Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

maanantai 28. maaliskuuta 2016

Naisten rooli poliittisen korrektiuden synnyssä (edit)

Kommentoin toisaalla seuraavasti:

There are important differences in political orthodoxies. The liberal political correctness is a special case. It is a propagandistic and manipulative attempt to establish utopia on earth with words, speech, pictures and moving pictures. According to it almost nothing bad can happen inside the liberal favored "universe", inside liberal favored policies, inside liberal favored groups. Almost all significant bad happens outside liberal spheres, in non-liberal circles or by non-liberal circles. Everything is heavily distorted, to the point of ridiculousness. Even large terrorist attacks are explained away in such a way, to such an extent and in such a force, that if one is stupid or pliable enough to believe them, it is as if the terrorist attacks never really happened, or if they happened, it was all non-favored groups fault, which had nothing to do with the attack (racism; not accepting enough; bad habits, which they imitated; discrimination; etc.). It started as manipulation of all the massess, regardless of political orientation, but they are increasingly incredulous, and mock liberal stupidity. The political correctness has, without liberal elites noticing it, started to distort increasingly their own view of reality, it has turned increasingly into a manipulation of liberal elites themselves, thus the liberal information bubble / liberal bubble. Because of this it sometimes feels like mentally handicapped people rule us. Why liberal elites dont notice this? Because they still think they are manipulating only the massess. They think that the alternative to constant lies and manipulation is collapse of society into chaos and violence, ultimately universal violence. They have narcissistic bombastic and inflated view of themselves as the only line, only force that separates civilized society from chaos and barbarism. And the illusion that they are doing the manipulation and not manipulated themselves is worsened by the fact that they separate to some extent their view of reality from the propaganda, but it is far from enough. This inadequate separation allows them to think behind the scenes that they are hard nosed realists, when outsiders notice they are in reality deluded dreamwalkers.

Whatever is the purpose of political orthodoxy, its purpose should not be that elites and massess lose self-destructively their grip on reality, like is happening with political correctness, or that elites entrench themselves to bunkers of their lies and mistakes, like Hitler in his last days, when happenings in the real world and realism start to reassert themselves.

This is exacerbated by the fact that liberal political correctness is a feminine, nurturing, caring, kind, etc. ideology, as if cold bureaucracy could care. Political correctness has a strong feminine input from women, and liberals favor this input. So what is womans nature? In ancestral families womans central task was reproduction and child caring, and all kinds of smaller related tasks. Mans task was to protect his  woman and community together with other men, and to hunt, fish, or otherwise gather resources to his family, mostly this too together with other men. Pregnancy and child caring are delicate things. If woman and unborn child and children are too often or too constantly stessed or fearful, these may damage the unborn childs and childrens development. Thus mans important function is to protect his woman from the outside stresses and fears, to function as a protective buffer between hard reality and family. If man doesnt do this, if man doesnt create relatively stress free environment, woman has natural tendency to complain and be unsatisfied. Woman is bit more accepting to the stresses that originate from the inside of family, because they are more controllable, but not infinitely. So lets say woman is pregnant, and at the same time mens community has received information that enemy tribe has done some moves which could lead to a war in 6 months, maybe in a year, but it is not such an immediate problem, that women must be informed. Men must prepare, but women are not needed in these preparations. Should the man tell his woman? If man tells his woman, woman becomes stressed, maybe the whole six months or years time, and the pregnancy is already stressful. Additional stresses may cause problems to pregnancy, developmental problems to the fetus. Woman would complain and be unsatisfied. This would increase mans stresses and distract his attention from more important things. If woman is stressed that whole time there is only downsides to it, no advantages. It is better that men take care of war preparations among themselves. So the man says to his woman, "Everything is alright, honey, I have all things under control, you dont have to worry, relax honey." And the woman hums satisfied, smiles and kisses his man.

Here we can see proto political correctness. Man lies by omission to his woman, and maybe tells some soothing lies on top of that. These same psychological tendencies function today, so every time women are accepted into politics they create tendencies toward political correctness, tendencies to transform political communication into soothing lies. And when women are accepted into politics, men try to cater to their tastes, and uphold this false, unrealistic, harmful and self-destructive communication environment.

In Finland, over 2/3 of Finnish Green party supporters are women. Most conspicuous leaders are men. This party has the most rigid political correctness, and they communicate inside the party almost exclusively about things like furry animals with the excuse of animal rights or some such reason; non-stressful and non-violent 'emergencies', like climate change and hunger in some far away country, which allow them to feel like important benefactors by saying something nice about it publicly or sending 5 euros there; supporting some "helping" state and municipal projects, from which they get perhaps support too; etc. The supporters communicate with each other by saying nice things and sending pictures of beautiful sceneries, cute animals and such; debates, let alone conflicts between people or saying something negative about somebody or some group are a big no-no in their public spaces. When a man like me with rough intelligent words from the real world lands into their public space, the effect is like wolf landing to a henhouse. They are unprepared, and descend almost into a panic like state. Their leaders advocate all kinds universal holding hands, global friendship, total acceptance, niceness, etc. causes, and open borders of course. When the pressure from the real world becomes too great, and their leaders are finally compelled to say something against evil, like when muslim hordes harassed, raped, robbed and battered thousands of women in Cologne and all over Europe around new year, it is a tortured and stressful process. So the saying leader sinks the small 'against' somewhere in the middle of torrents of human rights, friendships between, we must understand, they are good people, etc. The Greens can uphold this mental image of liberal utopia by insulating themselves almost wholly from non-liberal sources, and receiving information about them through green and other liberal filters.

Our True Finns party's communication style is preponderantly mens communication, and most of the supporters are men. We have many good women too, like the following Laura Huhtasaari:


Notice that in our hunter gatherer example womans and mans behavior was approriate. It is only when womens impulses become collective in politics, when it becomes harmful. Collectives of women are not the only or original cause of political correctness, but it is the reason that pushed us over the edge of a high cliff. Thus one of the means to reduce the harmful effect of political correctness is to reduce specifically and consciously womens communication and influence in politics, if they are politically correct, and increase specifically and consciously mens communication and influence in politics, if they are realists.

Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä