The idea of Mob Psychology is simple enough. Crowds act collectively, especially when they are gathered for cause. Football crowds are an example. The Wiki prefers to call it Crowd psychology but it makes no difference. The Wiki has another article called Herd Mentality ex Wiki, covering the same ground
One might assume that it only applies to mobs, the common herd or even peasant masses. The ugly reality is that elites of one sort or another are very much open, perhaps even more to it. One example is the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Oxford. These leading intellectuals chose to give the Archbishop of Canterbury and a pair of Bishops a fair trial then had them burnt at the stake as Heretics. That was in 1556 AD. The current Quasi-Intellectuals wouldn't do that; they now have different obsessions, just as silly, just as perverse.
All of this applies to the other place, whence the Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Cambridge. They also claim implicitly that Blacks are just as good as us. That is why they admitted a loud mouthed black into their number. She is Sonita Alleyne, stupid, ugly and ignorant. She has never done any research or even taught but she was appointed Master of Jesus College by men who are vastly superior to her. The Irish Savant explains his disgust. Is he wrong? Do you know better? Tell him, tell me - if you have reasons.
The victims of the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Oxford are now referred to as the Oxford Martyrs when they are remembered at all.
There are claims that Blacks are our intellectual and moral equals, that they are capable of running nations. Examples like Zimbabwe are duly ignored. The Lunatic Fringe is not merely alive and well; it is thriving. An aspect is explored by the Irish Savant at Mass Formation Psychosis.
Another example of mobs being manipulated was caused by Trofim Lysenko, a biologist. Joe Stalin chose to believe him. Other men in the business asked how Lysenko's theories worked. This was dangerous. Dissenters died in prison.
Light is cast on the issue by Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841 covering the South Sea Bubble [ 1711 ], the Mississippi Bubble [ 1719-20 ] & the Dutch Tulip Mania [ circa 1634 - 1637 ] but not the current house price bubble [ circa 1950 - to this day ].
Another source is The True Believer. It is highly recommended by Alan Sabrosky in his article, Deconstructing The Woke World - Desperation Design And Dementia about 2022's current crop of crazies.
Another term for mob psychology is Thought Collective, one with Marxist overtones.
Mob Psychology ex Wiki
Crowd psychology, also known as mob psychology, is a branch of social psychology. Social psychologists have developed several theories for explaining the ways in which the psychology of a crowd differs from and interacts with that of the individuals within it. Major theorists in crowd psychology include Gustave Le Bon, Gabriel Tarde, Sigmund Freud, and Steve Reicher. This field relates to the behaviors and thought processes of both the individual crowd members and the crowd as an entity.[1] Crowd behavior is heavily influenced by the loss of responsibility of the individual and the impression of universality of behavior, both of which increase with crowd size.[2][3]Origins
The first debate in crowd psychology began in Rome at the first International Congress of Criminal Anthropology on 16 November 1885. The meeting was dominated by Cesare Lombroso and his fellow Italians, who emphasized the biological determinates.
- "Lombroso detailed before the first congress his theories of the physical anomalies of criminals and his classification of criminals as 'born criminals', or criminals by occasion and mattoids. Ferri expressed his view of crime as degeneration more profound than insanity, for in most insane persons the primitive moral sense has survived the wreck of their intelligence. Along similar lines were the remarks of Benedickt, Sergi and Marro."
A weak response was offered by the French, who put forward an environmental theory of human psychology.
- "M. Anguilli called attention to the importance of the influence of the social environment upon crime. Professor Alexandre Lacassagne thought that the atavistic and degenerative theories as held by the Italian school were exaggerations and false interpretations of the facts, and that the important factor was the social environment."[4]
In Paris during 10–17 August 1889, the Italian school received a stronger rebuke of their biological theories during the 2nd International Congress of Criminal Anthropology. A radical divergence in the views between the Italian and the French schools was reflected in the proceedings.
- "Professor Lombroso laid stress upon epilepsy in connection with his theory of the 'born criminal'. Professor Léonce Pierre Manouvrier characterized Lombroso's theory as nothing but the exploded science of phrenology. The anomalies observed by Lombroso were met with in honest men as well as criminals, Manouvrier claimed, and there is no physical difference between them. Baron Raffaele Garofalo, Drill, Alexandre Lacassagne and Benedikt opposed Lombroso's theories in whole or in part. Pugliese found the cause of crime in the failure of the criminal to adapt himself to his social surroundings, and Benedikt, with whom Tarde agreed, held that physical defects were not marks of the criminal qua criminal."[5] It is in this context that you have a debate between Scipio Sighele, an Italian lawyer and Gabriel Tarde, a French magistrate on how to determine criminal responsibility in the crowd and hence who to arrest. (Sighele, 1892; Tarde, 1890, 1892, 1901)[4]
Literature on crowds and crowd behavior appeared as early as 1841, with the publication of Charles Mackay's book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The attitude towards crowds underwent an adjustment with the publication of Hippolyte Taine's six-volume The Origins of Contemporary France (1875). In particular Taine's work helped to change the opinions of his contemporaries on the actions taken by the crowds during the 1789 Revolution. Many Europeans held him in great esteem. While it is difficult to directly link his works to crowd behavior, it may be said that his thoughts stimulated further study of crowd behavior. However, it was not until the latter half of the 19th century that scientific interest in the field gained momentum. French physician and anthropologist Gustave Le Bon became its most-influential theorist.[1][7][8][9][10][11]
Types of crowds
There is limited research into the types of crowd and crowd membership and there is no consensus as to the classification of types of crowds. Two recent scholars, Momboisse (1967)[12] and Berlonghi (1995)[13] focused upon purpose of existence to differentiate among crowds. Momboisse developed a system of four types: casual, conventional, expressive, and aggressive. Berlonghi classified crowds as spectator, demonstrator, or escaping, to correlate to the purpose for gathering.Another approach to classifying crowds is sociologist Herbert Blumer's system of emotional intensity. He distinguishes four types of crowds: casual, conventional, expressive, and acting. His system is dynamic in nature. That is, a crowd changes its level of emotional intensity over time, and therefore, can be classed in any one of the four types.
Generally, researchers in crowd psychology have focused on the negative aspects of crowds,[7] but not all crowds are volatile or negative in nature. For example, in the beginning of the socialist movement crowds were asked to put on their Sunday dress and march silently down the street. A more-modern example involves the sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement. Crowds can reflect and challenge the held ideologies of their sociocultural environment. They can also serve integrative social functions, creating temporary communities.[2][7]
Crowds can be active (mobs) or passive (audiences). Active crowds can be further divided into aggressive, escapist, acquisitive, or expressive mobs.[2] Aggressive mobs are often violent and outwardly focused. Examples are football riots and the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Escapist mobs are characterized by a large number of panicked people trying to get out of a dangerous situation. Acquisitive mobs occur when large numbers of people are fighting for limited resources. An expressive mob is any other large group of people gathering for an active purpose. Civil disobedience, rock concerts, and religious revivals all fall under this category.[2]
Mob Psychology ex Psychology
Mob psychology is a theoretical approach attempting to explain collective behavior solely on the basis of the psychological states of people who participate. Mob Psychology is similar to terms such as: crowd psychology and group mentality. It is portrayed in many works of literature, including William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.Mob psychology shows that individuals tend to behave in a different manner as part of a group in contrast to acting independently. Members of a group are prone to acting in ways that they would deem immoral or unjust if in control of their behavior. This is not due to change in one's belief or principle, but rather the fact that individuals tend to ignore or avoid one's conscience or rational judgement. It can be said that individuals in a group defer their goals and take upon the identity of the group. Therefore, members of a group are likely to commit acts they would never commit alone. Being in a group allows individuals to defer blame, responsibility, accountability, and/or judgement upon the group.
There exist many evidence and examples of mob psychology in modern society. One example is the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust. The Nazi party blamed Germany's weak economy at the time upon the Jews. Experts and scholars have long pondered how an entire nation came to persecute their Jewish neighbors. Jews were harassed and treated with the utmost insolence. Another example is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), uniting under the principles of Anglo-Saxon pride, nationalism, and segregation. The Ku-Klux-Klan persecuted African-Americans, promoting segregation under Jim Crow laws, and even murdered innocent people. Both the Nazis and members of the KKK feel that their race is superior to others' and united under a common identity. Nazis had numerous symbols and emblems that they bore, and the KKK dressed in white cloaks and hoods, masking their identity. Books that have been written that exhibit mob psychology include Lord of the Flies by William Golding and George Orwell's 1984.
Herd Mentality ex Wiki
Herd mentality, mob mentality and pack mentality, also lesser known as gang mentality, describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis. When individuals are affected by mob mentality, they may make different decisions than they would have individually.Social psychologists study the related topics of group intelligence, crowd wisdom, groupthink, deindividuation, and decentralized decision making.
History
The idea of a "group mind" or "mob behavior" was first put forward by 19th-century French social psychologists Gabriel Tarde and Gustave Le Bon. Herd behavior in human societies has also been studied by Sigmund Freud and Wilfred Trotter, whose book Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War is a classic in the field of social psychology. Sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class illustrates how individuals imitate other group members of higher social status in their consumer behavior. More recently, Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point, examines how cultural, social, and economic factors converge to create trends in consumer behavior. In 2004, the New Yorker's financial columnist James Suroweicki published The Wisdom of Crowds.Twenty-first-century academic fields such as marketing and behavioral finance attempt to identify and predict the rational and irrational behavior of investors. (See the work of Daniel Kahneman [ See Thinking Fast and Slow - Ed. ], Robert Shiller, Vernon L. Smith, and Amos Tversky.) Driven by emotional reactions such as greed and fear, investors can be seen to join in frantic purchasing and sales of stocks, creating bubbles and crashes. As a result, herd behavior is closely studied by behavioral finance experts in order to help predict future economic crises.[1]
Trofim Lysenko ex Wiki
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофим Денисович Лысенко, Ukrainian: Трохим Денисович Лисенко, romanized: Trokhym Denysovych Lysenko; 29 September [O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a Soviet agronomist and biologist. He was a strong proponent of Lamarckism and rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of pseudoscientific ideas termed Lysenkoism.[1][2]In 1940, Lysenko became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and he used his political influence and power to suppress dissenting opinions and discredit, marginalize, and imprison his critics, elevating his anti-Mendelian theories to state-sanctioned doctrine.[3]
Soviet scientists who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed from their posts and left destitute. Hundreds if not thousands of others were imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death as enemies of the state, including the botanist Nikolai Vavilov.[4] Lysenko's actions and practices contributed to the famines that killed millions of Soviet people;[4] the adoption of his methods from 1958 in the People's Republic of China had similarly calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1962.[4]
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles MacKay
QUOTE
Amazon.com
Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating, and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naiveté. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas....
UNQUOTE
Mob Psychology matters to manipulators, the sort that run the mainstream media for example.
The True Believer ex Wiki
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements is a non-fiction book authored by the American social philosopher Eric Hoffer. Published in 1951, it depicts a variety of arguments in terms of applied world history and social psychology to explain why mass movements arise to challenge the status quo.[1] Hoffer discusses the sense of individual identity and the holding to particular ideals that can lead to extremism and fanaticism among both leaders and followers.[2]Hoffer initially attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements in the first place and why certain efforts succeed while many others fail. He goes on to articulate a cyclical view of history such that why and how said movements start, progress and end is explored. Whether intended to be cultural, ideological, religious, or whatever else, Hoffer argues that mass movements are broadly interchangeable even when their stated goals or values differ dramatically.[1] This makes sense, in the author's view, given the frequent similarities between them in terms of the psychological influences on its adherents. Thus, many will often flip from one movement to another, Hoffer asserts, and the often shared motivations for participation entail practical effects. Since, whether radical or reactionary, the movements tend to attract the same sort of people in his view, Hoffer describes them as fundamentally using the same tactics including possessing the rhetorical tools. As examples, he often refers to the purported political enemies of communism and fascism as well as the religions of Christianity and Islam.[citation needed]
The first and best-known of Hoffer's books, The True Believer has been published in twenty-three editions between 1951 and 2002. He later touched upon similar themes in other works.[citation needed] Prominent leaders and social commentators who have remarked publicly about their interest in the book include American President Dwight D. Eisenhower as well as American Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
Although receiving widespread popular acclaim, the socio-political debate spurred on by the book in terms of academic analysis and commentary has been ongoing. The core thesis of the interchangeability of mass movements and the inherent weakness within them that can cause adherents to slide into dogma and absolutism has attracted significant challenge; multiple scholars have used historical examples of solid group identities that rarely became interchangeable with other communities. Hoffer himself stated that he intended his analysis not to inherently condemn all mass movements in all contexts, particularly citing figures such as Jesus of Nazareth as those who promoted positive ideals. However, he continued to stress the central argument of his work.[citation needed]
UNQUOTE
It makes sense to one engineer.
https://www.unz.com/article/tucker-carlson-and-the-racist-white-ladies/
Tucker Carlson and the Racist White Ladies, by Kevin MacDonald
QUOTE
White women are very difficult and intractable problem for our side. Here we have an account of White women, all of whom are undoubtedly wonderfully liberal and virtuous, accepting that they are in fact horribly racist when told that they are racist by a Black woman and a child of Indian immigrants who have made a business out of such accusations. It’s a deep problem that even having a non-White “partner” and mixed-race children can’t erase. It’s in the DNA of all White women.And the reality is that such mindless conformity to what is presented as virtuous is indeed influenced by the DNA of White people. Unlike the rest of the world where groups are based on kinship and morality is defined by what is good for the ingroup of kin (e.g., “what’s good for the Jews”), Western individualist culture is based on reputation in a moral community. In traditional Western societies, these moral communities were defined mainly by the Christian religion, but in the modern West, they are defined by elites in the media and academia.
It’s difficult to imagine White men in a similar situation be so unanimous in accepting that they are racist even if they have a long track record of voting Democrat, reading The New York Times and The Guardian, and contributing to NPR. I doubt they would be so conformist and self-abnegating (unless perhaps they are thinking of transitioning to being a woman). It’s more of a problem for White women than men, but unfortunately both sexes are prone to it. Here I’ll focus on the sex difference, based on material in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, with most citations removed.
First, personality. In conformity with the evolutionary theory of sex, sociopathic traits are higher in men, while empathy and wanting to be loved are higher in women: On average, women are more altruistic and empathic than men, and they place more value on close relationships. For example, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century abolitionists often had strong religious beliefs and appealed to the empathic tendencies of their audience by graphically depicting the suffering of slaves conceptualized in a Christian religious context—a phenomenon that is quite apparent in contemporary society. Even though both sexes were responsive to these messages, women were more responsive than men:
“In Britain, the campaign to abolish slavery, like the other reform movements, was motivated not by ‘rational will’ but by humanitarian zeal, by compassion rather than reason.”[1] The movement realized that “the way to stir men and women to action is not by biblical argument, but through the vivid, unforgettable description of acts of great injustice done to their fellow human beings [i.e., in a “very lively manner” as Adam Smith noted]. The abolitionists placed their hope not in sacred texts, but in human empathy.”[2]
Empathy is strongly linked to Love/Nurturance, a trait that on average women are substantially higher than men. This implies that women will be more prone to being motivated by empathy for the suffering of others and pathological forms of altruism, particularly if these others are not seen as outgroup members but as members of a common humanity, which of course is bedrock ideology in the contemporary West—”there is only one race, the human race.” In turn, this has important ramifications in the contemporary world saturated with images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and “oppressed” non-Whites. Love/Nurturance involves the tendency to provide aid for those needing help, including children and people who are ill. This trait is strongly associated with measures of femininity as well as with warm, empathic personal relationships and psychological dependence on others.
People who are low on Love/Nurturance are prone to psychopathic personality—exploitative interpersonal relationships, lack of warmth, love, and empathy, an inability to form long term pair bonds and close, confiding relationships, and lack of guilt or remorse for violating others’ rights (i.e., your average successful Western politician). The finding that males in the general population are three times as likely as females to be categorized with Antisocial Personality Disorder fits with the robust sex differences in this system. Psychopathic personality, which is characterized by lack of empathy and social bonds, is associated with having many sexual partners, an uncommitted approach to mating, sexual coercion, many short-term sexual relationships, sexual promiscuity, and lack of nurturance of children.
Because the anti-White left dominates the moral high ground, expressing empathy for Whites makes anyone with such ideas into a moral pariah, as would advocating for their interests, with likely negative effects on career prospects. On the other hand, expressing hostility toward White identity and interests is a mark of virtue. Indeed, expressions of White identity and especially having a sense of White interests have been condemned by establishment media and academic figures as illustrating the lowest form of moral depravity, while anti-White hatred is increasingly prominent in the elite media and among politicians.
Of course, the motives involved in such cases may involve more than empathy for suffering others. While these elite Whites may feel genuine empathy for suffering others in foreign lands to the point of wanting to inundate the West with them, they are also in effect buttressing their status in the morally defined ingroup. They may even be attempting to be “more moral than thou”—competitive virtue signaling—by out-empathizing others in the group. And whether consciously or unconsciously, they may be aware of severe costs if they fail to conform to the norms of their moral community—as well as the benefits of conforming.
As expected given the above-noted sex differences in empathy, women are more prone to pathological altruism than men—the prototype being the long-suffering wife who continues to nurture an abusive, alcoholic husband. Pathologically altruistic people and even people within the normal range of empathy respond very strongly to images of suffering refugees, immigrants, and other non-Whites. And as noted regarding empathy, there are specific brain regions that are activated when a subject feels sympathy for others. Indeed, Williams Syndrome, a genetic disorder, is characterized by being overly trusting and sympathetic.
The conviction of self-righteousness characteristic of pathologically altruistic people need not be rational:
What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.[3]
In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.
Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”
The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.[4]
This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.
Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling—a phenomenon on display in the White women in Tucker’s presentation. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be high on the Love/Nurturance system. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.
Another personality system with strong sex differences is the fear system, with women being more prone to fear. This is an important reason why males with high social status are much sought after by females as mates because they would be better able to protect them. Being high on fear leads to conformity because in the contemporary West there is much to fear if one fails to conform to the attitudes of the mainstream moral community—loss of job, loss of friends and family, and general ostracism. It’s much safer to remain within the confines of the moral community.
Another factor is cognitive dissonance, for both men and women. Cognitive dissonance research has shown that people with strong beliefs, especially beliefs tied up with their personal identity, often do not change them when confronted by conflicting evidence. Fundamentally, the brain wants to avoid conflicting ideas and often uses illogical reasoning and other mechanisms to retain a sense of psychological comfort. For example, when presented with contradictory evidence (such as data showing genetically based race differences in intelligence), people may ignore the data in order to retain a self-image as a morally righteous person. Moreover, people tend to forget evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, and they tend to accept weak arguments that fit with their world view while rejecting strong arguments and data that conflict with it. They may focus their attention not on the evidence itself but on the person presenting the evidence, impugning their motives and accepting guilt-by-association arguments. Clearly, the mind is designed to go to great lengths to avoid psychological discomfort.
* * *
Tucker [00:00:00] So here’s a bio that came across our desk the other day that seemed worth sharing. It’s from a woman called Siara Rao, and she’s got a business called Race2Dinner. This is how she describes herself. Listen, Siara (Not Sarah) Rao grew up in Richmond, Virginia, the daughter of Indian immigrants. For 40 years, she wasted her precious time aspiring to be white and accepted by dominant white society. A futile task for anyone not born with white skin. Several years ago, Siara began the painful process of dismantling her own internalized oppression. Very oppressed. Siara is a lawyer by training, a congressional candidate, a published novelist and an entrepreneur. So leaving aside the fact the lawyer, congressional candidate, published novelists probably aren’t oppressed. How is she an entrepreneur? What is she doing for a living? Well, she’s making a ton of money capitalizing on white self-hatred. And of course, there’s a bottomless well of that in the United States. There’s a new documentary about Siara Rao and her partner. It’s called Deconstructing Karen, and it’s about Siara and her partner, Regina Jackson, and their new company, Race to Dinner. So these two essentially host dinners for liberal wine moms all over the country. Here’s how it works. A group of affluent white women pool $5,000 to hire these two, Jackson and Rao, to come to their home for a dinner party. And then over the course of the night, they demean and degrade them and call them racist. They’re paid to do that. It’s a weird masochism ritual. So the point is for these damaged women to spend their husbands’ money to come to grips with their own suppressed white supremacy. This goes on for two hours from the appetizers to the dessert. There’s a whole film on this and we watched the whole thing and suffered as we did it. To bring you the highlights. Here’s how the typical dinner goes. So the night begins with the white ladies introducing themselves and conceding that they are the worst people in the world because they are white. Watch.
Woman [00:02:12] I am a liberal white woman. We are absolutely the most dangerous women out there. We are the most dangerous women that exist because we’re going to love a little more, because we’re good frickin people. No, we are erasing their experiences. We are erasing their lives. We are erasing the danger that they’re in.
Woman [00:02:33] I’m an artist. I’m a barista. And I learned about this through Saira, through your Facebook. The reason I’m here is because I’ve always thought of myself as being kind of woke. I mean, my best friend is Mexican. My partner is biracial. We have these conversations all the time. But then through following your posts and interacting on your posts, I realized. I’m not doing that great. And I feel like there’s a racist white man living in my brain. And it’s my dad’s voice.
Tucker [00:03:06] “I hate my dad.” Of course, that’s what it’s all about on some level. But the best is white women: we’re the most dangerous people in the world. So of course, that’s not true. The silliest people in the world, for sure. The most dangerous. Hardly. But you’ll notice that’s not really self-abnegation. That’s not self criticism. It’s really bragging. “We’re so dangerous!” We’re so bad!” meaning we’re so strong and so powerful and so important, so significant in world history. So as the rich white ladies attack themselves, the instructors join in. You think you’re bad? You’re even worse than that. Watch.
Instructors [00:03:48] You know what I expect of white women? Not a damn thing. Nothing. I expect nothing of you. Because you have never given me anything. I can’t trust you. You guys need to pull your heads out of your asses. Acknowledge your own racism. Make it right. Stop caping four white dudes. Join us. And let’s overthrow the patriarchy. You walk through the world with a different experience because you are a white woman. White women feel the desperate need to be nice. It’s white women’s niceness that is killing us all. At these dinners, we see white women behaving badly. White Democratic women are attacking white Republican women and vice versa. And you both are taking the moral high ground and you’re all the same. Before the dinners, white women respond much better to other white women than they would with us. And that, in a nutshell, is white supremacy. I have this discussion with people that I know, friends, lawyers, everybody. And they’ll say, well, Regina, you know, there are some good white people. And I go, Well, what have the good white people been doing for the last 450 years?
Tucker [00:04:59] Of course, the white people just paid you $5,000 to yell at them over dinner. So funny. And of course, the Indian lady is a single what is person [sic] at the dinner. But “let’s overthrow the patriarchy.” Of course they already overthrew the patriarchy. That’s why they’re so desperately unhappy. So the dinner goes on like this for two hours, and at one point, finally, two white women speak up to say, actually, we don’t really think we’re that racist. That’s why we’re paying you $5,000 to show that we’re not. Ooh, I shouldn’t have said that. The instructors give them a public thrashing in front of the other ladies. Watch.
Woman [00:05:36] I have two young children and it’s important for me that they grow up colorblind, right?
Instructor [00:05:45] So I’ve heard this a couple times already. Colorblind. And you don’t see color. And I’m just going to drop the bomb here. That’s white supremacy.
Woman [00:05:54] My kids are biracial, so my husband is Hispanic and white, and I don’t see color. I’m blinded to color like it doesn’t faze me at all.
Instructor [00:06:04] You’ve mentioned it and you’ve mentioned it. Being married to a black person or brown person. Having brown or black children does not make you impervious to racism. You cannot, frankly, fuck your way out of racism.
Tucker [00:06:21] You can marry a black dude, but you’re still racist because it’s blood guilt. Of course it’s inherent. You’re born with it. It’s in your DNA. Well, that’s just kind of Rwanda stuff at that point. But they keep going. At the end of the dinner. The instructors ask for a show of hands of who at the table can now admit that they’re racist. And of course, every single white woman, because they’re all sheep, raises her hand and the group cheers in celebration.
Instructor [00:06:50] So who in this room…raise your hand if you’re a racist. Woo. We did it. Thank you. Thanks, guys.
Tucker [00:07:05] So it feels like we’re watching something culturally significant. The fever’s probably already broken. That already looks a little bit antique watching it even now. But in ten years, we’re going to be living in a completely different country with a white minority, by the way, that will look even older and stranger. And what will we make of it? What should we make of it? What does that tell us about the people who run our country? Just to be clear, most people would never participate in something like that on either end of it, either as a host or one of the hapless, high paying guests. But the people who do stuff like that and improve it are the ones who are in charge of everything in America.
Uncensored: The Racist Dinner Ladies (tuckercarlson.com)
Q
UNQUOTE
Q