What you're referencing (pages 132 and 133 - I didn't read the rest) appears to be guidelines for taking part in the study.
They don't want unprotected sex, presumably so any potential adverse effects aren't passed on to others.
Pfizer document about the dangers for males engaging in intercourse
Haven't watched the video yet. In what way? And do you have a link to the Pfeizer document?
The masks became a thing because they signal "I am protecting others" and any vitue signal is as we know like catnip to wokesters.
But it is true, I mean they do help stop the spreak of a virus as the virus spreads through droplets of water.
I just regret that Trump didn't get on board with masks. There was a time when they were a good idea, at the start when we didn't know how potent the virus was, and just as a precaution.
If Trump back then had said alright folks wear your masks, it's important, until we find out more. He should have positioned himself as a protective father figure, rather than a general, and he would have made it extremely much harder for the media to openly hate him.
He could have sold MAGA masks.
Wear a msk if you're a true Amerian!
The left would start to shun masks, shit what if people think I'm a trumpist!
They would have nothing to hide behind during the riots, would be much easier to crack down on them as public health hazards.
Then a few months later they'd come out and say that you can take them off now, and the left wouldn't object and we'd be back to normal already.
This is how you defeat them, you can predict their behaviour and stay one step ahead.
Why is this happening. It's a great question.
I've given this some thought and for me it boils down to the struggle between two psychological realities resulting in two separate hierarchical models. We exist either within a social strata built on a meritocratic hierarchy, or a popularity hierarchy.
While both types exist everywhere, the west has long been primarily a meritocratic society (rewards based on skill, experience, results, correct predictions, IQ, competence, mental resilience), while for instance most of Africa has been a popularity hierarchy (rewards based on who you know, your social status, closeness to the leader, nepotism, your looks, your charm, your ability to manipulate others, your EQ).
Identifying the hierarchy is however merely identifying a symptom. One doesn't choose one or the other to follow, rather one has evolved to percieve the world in such a way that only one form of the hierarchy narturally materializes as sensical.
This ontological experience is likely closely tied to evolutionary biology. Our experiences are hardcoded in our biology. And it's natural that these experiences shape us also on the macroscale.
Examining the models themselves, it's clear that one is more collectivist and the other is more individualistic. This fits well with that we know about gender differences, and in fact societies that tend towards popularity hierarchies are more matriarchal, as we see in Africa where women do most of the work, and are the upholders of tradition and thus rules. And vice versa, more marculin societies are meritocratic. Across the board.
So despite our observartions on the largest, cultural, scale being from different regions, it's more likely that these hierarchical models emerged from traits that are different between the genders rather than races, because the effects are similar across cultures, the results are recognizable instinctively across cultures, and both models exist in all cultures even if they're not the dominant one. And because the gender difference is the only other group difference that is significant enough and affects many enough people to be relevant.
The popularity heriarchy is thus likely a result of very high neuroticism (high value on social cohesion because the group is the protector, hyperawareness of social phenomena, hyperawareness of ones position in relation to others), high agreeableness (high value on staying attached to others, high value of caring and being cared for), and a high affinity for collectivism (a female trait as the result of evolutionary biology, high value on the need for collaboration to stay safe).
What does this look like in practice?
Boys are rewarded by their biology for merit. Friends will throw rocks and the ones that throw the farthest feel good about themselves, and the ones that "lose" the game feel bad.
Girls are rewarded by their biology for social status. Friends will stand around in a circle and the one who is the most popular gets to feel good about herself, and the least popular one feels bad.
Social status is measured in one primal way: when you speak who listens and agrees, and who doesn't or gives negative feedback. Standing in that circle, the least popular girl can say something factual - "the earth is over 80 times as massive as the moon", and she will be mocked and made to feel less worthy for being a nerd.
The least strong or smart boy would not - after all, what would be the point of that from a meritocratic perspective? He'd get at most "lol who cares" with a smile from his friends, or more likely a "cool". Noticeably there is no power play in this interaction between the boys, unless another boy decides to one-up with an even more amazing fact and a competition emerges.
The least popular girl can say something practical "I know, if we put the plank between those trunks, and the bucket on top of that thing, it could work" - and be riddiculed with something as nonsensical as "shut up Name, god you always have to yap yap yap". The point is simply to always pick on her, because it elevates the picker by signaling that they are higher on the social order.
The least competent boy can say the same, and will get praise and be rewarded with feeling good. "Oh shit, our little retard is right, haha, good job Name, let's try it".
One way to climb popularity hierarchies is to virtue signal. As agreeableness (compassion, nurturing, in-group empathy, tenderness) is high in girls, statements of this nature are the least likely to be mocked and put down, because that would reflect poorly on the person striking. So virtue signaling becomes a safe and effective strategy for being listened to and agreed with. And that feels really really good to people high on neurotisism and agreeableness.
So there are no real negatives to the virtue signal, and the more matriachal the society the stronger the positive.
Thus women often uphold the virtues of whatever is the leading ideology of a society in effect of this feedback loop. Today they are the most woke, but not long ago they were the most religiously pious, the most patriarchal even.
How does it work in practice?
Woman is hired in HR or Marketing or Administrator. She, nervous and wanting to be liked, makes virtuous observations and statements, the superiors nod. She comes up with an initiative - let's do this virtous thing, the superiors nod. She proposes change to the company based on some virtue correction, she's put in charge of implementing it. Repeat with each suceess fueling more deisre to climb using this strategy.
Across all industries. In a culture that's swiftly moving in this direction. With increasing social pressure to comply. Giving more and more power to virtue signallers.
As time passes this road to power becomes a highway. And once it's the most effective path to power; here comes the social climbers, the psychopaths, the sharks, the manipulators, the ruthless - and they are fierce and they will take over and all they will ever care about is feeding themselves.
Thus, the path to where we are today has not been a planned or nefarious one. Our reality is a consequence of a long series of butterfly effects, with the vast majority of intentions being benign or good.
This also explains the current longing towards black cultures. We're seeing our increasingly gynocentric western societies pull ever more towards shifting to be based on pupularity hierarchies. We're more than half way there already.
The longing for Africa is the woke feeling kinship with other cultures that are matriarchal. This is how we end up with hard work and competence and showing up on time being elements of whiteness.
When they say whiteness, they mean meritocratic, and when they oppose whiteness they are opposing everything that stands in the way of the great transformation from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society, with everything that entails, inc. a shift in our hierarchical structures.
We know that women are high on neurotisicm from personality tests. And let's be honest here; from simple observation. Exactly why would be a combination of things and not easy to pinpoint.
Referring to u/50BMG again he mentions a few things here
Women are likely collectivists because they depend on groups to protect them, and because they for millennia were the keepers of the camp in constant social engagement with the need to maintain harmony and find indirect ways of resolving social conflict.
They are more neurotic probably because they were weaker and being attuned to anxiety and fear was likely a positive selection bias for most of history. Survival depended on seeking the protection of others, and things in the world like human or animal predators were a much bigger and more constant risk to them.
They are more risk averse for similar reasons. And more forgiving and submissive towards the in-group, and ruthless and passive-agressive towards the out-group.
They have always carried the flames of whatever ideology is dominant - it's what you would expect neurotic people to do; huddle together and embrace the groupthink for added feelings of protection.
Equity is just an extention of that. The promise of finally being able to shed that fear in a world where everyone is safe and equal - not reaalizing that the fear is screaming at them from their genes, not from society which is the safest it has ever been, and where they are already massively provledged.
alternative explanations (individual decisions, crappy cultures)
Genetics, evolutionary biology, IQ, personality traits, inferiority complexes, resentment, envy, outgroup hatred, group selection, superstition.
The key thing that incels don't understand is that women are malleable and meek.
It's why they set up such a strong front. Bitch face, shit tests, mockery, makeup, fashion, standing in groups. It's protection, they are trying to intimidate you, and make you doubt yourself, because if you get past it they are completely open.
You can just walk over to a girl and program her. When you become better and more experienced at it, you can do it in a remarkably short amount of time. It doens't matter what you look like, or what you do. It matters how you present.
Women are attracted to 10% of men, yet most of them end up married, or are in a relationship. How does that work, are they all miserable?
No, they are attracted to 10% of men based on external factors sure, but they are attracted to nearly 100% of men who make more money than them after creating an emotional bond with them, and these bonds are created quickly. And then most of them become submissive. It's all genetic - it's not going to change.
The goal of the subversion is to make men forget how to be men. Only in a world where men are fearful and brainwashed to tip toe around women and supress their own inherent benevolent yet dominating power can there ever potentially be equality of outcomes. Masculinity is a threat to them, because it's their cryptonite.
You can't have equity if men are firing on all cylinders. As u/50BMG wrote; they will fight among themselves at first to determine a merit based hierarchy, and then unify and take the fight to the external threat.
And so out of necessity, when more reasonable measures fail, they keep escalating to more and more unreasonable measure.
You start with telling men not to dominate. Then you tell boys in school. Still not working, so you need to do more than just tell them. What if you stop them from doing some stuff? Yeah, what if it's rough and tumble play that makes them this way. So you ban rough and tumble play. Then you put the message in every piece of art and entertainment. Maybe the problem is just that men can't be allowed to talk to other men, because behind closed doors they reaffirm to each other their masculinity, maybe they confirm to each other that they're not helpless and alone with their thoughts, so you ban mens clubs. Then you need to breach their new spaces and ruin those as well. Maybe if you take away their hobbies they'll have more time to sit through the indoctrination. Maybe if you control all information, and carefully make sure that they never see anything you don't want them to, they will change. And it's still not working. They're not going to stop, they are not going to give up, beucase they are acting out their genes.
All in pursuit of equity, which is a need that has its roots in the trait of neroticism. So it's not just women who push for equity, it also neurotic men, just that there are far fewer of those.
Except if made to feel more neurotic, which is the state of feeling under threat. An ideology that spreads through neuroticism, is going to optimize for more neuroticism, and push more people into neurotic states, and as it does it gets stronger.
To actually achieve equity they need blank slate theory to be correct. But it's not. So they will either lose or create a dystopia. History repeating itself.
None of this needs an organizer or a "them" btw, it's all happening organically. Our genes playing a metagame on a global scale.
Well I dissagree. I think it made sense. She was always a dictator in the making, reluctantly saying and doing what she had to do to get what she wants. And then when it was in her reach she grabbed it.
She didn't want to take power and then rule with a bunch of senators and commitees and negotiate between interest groups and sit in on meetings.
She wanted to rule with absolute power, and for that she needed to be feared. So the mask came off. The slaughter of the city was nessecary, not only to rule out any hope of a challenge, and to make it clear that she was the sole power, but also because she wanted to be a deity and the people of Kings Landing were never going to adore her. This was a convenient way to make room for the hordes of immigrants she was going to import to worship her.
And "she wanted to do good". No, I don't think so. She "freed" the slaves had them do her bidding. This is like freeing the slaves in America and then putting them to work picking cotton under even harsher disiplin.
If she was good she wouldn't have ruthlessly destroyed entire societies to fix a wrong. This is classic SJW stuff - there's a thing we don't like, therefore we must burn it all to the ground. She wouldn't have crusified an entire people if she wasn't a monster. She wouldn't fail to show mercy. She wouldn't take rightous pleasure in the suffering of others.
And yes I did like the ending mostly because it ruined a massive global feminist wank session, but I also think it's a completely an ok plot twist, with a lot of foreshadowing. Maybe I wasn't much surprised because I already saw her as a feminist icon SJW, and thus always assumed that behind the mask lived a hateful and wretched creature filled with ruthless rightousness and genocidal intent. More pleasently surprised that the showrunners had the balls to portray SJWs as they truly are.
Now everything that had to do with the ice zombies on the other hand, and Arya's pretty much entire story (which had so much potential until she developed superpowers and became a wizard), the Bran "journey", all that really makes no sense and is just absolute garbage they came up with on the spot.
And it seems to me that Bran is the true villain, if you think it out.
In what way? I don't remember much of him. His story atch was so excrutiatingly boring that I was half zoned out during most of it.
They do talk about it. They genuinely belive in blank slate theory. Anything negative is a result of some sort of oppression.
It's why this will end in a dystopia.
No matter what they do low IQ people will keep on massively undreperforming and committing violent crimes, which will require increasingly drastic and desperate measures taken against everyone and everything else.
Daenerys is a textbook SJW.
She's a psychopathic, entitled, conceited, powerhungry maniac who runs on lunst for vengence and rightous hatred. On a quest to save low IQ hordes of POC and wahmen, while every competent person around her is a white man, and yet she keeps fucking up becausae she's incapable of not letting her emotions control her.
You couldn't write a more sarcastic character, and yet she was written without an ounce of irony.
Which is why it was fun to watch feminists embrace her, too deluded and stupid to see that she represents everythint that's evil and vile and incompetent and stupid about themselves.
And why it was delicious to see the shock in their eyes when she turned full on nazi - for a moment they were face to face with the mirror. All the signs where there, which forced a imcrosecond of self reflection.
If it wasn't for the show desperatly attempting to inflate Sansa by telling us she's brilliant despite her never doing anything remotely smart, and about midway through starting to dumb down and Lukeify previously brilinat men you'd think the show was anti feminist.
So I personally liked the ending. I liked how it shat on the most hardcore fans of screeching hysterical women schlicking themselves to sleep every night at the thougbt of a woman ruling Westeros.
The show didn't lose its relevance because the ending was bad. Most of the show besides season 1 is some degree of bad, with the later seasons just trash. No it lost it because it pissed off women, who had worshipped Daenerys and didn't like what that said about them when they were forced to watch the logical conclusion of being a hatefilled SJW - so they simply memoryholed the whole universe.
In the future when your children are ruled over by a critical theory theocracy the banned DVDs will trade for a months rations on the black market.
Just because we live in a gynocentric society doesn't mean that women are happy.
Just because women are unhappy doesn't mean that men aren't disadvantaged.
Just because modern culture is making everyone unhappy doesn't mean it's making everyone equally unhappy.
Just because women are unhappy it does't mean they're the "real victims".
You can be unhappy without being suicidal.
There is no reason to believe they would back down from equity if they were happy. IMO they'd just push harder because it was making them happier.
"All they want is your money" is false. They want to be 16 forever - they want money and a caretaker.
And just because they can collude to achive some goal doesn't mean that they are friends or aren't lonely.
I base my views on self reported surveys sure, but also on how many are on therapy or on drugs (and ssri's don't make you high). And on observing them irl and online. If you visit r/twoxchromosomes you feel like you walked into a group of happy people?
That was a lot of words you put in my mouth, and a lot of conclusions jumped to. Honestly I don't see the point of being this antagonistic.
It waries for sure.
My experience of trying to deconstruct their logic or to talk sense into them is that it just doesn't go anywhere. They have their rehearsed lines, and anything outside of that they resufe to engage with.
It's why I ended up with this faux socratic method of forcing them to be precise and seeing them squirm when they keep contradicting themselves.
Are you saying that half of all women are on some sort of psychoactive chemicals and spend a fortune on mental help, nevermid that they're clearly visibly regressed and miserable, as a sneaky way to throw off some statistics?
If women were actually happy that fact would be pushed non-stop as the biggest success of the modern world. You'd never hear the end of it. It would be used as the leading argument that we're doing everything right, and should push forth towards utopia. See it's working!
But it's not working. Governing in the face of nature never works.
You need to amend your worldview to one that allows for women to be near constant mental anguish, because they are and you don't need a survey to see that.
We're talking about two generations of women who have been told their whole lives that they are special and can do anything and are better than everyone else and as a consequence have become entitled beyond belief, spoiled, cocky, perma-teen, borderline alcoholic, dysfunctional, useful idiots to an ideology that pushes them against their own biology.
They're extremely loney, they don't get along with each other and constantly gossip and backstab, constantly feeling isolated and anxious. Their main social outlet is in activist and online groups where they do little else but consume misery porn and egg eachother on to ever increasing levels of mental and emotional pain until all they can feel anymore is resentment and hatred and suffering.
They can't find a husband and they're annoyed that there aren't lines of mature men waiting in line to love, cuddle, and support mentally unstable, incompetent, scrambled-egg burning, phone addicted, hedonistic anti-men and anti-reality feminists who wear pyjamas in public because they can't for a second leave their plushy comfort zones, who live in a permanent fantasy world of magic and vampires and dragons and decorate their environments like they're still 16 while permanently in a state of dysfunctional anxiety and anger because of the state of the world which they are doing absolutely nothing to improve besides virtue signaling on social media.
They expect everything to land on their laps. Take the bare minimum steps to develop anything about themselves beyond their appearance, and take pride in sipping $14 cofees and wearing $140 worth of makeup while going on tinder dates to eat cause they can't afford food.
Who in lucid moments of reflection realize that hookup culture is making them extremely unhappy and powerless subjects to the 5% of pretty men who are the only people to benefit from the new sexual marketplace and degenerate norms, and because of that success have become even more entitled and insuffrable than the hudreds of women they date per week. But yet women continue to engage in hookup culture because it's their source of social verification and the one metric they use to judge each others success and social status.
their registered IQ tends to be 70-90
Wait what?
and/or sadism
Do you mean masochism?
In general, attack is the best defense
Asking questions is the best defense. Be confident in knowing that they don't understand what they are saying.
Ask them to clarify and define, until they turn hostile. Then just retort with any version of "no I don't believe I will", or "no I don't agree at all".
When they ask why just go back to asking them to define their idea. In public you win battles by showing that they're ignorant.
"What is genderfluid? No I asked what it is, not what it isn't - what is exactly it?"
"Is that a gender or a gender role? What exactly is the difference, you're not being clear."
You can do this with anything they believe. It's all a house of cards and will come crashing down.
"What exactly is the causal link between poverty and say rape? Explain to me the chain of events."
"Why are poor countries not more violent if poverty is the cause of violence?"
The trick is to not allow them to switch a subject, or move on to the next question until they either give an answer, or admit that they don't know. So keep repeating the question. Whenever they don't know, just repeat as if to confirm. "Ok so you don't know." "I see, so another thing you don't know."
If they hit you with "so you think you know" or "what's your explanation then" tell them "no no I agree we don't know, just I didn't expect that anser from you, in my expereicen keeping an open mind is not somethings that liberals are willing to do with controversail subjects, but of course I agree we don't know why blacks commit more rape who knows what the reason can be, I'm just surprised you agree with that".
It helps is you start the debate with: "Ok, I will be happy to have this talk with you, but you know that I have experienced that people on the left soon turn to humilation, sarcasm, mocking, and treating their opponents as children, and sometimes are downright mean. I will trust that you're not one of those though". Then when they inevitably turn hostile, point it out. "hey I thought we agreed that you won't talk down to me like other liberals always do".
If they escalate it's ok, you want the mask to come off, just stay calm. Remember that it is you staying calm that is causing them to take the mask off and to not know how to handle you. As soon as you lash out, they will be at ease and on known territory. They need to feel superior to feel at ease, and regardless of what they say the fact that you are calm is making them feel inferior.
If they whatabout, position yourself outside whatever group they're attacking. You don't have to let them group you. "But right wingers are more hateful" -> "that's not my experience, generally they just seem to have their own preferences, but you would have to have this conversation with them, not me".
And as much as you can, use their own reasoning against them. Run their own purity tests on them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Income tax ~20%
Social security ~15%
Employer tax ~10%
VAT ~20%
Various regulatory taxes, luxury taxes, alcohol tax, health taxes, environmental taxes, gas taxes, etc. add up to at least another 10%
Then some countries have a wealth tax too, there's inheritance tax, property tax, separate road taxes, public broadcasting taxes, private health insurance which in essence is an added tax of social security to turn your worthless universal healthcare into something that's actually usable, import taxes, special taxes to protect national production, then you have to pay for using highways. That's just from the top of my head.
Effective tax burden closer to 80%-90%
Then add another 20%-30% capital gains taxes on whatever is left over for you to invest.
Np, just thought you might know. Should be easy to search for, thanks.
I mean similar patches or just any useful patches for Kingmaker.
What mods? Link?
I was thinking of playing Kingmaker after revently watching Mandalore review it.
Same here.
It seemed almost not to even belong on the list. I mean go ahead and be proud, why not, whats the big deal?
With time I've understood that pride, at its core, is a sin against wisdom. Which is to accept ones place and ones limits and to accept responsibilty. To acknowledge the infinite complexity of life and the universe, and to know that you don't know.
Pride is a denounciation of humility. A revolt against the butterfly effect and a surrender to hybris.
I've come to see pride as perhaps the worst sin. The others lead to evil almost as a side effect, or in acts and moments of insanity. While pride leads to deliberate evil, for evil's sake. Out of all the sins it's (perhaps surprisingly) pride which is the one that leads to hatred, and sadism. Or so I belive.
You can tell yourself it's not hereditary if it makes you feel any better, though it very possibly is, but the 85 average IQ is just a fact and regardless of why it's a massive factor.
And it's not 85 just in the states, it's the same or lower everywhere else too, even places with no historical or even current oppression of blacks, and with strong welfare states.
Which means that 1 in 6 blacks have an IQ under 70. But also explains why in this supposedly racist country immigrants from Somalia or Nigeria do so well, better than whites on average. Their IQs are on par with whites, as moving between continents is resource and information intensive and thus acts as a selection process.
I don't think most people realize how delibitating of a condition a 85 IQ is. Anything under 80 is considered as retarded. I don't mean that as a slur, I mean that retardation is the clinical term for that condition (borderline retardation if it's just under 80).
The army doens't take anyone with an IQ of under 83, because they've found that they're not useful for anything and including them makes it hard to maintain order.
IQ correlates with everything from financial success, health, life expectency, level of education, social status, emotional maturity, and productivity - to crime, impulse control, ability to delay gratification, violence, poverty, religious fanatisism, and competence.
But it's not the only factor, the correlations aren't absolute, it's not like there's nothing we can do to help and support people with low IQs, and it's not like they can't have full and meaningful lives. But they need to learn coping strategies, and it's something we need to start teaching children when they're young. We already do this with white children.
It's not a racism problem (left), but it's also not a cultural problem (right), nor a lack of fathers problem (center), although all of those things likely play a role. It's a biology problem.
Moving to somewhere else is not going to help. They feel resentful because many of them can't thrive in the modern world we've created and we're not giving them the tools they need to prosper, and I understand their frustration.
What honestly would help black people the most is to give them the same support that we give to white children, whom are placed in special needs classes if their IQ is 85 or lower, and not to worry about the optics since this would apply to half of blacks.
To give them the pedagogic support and academic followup and learning materials and qualified teachers that they need to be able to function in modern information heavy societies - as we already give to white kids with similar conditions.
And to take the ones with sub 75 IQs out of schools and put them in their own educational environments that can cater to their specific needs, where things can happen on their terms and in their tempo, and where they can't disrupt the other children, and can start building healthy strategies and habits for later in life.
But the political and social will to do something like this doesn't exist, and neither does the funding nor the teachers required. So we're left with a circle of blacks underperforming and leftists demanding increasingly more authoritarian powers in order to fix it by doing things that are not going to fix anything but create more demand for authoritarianism.
We need to incentivize reproduction.
Peer review puts zealots and activists in positions to rubber stamp conclusions they like and obstruct conclusions they don't. The aggregare effect of this over decades you can observe for yourself.
Whores can be intelligent.
(X) Doubt.
The children of the revolution are always the first against the wall. I think you're overestimating the woke coalition. They're never going to be able to create a functioning society, or a competent ruling block. The future is chaos, not a stable society that keeps whites down for centuries. And chaos is a ladder.
They all hate whites, but you think the chinese don't hate the blacks? The muslims don't hate the alphabets? The Pakistanis don't hate the Indians? The sunnis don't hate the shias? The competent ones don't hate the low IQ masses with near zero impulse control?
As soon as whites aren't seen as the ones at the top of the hierarchy these people are going to turn on each other with a sudden brutality. They're building popularity hierarchies, to see how well societies built on popularity hierarchies work, look at failed communist states or at African nations. As soon as the easy money is divvied up they'll start fighting for the rest. As soon as diversity hiring becomes the norm they'll start fractioning into competing groups. Soon they'll start clawing at each others eyes for every inch of social power. Empowering blacks isn't going to "solve" ruthless ghetto culture, it's going to bring it to the corridors of power.
Whites are losing, but losing isn't an endstate. They will push to make whites into second class citizens, sure. They'll do to whites everything that they (wrongly) are claiming are being done to poc today. They'll discriminate, they'll take away economic opportunities, they'll purge from the political process.
But hard times build bonds. Look at poor white communities. They aren't lorded over by a gang who keeps everyone in terror. They don't lay around staring at the sun all day while their women do all the work. They're not content with building huts with mud and manure and living hand to mouth forever. They don't shit on their streets. They don't mindlessly worship whichever one of them that currently has the most material posessions. They don't rape their babies because they think it'll cure their diseases. They don't completely hunt and pluck their lands dry until there's nothing left and the land is dead. They aren't reduced to filth. They don't wallow in self pity and victimhood.
They are cooperative. They are hard working. There are community standards. People take care of each other. They're assisted by creative redneck engineering. They farm, build, improve, perserve, and form stable societies. It's likely written in the genes of a people who for millennia had to cooperate to survive in harsher conditions.
Maybe the woke will gulag the masses, or maybe they'll flood white communities with heroin, or maybe social media and the entertainment-propaganda industry are powerful enough tools to keep the downtrodden occupied and distracted. But winning, and to keep winning against a stable and functioning majority group, are two very different things.
It's going to take a lot more than a couple of grand to make a celebrity embarass and humiliate themselves in public.