Almost 80% of suicides are male, and around 70% are white males. And that isn't 70% of the 80%, that is 70% of all suicides are white males. You hear a lot about the high rate of suicide among Native Americans, but the rate among white males is 15% higher even than them.
The age-adjusted suicide rate among white men is four times that of white women.
Even more shocking is the mainstream response to this. If you ask why this is happening, the first thing that comes up on the web is a study from Yale, which blesses us with this analysis:
yaleglobalhealthreview.com/2017/05/14/whi…
What? So the size of the group explains the relative rate of suicide? By what novel mathematics is that true? Besides, they just admitted that white men commit suicide at a rate four times that of white women, and white women make up an even larger group. Women outnumber men.
And where has it been shown the rate of suicide of white men is “inflated”? There is nothing in this article about that, or any other article I could find. That would mean the statistic is faked. Where is the data or indication of that.
How can you drop that bomb in such an article and then just move on, with no proof? The article as a whole looks cobbled together by a committee or computer program, and has basically no information. So why it is top-listed in a search on this question?
To explain why men succeed at suicide so much more often than women, this report offers the Cultural Script Theory, whereby failing at suicide would be seen as girly. So white men make sure to complete the act, due to cues from Hollywood or something.
But of course that doesn't explain why white men succeed more than black men. Is Yale calling black men girly? I didn't think so
The next article that comes up is the most shocking. . . I should say disgusting. It is from Colorado State professor Silvia Canetto. An article on men committing suicide by an academic woman in Colorado. If you are expecting the twist of the knife, you will not be disappointed.
Such amazing levels of caring and compassion, right? It looks like she is the one who came up with the “scripts of masculinity” we saw in the Yale piece.
source.colostate.edu/why-white-olde…
And does Canetto have any data to support this “theory”, or did she just come up with it because it fits her agenda? What do you think? As data, Canetto gives us two—yes two—whole examples.
George Eastman, founder of Kodak, killed himself at age 77. Canetto quotes his biographer, who said “he was unprepared and unwilling to face the indignities of old age”. But wait, where did the biographer get that?
Did she interview Eastman, or did she just explain it that way, as part of the story? We don't know, since Canetto didn't interview either the biographer or Eastman or anyone in his family. Not much to build such a mean-spirited theory on.
Canetto's second example is Hunter S.Thompson, who killed himself at age 67 and was described by friends as having triumphed over “the indignities of aging”. But again, that is friends saying that to have something positive to say. It says nothing about why he actually did it.
Canetto could care less about that, apparently, since she is just dredging up a couple of second-hand quotes that support her thesis. Plus, these guys were already old.
Killing yourself at 77 doesn't save you from old age. You have already been old for years. Maybe he was terminally ill. Anyone who cared about this issue would look at younger cases. So this is just pathetic.
In fact, the highest rates of suicide of men compared to women aren't among the very old, they are among the middle aged, so Canetto's whole analysis doesn't even address the primary data. She is misdirecting from the first word.
Somehow Canetto believes that her theory of cultural scripts “offers a new way of understanding and preventing suicide”. Really? Do you really think that theory sounds supportive, or would help any man decide not to kill himself? Just the reverse.
That theory would just confirm any man's belief that the deck was stacked against him. And I looked it up: this article isn't just a one-off. Her whole career is based on suicide research and “counseling”.
Can you envision Canetto counseling suicidal older men by telling them they are psychologically brittle and privileged? I guess she also brings them hemlock to drink, as an aperitif.
Do you want to guess what her alma mater is. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. That figures. Her larger area of focus is gender studies, meaning promotion of women, so it is no surprise her suicide research is completely polluted by that.
Even when she is supposed to be studying men's suicide, she is lobbying for women. An obvious conflict of interest. Promoting her in the field of men's suicide is like hiring the Klan to write a book about the history of Harlem.
She couldn't possibly discover why men are suicidal, because she obviously doesn't care. Her only interest is in framing men's suicide rates in terms of women's studies: a perversion of science.
If anyone should be drummed out of the field and forbidden from speaking on it, it would be her. Instead, she is sold as the brightest light in the field, showered with awards, and given top billing in websearches.
Reading stuff like this reminds us that many older men may contemplate suicide to get away from older women. What sort of person could publish something like Canetto's theory and think they were being helpful?
As you now see, Canetto is a good lead-in to the larger problem here. For we have to ask how someone like her could ever get in a position to spew such subtle venom.
If we reverse the roles here, and imagine reading a male professor from Harvard, say, who came up with a theory that women committed suicide because they were brittle and privileged, the sky would fall. He would be fired immediately and his house might be torched.
No, it is more than that because we can't imagine that situation at all. No male professor would ever think to write such a thing, much less publish it. The milieu wouldn't even allow him to imagine doing so. The thought literally could not cross his mind.
But Canetto not only has no problem proposing it— without making any good argument—her colleagues, department head, dean, president, and publisher never think of pressing her on it, apparently. She is allowed to say whatever she likes, no matter how asinine. Why?
I guess because she is a woman in academia. She is above reproach, especially when talking about men's issues. Trashing men is not only allowed in academia, in many circles it is required.
The first rule in women's studies is never blame the victim. . . unless it is a man, in which case always blame the victim.
But I point out that this isn't feminists debating men in a fair fight. This is a women's studies professor piling on men who have already killed themselves, spitting on their graves. It is so cowardly and despicable it is beneath contempt.
So this is the milieu in which white men find themselves. The only way they can rise above it is to buy themselves out of it. If they are rich or powerful enough, they don't have to put up with this garbage, but there are few who achieve it.
The universities are now saturated with outlandishly awful people like Canetto. They have created an environment of hostility and aggression no real man would willingly enter.
This effectively removes the ivy tower option for an entire class of men, who no longer have any desire to be a part of it.
Men still have all the old pressures of work, family, and watching the fake news, but many of them no longer have a wife, children or society that support them. They can no longer find meaningful or rewarding work in academia or a thousand other places they used to be welcome.
They only have the new American harpy, ragging on them all day for this that or the other—mansplaining, sexism, the patriarchy, phallocentrism, Metoo or a thousand other things manufactured by the CIA and then dutifully regurgitated by women and cuckolds all over the first world.
They are under constant threat of thinking, doing, or saying something that is not approved by the Ladies Home Journal or the Women's Congressional Committee or the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center or the ADL or the Google censors.
Their children are turned against them as soon as those children go off to school. The kids are taught by everyone from their teachers to Hollywood to the Simpsons that Daddy is big dope, pre-defined as being wrong about everything, while Mommy is a goddess who can do no wrong.
A white male has to start apologizing for being born as soon as he hits the sunlight, following that apology with a constant restitution for the sins of his fathers.
So what is this male privilege Canetto is talking about? Could she cite any examples from the present? Yes, white males were privileged in the past. No one denies it. But that never did me any good. I wasn't privileged by my sex, and younger men are even less privileged.
If anyone is privileged, it is women like Canetto, who move up the various ladders without ever having any skills or doing any real work. The woman can't write or think, so how did she get where she is? Privilege and preferment. Maybe she is from a prominent Jewish family.
Maybe her dad owned the university. Maybe her ex-husband was CIA. Maybe she herself is an agent. I don't know. But she obviously didn't get where she is on merit.
Her only use to the world so far has been as an example I could use here, to finally say something on a question no one else has the balls to speak out on. Other than that, she is loss to humanity.
You may find it strange that men won the gender war for all of history, but suddenly began losing big time around 1970, say. You may not be able to make sense of that. How did women turn the tables so decisively? Did they suddenly become better debaters and thinkers?
Did they become stronger? No, none of that. We can see that isn't true any time we debate one of them, or read something by them, or listen to one of them talking on TV. If anything, their rational skills have only gotten worse since that time.
So have men crashed and burned on their own? Have they been drugged into idiocy? No, though there is a bit of that going on. What happened is that women scored a big ally at that time. An 800-pound gorilla entered the ring in their corner.
Or I should say an 8-million-pound gorilla. The CIA. The CIA decided to take the side of women at that time. Why? Because white men had been specifically targeted after the Second War, and that project began accelerating in the 1960s. Again, why?
Because a certain subset of white men had become a big thorn in the side of the government. To give just one example, the anti-war movement in the 60s was led by intellectual white men on the left.
They had already grown weary of the predation of their class, and the Vietnam War and other events of the 60s were the final straw for them.
They were pressing for real revolution, and this threatened the hegemony of Washington, Langley, and the Pentagon. So the CIA was instructed to recruit all the best white men it could, and target those who would not join either the military, intelligence, or industry.
This is how the universities were targeted by the CIA. Men from this class who resisted recruitment had often gone into academia, where there was still some interesting work for them at the time. They would also be protected by tenure and things like that.
But once the CIA brought this project to fruition, that was all out the window. They planted their own people in all the highest positions like presidents and deans, then began redefining the universities from the top down. See people like McGeorge Bundy at Harvard.
This is when gender studies arose, and this is why. After that, the only men that would be kept is men that would play along. All other men were targeted for extinction.
So it isn't women you are fighting in this so-called gender war. It is the CIA. These women like Canetto are just reading from scripts, like everyone else in the fake news. One-on-one, you could defeat her over breakfast, while cutting your toenails.
But as I have shown you, once you understand the score, you can also defeat all these CIA agents, who are no more formidable than Canetto. They are the ones actually producing the dreck she publishes, so we know what they are capable of.
You will say that is all fine and good, but this isn't a debate. Even if you beat these people in a war of words or thoughts, they still own the universities. The job market is controlled, so you are royally screwed regardless.
Not really, since once you comprehend how things stand, you begin to see ways to fight back. When you thought you were fighting women, you had no battle plan, because you couldn't see the field. You didn't even know who to attack, much less how.
But once you understand who the real enemy is and what he is up to, your wits may clear. Your depression may lift, for one thing, since you understand this isn't your fault and the things being said about you aren't true.
You also understand that most women aren't really against you, since this isn't really the gender war it is being sold as. You understand that you can just walk around these confused little sell-outs like Canetto, who are of no consequence.
They represent no real block of power, since if you can defeat the gorilla they will fade away immediately. You can also remind yourself that you are still a member of the most powerful army in this country. White men comprise 31% of the population, or over 102 million people.
Although Intelligence may comprise 6 million people or more domestically, you still outnumber them 18 to 1. They are white-male heavy, but since all those white males in Intelligence are by definition sell-outs to their category, we know they are not the cream of the crop.
The best of us would never agree to be involved in what is now going on. Which is precisely why I mop the floor with them every time we meet, no matter how many of them are on the other end of the line.
And it is even better than that, since this isn't really a white issue or even a male issue. In other words, in this particular battle, your army isn't just white guys. Your natural allies are all guys, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native.
They have also been marginalized by this project, and the best of them will join you. Giving you another 15% or so. The only guys you can't count on, apparently, are guys in Intelligence. But that is only about 3% of guys.
And it is even better, since a majority of women are also on your side. They aren't in favor of this demasculation of men, since such men are no use to them. A 2019 National Geographic/Ipsos poll found that 69% of women refused to identify as feminists.
ipsos.com/en-us/american…
And even many feminists will not be in favor of these projects run against men, since they are mainly for fairness and there is nothing fair about this project. Which gives you another 120 million people on your side, or an additional 36%. I encourage you to add those up.
It means roughly 82% of adults in the US are on your side. So it is not as bleak as you may have thought. You have to battle only against the other 18%, most of whom also aren't serious opposition.
In reality, your enemy is only about 30 million people, most of them in Intelligence or academia. The ones in academia will fall with the gorilla, so you can walk around them and focus your fire on the gorilla. The CIA is your real target, not some batty ladies in gender studies
Doing the math, that means that you have 160 million people you can mobilize, if you do it right. The CIA's only hope is that you don't organize. So their job is to keep you on the couch, drinking beer and kicking the dog.
To do that, they have a zillion ways to divide and corral you, squash and confuse you, divert you and drug you into a stupor. The only question is, are you going to continue to let them do it? You can wake up tomorrow and begin fighting back.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Goldstein (NON-GMO human)

Goldstein (NON-GMO human) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MrGoldstein7

27 Apr
Naomi Klein is a former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics. Her articles are published by places like The Nation and Harpers. These Intel fronts have been pushing propaganda over and over. That is what they do. That is why they exist.
cccb.org/en/participant… Image
The London School of Economics was founded by Fabians, including George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, and Annie Besant. Image
Annie Besant led the Theosophy movement at the time, which was an Intel creation. Beyond that, these people were involved in the rise of the misnamed Labour Party, which—like its counterparts in the US—claimed to be pro-Labor while being a cloaked tool of the Industrialists. Image
Read 120 tweets
25 Apr
Trump has now urged his supporters to get the vaccine, proving he is also a puppet of Gates and the others. Proving this is not a red versus blue question. This will come to haunt him and those behind him.
It is guaranteed to backfire, and will be just another arrow in the body of this entire current scheme. It will now be impossible to sell Trump as the savior, saving everyone from the evil liberals.
When hundreds of thousands are killed or permanently damaged by the vaccines, Trump will not be able to claim innocence. As vaccine deaths rise, the rulers will have to groom a new savior, having him speak out against the vaccines.
Read 5 tweets
24 Apr
When Louis Pasteur died, he left instructions that his laboratory notebooks be passed along to his heirs with the provision that they never made the notebooks public.
However, his grandson, Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, who apparently didn’t care for Pasteur much, donated the notebooks to the French national library, which published them.
In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his studies.
Read 8 tweets
24 Apr
Health officials believed that the cause of the Spanish flu was a microorganism called Pfeiffer’s bacillus, and they were interested in the question of how the organism could spread so quickly.
To answer that question, doctors from the US Public Health Service tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five by collecting mucous secretions from the noses, throats, and upper respiratory tracts of those who were sick.
They transferred these secretions to the noses, mouths, and lungs of the volunteers, but not one of them succumbed; blood of sick donors was injected into the blood of the volunteers, but they remained stubbornly healthy;
Read 4 tweets
24 Apr
At Amazon, we learn Vernon Coleman is published by the European Medical Journal, which is now pushing Covid. That seems strange, doesn't it? emg-health.com/covid-19/covid…
This is a guy who is most famous for saying you are most likely to be killed by your doctor, and yet he is published by the European Medical Journal? How does that make any sense, unless he is controlled opposition. Yes, he is right about some things, but that is how it is done.
You control the opposition by telling them a lot of things they already know and want to hear, then spin them off. He is right about vaccines, for instance, but among his other 100 books are titles like The Coming Apocalypse and Are you Living with a Psychopath?
Read 9 tweets
24 Apr
It looks to me like Ole Dammegård was hired to admit to a lot of the anomalies in Oslo and Utøya, but then to spin you back to the desired conclusion: the murders were real and something very scary is going on.
The event controllers, don't really care which set of stories you believe. You can buy the mainstream story or any of the alternatives, as long as you believe it happened. The goal is the creation of fear, and if you believe it happened, it doesn't matter who did it or how.
In fact, Dammegård's alternative theory is even scarier than the mainstream story, since he is trying to sell you the idea that some shadowy forces in the government pulled this, for some deep dark purpose.
Read 122 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!