"The AWFUL Truth About Minnesota"
by John Wilder
"Ah, the AWFULs. If you haven’t heard the term yet, it stands for Affluent White Female Urban Liberal. It’s the kind of acronym that makes mainstream media clutch their pearls. (Note that even the most-used cliché term for this behavior assumes Affluent White Female behavior.) GloboLeftists are wringing their hands in performative outrage and sending out a virtue signal so bright it can be seen from six light years (500 grams) away.
“How dare you label these empowered women!” they cry, as if the term isn’t a spot-on descriptor for the screeching harpies we’ve seen dominating headlines from Minneapolis to Manhattan. You can always tell when you’re over weak spots of the GloboLeft: they turn to the media to try to create a narrative so that they can fabricate a crime. The term bothers them because it’s true.
AWFUL also exposes a deeper rot in their ideology. AWFUL isn’t just a label. It’s a symptom of a society where their ascendant political power has left GloboLeft women unfulfilled and GloboLeft men emasculated.
Let’s start with the examples that made AWFUL go viral. Minneapolis is a petri dish for leftist lunacy, and AWFULs are the germs that created the fuzzy mold in the agar. Renee Good, an affluent, white, urban liberal woman, attempted murder by vehicle. She rammed her car into an ICE agent because well, her sex fetish partner yelled, “Drive, baby, drive,” which sounds like an accomplice to me. Even the GloboLeftElite newspapers can’t make Renee become sympathetic enough so she could be their Georgette Floyd.
Another Minneapolis example is the classic harpy that was screeching at Nick Shirley outside the “Quality Learing Center.” There she was, a picture of entitled fury, howling like a banshee because reality, in the form of competent white men, dared intrude on her bubble and threaten her pet minorities. These aren’t isolated incidents; they are the face of a movement where AWFULs lead the charge, amplified by the weak GloboLeft men who let them run wild.
Enter Naomi Wolf, feminist icon turned truth-teller. In a January 9 Xeet®, Wolf nailed the root cause: GloboLeft men are weak, submissive, and estrogenized. They’re soy-latte sippers who wouldn’t fight for a parking spot, let alone their women. And women hate it. Deep down, women crave men who will fight for them, can fight for them, and would kill for them if needed. They want dangerous men. But crucially, they want that lethal potential aimed outward, not at them. It’s the thrill of controlled danger: the knowledge that their man has murder in his heart but chooses love instead. This is literally the basis for all of women’s porn literature. "Fifty Shades of Grey" is about a powerful billionaire who would do anything for a mousey reporter.
GloboLeft men, with their man-buns, therapy-speak, and pipe-cleaner arms offer none of that. They’re safe, soft, spineless, and sexless. No wonder AWFULs are unhinged; their men have left them adrift, starving for dominance. This dynamic isn’t new, it’s always been here.
Women test men constantly, pushing boundaries to see if he’ll push back. AWFULs take it to extremes because their men won’t. These women fight because they want to lose. They crave submission but rebel against it, creating a cycle of frustration. Why do they put themselves in danger, marching into riots, screaming at strangers, or laying down in front of vehicles in the roadways? It’s a cry to be controlled. They want a man to dominate, to say “no” and to mean it. Without that, they spiral into rage, lashing out at the world. This has been common knowledge for all of civilization.
Also, these women are programmed to be takers. Feminism sold them “strength and independence,” but in reality, they’re dependent on systems that extract wealth from others to give to them. DEI hands them jobs they might not earn on merit: affirmative action for the affluent, daycare for the female set. Government funding props up their lifestyles: welfare for single moms, child support laws that bleed men dry. I’ll not get into how modern “churches” support this, but if a church wants men to “man up” on Father’s Day and exalts single mothers on Mother’s Day, well, their message might be a bit scrambled.
Few single women are net positive taxpayers. They consume much more in services than they contribute. This entitlement breeds resentment. Without responsibilities, they demand more, and more for everyone. Thus, they become the L of AWFUL. Liberal. They want free things. Free healthcare, free student loan forgiveness, endless “rights” without reciprocity or regard on who has to pay for it.
Feminism freed women from traditional constraints, but at what cost? It removed duties like family, home, and fidelity, replacing them with “empowerment.” Now, the hill they die on is abortion rights: the ultimate rejection of responsibility. Killing their babies whenever, wherever, is their sacred cow. It’s not about choice; it’s about avoiding consequences.
George Orwell saw it coming in 1984. In the Party’s dystopia, the women are the most fanatical: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” AWFULs are modern versions of those women Orwell wrote about: fanatical, slogan-chanting, spying on “wrongthink” via social media. They police language, cancel dissent, all while their weak men nod along. Orwell knew. Without strong men, women become the regime’s enforcers.
So, why the handwringing over AWFUL? It hits too close to home. The term exposes the GloboLeft’s failure: a society of emasculated men and entitled women, spiraling into dysfunction. AWFULs are the symptom. Weak men and unchecked feminism the disease. What wins? Strength. Reclaim constraints, responsibilities, and yes, dominance. Women want it. Men need it. Civilization demands it."
No comments:
Post a Comment