WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

216

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Think of how a cycle of abuse works in male-female pairs. The media stereotype features the battered wife and the controlling husband, however, anyone with any sense of the fairer sex realizes there is some female adaptive behavior involved with not only accepting some of the abuse, but in instigating it.

I don't want to explore the psychology too deeply here, only to point out how the broader cultural instigation by Jews of whites is related to this phenomenon.

When a woman instigates a man, perhaps for days on end, she is expecting his self-control and restraint to cause him to bottle up tension internally. In fact, she knows that his conscience punishes him when he loses control of himself, because this is masculine nature.

The intent is to eventually cause him to lose a bit of control and unleash this on her.

Why? Precisely because she knows that he will be morally harmed by this. The result is that she will be able to behave like a victim and hold it over his head for days, or weeks, or years. If you want to go there, there is a clear evolutionary explanation for why females would develop these kinds of behavior within a moralistic society. Enduring some small sacrifice nets greater power in the long run.

Jews are doing the same thing with whites. None of them believe in this Marxist nonsense they are peddling. The point is to instigate you, to make white society's internal water boil until eventually we lose our moralistic restraint and lash out with the big one.

When that happens they will have gas to run on for another century or two. They will be able to cite for all of those intervening years that time that 'daddy hit mommy'. Imagine for a second a parasite that could facultatively sacrifice some of its cells for the flourishing of the rest. It provokes the host immune system to attack it, but not annihilate it.

"Well," you ask, "why would the host ever stop short?"

In the case of white European society, it is because of our morality of course. It is expressed at the level of the whole, and in individual men. For individual men, some women will facultatively exploit this to benefit (over the long run) from the cycle of abuse.

At the level of societies, there are even some parasites that are fully aware of themselves. They know this process better than you do.

The point of all of this is to push the 'quiet kid' until he breaks. Then, despite the years of instigation, he becomes 'the psycho'.

And after years of instigation, the white man becomes 'the nazi'. And the world's non-white victims benefit in the long run because the Jew manipulates this cycle of abuse with indemnity.

EDIT: I should be fairer to women and say that many of them don't know this is what they're doing when they are doing it. It's functionalism. The behaviors promote a function that is conducive to the ongoing maintenance of the pair bond itself. She isn't aware of it most times.

She is incentivized by the emotional high of the reconnection after the bad moments. We always ask ourselves why women remain in cycles of abuse, and it is less often that we acknowledge that in many cases the abuse goes both ways in these cycles. We just treat the way the male characteristically returns his as the only kind of abuse there is.

You can't really understand the true nature of these things until you situate them in the functional cycle.

The same principle applies to relations between Jews and the gentiles.

Jews are the women who never understand why they are always in an abusive cycle. They cry out to God through the whole Old Testament about their victimhood.

They carefully control the frame of the argument so that people don't acknowledge the bidirectional abuse happening cyclically. They make sure the history books only contain the woman's case, much like a police report in a domestic abuse case. So our history books only go on about the violent reprisal of muh Holocaust.

Ever notice how some women will exaggerate things, as if their emotions actually dictated the cognitive mapping of the events that took place in a fight? Suddenly your stern tone becomes guttural screaming in her account? And you're standing there thinking: "I am not screaming, like at all."

This is also the difference between your view of the Holocaust and the Jews' view. To be sure, there are Jewish regarding the Holocaust, but for most of them, it isn't lying in the sense you think it is. It's like the way a woman lies about you screaming in a fight. The reality just is the way it felt to her.

Same idea. Many Jews don't care about the same theory of truth you do...you're screaming at them even when you aren't - because that's how it feels to them. So 6 million didn't literally die in the Holocaust. That's what being in the camps felt like. So like that one time Harry slapped Sally in the kitchen, he is going to hear about how he beat her to a bloody pulp for the next 20 years. And so you hear about work camps and shared bathrooms as if they were ovens and mass graves.

THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL?

Put it together, y'all.

How effective has it ever been for you to tell a woman: "It didn't happen that way." Even if you are correct, not only will she simply not accept your historical account, it will actually worsen the problem because your logical, factually true account becomes an assault on how she feels about it. After all, you're the big strong male.

This is your entire predicament with the Jew in a nutshell.

The Jew IS the feminine principle (not just female, but metaphysically feminine) embodied as a people.

The Bible often referred to the chosen people as the bride of God, and the messiah as the bridegroom.

The Jew is the MISTRESS OF THE WORLD. You do all the work so she can hoard and organize the money. She stays home while you go out and plow the field. No matter what, you lose the fight, even when you don't lose factually. And she never quite goes away. She holds the times you've beat her over your head forever and gets whatever she wants this way. Note that I have said the Jew is not the wife of the world, for a mistress is something you keep in secret, and this gives her more power over you.

The Jews are also the harlot of Biblical Revelation that rides the many-headed dragon: the men/nations of the world which carry her and the leash with which she binds them.

[–] 0 pt

THINK FOR A MOMENT: CAN THERE BE ANY COINCIDENCE THAT THE POWER OF WOMEN IS ASCENDING IN PARALLEL WITH JEWISH CONTROL?

Do you think there's anything wrong with promoting the "Karen" attacks to subvert white female social power since it mostly works against us anyway?

[–] 1 pt

Then again, if the Karens of the world are going to effectively behave like our enemies ideologically and politically, we might benefit from them feeling as isolated and left-behind as possible from their Lefty counterparts.

If they feel they don't have a lifeboat, then reality might start to occur to them.

[–] 0 pt

This was my thought as well. I've 'logically' attacked white lefty women with my fake black account to see how they respond. They end up saying extremely racist things to rationalize their argument (of course its the wrong direction though). To me it just demonstrates they don't really understand what they're saying in the first place. They never humor a contradictory point from a group they're supposedly advocating for. They're just aligning with power and parroting catch phrases.

The Karen attack that can cut through their defenses not because it's logical, but because it has momentum and uses social shame. It seems to work to shut them up better than anything else. Like you said, it's difficult to see how sharp the other side of the blade is.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

That's a very good question, and a very tough one. The truest answer is that I don't know. It has all become so intersectional that it is hard to predict what the cultural outcome would be.

On the one hand, the Karen phenomenon is a sign of degeneracy. On the other, it is a meme aimed exclusively at white women, and as a class we tend to think we're on the wrong side of an ethnically-driven attack.

There are a few things worth considering. First, that each of these two problems has an appropriate scope, in terms of their respective solutions. Another issue is priority.

So my answer goes something like this: the problem of a 'Karen' is downstream of the problem with an individual man. So the scope of the Karen problem is more individualistic.

The problem of the attack on white European legacy is bigger, and Karen is just one smaller domain within it.

Since the broader racial issue is more social in scope, the priority for social solutions needs to be here. I mean that our priority should be on alerting white Europeans to the more pressing situation. That would mean not piling on the Karen criticism in a very public way. That's not to say you shouldn't handle Karen-like behavior where it concerns the people in your life.

The Karen behavior also can be partially explained by the larger cultural attack, so to make the solution feasible for individual men to attract good women and manage individual relationships, we really need to cut out the core of the cultural cancer. To do this will require racial unity.

Strategically, it seems more intelligent to behave like our culture's immune system and alert our body to the truth about its common enemy, as opposed to trying to pile on to a problem with individual female behavior that is so far downstream of the cancer.

Put out the bigger fire first. I wouldn't support any kind of message or criticism at this point that is divisive toward whites.

This does not mean that you cannot criticize bad behavior when you see it. But it shouldn't be something we are trying to actively draw attention to (in order to get back at Karens) right now. If you have a spider crawling on your face, it doesn't help to step on your left toe with your right foot.