Part 3, Addendum, A letter to politicians.

Part 3, Addendum, A letter to politicians.

Online link to this text:

https://doubleuv.blogspot.com/2020/10/part-3-addendum-letter-to-politicians.html

sv:Tjenare! en:Hello!

My name is VN and I am a Physics student at Lund University. My studies/career is quite belated because I have taken a detour in thinking, analyzing and philosophizing about the world around me/us. But with good reason.

I know and can explain the actual why that is behind the saying “Socialism fails and Capitalism works”.

I understand and explain in my text what makes Capitalism good and what makes it bad.

How the economic part is tied to the political/ideological and sociological parts.

What the construct of the free western world is, what principles it is built on, how it is unique both in current time and historically, and why it is very fragile and much easier to destroy than create!

That what ends civilizations is feminization leading to hedonism-collectivism!

My experiences have also made me a bit of an expert on Fascism. Which is centrally important to have a good understanding of!

All of these topics are interconnected and all I have written about must be studied together!

Table of contents:

Part 3: https://doubleuv.blogspot.com/2020/07/part-3-of-few-economy-politics-social.html

In “Part 3” is the foundation, for that which is

in this “Part 3, Addendum”, being conclusions therefrom drawn.

“Part 3, Addendum” consists of:

Much text on a few topics.

Appendix A – President Donald John Trump Independence Day 2020 speech main highlights.

Appendix B – examples of cancel-culture

Politicians are restricted to say whatever and behave however, to best please their audience, voters.

Profiteers will out of self-interest only say that which generates specifically them more profit.

A scientist says how things are. At least that is the mission, intention.

I can “get my hands dirty” in a way that you cannot, I can say things that you cannot, I can say things exactly as they are, because I am not a politician, I am a scientist (as identity, technically a student).

Not saying I am right or have all answers, but I have some theories making perfect sense to me at least, and that fit and explain things close to perfectly.

A very short summary/destillation of what I’ve found to explain why the world looks like it does:

Technological development.

Not Fascist, open society.

The Melian dialogue conclusions, plus the “law of the jungle”.

Niccolò Machiavelli's conclusions.

The statement "majority can be wrong"*.

Peoples innate laziness.

Everyone’s extreme propensity of falling into the trap of “instant and easy gratification, over larger but delayed and earned rewards”, and the lack of knowledge, understanding and extreme discipline required to avoid this.

(Not from this text, but from other thoughts of mine:) General and strong inability of perspective parity, to exchange perspectives with someone else, Golden & Silver rule.

*The statement "majority can be wrong", which may at first glance seem quite insignificant, but its implications are of earth shattering magnitude! However, as well can a small elite or a single King be wrong. Now there’s no way of finding nor evaluating solutions! This is now a scientific problem in the field of computational science. Meaning it is highly non-trivial and non-intuitive. And this is the actual real physical reality, according to the laws of the universe, that always applies.

Exactly! That's the thing! Most central and worth repeating!

Neither a majority, nor a small elite, nor a single King can be trusted to be able to come up with near-optimum solutions nor evaluate solutions presented. It is a highly non-trivial problem.

The more had of knowledge, education, making an informed decision, the more the situation is helped though.

Therefore, any single individual or group thinking that "my version is correct" is statistically highly likely to be mistaken!

-Because this is highly non-trivial and non-intuitive, a computational scientific problem, which goes above the heads of most economists and especially sociologists.

A tangent from this, what this leads/connects to, is, what is a problem and what does it mean to solve a problem, what is a solution, which in turn comes to what is consciousness.

(What is formulating a problem as opposed to solving a problem, and what is verifying a solution?)

How does a neural network fit into this description? And does anything make it special in any way? And I suspect this can shed light on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem .

[a bit shirt for now]

Related is also that knowing what truth is, or in other words determining if a solution is correct, is very far from trivial.

Maybe I can somewhat liken it to trying to describe the geometry of an object by observing its shadow from within the shadow on the same plane it falls onto. Not very clear. Many things can look the same, and the same thing may look different in several ways. The shadow may not always be easily observed, nor having sharp borders. Reminds of, Allegory of the Cave.

Capitalism works, because majority can be wrong, and the different ways of doing things are tested in an "evolution" where what works survives.

Capitalism works because of all the different ways of doing things and organizations are tested against competition and it is not theoretical analysis that picks them, but the practical situation/circumstance of “survival”. Thereby majority opinion, which can be wrong, gets circumvented. Inso is also theoretical "guessing"/determining circumvented with a practical trial and error sort of evolution.

And Classical Liberalism, (Right-)Libertarianism, Conservatism, being political systems and ideologies are intertwined with the economic system of Capitalism, making sure to have a freedom non-closed open society, by keeping away from centralization which is strongly associated with Fascism.

Fascism is extremely central to have a very good understanding of, to understand what, anything other, really is not.

Virtually all other systems are, the “trivial and intuitive” because it at first glance looks so nice: “let the majority decide by democratic vote”, and then they easily end up centralizing, then falling into my template/abstraction of Fascism, which really is a variant of tribalism, the absolutely lowest organizational and governance form.

This does NOT mean that any Capitalism is good, and it does NOT mean simply that more Capitalism/privatization is automagically moar better! Capitalism can be anything between heaven and hell, it all depends on the specifics that I have outlined in my large text, linked to.

One has to know very well what one is doing and carefully plan, expecting further adjustments down the line, based on results, which parts should let be a self-regulating mechanism/system, and which to more or less restrain/constrain, but every restriction needs to be balanced in both ways, similar to what is being considered during the process of infracting upon free speech in legislation.

It is similar to an iterative, branching, development process, with trial and error, just like product development or software development, etc.

[An angle on explaining consciousness]

For animals with genetic pre-programming a part of finding solutions is ironically funnily to having a solution found, for observing, recognizing and learning other "processes' " solutions.

And there are solutions for storing and retrieving solutions, and combining solutions, after surrounding conditions.

Animals and people are collections/arrangements of particles, imperfect processes in the universe. More knowledge, education helps to better behaviour (but is no guarantee).

[not sure placement, extra content]

About the statement “corporations are people too”, written here just 4 teh lulz.

Organizations are in a way pyramidal hierarchies. The higher up, the “higher level” decisions are being taken. Low/high level, being the same terminology as in coding/programming, and as in electronics devices, and biological life itself for that matter. Think of how much organization and biological molecular machinery, organelles and information processing goes on, on its own, just in a cell. Then there are organs, signaling though chemical substances like hormones, but also signaling through nerve impulses, everything connected with the blood circulatory system, each doing their tasks, unbeknownst to “the inhabitant”, the EYE Divine Cybermancy (reference, relax, *), who can direct the construct, temple, as seen fit.

(*my fun way of writing “the I”, combined with being a reference to something I like)

Just like skeleton construction and architecture and topology of a human body's parts determine the way in which it takes input, functions and interacts, so does the specifics of an organizational system for several humans in a group, be it a company or country.

Many of these “entities/individuals”, pyramidal hierarchies, of varying structure, varying number of constituents and hierarchy levels, just like human individuals in a human society, form, in the ecosystem, a sort of society, therein making up an interdependent web, having fractal character.

Often in physical/natural systems, heterogeneity and variability produces better results.

These can be seen as the individuals who make sure to feed to survive, talk to other individuals, take actions, respond to information received from the outside environment.

So corporations being individuals too, can in full seriousness be very well motivated.

Though I cannot reach the conclusion of them being consciousnesses, this would seriously complicate things ethics-wise!

(Instead I would describe it as being collective coordinated flock behaviour. Though, in principle, the faster and more interconnected the constituents get, the closer it would come to being considered a (collective) true consciousness. But this is just mentioned like said for my own fun of it.)

Fascism is a sort of, and one of the, lowest states, hence one of several minima easiest to fall into. Classical (Right) Liberalism/Libertarianism, both ideologically/politically and to large degree connected with a certain economic system wise - is a kind of counter to that - its purpose and reason is to, why it was thought up, is in order to secure having an open, non-closed society, with freedom, and freedoms of, thought, speech, humour.

But it is a significantly higher configuration/state, above Fascism, which means it is less natural, less easy, meaning much greater effort is required to maintain its existence - to not devolve downhill into the much more easily attained lower state of Fascism.

Ergo, these two statements taken together, it can be argued that it is the elites who are guiding and guarding the developed western society, similar to parents with children in a household.

This Liberalism/Libertarianism must be held up in secret, out of knowledge of the public, who constantly because not knowing better, try to push in many different directions, most being towards Fascism. The alternative would be to convince people of the truth, which can prove very hard and require a lot of knowledge. (Similarity to religion, in my theorizing.)

So it is the Patriarchy that is guarding from Fascism and creating a free open world afterall.

Since en masse opinion and beliefs really are the strongest force, and is statistically overwhelmingly likely to spiral into a bad behaviour, because of the enormous non-triviality of problems related to coordinating large groups of “animals/children”, necessitating Niccolò Machiavelli's conclusions. It is like a lesser evil to be a harsh, strict and feared parent to your children – to protect them from themselves, from spiralling into a much worse situation.

“Unaware” proponents of systems that, unawarely to its proponents will lead to/into Fascism:

Our group knows better, our version is better, the current one and the other ones are wrong, theirs is not agreeing with ours, therefore we should be in power and decide, we will do a much better job.

Explaining “aware” proponents of Fascism:

It is the same fallacy as for example, wanting feudalism and thinking it is a good system, under the assumption of obviously oneself being in the King position, or another top position, failing to take into consideration the veil of ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Fascism is the easiest thing to fall into, so much so, that it is in fact a naturally organic first state, ubiquitous everywhere, therefore completely normalized and never thought of in this way.

Any grouping takes a majority decision, within that grouping there is a hierarchy (determined how, is a conversation all on its own) where higher standing in the "Party" gives more influence, louder voice, more right.

Law is arbitrary after what the party decides. Legal proceedings and processes are arbitrary de:Obrigkeitsstaat, not de:Rechtsstaat, "trials" can be secret, evidence arbitrary, defendant guilty until proven innocent.

Self-censorship though is on the less severe end of the spectrum in these smaller scales of participants, especially strong self-censorship doesn't show up until participant scale becomes larger/large.

Guarding from Fascism, is finding, through some non-trivial/non-obvious process, a set of rules to be commonly agreed upon to be commonly followed, making an intelligent effort, requiring lots of information and computation, to arrive at a non-trivial/non-obvious result/solution.

This is what is lacking in the first considered simplest case, why the default course of action is the tribal behavior, which in other words is called Fascism, why the western civilization with its core values is an effort above that which easiest comes naturally.

I guess Fascism is problematic A) on larger participant scales B) when the hierarchy in control (the “Party”), the higher to top, the more significant and influential, isn't leading in a good manner.* C) and especially when combining A) and B)

*Which btw is why Capitalism works - it has to be governed well for competition and survival among the rest, but when this isn't a survival criteria is when Fascism can and overwhelmingly most often does go foul (statistically many more ways to fail, do a bad job, than to succeed, do a good job). Reason why solutions have to be SOUGHT after with much effort needed to be put in and why it can be highly non-obvious.

All this in order to have a more civilized better functioning more competitive society, but freedom can be an intentional diversion from this.

Nothing says that a Fascism/tribalism has to be or inherently is tyrannical nor evil for that matter, it all comes down to how it is run, it can in principle be the greatest society in the world.

In the ecosystem of the free western world there are many small Fascisms/tribalisms, but, in competition have to be well managed, this is what keeps them from “going rotten” tyrannical – they are forcing eachother to be sort of near perfect micro empires. But therein also lies the danger, if/when they are no longer required by own survival to be entities treating neither of, internal and/or external, other entities well, is when you might see problems.

Entity, being an individual, or groups of individuals, in organizations of different kinds and sizes.

Generalizing even more, small Fascism/tribalism structures are ubiquitous everywhere, it’s informal in friend groups, family households, formal in non-profit organizations.

Typically knowledge level is high relative to decision complexity level, so decisions are kept closer to optimum.

And generally ideology is of following the Golden & Silver rules, and there are few non-trivial complexities at smaller scales, and with everyday very familiar “problems”, therefore it generally works out well.

As scales go up, to small, medium, large companies, larger organizations representing more participants, so does selfish self-interest motive of corruption. When you go all the way up to countries then there needs to also increasingly be self-preservation mechanisms, of those who have most to gain by corrupting.

As wealth/money/power gets more concentrated, jobs will decrease, because a salary means money going in the opposite direction.

What is Fascism in the general case? (What is so to say the abstraction of Fascism?)

Everybody knows of Hitler's version of Fascism, very few know the detailed specifics though.

Take de:NationalSozialismus, and remove “hate Jews” as well as removing “our Aryan race is superior to all others”, what one is left with is:

It was a centralized, one party, dictatorship.

Law was arbitrary, set by the party.

Was no rule of law justice system of certainty that applied equally to all. *

The higher up in the party hierarchy, the "more right".

Was no freedom of thought, speech, humour.

Was a secret police with arbitrary power.

Was strong self-censorship, fear of speaking/acting wrong, fear of sticking out and of disagreeing, for fear of being secretly reported for anything by anyone.

People had no say in governance, they were slaves.

Business were either aligned with party interests and/or directly owned by the party.

* Accusations can be secret and onesided, the starting/default position can be “guilty until proven innocent”, trials can be secret and onesided, verdicts can be unappealable. Onesided here meaning both parties not treated equally, the accused can be without possibility to defend, reply, know, in the proceedings of an accusation and trial.

The third party who judges and decides on consequences between the first accusing party and the second defending party, can be partial, biased, injust.

(**(From below)Credit given where credit is due, the Soviet Union and “Communist” China do have higher ideals and ideologies in mind, and do try/strive to construct a good society, with high citizen morals and standards. Although the ideas are a mix of better, neutral and worse, plus the methods are authoritarian enforcement, rather than voluntarily following inspiration, which is where it goes wrong, needing a control system in place, leading to atrocities committed.)

Most dictatorial, oppressive, repressive, tyrannical regimes fit this template.

**The Soviet Union, motherland, sadly fits this template. So does China, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, etc.

Adolf Hitler’s NationalSozialismus Fascism fits this template.

With additionally having as enemy, vilifying, blaming and hating especially Jews, but in general considering ones group (of the Aryan race) superior to all others (to all other races).

Thinking their own group is superior, knows best and should rule, in so securing benefits for specifically themselves over others.

The Fascism of the “church of feminizm & sjw” also fits this template.

With additionally, who is had as enemy, vilified, blamed and hated is men in general, but especially white men and old white men. The Patriarchy and white people, which is the cause of all evil.

And they think specifically their group is superior, knows best and should rule, in so securing benefits for specifically themselves, over others.

Another similarity to Hitler's fascism is that people are judged based on group identity/belonging, instead of based on the contents of one’s character.

Another Fascism similarity in general: specific label accusations thrown out easily/wantonly and arbitrarily, which strips the marked of rights (without any fair due process).

Additionally, now they are starting to show their antisemitic colours:

Gal Gadot ATTACKED By WOKE IDIOTS Over Cleopatra Casting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C9XcgVYGSU

(by SC Reviews https://www.youtube.com/c/SCReviews/videos )

Now sjw is also antisemitic, because semites are for: masculinization, anti-feminization (being strong mental character, not weak), free western world, tradition and religion, and get grouped together with whites becoming enemies of non-whites (along the worldviews of “intersectionality” “identity politics”).

You have a movement that grows, which has strong and clear elements of, Fascism and being a cult.

Its aim and conclusion will not lead to anything pleasant, judging by the current direction.

sjw stands for social-justice warriors, with “social” as in socialism, in other words, mob-justice.

sjw is self-centered selfish hedonism narcissism. It is a way to be fully selfish, yet at the same time feel good about oneself by seemingly being virtuous and be completely guiltfree. it is nothing more than psychopathy/sociopathy.

sjw is just a new form of bullying, a form though that has plausible deniability and can pass as doing something good, both for those committing as well as for those observing naïvely.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability )

Fundamentalist extremist feminizm and sjw is an ideology of hate, loathing, despising, superiority and dehumanization just like Fascism.

I would not be surprised it leading to using other lesser "races", namely men, for undesirable jobs as slaves.

The “church of feminizm & sjw” mean that those disagreeing are "fascists" and therefore are subhuman and therefore are less worthy or completely unworthy of rights, at the extreme that their killing is justified. (As evidenced in fatalities during the BLM riots of summer 2020.)

This is also where ANTIFA is related, they see the current system as “fascist” and themselves as “anti-fascist”. Not understanding the construct of the free western world and the reasons behind it, like I have done lately, they are with a similar viewpoint I was before, and very understandably so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

By who, can be debated, theorized, discussed.

This is possibly a way, a weapon, an attack, an attempt to, if let to succeed, to undo the single foundation/construct/institution that has ever historically and as we speak now is the only one that creates, makes possible and maintains, a non-closed open free society with freedoms of thought/speech/humour, with a de:Rechtsstaat, single thing above the simplest Fascism/tribalism, the free western world, by destroying everything it is founded upon.

The whole free western world, as a culture and as a concept, is seen as something negative.

Everything that is bad: western, economic/capitalism, male/masculine, patriarchy, white, religion, historical, traditional, etc.

History and historical figures can be nitpicked, to cherrypick something negative, then they stand for slavery, patriarchy, whiteness, remove, erase, destroy. Disregarding any original context and judging not only by today’s normal standards, but additionally by new identity-politics sjw standards.

The removing of statues, is an sjw-culture thing, it is the trait to remove anything “uncomfortable”. The rhetoric goes that something negative in this mans* actions can be found, and the statue must be celebrating, glorifying that, therefore it is bad, gives bad emotions, makes certain vulnerable groups uncomfortable, remove. No other attributes or effects are considered.

*(persons, but it is like always men, which surely is a major hidden reason)

This is the simplest lowest level rhetoric.

Higher up in level, what really is going on, is removing anything masculine and white, and as bonus also historical. (Is this related to “post-modernism” that only somewhere 1970+ is relevant history-wise?)

Holocaust denying is to erase that history and those lessons in order for it to happen again.

CofFzm&sjw are in a sense erasing history with for example statues – instead of learning from it.

Judeo-Christian values to be removed because religion is bad, is Patriarchy, Jesus is white.

If there is no source of higher morals, creating an image to live up to, like religion, more or less idealized fiction like fairy tales and films, then people in a culture/society are free to do precisely as is deemed in the moment fitting, freely doing whatever one wants. Which statistically is more likely to be something ugly, rather than pleasant.

Order is restraint and effort, Chaos is completely free action without any need for forethought.

The well planned out, balanced and thought-through legal system, de:Rechtsstaat, to be replaced with de:Obrigkeitsstaat, and a justice system determined by democracy, mob rule, social justice.

Any masculine traits, including masculine values, which among others include principles, honesty, honor and conscience, duty, is all bad because patriarchy, being male, white male, old white male.

Possibly also Capitalism, it is seen as evil in these circles, to be honest by most in general, but it is vital, (provided its settings are set to benefit all,) for a deviation from Fascism/tribalism and for the deviation to stay competitive.

The point/idea of a free market system is that through supply and demand determining price, the system is self-regulating – entirely automagically on its own – in this way being another departure/decoupling from corruption susceptible human involvement and centralization.**

The complement to which would be a system with centralized human controlled dictating of, for whom, to make what, by whom.

Private property means distributed, decentralized ownership of everything, the opposite of centralization. Each individual, couple and family are acting independently, each corporation is acting independently. (In theoretical ideal Capitalism. Selfishness, weakness and corruption makes the realworld “Capitalism” an approximation of the ideal, and not by fault of the ones in controlling positions only – the ones in the consumer base creating demand influence just as much!)

**The ideal, unmanipulated, ungamed, uncorrupted, free market system of supply and demand, should that be objectively fair? It would seem so, since I previously argued for it representing a physical system gradient. This is a big difference to an alternative where some centralized entity controls and sets prices, who can be corrupt and thereby untrustworthy.

Other, more subtle, but still crucially important aspects of the construct of the free western world.

Trust. In one’s fellow citizens, public servants, and in institutions in society.

Niall Ferguson | Compliance Culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjNQX_sPl9E

(by John Anderson https://www.youtube.com/c/JohnAndersonConversations/videos )

Breakdown of trust destroys freedom because need for rulebook and coercion and policing when desired behaviour is no longer performed voluntarily/naturally.

West vs East. Crucially important point about another staple of the free western world: trust, because self-censorship is caused by mistrust.

In the West the default is to trust a stranger, in the East the default is distrust a stranger.

What an atmosphere of secret reporting, secret accusations and secret trials does is create distrust in ones environment creating strong self-censorship.

[culture country identity]

How do you get all the people in your organization to fulfill their jobs, not corrupt, not betray, without (hard) surveillance?

By making everybody voluntarily and by default take a side, one’s side, having an identity to together work for, our people, our principles, our ways, our culture, our traditions, our country – among others, patriotism, nationalism and culture.

But at the same time, and to increase and cement this effect, having an anti-us that comes in, an enemy, strengthening our unity and goals, and adding one further motivation, survival competition.

This leads to voluntarily doing a best job contributing to the organization/company/country, being loyal, without any need spying, coercion, threats, forcing – individuals can be trusted.

(But what if the top just trick, and have secret evil motives?)

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on Cancel Culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWsayOIS7cU

Good calm explaining example.

Crucially important point about another staple of the free western world: shame and honour culture, versus, guilt and righteous culture – in the latter, separation between sinner and sin (individual and action), culture of forgiveness, atonement possible, one is not held captive by ones past.

While the former, shame culture, is unforgiving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures

Jonathan Haidt The Coddling of the American Mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKW3vKpPrlw

( by Real Time with Bill Maher https://www.youtube.com/user/RealTime/videos )

Good example, giving some explanatory background, starting with 1995 born growing up without physical interaction, but instead only through devices, together with overprotective parents, never creates tolerance to surroundings.

Letting kids take over, no more respect to elders, another staple of the free western world.

And this is just the so to say natural/organic spontaneous component, there can be and overwhelmingly likely is, an intentional social-engineering component.

“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.” ― George Carlin

Remove these, and only Fascism/tribalism remain possible, or at least likely*.

If having the goal of "reverting" freedom and the free world, in what ways would it be possible/feasible to socially engineer? This way is one. World War 3 is another.

*(There can or atleast should in principle ofcourse be possible other non- Fascism/tribalism, non-closed, open, freedom, free thought/speech/humour, society governing systems.)

Yes, more than one argument can be made that there is "something wrong with the west", but it is not on the responsibility of the elites only, to some degree maybe, and it is not "the structures", but for the most part it is a distributed problem en masse, it is what everyone does unaware, that is selfish, that has a price of someone else. The answer isn't to have a cultural revolution as China nor a reign of terror as during the French revolution, and then instate Fascism.

Nor any other revolution that is basically the same as all of the rest of them, where the lowest classes are treated badly by uncaring upper classes, up until a breaking point where they revolt, killing the rulers and in the process collapsing civilization, plunging back down into Chaos then Fascism/tribalism, with no guarantee of rebuild time nor any guarantee of recovering at all.

Therefore we need to have a free open world with freedom of thought, speech and humour for inquiry, in Order to have a sensible civilized dialogue about issues.

It is extremely non-trivial and hard to accomplish, to even find, come up with, a good governance system, not to mention implement it in a well working manner.

In older times religion was a good enough and applicable enough such system.

The American Revolutionary war and what was constructed by the Founding Fathers in 1776 is the only single thing that gave us the current freedom in the free west.

The American Civil War was a case of defending the survival of that freedom, our free western world. Which I cannot see being possible with principles of treating humans differently by group belonging and without, among others, “all men are created equal”.

This may have been a defence against a variant of Fascism, or something bound theretowards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

A sidetrack:

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy has to large parts been alive and well all of this time.

The idea that slavery is just and moral, under the cause that it brings worthwhile economic prosperity, is perfectly agreed upon by the vast majority, without even realizing it.

Don’t believe me?

Just ask those among us who are on a mental-cognitive level of 1-3 year old human children, who can and do feel feelings, who have empathy, who have personalities and moods, but who live in the moment, who lack higher thinking and planning, and who do not have language and cannot answer in words.

That slavery is so normalized it is effectively invisible.

Ask also those poor in foreign countries who speak a different language about what they produce for us, under what conditions, and for how much.

This slavery has just been outsourced, out of sight, out of mind.

Huge shame though that other parts, like noble honourable principles and old fashioned chivalry fared so, so much worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

Freedom and the free western world is an ideal, that is only alive as long as it strongly exists in the hearts and minds of many enough. It is ideology, it is not what is most profitable.

The European countries are a disgrace!

They are enjoying the western freedom because Murrica is doing all of the dirty heavy lifting!

Completely dependent on Murrica militarily taking responsibility for having the biggest say in the world, doing the effort to protect the free western way of life, as well as for protection of self.

There is no education in schools about why we are living in a free world, the history, the values, traditions, responsibilities that come with that, and that it is unique in the world right now and unique in time.

All is like a carefree child, led by an adult, enjoying all of the positives of western freedom for free.

Enormously many people suffered and died from Fascism during WorldWar2, and they are honoured in this dispicable way? It is as if that history didn’t mean anything, that is truly disgracefull!

There needs to be a European Revolution!

A European commitment to uphold the responsibilities that come with the rights and opportunities of enjoying living in an open, non-closed, civilized, free society.

The only thing that kept Taiwan safe, and is keeping Taiwan safe, is the will of Murrica.

( by Crossroads with JOSHUA PHILIPP https://www.youtube.com/c/CrossroadswithJOSHUAPHILIPP/videos )

Xi Jinping Thought Classes Now Required; Norovirus Outbreak Hits China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzwcCROpNE

18:40 “functions like an evil cult”.

19:40-20:15 A “Communist”(Fascist) regime only gives limited freedom of belief/religion, to a group thereto inclined, in order to more effectively destroy it later on, to give kind of a semblance of freedom, that puts the guard down of the anti-orchestrators aligned, and allows them to infiltrate, to penetrate, to take control and to ultimately destroy.

(Wanted to really leave this paranthesis out, but including it anyway, just in case:

22:05-24:15 Can you help us understand why Popes in the past, why Catholicism in the past, you could for example be excommunicated if you were a “Communist”(Fascist), on what grounds was that understanding?

Well, it’s very simple, because the Popes of the past, up until basically the Second Vatican Council, saw very clearly that “Communism”(Fascism) was atheistic, was materialistic, was darwinistic, and ultimately sought the overthrow of civilization and the overthrow of all religion, it was a totalitarian political religion that sought the complete control of society, the re-engineering of society, the re-engineering of man himself, the so called ‘new Soviet man, of the twentieth century’, they wanted to re-engineer, break down and rebuild man in a completely new image and so the popes saw that as a vital, a deathly threat to civilization, to the church, to religion, and condemned it, many times. Virtually every pope from the nineteenth century all the way up until Pope Pius XII condemned “Communism”(Fascism), in no uncertain terms, and in fact at the Second Vatican Council, it was a burning question, a burning kind of a matter, they wanted Pope Paul VI to condemn “Communism”, which he did not, in the name of dialogue with the Soviets. “Communism”(Fascism) attacks the family, “Communism”(Fascism) always sought to destroy the monogamous traditional family, traditional marriage, one man and one woman with children, the traditions of society, “Communism”(Fascism) always sought to destroy the traditions of society, destroy the- to burn down what came before and to rebuild it anew and “Communism”(Fascism) also has always sought to destroy private property. Karl Marx made it very clear in the Communist manifesto that Communism can be reduced to a single sentence: the abolition of private property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

A packaging together of many elements, to each be analyzed on its own, not every constituent is necessarily something bad nor ill intended, and/or not in every context.

But what is striking is that it almost completely describes the followers of the “church of feminizm & sjw” (even more at the commoner and medium, of socioeconomic levels).

Disliking religion - being atheistic, overthrow of all religion, overthrow of civilization, totalitarian political religion that seeks the complete control of society, re-engineering of society, re-engineer break down and rebuild humans in a completely new image, destroy the monogamous traditional family/marriage - one man and one woman with children, seek to destroy the traditions of society, destroy/burn down what came before and to rebuild it anew, and seek to destroy private property.

)

(Maybe have game developers involved as legislators?

When following how game developers (for example GGG or UnknownWolds), go about the development process, it can be really outside of the box thinking and solutions.

It involves creating a good functioning system for individuals (players).

To do this, they have to theorize and implement a version, then study and analyze the outcome in terms of how well it works and the emergent behaviour the “metagame”, then try to theorize and try to solve what to change to fix problems or just improve.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

This is not only in extreme emotional grieving situations.
I recognize this from everyday interaction, from the smallest triviality disagreements!

Probably linked to avoiding discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

First, one as response denies the statement in question.

Second, one tries to be angry/disruptive about the statement.

Third, one tries to come up with arguments of arbitrarily quality, against statement.

Fourth, one starts to accept but dislikes being wrong about the statement.

Fifth, one gives up and accepts statement.

If I were to really risk it, risk myself, sounding seemingly crazy, this could be an attempt at grabbing control of mind-uploading*, or in any case simply creating massive havoc all over the world as a diversionary tactic/strategy. But this is just a speculation thought out loud, I am in no way sure.

It’s like the efficiency of a male dominated/run society, Patriarchy, made a freedom and equal society for all, and was let to get to this technological point as fast as possible, and now that the product/knowledge exists, the freedom can be used by Matriarchy to seize control, and by the looks of it, their governing system is nothing desirable.

*Which is fully physically, scientifically, technologically possible right now, which I must prove and write about upcomingly.

It draws similarities to what happened at my high-school. We had a course called sv:”Kommunikation och Demokrati, KoDe” en:”Communication and Democracy, CoDe”, where a few students made a vote that went something along the lines of: “What do you think of KoDe? A: It is good keep it. B: This course is stupid, why the f should we have this crap and waste time on it!” Most students in my high-school voted B, cannot recall what I chose, but I thought about B just for the fun of it. Then the teachers announced that according to the validly held vote and the principles of democracy that were taught in KoDe, the course was indeed removed, this was seen hilariously funny by my school-mates, especially the irony of using the course’s own teachings to cancel itself and that less school was needed now, which I thought was a big shame that happened.

(Regarding KoDe. I don’t recall feeling guilt or personal shame or responsibility for the outcome, but I do recall thinking it was a shame what happened. This would speak for me voting A. But it could have also been that at the time I didn’t think that way, but later when looking back I thought so. Which would speak for me voting B.)

Sv:

Mental svaghet, feghet, själviskhet leder till korruption.

Vissa löften ska man akta sig för.

Ett löfte betyder bara något fram till det väljs att inte längre upprätthållas.

Ett löfte betyder ingenting förrän i det ögonblick som det faktiskt infrias.

Är man i det tillfället maktlös, då är man helt i händerna på löftesgivaren, som har helt fria händer.

Detta är relevant med teknologi.

En:

Mental weakness, cowardice, selfishness lead to corruption.
Some promises are to be wary of.
A promise only means something up until it is chosen to no longer be upheld.
A promise means nothing until the moment it actually is fulfilled.
If one in that moment is powerless, then one is completely at the hands of the promiser, whose hands are completely free.
This is relevant with technology.

There may be types and camps of Elites. Like in GoT (or ASoI&F).

There may be Lannister types, specifically the older generation Tywin types, who generally want a good balance of a well functioning society and having power, nothing too unlike a sort of natural order of the savannah that Mufasa explains to Simba.

There may be Stark types, who hold higher ideals above all, who want the best possible honest and free society for all and to do the morally right thing, to not be “above” people in hierarchy more than what is necessary for a functioning chain of command and society.

Then there may be the Cerseis, who are purely selfish, and outside of thinking only about oneself, do not care whatsoever about anything nor anyone other, and want absolute power at any cost.

[This should have been inserted after my Fascism-template, but the text down until here had an unbreakably good flow]

The following segment is a bit different, it will maybe look like crazytalk, impossible to believe and/or to take seriously, and I am thereby also taking a personal risk, but it describes a large movement amongst the people that in any case needs to be aware of and looked into! Because it has an increasing effect on society.

It is what mentalities, attitudes, mechanisms, that are behind several novel behaviours, amongst which something that is best known as “cancel culture” is a most visible example.

I believe that these fr:risqué things I am saying, even if may be not fully correct, at least need to be said for the sake of sparking some constructive discussion on the matter.

I have experienced it thoroughly and repeatedly firsthand, without having prior knowledge nor experience, having endured enormous hardships, strived to keep open a reasonable, constructive dialogue with them, in the process formulating my own independent opinions and commenting back to them, all in vain. This also made me thoroughly research the phenomenon in question, where I discovered myself having recreated the exact same conclusions as others had before about it.

A good summary, albeit a little slanted, but mostly fair and factual:

Far left ideology is 'based on a lie' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDpujxB6Eoc

( by Sky News Australia https://www.youtube.com/user/SkyNewsAustralia/videos )

If I am right, then I am saying something so fantastic, which no one taken seriously would dare to say, and ones who would dare to say it are not ones taken seriously.

If I am right, I would be bringing up, opening up for discussion something impossible to begin discussing. Which is, if thinking logically, not very strange or odd at all – because that would be the perfect conditions and protection for something to exist and stay hidden.

If I am wrong, I’ll be glad* things aren’t that bad, and I will maybe look pretty stupid, insha'Allah.

*Because there are plenty of actually serious problems in need of solving, related to technology, economy, etc. And it is big shame I have to use my time on this childish nonsense, but which on the other hand does give interesting insights into societal structuring.

Their group consisting of those following their dogma, doctrine and aligning with their ideology out of primarily females and lgbtq+, secondarily immigrants and minorities, but also males.

Importantly, not all members of these groups automatically agree with the “churches” dogma, some are outright against and critical. Generally, the more educated, independent and critical thinking, serious, rational, reasonable, an individual is, the less appealing and more ridiculous this movement and its statements are.

Also importantly, those disagreeing, even if from those most associated groups, get attacked just as well.

Generally, those for feminism and rainbow-alphabet lgbtq+ people are far down on the mental character strength scale, far below masculine, and low down into the feminine. This is mainly non-males, but the amount of sensitive weak feminized males is increasing. And hence they fall into the low feminized camp, who they sympathize with and join. Therefore they are against the strong ones high on the mental character strength scale, the masculine, who are perceived as mean and abusive, dominant, oppressing. Then they are made an enemy, a scapegoat, and blamed for everything bad, therefore hated. It is basically on the level of adult children and actual grown up adults.

The feminized camp is the one crying victim on anything, where it is “intersectionality” and victimhood giving status.

Intersectionality: Disney Writer vs. Ben Shapiro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJwUBzjNXL4

(by PragerU https://www.youtube.com/c/prageruniversity/videos )

One of the core, of their ideas, is that of considering oneself to be a victim, instead of taking personal responsibility, “-it is someone else’s fault not mine”, “-and I, like others in my situation, should be compensated for this transgression”.

It really is on a childish level like this, which is a big part of why it is so easy to align with and join in.

It capitalizes to a large degree on peoples frustration over financially worsening situation and powerlessness to affect anything. But also on those who do not want to bother with anything difficult, this gives an easy something to do and accomplish, like a little child’s game to keep occupied and feel important.

And as this frenzy is built up on the lower levels of society, being amongst others “outrage culture” and “cancel culture”, at the high levels it can be used as leverage to silence speech, arguments and thereby opposition to certain directions, making them more easily attainable.

But the huge impact comes when people not going along the stream, who dare to stick out in any way, can very easily be targeted and monetarily punished by losing their job and/or reputation. While being the only ones capable of forming and having an opposing mind and speech!

It is at first glance easy to agree and sympathize with their cause.

They claim these groups (females, lgbtq+, immigrant and/or minorities) are marginalized, oppressed, victimized, and need to be stood up for.

Which is why it is so easy to, at the first base level, sympathize with their cause.

However, arguments and dialogue/debate against this picture, is strictly forbidden. Precisely because the vast majority of the claims made, 90+%, but not all, can very easily be disproven.

(Not even talking about the other of those laughably childish statements that no reasonable adult would take seriously.)

They claim, on one side, to be strongly against racism, fascism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, uncomfortability, unsafety, and anything similarly along those lines.

BUT, on the other side, anything can very extremely easily, arbitrarily, and very possibly maliciously-intentionally “be interpreted” as one of these transgressions and be taken offence from.

Additionally, arguments and dialogue/debate against such a claim, is strictly forbidden, there is only a onesided accusation/trial/verdict. There is no fair trial, no due process, no impartial judge, everything is decided solely by whim of the accuser and those on their side.

More generally, it is decided by “the Party” and its “Party members”, who are more “right/correct” the higher up in the “Party” hirarchy.

These are (a main example of) the mechanisms which are very systematically and strategically used and thereby “weaponized” into “cancel culture”.

Many voices are gathered among the populace, then used through being targeted/directed by the organizers at the top of the hierarchy, typically having high/higher positions in society.

This can be directed at Companies, who suddenly get a large influx of feedback opinions, who then feel that they must please their customers, to cave in, lest themselves be accused of being hateful.

This can be directed at individuals, usually in smaller scale, yet not to be underestimated in the slightest, since the situation that arises is, several likethinkers against one, and when it additionally is word against word, and further additionally the defendants side can be ignored, you can imagine how incredibly powerful situations this can create.

I do not believe this is just a random organic movement from nothing but happenstance. Together with shrinking amount of jobs in the first place, it can be a very powerful tool to control employees. And even much further, large parts of society, or even society as a whole.

They will self-defend themselves by claiming the movement doesn’t exist, “-Where do you see it existing? -It’s just on the fringes of the internet.”, however, the fact of what is going on on campuses, the fact that people left and right are being fired for albeit more or less controversial but still very reasonable statements, not to be mentioned the enormous silent majority where self-censorship has worked as intended, which I know of by talking to people and observing.

The speech that is in this way “silenced” is simply anything that isn’t “petting strictly along the fur”, it is done so under the guise of being hurtful, harmful, hateful, against certain groups, often minorities, with only one side being able to speak, to present their version. This is nothing dissimilar from “witch hunts” under repressive totalitarian dictatorship regimes, where anything considered going against the set agenda is outright a criminal act, guilty of being an enemy of the state. The actual contents of the speech/statements, or person saying them, or situation/context is barely even secondarily relevant.

In my experience personally, everybody is saying, variants of, more or less, ignore it, let it be just go on with your life, forget it, you can't change anything about it anyway, it is easier for you to not struggle, to just accept it, to just let it be.

And for the average person this works as an easy way out, because of the law of following the "path of least emotional load", since doing something would mean making a great effort, easier to just let it be. And so this movement/culture is allowed to keep existing and growing unhindered.

They try to shame and stigmatize people by claiming that one doesn't have social skills, lacks the social skills to read social cues "unable/inability to read social cues", that one has Asperger's syndrome, that one has autism / is autistic, etc. - but isn't it, on the contrary, a lack of social ability, to be unable to not easily take offence (in other words, to take offence easily), to be hypersensitive?

CNN https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d25HYk9Oms She called police on him in Central Park. Hear his response

(whole video clip in here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFzwoUH6cTc White woman apologizes for calling the cops on black man

(Okay, he isn't exactly innocent either, when having the full picture of the conversation, half of her reaction makes sense. Seems he tried to "teach her a lesson" about leashing ones dog in a quite harshly direct way, but albeit effective way.)

The woman who (2020-07) called the police on Christian Cooper, that situation is a perfect example of how sjw culture and mentality is, of where the maturity level and honesty level lies, how it is about really backstabbing someone allthewhile pretending of and victimizing oneself for the sympathy of another.

Illustrating solely and specifically the mentality, this particular case is a bad/unclear example of sjw culture in itself, because the situation is more nuanced and seems to be contradictory, because it has several angles mixed. 1. It was a typical case of sjw mentality, yes, but it happened to be mixed with 2. anti-black attitudes originating from the sjw (who typically say they are against racism), 3. plus because the whole incident got exposed, injustice was avoided.

If she would have made her accusation “behind closed doors”, and less focused on the blackness and the implied associated stereotype, she would have come out victorious on top with her version. This is what is happening at an increasing rate in society.

The reason her accusation didn’t “work” in this case (why she got “cancelled the other way”) is because the event went viral and could be witnessed completely objectively/openly by everyone of the people, since it was a recording of both video and audio.

This precisely illustrates what the core issue is, that the accusations overwhelmingly often do not hold up to any scrutiny, but win because only one side is considered.

SVT Nyheter 2020-07-13 https://www.svt.se/sport/ishockey/sofia-reideborn

Sofia Reideborn kallades ”homofobisk” av en lagkamrat efter sin medverkan i SDHL:s podcast.

– Det är ingen rolig värld att vara i om man inte har samma åsikter som massan, säger 21-åringen.

You should speak about this with experts, if you decide to heed this advice, here are the ones I would primarily recommend: Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Vasilij Nokhrin (myself). I would say we each have a unique angle/area of knowledge of this phenomenon, complementing eachother.

Secondarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaire_White , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder ,

Tertiarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContraPoints

[bigger picture]

This may be a very real way of “cancelling” American freedom and liberty, an only way for the top rich elite to keep their wealth and power while keeping the masses under control.

Without conspiracy theories, I would say there is very large probability that the Democrat Party may win.

With conspiracy theories, I would say it already is decided and the instruments needed have been used in a calculated manner to ensure a certain outcome.

In any case, if the Democratic Party with Joe Biden wins, this whole whacko movement will amplify 10 or 100 fold in influence and power. Biden will be a complete pushover puppet for this movement. In fact, he probably isn’t even relevant himself, because he will pick a female vice-president, and then resign as not fit for duty (out of for example medical/age related reasons). Then there will be a female president who emboldens and encourages this movement.

This will fundamentally change the whole world dynamics.

Just like China has been using its influential power to push for its interests, rhetoric and agenda. There will be a strong influence pushing on every country, both directly from the outside by Murrica, but also from each country’s own inside by sympathizers.

The worlds by far most powerful military will be under control of, well, I still lack a good name for them, but the rhetoric and agenda goes that, something like: take offence and victimize from anything possible especially including dissenting opinions meaning speech is very restricted just like in China, divide up everybody into identity politics groups that are at odds with eachother, men and white men and old white men are evil and the enemy, just like anything masculine and must therefore be counteracted by getting feminized. I truly, really, honestly wish that I was joking, but this/such childish nonsense is significant enough to not be ignored.

I have spoken to several people who are quite fervent supporters of extremist feminism and sjw culture, and out of those few who are open to and willing to have a proper equal two-sided debate (think all male so far), when they got to hear my experiences, my opinions and arguments, my referring to established judicial and legal practices and principles, they all have agreed on the key points. This shows how the whole movement is based on misdirection of its subjects.

It’s not based on logic, rationality nor facts, but based on emotion, irrationality and misinformation.

What can be done to improve the situation?

Stop relaxation from masculinization, down into feminization.

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” ― G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain

Teach the ideas and principles behind the free western world, teach why it is free, teach what the construct of the free western world is.

Well, simply forbidding a certain behaviour is obviously not possible.

Question is, if ignored, will it subside on its own or keep growing worse. And also if trying to or doing something against, would stimulate more and be counterproductive.

My natural reaction is to hear out, deconstruct/disassemble the different components and apply knowledge, facts, logic, the scientific method, to see what, if any, is reasonably relevant.

The most potent countermeasure, is exposing the worst cases, because when a small cabal no longer can have monopoly on speech behind closed doors, when everything is openly visible, their power disappears.

As far as preventative goes something like the following.

Teaching in school about critical and independent thinking, Fascism/tribalism, groupthink, conformity, and about enduring hardship, how to deal with discomfort, how to turn something negative into something positive, optimism, self-esteem and confidence, teaching how to handle different situations, when to take offence and when not to, but also how to not take offence, teaching about delaying instant gratification for a longer term reward, that anything of value is earned through putting in effort and not gotten for free.

But also, lives/careers ruined by statements/accusations, in cases where the accused has not been proven guilty by an appropriate institution, need some possibility of restoration.

Making a serious and demonstrably false accusation and/or acting on such an accusation, especially it causing consequences, should have some price. But this is very delicate, and even though I am no expert, but I can sense that much.

However, having this become common, leads to a silence culture of self-censorship and encourages groups to use it as a weapon for own agendas and benefits.

(Take this following with a grain of salt, it is my own speculation/theorizing, based on quite a lot of first hand experience but also information, I am however not a defector-level expert. When it comes to the intricate details, I can only guarantee it as semi-educated guesstimation, the broad strokes I am quite sure of though.)

The different levels of socio-economic standing, have different views and goals in this movement/cult.

Maximally simplified, mainly there are the higher, high educated (termed "bourgeois" by Camille Paglia) (in some cases highly "educated"), and then there are the regular population.

At the top of the hierarchy are, I would say, for example, career women, who see this “empowerment of women” as an advantage in reaching a higher position in the career hierarchy, given same amount of effort. Also for example, those who want more power and control in general. They probably couldn’t give an f about the core ideologies of the movement, they know it’s mostly bs, and for them is simply a means to an ends. They know what needs to be said and done for their goals. But they, I would guess, do not “get their hands dirty”.

Then there are those below in the hierarchy, knowing well what’s bs propaganda and what isn’t, but acting and leading/herding/inciting, who do “get their hands dirty”.

Then there are those who actually truly believe (mostly), and do the same.

And I have to take a sidetrack in the middle of talking about the socio-economical hierarchy of people here, to mention about hierarchy in the ideology.

The most reasonable claims, those core values that actually are good, well meaning motives, that few would argue (strongly) against, those are presented first, outwardly prominent, “official”. But as you join in, progress up the hierarchy of ideology, “deeper into” the movement and it’s ideologies and beliefs, more and more ridiculous notions are introduced, at the same time as conformity is getting more pressed, but also getting more encouraged/rewarded, and dissent is more strongly discouraged (and more costly, due to more effort, time, emotional “investment” to lose).

The benefits are, a community of belonging, acceptance, “safety” (emotional), actually possibly pretty much fulfillment of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but one is under the constraint of following dogma. Done, back to hierarchy of people.

Then there are the followers. Whose knowledge in ideology, belief in it, is medium, to deep, to very deep, to basically arbitrary fantasy.

Who, among other, are the most emotionally weak and vulnerable with low self-esteem and confidence, closer in maturity and strength of mentality/character to that of a sheltered overprotected child, than that of an adult having to have had to overcome difficulties/struggles and successfully navigate the harshnesses of the real world.

And for someone who is a bullied outsider, in desperation over ones situation and inability to selfhandedly improve, that might be a significantly better existence for the seemingly comparatively low cost of one’s freedom, one’s free will, in exchange.

This is an actual no joke developed country problem. This is people who have fallen by the wayside, who lost out in various competitions, who never learned how to handle adversity, who basically are mentally children. They feel intimidated by the strong successful and dislike it.

I am familiar with this because, story of my life, been there done that.

The argument can be made that these individuals are taken advantage of in order for the movement to exist. And this vulnerability is encouraged and fostered for this goal. Instead of helping and teaching these people to handle situations in an “optimistic fashion”, they are instead nurtured to handle situations in a “pessimistic fashion”.

Everything, big and serious, to tiny insignificant fluctuations, is to potentially be negative, malign, and be taken offence to and from. This will decrease the allowed margin of error in human conversation, down towards zero, fundamentally changing interaction.

There will be large distrust to anything, everything and everyone in society. The ones highest up in hierarchy will be determined by being more social, outgoing, cheery, happy, positive – but the cost of breaking that, by disagreeing or saying something serious, will be a very strong lock-in!

Encourage and coddle society into sensitivity, adapting everything in society to accommodate arbitrary sensitivity, while spreading and increasing sensitivity among the populace.

Teaching individuals to “let go” of effort and consider oneself weak and victim, to then complain and demand.

Instead of teaching to “keep up” effort and be resistant, strong and endure, to at least some reasonable level.

One is much, much easier than the other.

And one is much, much easier to go towards, than going towards the other.

Then there are sympathizers on the side(lines) who do not partake (much) but support ideologically more or less, by for example cheering on. And importantly, are only superficially/shallowly familiar with the ideology, who believe and think this movement is for valiant goals and therefore support it.

Several I have talked to (briefly, because nature of topic), have expressed their belief that this is counteracting sv:kränkning(ar) en:indignity/infraction/infringement/violation, therefore those opposing must be for such speech.

Which matches reality to a certain degree, but only as a core value, superficial, tip of the iceberg, official picture. Those holding this very limited picture, believing this, simply do not know more, therefore consider themselves as heroes for supporting - in which is a big part of where the danger comes from.

In one viewpoint sjw is a way to lure those striving for something good, into either being tricked into corruption doing the interests and going with the agenda of the selfish.

(In the sjw hierarchy structure, working class – those with little money get no say – however the ones with high “education” and much money, unchallenged.)

Or to have their good wills and hopes shattered when they are "defeated" by nonconforming leading to confrontation with the Party.

What this is, is a way to extinguish good will among those in the populace who are prone to it, and among the opposing group, to guarantee a disdain for good will (while being locked into the movement).

[church indoctrination]

They create these events, discussion evenings for example, with the very convincing, sympathetic and almost impossible to disagree with, official/outwards motivation of "inclusive" and "safe space" to "feel secure" in, for marginalized groups and those from other groups acting and believing in support. However, these events are filtered* from people who could possibly have a (strong) dissenting opinion, effectively creating intentionally a monoculture echo chamber, indoctrination, herd mentality, de facto cult behaviour.

Nothing special really has to be said through this passive method, just filter out counterarguments and create connections among those visiting is enough to reinforce the movement and create a cultlike group. This way indoctrination can happen passively - very covertly and naturally.

*Filtered with the official motivation of “making feel unsafe”, “making feel uncomfortable”.

The “Tellus study” at Lund University was a large and comprehensive questionnaire of many intricate ways to rate, if one has been offended in, rewarded with two cinema tickets (which is common practice here).

I noticed a big flaw in the scientific methodology right away, and pointed it out in the comments section, being that nowhere was the level of personal sensitivity/resistivity to the different situations found out.

This is akin to, say, asking 1-9 graders in school (very varying subjects) about how heavy school books are (another thing that varies) on a scale of adjectives, light, medium, heavy, etc., in order to determine how heavy the books are, without also asking how much weight each one answering can lift.

So effectively they collected detailed statistics only on how subjectively participants felt offended. This is only a relative measurement, because no baseline, “zero level”, is established.

Comparing one student with another is meaningless unless knowing their sensitivity level.

Comparing to different cultures than the Swedish is meaningless for the same reason.

What one person may feel is an earthshaking catastrophe, another may find just problematic, another will laugh at, another see as a trifle (sv:petitess), another wouldn't even waste time on it.

Scientifically, this doesn’t make any sense.

(Sure, in principle, some data analysis can possibly be done to infer an approximate objective personal sensitivity to correct the personal subjective reportings for objective personal offendability, but I highly doubt it is done nor desired in this context/circumstance.)

What does make sense, is the classical/typical case of doing a study, (of low quality hiddenly and intentionally biased,) to get a desired big number to make a strong headline, like: 25% of females and 7% of males have been sexually harassed – look, our rhetoric is correct, and we are needed to be kept employed, give salary!

https://www.lu.se/article/tellus-visar-betydande-andel-har-utsatts-for-sexuella-trakasserier

What also would make sense to me, is that this whole study had nothing whatsoever to do with answers to the questions. But it was a way to teach, instruct, promote, students of all the possible ways they could find themselves offended in. Because many completely regular everyday things, that in reasonable normal culture range from barely cared about, to not even considered and brushed off, are framed in the study as possible serious violations, offences and transgressions.

This is according to me “promotion of emotional/psychological fragility”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression Second paragraph.

So the lower down in hierarchy, the more dominated by the, (very softly speaking -) objectionable ideology, and it’s core good, well meaning motives, but taken order(s) of magnitude past reasonableness.

The higher up in hierarchy, the more dominated by the real motives and end goals.

Similarities to a typical cult?

It can be seen as being a more or less unified cohesive movement, because they have an agenda, and anybody perceived to be against that agenda is an enemy.

However, there could be a step above the hierarchy just described, whose goal can be to destroy the only non-closed open free societal construct in existence, the developed western world, and especially, the foundational and core principles, values and thoughts behind Murrica (The United States). If not this Apocalyptic, then it still distorts and divides the “traditional left” for worker’s rights, and/or division in general*. But very importantly it can fuel hateful white nationalism, as Bret Weinstein talks about in the video linked below.

[effect on political blocs]

*This shifts public debate from rich+corp vs workers' rights, to rich+corp vs social justice issues. And on the traditional left, it creates two camps, the social justice identity-politics ridiculousness, and those wanting reason who then turn to varying depths of right. And anti-EU.

Very good example of what's happening, and what possible consequences might be.

Bret Weinstein, Speak of the Devil: How Demonizing "Whiteness" Spreads White Nationalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1sJgjG5AF4

(by Bret Weinstein https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_uAqApEUIlg32QzkPlg/videos )

Side effect worth considering/investigating: men joining hateful white nationalists movement are unlikely to get high up socioeconomically, getting less decision power in society, aligning with the agenda to feminize/demasculinize positions towards the top.

There will also be a backlash, by many in the surrounding populace annoyed at what has been going on, against the rainbow-alphabet people, non-cis-heteronormative and non-binary, the various L G B T Q +, individuals*.

*I refrain from saying community, because many individuals are just as attacked for not conforming with Party line ideology and rhetoric as anyone else, and have for this reason “denounced their membership”, hence that the “Community” has been taken over by a certain group, and no longer represents what or who it is meant to represent.

And the “real” LGBTQ+ who have made large commitments, sometimes irreversible permanent physiological alterations, who are more or less past a “point of no return” will have no choice but to deal with this, while the “imaginary” ones who basically only play fantasy make-believe can switch overnight.

L G B T Q + are just used a tool, as a means to an ends, as a weapon for attacking offensively, and as a shield for defending defensively.

Likewise is inequal outcome is also used as a weapon - through being misattributed as inequal opportunity. Two completely different things, covered later.

Like people in Murrica are armed with firearms, creates more expectation, tension and confrontations with police, similarly sjw culture will spread “accusatory weapons” and people will go around more fearful and conflicts escalate to large consequences.

I understand the gun culture and the thoughts behind it perfectly now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QixZ4Nx_tUc A GERMAN VIEW: Trump warriors - Highly determined and heavily armed militias in the US

(by WELT Documentary https://www.youtube.com/c/WELTDocumentary/about )

I can see similarities with consequences in sjw culture, to consequences in China’s Social Credit System*, being that one gets socially, societally and financially cast out, if one speaks wrong.

Similarities are also in reasons behind/for implementing: enforce conformity, quell dissent, make sure only the Party line rhetoric is allowed.

The sjw culture just has a more crude, rough, less nuanced and detailed system that is not digitalized-automated (yet).

(It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they occasionally did keep manual records on people.)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System (It doesn’t seem to have a component about speech mentioned in Wikipedia, it is however featured in several videos that I saw about it though.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRC7lMy0srY Why NY Chinese Consulate Shreds Docs; US Sanctions HK Officials & Releases Their Private Information

14:20-19:00

(by Crossroads with JOSHUA PHILIPP https://www.youtube.com/c/CrossroadswithJOSHUAPHILIPP/videos )

Five strategies used by China’s single Party dictatorship against Taiwan:

1. Corrode or manipulate a country’s institutions, its elections and public trust.

2. Weaken morale of the people in the country and to manipulate them emotionally in the ways that benefit the interests of the orchestrators.

3. Sow confusion in order to widen divisions in society. Information campaigns for example.

4. Use methods to get elites in the country, the business people, politicians retired military officers, civil society and media personnel, working on behalf of the orchestrators.

5. Coerce people who may be opposed to the orchestrators or critical to them, into then supporting the agendas of the orchestrators.

Especially the fifth one is what I would say has been used on me personally, strongly and repeatedly.

[not a very well formulated paragraph]

Their method, which is a psychological trick, is to create an emotionally traumatic experience associated with the "undesired behaviour", then have the person recover through a combination of "soft inwards methods" like meditation letting it go,

and/or (if needed) harder methods of bullying and coercion, then into comfort and happiness, thereby "cementing a wall of discomfort" whenever wanting to depart outsidewards the comfortable space by daring thinking/speaking/going against.

This I can imagine works on 95+% of people.

like invoking self-doubt, inadequacy, then recover,

invoking fear of going up against something bigger and losing, then inwards recovery

like threats softly disguised, for example “it can be >dangerous< to X”

And the behavior and psychological trick of traumatizing then offering comfort is what seems to be used in Murrica now on a national scale. After all of the protests, rioting, unrest, but also the exact CofFzm&sjw originated self-censorship fear, after all of the acts of cancel-culture and all of the strong coercive collectivist conformity pressure, now Kamala Harris is presented as a smiling calm safe comfortable gentle mama that will comfort you and make everything pleasant.

What is documented with ‘The Lindsay Shepherd Affair’ is very similar to what happened to me. This is their tactics, the (local) “central Party leadership” singled me out, told a story about how 1 or more are uncomfortable, anonymity = person(s) and deed all a secret, then they wanted to hear my side of the story, I could tell them what I thought had happened without knowing what they referred to specifically, basically I could incriminate myself to then try to defend myself, so I said a couple examples I could think of and my perfectly sound reasoning and logic behind them.

There may have been actual hypersensitive victims, or may have been completely unreasonable disproportionate accusation based on maybe disagreement in opinion “cancel culture”, or it could have been made up by the “Party leadership”. De facto, a secret trial was held, a secret verdict was reached, I was only involved after the fact, after the process being over, to get to hear my sentence and say my last words.

It is Kangaroo Trial* taken even a step further - the defendant accused, isn't even present in/during the process, until after the process has concluded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

To Academic Rights Watch: This is why they want a hierarchical top-led NPM structure, a single Party dictatorship structure – in order to have absolute power.

Material on The Lindsay Shepherd Affair with Wilfrid Laurier University:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdnSweR7F0Q Have We All Gone Mad? The Snowflake Epidemic (by CISAus https://www.youtube.com/user/CISAus/videos )

-(Haven't seen all, only first 15m.) First 10m good example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81f748gBaTs Teaching assistant reacts after Wilfrid Laurier University president promises change (by CBC News https://www.youtube.com/c/CBCNews/videos )

-Parallels my example very well in key aspects. Notice the outrage in the comments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsDFS5t4Gc Full conversation, Lindsay Shepherd, Wilfrid Laurier University (by theblur https://www.youtube.com/user/theblur/videos )

In the case of Lindsay Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier University, some key phrases/words and overall rhetoric/situation very similar to my case.

At ~25m, inappropriate for younger students - because they haven't been properly indoctrinated yet!

(At ~29m-30:30, he finds that view impossible - while himself at that very moment making it reality, hilarious.)

Second time out of three, same procedure. Also only top, chairboy and vice chairboy, involved, because of the supposed sensitivity of the matter, claiming to be the only ones being privy to any details, again due to anonymity request by the supposed victim/accuser, meaning accuser and defendants deed/accusation is secret.

This second time, I was given the opportunity by the chairboy to resign. I chose not to resign, but to take the hard and costly way, and to have the whole board involved in a board meeting, and hopefully that way get my accusations known, even if out in the open, and get a reply, but all in vain.

During the board meeting, I was told I couldn’t hear my accusation due to the sensitivity* of the matter. But were presented some vague nonspecific other reasons.

The whole board, while I was still present, up until the deliberation and vote when I no longer was present, unobjectionably went along with the top leadership, because of the assumption of honesty on the (supposed) victim’s side, and assumption of honesty on the side of the top leadership. They do not see what they are doing going along with it, they see nothing wrong.

*Under the guise of there being a victim, so horribly mistreated and traumatized, by the accused, that everything and anything becomes possible doing in this situation at the command of the only one privileged enough to have been entrusted by the supposed victim with anonymity. Then what really happened, if actual victim unreasonably hypersensitive or misunderstood something, or a malicious false accusation, or no victim and it being a malicious lie, that is conveniently disguised and never questioned or not to any effect, by those following the person in command.

For people in general, observing/participating “on the side”, they see no reason to distrust the victim accuser, they see no reason to distrust the chairperson’s and vice chairperson’s statements, who are the only ones claiming they are with the knowledge.

Under the assumption that all of those are trustworthy, it is somewhat reasonably understandable in small-scale, non-serious, everyday matters.

It is however enough to have a chilling effect and create self-censorship!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear

This is why this ideology and movement is so dangerous, because its followers most often see themselves “fighting the good fight” and “being on the side of right”, but when taken the time to be properly explained, almost all I’ve talked to agree of erroneousness. And sometimes people realize by themselves something doesn’t feel right or outright isn’t right, however when surrounded by likethinkers in a group, together with investment in the movement, many are kept to conformity.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/mp-ledningen-anklagas-for-utrensningskultur

Similar seeming tactics used in political proceedings, in this case the Swedish Environmental Party.

Cancel-culture breaks: "In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice

Personally, I think the behaviours associated with cancel-culture, is on an intellectual level all the way down at monkeys throwing poo.

Some limited info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_shaming#Call-outs_and_cancellation

[psychological and sociological partial link to cancel-culture]

(by Essential Truth https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFkDAsyfvgxqNyue4F4HHww/videos )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEZpciLUQDk Jordan Peterson: Avoid out of control w.o.m.e.n.?

0:30-2:41

(by Intelligence Squared https://www.youtube.com/user/iqsquared/videos )

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QRQjrsFnR4 Jordan Peterson on Gender, Patriarchy and the Slide Towards Tyranny, 46:36-49:07)

(an interview by -Anne McElvoy, with/of Jordan Bernt Peterson)

Well, I'm sure that you've met women in your life that acted towards you in a bullying and destestable manner. It's very difficult for women to cope with that, because they don't have any real recourse, and female bullying can be unbelievably vicious. And usually it takes the shape of reputation destruction, innuendo and gossip. It's well documented. It's very difficult to defend...

-Only women? ...

No men do it too, but men...

-No, sorry, disproportionately women? In your view? Or not? ...

Yes, yes, disproportionately women - that's what the data indicates. I mean if men are...

-Where is the data on innuendo and gossip?

Well it's among antisocial behaviour among adolescents, it's a well documented field. So because people look at aggressive and antisocial behaviour in women and in men, and in women it tends to take the expression of innuendo, gossip and reputation destruction, and in men it tends to take the form of outright physical aggression. There's a whole literature on that, it's not a surprise to anyone, this has been known for 30 years. I mean, the rates of antisocial...

-I think the idea of the female gossip probably predates 30 years...

Well it does, it does...

-...by a long time, but that doesn't make it gospel.

No it doesn't. But people have looked at how women express... Look women have to express aggression somehow, unless you're willing to say that they're not aggressive. They tend not to do it physically, not to the degree men do, so they use other channels. And what other channels are there, other than physical aggression if you're gonna be aggressive? Well, you go after people verbally, you go after them with innuendo and gossip and reputation destruction, and that's how it works.

-And just to be clear, that you think that's predominantly a female modus operandi?

It isn't that I think that, it's that the clinical literature indicates that, it isn't that I think it.

-Well I'm not interviewing the clinical literature, I'm interviewing you, what do you think?

Well I'm a psychologist and a scientist, and I tend to base my opinions on what I've read in the broad, relevant, clinical literature. I'm not making this stuff up. I've studied antisocial behaviour for like 15 years, I'm actually quite an expert on it. Women, manifest aggression towards themselves and to others, but they don't use lethal force, they don't use physical force the same way men do, so they have to do it some other way. Well what are the other ways?...

-Why do they have to do something some other way?

Because people are aggressive.

My comment: Who are you to speak about “toxic masculinity”? We are maybe unpleasant and/or rough, but “toxic femininity” is outright dishonourable foul play!

One is maybe personally unpleasant to weaker personalities who haven’t learned handling/enduring situations like mature adults, the other one actually is destroying people’s lives and free open society.

[explaining femininity, feminine culture and feminization]

(by Academic Rights Watch https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGgAv9PMUFkufLdXXR0zHYw/videos )

1. Feminin kultur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuwsLz1nE_E

https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/HofstedeMasculinity.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Hofstede

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimensions_theory

1:20 [Following content] builds on the Dutch sociologist Geert Hofstede’s empirically anchored theory about cultural dimensions, which, even though it has its critics, is to be considered standard theory in this field, which is presented in every textbook on organizational theory.

So that which for a Swedish viewer can seem controversial of the following, is thus essentially textbook material, with obvious consequences drawn thereof.

1:54 A feminine culture primarily values (interpersonal) relations and millieu (environment), while masculine culture emphasizes dominance and competition.

2:40 Taken from one of [Geert] Hofstede's books:

A society is called masculine if the gender roles are distinct and different,

men should be dominant, tough and focus on material success,

while women being modest, soft and primarily focused on quality of life.

A society is called feminine if the gender roles overlap, so that both men and women being modest, soft and primarily focused on quality of life.

3:15 The interesting thing here is that when a large empirical material, from 76 of the world's most developed countries was studied it came out that specifically Sweden actually is the most feminine country in the world, then comes Norway, Latvia, and The Netherlands. Which ones are then the most masculine countries? Well, it is Slovakia, followed by Japan and Hungary.

(iaFs = in a Feminine society, iaMs = in a Masculine society)

4:50, 5:05, 5:39

Feminine societies emphasize welfare and help for the weak, masculine societies emphasize performance and support for the strong.

Feminine societies are lenient and forgiving, masculine societies are corrective and punitive.

In the workplace, a feminine culture means that consensus is sought, while a male leadership is determined and aggressive.

aFs solves conflict through compromise and negotiation, aMs through the strongest* winning.

aFs rewards employees equal so that everybody gets equally much, aMs rewards justly so that the one who has done a better job gets more.

iaFs one works to be able to live, iaMs one lives to be able to work.

iaFs it is most important to have a good relationship with one's closest superior, work with people who work well together, live in a good family area, have a safe employment.

iaMs it is most important to have a high salary, recognition when a job is well done, being able to advance in hierarchy, and that the job is to be a challenge so that one feels that one has accomplished something at the end of the day.

My comment: *I would call this highly extremely un-nuanced!

6:06

In education:

iaFs the norm is determined by the average student, and weak students are rewarded.

iaMs the norm is top student and excellence is rewarded.

iaFs attempts to excel lead to envy and ostracization/shunning, iaMs excellence and competition is encouraged.

iaFs a friendly and nice teacher is appreciated, iaMs a skillful teacher.

6:43 Many surely recognize Sweden in the description of an extemely feminine culture, for example in primary education where requirements on knowledge are increasingly toned down in favor of more feminine objectives such as no one is to feel offended, everybody be nice and feel well.

7:11

The central for us is however that many of the threats that exist against the academic freedom ... can be closely correlated with the Swedish hyperfeminine culture. To take one example, we have highlighted the weak public servant responsibility and the fact that it is almost impossible to hold a manager accountable for academic improprieties, for example crimes against researchers' and teachers' freedom of expression, which leads to many actual infringements and a kind of silence-culture that expands. A deeply lying cause that now can be identified, is the feminine Swedish culture, that within its nature is permitting and subsequently when the impropriety is a fact, forgiving. So it lies within a feminine culture to be forgiving in this manner.

8:00 The outcome of feminine culture in Swedish academia is weak meritocracy.

Meritocracy meaning rewarding the most accomplished with a position, and is a strictly masculine ambition, and is directly opposite to what the feminine culture stipulates.

According to feminine culture, positions are to be given to those considered most needing of them or appear the most friendly and likeable.

9:53-13:17

masculine culture and academic freedom is associated with greater scientific excellence.

in Sweden academia is feminized to a greater degree and academic freedom suffers greatly.

15:10

NPM (New Public Management), just like feminine culture, does not demand responsibility when errors have been committed, and values freedom of expression only if the one expressing themselves does it in a way that expresses/promotes different values that are not directly truth/fact related, like social harmony, etc.

15:30

There exist big similarities between the feminine culture and NPM as ideology.

The feminine culture does neither see any value in an objective meritocratic hiring process,

with subject experts, where one doesn't have full control over outcome.

Instead one hires one's pleasant needing friends and familiars/acquintances.

15:57

Goal management, or outcome targeting, is another central idea of NPM. can eventually be used to carry out various feminine objectives, like equality in the sense of equal outcome, pleasant millieu/environment, various prohibitions against disturbing the social harmony in the name of work environment, etc. so goal management, or outcome targeting can thus be used to realize/enforce specifically feminine objectives and therefore this ability of NPM and NPM itself is attractive to the feminine culture.

16:27,16:40

Fascinating example of a combination of feminine culture and a top-down controlled NPM organization, are the artistical colleges in Stockholm.

Especially Konstfack och Stockholm's Konstnärliga Högskola.

Academic Rights Watch has in several cases documented how the female lectors, at these colleges, systematically favour friends and familiars/acquintances in academic employment, and routinely deviate from the public regulations, where the purpose is to achieve various feminine objectives, and create social harmony at the workplace, where everyone thinks the same and nobody needs to be subjected/exposed to a different opinion in any matter.

17:03

Konstfack's noteworthy/noted requirements that newly employed professorships should exercise norm-criticism in their artistry is completely in line with a feminine culture, because it regards to criticizing masculine but not feminine norms.

Unfortunately, criticism of the norms that underlie radical feminism or identity politics does not fall under norm-criticism as Konstfack perceives the concept.

17:25

Is then the congruence between NPM and the feminine culture complete? No, not really. And that because of the collegial rulership. The collegial rulership or leadership, which means that researchers and teachers themselves decide upon questions affecting the quality in the enterprise, and which is a central component within the academic freedom, it is threatened on many institutions of education in Sweden today, and is now being abolished in favor of a top-down controlled model with managers in line, in complete accordance with what NPM prescribes.

But at the same time is the collegiality an idea that is well in accordance with a feminine culture, where the actual thought is that researchers and teachers jointly should discuss decisions on a set of issues, which in many cases leaves room for negotiation and compromise - namely typically feminine phenomena. Allthewhile in line directing is significantly more authoritarian masculine model.

18:30

One idea being thrown out, put forward by NPM advocates, is to complement in line managers, with so called hearing congregations, where researchers and teachers get to, so to say, "be heard" in matters, without having any actual decision mandate in the matter, which though in practice leads to that decisions are discussed after the fact that they have been taken.

My comment, on the last two paragraphs: The explanation as to why, contradictorily, the collegial governance is replaced by hierarchical governance, is to create a one-party dictatorship.

Hearing congregations are in the style of "Kangaroo trials", the power is unanimously on one side.

19:54

So, much points to that for/in activities where it is central for society and democracy that highest possible quality and ambition levels reign, we must become aware about the risks with a feminine culture. This doesn't just apply to higher education, but education in general, and additionally the judiciary instituations and the investigative journalism. Even here we must be on guard against that a feminine culture spreads.

20:20

On the other hand can, a hypermasculine culture also have its drawbacks and lead to an exaggerated competition, where a lot of energy is wasted on asserting and guarding one's own position in the hierarchy, instead of being channeled into productive work. And that's not good either. One can also imagine that there is a connection between hypermasculinity and research cheating. Where the pursuit of honor and praise overshadows everything else, it is tempting to take a shortcut and deviate from the norms and rules of science if it benefits the short-term self-interest.

21:00

So what becomes then the conclusion? Well, it becomes that we as a country must become more attentive to scientific findings regarding femininity and masculinity. And in this way gain a greater understanding of how feminine and masculine cultures interact, complement each other, and where and which activities one should dominate and the other recede/resign. So instead of pretending that there is no significant difference between feminine and masculine, we should listen to the ancient Chinese who taught that difference not only exists but is fundamental for society to function well. That it is important to find a good balance between the feminine and the masculine.

My comment: Very good final point!

[explaining femininity]

A non-exhaustive, non-scientifically rigorous, me-subjective, list from the top of my head.

Feminine traits are for:

people (vs things);

emotions and feelings (vs logic rationality facts);

quality of life;

predictability, security, safety (vs risktaking and uncertainty);

having a good time (vs competing and winning);

harmony and a peaceful pleasant environment;

feelings and compassion;

nurturing the victim and whoever seems weak/weakest* (vs justice and just treatment and just reward)

Masculine traits are for:

things (vs people);

logic, rationality, facts (vs emotions and feelings);

competition, performance, competing and winning (vs having a good time);

risktaking and uncertainty (vs predictability, security, safety);

justice, just treatment and just reward (vs nurturing the victim and whoever seems weak/weakest*); solving problems, practicality

Either side maximized leads to Fascism.

Both sides should respect eachother and learn from eachother.

I am like all of that (mostly), but leaning towards manliness, therefore I neither agree nor get along with both men and women. But all this of my way is from my own logical thinking.

Equality of opportunity leading to men overrepresenting high/highest difficulty positions,

compared to equality of outcome having equal representation in everywhere, proportional to population composition - one is a natural outcome, the other an ideological niceity and goal - because the first is perceived as an unnatural outcome stemming from malicious intent.

*(From Masculine traits)Which logically fits as instinctual behaviour which may have it's proper place/use in the context of raising children. Taking care of of the weaker/weakest/"loser/the-one-who-lost", giving them a chance to recover and "get back up on their feet" through nurture, getting another chance to live on being a part of and contributing to the group, even after "losing out of the competition", instead of being completely crushed and miserable.

In this small scale and niche situation it makes perfect sense, but building a larger society on these principles and applying it to adults in all situations evidently just goes horribly wrong.

In the natural state of human animals, Homo (sapiens), what we are evolved for with genetically pre-programmed brain structures and behaviour, which is smaller tribes in the stone age (or pre) level of technology, the strongest individuals would be in charge, that means the alpha males, women would have their small scale limited niche of influence, which is basically household/"housewife" duties, there this particular aspect would logically fit and make sense, and it would be limited to there. "If you're hurting and crying, you go to soft caring compassionate mommy" (or to another feminine traits disposed individual, significant other, friend, etc.), I can shamelessly admit doing that myself throughout my life, would not be able to be strong enough to write this without!!!

The saying "Behind every great man, there is a great woman."

Another fitting conclusion from this scenario, since "staying home", agreeableness and collectivistic traits were a necessity in order to get along spending a lot of time together in a peaceful way - while men have the individualistic** competitive confrontational way. Not optimal for individual retention if both would be similar, heterogeneity.

But again, this sphere of influence was limited and in any case subordinated the patriarchal rule, so it never needed nor could decide the overall societal structure, decisions, direction, inso these feminine traits stayed limited to their niche.

Could it be said that "feminine values is looking after the lowest common denominator" while "masculine values is looking after the highest common denominator"?

**Individualistic in order to explore possibility space, experiment and present something of value to be sexually selected over. Though per definition of statistical reality, most would be failures.

(Thought/theory/link (from what Milo Yiannopoulos said to Jordan Bernt Peterson): If a individual boy is drawn out to the men, out from the feminine village, but is pushed back when treated harshly, there finds an equilibrium of time spent with each presumably based on that individual’s character. If this is with the females, then that indicates he is less tolerant to harshness. Does this explain why buys growing up with mothers become gay? Because in that original evolutionary context, it would be risky, considering the alpha men, to remain with the females and not be gay. So, partly at least, it might be an evolutionary adaptation for survival.)

[feminine values link to Fascism]

In “Matriarchy”, feminine values, everything safe, comfortable, quality of life, harmonious atmosphere, must get along and cooperate, 100% up to victim, infinite priority to anyone in a victimhood position, means one better be on real(ly) good terms with everybody around to keep fitting in and being accepted - only pleasantness, no going against stream, spoiling good mood, dissent, sticking out, begets collectivism, fear of repercussions for anything, leading to self-censorship, Fascism.

[explain the real patriarchy]

Patriarchy is the idea that feminine mentality and values need to be suppressed and limited to be secondary in niches and niche situations in society, while masculine mentality and values are to define society overall in most matters and be primary. Neither should dominate, there is a good balance, and they are asymmetrical meaning each situation has its own unique balance between the two, they each fulfill a function in their place in different situations.

The Patriarchy has delivered a system which is free, just, efficient and works well, the free western society with a just system both judiciarily and of reward for work, and that has over time become almost completely equal opportunity in the developed western world.

What is left is a matter of inspiration, of idea, desire, will and effort. There is no oppression. Rights are equal, thereby opportunity.

It is a matter of lacking inspiration, not a lack of opportunity nor equality.

Likewise, "quality of life", "no uncomfortableness whatsoever", "pleasure and hedonism", is good in its niche in the evolution-biological sphere of influence of the female, which is the domestic environment, within those confines it can be maximized seemingly without any problems, but building a larger whole society on those values and on maximizing those values will likely lead to a catastrophe, internally.

Religion and religious values and ideas have this framework built in.

It enforces heteronormativity which is masculinization - in order to stave off everything else which by far mainly is feminization.

Therefore everything religious is considered Patriarchal, and therefore bad and therefore hated by the pro-feminization, pro-demasculinization movement.

[some consequences of church, badly formulated rest of section]

Were society to become significantly feminized, and lose anything masculine in seeking a "harmonious environment", "safety", “comfort”.

There would be a focus inwards individually where each mainly prioritizes one’s own fun and pleasure. This would colour society with a completely new culture. And as country and internationally, there would be completely different priorities.

This being an alternative to Murrica pulling the responsibility for a free western world, and a father figure for the whole world keeping it less bad.

And if Murrica turns inwards, becoming less dominant on the world stage, with different priorities, stops standing up for the free western world way of life on the world stage - then those countries*, in opposition to Murrica and the west, will get much more power on the world stage.

Or for that matter if there would be internal unrest or even as far as a civil war, leading to a weakening of Murrica on t world stage.

Were they to succeed in winning significant power, internally in a country, their ideology would be a humongous threat to freedoms of academia, expression, rights, justice, thought, speech, humour, which will be greatly limited. **

Externally concerned, it will create internally an elite class that outsources all the hard work to an external slave class, out of sight out of mind, equality in the world will suffer greatly.

The opposite though, too dominated by masculine values, then only rigid performance is demanded, while creativity can suffer, reminding of me writing this, because there needs to be "breathing room" to relax and think freely and unrestricted.

If social justice and feminizm lose to right conservative values, it is going to be much harder than regular to criticize anything in the other direction.

However, if vice versa, were they to succeed in winning significant power, then everything points to Fascism dictatorship style thought and speech policing!

** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_pbYCn4EN0 Biden ‘panders’ to a radical ideology which poses a ‘severe threat’ to civilisation

Example of how t democrat party rule would permit (if not encourage) t "church of feminizm & sjw"

(by Sky News Australia https://www.youtube.com/user/SkyNewsAustralia/videos )

*(For example countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc. and other parts of the world.)

[explain wage gap myth]

Two different measures, completely independent of eachother, each one of the two can vary and be equal or inequal completely independently of the other.

One is a very difficult and complicated calculation - the other is grade school level math simple.

One is the real inequality and unfairness that everybody thinks and talks about, and is a requirement for equal opportunity - the other is purely an outcome of situation and says absolutely nothing about equality of opportunity.

The misconception or "myth" comes from taking the numerical value from the second, and thinking it comes from the first. From not knowing, or intentionally pretending of not knowing, the full mathematical description, not knowing there are two, not knowing the distinction, mixing everything up.

1. The first one: Equal pay for equal work.

This is the actual fairness that everybody cares about and would agree on.

But comparing income and job title isn't necessarily enough.

What if one has 35h work week and the other 45h, then that has to be calculated to compensate the measure, what then if the first has easier tasks while the second harder ones, what about quality and output given the same task, how do you accurately measure all that in order to compensate?

This is the automagic self-regulation of the free market, the employer and employee will, in an ideal case, determine what each is worth to eachother and haggle/bargain/negotiate to a commonly agreed upon price.**

2. The second one: Average male salary, compared to average female salary.

This can completely freely - without necessitating any problems whatsoever - be unequal in a fair system, with free willed choices.

That is the difference between equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome.

In other words, male salary per male-capita and female salary per female-capita.

To make it simplest possible to understand #2, make the approximation/assumption that there are equally many in team men as in team women, that way no averages need to be taken to compare. Now it just becomes total sum of income for team men, versus team women.

If members on one team systematically make life choices of say easier jobs with easier education due to personal preferences/reasons*, even being completely fair free choices under equality of opportunity, then their total will be lower – without any unfairness whatsoever!

Enforcing equality of outcome is mathematically directly incompatible with both equality of opportunity and free will - so per definition enforcement of equality of outcome is incompatible with the free western world!

*Reasons can be biological “nature” together with environmental “nurture”. If one is generally less stress resilient, or less capable of technical tasks, or averse to discomfort, or avoids risks both indirect like job security, and direct like dangerous jobs, or has grown up being coddled versus growing up being harshly treated, or has grown up being pandered to and served not having to work hard, those can and do affect personality which in turn affects life choices.

... this is why it is so important for their narrative that there should not exist any biological gender differences, together with nothing being hereditary and everything being socially-constructed. Because that would make all humans interchangeably equal and then the only explanation being discrimination. But actual science is quite clear on their being profound differences.

It's very extremely simple, women are by nature less stress resistant, are preferring quality of life "girls just wanna have fun", preferring of caring and of people tasks, “soft” diffuse social thinking, rather than “hard” sharp technical-analytical detailed exact thinking, in a way "more lazy", this is just by nature internally.

In addition to these internal characteristics, they then, out of biologically programmed reasons, prefer men of higher standing, and have the opportunity to get and have a man providing. So "lazy" further in addition to having the option to be provided for, to "take a backseat role", no wonder the two teams have different incomes, infact, considering the situation and circumstances, I am extremely surprised the #2 gap is only a relatively small 80%, and not much more significant and wider, somewhere around 50%.

How about we measure something called psychic cost, and not relative/perceived/subjective, but we try to find out, calculate numerical values for it on an absolute scale, throughout a lifetime! And compare that between the sexes, see what that gap is! THAT would probably be MUCH bigger than #2 average salaries gap! Would hopefully illustrate how much MEN are taken for granted!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_cost

How about we measure risk taken? Mainly direct physical, but also otherwise, like monetary and property.

What about the gender workplace hours gap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdnkbs4l_g

1:00 annualize salaries

What about the gender workplace safety gap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrCvu6I1_Nk

Leyonhjelm on the gender pay gap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLYf5XgaHGw

( by Liberal Democrats (Australia) https://www.youtube.com/c/LDPAustralia/videos )

**(from gap #1)This is because the free market of supply and demand setting the price.

Supply is how many that can perform a certain task (sufficient: knowledge, experience, ability, quality, etc.).

Demand is how many such positions are needed, are required to be filled.

Price is determined by the above two, supply and demand, as the salary.

So an employee working per week 20h, 40h and 60h will not be payed a full-time salary with a factor of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5, so absolutely cannot annualize those salaries! Because there are far more people able to work 20h work weeks, and far fewer people able to work 60h work weeks. It is statistics and rarity/scarcity. And the fact/reality that 3 20hww employees will not come close to accomplishing the same task as 1 60hww employee and hence will not be as cost effective!

This has with locality of computation and communication between computation to do, overhead among other (accidental pun, because it happens inside heads in this example).

How about we don't let pseudoscience sociologists gender studies fantasy wishful thinking ideologues handle scientific calculations on alleged gender inequalities, how about actual rigorous scientists who actually try to measure the world and actually try to find the actual truth, get to handle the data and draw conclusions and hypothesize* models to explain outcomes?

*Models that are then actually tested against the real world for repeatability.

[explain Masculinity and Femininity]

"Masculine" values have nothing really with "male" to do, other than that they happened to be correlated with that animal. It is really an effort, a straining above the easiest condition, in order to get things done.

Removing it, is relaxing back down into whatever is less strenuous.

Likewise feminine values stem from being provided for and the need for softness, caring and quality of life to compliment the harshness of life being "masculine".

And likewise there is nothing really "female" about “feminine” values, other than they happened to be correlated with that animal.

Ofcourse biology and evolution makes this much less of a choice, creates this correlation through genetically programmed brain structures and hormones amongst other.

So in conclusion there really is not anything saying either gender has to conform to either values, other than an innate bias from evolutionary biology, so there is really no "masculine values are inherent only to males and thereby also necessarily anti-female", instead "masculine values are an exertion maximally far above anything else and are for those individuals at the forefront of the battle of harsh survival in nature and competition for scarce resources, and all other potential threats, problems and obstacles faced to be overcome, whether material or immaterial (physical or mental). While feminine values are far lower and more relaxed in exertion, and focuses on basically everything else, that still are very and vitally important aspects of the whole commonness of existence".

So this whole "females and individuals aligned with feminine values are to oppose and wage war against individuals making up their complement, being overwhelmingly mainly males aligned with masculine values", is a huge, really stupid, really hilarious, but yet really serious misunderstanding! Or very intentional social engineering!

Ofcourse you women should not be treated as second class citizens nor be bullied, but be seen as equal humans, according to 1&2 wave feminism, equal rights, equal opportunity, but very importantly also coming with that just aswell, equal responsibility! (As opposed to 3&4 wave feminizm.)

But this has to come from both sides, and biological realities and differences cannot be ignored nor wishfully thought away, but should instead be embraced, valued, appreciated, respected, and in a smart way worked with as inescapable facts of life to be part of the design of society.

[my short story of feminism]

Girl has everything provided for by father, doesn't have to think about anything outside of the house, outside of her home chores.

Daddy, I feel it's unfair that you have so many rights and I don't, I want to be equally.

Father says alright, if you really want that, then you now have the same right, opportunity and responsibility as me.

Daddy, I still feel not taken seriously enough and treated as a child, I really do want the same right and opportunity, I want to really play the same games by the same rules.

Father says alright, I cannot really deny your spoken wishes, I am no tyrant, I hope you know what you're asking for, it is however your responsibility.

Daddy, why am I not getting as much, I want to relax and enjoy life, I don't like stress, why am I not being treated gently and nicely and get to hear things I feel are mean, I want more, I want to always be treated very nicely, I want to have fun and do the easy chores not do difficult unpleasant and risky chores, I want to have power and make decisions, I want everything to be like me.

Father has not much to say.

Daddy, all is your fault, you did this to me, you are so mean, I want your head on a spike.

Comment picked up from YouTube: “Feminists’ vision of equality: Women get the authority of men, the privileges of women, and the accountability of children.”

[possible solution for female difference]

Maybe like in sports, create a separate "competition", channel, for women, not to reward masculine traits (maximally selfishly, just get), but rewarding, or at least to some degree, feminine traits (nurturing, caregiving, charity, kindness, peace and cooperation), so women can maximize femininity and still get rewarded for for it and compete with it. Either two separate branches, or, work in rewards for feminine qualities ALSO (as in not only and to a lesser degree) into the current system.

Or, accomplish this passively, by in the end result, product, service, company image/profile, require such characteristics, that in the interest of everybody are desirable after more than just singly the lowest price, that way feminine characteristics would (possibly) be a requirement for the competition and survival of the company, in an organic and natural manner.

Whether they exist in men or women is not relevant, and masculine and feminine traits can coexist in the same person independently (maybe not all of them, and maybe not at the same time). for example, nothing says one cannot have a strong will and be unselfish, empathic and compassionate at the same time.

How women and men grow up, different atmospheres, different consequences for mistakes and actions in general!

Throughout a whole life, including upbringing, if a man makes a mistake, says something wrong, there is a great cost and negativity associated, he will be shamed (teased), considered weaker, less intelligent, capable, attractive, desirable etc.

A woman can on the contrary get away with so much, without negativity being trodden, even some things being in the positive on the scale. If a woman says something wrong, she can giggle and joke it away, act cute, and it may even reflect positively on her being more girly/feminine.

Men grow up in a highly competitive environment with the highest standards applied to them, faults in any aspect are ruthlessly searched for and pointed out as attacks, coming with great associated cost. The environment men grow up in is further constantly hostile, testing boundaries and limitations, testing for weaknesses, men are given challenges to rewardingly succeed in or costingly fail at, men find flaws and attack them, it is part of highly masculinized culture of competing

and it is up to that individual to overcome it, and in that way prove oneself, that is how that world works.

In addition, women actually test men too, it’s commonly called “shit test”, among other, and it goes on constantly, a different form of testing, but is testing nonetheless.

Another very important part is that there at the same time is costly for a man to complain – that will only be perceived as another weakness and picked upon, so it is an atmosphere, poetically speaking, “do or die”, “giving up is not an option”.

Women grow up in a very starkly opposite environment, with many of these elements missing or being highly toned down, and women can rely on appearance - instead of personality, intelligence and strength of character.

When it comes to courtship.

Men have to make great efforts, do all of the work and are given nothing for free.

Men have to have, and grow up with, a mindset of overcoming and solving problems, of innovation, be creative, an entrepreneurial mindset when coming to courtship.

While women just need to focus on looking pretty, but otherwise be passive and get everything served.

Because men are in this position, they have to also outside courtship, in rest of life, live by the same principles. A man has to work for everything, nothing is for free. Therefore there is a pressure on acquiring a skill, an ability to perform certain tasks, to have an income and for that income to be as great as possible.

While women can to a large degree count on outside support and be provided for.

When it comes to interests.

Since by biologically evolved, genetically controlled during fetus growth brain structures, men are more interested in things, while women are more interested in people.

Men also have greater ability in the visuospatial domain of cognitive ability, while women have better ability in the verbal domain of cognitive ability.

The properties in the two previous sentences can be independent of eachother and only correlated in which case they synergize, or one can be the causation of the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visuospatial_function

After these inclinations, different choices and preferences in life are made.

Men are more interested in getting various hobbies involving manipulating the world/universe (with hands (and tools)).

Girls just wanna have fun, and be social with other people. First ones, because grown up without a mindset of needing to make a great effort, work hard and in that way deserve things, second ones because social/interperson and verbal skill inclined.

Especially visuospatial cognitive capacity is not only for the first association of literal visual perception and rotating of 3D real-life objects, that is just the tip of the iceberg, it should according to my intuition apply to the understanding of any abstract cause and effect mechanisms, constructs, whether a concrete/corporeal real-life 3D one like say a clockwork mechanism, or an abstract mathematical and/or logical construct, with interdepending parts.

So visuospatial cognitive capacity is interesting, fitting and required for anything related to STEM, for learning, understanding and manipulating quantitative and qualitative complex structures.

THIS is really truly the strength of visuospatial cognitive capacity, and this fits and explains perfectly why STEM fields are male dominated!

Men learn exact, sharp and hard knowledge, in contexts linguistical and language, expression and communication, mathematical, technical, factual, relational, quantitative, low levels of abstraction.

While women learn more soft knowledge, qualitative, verbal knowledge, high levels of abstraction.

This explains why biology and life sciences in STEM are female dominated.

F*ck guys, what if this might have been a callout in desperation, an only way to get heard and noticed, we should not be vindictive, but be the bigger man! Let's see if something constructive can be worked out. Something new and outside of the box. They have special and different needs, cannot compete with us at our game (generally, not all), so maybe like something in sports, have a men competition, and a non-men one, but in work-life. Just throwing a brainstormer out to spark creative thinking.

They simply cannot compete, at our game, on equal footing.

They cannot argue with us, because they are worse at it.

So they get the short end of the stick and effectively become second class citizens, they feel this, yet they are also helpless in changing their situation or even being heard, they feel that as well, it's a pretty damn hopeless feeling to have.

But no, the world isn't Patriarchal, the world is biological evolved human species, one type of humans simply is better at discomfortable effort which is what happens to also, by no coincidence, be that which is more highly valued and thereby rewarded, the other type of humans is better at enjoying life and creating quality of life for all, a tradeoff, but the comparison is only made by/in reward income in monetary earnings, question is what can be done about it.

Mah bruddahs, it looks like we have a challenge, a problem to solve, involving also diplomatic cooperation, how do we make it less unfair? Is it unfair to begin with? If we did all the hard and difficult and risky effort building the world, by what motivation should that be given away?

Yet still there is great dissatisfaction that needs to be solved.

Which needs something new, non-trivial, outside the box, but also not overly and unnecessarily complicated. Without stupid affirmative action quotas. Housework gets paid? Count not only income, but also who makes purchasing decisions and for how much? Count “gifted” money? Quantize (even if approximately) the amount of effort, hours worked, difficulty and stress, if only for demonstrative purposes? Mandatory or highly encouraged basic military (basic uncomfortableness) training for all? Some form of whole separate competition system like in sports?

Effort is needed in any accomplishment, and effort is by definition uncomfortable, but their maximum is inferior to our maximum, we were simply built in/by evolution to do different things. Maybe it isn't even so much changing systems, but rather educating on the differences and tradeoffs?

The way forward, according to me, is to acknowledge, accept and embrace that we are different and find a solution out from those particular circumstances.

If entertaining the idea that we are equal and everything is socially constructed, then the only explanation of the disparity is some ghostly bigfoot superstition discrimination that no one can identify.

When it comes to equal opportunity I can, so far, identify 3 factors.

1. External. Actual direct discrimination and oppression, has definitely existed in the past, but not for a couple decades in the developed west.

2. External. Inspiration. If one grows up in a certain environment, being told one thing repeatedly, it will influence ones self-image, imagined prospects, and thereby choices.

3. Internal. Effort made, uncomfortableness and stress endured, risk taken, or easy paths chosen, hedonism versus masochism.

When it comes to fairness and using that equal opportunity.

On the side of women, high-stress and workaholic no-life is traded for much less effort, being provided for, having lots of time and resources to enjoy life.

On the side against women, were she willing to compete amongst the men, she might not be physiologically psychologically able to, because the genders were adapted/designed for different purposes, so this is then felt as an unfair situation. Because it is this ability that determines power and control in the world.

It is a natural outcome originating in different life choices, originating in different personal preferences, originating in biological-evolutionary differences in psychology.

So, by Patriarchy, women were given the opportunity to compete among the men by the same rules in the masculine competition, they failed, now instead of trying better or accepting, they want to destroy the masculine competition.

Men visst, det är ju enklare att svälja att sämre utfall för Team Kvinnor är felet av någon annan som går att sätta skulden på, än att felet är ens eget och att ta ansvar för det.

But sure, it is afterall more easily swallowed that a worse outcome for Team Women is the fault of someone else who can be blamed, rather than that the fault lies with oneself, and to take responsibility for that.

För att titta på sig själva i speglar så mycket, så "ser kvinnor väldigt lite sig själva i spegeln".

For looking at oneself in mirrors so much, "women see very little of themselves in the mirror".

End result, working contrary to feminism goals, the worse image of feminization that is given, the more it will be counteracted wherever possible with whatever methods deemed necessary and sufficient. That means regions where feminized do not have much rights or voice, will suppress and oppress.

[explaining why civilizations collapse]

This, feminization-relaxation, hedonism and collectivism, may very well be why civilizations collapse, or atleast a large contributing factor, having it too good for too long makes people into hedonists, unwilling of thinking nor doing anything departing from fun and pleasurable, relaxing from Masculinity down into Femininity focusing on quality of life and becoming collectivist, for one this means loss of individual ideas/thoughts and thereby loss of innovation, loss of proper good planning, direction, loss of continuous hard difficult unfun uncomfortable material exertion, effort, work, but aswell immaterial thought, that is needed to flourish, adapt, improve, counteract also "immaterial" entropy.

For second this allows collective behavior to spiral without planning, into a semirandom direction being overwhelmingly likely suboptimal.

This is very likely tied to losing the country identity, patriotism, and thereby duty to anything larger collective, anything but self (t other extreme, only for collective, nothing for self is neither good, a good balance needed).

I observe and describe those around me in Sweden as following:

putting time into what gets one something (material, career, salary) but that is not fun,

when not doing that then putting time into what doesn't get one anything but is fun,

no one does the third, being, putting time into something neither getting one anything nor being fun.

This is people who know only a perfectly good life, everything is pleasant, so anything that is a departure from that is seen as uncomfortable and is thereby avoided.

Immigrants though, coming from "shithole countries" on the other hand, who therefore do think about how to improve everything, those I have had some success in talking to.*

But this may be what is needed to secure longevity of a civilization, that people continually and consistently put time and effort into "t third, selfless, category".

The expression "men built the world" is better understood as "masculine traits built the world".

That said, there may very well be advantages with keeping the top areas society to some degree a mix of masculine and feminine traits, purely masculine is homogeneity (and, hey, no homo! ;). But one also has to deserve and prove oneself, cannot just get it for free, so I don’t really see any good solution at this time.

*On the other hand, I have also talked to immigrants who hate Murrica and anything it stands for, including the free western world, capitalism, who therefore align with the followers of the “church of feminizm & sjw” in the goal of “destroying west/capitalism/patriarchy”, and who effectively come here for a better life but ironically despise the principles and pillars that made the free western world have that better life in the first place and are on their homecountries’ leaderships’ sides in being enemies of the west and being victims of and blaming the west, living here with an “us and them” mentality, instead of a US-mentality.

If when already having judeo-christian values and literature and media with idealized tales of being compassionate and good, if even with this, when living a perfectly good life leads to only caring about maximizing hedonism, making thinking about world problems out of mind - because that would be a departure from fun. Imagine if religion and its teachings disappeared altogether.

[explaining white supremacy]

And when they refer to "white supremacy", it isn’t what it at first glance may seem to sounds like, it isn't a literal preexisting/predetermined “de jure” supremacy, as in for example “the Aryan race is superior” - but a de facto supremacy, as in wealth and thereby power in the hands of predominantly whites. This is what I understand is being said.

“White supremacy” is something from the perspective of, in the eyes of, non-whites from non-western countries where western countries are seen as “enemies”. It is about who controls the vast majority of the money, which happens to be white people in western countries – hence “white supremacy” and hate towards “white”.

“Patriarchy” is basically the same thing, but is something from the perspective of, in the eyes of, non-males (non-masculine-males), in other words mainly women. Likewise, it is about who controls the vast majority of the money, which happens to be non-feminine individuals, namely masculine individuals – hence “patriarchy” and hate towards men and old men.

These two “intersectionalities”(?) have basically the same “enemy” so they combine forces to hate everything masculine and white – hence hating maleness/masculinity, males, white males, old white males.

[explaining some crucial feminism aspects, if I understood correctly that is]

Feminists, it would seem, don't see fascism in terms of open or closed society, free or nonfree world, single party dictatorship with arbitrary law and hierarchy determining right - compared to t free western world.

Instead feminizts see Hitler's Fascism being Patriarchal (in fact, being a maximization thereof), and Trump being for Patriarchy - hence they both are seen as fascist alike in feminizt feminization-supremacist eyes – even if by, the logically and factually motivated, standard of freedom versus tyranny those two are opposites.

One side sees t other being against t free western world and for governing through its opposite - that of Fascism, hence t pejorative "feminazi".

The other side sees t first as being for competition and for masculinity personality characteristics, which means a hierarchy will be established and t stronger characters tend to dominate t weaker ones, without seeing how t stronger are needed for justice and how t weaker will cower in selfishness when facing hard choices, but only seeing "Patriarchal", which is equated with maximization of only masculinity, like under Hitler's Fascism, which was without a code of honourable conduct, completely arbitrary feral human animal behaviour, without also seeing this, and inso, childishly reasoning, "Patriarchal" becomes equated with actual Fascism.

[maybe a better position/context]

Simply speaking, feminists, of t first and second wave feminism, were for masculinization, while feminists, of the third and especially fourth wave, are for feminization and at t same time are specifically anti masculinization and against anything masculine.

A little more detailed, nuanced speaking, feminists, of t first and to a degree of t second wave feminism, were for masculinization. While feminists, of the third but especially t fourth wave, are specifically anti masculinization, seeing it as being anti female supremacy and anti feminized supremacy, they are for feminization/demasculinization of all, and against anything masculine.

Breaking up the nuclear family is feminization, because it leads overwhelmingly to children growing up without a father figure.

Further, it leads to bad behavior in males growing up without a father figure - who and whose behaviour then later can be used as proof in order to blame t "male race" for being so bad by the feminization feminizm inclined.

I get the sense they maybe are fighting for complete and total independence. To be completely, in every way, independent equals. That’s fine and all and respectable and why the fuck not. (Besides, it doesn’t make a difference to the actual real alpha men who go for the actual real alpha women.)

But it seems more like getting things for free undeserved, being unrespectful, ungrateful and taking men for granted, and further, going towards Fascism, destroying society taking it to the worse. (I would very much like to know if there is a longer term plan and what that is, if there’s something intelligent and interesting and feasible to it, but couldn’t get out any of anyone, so far.)

If this is just a temporary means to an ends in order to get women more respect, then I can understand, it is respecting the one who can fight back, Melian Dialogue conclusion.

Women go on the war path, get militant, in order to secure a voice, respect and rights.

But if not, replacing the Patriarchal system, removing masculine values, making feminine values dominant, that is opening a pandoras box, it will create a hedonist-collectivism Fascism with a single-party dictatorship, arbitrary law determined by being higher up in the party being more right, self-censorship.

[here?]

... if they succeed in seizing power, and stay to the direction that is being indicated now*, then this is the most dangerous movement by far. it is on the level of Nazi Germany winning WorldWar2 and without being countered by nuclear weapons.

*no history, no religion, our way or you're an enemy, live in the moment, live for pleasure, live for yourself, say this – not that, etc.

There will be an elite ruling class, a ruling "party", with arbitrary law, who controls speech, by ability of arbitrarily finding faults in speech, and thereby creating very limited expression possible, and/or strong self-censorship.

CofFzm&sjw is replacing the highly invisible diversity of opinion, the content of ones character, with overtly visibly different diverse superficially outwardly, but likethinking monoculture collectivists internally.

Men vs. women: Why we’re imagining equality all wrong | Heather Heying | Big Think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzqxjx5pgJI

How is diversity being weaponized? | Heather Heying | Big Think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCiUx6K05vQ

Extremely good point! That diversity is in the content of ones character, in ones mind, and "... that diversity for the countable phenotypic characteristics should not be the highest goal."

( by Big Think https://www.youtube.com/c/bigthink/videos )

Also, they trade liberty and freedom for security.

I finally might have a good name for them: feminization-hedonist-collectivist-Fascists, (or feminization-hedonist-collectivists, fhc), giving rise to and being members of the "church of feminizm & sjw". A more technically fitting term would be feminization-supremacists.

LGBTQ+ rights, systemic racism, BLM, George Floyd, #MeToo mistreatment of women, systemic sexism against women, more or less true doesn't matter - as long as it is marketable to and accepted by a larger audience ... this is just their front, they take up these social issues that everybody, at first glance, easily agrees upon, as a marketing tool and as a disguise, and as a weapon, and as a cause/excuse with plausible deniability to use that weapon.

Feminist-lgbtq rainbow-alphabet sjw "community" people are constantly complaining about oppression and wanting more rights, however the argument can be made that they have in fact gotten so much "acceptance", tolerance, pandering and leeway that they have become so "spoiled" with being able to dictate, that they have drifted all the way over to Fascist control of speech and behaviour, so normalized to them that they are not even aware of how onesided and intolerant they are. Like spoiled children "no, this doesn't fit ME, remove!" Red Queen syndrome. So drunk with power.

The symmetrybreaking difference is that one side is saying:

"everyone should speak freely, with the reservation for what is outlawed very narrowly, minimally and balanced", while the other is saying:

"in addition to the law, here is a bunch of things that those bad ones* should not be able to say*".

*according to us

If white men have “white fragility”, then the members of the "CofFzm&sjw", the feminization-hedonist-collectivists, fhc, sjw, have “Fascist fragility”.

If they try to deny it or argue against, it just shows how they are confirming it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_defensiveness#White_fragility

Top wants to accomplish something, gain some form of power obviously. The rest is the means, the tools, to an ends. All the academic “post-modernism” crap is just a strawman and possibly also a tool to fool the more intelligent and get them working towards the goal. The whole lower socioeconomic classes rhetoric is again just to convince them, by cleverly making use of the situation of dissatisfaction with growing/expanding capitalism*, to act towards the top's interests. The whole lgbtq+ is again just a tool**, a means** to an ends, it is used as a club to swing around offensively and as a shield defensively to be untouchable from attacks.

**These tools can be seen as a sort of capital. Hence also building that capital by encouraging people towards that direction - building a bigger and stronger tool - in a corrupt manipulative way.

*Seemingly, going towards its endstages centralizing into (“socialism”) Fascism, neo-feudalism with neo-serfdom. This needs to be looked into and I’d love to get a more nuanced picture or be proven wrong.

My best guess is that of a power struggle in the highest stratas of society, mobilizing all levels of society as tools.

The attacking side, either, playing a game of chicken race with putting the whole system of the free western world up for destruction as a bargaining chip to have the defending side yield something desired, or, the attacking side outright wants the dissolvement of the free western world.

It could also be not a good nor a bad side but just one side that keeps everybody occupied and distracted with this whole ordeal, for reasons and motivations speculable.

Like in GoT, the lowest layers have no idea what/why causes their consequences, that personal intrigues can cause.

Since post-modernists regard any history before their times, ~1970-1980, as unimportant, it is as if the intention is to not learn from history, possibly even with the express intent of repeating it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6DnHxuuXI4 James Lindsay | Social Justice Explained: The Foundations Of Wokeness | Modern Wisdom Podcast #124

(by Modern Wisdom https://www.youtube.com/c/ModernWisdomPodcast/videos )

7:27-8:58

Max Horkheimer in the Frankfurt School laid out the difference between what’s technically called a critical theory, and what he called a traditional theory, both of which exist within a broader kind of critical thinking tradition that we would think of, and

the point of a traditional theory is to understand a thing, it’s just to understand it.

The point of a critical theory is to understand how it goes wrong, and in particular how it goes wrong according to some normative vision, which means a moral structure.

[-Paraphrased: We want things to be according to our view, which is (by faulty assumption) obviously right, they aren’t, why aren’t they?]

And, how, to qualify as a critical theory it must be explanatory about how it is particularly an unjust thing, so it’s looking for injustices in the system and nothing else, no attempt to understand how the thing works, necessarily, or why those injustices happened to be what they are, or something like this, and it must fit the vision of the social engineers who have decided what justice looks like when they look for these injustices and it must be applicable by activists, and so it is in a sense a way of putting the cart ahead of the horse where, you know, our best knowledge should lead our decisionmaking, rather than what we want to be true leading our approach to figuring out knowledge.

49:25

... and so critical theory ofcourse stems out of this idea that generally the unwashed masses don’t know what’s good for them, that was more or less Antonio Gramsci underlying idea, that was what you saw, a lot of the motivation on the Frankfurt School was that if you leave the masses to choose things for themselves, they won’t choose art and poetry, they’ll choose football and beer and going to the stripclub or whatever happens to be. And so people tend not to choose what’s best for themselves and they need some kind of philosopher king to be able to choose for them.

The point with “critical theory” is, again, and paralleling “post-modernism” in this regard - to avoid originating from an actual true description of reality, to avoid the much harder (arguably hardest) path of trying to find an accurate and true description of reality, and possibly also finding oneself to be in the uncomfortable situation of not being adequately capable to do so.

Instead, a much more alluring proposition is to set an imagined goal, from wishful thinking, of how it would be nice if reality was like – because obviously that version has to be the correct one since it’s so obvious to me – then try instead to find reasons and explanations of why that isn’t the case!

Where reasons and explanations, neither are bound conforming to being accurate reality.

Taken together now, both post-modernism with critical theory, and one can completely float in and among fantasy clouds in the sky.

Combine this with a third aspect/ingredient, that blaming someone else is incredibly much easier on ones own effort and is along the “path of least emotional load” – instead of taking personal responsibility. Now this becomes a highly synergistic combination!

What you get is something along the lines of:

“I don’t have to align along established facts/knowledge, I think like THIS, and according to THIS, I should be in a much better position, and since I am not, it isn’t my fault, but I am instead a victim of REASON, and it’s all REASON’s fault – who must pay!”

This very easily resonates with people, spreading, and one gets a resonance cascade scenario!

This is described in a very similar way by scholar Gad Saad, through his terminology of “idea pathogens”, that is a mental idea, but behaves like a regular pathogen in being something that easily infects, creates a change oftenmost undesireable, then spreads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gad_Saad

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQHi-oLu_LY Idea Pathogens - Freedom from Reality (THE SAAD TRUTH_1050)

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOVzc0AX0ak Idea Pathogens Are Destroying Western Values - My Chat with Angry Foreigner (THE SAAD TRUTH_1152)

(by Gad Saad https://www.youtube.com/c/GadSaad/videos )

The actual practical points, from the seeming absolute nonsense of ”post-modernism”, “critical-theory”, and the like, is I would say:

Primarily, to instill the way of thinking that no objective truth/fact exist, that knowledge and fact is subjective not objective, in a way that being right is relative, not absolute nor universal.

Secondarily, is to regard only what is modern, disregard/discard any lessons learned not to repeat, together with wisdom from history.

All, in order to make it easier to accept and believe a broader range of statements, and in that way make subjects more malleable to and more easily convinced by the “church of feminizm & sjw” ideology.

In order to make one commit atrocities, one must be made to believe absurdities, and to make people believe absurdities among much developed and established scientific, historical and cultural knowledge, all of that has to be invalidated, in order to be removed out of people’s minds and replaced with the New Modern Absurdities (NMA) to believe.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire

“Once your faith, sir, persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares to be absurd, beware lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life. In days gone by, there were people who said to us: "You believe in incomprehensible, contradictory and impossible things because we have commanded you to; now then, commit unjust acts because we likewise order you to do so." Nothing could be more convincing.

>>> Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. <<<

If you do not use the intelligence with which God endowed your mind to resist believing impossibilities, you will not be able to use the sense of injustice which God planted in your heart to resist a command to do evil. Once a single faculty of your soul has been tyrannized, all the other faculties will submit to the same fate. This has been the cause of all the religious crimes that have flooded the earth.”

(Translation from Norman Lewis Torrey: Les Philosophes. The Philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modern Democracy. Capricorn Books, 1961, pp. 277-8)

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_sur_les_Miracles (1765)

Widely used paraphrase: "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities". -Voltaire

Why “hedonists”:

Only wanting to do fun things, always taking the easier path, avoiding anything unfun, unpleasant, uncomfortable, difficult.

If wanting to fuel on hedonism, then sexualization of everything in society is a way to accomplish that. And the earlier in personality development this can be done, the more effective it will be. Something which tradition and religion has sought to suppress.

Another thing is to make everything easy, so that one can reduce discomfort, relax downhill on the exertion-stress-effort scale, go from being masculinized down into being feminized, living for enjoying life and having fun.

Why “collectivists”:

When becoming feminized and enjoying life and pleasures, one at the same time becomes of weak mental strength character, which means one rather takes the easy path, what I call the law of “following the path of least emotional load” (for the lack of better terminology).

In group dynamics, disagreeing is

firstly unpopular* because among others it ruins the mood and enjoyment of everybody,

secondly it requires effort to go against many, which is difficult, risky and uncomfortable, thereof avoidance prone.

*And to be popular, one has to agree with the populace, with the popular opinion. Because disagreeing with the majority makes one impopular.

“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” -Thomas Paine.

“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

― George Orwell

“No one is more hated than he who speaks the Truth” – Plato

q: Can the argument be made, since it is the “church of feminizm&sjw” feminization-hedonist-collectivists that claim everything is socially constructed, that on the contrary it is they who would be for no age of consent and no age protection laws for children?

What you feminists call “toxic masculinity”, I would call insecure cowardly little boy, and weak cowardly teenage little boy.

Your solution seems so far to make men into little boys - that you CAN dominate. I would say that this is absolutely in the wrong direction, on the contrary, you need to make the little boys MORE masculine, all the way up to real men!

A real masculine secure big man α-male leader has the strength resources generosity courage and no will from selfish reasons not to, help someone weaker up.

Only a truly masculine confident male can truly respect a real woman.

The feminized physiological males cannot do anything else, it isn't a choice for them.

What if, by for example societal collapse, they do get the chance, what male would you feel safest with? The one who collectivistically just follows the mob and caves in to peer pressure, or the one who dares not to, and dares to stand up to the many?

“Toxic masculinity” is a joke, it is nothing objective, it is a subjective opinion from a certain specific point of view, no more valid than "buhu, women are so bad and mean and evil and toxic because they reject me and will not sleep with me".

It is some valid complaints of badly behaved people misattributed to masculinity, the rest is like a weak sheltered spoiled child reacting to anything perceived unpleasant and overly perceiving things pessimistically rather than optimistically, instead of knowing how to deal with and being able to endure it, running and whining to mommy.

Further, it comes from sociology, (most of) which, is not a science, it is not scientific, it is not based in STEM, it does not follow the scientific method, it isn't based on objective real-world data, it isn't based on reproducible results, it is not attempting understanding and accurately describing how the world is and how it works, instead, it is fantasy and wishful thinking about how "it would look nice if the world was and functioned as how specifically I, or my group, imagine and would want".

Feminists have not met the good alpha males, and have probably not met alpha males at all, because those would not be interested in the kind of women who typically are feminist. So they don't get that exposure. Instead they get exposed to the low quality males, that behave badly, and so their perception might be skewed.

"Mansplaining" happens when faced with behaviour of a stubborn, stupid, unattentive, disruptive, childish person, together with there being a strong need to have them listen and understand.

Why specifically mansplaining and not womansplaining or humansplaining, is because typically it is men who are found in a rational logical position based on fact and evidence.

And temperament among men, in a discussion, is a sign of how sure one is of ones argument.

I would argue it is the exactly same symptom as that of “female hysteria”.

So really, technically, it is the frustration of not being able to get something across, be heard and understood, regarding something that (to oneself atleast) seems super obvious. Like being the only sane person among (mentally insane) irrational illogical stupidity.

From men’s side, the impossibility to get desired results with women, romantically+ so to say, has forced to adapt new methods. Like earning more, to be more selectable. while women have found new methods to reject and filter out.

In so this arms-race has spiralled so far that the difference/gap between the alphas and the betas and the even lower ones, has become so big, that the more sensitive ones feel tyrannically oppressed.

Women in high positions getting "sexual harassment"? What are they effing kids? Cannot handle fellow humans in an adult and mature way?

Males are the ones who have to take all the steps, make all the moves, ofcourse effing ofcourse one is never going to be guilty of anything - because one never does anything and is passive - while the other has no option but to try over and over, even throughout constant rejection.

If that is the path you women have chosen, then take responsibility for that choice and accept the whole package, the good with the bad, deal with the bad, handle it, tolerate it, you cannot let yourselves eat brioche and have it too.

Not all guys are equally skilled ofcourse, how about offering teaching them fishing somewhere along the line, instead of condemning begging for fish?

I had to learn from basically absolute zero in University.

If I put it this way, don't kick somebody while they're down, don't gloat, don't laugh at them, don't inflate your ego too much with superiority.

Instead, offer a helping hand and see if they're willing to take it, lift themselves up and improve, develop, evolve.

Oftentimes, these are the people who get completely left outside, the last losers, the weakest, the most emotionally insecure, the ugly and unattractive both superficially and personality wise, maybe they just were never taught otherwise nor inspired otherwise and have no idea of what to do differently, just like where I have been my whole life.

See if you can lift somebody up, instead of seeing if you push somebody down.

One is typically childishly easy, while the other can be a great challenge, something hard to do, that very few succeed at.

Don't be greedy successful, be generous successful.

Besides, the more that are left behind, the more this poisonous ideology grows, starve it.

Truly confident men are gentlemen, they are the ones who will oppose the stream to defend someone weaker. When you think you need to remove masculinity, you're going in the completely wrong direction, you need more masculine, more confident men, who then are given the problem to solve, given the challenge, inspired to, rewarded for, to be the best possible men, to resist being a bully, resist being evil, resist corruption, and to show and teach their fellow men likewise. This requires self-control, discipline, conviction, confidence, strength and bravery.

This is not found in little boys, nor among anyone else on the feminine values and traits spectrum!

[Murrican media]

MSMBS (taken from Juicemedia RAP NEWS)

Both sides, Democrats and Republicans demonize eachother, in FOX vs left media, impossible to know who is right. But symmetrybreaking is:

Trump defending Murrican and western freedom core principles speaking reasonably about cancel culture, Independence Day 2020 speech;

talking reasonably about police force as human, letting them present their side reasonably;

black and women as a question of inspiration and effort, not that the whole system is fully broken;

human rights in china.

( by Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IDvW3F3-XY Ingraham: Do you know his name?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQwzW5-WhA0 Ingraham: A teachable moment

0:00-2:08, then about schools

So I put this statement on scientific test. To test if there really was no mention on:

search ("[news media name] Bernell Trammell" following the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_States ) with the results:

YouTube (video clips) 2020-07-31 by: ABC- CBS- CNN- FOX+ MSNBC- NBC- New York Times- Los Angeles Times- The Wall Street Journal- The Washington Post- Los Angeles Daily News-

Google (written articles) 2020-08-01 by: ABC- ABC#+ CBS- CBS#+ CNN- FOX+ MSNBC- NBC- NBC#+ New York Times± Los Angeles Times- The Wall Street Journal- The Washington Post± Los Angeles Daily News-

± = "Conservatives Take Up Death of Black Man Who Supported Trump", cowardly.

HIS NAME WAS Bernell Trammell! HIS NAME IS Bernell Trammell! †

Den som är för svag och rädd för att stå upp till och säga emot en mobb, utan bara går med, är inte passande att vara i en ledarposition, i en position som tar beslut, i en position med makt och utövande därav.

The one who is too weak and afraid to stand up to and speak out against a mob, instead only joins, is not fit to be in a leadership position, in a position that makes decisions, in a position of power and exercise thereof.

How does one create strong, brave, heroic people without war?

Those who contributed to cancel-culture through deciding organs, how about we find out who was sitting in the group deciding, accuse them for being cowardly backstabbers, for submitting themselves out of fear of a mob and hold a fair trial.

If found guilty of getting rid of people for no valid reason other than by some loud groups perceived impopularity, without sound arguments and without fair trial - then those people are not suited for their positions and should be relieved of their duties.

Let's hold a fair trial, where the people who are accused of the following are to answer for their actions: If you're not brave enough to stand up for justice, if you don't uphold the spirit and the founding principles of the free western world, then you're not fit to sit in a position of power making decisions.

Therefore, as with all cancel-culture occurrances, it is crucially important to look at all source material, in its entirety and in its full context, but also try to understand the thinking of the author behind (which also is a form of context, though less visible).

[should probably maybe be in Part 3 (non-Addendum)]

Cannot be maximally individualistic “society”, with responsibility over an individual that lies fully on that individual alone, where everyone is one for himself, where “falling off” unforgivably ends your path without a social safety net - that can hardly be called a society.

Cannot either have the opposite extreme, being a maximally collectivistic society, where personal responsibility doesn’t exist, and one is always supported and helped arbitrarily much no matter what happens, then each will just relax and lean on everybody else shifting one’s own responsibility over on the whole, total output will suffer.

Helping everybody individually too much, compared to thinking about the collective whole, is a form of tragedy of t commons.

The old whisdom of “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”.

But I don’t see it literally as just learning a skill, I see it metaphorically for having an attitude of making an effort, taking responsibility, being hard working, facing and dealing with difficulties, overcoming problems, not giving up, having a strong mental character, having grit, in other words being masculinized and keeping it up against decay into feminization.

Something, which is a logical function of religion, to as adequately as possible solve/address this requirement of the universe/nature, in a manner as adoptable by people as possible, a sort of social engineering.

In other words “Better to teach a man to fish for himself, rather than him relying on begging and depending on receiving fish from others”.

A paper which, just like according to Anna Brattström at the Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship at Lund University, claims emotional safety, comfort and trust is needed in teams.

Which is absolutely not necessarily untrue.

However, this may partially be well disguised feminization slanted propaganda.

In that entrepreneurial course at Lund University, when arrived at the topic of cooperation “Team Development and Dynamics”, the following paper was given to read about “New Product Development”.

( And it is “new (product develepment)”, with “new” being the keyword here, I wonder how it is related to “new (public management)”? Since both seem to be associated with feminism. )

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:123–138

© 2009 Product Development & Management Association

Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits*

Amy C. Edmondson and Ingrid M. Nembhard

*We thank Shikhar Sarin for constructive comments and the Harvard Business School Division of Research for financial support.

So this safety can be accomplished by reducing all the few high peaks down to grass level, making everything a daycare for adults who are mentally children, by feminizing everyone into direct interaction wise harmlessness (indirect interaction wise ability to inflict harm is a different matter, much more serious).

Or it can be done by training the grass to become much taller plants and not seeing the tall trees as problems, by masculinizing into mentally strong and resilient individuals.

In theory yes, a relaxed state does facilitate creativity not possible in a hectic or stressed or anxious state (not excluding vice versa direction of different creativities), in practice I can confirm this from my own example.

But it may also be a straw man, a diversion, tailored at economists as a target audience to convince with profit motive, distracting from the real goal of totalitarian control.

For the more soft social subjects, it is “post-modernism”, (“post-structuralism”,) “critical theory”, convincing with victimhood status and blaming the structure and a scapegoat.

That is, for the non-Partisans who would need convincing to join.

If entertaining the notion, it comes at the cost of having a free world, the cost of ability of anyone to be able to disagree, dissent, meaning no one being able to go against the stream, only obey, only follow along with the collective herd.

That one entrepreneurial course at Lund University also has a potentially interestingly implemented strategy: Given quite a large volume of text and video to watch through, with not super specific material, as in, a specially targeted goal programming, like feminization propaganda, blends in well and doesn't stick out. Then there is a very rigid and specific quiz to do, against a machine, not a human. Where exact specific words and multiple choice questions stand out as enormous obstacles.

The whole thing is that when trying to answer the multiple choice questions, they sometimes contradict gained knowledge. And by doing them again and again, each time trying to remember and adjust one's knowledge, since obviously that last result was incorrect meaning I must have remembered wrong. this is where the propaganda programming happens.

After having gone through many tries, one has been molded to whatever the questionnaire is.

Nothing says that having a free world with an open society and with freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of humour, is the most profitable nor efficient, nor necessarily the most pleasant!

Slavery is theoretically the most profitable arrangement.

The formula goes, somewhat shorthanded and not well articulated/formulated:

That you emotionally sensitize (make more sensitive) people, never teaching them to properly deal with normal adult communication, essentially keeping them on the level of children.

Then tell them how much they can be offended and how everything is all others’ responsibility, not own.

Then when they take offence and feel wronged, they dislike whoever is in their eyes the offender.

Then you teach them to hate and blame those disliked.

Now you have a large group with similarity of opinion that can be used as a tool, as a weapon.

In a conversation, with a speaker and listener, it doesn’t only matter how the speaker conducts speech when it comes to how the listener takes it, the responsibility isn’t onesided. There is just aswell a factor on the responsibility of the listener, on the listener’s side, which determines how something is taken.

I am talking about saying something positively/negatively, and perceiving something likewise positively/negatively.

There is at the very least, as much, if not not outright more, or much more, responsibility on how one perceives things, compared to how somebody else says them.

But this doesn’t come easy and takes effort to develop in oneself.

The idea among the followers of the “church of feminizm & sjw” is to remove any notion of the receiving side, only the transmitting side is responsible, and fully responsible.

But it goes beyond the receiving side not having to make an effort to perceive positively, beyond even being a neutral perceiver, even further, the receiver can fully freely decide how to interpret a communication, meaning it can by the perceiver’s own will intentionally and maliciously be interpreted negatively – with 100% of the responsibility lying with the transmitter.

This is effectively arbitrary law, with an individual being more right, the higher up in the Party.

Traditionally those who made the biggest exertions, were the most competitive, took the biggest risks, were the most brave, came up on the scale of mental personality strength/toughness, into the masculine heights, above the many down in the feminine lows.

Today in an increasingly coddled society, starting in school, and related to [something I forgot] [the sensitivization/feminization/infantilization agenda ?]

So the idea is that by taking the easiest path of striving for everything easiest and most pleasant possible, striving to avoid and remove anything “uncomfortable” and “unsafe”, then the weakest personalities, most infantilized will be able to open up and contribute.

So there is to be a shift,

from, minimalistic, commonly agreed upon, written, rules valid equally for each individual,

to, whatever is felt right or felt wrong, in the moment, among the relevant group of people in question?

Only that this is a dystopian closed society of safe slaves. Because in order to create this artificial bubble of perfect maximized comfort and safety, everything else has to be greatly compromised.

One cannot disagree with the group, nor any individual, leading to extreme group think and echo chamber. Any utterance is a risk of being interpreted negatively, so strong self-censorship. Everybody is on the level of weak children, meaning powerless, meaning easily controlled.

Feminine values lead to trading essential liberty for temporary security.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

This is trading all liberty/freedom/rights, for perfect maximum security.

But how temporary will this security be?

What if the ones above you only catered to your safety needs in order to get elected into power, once accomplished, no longer want to cater to your complaints?

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"

-Thomas Jefferson

As a very great, great man once said:

"If you don't let us dicks fuck these pussies and assholes, we are going to have all of our pussies and dicks all covered in a whole lot of shit!"

Murrica! F*CK YEAH! Freedom is the only waayyy!

There is a fantastically great saying:

“Boys never grow up, it's just the toys that become more expensive. And boys will be boys.”

Inspired by the film series The Purge, have one day where/when everything is maximally sjw (like Halloween), and one day where/when everything is maximally un-pc.

That way both are remembered and the lessons from both are kept alive.

A small selection of many women that make me go many wow much:

Mama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia

One of the absolutely coolest and attractive women I can think of!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

this! if any of the democrat party women then this! she knows what manliness, military and war is! Tulsi Gabbard is for taking criticism, debate and discussion, and justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

From what I’ve learned about her, I highly doubt this person of justice and actual true feminism, would support anything like cancel-culture or sjw-culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Ernst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

(by Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrorYzMbkMc Hannity: Dems have 'temper tantrum' during Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd9qcY7hoi8 Judge Barrett responds to criticism she's an 'inadequate' Ginsburg replacement

REAL WOMEN WITH REAL INTELLECTS! no wonder, Joni Ernst has military experience!

People are inconsiderate to eachother, therefore everyone is on guard and unwilling to be nice (to not waste time, energy), and so in this atmosphere people don't think about the beautiful things.

There is a very good and famous quote, said by many in different variations, that goes along the lines of: “A civilization can be judged by how it treats its weakest members.”

There is ofcourse a good balance to keep, somewhere between maximizing the endpoint extremes.

But thinking outside the box, further, about how we treat animals, brings me to Ghandi’s version:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Now even more broadly thinking, these thoughts inspired the following thought with me:

“The knowledge, maturity and progression of a civilization, society and it’s citizens can be judged by how they would behave under a sudden and total societal collapse.”

Were all societal institutions to suddenly blackout, law enforcement and oversight, safety services, justice system, social services, infrastructure, communication, transportation, supplies, etc., to cease being present. Namely, in such a scenario, if society would remain civil, law-abiding, functional and just, or, revert into uncivilized, barbaric, feral human animal behaviour? Order or Chaos?

What if literal childrens’, literal parents were to one day be mysteriously gone?

How would the children behave and what would they do without anyone setting boundaries?

What if “parents”/government suddenly stopped existing and making sure everybody behaved well? For example in a societal collapse, common to fiction, film, series, literature.

How would individuals and groups of individuals act and behave?

What if we found a definitive scientific answer that nothing akin to God exists, and that therefore one’s actions will never be recorded and judged, for some existence after mortal life, and one can without worry of any future risk to self do whatever works, whatever is possible, whatever one desires/wills?

What morality in choices would those with least power, some power, and the ones with most power and influence follow?

Appendix A

Donald John Trump describes it very well in politically acceptable public speech terms:

Text between >>> <<< is centrally important.

Text unmarked is important.

Text (in paranthesis) is secondary, left for context, if desired, but not essential.

Text skipped with “...” is unrelated.

Timestamps from the video:

Trump holds July 4 celebration at Mt. Rushmore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQpWydz7J1Y

(by PBS NewsHour https://www.youtube.com/c/PBSNewsHour/videos )

Donald Trump: (4:08:02)

Well, thank you very much. ...

...

Donald Trump: (4:09:49)

(There could be no better place to celebrate America’s independence than beneath this magnificent, incredible majestic mountain and monument to the greatest Americans who have ever lived. Today we pay tribute to the exceptional lives and extraordinary legacies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. I am here as your president to proclaim before the country and before the world, this monument will never be desecrated, these heroes will never be defamed, their legacy will never ever be destroyed, their achievements will never be forgotten, and Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.)

Donald Trump: (4:11:11)

(We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the history of nations, July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should swell with pride, every American family should cheer with delight, and every American patriot should be filled with joy because each of you lives in the most magnificent country in the history of the world and it will soon be greater than ever before.)

Donald Trump: (4:11:55)

(Our founders launched not only a revolution in government, but a revolution in the pursuit of justice, equality, liberty, and prosperity. No nation has done more to advance the human condition than the United States of America and no people have done more to promote human progress than the citizens of our great nation. It was all made possible by the courage of 56 patriots who gathered in Philadelphia 244 years ago and signed the Declaration of Independence. They enshrined a divine truth that changed the world forever when they said, “All men are created equal.” These immortal words set in motion the unstoppable march of freedom. Our founders boldly declared that we are all endowed with the same divine rights, given us by our Creator in Heaven, and that which God has given us, we will allow no one ever to take away ever.)

Donald Trump: (4:13:29)

1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason. And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities. Many of these people have no idea why they’re doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing.

(They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive, but no, the American people are strong and proud and they will not allow our country and all of its values, history, and culture to be taken from them.)

Donald Trump: (4:15:27)

>>>

One of their political weapons is cancel culture, driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and to our values and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America.

This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children from this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life. In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished. It’s not going to happen to us.

<<<

Make no mistake. This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.

Donald Trump: (4:17:58)

(... That is why I am deploying federal law enforcement to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecutors offenders to the fullest extent of the law.)

(I am pleased to report that yesterday, federal agents arrested the suspected ringleader of the attack on the statue of the great Andrew Jackson in Washington, D.C., and in addition, hundreds more have been arrested. Under the executive order I signed last week pertaining to the Veterans Memorial Preservation Memorial and Recognition Act and other laws, people who damage or deface federal statues or monuments will get a minimum of 10 years in prison and obviously that includes our beautiful Mount Rushmore.)

Donald Trump: (4:19:36)

(Our people have a great memory. They will never forget the destruction of statues and monuments to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionists and many others. The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets and cities that are run by liberal Democrats in every case is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions. Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes but that were villains. The radical view of American history is a web of lies, all perspective is removed, every virtue is obscured, every motive is twisted, every fact is distorted and every flaw is magnified until the history is purged and the record is disfigured beyond all recognition. This movement is openly attacking the legacies of every person on Mount Rushmore. They defiled the memory of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Today we will set history and history’s record straight.)

Donald Trump: (4:21:33)

(Before these figures were immortalized in stone, they were American giants in full flesh and blood, gallant men, whose intrepid deeds unleashed the greatest leap of human advancement the world has ever known. Tonight I will tell you and most importantly the youth of our nation the true stories of these great, great men. From head to toe George Washington represented the strength, grace, and dignity of the American people. From a small volunteer force of citizen farmers, he created the Continental Army out of nothing and rallied them to stand against the most powerful military on earth. Through eight long years, through the brutal winter at Valley Forge, through setback after setback on the field of battle, he led those patriots to ultimate triumph. When the army had dwindled to a few thousand men at Christmas of 1776, when defeat seemed absolutely certain, he took what remained of his forces on a daring nighttime crossing of the Delaware River. They marched through nine miles of frigid darkness, many without boots on their feet, leaving a trail of blood in the snow. In the morning, they seized victory at Trenton after forcing the surrender of the most powerful empire on the planet at Yorktown, General Washington did not claim power but simply returned to Mount Vernon as a private citizen.)

(When called upon again, he presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and was unanimously elected our first president. When he stepped down after two terms, his former adversary, King George called him the greatest man of the age. He remains first in our hearts to this day, for as long as Americans love this land, we will honor and cherish the father of our country, George Washington. He will never be removed, abolished, and most of all, he will never be forgotten. Thomas Jefferson, the great Thomas Jefferson, was 33 years old when he traveled north to Pennsylvania and brilliantly authored one of the greatest treasures of human history, the Declaration of Independence. He also drafted Virginia’s constitution and conceived and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a model for our cherished First Amendment. After serving as the first Secretary of State, and then Vice President, he was elected to the presidency. He ordered American warriors to crush Barbary pirates. He doubled the size of our nation with the Louisiana Purchase and he sent the famous explorers Lewis and Clark into the west on a daring expedition to the Pacific Ocean. He was an architect, an inventor, a diplomat, a scholar, the founder of one of the world’s great universities and an ardent defender of liberty. Americans will forever admire the author of American freedom, Thomas Jefferson, and he too will never, ever be abandoned by us.)

Donald Trump: (4:26:32)

(Abraham Lincoln, the savior of our union, was a self-taught country lawyer who grew up in a log cabin on the American frontier. The first Republican president, he rose to high office from obscurity based on a force and clarity of his anti-slavery convictions. Very, very strong convictions. He signed the law that built the Trans-Continental Railroad. He signed the Homestead Act given to some incredible scholars as simply defined ordinary citizens free land to settle anywhere in the American West, and he led the country through the darkest hours of American history, giving every ounce of strength that he had to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from this earth. He served as commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces during our bloodiest war, the struggle that saved our union and extinguished the evil of slavery. Over 600,000 died in that war, more than 20, 000 were killed or wounded in a single day in Antietam. At Gettysburg 157 years ago, the Union bravely withstood an assault of nearly 15,000 men and threw back Pickett’s Charge. Lincoln won the Civil War. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation. He led the passage of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery for all-time and ultimately his determination to preserve our nation and our union cost him his life. For as long as we live, Americans will uphold and revere the immortal memory of President Abraham Lincoln.)

Donald Trump: (4:29:28)

(Theodore Roosevelt exemplified the unbridled confidence of our national culture and identity. He saw the towering grandeur of America’s mission in the world and he pursued it with overwhelming energy and zeal. As a Lieutenant Colonel during the Spanish-American War, he led the famous Rough Riders to defeat the enemy at San Juan Hill. He cleaned up corruption as police commissioner of New York City, then served as the Governor of New York, Vice President, and at 42 years old, became the youngest ever President of the United States.)

(He sent our great new naval fleet around the globe to announce America’s arrival as a world power. He gave us many of our national parks, including the Grand Canyon. He oversaw the construction of the awe-inspiring Panama Canal and he is the only person ever awarded both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was American freedom personified in full. The American people will never relinquish the bold, beautiful and untamed spirit of Theodore Roosevelt.)

Donald Trump: (4:31:22)

No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can possibly have a love of America at its heart. Can’t happen. No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.

>>>

The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice, but in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of a repression, domination, and exclusion. They want to silence us, but we will not be silenced.

<<<

Donald Trump: (4:32:59)

(We will state the truth in full without apology. We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on earth. We are proud of the fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and we understand that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world. We know that the American family is the bedrock of American life. We recognize the solemn right and moral duty of every nation to secure its borders and we are building the wall. We remember that governments exist to protect the safety and happiness of their own people. A nation must care for its own citizens first. We must take care of America first. It’s time. We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion and creed. Every child of every color, born and unborn, is made in the holy image of God.)

Donald Trump: (4:35:07)

>>>

We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture. We embrace tolerance, not prejudice. We support the courageous men and women of law enforcement.

<<<

(We will never abolish our police or our great Second Amendment which gives us the right to keep and bear arms. We believe that our children should be taught to love their country, honor their history, and respect our great American flag. We stand tall, we stand proud, and we only kneel to Almighty God. This is who we are. This is what we believe and these are the values that will guide us as we strive to build an even better and greater future. Those who seek to erase our heritage want Americans to forget our pride and our great dignity so that we can no longer understand ourselves or America’s destiny. In toppling the heroes of 1776, they seek to dissolve the bonds of love and loyalty that we feel for our country and that we feel for each other. Their goal is not a better America, their goal is to end America.)

Donald Trump: (4:37:07)

(In its place, they want power for themselves, but just as patriots did in centuries past, the American people will stand in their way and we will win and win quickly and with great dignity. We will never let them rip America’s heroes from our monuments or from our hearts. By tearing down Washington and Jefferson, these radicals would tear down the very heritage for which men gave their lives to win the Civil War, they would erase the memory that inspired those soldiers to go to their deaths, singing these words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, “As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on.” They would tear down the principles that propelled the abolition of slavery and ultimately around the world ending an evil institution that had plagued humanity for thousands and thousands of years. Our opponents would tear apart the very documents that Martin Luther King used to express his dream and the ideas that were the foundation of the righteous movement for Civil Rights. They would tear down the beliefs, culture and identity, that have made America the most vibrant and tolerant society in the history of the earth. My fellow Americans, it is time to speak up loudly and strongly and powerfully and defend the integrity of our country.)

Donald Trump: (4:39:45)

It is time for our politicians to summon the bravery and determination of our American ancestors. It is time. It is time to plant our flag and to protect the greatest of this nation for citizens of every race in every city in every part of this glorious land. For the sake of our honor, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our union, we must protect and preserve our history, our heritage, and our great heroes. Here tonight before the eyes of our forefathers, Americans declare again, as we did 244 years ago, that we will not be tyrannized, we will not be demeaned, and we will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will not happen.

Donald Trump: (4:41:15)

We will proclaim the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and we will never surrender the spirit and the courage and the cause of July 4, 1776. Upon this ground, we will stand firm and unwavering. In the face of lies meant to divide us, demoralize us and diminish us, we will show that the story of America unites us, inspires us, includes us all, and makes everyone free. We must demand that our children are taught once again to see America as did Reverend Martin Luther King when he said that the founders had signed a promissory note to every future generation. Dr. King saw that the mission of justice required us to fully embrace our founding ideals. Those ideals are so important to us, the founding ideals.

Donald Trump: (4:42:25)

He called on his fellow citizens not to rip down their heritage, but to live up to their heritage.

(Above all, our children from every community must be taught that to be American is to inherit the spirit of the most adventurous and confident people ever to walk the face of the Earth. Americans are the people who pursued our Manifest Destiny across the ocean, into the uncharted wilderness, over the tallest mountains, and then into the skies, and even into the stars.)

...

Appendix B

examples of feminizm & sjw

PragerU https://www.youtube.com/c/prageruniversity/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCnhD9X7FkI Ricky Gervais: Censoring Speech Is Dangerous

very good example summing in maximally shortness

Joy Villa https://www.youtube.com/c/missjoyvilla/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEJ1jc1tPLg Joy Villa Destroys Leftists On Diversity At Congress

fantastic example of t "tolerant and inclusive left", tolerant to likethink that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_Debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker

CBC News https://www.youtube.com/c/CBCNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-erKC_TT9dQ Canadian professor signs open letter criticizing cancel culture

Foundation for Economic Education https://www.youtube.com/c/FEEonline/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU_6b0Wpx08 Cancel Culture: Is This Face Funny or Offensive?

a bit more lengthy example, but has a good breadth

https://academicrightswatch.com/?page_id=41 About Academic Rights Watch

Academic Rights Watch https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGgAv9PMUFkufLdXXR0zHYw/videos

https://freespeechunion.org/ UK organization headquartered in London.

Dose of Truth https://www.youtube.com/c/DoseofTruth/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PopRzt9jtao What will Happen to SJW courses at Universities - Jordan Peterson

extremely good point of having fiduciary duty of teaching institutions to truth and education objectively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

The Rubin Report https://www.youtube.com/c/RubinReport/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jlr1PTijQU Scientists Forced To Take Woke Pledges To Get Funding (Pt. 1) | Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics

Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9x6Qx_zYmk What are identity politics?

tmcleanful https://www.youtube.com/user/tmcleanful/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIOX1hVRE8Y Jordan Peterson - Social Justice Textbook Stuns Wilfrid Laurier Professors

Big Think https://www.youtube.com/c/bigthink/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzqxjx5pgJI Men vs. women: Why we’re imagining equality all wrong | Heather Heying | Big Think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCiUx6K05vQ How is diversity being weaponized? | Heather Heying | Big Think

extremely good point! that diversity is in the content of ones character, in ones mind, and "... that diversity for the countable phenotypic characteristics should not be the highest goal."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-_yIhW9Ias There are two kinds of identity politics. One is good. The other, very bad. | Jonathan Haidt

Gravitahn https://www.youtube.com/c/Gravitahn/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwJ0DYsBZfw Identity Politics is Narcissism - author Joanna Williams at the Battle of Ideas

PragerU https://www.youtube.com/c/prageruniversity/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJwUBzjNXL4 Intersectionality: Disney Writer vs. Ben Shapiro

Modern Wisdom https://www.youtube.com/c/ModernWisdomPodcast/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77cRo6Vw8NA Chris Williamson Confesses To Douglas Murray About Sargon Of Akkad Episode

very good example explaining how this sort of "mass-hysteria" can be explained on an individual level

Teal Swan https://www.youtube.com/c/TealSwanOfficial/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV3bTXDOMlM What is Cancel Culture (And How It Works)

extremely good explaining example, including and covering many nuances, (however, the description/remarks on millenials being made powerless and betrayed I have no idea whatsoever about, first time hearing and seems like nonsense. ah, ok, watched video, it might be bad economics, which I very luckily was sheltered from.)

affair, 2015, Tim Hunt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt

Rebel News https://www.youtube.com/c/RebelMediaTV/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IhYhXkxEw0 The resignation of Sir Timothy Hunt: Can't feminists take a joke?

“It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”

( FRANCE 24 English https://www.youtube.com/c/FRANCE24English/videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnT1R30bjnw British Nobel Laureate under fire for sexist comments #The51Percent )

affair, 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, of Wilfrid Laurier University (in Waterloo, Ontario)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd

CISAus https://www.youtube.com/user/CISAus/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdnSweR7F0Q Have We All Gone Mad? The Snowflake Epidemic

[haven't seen all, only first 15m] first 10m good example

CBC News https://www.youtube.com/c/CBCNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81f748gBaTs Teaching assistant reacts after Wilfrid Laurier University president promises change

parallels my example very well in key aspects. notice t outrage in t comments.

theblur https://www.youtube.com/user/theblur/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsDFS5t4Gc Full conversation, Lindsay Shepherd, Wilfrid Laurier University

in t case of Lindsay Shepherd and Wilfrid Laurier University, some key phrases/words and overall rhetoric/situation very similar to my case. ~25m inappropriate for younger students - because they haven't been properly indoctrinated yet! ~29m-30:30 he finds that view impossible - while himself at that very moment making it reality, hilarious.

affair, 2020, William A. Jacobson, of Cornell Law School, of Cornell University (in Ithaca, New York)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Jacobson

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-is-meant-to-silence-the-people-who-dont-have-protection-who-dont-have-power-who-dont-have-a-platform/

strong example with good explanation from someone with authority

"reasons" motivating cancel-culture in this case, truth is not allowed if going against "party" line:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/reminder-hands-up-dont-shoot-is-a-fabricated-narrative-from-the-michael-brown-case/

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/the-bloodletting-and-wilding-is-part-of-an-agenda-to-tear-down-the-country/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/cancel-culture-william-jacobson ( https://www.foxnews.com/media/cornell-law-school-professor-black-lives-matter )

Legal Insurrection https://www.youtube.com/user/legalinsurrection/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2otPpnNL_fI Black Lives Matter and Cancel Culture

(same video interview but on YT)

Chicago's Morning Answer https://www.youtube.com/c/ChicagosMorningAnswer/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2_V-YhOQw William Jacobson: Cancel Culture Is Real

(0:00-3:10 cancel-culture self-defence example) ~3:10 interview with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Jacobson about his cancel culture incident

affair, 2017, Bret Weinstein, of the Evergreen State College (in Olympia, Washington)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein

VICE News https://www.youtube.com/c/VICENews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM Campus Argument Goes Viral As Evergreen State Is Caught In Racial Turmoil (HBO)

Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU5_T9uIE2o Prof: Country is being put in danger by identity politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettina_Arndt#Men's_rights_activism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer#Me_Too_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Hartley-Brewer

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-rcgp-s-ridiculous-decision-to-no-platform-me

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/31/royal-college-of-gps-cancels-julia-hartley-brewer-invitation

Guardian News https://www.youtube.com/c/guardianwires/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM Barack Obama takes on 'woke' call-out culture: 'That's not activism'

CNN https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cA3D_GkNcc Barack Obama has a message about being politically woke

affair, 2017, James Damore, Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber

We the Internet TV https://www.youtube.com/c/WeTheInternetTV/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siRG42yMpyc Sex, Gender and Bullshit Part 1: Dr. Debra Soh on James Damore and the Google Memo

Jordan B Peterson https://www.youtube.com/c/JordanPetersonVideos/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0 Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate

17:45-24:00, Jordan Peterson, very good, but more advanced explanation. example. (30:22-36:30, Stephen Fry, wow, what an amazing philosophy and speech!)

Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB-33khQDG0 Jordan Peterson: The Left's new public enemy No. 1

VERY good short summary and example

Real Time with Bill Maher https://www.youtube.com/user/RealTime/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKW3vKpPrlw Jonathan Haidt The Coddling of the American Mind

good example, giving some explanatory background, starting with 1995 born growing up without physical interaction, but instead only through devices, together with overprotective parents, never creates tolerance to surroundings. letting kids take over, no more respect to elders, another staple of t free western world.

CBS Sunday Morning https://www.youtube.com/user/CBSSundayMorning/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrjyZ7KJXL8 War over free speech on campus

from MSM even, hence very toned down language and rhetoric, but nonetheless reporting t same phenomenon.

Fox News https://www.youtube.com/c/FoxNews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2hodc73nVc Gutfeld on the cancel culture takedown

example of how t CoFzm&sjw doesn't think all women should be celebrated and goes after even child women/girls for not aligning with Party interest of being against Patriarchy

Larry Elder with Epoch Times https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZmkvHLQu76lYbW1w9FoGzQ/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkmSr6S0HD4 Larry Elder Speaks at Washington D.C. | BLEXIT: BACK THE BLUE | Larry Elder

PREACH! excellent example of what is going on through a fantastic inspirational speech!

Karlyn Borysenko https://www.youtube.com/c/DrKarlynBorysenko/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcbybcWeLKA Former social justice warrior Keri Smith explains why social justice is just about power and control

an actual former "social justice warrior, sjw" gives a good example, insight into some of behaviour and t underlying psychology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogCnsDtPjz0 Former social justice warrior Keri Smith explains what social justice ideology is.

good example of one aspect

full here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZmt0qIfeAc Live convo with a former social justice warrior Keri Smith about the cult of SJW

Sky News Australia https://www.youtube.com/user/SkyNewsAustralia/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MccCsSuU0 Cancelling 'Cancel Culture': The rise and fall of the ‘wokerati’

a reportage that is not bad, on t whole quite good, but somewhat dilute and vague

DistroTube https://www.youtube.com/c/DistroTube/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8TcBeltvk4 Cancel Culture and Safe Spaces Destroying Linux

being a Trump supporter enough to be deplatformed, example of how ridiculous levels cancel-culture has reached

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adqr4Bp5pqM 'Blexit' designed to encourage black Americans to reject the 'lunacy of the left'

good example, second interviewee, Arielle Scarcella, branded as a transphobe (-phobe being a very strong accusation of being hateful), she is a lesbian woman, who has as partner preference of fully woman, no maleness (including fully transitioned women who "pass" as female), but specifically not women who haven't transitioned fully, who are according to dogma, are fully equivalent in every way to a woman, if they "identify as such", hence t branding

ContraPoints https://www.youtube.com/c/ContraPoints/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjMPJVmXxV8 Canceling | ContraPoints

a REALLY deep dive, first ~20 minutes illustrate very well.

The Hill https://www.youtube.com/c/thehill/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V6ysnwf5bc Krystal interviews Contrapoints on her blockbuster cancel culture video

Lindsay Shepherd https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTjxmzChimJa3X_rAgLAnxg/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y7Dkz3Ezjg DIVERSITY OFFICES

part of an explanation why - because there are people making huge amounts of money off of it. this is just t feminization beurocrats, imagine t feminization or Gender "science/research" institutions at universities! all these people have a huge vested interest in perpetuating t reason for their existence, like Camille Paglia said, they exist because universities panicked by public outcry of lack of gender balance and so hastily appointed a bunch of people to do research on that, but not natural scientists nor biologists. so this self-perpetuation of a really unnecessary existence, is identical to cancer. studies on how society becomes feminized, turned into also aggressively accelerating, advocating and driving feminization, maybe partly to secure our livelyhood, maybe partly ideological, maybe partly other reasons.

Affair, 2020, SeitanFoods, Sweden

(https://www.seitanfoods.se/omoss.html changed)

https://web.archive.org/web/20200626130128/https://www.seitanfoods.se/omoss.html?submenu_id=-1

https://web.archive.org/web/20200626130015/https://www.seitanfoods.se/nysida-ky4c.html?submenu_id=-1

https://web.archive.org/web/20200808061521/https://www.seitanfoods.se/privatkundinfo.html?submenu_id=-1

https://tidningensyre.se/2020/12-juni/seitanfoods-vd-om-rasistiska-inlagg-jag-fick-hjarnslapp/

https://www.breakit.se/artikel/25347/snabbvaxande-vego-bolaget-seitanfoods-lagger-ner-efter-skandal-trott-pa-hela-skiten

Exakt24 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1ctfAwpQaeHk5CEOATJlQ/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjaNnGQkZzk Hatstorm mot veganföretagare – ville stoppa hatet mot vita

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeFLLUEb2fo Veganföretagare: Företag idag måste vara PK

Additional unsorted examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIpHxF7B-UQ Advocate for Women's Rights, says a dating app hurts her feelings because she doesn't get dates.

perfect example of a couple highly hypocritical thought processes, by highly educated individuals, being a professor and a COO

Voltaire https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYQlj5ERJzCylETSZlRUECQ/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Z-lSjrPh8 Feminist Is Triggered That Men Won't Date Her

Shaw Community Link https://www.youtube.com/c/ShawCommunityLink/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLcR-ijA_U Sitting with Sallie guest Treena Orchard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ1YYz4vSfY Tucker: Political violence is an attack on America itself

very good summary (example) and commentary analysis

Fox News https://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHlNfpni6oM Ingraham: The war against men

very good summary (example) and commentary analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ed7RHQM6UE Gutfeld: When will cancel culture end?

example of questionable behaviour

Sky News Australia https://www.youtube.com/user/SkyNewsAustralia/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9qN4a-IYU4 Feminism 'has absolutely gone off the rails': Arndt

Bettina Arndt, great example of sjw culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf4kDHpFv9k No one 'will dare speak' if 'cancel culture' continues

a smaller list of examples people affected: Bettina Arndt, Germaine Greer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phB9_kjo4w4 Australia has gone ‘too far’ in the ‘culture and identity wars’: Bernardi

example, listen especially to what Catherine McGregor (born male now female) says 3:10 and onward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGSQkPrWAXs Americans 'beginning to turn against' the Black Lives Matter movement

one who dares to counter in t opposite direction. take note of t feminization proponent wanting destruction of t traditional nuclear family.

Family Policy Institute of Washington https://www.youtube.com/c/FPIWASH/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho Gender Identity: Can a 5'9, White Guy Be a 6'5, Chinese Woman?

from 2016. good example of what attitudes are possible (probably cherry picked in video though, but besides t point)

Modern Wisdom https://www.youtube.com/c/ModernWisdomPodcast/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgaUjH-kJ0 Douglas Murray - Modern Society Is In Denial

has some very good points, and good motivation why, that there are no goals. example

SC Reviews https://www.youtube.com/c/SCReviews/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6oKLEzsULU George RR Martin EXPOSES SJW Stupidity (PC Cancel Culture Gone Mad)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdnkBBnl3DU John Cleese Calls Out PC CULTURE And WOKE Comedy (CANCEL CULTURE)

example of how cancel culture affects comedians, and how comedians of all polical spectrums agree

Affair, 2018, Germund Hesslow

http://academicrightswatch.se/?p=3413 Lundalärare pressad efter studentprotest: föreläste om biologiska könsskillnader

http://academicrightswatch.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/KommentarStudentKritik.pdf

http://academicrightswatch.se/?p=3502 Efter Hesslow-affären: Medicinska fakulteten kräver ”korrekt” genusterminologi på läkarutbildningen

" Det är, för övrigt, inte rimligt att diskrimineringslagen eller annan lag, som stiftats av svenska folkets representanter i riksdagen och alltså är en konstruktion på politisk nivå, ska avgöra vilken terminologi en professor ska använda i sin undervisning om den biologiska grunden bakom könsskillnader. Vetenskapen ska kunna gå emot den allmänna uppfattningen i olika frågor för att, om så krävs, korrigera denna. Att invända mot Hesslows vetenskapliga ståndpunkt i frågan om transsexualitetens natur med lagbok i hand visar således på ett ovanligt djupt intellektuellt haveri." -ARW 2018-11-09

http://academicrightswatch.se/?p=3458 Omvärlden häpnar över Hesslow-affären: ”framstående intellektuell tystas”

"Den som följt ARW:s bevakning av högskoleutredningar vet att dessa inte karakteriseras av överdriven objektivitet, utan lätt urartar till ”utredningsövergrepp”, där utredningen styrs och blir en del av ledningens maktutövning. Blott det faktum att lärare utreds för allt möjligt har en dämpande effekt på undervisningen. Vem vill undervisa om saker som någon student kan tänkas invända mot om det kan leda till att man utreds? Här finns också en risk för ett sluttande plan där allt fler utreds för allt mer diffusa anklagelser." -ARW 2018-09-28

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-20/transphobic-swedish-professor-may-lose-job-after-noting-biological-differences

"Transphobic" Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes