- White.
- Female.
- Grew up in the midwest/ lily-white neighborhoods.
Are they simply exploiting the academic grift?
Or Is there a female evolutionary desire to create racial tension and watch the men fight?
Comments (36)
sorted by:
I think it's just that women are collectivists by nature. There seems to be very few female individuals out there.
Any woman who even just attempts will be 100% hated, excommunicated and heavily bullied by other women. Couple that with the fact that women tend to be great at social manipulation, it's a recipe for disaster.
Now I'm not saying it's not worth it, but most people need social interactions and acceptance at least in some way.
Because women are weaker then men, it's literally in their nature to rely on social interaction. That's why most women won't fight against popular, mainstream media. Because they perceive it as strength in numbers. Even if it's hurting themselves. Like promoting trans men in women's sports.
21st century Western white people are, as far as I know, the only racial demographic in history with an out-group bias. This behavior is dysgenic; it is exceedingly unlikely for any population to develop this trait organically. In this case, our suicidal out-group bias is likely a result of 60ish years of anti-white propaganda disseminated by academia, news media, and entertainment. Draw your own conclusions about the demographic makeup of the leaders of those industries.
Women are more social by necessity and more collectivist by nature. On the scale of a family or a home, or possibly a small community, these traits are beneficial. On the scale of a city, a state, a nation, or a planet, these traits are incredibly destructive. When you combine the collectivist leanings of women with the out-group bias of indoctrinated whites, you're looking at a recipe for total disaster.
This one is more of an environmental constraint. One of the privileges afforded by wealth and comfort is the allowance of certain delusional beliefs - such as progressive ideologies - which are in no way compatible with our Darwinian reality. Often times, the only remedy for such ignorance is a sudden and violent collision with reality. This is the origin of the phrase "a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet".
In some ways, whites are victims of their own success. They create prosperous and peaceful communities and societies, which in turn create sheltered and gullible people who are ripe for exploitation.
The bulwarks against such weakness are the traditional values of faith, family, and nation. It's no surprise that these are precisely the values under attack by the left.
Yes, they are called luxury beliefs.
There also exists the phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" for a reason.
This explains why matriarchies largely dissapear in history once large cities start appearing.
Well, contrarily what we're seeing in the west is matriarchy run amok (empathy, emotion, less logical, nanny state taxation and welfare), but using patriarchal government (protector and provider) to implement its will.
All stages of feminism have been cancerous. Women voting and entering the workforce have been death knells to western civilization. Look at the voting stats by gender. Women can be easily manipulated by the cabal/globalists with appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, and appeals to popularity, all of which are logically fallacious arguments that men for large part don't succumb to. "Smash the patriarchy" isn't said by accident. Turning all men in popular media into bumbling idiots or evil isn't an accident. Turning all women in popular media into super intelligent, Mary Sue, do-no-wrongs isn't an accident. They're brainwashing people to think, say, and do only what they want.
All stable society is naturally patriarchal. Men evolved to prioritize truth and logic above all else, because it better enabled us to survive and fulfill our role as protector and provider. Women evolved to prioritize people and empathy over all else, because it better enabled them to survive and fulfill their role as mother and caretaker. However, truth most hold top priority over people (the philosophical and real world ramifications for prioritizing people over truth should be obvious), and thus men must hold dominance over women, only due to our gender roles and what we prioritize. It has nothing to do with subjugating women, as the left portrays. Western civilization is failing because we've become matriarchal, prioritizing people over truth, because it enables the cabal to manipulate people easier, weakening us, so they can gain more power over us.
And why most of the ones that existed had the people living in glorified mud huts.
From what I saw for those same studies, its even narrower than that. Its Western white LEFTIST, because apparently moderates and conservatives still have an in-group bias. Not to the same degree as other races, but its still there.
The white people who are most exposed to media and academia are also the ones who exhibit out-group bias. Sorta lends credence to the indoctrination theory, eh?
IMHO it's because of two main reasons: women are more easily manipulated through emotions (one picture of some migrant child and they scream "Open borders!").
And more importantly: these women have been sheltered all their lives. They don't know about reality. All they know is their little slice of life where people cater to their whims and where they get preferential treatment. For them there's always a safety net to catch them when they fail. Which is why they have no issues volunteering other people's lives, resources and values for some "good" cause.
Liberal women are basically spoiled children.
Women, on an instinctual level, know they are too weak to survive without their group/tribe. This makes a woman hypersensitive to the groups perception of her.
When she is shown the pic of the migrant child she makes a calculated decision about what behavior the group will see a "moral" or "good". In this case its might be feigning compassion. Because she thinks the group will disapprove of her if she says "so what, not my kid".
So all we have to do is establish scorn for such stances and we can correct women's behavior.
Because the schools that demographic attend are funded by the CCP to corrupt their minds with Cultural Marxism:
While people can rag on TheImpossible1 for being a misogynist all day long, he is right insofar that women are being purposely brainwashed to turn against men. A lot of it is happening in academia. They get brainwashed and then enter into a marketplace of careers also controlled by wokesters.
But your question could also be applied to black and Hispanic women as well. Only they're bombarded with the propaganda that all their life's ills are due to straight white males and the patriarchy. It's a slightly varied approach to the propaganda being peddled in mostly middle and upper class Liberal universities.
Hey, hey, hey, not everyone ragging on him is white.
I absolutely agree with how you phrase it. Because it's true. But his hatred is not limited to women who hold those beliefs. He thinks they're all, or nearly all, secretly out to get him.
You know what the funny thing is? If you want to hear hatred against black men, you should hear from black women. I've seen conversations where white women are attacking white men, only for a black woman to enter and say "HEY, BLACK MEN SUCK TOO!" Because it seems that what they're really mad about is their ex-boyfriends.
Freudian slip? I wrote "while" not "white", heh.
You can't win them all.
From what I've observed, black women don't like that black men aren't being responsible men and don't tae care of them (or the incessant amount of kids they pop out), with the men preferring, drugs, white women, crime, and welfare to being responsible.
I do wonder if pre-1960 black women still felt the same way about black men?
Black woman raise weak men, weak men fuck around and run off, it’s a hilarious self perpetuating cycle.
Ah, sorry man. I wondered, that was very much out of place (but then I remembered that most of his critics are 'white advocates' if you will). I'm so used to inappropriate injections of race into literally everything, that...
Yes, they have their complaints. But I assume that they would continue to complain even if they had nothing to complain about, like white women. When you have fewer problems, you do not adjust your attitude accordingly, but you blow up whatever problems you do have to fit your attitude.
I assume not, but same is true for pre-1960s white women. It's more of a cultural thing. Muslim women have more to complain about from their men than any other group, and yet they rarely do. Due to feminism not having penetrated Islamic culture, they do not get brownie points for trashing their own men.
I suspect this explains a majority of women's behavior across the board.
The CCP is throwing gasoline on the fire, but they didn't set it. I'd expect nothing less from a competing global superpower. The problem is homegrown marxists, and their ringleaders don't have Chinese last names.
Well, it's no secret a lot of this was catapulted into the mainstream consciousness of the nation during 60s and 70s, with plenty of Jewish and Communist instigators pushing for it in the academic scene.
The thing is, there are a lot of bad and degenerative ideas that get tossed around in society, just the same as there are a lot of good and productive ideas tossed around. But what makes one idea more elastic than another? Well, a lot of it has to do with mind-share, and that requires inculcation, which in turn requires a steady flow of indoctrination propagandists to keep cycling those ideas within the necessary circles.
So while the CCP didn't start the fire, you're absolutely right that they are throwing untold amounts of gasoline on it, ensuring that these ideas do not fade, falter, or burn out within the social consciousness of Americans.
Even if you extricate the presence of the tiny hats, BLM Marxists, and even the various umbrella organizations of Soros, you still have a problem with funding coming from a rival nation that keeps the osmosis of corruption alive at the academic level.
Thomas Sowell pointed out something very interesting in "Immigration and Cultures" about both Overseas Chinese, Immigrant Jews, and some Indian Africans. He didn't say it explicitly, but the one thing they had in common that gave rise to resentment politics in the domestic populations was paternalism.
These are immigrant groups that would be highly industrious, highly literate, have an extreme work ethic (which even involved young children working in family shops); and that would benefit the family's wealth quite quickly; and pull the 1st generation out of poverty after a few decades (regardless of structural barriers), and put the 2nd generation in a privileged position.
The Domestic populations would see this success with shock and resentment, which starts creating resentment politics. Then these immigrant groups do the absolute worst possible thing, while thinking they are doing the right thing: take a paternalistic stance in government to "uplift" the poor domestic groups that they surpassed.
It goes completely sideways 100% of the time. As soon as someone in the government starts treating the people as a family, they start treating them as children, pushing heavy handed authoritarianism, a sense of supremacy, enormous ethnic tensions (which are then exploited by resentment mongers on all sides). The wealthy immigrant group starts off feeling a sense of guilt for being successful, then authority for being the ones who succeeded, then resentment since their advances (which they "know are for the greater good") are rebuffed. The Domestic population starts with a sense of shock that the immigrant group accomplished social mobility in 1 generation that they hadn't achieved in 4. This fuels a sense of shame that they might have done something wrong, then it fuels a sense of resentment that they couldn't have done anything wrong and must have had something taken from them.
The paternalism of the immigrant group is supposed to reduce resentment by creating an exchange of human capital. But instead, it fosters it! The policies blow back on themselves, and usually with significant violence. The introduction of paternalism creates resentment among the domestics, the rebuke of the paternalism fosters resentment among the immigrants who then push back with punitive or arrogant measures, this causes more resentment among the domestic population which causes reprisals. Then the immigrants are stunned by what they see as attacks for trying to do good, and then begin to regard the domestics as savages needing to be suppressed for their own good. This only fuels more resentment and hostility until the whole country explodes into an orgy of violence.
If you were paying attention, you'll have noticed that Communists can push their narrative in either case, to either group; and can even claim that Communism would finish the whole crisis (while they also profit off of exploiting the balkanization of the country). The Overseas Chinese were a good example of this because in Indonesia, China objected to the ethnic cleansing of foreign nationals, but said absolutely nothing when Cambodia did the same.
How women fit into this is how women make political choices.
A startling statistic I saw about women was that marriage was the best predictor of political leaning. The pattern was this:
That's regardless of age too.
Women are not simply changing all of their political opinions just because they are married. However, what I believe is happening is that women are bouncing between using the state as their patriarch, rather than their husband as a patriarch.
Women are bouncing back and forth between a husband figure that can provide and protect them and their family; and a state which allegedly does the same. If she's in a weak marriage with a weak man, or if she's unwed or divorced, she's using the state as the provider and protector. On the other hand, if she's married with a strong man, or in a strong marriage, the state is now interfering in her family building, and keeping the man from protecting and providing.
Authoritarianism creates a hypergamy. Men are competing with the state for women.
This is also one of the reasons I believe I've heard of so many stories of women leaving the woke cult because they got boyfriends, and why there's a slew of Leftist women complaining that they have an uncontrollable attraction to Trump supporters. I believe this is also why we are seeing such a huge gender divide between men and women.
What these two seemingly different threads mean is that paternalism is a way for the government to fulfill women's needs, making women dependent upon the government as the patriarch. Simultaneously, any women in government would take either a paternalistic, or a materialistic approach towards governing the society. Which would then cause extraordinary resentment among the general population as they feel like they are being treated like children... because they are being mothered by the state. And, like a 15 year old sleeping in a crib and wearing a diaper, this will be abusive, traumatizing, and result in violent backlash.
This also answers your other two parts about Whites doing this. Guilt of success has been peddled by Communists for a very long time, but this guilt isn't any different than the guilt felt by the Indians, Chinese, or Jews who resorted to paternalist governments to "uplift" people. The WASPs in America have been targeted by Leftists for a while to teach them guilt as a way to infiltrate both sides of the conflict and to benefit from the balkanization.
They know what they are doing: white paternalism stokes black resentment, black resentment stokes white resentment, paternalism of the state promotes dependency to it, teach women to resent men and destroy the family. The bastards are doing this on purpose because America is one of the harder countries to kill.
I have never heard a better argument for dismantling a government.
People joke about wanting a state mandate gf, but the reality is that the government is stealing all the gfs. The solution seems pretty straight forward.
It's worse than that, and it kind of explains the rise in cuckoldry and the feminization of men.
In order to seize women as a voting bloc, the government is using paternalism to attract the votes of women, and are intentionally: feminizing men, destroying the family unit, institutionalizing distracting vices for men, all because this ensures women's dependency on the state and intentionally cuckolds the men.
Men, free men, are a competitor to the power of the state, and as such must be destroyed and undermined.
And I think this is the uncluttered perspective. When you see tyrants, you do see this intentional cuckolding of their male subjects, and the emergency of a hypergamy for the elite. Uday Hussein raped brides in front of their husbands. The Ottomans took harems of women, while castrating men they took as slaves. The Pharoh Ramses had well over 100 brides. Hitler didn't rape any women or kids himself, but the Hitler Youth program basically tolerated the impregnation of girls who were 15 and up during their training programs (likely to facilitate the population growth needed for an army), and when the girls were asked who the father was, they had been conditioned to say that the father was Adolf Hitler, and the child was for Germany. I'm pretty sure we could just guess how many Communist countries claimed their dictator was the "Father" of their country.
The government wants to seize every other marketplace to control it, why wouldn't they do the same for the sexual marketplace?
When you add in that the type of person to be attracted to the position of "high ranking government bureaucrat", it should be obvious that this type of person would not be otherwise drowning in pussy. The bureaucrats regulate and create prices for other commodities, they could do the same with their own sexual marketplace price through corruption. How quickly would a beautiful woman sell her body to a bureaucrat for food?
I believe that when we wash away a lot of the unique characteristics of one authoritarian regime from another, and distill tyrannical structures down to a general equation, we should see that the cuckolding of free men must be an imperative to the tyrant.
A beautifully illustrated comment on the current state of gender relations versus the sociopolitical zeitgeist undermining those relations.
Thanks man!
I grew up in the southeast. One of the things I notice when I travel is when I leave this area of the US I will go days and weeks only seeing white people.I spent 3 weeks riding my motorcycle around the country this year and once I passed the Mississippi River it was like black people disappeared. I saw that to point out that most of the country doesn't have towns or cities where people know not to stop for gas. Don't break down in "this" area because it isn't safe. So they don't know what "urban" people are really like because they only deal with one or two at a time.
What are they 'really' like?
Ever wondered why there never was a slasher flick like American Psycho made again?
It's because white women in the west are sacred protected class. Just entertaining the idea of retribution against them is enough to ruin you.
Women by nature will agree with what they perceive as "popular". They're like robots, they just regurgitate what's been fed to them. Popular media and the education system have been taken over by communists. Ergo women fall in line. They're literally brainwashed. Like Eve with the snake in the garden.
programmed in universities by emotional appeal
There is a fourth attribute your missing.
It can be located in the "early life" section of wikipedia.
As if there was 'racial diversity' throughout 99% of history to create tension between.
But remember, even if they had the most wonderbread upbringing one can imagine the color of their skin/ethnic background give them some intrinsic understanding of problems they've never had! Don't worry, even when they have to look it in the face they find a way to blame white people for it.
Not exactly. They just want us fighting amongst ourselves so they can take power without resistance.