Amerika

A quick note on a new study on violent extremism that chronicles the inversion process:

“For example, there is a personality trait that we call ‘openness to experience.’ If you look at first-generation immigrants and this one character trait, the more open you are, the less prone you are to violence. But in the third generation, it’s the opposite. The more open you are, the more prone you are to violence. So you can’t just say that openness points in one direction or the other. It depends on the context, so it’s very complex,” says Obaidi.

People with high openness are more curious and often seek more information by reading newspapers, listening to debate programs, and the like. They are therefore more exposed to discrimination, inequality, and oppression directed at Muslim minorities.

“And this increased exposure can make them feel more discriminated against, and when this feeling of discrimination becomes prominent, it can in some cases lead to extreme attitudes,” says Obaidi.

When one is an outsider, openness leads to wanting to understand the other.

Once one is inside the society, all the directions reverse, and one sees up as down and so forth.

This creates a paranoia that visualizes activity as directed toward the individual, because as an insider, they perceive this civilization as being situated around them and their needs.

In other words, the people who are most accepting as migrants become the most violent when they turn into citizens or permanent residents.

Diversity is so, so doomed.

Consider another inversion, the higher-IQ gender-equality paradox:

The so-called gender-equality paradox has been a recurrent but controversial thesis in social research over the past decade. It assumes that when both women and men have more freedom to do what they want, i.e. when gender equality is high, they are more prone to adopt traditional gender roles. This could explain why, for example, female students in Sweden are less likely to apply for engineering, technology or math programs than women in less gender-equal countries such as Algeria.

Researchers found that this applied in the West only, and therefore blamed “Western culture.”

More likely, the division is twofold: (1) it measures the first world not Western culture but (2) the data threshold in Oriental Asian countries is too low to obtain significant distinctions. As usual, the scientists are projecting a world from a grain of sand using numerological models.

A broader read on this is through the filter of Maslow: once “gender equality” is established, there are no more external challenges, so people rise to the next level and go within, asking the question what they really want.

Most sane women want families and little people to love and cherish. Therefore, the more “gender equality” is achieved, the more they seek what “gender equality” cannot provide, which requires inner orientation toward love, family, and community, giving rise to culture and all that.

Again, the winners in life run hard from diversity, socialism, liberalism, and organized religions. They may be involved with such things as adaptive camouflage, but only on the surface. In their personal choics they go the opposite direction.

This is an inversion because when people can blame an external scapegoat, they will, but at some point the scapegoat fails them, and they end up going the opposite direction because they have finally taken charge of the problem.

Equality is so, so doomed.

Tags: diversity, extremism, inversion, violence