They’ve been doing it since 2019

The goofy thing is, I’ve not really seen any white male anger in response to what is going on with these women and coloreds. You’d think white men would be angry. But I haven’t seen it.

I’ve seen a lot of men going along with this nightmare world, and I’ve seen a few men rationally analyze it as totally non-viable in the longterm. The only right-wing personality I know as being really angry is Bill ORLY.

He is just a really angry, mean person in a cartoonish sort of way.

He got banned from the media for like, rape or whatever, and now he’s out white knighting for AOC and saying there should be a law against flirting with her. So maybe he’s not so angry anymore, or his anger has just been directed towards men who flirt with AOC – I don’t know.

I will say that I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is having a particularly important influence on society.

Campus Reform:

For the Fall 2022 semester, the history department at the University of Kansasis offering Angry White Male Studies as a course that will explore the “prominent figure” that is “the angry white male.”

“This course charts the rise of the ‘angry white male’ in America and Britain since the 1950s, exploring the deeper sources of this emotional state while evaluating recent manifestations of male anger,” the course description reads.

“Employing interdisciplinary perspectives this course examines how both dominant and subordinate masculinities are represented and experienced in cultures undergoing periods of rapid change connected to modernity as well as to rights-based movements of women, people of color, homosexuals and trans individuals,” it continues.

The instructor Christopher Forth writes in the description that the class will ask the following questions: “Where does he come from? What’s he angry about? Is his anger misplaced? Is he blaming the right people? How long has this been going on? Is he a global phenomenon? And how do we move forward?”

Christopher Forth

Forth is a professor of history and the Dean’s Professor of Humanities, serving in the departments of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and American Studies.

He and his class drew significant criticism from Kansas Congressman Ron Estes in 2019. Campus Reform previously reported on Estes’s comments regarding the course’s possible violation of Title IX.

Why is this asshole trying to empower women?

Instead of a course to unite people and empower women, KU has decided to offer a class that divides the student population and could pose a Title IX violation by creating a hostile campus environment based on gender. #ksleg https://t.co/XhUNfpFUcW

— Rep. Ron Estes (@RepRonEstes) April 3, 2019

Yeah, that’s what we need, Ron – more empowered women.

It’s not like that’s exactly what led us here.

It case you didn’t notice, I’m being sarcastic.

Empowered women are all angry, which is why they are making hate courses against men. People know this. Do you know any white women who you wouldn’t describe as “angry”? Black women are actually even worse somehow.

This isn’t serious at all, and any serious person should be able to immediately laugh it off as ridiculous. And by “this,” I mean the entire concept of removing white men from the societies they built.

A new study from the University of Kansas is claiming that people who defend the right to have an opinion Jews don’t like (referred to by the short-hand “politically incorrect”) are actually racist by association.

It isn’t clear if the lead researcher Mark H. White is a Jew, but he might be. While this is obviously a trick intended to browbeat the “center-right” into letting Jews fully overturn the First Amendment, there may be some truth to it. The only opinions you’re not allowed to have are ones that are true, such as that blacks as a group are savages incompatible with Western civilization and Jews are mustering all their power to wipe us off the face of the earth.

While news publications like the The Daily Stormer are attacked by the marginalized Judenpresse elites as “fringe,” millions of people secretly agree with our editorial line. They are just scared to give their opinion in public.

The University of Kansas:

Two researchers at the University of Kansas have conducted a study suggesting that “explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the ‘free speech defense’ of racist expression.”

The paper authored by Mark H. White, a graduate student in psychology, and Christian Crandall, professor of psychology, appears online currently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“When people make appeals to democratic principles — like ‘freedom of speech’ — they don’t always represent a genuine interest in that principle,” White said. “We think of principles as ideas we use to guide behavior in our everyday lives. Our data show something different — that we tend to make up our mind on something based on our attitudes — in this case, racial attitudes — and then decide that the principle is relevant or irrelevant. People do whatever best fits their pre-existing attitudes.”

“We look at people who defend another’s racist speech — for example, defending someone who got fired for going into a racist rant at work — with a ‘free speech’ argument,” Crandall said. “What do we know about people making this argument? The correlation between using the free speech defense and people’s own racial prejudice is pretty high. It’s racists defending racists.”

Indeed, the new study reveals a positive correlation (Pearson r = .43) between having racial prejudice and defending racist speech using the “free speech argument” — a stronger correlation than the researchers expected.

White and Crandall recruited hundreds of participants via the Amazon Mechanical Turk service, conducting several interrelated studies where participants responded to descriptions of recent news events or readings involving someone being punished for racist speech. The racial attitudes of the respondents themselves were gauged using the Henry and Sears Symbolic Racism 2000 scale, a standard measure of racial prejudice in social psychology and political science.

One finding suggests many who defend racist speech using the “free speech argument” might not extend the same principle of free speech to negative comments aimed at authority figures or the public in general.

So this is the new discourse the system is trying to force into the mainstream. It’s been a long-time coming, but a number of surprising political developments have set these forces back. For example, these same Jewish “educational” institutions have been priming young people to physically attack people engaging in free speech Jews don’t agree with, e.g., “Antifa.” They were predicting a more subdued, Hillary Clinton America in 2017. Because they jumped the gun too fast, the establishment’s Leftist attack dogs are encountering fierce resistance.

Nobody believes the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center when they say they like the First Amendment – the sole reason they exist is to restrict the First Amendment. They have developed a system of private, litigation and threat-based censorship to circumvent this barrier, but as the dissidents grow more savvy, they are going to renew their campaigns to pass European Union style hate speech laws the first chance they get.

Expect Bill Nye to soon start reminding you of this “settled science” right after he’s done judging a transgender ping-pong show.