Why are young women (especially white women) and immigrants voting en masse for the Left?

Imagine living in a country that already boasts a significant level of "diversity," a high standard of living, and public policies ensuring extensive social welfare—perhaps a Germany or Sweden of the mid-21st century?

Do you need more?

More "diversity"?

Could any country sustain an indefinite influx of people over an equally indefinite period?

Basic logistics alone tell us the answer is no.

Imagine also noticing a steady rise in crime and other forms of incivility, an institutionalized animosity directed at you because of your race, and the progressive takeover of your city's social spaces by foreign cultural groups that are openly hostile toward you.

What would you do?

The most logical and rational reaction is to seek to understand what is actually happening. First, you would recognize the situation as negative, given the growing sense of insecurity and social unrest. Second, based on the facts you uncovered, you would begin to act logically. So, if you perceived a direct link between rising crime and excessive immigration—which is indeed the case—you would vote for the politicians or parties seeking to combat these issues when a major democratic election came around. It seems too obvious a course of action to ignore. And this is especially obvious if you are a woman—even more so if you are a white woman. The vast majority of right-wing and even far-right parties seek nothing more than to curb these excesses and return to a fully livable state of normalcy. Proposals such as: banning men with gender dysphoria—who identify socially as trans women—from participating in women's sports; vetoing further "thought crime" laws, like the misogyny law (as seen in Brazil); and closing borders to mass immigration—or simply not leaving them wide open for anyone to enter, as both the identity-politics Left and the radical Left desire...

If you are a young white woman living in a Western European country—especially a very wealthy one—your most basic rights are already guaranteed by law; you already have enough "diversity" to "celebrate"; you already have a welfare state that guarantees your labor rights—yet you still want more?

More of what?

It is a level of insanity that is hard to top...

2nd case of insanity or irrational stupidity: The logic of leaving a country where you no longer wanted to live for a country you chose to call home, only to vote to make that new country more like the one you left behind

I know that subheading is clunky, but it clearly illustrates the insanity of an immigrant's behavior: leaving their country of origin—not just due to poverty or war, but often out of genuine admiration for their chosen destination (its culture, its people)—only to vote for (left-wing) parties that aim to make that new country resemble the one they left. It is akin to a Mexican leaving Mexico to live in California, only to find Mexico itself transplanted there, slowly eroding the Anglo-Saxon culture—directly responsible for California's success—that existed before. And when I speak of culture, I’m not just talking about an abstract set of rules and behaviors, but about a population's capacity to absorb, accept, and/or practice them—because there is a clear correlation (an intersectional one, not mere coincidence) between ethnicity or race and the average statistical variation in behavioral tendencies (which are predominantly intrinsic)...

But that’s not the case! A Middle Eastern immigrant moves to Sweden and votes for the Left—the very faction that wants to import more people like him to live there. The result? The place where he lives and enjoys the benefits becomes increasingly like the place he left behind...

Is there any logic to be found here?

Tribal sentiment might explain it. Or the "strategic" mindset that "the more of us there are, the better." But wasn't it precisely the people who built and sustain that advanced society who were the "best" fit for it? If they become a minority or disappear, will "their people" be able to handle the job?... considering they can't even manage it in their own lands?

Another list of controversies

 There is a seemingly disproportionate number of women identifying as feminists who are literally or objectively despicable—basically no different from the misogynistic men who hate or look down on women, the very people they claim to oppose...

"Men have become obsolete"

A phrase from a typical "bourgeois feminist" (often a "high-end call girl"). It comes from one of the creatures most useless to any society or community—a type of parasite speaking of obsolescence or uselessness from the height of her bourgeois, victim-playing parasitism, surrounded by every comfort predominantly invented and sustained by men...

Much of what the most "engaged" of these "feminists" (randomly) accuse men of threatening or doing to them—things that exist only in their morbid imaginations—is perhaps what *should* actually be done to them... They are so insufferable that the idea of ​​committing acts of violence against this type feels tempting... A sort of reverse psychology. And perhaps that is exactly it: deep down, many of them might be screaming for a dominant male to pull their hair and assert himself over them...

Some of the more problematic types of men are incorrigible misogynists. The same applies to certain problematic types of women—hopeless misandrists...

What do they have in common? Human psychopathy.

One of the most interesting intellectual challenges would be to place people in debates where the only rule was never to use any kind of logical fallacy, just to see which individuals and groups would come out on top...

Backing away from a lost debate is a measure taken for the sake of mental health. There are times—more often than those of us inclined to get into such confrontations usually think—when it simply isn't worth persisting, especially when things start off on the wrong foot... Admitting a mistake isn't a sign of weakness—except to a fool. But there is also the option of backing down and declining to engage in a debate that was already open...

If the Left doesn't *intentionally* want to destroy countries—or the world, for that matter—it certainly makes a massive *unintentional* effort to do so.

It is incredibly irritating to see white people constantly talking about "Right vs. Left"... Even though the inability to consider multiple perspectives is a universal tendency among most human groups, seeing this specific group—constantly on social media—displaying their inability to think rationally is even more annoying, simply due to the frequency of it. It is also irritating because they view themselves as the "heirs to Western thought"...

There are people who are predominantly stupid but are nonetheless lovely, or who possess personality traits that stand out more than their stupidity. The typical political activist—especially the leftist one—is a case of a stupid person whose stupidity is their most prominent feature.

The "champagne" (and wealthy) Left is drawn to "everything that is no good." Yet, they love to enjoy everything that originates from the very things they claim to dislike.

While I continue to believe that homosexuality is not a disease, I have previously mentioned the idea of ​​treating it as a health condition with neutral status. However, given the highly significant positive correlations with mental disorders that it presents, I am reconsidering reclassifying it as a disorder—albeit one of moderate status (a conclusion I had reached in previous texts but without, until now, settling on a consistent stance, having wavered between viewing it as a disorder and as something else entirely).

"Neuroscientist" is often a euphemism for a sadistic psychopath who loves torturing animals or non-human test subjects to prove certain obvious facts—facts that could simply be observed through pattern recognition, such as the fact that the organization of an organ like the brain is genetically determined, a conclusion evident from observing the birth of offspring in certain species that emerge with bodies and minds already highly developed, capable of walking the moment they leave their mothers' wombs...

A prime example of typically irrational female behavior

The social contagion of plastic surgery with questionable results

Why get plastic surgery that makes you ugly or strange instead of "improving" your appearance?

Ask this to many women who have already had surgery or are considering going under the knife and getting a new, weird face. But it's probably just to follow the trends of certain niches, usually more "privileged," upper-middle-class women, "celebrities" (many of them very rich...). And, of course, this is very irrational. If it seems more common for women to fall for these counterproductive trends than men, well, that started a long time ago. Ever since they began to accept that piercing their ears or wearing high heels makes them more feminine, or at least more acceptable in their exclusively female social circles. All for the vanity of the moment, for the constant and ongoing conformity of the Venusians. But what about the Martians?