CPS/Foster (un)care system targets weakened and financially destitute families (usually single mothers) to funnel the children into their system that INCREASES GREATLY the horrible abuses from sexual to incarcerated to mandated drugging etc they foist upon the lower strata.
You don't see a lot of independently wealthy soldiers or police officers.
We pretend we need these violent emotionally repressed drones.
And then we blame-the-individual for being violent and emotionally repressed.
I tend to blame (I prefer the term credit) those who do violence with the actions they've chosen. I also am not prone to using low IQ as a qualifier to excuse it.
I understand the processes that lead to such moments, but refuse to excuse or justify when those who are abused in turn seek violence against innocent parties. Since I was a teen I saw a lot of savage violence, and felt a disgust that those people didn't target the people that had wronged them (if there was a genuine wrong that occurred). Be it courts, police, politicians, an employer, a parent etc. It just doesn't make sense in an extreme example of police murdering someone, so you begin beating and robbing innocent people while you destroy their property. Now if those same people had went after the police and the politicians and judges who passed the laws "authorizing" the abuse that enraged them, they would wish for one like myself to be on their jury.
I'm really surprised that we don't see more backlash than we do against the many oppressive programs, some of which are crimes against humanity level of abuse. I often wonder when we see someone was murdered, or their child was wrongfully kidnapped and placed into the foster system etc where the dad or brothers or sons are at that they got away with it.
this vid completely changed how i think of violence in society
I finished the video.
I really liked it, and already knew a lot of what he spoke of without having read the books and studies he mentioned.
At the end, he mentioned the mob mentality (in connection with Trump) was what they feared, as it transforms the masses into animals. In a recent conversation I had here with Rycharde on the individual as opposed to the masses, I mentioned a belief I think might be the cause in regards to the masses and the way they transform.
https://blurtter.com/blurt/@practicalthought/quppng
If you will continue reading down in the back and forth I think you might appreciate it.
Thanks for sharing this video. It's always a pleasure to see studies presented that are a confirmation of what one holds as true from personal observation/feeling.
∴
Yes, I see so much I've witnessed already being affirmed in just the first 4 minutes.
Insider/outsider group dynamics. You can see this play out despite the forced efforts at integration/inclusion. If you watch how groups act, you can see this is not natural for us, as you will see majorities choose segregation into their groupings, often by race.
In the red pill community, it is acknowledged that men are human doings, women are human beings. Men are only valued for our utility. Women are valued for simply being. Men are the builders and caretakers/protectors of society, despite the push to say it isn't so. I have suspected for years this is done on purpose to make societies more easily controlled. Men have been neutered and separated from their roles, castigated that attempts to make claims based on that responsibility are toxic. More harmful is many of these roles (parenting, seeking to ensure justice, protecting and even building without permission and fees) are punishable now as crimes.
He mentions in one mating ritual that 3/4ths of all matings in one group was with only 4 males. This is an interesting validation for what men in the red pill see. Now that women are encouraged to be free in their selection, they in many cases all chase the same small subset of men.
This is interesting as we see the push back from men. I believe that it was observed by smart alpha men in the advanced nations (before they were advanced) that if they were to share the women, it would give the majority of men a reason to help them build empires. They would have a stake by having children to build for. Childless men who have no woman cares little for the most part about many of the things that make up society.
We are seeing this unravel now as the more women demand they will only be with a certain group of men, they are having lots of children that many of this alpha group refuse to take care of. Most of these men will not settle for one woman, they have a harem of women waiting.
The majority of men are finding themselves subsidizing this via taxes and in many cases being tricked into supporting this through deception where they are settled for, but often love bombed until the legal contract of union is signed. Then they find themselves slaves to supporting this dynamic. There is a growing push back occurring, seeing men tired of being disposable assets/slaves.
None of this is leading to a good ending, because as noted, the alpha males in many cases don't care and we are seeing more women and their illegitimate being subsidized for their choices by the state. The state who only exists by majority rule. Once the boiling pot reaches a certain speed, the men who still have a spine react. Even if in some cases it means dropping out and doing as little as necessary to get by.
Now what I will say is that (I hope this is acknowledged although not sure due to political climate it can be) like with all animals with variations, there are differing levels (as an average, not outliers) as to the aggressiveness of the men in terms of territoriality. I've mentioned (not sure but think it was to you) that one of the reasons I believe men of color are targeted with violence by the enforcers of the owners of the human farm are because they are more prone to resistance, and often willing to match violence with violence. Unfortunately they can often include others who are innocent of the offenses they bristle against.
Will continue watching now, although not sure I will have time to finish today. Might comment more afterwards.
Just under a quarter of U.S. men between ages 40 and 50 were childless, and about 17% had never been married by the time they were in their 40s. Both figures were noticeably higher than for women who had reached middle age. Just under 16% of women between ages 40 and 50 were childless, and 14% had never been married, according to the report.
There were also noticeable differences in workforce participation between fathers and mothers with young children. Nearly 90% of fathers whose youngest child was under age 6 were employed, while that figure was only around 60% for mothers, according to the report. There was no difference between the sexes for childless men and women.
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2019/06/16/apc-census-reveals-percentage-of-us-men-who-are-fathers/#.YM84HOhKh9O