Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
— Professor Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, 1967 winner of the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year
The spokespersons of unitary tolerance are always prepared to turn intolerantly against any group which does not fit in: the obstinate enthusiasm for blacks meshes seamlessly with the outrage over obnoxious Jews.The “melting pot” was an institution of free-wheeling industrial capitalism. The thought of landing in it conjures up martyrdom, not democracy.
The usual argument of tolerance, that all human beings, all races are equal, is a boomerang. It opens itself up to easy rebuttal by the senses, and even the most compelling anthropological evidence for the fact that Jews are not a race at all,will in the case of a pogrom hardly change anything at all, since the totalitarians know very well who they want to kill and who not.
— Father of Critical Theory, Theodor Adorno, Jewish exile, From his 1951 book entitled "Minima Moralia"
(17) Let us suppose that a certain individual shows no inclination whatever to recognize his [or her] projections. The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power. As we know, it is not the conscious subject but the unconscious which does the projecting. Hence one meets with projections, one does not make them. The effect of projection is to isolate the subject from his environment, since instead of a real relation to it there is now only an illusory one. Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face. In the last analysis, therefore, they lead to an autoerotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable. The resultant sentiment d'incompletude and the still worse feeling of sterility are in their turn explained by projection as the malevolence of the environment, and by means of this vicious circle the isolation is intensified. The more projections are thrust in between the subject and the environment, the harder it is for the ego to see through its illusions. A forty-five-year-old patient who had suffered from a compulsion neurosis since he was twenty and had become completely cut off from the world once said to me: "But I can never admit to myself that I've wasted the best twenty-five years of my life!"
(31) In both its positive and its negative aspects the anima/animus relationship is always full of "animosity," i.e., it is emotional, and hence collective. Affects lower the level of the relationship and bring it closer to the common instinctual basis, which no longer has anything individual about it. Very often the relationship runs its course heedless of its human performers, who afterwards do not know what happened to them.
(32) Whereas the cloud of "animosity" surrounding the man is composed chiefly of sentimentality and resentment, in woman it expresses itself in the form of opinionated views, interpretations, insinuations, and misconstructions, which all have the purpose (sometimes attained) of severing the relation between two human beings. The woman, like the man, becomes wrapped in a veil of illusions by her demon-familiar, and, as the daughter who alone understands her father (that is, is eternally right in everything), she is translated to the land of sheep, where she is put to graze by the shepherd of her soul, the animus.
(35) … Indeed, it seems a very natural state of affairs for men to have irrational moods and women irrational opinions. Presumably this situation is grounded on instinct and must remain as it is to ensure that the Empedoclean game of the hate and love of the elements shall continue for all eternity. Nature is conservative and does not easily allow her courses to be altered; she defends in the most stubborn way the inviolability of the preserves where anima and animus roam. ...
Woke: nacissistic histrionics, sometimes factitious, sometimes malingering, sometimes munchausen's, sometimes by proxy. ALWAYS disgusting faggy irrationality.
Wokeism is showbizz for unattractive white females.
Good morning Imp
OnlyWoke
Women don't belong in politics
— Professor Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, 1967 winner of the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year
That's okay, they'll just make it illegal to be upset by it.
— Father of Critical Theory, Theodor Adorno, Jewish exile, From his 1951 book entitled "Minima Moralia"
— Carl Jung, "Aion," 1959
Narcissistic sympathy
Reminds me of trigglypuff
Woke: nacissistic histrionics, sometimes factitious, sometimes malingering, sometimes munchausen's, sometimes by proxy. ALWAYS disgusting faggy irrationality.
Repeal the 19th...
EDIT: italicized.
The white liberal woman savior complex is fucking ridiculous.