In the vast majority of instances where I’ve encountered commie band kid types who liked history, they followed the same archetype: interested in Ancient Rome, the two World Wars, and sometimes aspects of the medieval era. Usually they have an extreme fixation on military history and care little about the rest of it, so I can understand how these types never end up questioning their soy beliefs. Yet sometimes I do come across socially progressive types online who are actually interested in history. Sometimes these are HOI-obsessed troons, sometimes they’re redditor types who studied history in college, but regardless of what they are, I just can’t wrap my head around how such people are able to reconcile the facts of history with their delusional soycial progressivism.
To start, the crux of the social leftist worldview is that white Europeans collectively hold a uniquely reprehensible place in history and have a special responsibility to right the wrongs of their ancestors. The theory of intersectionality (which most modern leftists subscribe to) posits that all forms of oppression are inextricably linked and that things like homophobia, misogyny, and capitalism being prevalent globally are ultimately the fault of white supremacist systems put in place by European colonizers who forcibly imposed their social mores upon subjugated populations. Yet so much as rudimentary study of the colonial era leads one to discover that out of 40 countries in Europe, only 8 have any notable colonial history. In spite of this, resistance to shitskin immigration from any European populace, be it the Irish, the Polish, or whomever, is quickly met with leftist shrieks of "WelL, yOu shouLdN’T HavE coLONizeD THem N sHIeT,"
even when the European ethnicity in question never held any territories outside of Europe. Many European groups, such as the Slavs and the Irish, were even victims of imperialist expansion themselves, but again, it seems like this just fails to register in the leftist mind.
Moving on, another conviction I fail to understand how progressives reconcile with history is their opposition to patriarchal society. From Babylon to the West, every great civilization was built on patriarchy. In contrast, matriarchal societies like those of the North American Natives and Bantu-speaking blacks were totally devoid of civilizational accomplishment. There’s simply no question about it; matriarchy breeds primitivity. Males have no ability or incentive to innovate when they’re too busy strangling each other to death in brutal mating competitions, while women lack the drive or faculties to push society into the future. No matter what region of the world or race you look within, patriarchies are always more evolved than matriarchies. Even the likes of commies at least try and save face like “ReAL CoMMuNISM Has nevEr beeN TRiED beFORE," while matriarchy advocates will sincerely point to impoverished tribes in the middle of bumfuck nowhere in attempts to illustrate how female-run societies are professedly better.
I could touch on many more things, but I feel that this post is already long enough for what it is. In conclusion, I just can’t understand how someone can learn history and still be soy. I earnestly believe that “people” like that are really just flesh-automatons.
To start, the crux of the social leftist worldview is that white Europeans collectively hold a uniquely reprehensible place in history and have a special responsibility to right the wrongs of their ancestors. The theory of intersectionality (which most modern leftists subscribe to) posits that all forms of oppression are inextricably linked and that things like homophobia, misogyny, and capitalism being prevalent globally are ultimately the fault of white supremacist systems put in place by European colonizers who forcibly imposed their social mores upon subjugated populations. Yet so much as rudimentary study of the colonial era leads one to discover that out of 40 countries in Europe, only 8 have any notable colonial history. In spite of this, resistance to shitskin immigration from any European populace, be it the Irish, the Polish, or whomever, is quickly met with leftist shrieks of "WelL, yOu shouLdN’T HavE coLONizeD THem N sHIeT,"
even when the European ethnicity in question never held any territories outside of Europe. Many European groups, such as the Slavs and the Irish, were even victims of imperialist expansion themselves, but again, it seems like this just fails to register in the leftist mind.Moving on, another conviction I fail to understand how progressives reconcile with history is their opposition to patriarchal society. From Babylon to the West, every great civilization was built on patriarchy. In contrast, matriarchal societies like those of the North American Natives and Bantu-speaking blacks were totally devoid of civilizational accomplishment. There’s simply no question about it; matriarchy breeds primitivity. Males have no ability or incentive to innovate when they’re too busy strangling each other to death in brutal mating competitions, while women lack the drive or faculties to push society into the future. No matter what region of the world or race you look within, patriarchies are always more evolved than matriarchies. Even the likes of commies at least try and save face like “ReAL CoMMuNISM Has nevEr beeN TRiED beFORE,"
while matriarchy advocates will sincerely point to impoverished tribes in the middle of bumfuck nowhere in attempts to illustrate how female-run societies are professedly better.I could touch on many more things, but I feel that this post is already long enough for what it is. In conclusion, I just can’t understand how someone can learn history and still be soy. I earnestly believe that “people” like that are really just flesh-automatons.
Last edited:
