The Outrage Thread



Here is a question I ponder sometimes when I see things like this. Why are they trying to feminize our boys? What is their goal? It's pretty obvious they are doing this in multiple facets of our culture. Hell, all the way down to the NFL. We have all bitched about them pussifying the game in the name of "safety". What is their end game? Do they think it would be an easier path to globalization if they take masculinity out of the equation? Or, am I overthinking it and it is just the same ole equal rights bullshit? It just seems to be deeper than that now with all of the trans shit and all that. I don't know, but it is glaringly obvious now that there is some end game in mind in all of this.
 
Cotton said:


Here is a question I ponder sometimes when I see things like this. Why are they trying to feminize our boys? What is their goal? It's pretty obvious they are doing this in multiple facets of our culture. Hell, all the way down to the NFL. We have all bitched about them pussifying the game in the name of "safety". What is their end game? Do they think it would be an easier path to globalization if they take masculinity out of the equation? Or, am I overthinking it and it is just the same ole equal rights bullshit? It just seems to be deeper than that now with all of the trans shit and all that. I don't know, but it is glaringly obvious now that there is some end game in mind in all of this.
Click to expand...



Short answer, she's been propagandized by the left to believe that masculinity is inherently toxic.

Long answer, it's straight from the communist playbook and she's a useful idiot.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Short answer, she's been propagandized by the left to believe that masculinity is inherently toxic.

Long answer, it's straight from the communist playbook and she's a useful idiot.
Click to expand...
I mean I agree with you 100%, but I guess my question is, how does masculinity being viewed as toxic help their agenda? There are plenty of cuck men on their side already. Do they need more? Is masculinity an impediment to their communist goals? I'm seriously asking because I can't figure it out.
 
Cotton said:
I mean I agree with you 100%, but I guess my question is, how does masculinity being viewed as toxic help their agenda? There are plenty of cuck men on their side already. Do they need more? Is masculinity an impediment to their communist goals? I'm seriously asking because I can't figure it out.
Click to expand...

Because the male vote is what wins elections for the Republicans. If you turn more of them into femboys, it shifts everything to the democratic side. Just one theory.

Also the strong male provides resistance. If you feminize them it becomes a whole lot easier to do whatever you want to do.
 
Cotton said:
I mean I agree with you 100%, but I guess my question is, how does masculinity being viewed as toxic help their agenda? There are plenty of cuck men on their side already. Do they need more? Is masculinity an impediment to their communist goals?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes.

Plus, at its root, Marxism is about destruction. They have to destroy the old order, whatever that is, to make something new.
 
Cotton said:
I mean I agree with you 100%, but I guess my question is, how does masculinity being viewed as toxic help their agenda? There are plenty of cuck men on their side already. Do they need more? Is masculinity an impediment to their communist goals? I'm seriously asking because I can't figure it out.
Click to expand...


Nope. "The issue is never the issue."

It's maybe summed up as divide and conquer, but it's a bit more nuanced than that.

It's rooted in the Marxist concept of hegemony (not the traditional definition but the Marxist definition).

The Marxist definition (off the top of my head so I may be slightly off but this is the gist of it) is, "the structure of the substructure of a society that causes an individual to align with a class that is against his own best interests and in favor of a competing interest."

And so you can have a religious hegemony, or a racial hegemony, or a gender hegemony, and so forth. And so what the hegemony does is for example (in their world view anyway) take a poor person who in theory should be voting Democrat and instead he votes Republican because he's part of a religious hegemony that influences him to vote with his religious beliefs rather than in his economic interests (since Democrats would give him more free stuff essentially).

And so by breaking that apart you are creating a wedge that opens people up to aligning with their agendas.

Sort of like wiping a slate clean so that they can fill it with whatever they want.

So in other words, they don't care about trans people or minorities or gays or Palestine or masculinity or illegals or any of their other common causes. The issue is never the issue.

What they do care about is breaking the hegemony and redirecting people towards their Marxist agenda piece by piece.

It's why you see truly strange bedfellows on the left, like queers for Palestine. Because they don't actually care about those issues, it's about steering them towards a destination without them realizing it.
 
Last edited:
Genghis Khan said:
Nope. "The issue is never the issue."

It's maybe summed up as divide and conquer, but it's a bit more nuanced than that.

It's rooted in the Marxist concept of hegemony (not the traditional definition but the Marxist definition).

The Marxist definition (off the top of my head so I may be slightly off but this is the gist of it) is, "the structure of the substructure of a society that causes an individual to align with a class that is against his own best interests and in favor of a competing interest."

And so you can have a religious hegemony, or a racial hegemony, or a gender hegemony, and so forth.

And so by breaking that apart you are creating a wedge that opens people up to aligning with their agendas.

Sort of like wiping a slate clean so that they can fill it with whatever they want.

So in other words, they don't care about trans people or minorities or gays or Palestine or masculinity or illegals or any of their other common causes. The issue is never the issue.

What they do care about is breaking the hegemony and redirecting people towards their Marxist agenda piece by piece.

It's why you see truly strange bedfellows on the left, like queers for Palestine. Because they don't actually care about those issues, it's about steering them towards a destination without them realizing it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As Dennis Prager said for years, Communism was never about workers, Feminism was never about women, the racial stuff was never about minorities. It's just about using those groups for power.

And no, you summed it up perfectly.
 
Genghis Khan said:
Nope. "The issue is never the issue."

It's maybe summed up as divide and conquer, but it's a bit more nuanced than that.

It's rooted in the Marxist concept of hegemony (not the traditional definition but the Marxist definition).

The Marxist definition (off the top of my head so I may be slightly off but this is the gist of it) is, "the structure of the substructure of a society that causes an individual to align with a class that is against his own best interests and in favor of a competing interest."

And so you can have a religious hegemony, or a racial hegemony, or a gender hegemony, and so forth. And so what the hegemony does is for example (in their world view anyway) take a poor person who in theory should be voting Democrat and instead he votes Republican because he's part of a religious hegemony that influences him to vote with his religious beliefs rather than in his economic interests (since Democrats would give him more free stuff essentially).

And so by breaking that apart you are creating a wedge that opens people up to aligning with their agendas.

Sort of like wiping a slate clean so that they can fill it with whatever they want.

So in other words, they don't care about trans people or minorities or gays or Palestine or masculinity or illegals or any of their other common causes. The issue is never the issue.

What they do care about is breaking the hegemony and redirecting people towards their Marxist agenda piece by piece.

It's why you see truly strange bedfellows on the left, like queers for Palestine. Because they don't actually care about those issues, it's about steering them towards a destination without them realizing it.
Click to expand...
This is probably the best way I have ever seen it explained. I mean the toxic masculinity thing has been going on a long time, so there was obviously a motive behind it. And, "the issues is never the issue" should be blindingly obvious to everyone by this point, but alas...

Thanks, guys. I had thought about what you all said before today, but I guess I just needed to see it from someone else, and I have never had this discussion with anyone before, so I try not to be such a doomsdayer about everything, but I guess that's where we are now.
 
Cotton said:
This is probably the best way I have ever seen it explained. I mean the toxic masculinity thing has been going on a long time, so there was obviously a motive behind it. And, "the issues is never the issue" should be blindingly obvious to everyone by this point, but alas...

Thanks, guys. I had thought about what you all said before today, but I guess I just needed to see it from someone else, and I have never had this discussion with anyone before, so I try not to be such a doomsdayer about everything, but I guess that's where we are now.
Click to expand...


I was blindsided by this stuff back in college. I took a course called Third World History and it turned out that the professor was an avowed communist. He told us that he wasn't going to teach us third world history, but rather he was going to teach us communism, with his goal in his words, to make us all communists. As an incentive to keep us from dropping the class he said we'd all get an A if we did any work at all and showed up to class.

We studied Chomsky, Gramsci, Foucault, and Gorky as well as other prominent neo Marxist thinkers. Our final project for the class was to write to 5 History department heads at other universities and ask them why they don't teach history essentially from a more Marxist perspective (I forget exactly how we were supposed to word it). None of us got any responses but true to his word the professor gave us all As.

So none of what I'm saying is speculative. It's literally from their agenda as taught to me by a communist.

As an aside that professor was a super nice guy and very smart. He wasn't a screeching blue haired activist type. You wouldn't have assumed he was a commie by looking at him.
 
Genghis Khan said:
He told us that he wasn't going to teach us third world history, but rather he was going to teach us communism, with his goal in his words, to make us all communists.
Click to expand...
He actually said that? That is nuts to me that he would be so open about it, but it shouldn't surprise me.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I was blindsided by this stuff back in college. I took a course called Third World History and it turned out that the professor was an avowed communist. He told us that he wasn't going to teach us third world history, but rather he was going to teach us communism, with his goal in his words, to make us all communists. As an incentive to keep us from dropping the class he said we'd all get an A if we did any work at all and showed up to class.

We studied Chomsky, Gramsci, Foucault, and Gorky as well as other prominent neo Marxist thinkers. Our final project for the class was to write to 5 History department heads at other universities and ask them why they don't teach history essentially from a more Marxist perspective (I forget exactly how we were supposed to word it). None of us got any responses but true to his word the professor gave us all As.

So none of what I'm saying is speculative. It's literally from their agenda as taught to me by a communist.

As an aside that professor was a super nice guy and very smart. He wasn't a screeching blue haired activist type. You wouldn't have assumed he was a commie by looking at him.
Click to expand...
Holy shit, man. That's crazy. Especially happening back then.

I've said forever that somehow, some way, we have to get the Marxism out of our schools. It's the root of so many of our problems with this garbage. Until we stop them brainwashing the kids like this, we're going to have problems.
 
Cotton said:
He actually said that? That is nuts to me that he would be so open about it it, but it shouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...


Yep. Didn't at all hide it. And this was 25 years or so ago. To be fair I got the sense that he would have gotten in trouble had it been reported to his department head. He literally didn't teach history at all, third world or otherwise, other than indirectly through the Marxist concept that things are the way they are because of oppressor/ oppressed relationships.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
I've said forever that somehow, some way, we have to get the Marxism out of our schools. It's the root of so many of our problems with this garbage. Until we stop them brainwashing the kids like this, we're going to have problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they now start teaching this nonsense as early as middle school, as you implied. The DOE needs to go away and the government needs to cut off all federal funding to any university that allows this type of teaching to take place. We are letting the enemy indoctrinate our kids and we are paying them to do so. It has to stop.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Holy shit, man. That's crazy. Especially happening back then.

I've said forever that somehow, some way, we have to get the Marxism out of our schools. It's the root of so many of our problems with this garbage. Until we stop them brainwashing the kids like this, we're going to have problems.
Click to expand...


Yes. It's by far, BY FAR, the most important thing the Trump administration can accomplish, to get the Marxism out of schools. It's threatening to ruin the greatest society ever constructed in the history of earth. They're playing a long game trying to indoctrinate young impressionable kids.

I was an anthropology major at the time (I wanted to go into archaeology but my school didn't have that as its own major) and I had to take a bunch of cultural anthropology courses and the subtle unstated leftism in those courses was so bad I left the school and changed majors because I couldn't take it anymore. I actually appreciated the professor who at least wasn't hiding it.

Hell, I was assigned the Communist Manifesto in 3 different classes (one course was called Intellectual Heritage, as if Marxism is intellectual, but to be fair we also read John Locke so it at least attempted to be balanced). I was never once assigned The Wealth of Nations in any class.
 
Genghis Khan said:
They're playing a long game trying to indoctrinate young impressionable kids.
Click to expand...
They do this with a lot of things. The DOE is just one of them. But, the DOE is easily the most effective. And "our side" either can't see it or ignores it for some ungodly reason. It's infuriating.
 
I said it before to Cujo, but to Geng and Cotton and anyone else, you should get a copy of "American Betrayal" by Diana West. It's cheap used. Has some shocking truths about why we are where we are, and how this stuff goes back farther than most people think. I know I always thought of Communist subversion as being mostly a Cold War thing, but it goes back to the '30s.
 
Cotton said:
They do this with a lot of things. The DOE is just one of them. But, the DOE is easily the most effective. And "our side" either can't see it or ignores it for some ungodly reason. It's infuriating.
Click to expand...


A lot of people are completely oblivious to how deep the agenda runs. Plus the truth is a lot of people, especially on the right, just want to live their lives and be left alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom