An unspoken and unexplored idea that powers this blog is a configuration of asset exchange I am calling petrocurrency mercantilism. This concept has allowed me to accurately predict geopolitical and macroeconomic events since 2005. So what is petrocurrency mercantilism?

 It's when a national bank and an energy producer collude to generate artificial demand for a currency at the expense of the purchasing power of other currencies. The flowchart below shows how it all works.

 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.