As an aside, they always put non-threating people (effeminate men, women) out front so that we will obey and see everything as caring, fun and great. If a 'certain someone' rode into town decked in Hugo Boss we would know that danger was afoot and resist the takeover. But hey, how dangerous can a drippy man in a unicorn shirt be? (This is their cognitive warfare).
Hihi, true enough (I recall Elon Musk quipping something sordid, if funny, about this).
I'd argue that this is so weird as women's partnership behaviour is technically called 'hypergamous', i.e., marrying socio-economically upwards.
Now, with women outnumbering men at colleges, this will become ever more problematic if that kind of tendency relates mostly to credentialism. As more men go (back) into the trades, competence once more will come to parallel 'status' (alone).
Back to your point: it is, indeed, weird, that the most visible people trotted out in recent memory are virtually all the way you describe them ('effeminate men, women'), with legacy media calling anyone who displays charisma or competence literally 'toxic'.
If pedophile/LGBT-agenda, climate-cultism and institutionalised feminism have proved anything, it is that rational choice theory when implemented system-wide leads to disaster.
Everyone such as this snot-fondler you picture above is making rational choices to further themselves based on their own rationale which esentially boils down to the ontological (or should that be epistemical?) root of modern capitalism:
"Do /I/ profit from this, here and now, with no risk or cost?"
On that kind of "ethos", nothing can be built.
In nature, parasitoids sometimes almost wipes out their host/prey-species.
As an aside, they always put non-threating people (effeminate men, women) out front so that we will obey and see everything as caring, fun and great. If a 'certain someone' rode into town decked in Hugo Boss we would know that danger was afoot and resist the takeover. But hey, how dangerous can a drippy man in a unicorn shirt be? (This is their cognitive warfare).
That is a keen observation, thanks for pointing this out!
Look at how Bill Gates dresses and acts.
Hihi, true enough (I recall Elon Musk quipping something sordid, if funny, about this).
I'd argue that this is so weird as women's partnership behaviour is technically called 'hypergamous', i.e., marrying socio-economically upwards.
Now, with women outnumbering men at colleges, this will become ever more problematic if that kind of tendency relates mostly to credentialism. As more men go (back) into the trades, competence once more will come to parallel 'status' (alone).
Back to your point: it is, indeed, weird, that the most visible people trotted out in recent memory are virtually all the way you describe them ('effeminate men, women'), with legacy media calling anyone who displays charisma or competence literally 'toxic'.
If pedophile/LGBT-agenda, climate-cultism and institutionalised feminism have proved anything, it is that rational choice theory when implemented system-wide leads to disaster.
Everyone such as this snot-fondler you picture above is making rational choices to further themselves based on their own rationale which esentially boils down to the ontological (or should that be epistemical?) root of modern capitalism:
"Do /I/ profit from this, here and now, with no risk or cost?"
On that kind of "ethos", nothing can be built.
In nature, parasitoids sometimes almost wipes out their host/prey-species.