Amerika

Throughout history, women have been heavily represented in have-nots versus haves conflicts, although mostly behind the scenes. Every man on the field represents at least one wife or mother who wanted him out there and was willing to feed him, at least.

Leftism has entered what we might call the vanishing point on the horizon of history, namely the zone where its ideas, having been implemented, are not fulfilling their symbolic promise, and therefore it has to concern itself with enforcement of control instead of selling itself to voters.

This means that Leftists have become aware that they must seize power and propel us into fully tyranny or vanish through obsolescence. Ideas that fail when implemented tend to fade away, at least until a new generation of Peasant Revolts begins.

What should dismay is is that, until it has failed in recent memory, Leftism always wins elections because it offers pleasant symbols of total human victory over nature which help manage the mental state of its audience.

A conservative might tell us that humans are imperfect and we must take things on a case-by-case basis, but a Leftist will come back with the notion that humans can be perfected and we can make one simple rule that solves everything in one fell stroke.

In terms of popularity, no one can compete with the easy answers people. If the tribe is hungry, of course most people want to eat the seed corn, even though that means they will not just be hungry in winter but every year afterwards.

People in general focus on what they see in front of them. This reduces all time to a snapshot, and assumes that the event as the individual encountered it in appearance is the cause and essence of that event. People rarely find the real cause.

Even more, however, the Left appeals to ladies (“women,” “girls”) because it promises to pacify conflict through redistribution of power, wealth, and importance. On top of that, parents spread Leftism to girls through social conditioning:

The results underline the relevance of the family in the transmission of political ideology in multiparty systems, showing high contemporary parent–child concordance in ideological positioning in line with classic work in political socialization. Moreover, the study demonstrates how the gender-generation gap in political ideology is consequential for this process. Young women consistently place themselves on the left of men across all combinations of parental ideology, which indicates that the gender-generation gap trumps other gendered patterns in intergenerational transmission. Consequently, daughters are less likely than sons to take over their parents’ rightist positions, while parent–son transmission is equally large on the left and the right. This also means that left-leaning parents have a general advantage over right-leaning parents in having their ideological identification reproduced by their daughters.

Women are more likely to be Leftist if their parents were Leftists. Most likely this occurs since women, who are geared toward making things work as they are rather than changing what they are, pick up on the social cues and adopt the attitude that makes others feel at rest.

This may well occur through conversation, since the best way to achieve social peace is to talk things to death, and this avoids escalating to competitions of strength or accuracy. Instead, emotions are expressed in symbols.

Any ideology that is conversational has an advantage because it seems to be a living interaction, therefore makes people feel better and like they are understanding more:

Speech is only part of the story. In face-to-face interaction, people rely on a rich stream of visual signals: gestures, gaze shifts, facial expressions, posture changes, and brief vocal cues like “mm-hm.” These signals allow speakers to detect confusion, engagement, agreement, or hesitation, often before a single clarifying question is asked. “Listeners are not passive recipients,” Holler emphasizes. “They actively shape the speaker’s unfolding message.”

When that feedback loop is disrupted—for example, during lagging video calls or audio-only conversations—communication becomes more effortful and less fluid. The review highlights how deeply conversation depends on immediate, embodied feedback.

Both sides constantly adjust, as Judith notes: “Face-to-face conversation requires rapid adaptation and mutual prediction. It is a dynamic system distributed across participants and modalities.”

Leftism, by its nature, is conversational, just like it is geared toward compromise and pacifism. It is designed to make people feel at ease. Naturally it appeals to women, who are looking for a “solution” to conflict, hierarchy, and other necessary aspects of reality.

The conversational nature of Leftism makes it seem social more than political, sort of like morality and religion, which enables it to be something that women adopt as a means of preserving social equanimity: a behavioral standard.

No wonder it overlaps so much with psychology and education. It is discipline! It is teaching people to get along with each other. It is anything but a pernicious political conditioning designed to enforce uniformity so humans feel more powerful than nature.

Not surprisingly, women support political murder more in order to preserve this social order:

Support for political murder is about 15% higher among females than among males
(14.8% higher for Trump & 21.2% for Mamdani).

Support for political murder is associated with increased usage of social media.

Conservatives like a different kind of order: natural order, because we see nature as supremely logical and connected with the divine.

But if you see a lot of lunatic neurotic Leftist ladies floating around out there, consider that they absorbed the doctrine at home, were socially infected at school, and now use it to girlboss around the office.

Tags: conversation, political ideology, violence, women