Emerald

That's definitely true. It tends to have the same narrative structure. New Agers tend to believe that, in the past, humanity was more brilliant and wiser than it is now. But then, "they" (the Reptilians/elites) came and now we're in a fallen world where we've forgotten our wisdom. And there's lots of hierarchical ideas of Indigo children and awakened people who will graduate to 5-d consciousness and we'll be wise again. And Fascists tend to believe that, the nation/race was once idyllic and great. That is until "they" (the cabal of elite Jewish people) came and brainwashed everyone into Feminism, multiculturalism, and post-modern Neo-Marxism, and now we're in a fallen world. But we, the great people, will defeat that Cabal and rise again into our former glory and become a mono-cultural patriarchal theocratic utopia once again. So, the structures of the story is very similar. And I notice that New Age people tend to get easily tricked into Fascist thinking.

I could be wrong. I've acknowledged that I don't know for sure. So, it isn't slander. It's an interpretation. But I am more inclined than not to believe that it was a dog whistle. And if he doesn't want people to think that of him, he should try to distinguish his conspiracy theories from QANON's conspiracy theories.

That's the nature of a dog whistle. You don't say it directly, so that you can give yourself plausible deniability. But the intended audience (and those familiar with the code used by the intended audience) will hear it. But if you point it out (like I did) average people and the intended audience will go, "Nah! You're crazy. You're reading too much into it. He didn't even use the word Jew once." And perhaps that wasn't who he was talking about when he mentioned "scheming overlords". But also... perhaps he was. Either way, I know how Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists received what he said. And I'm almost positive I could go on a Chan board or Reddit board right now and find posts by Neo-Nazis that say, "Is Aaron Able Crypto?" Whether or not that was his deliberate intention is hard to tell. But it certainly pricked my ears up, and he lost all credibility in my mind.

Certainly, Andrew Tate draws in guys who are insecure and he exacerbates the misogynistic feelings that were already there. But the issue that I take is that you think of overtly aggressive guys like Tate as the average misogynist. My experience has been that for every 10 regular, awkward, insecure guys who are misogynists, you have 1 macho aggressive misogynist like Tate. I suspect the general populace over-estimates the Masculinity, aggression, and virility of the average misogynistic guy. When I've been on the receiving end of misogyny, it's usually some really insecure average guy who's gotten resentful and is trying to take me down a beg. But perhaps that's just my own experience. And maybe there are more aggressive emotionally stunted misogynists who have gone numb to their vulnerabilities than there are insecure and vulnerable misogynistic guys. It just doesn't seem to be the case.

That can happen too. It just doesn't match my most common experiences with misogynistic men.

Green mostly gets picked on because it's the one that's new. And the people here on this forum are mostly in Stage Orange with a strong attachment to Stage Orange values that are woven into their identity.

I still think you're underestimating how much people's connection needs are playing into this dynamic. The main reason why people (individually and collectively) stay in a particular phase of development they're at and don't progress to the next isn't usually because of intellectual deficits... or just because that's the phase of development they're in. People hold onto their current stage of development or clamor for earlier phases in development despite the societal technology changing to reflect a higher stage in development, precisely because they believe that's where they can best meet their needs. And that usually isn't true most of the time, once the societal technology moves on. And right now, Stage Orange's atomization and social isolation is pushing some people forward towards the abstractly collective (but still hyper-individualistic) focus of the earliest semi-Orange iterations of Green that are seen in the contemporary progressive Left. And it's making some stage Orange people clamor for an idealized mythology of what Blue once was because they have a learned resistance towards the initial iterations of Green that are seen in Lefty politics. And like I said, it's mostly men who are in Stage Orange that believe that going back to Blue is going to bring them into a communal utopia where they'll be the most self-actualized version of themselves and respected as a traditional man and have status and an obedient Stage Blue trad wife while they get to have all their usual freedoms that Stage Orange society affords them. But of course, that's not real. That's just a Stage Orange idealization of Blue. Plus, if we truly regress back to Stage Blue... we'd need to un-invent the atom bomb to even survive as a species. And we'd also need to get rid of the internet and international air travel to pull off a consistent Stage Blue consciousness. --- Also, the same values war that's happening now also happened in the Weimar Republic during WWII, as there was a lot of similar initial iterations of Green where people were more accepting of the LGBTQ community and had a more world-centric cosmopolitan view of things, and there were all sorts of art movements and academic expansion associated with Bauhaus. It was Modernist times with the schools of thought in academia and the art world, but verging on the beginning of a Post-Modern era. And then, a demagogue came in to promise the Stage Orange/Blue society that they'd purge the Stage Green cosmopolitan degenerates and Communists who are funded by the Jewish elite, and bring back an idealized version of Blue when Germany was rural, traditional, pastoral, and idyllic. And then, that failed miserably because you can't really have the government come in and retrofit Stage Blue onto a Stage Orange society. And after the crash, it eventually led into a worldwide clamoring for Stage Green peace and unity which eventually precipitated in the 60s and 70s with hippie movement, anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, 2nd Wave Feminism, and ecological movements that progressed even further into Green than during the Bauhaus era of the Weimar Republic. So, you can look at these types of patterns that came from WWII (and WWI as well) and see that there tends to be a natural burgeoning of Green world-unity values to contrast the devastation of global war caused by nationalistically minded people that are maladapted to a unified post-atom-bomb world. And then we that trailed off into a less popular version of that in the coming decades where there was a holding pattern of Stage Orange society with Stage Green values taken for granted as the norm. And all these Shadows were under the floor boards until Trump came along. And now, we're going back into a few years of top-down authoritarian attempts to reset the idealized version of Stage Blue society. And it will also fail. And similarly, people will likely polarize to the opposite in a decade or two... maybe quicker. That's what happens when you try to re-install a previous phase of development in a top-down authoritarian way. It fails and sends people careening forward as far as they can go. And we enter into a new cycle. Then, all the unintegrated Shadow get pushed under the floorboards again for another generation or two... until we get another authoritarian movement trying to retrofit the old ways onto contemporary society.

It is the same archetypal story. But my ears tend to prick up when I hear it because it is often used to demonize and marginalize real people. And if someone starts with "the lizard people are in government and are controlling us", it probably won't be too much longer until they transition over to a more tangible real-world enemy.

They are old conspiracy theories, but not so complex. Qanon takes a lot of their Jewish conspiracies directly from Nazi Germany. Hearing it now, it's not so clear that he's talking about Jewish people. But that's the thing with dog whistles. They're not supposed to be clear. They're meant to be taken in by each person according to what they think it means. But it can be subtle signal to people on the far right that says "Hey, I'm one of you." I just remember hearing that short last year and going "Uh oh. Not another one."

Yes, the royal "they". It's an easy scapegoat to invoke to make people feel like they're fighting and evil and elite force together. And all of that "scheming overlords" talk usually gets projected onto Jewish people.

If it were something longterm and abiding like enslavement, there would be a generation or two of backlash and then a tacit normalization and acceptance as "just the way things are". But the loss of the right to vote would probably be normalized by the majority of the populace in a few years because it isn't something that affects people every day. And when people would protest about it, people would be weaving the dissident Neo-Suffragettes as the newest edition of the "woke mob."

But most people who are clamoring to go back to Blue are not Stage Blue either. They're just lonely Orange, Green, and Yellow people. And it's mostly Stage Orange men who are clamoring to go back to stage Blue because they think it will be better for them. But they will find Stage Blue to be too constricting because they are past that phase of development. When my first child was a toddler, one of my former professors came to visit me at my house. And I was nursing my daughter, and asked her a question about how her kids handled the weening process. She mentioned that she'd weened her son at age 2. And when he was 3, he got really upset and insisted that he wanted to nurse again. So, instead of denying him, she let him nurse. And he did for a minute and got bored. Then, he was over it because he didn't get what he wanted out of it. It wasn't that interesting to him. If Stage Blue wins the values war (which they might) and we go back to a monocultural patriarchal theocratic values like the days of old, the majority of the people who think they want it now will quickly be clamoring for lost progress. Like the first grader who believes they want to go back to kindergarten... one day into kindergarten they will realize the magic is gone and that they can't wait for the 2nd grade.

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny. I just tend to think of misogynists as being more socially awkward around women because of the hatred patterns. So, my claim is the inverse of what that study is studying. It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys. It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny. But of course, this could be a vocal minority. But I personally suspect that it's not a minority but the majority based on my experiences.

I didn't realize that she'd lost support among women. I thought her numbers with women stayed the same. But it's probably women focusing on the economy and looking for a change. I suppose it's just that the loss of rights becomes easily normalized in the wider populace. If women had the right to vote taken from them, they might be upset for a few months. But then it would probably would become quickly normalized by the populace and just the way things are done.

I disagree with that. People really only care about getting their needs met. They don't care very much how they get it... as long as they get it. It's like, "Do you want the water in the green cup or the blue cup?" If you're thirsty, you'll take the water in whichever cup is available to you. But the collective has already had a lot of collective experience drinking from blue cups. We have a history of blue cup drinking. And we have lots of idealized stories about how blue cup drinking is that draws in people who are in Orange, Green, and Yellow. So, there is a desire to regress to Blue (even with people who are not themselves Blue) because they cannot yet conceptualize drinking from a green cup. But they don't realize consciously that connection is what they're searching for. They have a vague notion of being for the old ways, but what they really want is belonging in a tight-knit community. If right now, there was some Stage Green cult where people could come together in a community... it would attract a lot of the people who are currently in resistance to Green because the reason why they're currently in resistance to Green is because they perceive that opening up to the Green stage in development will get in the way of their needs.

I would give young people a little bit more credit than that, even though their views can be more socially malleable than the average adult. I know I held some very strong views at the time that were contrary to what many of my peers were thinking, which are still part of my internal compass. And I've worked with kids who also have their own nuanced views about the world derived from their own thinking. But to your point, young people are more malleable and influenceable... especially by peers. For example, it's clear that young men are skewing more conservative because of peer pressure and the right wing media environment that's geared towards young men. And this is in spite of previous the previous generations of men being more left-leaning than the generations prior. So, it shows that there can be a regression in values based on peer pressure and propaganda geared towards the youth.

WIth Roe v Wade, that's true that women are still angry. And women came out in near identical numbers to the last election. It was left leaning men who mostly stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala... likely because the men were more focused on the economy than on abortion rights because abortion rights feel less relevant to them. But understand that Trump is the face of MAGA. And lots of Republicans are really into Trump. They're not as much into other MAGA people.

That's true. There is a strong backlash against Stage Green and even Stage Orange to some degree. And there's a desire to go back to the small communal element of Blue. Because the populace hasn't developed the Stage Green communal element yet, the last known source of community is in Blue. That said, because elections are so close and people are so partisan because of the media landscape, I have a hard time chalking a loss or a win up to more than just the average under informed swing voter's perceptions about things like the economy.

One reason why the Republicans under-performed in the midterms is because Roe v Wade had just been overturned, and that was still fresh in the minds of the populace and hadn't been normalized yet. Plus, it was mostly election denying Republicans who lost their races. Generic Republicans did quite well comparatively. I think Trump himself excites the base. But I don't think Trumpy generic Republicans in the house and senate excite the base much at all. Trump is pretty much the face of MAGA. And MAGA without Trump is pretty unpopular.

I don't think that was the primary driving force. Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation. That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor. In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change.

I don't think Bernie is to blame for Hilary's loss. I think she just ran a bad campaign because her whole slogan was "I'm with her" and was focused on electing the first female president without any promise to constituents about what she'd deliver. That said if elections were fair and it was 1 person/1 vote, Hilary Clinton still clobbered Donald Trump. Plus, so many people (including me) had their political awakening because of Trump and Bernie. Before then, a lot of people were disengaged.

I remember (maybe a year ago) seeing a YT short or TikTok from him after I'd known about him for several years. And in the short, I forget specifically what he was saying. But he seemed to be dog whistling some QANON talking points and the Jewish Question in a way that most people would miss unless they'd done a deep dive into far right rhetorical tactics. I wish I remembered what specifically he'd said that make me go "Uh oh." But I can't say that I'm surprised at him being pro-Trump. Edit: I found the TikTok... https://www.tiktok.com/@aaronabke/video/7239388342800977198?_r=1&_t=8rg0J6FmRUE

It's too short of a period of time to determine what fails and what doesn't fail. Often time, it's the case that short term failures lead to long terms successes. And that the long terms successes require short term failures for the collective to learn lessons.

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

I know that's true that most men who are "good" with women (in the way pick up artists define it) don't care about women... and many hate them. And having sex with lots of women can tend to exacerbate negative feelings about women in general because it reinforces objectification and disconnection. There's no doubt in my mind that a great many pick up artists are misogynists and/or they have major issues with connecting with women and use sex like a drug, like your friend. And certainly pick up artists are having quite a bit of sex and multiple female partners. And certainly, in the place I grew up in there were tons of emotionally detached men who would use women for sex. And they were misogynistic. None of that is new information to me. I've seen it before, as these are also relatively common phenomena. My claim was more that the average misogynist that I come across seems to be incredibly socially awkward and even afraid of women. Maybe that's a misperception on my part and that that's not as big of a percentage of misogynists as I think. My perception is that that describes 80% of misogynists the I've encountered in my life that they're pretty social awkward. I don't tend to get an image in my mind of an emotionally detached guy when I think about misogynists. I get an image of a fairly desperate and bitter guy. So the types of guys I'm thinking about when I think about the concept of a misogynist is that they are probably having much less success with women than the average guy. I'm sure that's true. But maybe these types of guys account for a lower fraction of misogynists than I had assumed. But I also see that men who are truly detached from women's humanity could potentially see women as mere objects to manipulate. In which case, the social awkwardness may not even be a factor. And that could lead a guy to getting a lot of sex because he could just treat pick up like going to the grocery store. I'm just not sure that that describes the majority of misogynistic guys who seem pretty upset and pressed about women all the time. Now I'm curious what the mean, median, and mode are regarding types of misogynists.