"America has always contrasted its values with that of its enemies."
This is true, but historically America's professed values (at least in the foreign policy realm) are somewhat transactional and established after the development of a policy conflict. We establish our values in contrast to a geopolitical opponent's ideology. Geopolitical opponents change over time, so our espoused values are altered to oppose the latest threat. So, for example, when our foreign policy opponents were monarchies we touted the benefits of our republican form of government. When our opponents were communists we touted our capitalist free market and civil liberties. Thinking about US ideology as transactional and dependent on the opponent of the moment helps explain its incoherency over time and in different political theaters at the same time (think post WWII support for democracy in Europe, socialism and anti-colonialism in Africa, and dictatorship in South America, all at the same time).
I think we see Iran, being a conservative theological government, as vulnerable to development of individual rights. So now we promote Iranian twerking on social media. Tomorrow maybe the US government will develop Iranian onlyfans, pornhub or grinder platforms. And if the female bureaucrats in the US gov that implement this policy believe in this ideology themselves, so much the better.
Excellent article. I really enjoy seeing you attack the crude femininity that now seeks to spread into every corner of American life.
One question about foreign policy and society at large, though. What happens when it comes time for the WOG to make good on its threats and go to war for feminine democracy? Like you often say, at this moment things are easy and luxury is plentiful. It's not so bad that women have so much power because things are still alright for most men. How do you think this gender war dynamic would play out in a war? Or even without a war or catastrophe, if women seek to further their preferential treatment, will it cause a serious backlash from men?
Twerking is a telluric dark magic voodoo ritual to assert power and control over men. It might even have slight necromantic properties..
"America has always contrasted its values with that of its enemies."
This is true, but historically America's professed values (at least in the foreign policy realm) are somewhat transactional and established after the development of a policy conflict. We establish our values in contrast to a geopolitical opponent's ideology. Geopolitical opponents change over time, so our espoused values are altered to oppose the latest threat. So, for example, when our foreign policy opponents were monarchies we touted the benefits of our republican form of government. When our opponents were communists we touted our capitalist free market and civil liberties. Thinking about US ideology as transactional and dependent on the opponent of the moment helps explain its incoherency over time and in different political theaters at the same time (think post WWII support for democracy in Europe, socialism and anti-colonialism in Africa, and dictatorship in South America, all at the same time).
I think we see Iran, being a conservative theological government, as vulnerable to development of individual rights. So now we promote Iranian twerking on social media. Tomorrow maybe the US government will develop Iranian onlyfans, pornhub or grinder platforms. And if the female bureaucrats in the US gov that implement this policy believe in this ideology themselves, so much the better.
Excellent article. I really enjoy seeing you attack the crude femininity that now seeks to spread into every corner of American life.
One question about foreign policy and society at large, though. What happens when it comes time for the WOG to make good on its threats and go to war for feminine democracy? Like you often say, at this moment things are easy and luxury is plentiful. It's not so bad that women have so much power because things are still alright for most men. How do you think this gender war dynamic would play out in a war? Or even without a war or catastrophe, if women seek to further their preferential treatment, will it cause a serious backlash from men?