Thoughts on THIS BOOK? "The Manipulated Man" - Female author bashes women/supports (redpilled?) men AKA battle of the sexes!

[grapes]

Ultimately for context, the Semitic spirit attacks whatever is the mainstream norm. Or putting it another way, whatever the norms are for Whites. But because Semitic attacks work, and because Whites on the whole are open to new ideas, their attacks at some point often become the norm for Whites, which they then reattack as the generations shift and new humans are born.

They don't "reattack" the norms they introduced, they seek to represent both camps for more control. Maybe to have a sort of an "alibi" too, if things turn ugly.

 

[grapes]

It’s probably why they’ve done so well in politics, and why they like things like the stock market or betting or trading (there’s only two ways it can move, up or down).

The easier interpretation would be because these domains allow too build wealth out of nothing, without hard working and bringing any real value to society, bit you get a point for a rich imagination.

 

[Morgan]

They don't "reattack" the norms they introduced, they seek to represent both camps for more control. Maybe to have a sort of an "alibi" too, if things turn ugly.

The easier interpretation would be because these domains allow too build wealth out of nothing, without hard working and bringing any real value to society, bit you get a point for a rich imagination.

How is this different from any other "successful" group of people that have chosen to exploit the system we have collectively decided to live under? Why exactly are you scapegoating some label(semitic) that you have attached or assigned some sort of meaning? When it is clear that this is something that everyone at the top of our hierarchies have chosen to do time and time again.

 

[grapes]

How is this different from any other "successful" group of people that have chosen to exploit the system we have collectively decided to live under? Why exactly are you scapegoating some label(semitic) that you have attached or assigned some sort of meaning? When it is clear that this is something that everyone at the top of our hierarchies have chosen to do time and time again.

So you're saying this group is at the top of our hierarchies ? Isn't saying so is in itself an action of outlining them ?
It wasn't me who brought this "label" to the debate, I was reacting to other people's posts.

 

[Morgan]

So you're saying this group is at the top of our hierarchies ? Isn't saying so is in itself an action of outlining them ?
It wasn't me who brought this "label" to the debate, I was reacting to other people's posts.

The statement "They don't "reattack" the norms they introduced, they seek to represent both camps for more control. Maybe to have a sort of an "alibi" too, if things turn ugly." is affirming the message that you quoted in said post, it is entertaining the idea of "they" that was presented as a so called "semitic spirit".

No, I don't think it matters who is at the top of the grand pyramid scheme; it's irrelevant when the only productive action is to undermine the entire thing, because at this point I believe it is mostly autonomous.. If one group "exits" the hierarchy another simply takes its place with the very same methodology, with this it is culture that must change to shake the foundation and it is the "traditional" culture that gave birth to this monstrosity in the first place.

 

[grapes]

@Morgan , when two things follow each other it doesn't always mean that the former "gave birth" to the latter. When two things happen at the same time neither.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

To the original post - She is right in that men are manipulated, but disingenuous in the actual source of said manipulation.. It is not women to blame, but all of culture, since both men and women are a by product of said culture when they remain ignorant to how it shapes their behavior. The fact that she was able to publish such a piece is worth noting however, and whether or not it is satire ironically gives credence to the proposed idea. It is as if she purposefully wrote this with the intention to shock or to generate a "buzz", especially with how hostile and all encompassing her statements are, and in the end seemingly ignoring the very real pressure that other men put on men as a form of manipulation. The truth is that the entire cultural system is a pyramid scheme of different "hierarchies" and class that seeks to desperately maintain itself in any way it can.. The manipulation truly begins with children.


Wow, I suppose it doesn't take much to generate some sort of "racial" "justification" when confronted with an idea that may be surface level challenging. Fundamentally no idea can stand on its own without a supporting framework of other ideas or proven "facts". Humans do indeed say many strange things..

So, let us test this theory then, the idea of ideas needing some sort of standing. Explain to my why exactly is it a good thing for men to be expected to have no worth until they "prove it", and more specifically why this isn't applied to both men and women? The idea you propose is what I would call "human doing" as opposed to men seen as human beings.. It is disgusting, and human history has proven that; tell me, what value is there in the values of the past when history is paved with so much horror? This may be a confusing question for you, but I see it all as being related, it is an interconnected system not unlike the mechanisms of the human body. Stress and the continual estrogenic pressure to procreate endlessly, all at the cost of the individuals integrity, and in this case the so called "man" proving his worth..

To what end? How many generations of sacrifice must there be? How many men must die young leaving their child without a father? I believe it is very likely you would say something very different when its your son that dies in some pointless war that profits those that have climbed to the top of your "traditional" hierarchy.. Do you view courage as a "masculine" trait? Do you think it takes courage to say "no more", especially when the very act of rejecting this system paints you a pariah, and is in itself a sacrifice for change.

I am saying what is, not what is good. I actually suspect that this knee jerk moralistic reaction that you exhibit here is probably what has been responsible for so much of the “horror of human history”, as you put it.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

They don't "reattack" the norms they introduced, they seek to represent both camps for more control. Maybe to have a sort of an "alibi" too, if things turn ugly.

Um, yes they do. I am talking about a specific example, the actual topic of this post (and tying it to the greater world at hand), not the general state of the world. Both are true, but that’s not what I’m discussing in these posts.

 

[EustaceBagge]

I mean the way you frame something completely controls what meaning you’re going to see behind each action.

I’m looking more broadly. Semitism itself resulted in Feminism. At the same time, as feminism became the de facto cultural norm, Semitism again rebels against that itself, which is why we have this author going against feminism in some means, but the ultimate Semitic spirit still shines through.

As for the rest of your argument, it’s just emotional feels. Ultimately those are based on inherent moral values you hold, and only experience and also an openness of the heart can affect that, so I won’t bother addressing and unpacking any of it.

Emotional feels, yet I made no assertive claim and only said that I suspect you being politically driven. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Semitism -> feminism,
Feminism spreads around
Now Semitism -> antifeminism

So Semitism is just contrarian?

Governor De Santis is Jewish yet is seen as a light in our current world by some.
Yet other Jewish people are not like DeSantis.

Your putting cultural motives as the leading cause behind someone's actions, as if to say that once you've embraced a certain culture it is impossible to have freedom of movement inside of it.

And your claims are not coherent about semitism causing feminism and now doing the opposite for the sole reason that it became widespread, what did they expect when they gave women voting rights, that it would remain in their town only?

Stop this pseudointellectual drivel really, its like im talking to someone that really thinks highly of himself by reading 1 book on philisophy or some ***t. If you were truly open to discussion you would address my point and not call them emotional:

"You are talking about Jewish women feeling inadequate and that this results in reactionary movements against feminism?"

So explain how this makes sense to you. Because every feminist I know claims the patriarchy was oppressing for any women, not only Jewish ones, so every women should feel inadequate by this logic.

I agree on 1 point though, feminism was caused by Jews, whether you fancycoat it or not.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

Emotional feels, yet I made no assertive claim and only said that I suspect you being politically driven. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Semitism -> feminism,
Feminism spreads around
Now Semitism -> antifeminism

So Semitism is just contrarian?

Governor De Santis is Jewish yet is seen as a light in our current world by some.
Yet other Jewish people are not like DeSantis.

Your putting cultural motives as the leading cause behind someone's actions, as if to say that once you've embraced a certain culture it is impossible to have freedom of movement inside of it.

And your claims are not coherent about semitism causing feminism and now doing the opposite for the sole reason that it became widespread, what did they expect when they gave women voting rights, that it would remain in their town only?

Stop this pseudointellectual drivel really, its like im talking to someone that really thinks highly of himself by reading 1 book on philisophy or some ***t. If you were truly open to discussion you would address my point and not call them emotional:

"You are talking about Jewish women feeling inadequate and that this results in reactionary movements against feminism?"

So explain how this makes sense to you. Because every feminist I know claims the patriarchy was oppressing for any women, not only Jewish ones, so every women should feel inadequate by this logic.

I agree on 1 point though, feminism was caused by Jews, whether you fancycoat it or not.

I mean instead of explaining myself in a clear non biased way I’ll just get down to the nitty gritty style that suits some people better.

It seems to me you just glossed over what I said without really thinking about it that deeply. Got that knee jerk reaction.

Semitic culture at odds with the European one caused feminism. As this became the de facto European mindset and new Jews were born into it, they again went against it just like their ancestors did.

The surface layer culture (ie feminism) changed, but the deeper Jewish need to go against European culture didn’t.

I’m not talking about a coherent organized Semitic cabal (though those do exist). I’m not talking about exceptions to the rule like De Santiago (exceptions always exist and are irrelevant). I’m talking about a grand cultural type that is widespread and exhibits itself over centuries.

Intellectualism is garbage circle jerking, I’m just trying to be clear. This convo is devolving into the same style of circle jerking, with the same compulsive cherry picking and hyper focus on point that are irrelevant to the main idea.

“so every women should feel inadequate by this logic.”

Yes, and many do. Not all but many. We’re talking grand macro here.

And because Jewish people also feel this, they have allied themselves with women. And naturally the ones who would feel this the most are Jewish women, which is why so many of them have been involved with so much, and why they eventually go into such a tailspin of cultural perversion that they eventually end up fighting against their own recent forebears work (ie the Jewish women this thread was started about).

I mean culture doesn’t completely control you but you can’t truly escape it. And statistically it had huge effects.

It’s interesting and powerful to think of almost everything as a field, like a magnetic field. Every person has their own “field”, and is inside of many other fields, like a 3d vein diagram. Fields can have an additive or unattractive effect on each other. The sum total of every field is each person and it’s also a living organism, with waves going through the total field as things happen.

Fields don’t control every persons every action, which is why you can find exceptions to every pattern. But they do have an action that most people can’t escape. Maybe in the future that’ll change, or maybe it’s actually something desirable.

 

[EustaceBagge]

I mean instead of explaining myself in a clear non biased way I’ll just get down to the nitty gritty style that suits some people better.

It seems to me you just glossed over what I said without really thinking about it that deeply. Got that knee jerk reaction.

Semitic culture at odds with the European one caused feminism. As this became the de facto European mindset and new Jews were born into it, they again went against it just like their ancestors did.

The surface layer culture (ie feminism) changed, but the deeper Jewish need to go against European culture didn’t.

I’m not talking about a coherent organized Semitic cabal (though those do exist). I’m not talking about exceptions to the rule like De Santiago (exceptions always exist and are irrelevant). I’m talking about a grand cultural type that is widespread and exhibits itself over centuries.

Intellectualism is garbage circle jerking, I’m just trying to be clear. This convo is devolving into the same style of circle jerking, with the same compulsive cherry picking and hyper focus on point that are irrelevant to the main idea.

“so every women should feel inadequate by this logic.”

Yes, and many do. Not all but many. We’re talking grand macro here.

And because Jewish people also feel this, they have allied themselves with women. And naturally the ones who would feel this the most are Jewish women, which is why so many of them have been involved with so much, and why they eventually go into such a tailspin of cultural perversion that they eventually end up fighting against their own recent forebears work (ie the Jewish women this thread was started about).

I mean culture doesn’t completely control you but you can’t truly escape it. And statistically it had huge effects.

It’s interesting and powerful to think of almost everything as a field, like a magnetic field. Every person has their own “field”, and is inside of many other fields, like a 3d vein diagram. Fields can have an additive or unattractive effect on each other. The sum total of every field is each person and it’s also a living organism, with waves going through the total field as things happen.

Fields don’t control every persons every action, which is why you can find exceptions to every pattern. But they do have an action that most people can’t escape. Maybe in the future that’ll change, or maybe it’s actually something desirable.

If I understand you correctly and hopefully I do, your talking about Jews innate desire to go against European culture. But I think we can make that point more clear:
Jews innate desire to go against that which is good. The moment a certain situation stabilizes, whatever that may be (in this case feminism), there will be a need to destabilize that too.

So they don't adhere to a certain value except to the value of destroying.

But your points are a bit vague if I have to be honest, if you can remove stuff like "this" "that" it would make it more clear and I'm genuinely interested. Like what do you mean by: "And because Jewish people also feel this, ..." like what do they feel, that women feel inadequate? It is not coherent at all.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

If I understand you correctly and hopefully I do, your talking about Jews innate desire to go against European culture. But I think we can make that point more clear:
Jews innate desire to go against that which is good. The moment a certain situation stabilizes, whatever that may be (in this case feminism), there will be a need to destabilize that too.

So they don't adhere to a certain value except to the value of destroying.

But your points are a bit vague if I have to be honest, if you can remove stuff like "this" "that" it would make it more clear and I'm genuinely interested. Like what do you mean by: "And because Jewish people also feel this, ..." like what do they feel, that women feel inadequate? It is not coherent at all.

By this and that I’m referring to previous points made, the one made right before the next one.

And yes, it’s a desire to destroy. Framed positively they might say they want to destroy and create, but usually their version of creating is usually just an inverted, perverted antithetical version of White European culture, so it’s always framed in relation to something else, definitely not true creation, it’s always meant to hurt or destroy or weaken. Truthfully I think the entire culture is dependent on European one.

And yeah, it’s usually dependent on whatever European culture is at the time of their lives. They adopt some of it and fight against whatever Europeans hold dear. But of course culture and humans are chaotic, and sometimes either a Jewish person isn’t fully a destroyer, or sometimes they are but lack the intelligence to realize what part of the culture is truly European or Jewish, both results in things like the female Jewish anti-Feminist we see here, though I think she belongs in camp 1 primarily.

 

[EustaceBagge]

By this and that I’m referring to previous points made, the one made right before the next one.

And yes, it’s a desire to destroy. Framed positively they might say they want to destroy and create, but usually their version of creating is usually just an inverted, perverted antithetical version of White European culture, so it’s always framed in relation to something else, definitely not true creation, it’s always meant to hurt or destroy or weaken. Truthfully I think the entire culture is dependent on European one.

And yeah, it’s usually dependent on whatever European culture is at the time of their lives. They adopt some of it and fight against whatever Europeans hold dear. But of course culture and humans are chaotic, and sometimes either a Jewish person isn’t fully a destroyer, or sometimes they are but lack the intelligence to realize what part of the culture is truly European or Jewish, both results in things like the female Jewish anti-Feminist we see here, though I think she belongs in camp 1 primarily.

No need to act smug, I asked for a detailed explanation but your highness of course expects everyone to understand your mumbo jumbo. Oh wait, of course I'm stupid for not understanding it.

And Jews may want to destroy whatever they see as good, but that can mean everything and doesn't necessarily involve European culture. Traditional masculine feminine roles are not inherently European, this is pretty retarded.

And Jews do not go against European culture just because it is European, they go against that which they have to destabilize, and currently the richest countries are European.

You have a pretty narcissistic worldview.

And you also successfully derailed the whole discussion just as I predicted, you made the issue of feminism a societal one in context of Semitism. I was 100% correct.

Feminism is inherently bad, not because Jews have anything to do with it, but because it goes against the natural order of things.

Instead we got this pseudointellectual drivel from a know-it-all.

So common. Don't even bother replying I'm out.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

No need to act smug, I asked for a detailed explanation but your highness of course expects everyone to understand your mumbo jumbo. Oh wait, of course I'm stupid for not understanding it.

And Jews may want to destroy whatever they see as good, but that can mean everything and doesn't necessarily involve European culture. Traditional masculine feminine roles are not inherently European, this is pretty retarded.

And Jews do not go against European culture just because it is European, they go against that which they have to destabilize, and currently the richest countries are European.

You have a pretty narcissistic worldview.

And you also successfully derailed the whole discussion just as I predicted, you made the issue of feminism a societal one in context of Semitism. I was 100% correct.

Feminism is inherently bad, not because Jews have anything to do with it, but because it goes against the natural order of things.

Instead we got this pseudointellectual drivel from a know-it-all.

So common. Don't even bother replying I'm out.

Derailed? I just made a post, and then responded to replies. You’re projecting bro.

I just comment in a simple way, you’re just reading into it, and… filtering reality just as I mentioned in my first paragraph.

 

[Morgan]

I am saying what is, not what is good. I actually suspect that this knee jerk moralistic reaction that you exhibit here is probably what has been responsible for so much of the “horror of human history”, as you put it.

So, the statement "societally it is a good thing for men to be expected to have no worth until they prove it" is good or not? You can suspect anything you want, but I was actually directly confronting what you have said, and it seems as if you do not have an answer besides "suspecting" something.. It will just be endless goal posting anyways, won't it? What's next? I'm not "European" enough to understand? One will say that it's a "moralistic reaction" while another will say I have no morality. I suspect you just want to dismiss what I've said while not actually addressing anything I wrote or any of the questions I've posited.

Explain to me what you mean by "knee jerk moralistic reaction that you exhibit here is probably what has been responsible for so much of the “horror of human history"". I'm genuinely curious.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

So, the statement "societally it is a good thing for men to be expected to have no worth until they prove it" is good or not? You can suspect anything you want, but I was actually directly confronting what you have said, and it seems as if you do not have an answer besides "suspecting" something.. It will just be endless goal posting anyways, won't it? What's next? I'm not "European" enough to understand? One will say that it's a "moralistic reaction" while another will say I have no morality. I suspect you just want to dismiss what I've said while not actually addressing anything I wrote or any of the questions I've posited.

Explain to me what you mean by "knee jerk moralistic reaction that you exhibit here is probably what has been responsible for so much of the “horror of human history"". I'm genuinely curious.

Well I just explained how that was an expectation society used to have, and that good and bad things have happened since that expectation has been twisted.

On one hand many men eagerly accept this expectation and it helps fuel and motivate them to create things and strive. On the other hand it crushes many men under the weight of expectation.

Now that the whole thing has been twisted however I’d say it’s universally become a bad thing.

Expectations like that are probably in the whole a necessary evil. At the very least they should be examined by people. But sometimes they’re necessary evils.

Like parents should have the expectation of raising a child. That’s an expectation we can all get behind.

Women should have the expectation of becoming mothers - well that’s a lot more debatable, but at the same time without that expectation the next generation of humans won’t exist. And without the expectation that men will work, these new humans won’t be raised properly in good conditions.

People who can’t accept these things as necessary often just become nihilistic and misanthropic, not wanting humans to exist, but that in itself is problematic. This is a perfect example of the human condition being inherently unfair and requiring practical compromise. The only way to really solve any of this will be to create a perfect world, but to do that We need people working towards it and we need people creating more humans along the way.

 

[Morgan]

Well I just explained how that was an expectation society used to have, and that good and bad things have happened since that expectation has been twisted.

On one hand many men eagerly accept this expectation and it helps fuel and motivate them to create things and strive. On the other hand it crushes many men under the weight of expectation.

Now that the whole thing has been twisted however I’d say it’s universally become a bad thing.

Expectations like that are probably in the whole a necessary evil. At the very least they should be examined by people. But sometimes they’re necessary evils.

Like parents should have the expectation of raising a child. That’s an expectation we can all get behind.

Women should have the expectation of becoming mothers - well that’s a lot more debatable, but at the same time without that expectation the next generation of humans won’t exist. And without the expectation that men will work, these new humans won’t be raised properly in good conditions.

People who can’t accept these things as necessary often just become nihilistic and misanthropic, not wanting humans to exist, but that in itself is problematic. This is a perfect example of the human condition being inherently unfair and requiring practical compromise. The only way to really solve any of this will be to create a perfect world, but to do that We need people working towards it and we need people creating more humans along the way.

I believe it is an expectation that society still has, all while devaluing the actual efforts that these individuals put towards civilization. Right, nature entails some form of necessary "evil" it order for its continued pointless passing of the genes. The ever changing, ever devouring, ever striving "nature"; all until complex life can no longer be supported on this little rock. The problem with necessary evils that become socially accepted is that they become rooted in our culture even when they no longer have meaning, when all they do is bring more suffering, or worse yet, actively work against the creation of a higher culture. How many necessary evils must one accept before they become disgusted with the entire structure of life, when they see it for what it really is.

Much of our efforts to improve our lives comes at odds with much of what nature demands, when we are at our best we strive to undue that which is unfair, we have even been capable of restoring a productive life to someone who would otherwise been in the the grave by natures decree. Nature in this context being the base structure and system that we are forcibly born into. We will never be able to create a perfect world, because perfection would be for none of this to have ever existed in the first place; so, the compromise is to try to make something "good", and to actively work against suffering or so called necessary evils.

Outside of a medical condition like pregnancy there is nothing stopping men and women from doing the same hard labour, the same dangerous forms of employment, from being conscripted against their will, and from having the same eager desire to accept this expectation..

 

[BRBsavinWorld]

To what end? How many generations of sacrifice must there be? How many men must die young leaving their child without a father? I believe it is very likely you would say something very different when its your son that dies in some pointless war that profits those that have climbed to the top of your "traditional" hierarchy..

I'm not saying sacrifice is always dying, but capacity for the greatest sacrifice is always necessary for the survival of humans. And I don't simply mean war... in fact, I've considered about 99% of wars in the West, to be pointless. At least 90% of work related deaths are men. Do I think we should work to reduce that number to 0? of course! it's the willingness to do that work, however, that got us to where we are, and provided safety and resources for the weak. It's overwhelmingly thanks to men who sacrificed daily, even if they never had a work related injury.

Hierarchy is an amoral law of nature. It is absolutely vital to impress goodness upon any natural law pertaining to humanity, and I won't pretend that wickedness doesn't try to float to the highest reward (ie "the top"). Wicked people will infect wherever they are present - there is evil and corruption in our food supply (even tho supplying food is good)... evil people sexually abuse (but sex is good), etc.

Do you view courage as a "masculine" trait? Do you think it takes courage to say "no more", especially when the very act of rejecting this system paints you a pariah, and is in itself a sacrifice for change.

Courage is an abstract, in my estimation - I don't believe you could call that a gender specific trait. The parable of the widow's mite is a great example of someone with very little, giving all, and in so doing, being more giving, than someone with more, giving more, yet less of a total percentage of their wealth than the poor widow (ergo less giving).

I'm talking in very simple terms. the avg man is twice as strong as the avg woman. healthy men are far stronger than that - this is made easy because men have about 20x more testosterone than women. testosterone also promotes executive traits in the brain... so a sort of logic would be that men are 20x more capable of being executives, workforce leaders, or participants, to varying degrees.
I simply believe in exploiting your strengths to the maximum, and letting people with other traits excel in their nature born capacities, ergo all sharing the workload necessary for the community to thrive.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

I believe it is an expectation that society still has, all while devaluing the actual efforts that these individuals put towards civilization. Right, nature entails some form of necessary "evil" it order for its continued pointless passing of the genes. The ever changing, ever devouring, ever striving "nature"; all until complex life can no longer be supported on this little rock. The problem with necessary evils that become socially accepted is that they become rooted in our culture even when they no longer have meaning, when all they do is bring more suffering, or worse yet, actively work against the creation of a higher culture. How many necessary evils must one accept before they become disgusted with the entire structure of life, when they see it for what it really is.

Much of our efforts to improve our lives comes at odds with much of what nature demands, when we are at our best we strive to undue that which is unfair, we have even been capable of restoring a productive life to someone who would otherwise been in the the grave by natures decree. Nature in this context being the base structure and system that we are forcibly born into. We will never be able to create a perfect world, because perfection would be for none of this to have ever existed in the first place; so, the compromise is to try to make something "good", and to actively work against suffering or so called necessary evils.

Outside of a medical condition like pregnancy there is nothing stopping men and women from doing the same hard labour, the same dangerous forms of employment, from being conscripted against their will, and from having the same eager desire to accept this expectation..

You’ve become a misanthrope, anti-life, just as I mentioned. There’s really nothing to say to your types, as there’s just simply a completely different set of values we hold that can’t be shaken with logic.

I don’t agree with it emotionally but I can’t really deny it either. The only thing I’ll say is that evil is often strongly connected to misanthropy, as viewing life as fundamentally wrong, or evil, or pointless, inevitably leads to viewing life as cheap and expendable.

I do wonder why you’re on this forum though, and/or if you agree with Peat, as he’s very pro-life.

 

[Whichway?]

By this and that I’m referring to previous points made, the one made right before the next one.

And yes, it’s a desire to destroy. Framed positively they might say they want to destroy and create, but usually their version of creating is usually just an inverted, perverted antithetical version of White European culture, so it’s always framed in relation to something else, definitely not true creation, it’s always meant to hurt or destroy or weaken. Truthfully I think the entire culture is dependent on European one.

And yeah, it’s usually dependent on whatever European culture is at the time of their lives. They adopt some of it and fight against whatever Europeans hold dear. But of course culture and humans are chaotic, and sometimes either a Jewish person isn’t fully a destroyer, or sometimes they are but lack the intelligence to realize what part of the culture is truly European or Jewish, both results in things like the female Jewish anti-Feminist we see here, though I think she belongs in camp 1 primarily.

Have you read any E Michael Jones? I think he has a similar view that these people have a kind of contrarian personality that always is always restless and argumentative, and finds fault with everything in a kind of endless cycle. In doing so it forces the host people to never have any peace either individually or at a societal level.