To supplement the advice given to NEVER correct a woman who says, “Correct me if I’m wrong” in the context of Kamala Harris angling for the position she has already described as one in which its inherent power will enable her to bust people’s balls with impunity to get her own way because she knows she’s right:
Here are five other important X-linked characteristics to keep in mind about a future dominated by such a harridan (see important note below about the primary characteristics of virtually every tyrant in history).
1. The “we need to talk” gene. Everyone subjected to it knows it’s the “No, SHE needs to talk and talk and talk” gene.
2. The “I’m not telling you any problems I have so you can analyze them and devise a solution because, if you try that, then you will only have increased my number of problems” gene.
3. The “I know a 45” wide sofa at its narrowest dimension will fit through a 36” wide door set in the left hand wall at the very end of a hall narrower than the length of the sofa and opening onto to a stairway with a landing halfway up and if you hold up a tape measure and say it’s not possible then that only means you don’t want to do it” gene. I have seen EXACTLY this situation and the proof she offered that it was so was that another guy didn’t want to move it, either. Later the other guy laughed and laughed when I told him she was out of touch with reality and said, “I know! The only way that sofa was going to get through there was in pieces and I told her that,” after which she asked me.
4. The “after you’ve gotten your guy hooked on trim, find out what things he really likes to do and then figure out how many ways you can use that fostered dependency to manipulate him or just destroy every simple pleasure in his life that doesn’t revolve around you” gene.
5. The “remember every single effing thing he’s ever said or done or should have said or done or ever failed to say or do and then bring it up when you need to distract him because he’s about to win an argument or because he’s actually right or because he’s feeling too good or just because” gene.
And as to the criticism of men not wanting to stop to ask directions:
Maybe the guys are just averse to the possibility of the direction-giver being a woman who needs to talk who will tell them they should have turned this or the other way at any of many previous points along a variety of earlier routes who may very well be combining those X-linked characteristics with that of faulty spatial reasoning in an attempt at gender-affirming tag-team action with another member of the sisterhood standing right behind the guys and preparing for her a covered dish heaped with “objective” evidence to use when getting back in the car to keep the ball rolling.
Now, do two things:
1. Think of all the Kamala-related episodes (and Hillary, too) so far that illustrate each of the five points above.
2. Look back over some of the big tyrants of the past century or so and their characteristics and tell me that their political karyotype was not XXY.
One place you don’t have to look too far to see this is education in the hands of leftists—it has always been a war on boys.
Look at elementary ed teachers who are predominantly female or most of the males who are members of their captive castrati class. You have school guidance counselors who are mostly female. And almost all of them are leftists, the remainder being those fearful of leftists.
So it’s no wonder they are hostile to boys and think of them as damaged girls who have to be remediated.
And virtually all of them went through teacher ed programs that are dominated by leftists whose interest is in creating a population of people who will show no initiative for anything but falling in line.
Which is sort of funny because THE most willful, domineering, scheming, subversive, and self-centered people on the planet are primarily females. Does that shock you? If it does, then you have been successfully cut off from history and anthropology and have been given in their place a deliberately crafted, propagandistic caricature.
So the entire focus (or lack of focus) on boys in schools is predicated on a schizoid mentality that imputes to boys and tries to eliminate from them character traits that are most strongly manifested in the female population at the very same time they claim boys need to be more like (what they claim to be the characteristics of) girls.
Now, I must hasten to add here for any Karens ready to pop an ovary or trans-Karens, a testicular trans-ovary, over this observation, that any trait at all can be expressed in good or bad ways.
For instance:
1. Good: Resolution against being cowed (yeah, I know)
Bad: Willful attempts to cow others
2. Good: Mastery over one’s abilities and situations
Bad: Domineering imposition on other’s abilities and situations
3. Good: Able to plan for contingencies and to set up alternate means of achieving the goal
Bad: Scheming, able to plan for contingencies and set up alternate means of screwing over enemies and rivals
4. Good: Able to spot oppressive use of power and to design ways both to evade and to destroy it
Bad: Subversive, able to spot anything that frustrates one’s desire to exercise power and to design ways both to evade and destroy it
5. Good: Knowing one’s self and not allowing others to co-opt oneself for their own use
Bad: Self-centered, knowing what one wants and doing everything in one’s power to bend others to one’s will to achieve it
Now think of everything over the past 20 years and see how the good of the above five was far more characteristic of previous generations and how the bad of those five is much more characteristic of the leftists of the past 20 years deliberately trying to wipe out the good.
In a story I’ve almost finished that takes place in Ivory Coast during the time that Charles Taylor was the big thug in Liberia just after he decided to knock off the Kran tribe because one of his generals, who was Kran, had tried to depose him, I’ve described the structure and function of the Sisterhood.
The main characters’ ran from Taylor because she and her sister were Kran. They also ran across the border to Ivory Coast to escape the rebels who also were targeting them
A. because they had an English last name like Charles Taylor, making them the enemy, too, and
B. because they just didn’t give a rat’s ass about the rebels since the rebels were all dedicated to the rebel cause which made them much more difficult to pussy-whip into being dedicated solely to the cause of the Sisterhood and also because, being rebels, they didn’t have enough monetary worth to make the pussy-whipping worthwhile.
The cause of the Sisterhood was this:
A. To twist the men by the short hairs of their libido, starting as early as those short hairs began to appear,
B. To live off the fruits of the men’s labor,
C. To control the men with the promise of more sex,
D. To shame the men for letting themselves be dominated by women,
E. More specifically to manipulate the men
1. by the fear of withheld sex,
2. by the fear of being dumped for another guy (that the men were fearing the loss of their slavery rather than rejoicing over their prospect of liberty only showing how thoroughly they had been compromised and their self-identity melted down and recast in an image of themselves the Sisterhood could use),
3. by the shame over feeling dependent for validation by the same women they knew were literally effing them over, spreading it to all the other women of the Sisterhood by means of their gossiping network that seemed faster than phone (though back then they didn’t have cell phones or even the regular kind because there were no phone lines to the kind of neighborhoods they lived in and they moved around too often to change the service address even if they COULD afford a phone, which they couldn’t), telling EVERYONE exactly when and where they did it, to whom they did it, and how they did it—sort of in-service training shared with all the women, even their wives, their girlfriends, their mothers and sisters, for the benefit of the Sisterhood,
E. To take the men for all they had and then cast them aside—especially if they couldn’t work or got injured—but with the humorous twist (for the Sisterhood, at least) of the men still wanting more and believing that somehow it was all their fault for being inadequate as men,
F. Appropriately. To find fresh meat to start the whole thing again.
And the irony of this was that many subsequent victims had been prior victims but all believed that THIS time it was going to be different, all failing to realize how the whole thing had started.
It had NOT begun with the first chick to suck them dry, wad them up, and toss them away.
It had started before they were ever sensible of it, during the years starting at birth, all the years their mothers and older sisters and aunts and older female cousins were training them by threats, slaps, caning, and peppering sensitive parts of their bodies, conditioning them into the proper level submissiveness, neediness, and fear against the day the Sisterhood at large could benefit from them and during the very same years that their sisters, from birth, were being trained by the Sisterhood to take advantage of that submissiveness, neediness, and fear.
A lot of American women appear to be almost schizophrenic in this regard, believing the Leftist propaganda about them being oppressed by penises and patriarchy at the very same time they are enjoying all the benefits of Sisterhood while being unaware of it in almost the same way the boys from birth over in West Central Africa were unaware of how they were being raised as livestock for the slaughter.
Connect this with what various people have described as “the war on boys” in public schools.
They are looked at and treated as defective, their maleness not anything unique in and of itself, not so much qualitatively different from females as defective, but something that has to be suppressed or modified into female. After all, right, the initial phenotype of every human fetus is female? And then something happens to alter that, wrecking the complex trans-hemispheric wiring in the corpus callosum, and producing a male.
And this is the rationale behind the trans movement being aggressively pushed in the schools. Sure they may support some girl wanting to be a boy, but the greater emphasis in on demasculinizing and even emasculating boys.
Why?
Because Leftists don’t want ANYONE to have ANYTHING distinctive for self-definition and self-worth because that’s centered somewhere other than the Leftists and their agenda.
Leftists are against spontaneous and natural national identify, religious identity, cultural identity, sexual identity. At times they may seem to be pushing one or the other, but in every case it’s being done in order to bring down other parts of the system not yet fully under their control, especially those parts resistant to them, and most especially those parts most likely to mobilize to take them out by force: the males.
Their goal is to have a society of drones doing exactly what they want, when they want it, how they want it, and to be happy about it no matter the loss or pain to them in the process.
Oh, gee, look! In that last paragraph I perfectly described the WEF goal for society years before I ever heard of the WEF.
Which reminds me of something I had noticed earlier about dictators, especially the totalitarian kind, whether communists or Muslims.
Let me lead up to it like this.
When I was in elementary school, the boys would spontaneously organize at recess to play baseball or to play Civil War re-enactments. Or they’d play marbles or play with their pocketknives or yo-yos or talk or play on the swings or the sliding board or merry go round.
No one was in charge or trying to run everything. If on the merry go round, the only organization that sprang up was solely for the purpose of trying to find a way to maximize its speed of rotation.
If boys got into a fight, they got over it and were later playing with each other. They weren’t plotting revenge and working on it the rest of the school year and trying to get other boys to turn against someone. That was something that girls did.
If boys organize, it’s to achieve a common purpose. Boys have groups of friends who happen to have common interests and who, by chance, they have happened to come to know and enjoy being with.
If girls organize, it’s to fit everyone into their purpose and to make anyone who refuses to fall in line look like shit. They organize whispering campaigns. They use fear of being a target of this to keep people in line. They have cliques, the purpose of which is to ridicule people they exclude. Girls want to be a part, not because they they like the members, but because they don’t like being excluded. So they may start a rival clique and pull the same shit. See the close parallels to Marxists versus society or Marxist cliques versus each other?
Have you seen girls in yelling matches and just bitching away? Have you seen them nagging some boy and whining that they’re not getting enough attention?
If you saw any boy acting like this toward other boys, they other boys would call him a whiny bitch, thus recognizing the essential female quality of it, and then either tell him to fuck off, or stay away from them, or pound him. The boy who learns to SITFU (suck it the fuck up) when he’s wrong goes on to have a much more trouble-free and happy life. The one who refuses to acknowledge his error, who goes away pouting and sulking, who plots revenge, well, he’s acting like a girl.
And, get this, numerous recent studies have shown that this type of domineering, manipulative behavior among girls appears spontaneously as early as pre-school and kindergarten.
The happiest girls and probably the most awesome wives and mothers are those who are most like guys, who can be one of the guys without having to think they need to be surgically altered to do so.
The unhappiest boys are the ones who are most like girls; and the most unhappy boys are those who believe they have to destroy anything male about themselves to truly be themselves.
Okay, at this point think of all the dictators throughout history, especially those of the totalitarian variety, and you will see bad men who blatantly and openly exemplify the worst traits of bad women, the utter and complete opposite of the woman described in Proverbs whose worth is beyond rubies, which, of course, the modern dictators of the XX tribe would be the first to characterize as the objectification of women by assigning to them a monetary value for their enslavement by the patriarchy, regardless of whether they were even familiar with the citation.
And the funny thing is that the Karens of academia are so ignorant that they have no clue
A. that people have known this for millennia and
B. that they themselves are some of the worst exemplars in world history of those negative traits.
Hence, my reference above to the schizoid mentality of those in education who are leading the war against boys.
Now, look at the different types of dictators throughout history.
There were some Roman emperors who did their best to use their position to protect the empire and to protect the citizens against predation by criminals or foreign invaders but otherwise left people alone to live their lives and benefit or suffer from the consequences of their individual actions.
But look at the totalitarian kind, whether communist (socialists with guns) or socialist (sneaky communists) or jihadist Muslim (sneaky communists with guns—and if you don’t know why I said that, look at their origin in the latter decades of the 19th century and early decades of the 20th century as the product of Marxist recruitment in European higher education).
What they have in common is that
1. they think they can never be wrong (female),
2. no one can win an argument with them (female),
3. if you try, they will punish you (female),
4. only they know what’s right for everyone (female),
5. if you disagree, then you’re the enemy of everyone, meaning them (female),
6. they form cliques, the function of which is to keep everyone in line either by fear or by lusting to have that same kind of power (female),
7. their way is the only way, and if they let you do it, it’s not because it was better, it was better because they let you for their own reasons (female),
8. they are given to grandiose displays and histrionics (female),
9. if looks to them like they could be rejected, then they will threaten destruction (female),
10. and if they are rejected, they can’t just SITFU but will choose to go down in an orgy of destruction (female).
Again, think of all the dictators (whether overt or in the closet) from Lenin through Obama in terms of the above characteristics.
But this isn’t anything new. It’s been around since time immemorial.
__________
It’s seen in tribal structure, especially the tribal structure of communists. Actually, you really should think of socialism and communism as modern and particularly deadly forms of tribalism.
In a tribe, the tribe comes first, but the people running the tribe come even more first.
The people running the tribe get to declare what’s most important to the tribe, meaning, to them personally.
The way you move up into tribal power is never to do anything FOR the tribe.
Huh? What!
Because if you, on your own, do something that is very beneficial for the tribe, something that has never been done before, how do you think the people running the tribe will look at that?
They will think one of these two things:
1. They will think that you are doing that in order to make them, the tribal leaders, look stupid because THEY never thought of anything like that or, if they did, it was just too much goddamned work for THEM without enough to show for it, meaning it looked like it wouldn’t result in a significant increase in their power, control, or personal wealth to make it worth their bother.
For instance, suppose someone in the tribal leadership wants to build a road, but it will wreck half of someone’s house.
If they change the direction of the road to avoid the house it will cost a lot more time and effort and money to them—well, no, to the tribe, meaning less money for them to extract from the tribe’s productive output.
If they build another house for the poor guy whose house happens to get in the way of their plans, then it will cost a lot more time and money and effort for them.
Their solution?
Tell the poor sucker whose house had been there since his grandfather’s boyhood that “for the good of the tribe,” he’s screwed, meaning, really, for the good of those tribal leaders who want the shortest possible road at the least possible cost to go in the easiest possible fashion to another cooler location where they will sit around in the heat of the afternoon, drink beer, scratch their nuts, and look important.
And, oh, gee, that other location just happens to be where someone else’s house had stood forever but, hey, for the good of the tribe he will have to get screwed, too.
2. They will think, because they remember all the sneaky shit they have pulled on the tribe for their own reasons, that you are doing something that actually IS really for the tribe’s good because you’re planning to take over and you’re giving the people of the tribe good reasons to help you do it.
______________
Rules for Moving on Up in a Tribe
So the way to move up in the tribe is either ass-kissing or violence.
You generally ass-kiss first to make yourself useful to one of the tribal leaders.
But you can’t just go directly there because there are a LOT of other ass-kissers already in line. Cut in front of them and they’ll cut your throat.
See? The violence part.
So, if you’re smart, you will see which one of those lower level guys looks smart enough to get high enough and act ruthless enough once he gets there to knock off someone at the top “for the good of the tribe.”
But you have to be careful because there are others looking to hitch themselves to that guy and if you’re not careful, you’ll find yourself knocked off way down at the bottom before you can ever make it to the top and knock off someone there.
Remember that movie The Death of Stalin?
People were either scared to death of the top people of the Communist tribe and they tried to remain invisible or they tried to use their connections to move up toward the top.
That’s the way of maybe-good ideas and a willingness to kill anyone in your way, or maybe only a willingness to kill anyone in your way, especially those with good ideas that could make you look stupid, unless you just kill them and take their good ideas or, if you’re smarter, get them to think you’ll help them move toward the top as they let you help them with their good ideas.
And then you do it in a way that gets you the credit from those above you for the good idea while you make them think the one you got it from is their enemy, well, an enemy of the tribe. This way they will feel ingratiated for the good idea that helps them and for the warning that protects them from the other guy that you, having stolen his good idea and falsely ratted out, need to get rid of and, so, you move up and the ones above you get the blame for knocking off the guy whose idea you stole.
And finally, when you get high enough and think you have the balls enough, you can knock off one of the top people and be one step away from taking the very top spot—except that all the other guys up there are every bit the ruthless prick that you are and are ready to use anything they can find on you to knock you off or knock you out of your position in order to protect their own asses, I mean, for the good of the tribe.
Again, think of the behavior of the Democrat Party since their origin in the 1800s.
To sum up:
Tribalism means never having to be responsible to anything larger than your group, expecting your group to cut you slack because it’s your group, expecting your group to float your lazy ass because it’s your group, claiming that other, more successful groups got that way by stealing from your group, and feeling justified for busting down that other, more successful group and taking its stuff because its success made your group look bad.
________
Part 2 to follow
A brilliant exposition of the "human" condition! Looking forward to Part 2 and more of the refreshing humor which is both entertaining and sustaining....