Transcription
[Music] This installment of the video will be the final one in this series on feminism. Before we begin, I want to thank the viewers from the past few episodes. Since the first video was released, I anticipated that some feminists, compared to men, would be more inclined to use reporting to silence voices that question them. The outcome has indeed met my expectations. Some people's thinking is that we don't need to debate them; we just need to report their videos. This doesn't surprise me, as I was mentally prepared for this when I started creating this content. However, I still believe these things are important, so I have to talk about them. Fortunately, because this channel has been around for many years and has a certain audience base, it's not like a newly started channel that can easily be reported and taken down. Of course, this is also attributed to the quality of my content, which critiques feminism rather than attacking individuals, and adheres to community guidelines. But more importantly, it's thanks to the donations from viewers and channel members. This is not just financial support; it has also built a defense for this channel in the platform's mechanism. Because every time you pay, I have to share with YouTube, in a way, your payment is confirming my economic relationship with YouTube. Social media platforms themselves aim for commercial profit. We can understand the commission as a "protection fee" we pay to the platform itself for these sensitive topics. This isn't written in the user agreement, but it's basic business logic. Therefore, these payments make us safer when facing those who don't engage in rational discussion and report us. Your support is what allows this type of commentary to have a safer publishing space, free from being silenced by reporting. Every donation has made this video become a form of content within the platform's algorithm and recommendations. This type of protective shield increases the cost for opponents to report our videos, allowing us to discuss topics that easily provoke and are easily targeted in a safer manner. So, in the past few videos, I have indeed been protected by all of you, and I thank you all once again. Every consumption we make is a vote for the world we want to see.
We've reached the final installment of our exploration of feminism, and we need to discuss my conclusion. After thoroughly dissecting feminism and understanding its essence as an unchallengeable ideology, how should we survive? In my first video, we discussed how feminism is a tool of neoliberalism. Later, some comments said I don't understand feminism, and that Marxist feminism also opposes capitalism. However, in reality, Marxist feminism still carries a monetary lens. Its essence still complains about unfair distribution of money, devalued labor, or unpaid labor and exploitation within the family, which is seen as being exploited by capitalism. This sounds righteous, but it's actually a betrayal. Because when these feminists use this lens, they are upholding neoliberalism. When we demand that the comfort of mothers, the protection of elders, or the sacrifices of husbands and children be priced and valued, you are not resisting capitalism; you are completing capitalism's ultimate domination. Marxism has thoroughly revolutionized the last non-transactional sanctuary of humanity, the family, turning it into a company. When all your basic needs become a line item on a balance sheet, and your love or marriage standards become unpaid labor, the substantive meaning of family is destroyed. And this is why this path is doomed to fail. Because as soon as you turn your home into a company, your family members become a group of employees you can fire at any time.
Why do supporters of political correctness and feminists love to lecture the entire world? They claim to advocate for diversity and inclusion, but in practice, they act like ideological enforcers and cultural imperialists. Why must they educate everyone in the world to accept their set of beliefs? Why is there such a disconnect between their principles and their actions? I have an explanation for the rise of political correctness, which began after 2010. There were some key events. The 2008 financial crisis had a significant impact. While interest rate hikes affect many long-term national fiscal systems, the immediate impact was on the education sector. In the past decade, universities and colleges have seen declining enrollment. Coupled with their absolute dominance in the job market, traditional humanities, gender studies, and cultural studies departments have faced a severe enrollment crisis. If there are no students, these departments face financial and economic crises. You might think you worked hard to get into a prestigious university, but in reality, you are a consumer paying tuition to save them. Therefore, to solve this enrollment crisis, universities must create demand for the knowledge and graduates they produce. These academics, by publishing in top academic journals, have successfully academicized and authorized concepts like "unconscious bias" and "microaggressions," which are intangible. When these concepts become "social consensus" and are even incorporated into corporate ESG standards, universities have successfully expanded their potential customer base from 18-year-old university students to all corporate employees. Companies must hire these graduates to fill positions or purchase their consulting services. This is essentially a successful rebranding by higher education to combat population decline. Through their manipulation over time, their current customers are no longer just university students; graduates, and even 90-year-old elders have become their potential lifelong customers. Imagine that scene, and you'll find it absurd. In Cantonese, there's a saying that describes this situation. We'll put a riddle here for you to see if you can answer it. Try to imagine an industry where its potential customer base is declining. If this industry doesn't intend to disappear, it can only create new customer sources elsewhere. If we analyze it from a consumer perspective, it's like the diamond industry artificially inflating the value of diamonds. The trading industry has artificially created a new "demand." In the past, regulations only specified certain types of transactions, limiting the customer base. But today, through artificial inflation, they have successfully expanded their potential customer base to all adults. The microaggressions and gender equality training that companies require employees to learn are fabricated. Logically, if these people truly believed in diversity and inclusion, they would recognize that people have different values in the world. But why is it that in the real world, their actions always suggest they are superior? It's simple: would a commission-based financial advisor tell you their products are problematic? The reason these people's principles and actions are contradictory is that exclusivity is the core competitiveness of their product. If a financial advisor told you that whether you buy stocks or ETFs, it's just a difference in values, and everyone can make money, how do you think they would collect their fees? Similarly, if feminists and progressives truly respected diversity and acknowledged that traditional values, conservative or even single-minded approaches are all valid ways of life, why would companies need to spend millions to hire them for training? To ensure their product is the only essential item in the market, they must create an absolute framework. If you don't fit into this framework, you are biased, or even guilty. Only by purchasing our certifications and our political correctness can you obtain this moral "get out of jail free" card. This is no longer selling education; they are collecting "moral protection fees." This is not the result of these people taking a wrong turn, but rather a commercial tactic they use to eliminate competitors, i.e., other value systems. And this is why people often say things like, "It's already 2026, why is this place still so backward?" or "I thought we were still in the Qing Dynasty." Because only by making others seem backward do they possess moral legitimacy. It's like someone poisoning your water supply and then telling you that if you want to detoxify, you have to buy their antidote.
The universe is constantly expanding. But this expansion will eventually end. Many, many years later, all matter and energy will be uniformly distributed throughout space. At that point, everything we see will end. Everything we've learned, calculated, and fought for will be meaningless, because no matter what you do, the ultimate outcome is emptiness. German social scientist Max Weber, when proposing instrumental rationality, warned that when humanity learns to correctly calculate costs and benefits, and everything is aimed at maximizing profit, the world will experience a "disenchantment." All divinity and unconditional love will be calculated away. What is "disenchantment"? In the gaming world, there's another term: "enchantment removal." This is simple: it's the elimination of magic, the elimination of buffs. This is also commonly known as silencing.
Humans are willing to make choices that go against our best interests. For example, after natural disasters, why do many people develop hoarding behaviors, or appear at the scene within hours, or sacrifice their precious time to help others? No matter how you calculate these things, they are losses. People do this not out of complex calculations, but because of an inner voice that resonates with them. In popular culture, it's been said that a city's cultural DNA is indeed formed by people's capacity for both malice and petty calculation. People can be very vile and petty. But people also have the potential to help each other. Do those who act selflessly in the face of disaster lack free will, or is it just an illusion? If we admit that people can work together in the face of disaster, why can't this happen within families? Why can relationships only be filled with power and oppression? The brilliance and harmony of human nature do not only exist at the moment of disaster. If we acknowledge that humans are capable of extending a helping hand to strangers in times of crisis, then we must also acknowledge that mature adults are equally capable of displaying selfless love and willingness within the contract called family.
[Music] [Music] I [Music] Devaluing all contributions as structural oppression is not speaking out, but rather denying humanity's ability to freely choose to love. The core of feminism, in its extreme instrumental rationality, is to believe that unconditional giving is not good. It requires calculating costs, guarding against being taken advantage of, and treating every interaction and every conflict as a power struggle. But this path is not viable. Why is this a dead end? Because if your life is only a competition, how can you avoid losing? The ultimate conclusion of your life is emptiness. Because death will take away all your assets and interests. In a world of beliefs, extreme individualism leads only to extreme loneliness and atomization. This is like silencing a character in a card game, leaving only a blank slate. It's like silencing the possibilities of life, removing romance and tenderness. After that, your life is only left with money. And the only meaning of numbers in the future is to return to nothingness in the face of death. Life is not an MMORPG where you can infinitely accumulate experience points to become the master of your destiny. In the face of illness, natural disasters, and human calamities, only by optimistically choosing to love can we prove that we are truly alive, and not just cattle manipulated by the best solution. Everyone, we are not truly that fragile.
If life is lost, then we can [Music] Everything, from now on [Music] Fearless, enduring, capable of [Music] Possessing [Music] Using instrumental logic and human nature to completely deny the logic of feminism. But our ending is a romantic appeal. I urge everyone, if you don't understand, please watch it a few more times. Basically, if you have a question, I have already addressed it in this video. If you truly don't understand, you can ask again and discuss it. But what I say here is very important. What I am teaching you today is not for you to become aggressive and go to war with feminists after learning it. I repeat, I do not want you to go to war with feminists after learning this. And I am not protecting them; I am protecting you. Because doing so will only waste your precious time. I know it feels good to watch politically correct "fake experts" and be unable to say anything back. I understand, because I have also consumed a lot of this content. But this is not good for you. In the battle against cultists, the most important thing is not to become like them. Evil gods will find opportunities to dwell in those who fight them. Because if the goal of these people is to exploit emotions and dominate society, then if our brains are constantly occupied by this content and we are led by them, we will also lose our freedom. When a person, in order to counter those "pig emotions," completely disregards rational arguments and focuses all their attention on finding their loopholes or mocking their failures, our brains are actually occupied by these chaotic thoughts. In order to win an online argument, we give up our precious attention and emotional freedom. What I am calling for is not the kind of "don't argue with idiots" or the kind of "take a step back, the sky is wide" self-comforting nonsense. It is a practical clarity. Anger occupying your mind does not mean retreating without fighting. These people will eventually be defeated. So, when we hear things that do not meet our demands, we must firmly say, "I disagree," just like a rock enduring the waves, or a mountain resisting the wind. We will firmly hold our ground, but we do not need to be consumed by anger. Facing these demands that do not meet your needs, I hope everyone tries to control their emotions. Our emotions can be completely calm, but our stance can still be firm, saying, "I disagree." What we need to build is our own boundaries. Resist your own minds. Take practical action to help others, but do not let these attacks occupy your brain, because your life is very precious. The reason for doing this quantitative analysis is simple. These few days of content are indeed very long, but I am not asking you to watch it all at once. My concept is that if you later encounter any unreasonable feminists or progressives, you don't need to go back and debate them one by one. You just need to click on this video. 90% of the arguments have basically been addressed in this series. I hope you can imagine that I have placed a bookshelf in your home. Whenever you encounter a problem, you can just pick up a book and read it. I have undertaken the labor of sorting and analyzing these theories, and presenting them in a logical and structured manner. In the future, if you encounter similar situations in reality or online, you don't need to personally engage. You don't need to expend your precious cognitive energy. You just need to know that this problem has already been solved. And the answer is in the bookshelf at my home. And this is actually the greatest protection for all of you. Strive to love the people around you, whether they are parents, siblings, or spouses. Cherish the relationships around you and live with a compassionate heart. We can only create our own meaning within our own time. We are not slaves to theory, but people who are striving to survive in a cruel world.