags”. Well, if you think it shouldn’t even be allowed to talk to someone without reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime having been committed, then it will never see any red flags, and more people will be hurt.
The second link impresses me even less. First of all it”s Infowars, but just looking at the video I didn’t see any support for the poster’s claim that he had shamed the agents, that they felt embarrassed, or “owned”. They look more like they’re patiently having to deal with a nut case, which is part of their job, so they just politely back away. He could have just politely declined to talk to them, instead of going on a rant about the constitution, which they are fully obeying.
Those dumb enough to let their attention seeking narcissism override common sense and post this sort of thing should have zero complaints when employers, family members, or just random people they encounter shame them, fire them/ refuse to hire them, isolate, ostracize or shun them. Start the dragnet, find and dismiss public employees who advocate poisoning people who disagree with them.
I was looking for someone to do odd jobs on my farm. A neighbor knew someone. So I hired him.
He had lost a thumb using a log splitter working for someone else. He had sued them and got a judgement. That person was also on the fringe of society and was not collectable.
So when he started talking about killing the guy I fired him.
A week or two later he showed up at the neighbor’s house, who was at work, just his wife and 3 boys. His wife called me, I went over while she gather her things. She left with the boys, leaving the crazy guy in the house. When my friend came home he kicked the guy our and told him to never return.
Public employees can’t be fired for first amendment protected activity, unless it impacts their ability to do their jobs. For instance someone whose job doesn’t include public contact can’t be fired for saying even the most offensive things, such as that the president ought to be assassinated.
But for instance a beat cop can be fired if he’s caught in public using racist language, because his effectiveness at the job will forever be impaired. Once the public knows he’s a racist he’ll never live it down, any arrest he makes will be questioned, any testimony he gives will automatically have that asterisk attached, etc.
And of course private employees are not protected at all.
Any woman who would actually do this will likely get on TikTok and brag about it. They are broken.
Just curious-Why hasn’t Youtube deleted the video and the account associated with this craze? Seems like it would be against the community standards, especially given what they’ve deleted/shadow banned conservatives for.
YouTube won’t for the same reason TikTok won’t. They are run by people who don’t like America.
It probably will, once someone brings it to its attention. Do you know whether anyone has bothered reporting it?
It makes perfect sense that the homicidal maniacs of the Dhimmi-crat Party gleefully ally themselves with genocidal, goose-stepping, Jew-hating, Christian-hating and Hindu-hating Islamofascists, Muslim supremacists and terrorists.
These ideological bedfellows are all members of a death cult.
I’m guessing that Newsweek didn’t actually watch any of the videos, because the few I saw were anything but satirical.
Centuries ago, our ancestors burned, or drowned wicked women like these who practised such occluded evil, but our modern enlightened selves cannot fathom how our ancestors could possibly do those horrific acts…
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, or expected the wokeist inquisition.
Snap….
Hysterical Paralysis >> Homicidal Psychosis
Just like those terrorists Israel is putting down.
Just the punchlines:
“Why did you beat your 4th husband to death?”
“Because he wouldn’t eat the soup.”
I suggest they chug the glüg and remove themselves.
The real Bitches Brew!
Just Remember:
The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
But then they broke the chalice from the palace, and replaced it with a flagon, with the image of a dragon.
So now remember:
The pellet with the poison’s in the flagon with the dragon, the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Yet more reasons why women’s suffrage was not such a great idea. These wackos should not have the franchise.
I think that wasting half of the country’s intellectual capacity. I worked for many years with Gertrude B. Elion, an American biochemist and pharmacologist, a Nobel. She was very smart and did great things. She was also a very nice person.
Why not? Women are no more likely to be violent criminals than men are, in fact quite the opposite. If the existence of a certain number of women who are is an argument against female suffrage, then the existence of far more men who fit the same description ought to be an argument against male suffrage.
Women are more likely to be emotional and make poor choices because of that. These loons are literally hysterical, and it’s instructive to recall the etymology of that term.
Not all women are like that, but there are enough that are in a ongoing state of arrested development that they cannot be trusted with decisions more consequential than selecting their wardrobe.
And men are far more likely than women to be criminally inclined, and to make very poor choices. Any argument you make against women voting needs to be reality-checked by seeing how it applies to men.
Human society – around the world – was built primarily by men with little input from women. That is a fact. There is also a reason why that is a fact. You know that. Everybody knows that.
Yeah, because the men were stronger, and could beat the women into submission. That doesn’t make it right.
Lucrezia Borgia Brigade
So…they’re planning to murder both their significant others and/or random men and they justify it because these men “abused” them by possibly voting for Trump.
That sounds completely logical to me and will definitely be an airtight defense at trial.
In NYC and DC, especially.
Anorexia >> Homicidal Psychosis
The moment a single man dies (or is only saved by medical intervention) of this concoction, you have a direct line to incitement for every single one of these women. I would love to make my name as a famous prosecutor by dragging all of them into court, possibly even as a RICO, and send a bunch to prison.
I can also see some man now concocting this brew and putting it in something and eating just enough to get a little sick, and accusing his significant other of doing it. I mean there are actually toxic men out there, to whom they have now given ideas. Stupid.
No, you don’t. This does not fit the definition of incitement. Which is the only reason the law against incitement survives; if it were defined more broadly it would be unconstitutional.
Women’s prison in the blue states they live in will be a hoot for these gals.
I like the way the cited article, and even the subhed to this post, asserts without the slightest evidence that the 17th-century women in question murdered “abusive” husbands.
Looking at the linked Wikipedia page and following Wikilinks to other related pages, I see a variety of approaches (which is common on WP, where you’re looking at different people’s work); some pages repeat this assertion without any evidence, while others admit that they killed husbands who were “abusive or inconvenient“. And I saw one example of a French noblewoman who fed this concoction to her father and brothers so she could inherit the estate. No allegation of abuse there, though modern lawyers would have advised her to make such a claim immediately upon arrest.
Any woman who tries to reproduce Aqua Tofana is an idiot and will probably get caught. But putting poison in drinks is so medieval. You should worry more about female graduate students in virology. They could engineer a virus designed to kill men at a much higher rate than women, and unleash a pandemic designed to reshape the electorate.
17th century is a little post-medieval.
Even Lucrezia Borgia was just barely medieval; she turned 20 in 1500. Also, there’s no actual historical basis for the belief that she was a poisoner.
But you know how poisons were often administered in the 17th century? In soap. People rich enough to afford worrying about poison used to make their own soap, or if they trusted their servants have them make it, for fear that any soap with an unknown provenance might have been planted by an enemy.