Topic: Far leftist Jewish woman goes on racist rampage against "white male" Bitcoiners - page 3. (Read 8413 times)

I've seen this same article thousands of times in different contexts.
That's cultural marxism. While she is probably just a sheep it is an intentional destructive ideology that seeks to undermine normal productive high-functioning and successful power structures in the western world leaving it weak and easily manipulable and ultimately conquerable.

Definition of Cultural Marxism*:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Cultural Marxism maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. While traditional (economic) Marxists focused on class identity in racially homogenous countries (with poor results during WWI), Cultural Marxists facilitated the racial organization of non-whites, while simultaneously asserting that "race does not exist" for white people and that whites must deny all racial loyalties. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, globalization and free trade, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology.


Notable Cultural Marxists: Antonio Gramsci, Horkheimer and Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Franz Boas, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and Others

Conlusion : BS, don't even read the article.

I looked at the site, a leftist obama is great, entitlement culture type of site, and the article is race baiting left wing gibberish of course, maybe designed to try to poison further adoption of Bitcoin by broader 'social groups' ( if there are such things  in reality ) ...

BUT reading the comments below i saw the article roundly derided by a cross section of people, so it's likely safe to presume it's a fail on that front, even though they probably love the traffic...Bitcoins a hotclick right now...

The unbanked and disenfranchised arent into Bitcoin because its still too early for them to be, its too risky for them, they are too vulnerable to test a new technology, even if they knew about it.

When Bitcoin becomes more popular and readily accessible, these people will likely be some of the biggest benefactors. The article makes some good points, but does so in a poor way which reflects bitterness and confusion about Bitcoin in general.

I could go back in time to any number of technologies, like the internet, cell phone and say "Hey! The early adopters are mostly of XYZ race/ethnicity/social class. Email is biased towards people who can afford a college education!"

Conclusion: "This technology does NOT look like a democratizing force for good! Email is only available if you are ALREADY in college, which is already a huge advantage!"

But Im pretty sure in 2014 it pretty clear that email has been a hugely uplifting, empowering force all people of the world, not just the academics and technologists who pioneered its early use.

Anyway, websites like that are desperate for clicks, so this article, despite its misplaced moralizing, is entirely successful for them.

"the community here" meant the members of bitcointalk who have so far responded. It doesn't mean "the bitcoin community" or "the bitcointalk community"
It means the responses to date.

There had been a uniformity of response that failed to address the main question of her post and instead made ad hominem reactions.

Since this is an open forum, perhaps that ratio will change.

Hold on a sec... 5-6 people replied to this thread and your calling it the "community"?

nice one.

This is the heart of her text:
"But the question stands as to why Bitcoin doesn’t reflect the ranks of the unbanked at all. Why isn’t the crypto-currency of the future taking hold among [these] communities...?"

The 'reflection' she is talking about, relies on statistics taken from here
http://simulacrum.cc/2014/02/01/bitcoin-community-survey-2014/

Statistically, that site says, as she reports, that (to quote her article) "the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male."
We could question the legitimacy of this statistical portrait and so reject this depiction, but she has accepted it, after reinforcing it with some additional, more informal links.

She correctly notes that Bitcoin sees itself as an alternative to traditional banking. I'm sure we can agree on this.
She then goes on to discuss people and communities who are shut out of traditional banking. She notes that they are not typically 32.1-year-old libertarian males. So she asks why is there this gap between a new non-traditional banking system and a large community of people who really need a non-traditional banking system. I think this is an obvious and legitimate question.

Her answer to why involves several factors that one could accept or reject: the technological difficulty in using the system, the risks involved in the absence of government regulation, and deeply ingrained systemic biases against many members of the unbanked.

I think there is wide agreement on the first point. Bitcoin is currently difficult to use securely for many people. The second point is more controversial, but clearly there are many different points of view about the questions of risk vs. regulation. It is a topic currently under intense debate in the community. The third point is probably the most controversial and I won't speak for or against it here.

So someone asks "Why isn't Bitcoin reaching out to communities who in theory could benefit from what it offers?"

And the community responds here with: "She's Jewish," "She's a woman," "She's ugly."

nice one.

Get Help soon.

Man, that is one ugly dude. 

I shot Andy Warhol

Seriously, is she stying to troll us all?

I don't think she's ugly, just normal looking.  She should be judged based on the content of her text alone, which is outrageous when you consider the fact this woman is preaching hatred of white males while being connected to a sitting US Congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz



Although the right and left wing media are both crooked and one big, happy family putting on a fake show, I think this story has a large chance of being picked up by right wing media.

Asians and whoever the hell else is reading this, don't be lazy and think it doesn't matter because you aren't white.  After they make it illegal to be a white male and destroy that demographic, they're going to come after the Asians saying, oh your society is too conservative, we need to destroy it also, and Bitcoin needs to be illegal because not enough women are interested in technology or economics to acquire any.

You guys are jerks. Have some empathy for this poor woman. If you were a fucking war pig and knew that no sane human being would ever want to sleep with you, you`d be kinda bitter too.

She is a racist, misandrist, and ageist.

lol.

she looks like another man-hater:

rachel man-cow from msnbc



and i use the term "she" loosely.

Article here:  http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/27/3341411/bitcoin-privilege/


The words "white male", or "white men", is used in highly negative connotation, in such rapid succession, it's pretty easy to realize the agenda behind this woman's article.  The title of the article alludes to the fact that the writer has a negative viewpoint of Bitcoin, but once you start reading, the message isn't that Bitcoin is bad due to some fundamental error in coding or other aspect, Bitcoin is horrible because...white males are using it.

The writer then goes on to falsely claim that people who are most likely to be educated with "advanced knowledge of computer science, (and) wealth — are also markings of the young, white male".  The funny part of this claim is, Israel usually ranks highest, or second highest per capita in this category, right next to Japan and South Korea.  The people she attempts to demonize for having too much of an advantage making sickening amounts of money, instead of being "white males", are in reality, probably her own ethnic group, plus various Asian countries.

Let's not even get into the fact that she pretends like the majority of the world is white, when it's not, it's mostly Asian.  Let's also not get into the fact that more Asians use Bitcoin than white males in general if exchange data is anything to go on.  Where is the demonization of Asians then?  Are Asians evil because they use Bitcoin in overwhelming numbers?  The demonization of conservative life choices or economics is also seen in the article.  Countries with high Asian demographics also happen to be more conservative in nature than Caucasian ones.  I guess she conveniently forgot this fact too?

You have to ask yourself why an article was written solely to demonize white males in Bitcoin, in particular, without mentioning the word Asian once when it's probably an even larger demographic.  Or why an Agenda without regard to any facts seemed to precede the article.  Anyone with common sense can tell you, the writer believes it's okay to be openly racist and hostile against white males with no fear of reprisal, while if she did the same thing to any other ethnic group, she would be labeled a Klan member and removed from any job or position she holds.

The writer will probably tell you, it's not possible for her to be racist, because she's Jewish of course, while shouting slogans like, 'remember the 6 trillion!', to remind you of this fact.  If you happen to be Asian, or any other race, you should probably oppose people like this, because once she's made it to be illegal to be a white male, or even not liberal, she'll be coming after you next.  Therefore, I ask anyone reading this, to openly call for the firing, removal, or disbarring from any form of "academia", media, or other enterprise, Annie-Rose Strasser, for spreading racism and sexism under the guise of "Progress".