This is a continuation of Part 5, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.
White Women, Come Get Your People
In Part 5 we see how, in response to the phrase "lead, follow, or get out of the way", colored women are upset because white women didn't follow or get out of the way, but instead voted without considering how the rest of "the sisterhood" would be affected, selfishly choosing both politicians and sexual partners that were also white so that they could "monopolize resources" instead of being "good women" and doing their part to help colored women in the "Demographic War" against white people and the patriarchal systems that they create.
I said that there were some more scandalous discoveries in the study beyond the fact that white women may vote based on what looks to be a better deal white women than for all of women, and the article doesn't disappoint.
In the study, white women who agreed that “many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as sexist” were 17 percent more likely to vote for a Republican candidate. They were also likely to agree that “blacks should work their way up without special favors.” To be sure, women of color aren’t inherently less sexist or even without their own racial biases. But unlike white women, they can’t use race privilege to their advantage.
White woman who thought that other women overreacted to innocent statements were 17% more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who probably didn't campaign on promising perpetual victims that the government will, by force, right all the wrongs in the world and bring justice to all wrongs, whether real or imagined. What a complete shocker.
White women who worked hard to achieve their position in life don't think that, simply because someone belongs to a different race, members of those other races should be able to circumvent the hard work and skip straight to enjoying the fruits of hard labor.
The "race privilege" is simply that because white women are white, men who are also white are likely to favor white women, and since white men are both the most powerful entities in the world, and the greatest evil, when white women do something that white men approve of, it must also have been evil and so white women should never do anything that white men would approve of otherwise they'll be "gender traitors", betraying colored women in the "Demographic War".
If you think that is complex, that's on purpose, because in greater complexity it is easier to hide the raw and unvarnished truths which, if actually seen and understood, would make all the whining and crying appear just like the childish tantrum it really is.
White women have "racial privilege" because white men want white women and white children, instead of colored women and mixed-race children. Because white men want to have white kids, they're racist, and white women helping them out with that are traitors. Identity politics, all the way down.
The article continues.
This blood pact between white men and white women is at issue in the
November midterms. President Trump knows it, and at that Tuesday news
conference, he signaled to white women to hold the line: “The people
that have complained to me about it the most about what’s happening are
women. Women are very angry,” he said. “I have men that don’t like it,
but I have women that are incensed at what’s going on.”
White women are waking up to the fact that colored women don't want them to have anything they can't have, which on a global scale, includes running water and consistent access to food. When people immigrate and do not assimilate, they simply recreate what they left behind where they now live. Instead of being called an invasion, this was called "diversity and inclusion", touted as being "good for the country".
Think about that. It's good for the country that people move into the country who do not like what the country is and want to recreate pockets of the countries they were escaping or leaving behind. This is not that much different than saying cancer is good for you because, despite the cancer being different, embracing diversity is more important!
When pockets of immigrants vote as a group based on their interests, that isn't racist, but when 53% of white women vote based on their interests, that's racist.
In addition, white women were waking up to the fact that colored men had no interest in "cherishing and revering" them, or working to their "mutual benefit". The statistics out of the minority communities show that when women are dominant, colored men don't keep working towards a "mutual benefit", but will instead seek to maximize their own interests at the cost of their partners and their offspring.
Not only was that the case, but colored women were touting the "new system" where men were little more than disposable whores kept around for entertainment and slave labor while women "got to" take on all the responsibilities of men, and the government would happily then take over for all the responsibilities of the woman and raise any children she decided to let live, because the government would also happily kill off any accidental or unwanted pregnancies without any questions asked.
I mean, put like this, it should be a little startling that it was only 53% of white women, but I digress.
White women saw what was at stake, and decided that it wasn't worth giving up everything so that other women could have something they didn't deserve, and now all the women who sought to gain everything the white women had are upset because now they won't get something they didn't deserve.
Like a husband, a family, and resources and being "cherished and revered".
Remember, the author is saying the problem lies with the women who aren't giving up what they have, not with those who won't try to obtain it for themselves legitimately.
There's not much left of the article but we'll pick it up again in Part 7.
Showing posts with label Demographic War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demographic War. Show all posts
12.10.18
Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 5
This is a continuation of Part 4, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.
White Women, Come Get Your People
As of the end of Part 4, we've discussed how the "sides" of the conflict for which white women can be "gender traitors" is at least applicable to the "Demographic War", where because white women marry and have children with white men, and those white men "cherish and revere" their wives and work towards a "mutual benefit", white women have sold out their loyalty to colored women who are trying to achieve the exact same thing but aren't as successful despite the "white race" being only about 16% of the world population.
Because of this, white women should stop marrying white men and having white babies because that supports the patriarchy that is denying "basic rights" in exchange for food, shelter, and companionship. Also, telling your daughters to dress modestly supports the patriarchy as well.
Now, instead of waging war for their own "side", the author has instead sough to discourage is dismantle the ability for "the patriarchy" to "fight back" through having children. The first method was to make even the desire to see your specific race continue to exist racist, a sign of racial supremacy, despite every other race holding the same exact priorities.
The article continues in this vein.
Recently, Ms. Conway even weaponized her own alleged sexual assault in service to her boss by discouraging women from feeling empathy with Christine Blasey Ford or anger at Judge Kavanaugh.
Ms. Conway knows that a woman who steps out of line may be ridiculed by the president himself. President Trump mocked Dr. Blasey in front of a cheering crowd on Tuesday evening. Betray the patriarchy and your whiteness won’t save you.
The pedestal is a superior, if precarious, place. For white women, it’s apparently better than being “stronger together,” with the 94 percent of black women and 86 percent of Latinas who voted for Hillary Clinton.
A white woman who tells a truth that interrupts the story, which may or may not be true, from being believed and acted upon, is "weaponizing" her own experiences in favor of "the patriarchy".
A white woman who knows that there are consequences for lying and deceit which go beyond skin color, and trying to explain that the legal system doesn't care about your race is anything but helpful.
A white woman decided not to go along with the colored women who voted for Hillary because she also had a vagina and promised them free resources instead of the patriarchal white guy who didn't have a vagina and wanted to empower people to break the cycle of victimization instead of just getting free stuff without having to work for it.
How does this relate to the "Demographic War"? Well, remember, the losers don't want to stop losing, so they have to get the "winners" to not want to "win". What do I mean by that?
White women don't have as many abortions as black or Hispanic women, at least according to this chart. When looked at as a nation though, white women account for 51% of the abortions obtained legally. Why the disparity between the different sources of data? Because there are more white women to begin with, so while a lower % rate of white women get abortions, because there are more of them in the country, the raw number of abortions will be higher.
The "problem" though is that the number simply isn't high enough to make a big shift in the demographics, and so white women still hold more political power than colored women, even if the entirety of colored women all vote the same way, and even the author earlier noted that only 53% of white women voted for Trump.
So the only way for the colored women to achieve their political priorities that are in conflict with the "gender traitors" is to get more white women to vote the way they do, or to remove white men and women from the political process altogether, and the least bloody way to do that is by having fewer of them want to continue existing or to have children.
Look at the articles encouraging childlessness. Look at the suicide rates. None of it is an accident.
Especially with the author who, as I've said before, hasn't been able to participate in the "War" for "her side", if she can at least discourage folks on the "other side", or perhaps recruit them to "her side", then she'll have done her part in contributing to the "war effort".
Let's continue with the article just a bit more for this part.
During the 2016 presidential election, did white women really vote with their whiteness in mind? Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., recently measured the effect of racial identity on white women’s willingness to support Trump in 2016 and found a positive and statistically significant relationship. So white women who voted for him did so to prop up their whiteness.
Notice how every study cited by the article so far was conducted by a woman?
Notice how the only reason the 53% of women who voted for Trumop could have done so was to "prop up their whiteness"? That no other reason is worth mentioning or is valid for the discussion at hand, and that correlation is said to be the same as causation?
That because there is a positive relationship between identity and voting, there is a causal effect, and it only exists for white people? That nobody else is voting based on identity, whether racial, sexual, or gender-based, it's only the white women who are doing it and when they do it it's wrong?
In the theme of "disarm your enemy", it's quite the clever trick to say someone else is somehow wrong for doing something that you are also doing, and then find some external variable you can pin it on to pretend like you aren't being a hypocrite.
In Part 6, we'll delve into other findings from that study that the author finds equally reprehensible and you aren't supposed to ask what the implications of such things being reprehensible are.
White Women, Come Get Your People
As of the end of Part 4, we've discussed how the "sides" of the conflict for which white women can be "gender traitors" is at least applicable to the "Demographic War", where because white women marry and have children with white men, and those white men "cherish and revere" their wives and work towards a "mutual benefit", white women have sold out their loyalty to colored women who are trying to achieve the exact same thing but aren't as successful despite the "white race" being only about 16% of the world population.
Because of this, white women should stop marrying white men and having white babies because that supports the patriarchy that is denying "basic rights" in exchange for food, shelter, and companionship. Also, telling your daughters to dress modestly supports the patriarchy as well.
Now, instead of waging war for their own "side", the author has instead sough to discourage is dismantle the ability for "the patriarchy" to "fight back" through having children. The first method was to make even the desire to see your specific race continue to exist racist, a sign of racial supremacy, despite every other race holding the same exact priorities.
The article continues in this vein.
Recently, Ms. Conway even weaponized her own alleged sexual assault in service to her boss by discouraging women from feeling empathy with Christine Blasey Ford or anger at Judge Kavanaugh.
Ms. Conway knows that a woman who steps out of line may be ridiculed by the president himself. President Trump mocked Dr. Blasey in front of a cheering crowd on Tuesday evening. Betray the patriarchy and your whiteness won’t save you.
The pedestal is a superior, if precarious, place. For white women, it’s apparently better than being “stronger together,” with the 94 percent of black women and 86 percent of Latinas who voted for Hillary Clinton.
A white woman who tells a truth that interrupts the story, which may or may not be true, from being believed and acted upon, is "weaponizing" her own experiences in favor of "the patriarchy".
A white woman who knows that there are consequences for lying and deceit which go beyond skin color, and trying to explain that the legal system doesn't care about your race is anything but helpful.
A white woman decided not to go along with the colored women who voted for Hillary because she also had a vagina and promised them free resources instead of the patriarchal white guy who didn't have a vagina and wanted to empower people to break the cycle of victimization instead of just getting free stuff without having to work for it.
How does this relate to the "Demographic War"? Well, remember, the losers don't want to stop losing, so they have to get the "winners" to not want to "win". What do I mean by that?
White women don't have as many abortions as black or Hispanic women, at least according to this chart. When looked at as a nation though, white women account for 51% of the abortions obtained legally. Why the disparity between the different sources of data? Because there are more white women to begin with, so while a lower % rate of white women get abortions, because there are more of them in the country, the raw number of abortions will be higher.
The "problem" though is that the number simply isn't high enough to make a big shift in the demographics, and so white women still hold more political power than colored women, even if the entirety of colored women all vote the same way, and even the author earlier noted that only 53% of white women voted for Trump.
So the only way for the colored women to achieve their political priorities that are in conflict with the "gender traitors" is to get more white women to vote the way they do, or to remove white men and women from the political process altogether, and the least bloody way to do that is by having fewer of them want to continue existing or to have children.
Look at the articles encouraging childlessness. Look at the suicide rates. None of it is an accident.
Especially with the author who, as I've said before, hasn't been able to participate in the "War" for "her side", if she can at least discourage folks on the "other side", or perhaps recruit them to "her side", then she'll have done her part in contributing to the "war effort".
Let's continue with the article just a bit more for this part.
During the 2016 presidential election, did white women really vote with their whiteness in mind? Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., recently measured the effect of racial identity on white women’s willingness to support Trump in 2016 and found a positive and statistically significant relationship. So white women who voted for him did so to prop up their whiteness.
Notice how every study cited by the article so far was conducted by a woman?
Notice how the only reason the 53% of women who voted for Trumop could have done so was to "prop up their whiteness"? That no other reason is worth mentioning or is valid for the discussion at hand, and that correlation is said to be the same as causation?
That because there is a positive relationship between identity and voting, there is a causal effect, and it only exists for white people? That nobody else is voting based on identity, whether racial, sexual, or gender-based, it's only the white women who are doing it and when they do it it's wrong?
In the theme of "disarm your enemy", it's quite the clever trick to say someone else is somehow wrong for doing something that you are also doing, and then find some external variable you can pin it on to pretend like you aren't being a hypocrite.
In Part 6, we'll delve into other findings from that study that the author finds equally reprehensible and you aren't supposed to ask what the implications of such things being reprehensible are.
Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 4
This is a continuation of Part 3, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.
White Women, Come Get Your People
In Part 3 I highlighted how, according to the author of the article, the "problem" the author sees is both a race issue and gender issue. It is a race and gender issue in that white women are trading "basic rights" for "mutual benefit" and being "cherished and revered" by white men, and that's a bad thing because it interferes with the political goals of colored women who want to dress slutty and vote for Democrats who will take money away from white men to give to everyone instead of letting white women "monopolize resources" of those white men.
I also noted that, while appearing to be about "white women", the article is also revealing much more about the author herself, in that the motivations for her castigation of white women has a lot less to do with "colored women" and a lot more to do with the specific life circumstances of the author herself. This is seen in how things which are normal and healthy in a family dynamic are painted as being indicators of something wrong.
Before I continue, I want to cite a verse that is pertinent:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 (NKJV)
It is not innocent when things that are "good" are called "evil".
Let's continue with the article.
This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.
So here we have a formal identification of at least some sort of conflict with "sides", in that we've got a bit more of a definition to "patriarchy". The "Demographic Wars" are fought with reproduction, with those that actually reproduce and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well and so on and so forth, will be the one that "wins" these "Demographic Wars".
That's called "basic survival", by the way. The author is literally trying to make basic survival of white people into some sort of oppressive act on everyone else in the world. The dynamic of natural selection is now being accredited to "white men", or at least "the patriarchy", as something they're responsible for putting into place and sustaining, to the detriment of all non-whites.
Well, if you take the gendered labels for God into account, that doesn't sound quite so crazy, does it? If God were masculine, and God set things in a particular order, and you think there's something wrong with that order, and you aren't masculine, would it be a surprise that masculinity would then become "toxic" to your efforts to undermine the current order and put a new one in its place?
But let's step down from the supernatural narrative though, take the fancy language out of this, and just look at the basics. A woman is upset at other women for having babies and protecting themselves from danger with men who are of the same skin color.
Put any other race into the mix, and nobody bats an eye. But when it's "white people"?
Saying things like "white people should be able to exist and their children not live in fear" is considered supremacist, if you didn't know.
Seriously. I just re-worded the "14 Words" that supposedly only white supremacists dare recite, which are:
We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
That's the state of modern "white supremacy", the most terrible form of racism that exists in the world. Existing and having white children, and wanting your white children to have a future, means you're a white supremacist. That's the "Demographic War". That white people, who do not constitute a majority of the world population, want to exist and have children, and so white women are betraying colored women in this "Demographic War" by marrying white men, monopolizing resources, and having white babies.
Because, you know, women are supposed to stick up for other women before their own interests otherwise they might get kicked out of the group and have to eat their lunch somewhere else.
Welcome to the front lines of a cold war few had idea they were always a part of. A war that the author of the article is losing, by the way, because she has no partner to help her bear children. So, instead of trying to find one, she'll instead try to discourage white women from "fighting" in the "Demographic War" to begin with, by making the existence and having children that look like you "supremacist", and subsequently, "evil".
We'll see what other methods the author thinks can work to upset the "supply lines" in Part 5.
White Women, Come Get Your People
In Part 3 I highlighted how, according to the author of the article, the "problem" the author sees is both a race issue and gender issue. It is a race and gender issue in that white women are trading "basic rights" for "mutual benefit" and being "cherished and revered" by white men, and that's a bad thing because it interferes with the political goals of colored women who want to dress slutty and vote for Democrats who will take money away from white men to give to everyone instead of letting white women "monopolize resources" of those white men.
I also noted that, while appearing to be about "white women", the article is also revealing much more about the author herself, in that the motivations for her castigation of white women has a lot less to do with "colored women" and a lot more to do with the specific life circumstances of the author herself. This is seen in how things which are normal and healthy in a family dynamic are painted as being indicators of something wrong.
Before I continue, I want to cite a verse that is pertinent:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 (NKJV)
It is not innocent when things that are "good" are called "evil".
Let's continue with the article.
This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.
So here we have a formal identification of at least some sort of conflict with "sides", in that we've got a bit more of a definition to "patriarchy". The "Demographic Wars" are fought with reproduction, with those that actually reproduce and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well and so on and so forth, will be the one that "wins" these "Demographic Wars".
That's called "basic survival", by the way. The author is literally trying to make basic survival of white people into some sort of oppressive act on everyone else in the world. The dynamic of natural selection is now being accredited to "white men", or at least "the patriarchy", as something they're responsible for putting into place and sustaining, to the detriment of all non-whites.
Well, if you take the gendered labels for God into account, that doesn't sound quite so crazy, does it? If God were masculine, and God set things in a particular order, and you think there's something wrong with that order, and you aren't masculine, would it be a surprise that masculinity would then become "toxic" to your efforts to undermine the current order and put a new one in its place?
But let's step down from the supernatural narrative though, take the fancy language out of this, and just look at the basics. A woman is upset at other women for having babies and protecting themselves from danger with men who are of the same skin color.
Put any other race into the mix, and nobody bats an eye. But when it's "white people"?
Saying things like "white people should be able to exist and their children not live in fear" is considered supremacist, if you didn't know.
Seriously. I just re-worded the "14 Words" that supposedly only white supremacists dare recite, which are:
We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
That's the state of modern "white supremacy", the most terrible form of racism that exists in the world. Existing and having white children, and wanting your white children to have a future, means you're a white supremacist. That's the "Demographic War". That white people, who do not constitute a majority of the world population, want to exist and have children, and so white women are betraying colored women in this "Demographic War" by marrying white men, monopolizing resources, and having white babies.
Because, you know, women are supposed to stick up for other women before their own interests otherwise they might get kicked out of the group and have to eat their lunch somewhere else.
Welcome to the front lines of a cold war few had idea they were always a part of. A war that the author of the article is losing, by the way, because she has no partner to help her bear children. So, instead of trying to find one, she'll instead try to discourage white women from "fighting" in the "Demographic War" to begin with, by making the existence and having children that look like you "supremacist", and subsequently, "evil".
We'll see what other methods the author thinks can work to upset the "supply lines" in Part 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)