Intersectionality is the admission that self-identified identities are fundamentally incapable of describing the totality of oppression. This means that self-identified identities are Godelian sets: they are incomplete but consistent theories that can never encapsulate their own inversions.

 lntersectionality only defines inversions by relation, which is to say the framework intersectionality provides to measure identity inversions can only be described by what has been previously self-identified. Thus, no inversions can even exist within intersectionality unless at least three identities have been established.

 For example, the feminist and the panda identities intersect in a place that the black identity can no longer predict or describe oppression. (Additionally, if identity 1 and 2 intersect, the non-intersecting regions are not treated as inversions of one another. They are treated as their own identity.) This is a problem for intersectionality because subjective inversions can be equally described as a union between two identity sets. (In this case, it is a union of feminist and panda identities) This implicit interchangeability of function means that a unioned set is both an inversion (Something non-unioned identities can never understand) and an identity at the same exact time. This means that identities and their inversions can be experienced by the same person in parallel.

 Once we introduce an extraneous identity that has no intersections, we discover that the subjective inversion requirement is inaccurate. Alter all, the black identity can never predict or describe oppression the way this extraneous identity can, which qualifies this extraneous identity as an inversion of the black identity. This is also true for the panda and the feminist identity. This means the extraneous identity is part of an identity (remember, inversions = identities) while being its own inversion at the same time.

 Therefore, in the strive for completeness, intersectionality renders itself inconsistent.

Proof:

Let theories be a set of theorems.
Let a theorem be a set of proofs that predict and detect oppression.
Let intersectionality imply inversions (!) to be:

• The intersections (∩) of the complement (c) of a theory with its overlapping theories and non-overlapping theories.
• The absolute complement of a theory and all non-overlapping theories.
  Let intersectionality deny complements of a theory as a complete theory.
  Let intersectionality treat all intersecting theories as new theories.

Let A, C, D be overlapping theories, thus:
Let D = B ∩ C
Let E = C ∩ A
Let F = A ∩ B

Thus, inversions can be defined as:

!A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C
!B = (B ∩ C)c ∩ A
!C = (C ∩ A)c ∩ B

Thus:

!A = D
!B = E
!C = F

But:

(A ∩ B)c ∩ C = B ∩ C
(B ∩ C)c ∩ A = C ∩ A
(C ∩ A)c ∩ B = A ∩ B

This is logically false since B ∩ C contains not just (A ∩ B)c ∩ C, but also A ∩ B ∩ C.

Intersectionality's implications of inversion, then, is false.

To further demonstrate the point, let X be a different theory of oppression that has no intersecting theorems. Thus:

Ø = X ∩ A
Ø = X ∩ B
Ø = X ∩ C
Ø = X ∩ D
Ø = X ∩ E
Ø = X ∩ F

Thus:

X ∉ B ∩ C
X ∉ C ∩ A
X ∉ A ∩ B

However, due to the second rule of inversion, X is part of all inversions. Thus:

!A = D
Ø = X ∩ D
Ø = X ∩ (B ∩ C)

But:

!A = (A ∩ B)c ∩ C
Ø = X ∩ !A
Ø = X ∩ (A ∩ B)c ∩ C

Is a false statement.

 In previous posts, I've discussed the organizational tactics embraced by the imperial monoculture of pixel-based feminism. In this post, I will be discussing the social psychology of its supplicants by briefly analyzing its demographics.

 First things first, let us debunk the myth that feminism is rooted entirely in the perspective and experiences of females. Pinterest and Instagram are female-dominated websites:

• Pinterest is dominated by tablet users.
• According to Nielsen data, 84% of U.S. Pinterest users are women
• Instagram is very female-oriented. 68% of Instagram's users are women.
• Instagram is a mobile-only platform.

 However, these sites are not bastions of pixel-based feminism despite having such a massive female audience. In fact, no serious identity reaction has ever emerged from the depths of these social hubs. One might argue that the communication mediums and consumption purposes of those sites somehow prevent ideological debate, however, they having the same sharing, commenting, and subscription mechanisms as other social hubs.

 If the imperial monoculture of pixel-based feminism is not originating from social hubs where female creative participation absolutely dominates, then where is it coming from? Let us look at three monoculture hotspots: Tumblr, Twitter, and Reddit. According to Wishpond:

• 73% of Tumblr use desktops.
• 64.2% of users are American.
• 67% are under 35 and 32% are 18-24.
• 54% are female.

 Now, let us look at Twitter:

• 27% of users are 18-29
• 62% of users are female...
• ...yet huge followers of pro-feminist Tweeters are overwhelmingly male. (Females do not follow each other because they are competing for male readership)
• The typical Twitter user is a 37 year old female
• 75% of users are via mobile devices (This let's us discount interfacing preferences within the monoculture)

And finally, at Reddit:

• 78% of Redditors are male (This let's us discount gender as the primary influence of monoculture psychology)
• 49% of them are between the ages of 18-24
  Pingdom's age/gender breakdown of various social media sites:

 Do you see the pattern? No? Here is a clue: The 17-25 age range. Using Pingdom's charts only, we see:

• <~47% of all social media users are within this range.
• <~52% of Tumblr users fall in this range.
• <~45% of Twitter users fall in this range.
• <~58% of Reddit users fall in this range.

 What happened 17-25 years ago? It was 1990-1998 when these people were born and they all have one collective experience in common: Their social awareness (starting usually at around the ages of 10-13) was formed within a post-9/11 world.

 These people have only known socialization to be the act of **perpetual war, labeling all opposition terrorism, and desperately seeking safety above all other concerns. To this age group:

• Militarized police are normal because they ensure a safe space.
• Massive multi-nation NSA wiretaps aren't a big deal because it ensures a safe space.
• Privacy is problematic as, to ensure the safe space, all behavior and thoughts must be monitored.
• Denouncing people you disagree with as terrorists is normal discourse.
• Social media point systems are a part of self-image and maximizing those points is an imperative.

 This generational influence, above all other factors, explains the origin of the psychological tendencies found within the imperial monoculture of pixel-based feminism. Anyone who creates content that appeals to these points will find a ready demographic to tap for ad revenue. This cult psychology isn't about gender, ideology, or even politics. It's about socializing an entire generation to approve of heavy-handed suppression tactics.

 It's been over a year since The Theory of Fracturing Monocultures was published and during that year, the theory has been successfully tested.

 The Twitter hashtag #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was the first application of the theory. Members of the 4chan board /pol/ created dozens of fake accounts designed to look like women of color. They used the same techniques pixel-based feminists utilize to game social media: dehumanization of critics, signal boosting the mundane, _and tone policing_. This resulted in several days of white feminists desperately pleading on Twitter to be quiet and listen and eventually the monoculture obeyed.

 Soon after that, many of these same accounts were utilized to promote the #endFathersDay hoax. For a week, prominent feminists and feminist blogs actively promoted the idea. Even after the hoax was revealed, the monoculture was not able to quickly disengage from the narrative since the tone of the hashtag was similar to something the monoculture would actually believe.

 The results are conclusive: The imperial monoculture of pixel-based feminism -CAN- be fractured, but how was it fractured and why did it fracture?

1.) Self-identification is automatically trusted

 The lure of the monoculture is that as long as you self-identify with an orthodox identity, then you will be able to leverage the entire monoculture for your goals. (Promoting blogs, reviews, and other gamified content) However, once the identity is pledged, every action after that will be under imperial review with strict punishment for the slightest violation. This dual incentive for compliance creates a walled garden that, in turn, creates the illusion of a grand ideological unity. Finally, this illusion is essential to the cherished "safe space" of the monoculture and to question any component of this complete illusion threatens the safe space.

 Therefore, questioning the self-identity of another erodes the illusion of unity, which might erode the safe space, which means all self-identifications must be automatically trusted. Furthermore, the self-identification cannot be considered false as long as it is speaking in the tone of the monoculture as a whole.

 In the event of #solidarityIsForWhiteWomen, members actively feared being labeled a racist, which means that questioning the self-identity of a woman of color would result in potential excommunication.

 In the event of #endFathersDay, the self-identification was automatically trusted, allowing the narrative to get as loud as it did.

2.) The safe space is sacred

 The safe space is only possible through absolute obedience to the monoculture. However, the same obedience shields it from criticism, which in turn, dramatically weakens the monoculture's ability to adapt over time.

 The safe space is sacred. Anything that is responsible for the safe space is sacred. The initial conditions responsible for that safe space are also sacred, so if there is a fundamental error in the design, then it is the fault of the believer, not the monoculture.

 In the event of #solidarityIsForWhiteWomen, the safe space was totally shattered and had to be forcefully recreated by asking the monoculture to "be quiet and listen." Members of the monoculture were quick to blame themselves for not listening to women of color... without overtly self-identifying as racist themselves. (Though, is is theoretically possible members will even self-identify as racist if that means they get to retain membership within the monoculture)

 In the event of #endFathersDay, instead of shattering the safe space, agitators spoke in the appropriate tone to amplify it. The monoculture generated a believable tone that was quickly championed for several days. When it was revealed that the safe space was actually compromised from the start, the monoculture was quick to lay blame and generated a new safe space. There must always be a safe space or the monoculture cannot provide returns. Members were not allowed to conclude that safe space -can- be compromised, because that would invalidate its holiness.

 Therefore, the safe space is entirely open to be manipulated (either to be destroyed or to be amplified) by -any- identity (and thus, invalidate its promise of safety) because the monoculture is not allowed to examine fundamental flaws in its own structure.

3.) You must find an enemy

 The monoculture rewards the membership that engages in imperial conquest. By denouncing, humiliating, or otherwise dehumanizing a supposed enemy of the monoculture, the conqueror is rewarded in retweets, likes, upvotes, reblogs, and other arbitrary metrics of progress. The more targets that are attacked, the more points they receive. This naturally creates a structure that rewards any attack on anything, regardless of fault, through increasingly under-handed tactics.

 Therefore, the monoculture exists to provide incentives for perpetual acts of dehumanization.

 In the event of #solidarityIsForWhiteWomen, black membership attacked white membership, and when the agitators magnified the vitriol of the attack, white membership dehumanized itself in proportion to the vitriol.

 In the event of #endFathersDay, the success of the trend was based entirely on fulfilling the required mandate of dehumanizing an enemy of the monoculture, in this case, fathers.

 If there isn't an enemy, one must be found because there is no other way to collect points.

Conclusion

 Even in the wake of two successful attempts at covert manipulation, the monoculture has not even attempted to fix its fundamental flaws. With the advent of #NotYourShield, the three aforementioned fracture points were tested and broke yet again.

 Citing the previous two attempts against the monoculture, they believed that #NotYourShield was yet another covert operation. They quickly found an enemy, (chan) and generated a *safe space, (“Those aren't actual minorities, those are sockpuppets”) but this time, the safe space had a **very limited amount of authorized identities. (The gamer identity is now forbidden from the monoculture)

 It turned out that the hashtag was actually comprised of a significant amount of non-white racial identities as well as female identities. The monoculture leveled their sights on active membership, monoculture supporters, and potential monoculture inductees, and unloaded upon them.

 This means that the agitators have successfully exploited the immutable weaknesses of the monoculture (two jabs and then... nothing. The monoculture took the lead and attacked its own) and can potentially weaponize the entire structure for their own usage. And because of the monoculture's impulse to punish all criticism, the membership that sees this exploitation isn't allowed to fix it, (they'll be forced to fracture off entirely and build a new monoculture) and the membership that cannot see the exploitation are not allowed to hold such a heretical belief, allowing successful agitators to issue internal purges almost at will.

 The entire monoculture of pixel-feminism has been demonstrably and irreversibly compromised by non-approved identities because of three fracture points: the complete inability to handle identity emulation, the worship of an impossible standard of safety, and easily provoked bloodlust. And if one identity (especially one the monoculture hates so much) can direct the wrath of the monoculture against its own kind, then other identities are free to steer it just as easily.