“Now when you compare the modern Western World with the islamic one, you see exactly the results that Unwins theory would predict. By allowing women to fuck freely, the West has de facto entered a matriarchy that dis-incentivises young men. Islam on the other hand keeps their women chaste. And their expansive energy, as Unwins theory predicts, is manifested in what we are observing today: the islamic culture is the one who is expanding into the West.”
Ik kan er steeds minder chocola van maken. Dat voortdurend goedpraten van de islam en dat aanvallen van Trump en Wilders vanuit de “feministische” hoek. Vele artikelen – hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier, hier – heb ik er al aan gewijd. Nou weer tachtig miljoen van die lijpenisteuzes op de been in alle Westerse hoofdsteden tegen Trump.
Trump heeft stoute-jongetjes-bravoure-dingen gezegd: “pussy grabbing”. Nou-nou-nou. Tsjonge-jonge-jonge. Wilders heeft zoiets helemaal nog nooit gezegd. Toch worden Trump en Wilders op één hoop gegooid. How come? Wat Wilders en Trump gemeen hebben, is dat ze zich verzetten tegen de islam: een extreem vrouwvijandige ideologie en dat ze verdedigers zijn van een vrije, inclusieve, LGBTTTQQIAA-plus-plus-plus-vriendelijke maatschappij.
Dus. Wat gebeurt er in godsvredesnaam in die wijvenkoppen?
Ik bedacht wat ik tegen bovenstaande dames zou willen zeggen. Dit: your cosmic stupidity frightens the shit out of me.
Spartacus van GeenStijl bracht zijn verbijstering vorig jaar aldus onder woorden:
“Na de massale aanrandingen en verkrachtingen van blanke westerse vrouwen door islamitische mannen te Keulen, zaten blanke westerse feministen natuurlijk met een logische brandende vraag: hoe stoppen we Wilders?”
Zullen we er eens een video in gooien?
“Why women destroy nations and civilizations”
Op 17 februari 2016, dus anderhalve maand na de verkrachtingen met de jaarwisseling in Duitsland en met name Keulen, werd er een video op YouTube geplaatst waarin deze zinnen voorkwamen:
“What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gangs of migrants bent on theft and sexual violence? Burn their bra’s and throw a pocket-edition of ‘Cunt: a declaration of independence’ at them?”
Voor straf, omdat ik dom ben en vrouwen niet begrijp, ga ik het gesproken woord bij die video van “Black Pigeon” eens helemaal uitschrijven. Ik ben er nog niet uit wat ik precies van zijn tekst moet denken, maar gedachtenbevorderend is deze video zeker.
If women’s sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked they destroy civilisations. If women are to choose harem’s form, if women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation, that nation will die inevitably. It is as simple as that. Once you realize this, you understand the entire basis behind civilised society. And if not you will understand by the end of this video. As this is a complicated subject let me speak briefly what I’m talking about in this video so you can follow along more closely. On an instinctual level women do not care very much for their tribe, nation or civilisation. It’s in their nature not to. Women are biological creatures like all others. And they seek to maximize their chances of having viable offspring. This half-century-long experiment of women’s liberation and political enfranchisement has ended in disaster for the West.
And the damage done to the West may be irreparable. The only solution would be to return to a more patriotical society and this is highly unlikely. I want you to hold on to this key-thought as the meaning will come clear as this video progresses. When I’m speaking of Western women I’m talking of women as an organism or in general. Of course there is spectrum in every individual that is different. But for the purposes of this video I’ll be speaking of Western women and their general characteristics. I realize that this is a sensitive topic and that women with children are different from younger women. But it is the broad strokes of Western women that need to be addressed. If you’re a woman and take offense watching this video: please understand that I do realize that not all women are the same. But there are some very easy identifiable patterns of behaviour that need to be discussed. Also key to understanding is that every dramatic change that Western women have brought to society have been allowed by Western men. Western women, or, for hat matter, any group of women are not consciously seeking to undermine the foundationa of any particular society through calculation or deception or for any underlying agenda. It’s just that women have never been the builders of any of the larger edifices of civilisation and are not, and have never been, responsible for maintaining them.This is born out across every civilisation throughout history.
So to be clear: I’m not assigning any “blame” or any group or gender in this video. I’m only trying to explain how I see the world that we have all inherited.
And let’s get this out in the open: women are not very good at being loyal to the tribe. They never have been. They never will be. The reason is that it is not in their nature to do so. Women throughout history have shown time and time again they are quick to seek the favours of men that they feel are stronger and more dominant, whether they are part of their ingroup or not. Recent examples of this – besides Japanese or Vietnamese warbrides – come from Europa and are illustrated by the countless numbers of the Belgian, French, Dutch – what have you – women that took up relations with occupying German military personnel. And this was only a short time ago. But when nazi’s were defeated and social stability was restored, they were punished for their betrayal and transgressions against their people.
Now, are women not only not punished for inviting alien and unassimilable armies of men into the West, they then vote for parties that force the entire society to have it’s national wealth redistributed to this army of agressive and hostile men. And women in positions of power even openly celebrate the destruction that they bring upon their people and openly tar those that seek to retain their culture and civilisation from obliteration. As in the following video of German politician Doctor Steffie von Berg in Hamburg:
“Frau president. Meine Damen und Herren. Unsere Gesellschaft wird sich ändern. Unsere Stadt wird sich radikal verändern. Ich bin der Auffasung das sich in 20, 30 Jahre gar keine etnische Mehrheit mehr haben sollen in unserer Stadt. Das ist was wir haben werden in der Zukunft! Und Ich sage Ihnen noch ganz deutlich gerade hier in richtung Rechts: das ist gut so!“
As our societies are becoming more and more dangerous because of people like miss Von Berg and even though women can take steps to protect oneselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men. This is very important: women will thus have as much freedom as the men are willing or capable of guaranteeing them.
So the question begs: why do women do this? Why do women betray their ingroup? And how is the current situation different from those that preceded? Well, in a word: enfranchisement. Women have been given the vote and in a democratic society they vote their biological imperative. What do I mean by this. Well, recent genetic research has shown that before the modern era 80% of women managed to reproduce, while only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top-men had access to multiple women while the bottom 60% of men had no prospect at all. Women clearly didn’t mind sharing the top men with other women. Ultimately deciding that being one of many women sharing men who lead, was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a men who serves. Commenting on this, Roy Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist who teaches at Florida State University had this to say:
“It would be schocking if these vast reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences”, he said. He went on: “For women the optimal thing to do is to go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who play it safe.
For men the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived have no descendants who are alive today. Their lives were dead ends. Hence it was necessay to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. “
Many societies, including the West, long ago devised a simple plan to stop the inherit infighting because a large majority of men in the ingroup don’t have sexual access to women or the ability to reproduce legitimate children. The entire basis of Western society was the male agreement to keep only one woman in public. So every man had near equal chance at reproduction. It’s for this reason that organised and advanced civilisations have always needed to agree on equitable distribution of women so as to incentivise its men to produce and have a stake in the societies health and security.
But this, like other cultural arrangements that held the West together for centuries is breaking down. It can be observed in something as basic as the fact that there are no Western countries that are even at replacement-levels in their birth rates. This again can be laid at the feet of loosening of sexual morality and the dating habits of young women. Colloquially it is called the 80-20 rule and what it basically means is that the vast majority of young women are pursuing the top 20% of men. This is highly damaging to the formation of monogamous couples and the succesful formation of families and the children that will be the next generation of any given country. ( . . .)
Also one thing to understand is that female psychology has always been about adaptation. In our tribal past if women of a conquered tribe did not submit to their new masters they faced death along with their husbands, brothers, sons and fathers. Even today women seek out aggressive men, whether consciously or not. This psychology has been ground into women after countless years of our species evolution. That means criminals, gangsters and mass murders are always going to be more attractive to women than hard working honest men. The always have been, they always will be. Think of how many women throw themselves at drug-dealers versus for example math teachers. Sexual attraction is based on this reality for many women who regardless of whether they admit it or not.
And the feminization of men of the West who are hearing the repetitive and decade long diatribe that villified everything and all things masculine are for many women no longer sexual attractive males, especially for women in their prime childhood-bearing years. But I do add: this may change for many with age. The culture of the sensitive man, the emotional man, the compassionate man is at odds with what women are biological predisposed to desire.
Young women, if they tell you the truth, are drawn to the scoundrel. Not to the impeccable gentleman with the perfectly manicured fingernails. It is so much part of the woman’s psyche to want the scoundrel that it’s wrapped up in their very DNA. Just to get this out of the way because I have a feeling it might shorten the comments: yes I am aware that the vast majority of woman when raped reach sexual climax or orgasm. However, from all the science that has been done, this is just basically a hard wired response. That is: if it does have an effect on women and their judgement, it must do so at a very subconscious or primal level. I also know that the number one sexual fantasy disclosed by women over and over again is rape-fantasy/forced-sex-fantasy. But fantasy and reality are two different things. So I’m not really gonna count this as a reason why women are so prone to consciously betray their ingroup.
The halve-century experiment of women’s liberation and political enfranchisement has ended in disaster for the West. When you begin connecting the dots you realize that since women have been given the vote the entire center of politics and thus Western society has shifted ever more to the left. Women have also used their political enfranchisement to further the cause of [inaudible] women’s liberation: liberation socially, liberation financially, liberation rom family, from motherhood, liberation from religious dogma and most importantly sexual liberation. Once women were given this equal say in the sphere of politics it was only a matter of time untill our civilisation was swept up by the event horizon (???) of its own collapse.
All kinds of studies have been done on this subject, as this one of Columbia University . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . and they all, without exception, note that as women become more “emancipated” the decline of the family is further accelerated. And if the family disintegrates and women move politically futher and further to the left in their voting many begin to use their government as a surrogate husband and provider. Women are thus even more liberated from their traditional roles within the family and society at large.
In one of the most comprehensive studies of civilizational decline J. D. Unwin postulates in his book “Sex and Culture” written in 1934 that the main driver of the rise of a civilisation is the degree of chastity of the said civilisation’s women. Unwin (1895 – 1936) a British social anthropologist of Oxford and Cambridge universities studies 86 different cultures through 5000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observed. Unwin’s impetus for the project was to test the Freudian theory that civilisational progress was the product of repressed sexuality. He found that discipline in sexual matters appropriated social energy to more civilisational ends.
It’s very complicated but for Unwin the fabric of society was primarily sexual and hetero-sexual monogamy was the optimal arrangement for the planning, building, protecting and nurturing of the family. Even if not-hetero-sexual partners made a monogamous commitment, civilisational energy was directed toward promoting the finest societal foundation possible. Without exception each civilisation he studied allowed to alter its moral code. According to Unwin, after a nation becomes increasingly liberal with regard to its sexual morality it loses its cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. From a chaste moral code society gains what he called expansive energy. And this energy allowed these cultures to expand into other weaker cultures.
Now when you compare the modern Western World with the islamic one, you see exactly the results that Unwins theory would predict. By allowing women to fuck freely, the West has de facto entered a matriarchy that dis-incentivises young men. Islam on the other hand keeps their women chaste. And their expansive energy, as Unwins theory predicts, is manifested in what we are observing today: the islamic culture is the one who is expanding into the West.
And it was only recently that the West was able to dominate all other cultures on the planet. Ultimately each civilisation became less cohesive, less aggressive and less resolute. Civilisations in this liminal phase the collapsed form either a) an internal anarchic revolution or, b) conquest by invaders with greater social energy.
Terrifyingly Unwin also noted that there was no case in any of the studies he had made in which a culture managed to restrict the sexual freedom of women once they had been loosened. A feminist society and future is an oxymoron, as it is unsustainable in the long run. Based just on past history, a civilisation that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in a very short time. This is why we have never sen a feminist civilisation, aside from very short spans, at the end of great empires.
The signs of decline are already observable. While may countries are sliding inro social decline, the canary in the coal-mine is the self described super-power that pursues a feminist foreign policy. When looking at Sweden it is one of the moste gender-equal countries on earth. And while they have become the rape-capital of Europe, they are flushing their culture and country down the toilet and pressing forward in their civilisational suicide at an ever accelerating pace. The total and complete feminisation of Sweden and its men have allowed their women to invite their countries own destruction through the importation of millions of unassimilatable and aggressive people from completely alien cultures.
Not only are they borrowing money to fund the colonization of their country, but they are now even creating gender imbalances Thate have severe and lasting repercussions on their societies future. And they await their doom with smiles of tolerance and passivity, calm as hindu cows.
Looking again at Unwins work, he leaves us with a stark dilemma. It may not be possible to save the West. According to his model this process is irreversible. And the only way to do so would be to restrict the sexual freedom of Western women and move back to a more patriotical society. And as things stand this is probably an impossibility. So, instead of having it all, Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gangs of migrants bent on theft and sexual violence. Burn their bra’s and throw a pocket-edition of ‘Cunt: a declaration of independence’ at them?
The violence now being directed at Western women in their own countries is undeniable proof of the break-down of the leftish utopian idea for society.The million of migrants that have already arrived and the millions on their way already understand that the West is a toothless civilisation ripe for plunder. While Western women might be the ones advocating – whether knowingly or not – for the destruction of the West by a misplaced compassion and a hyper-emotionalism, it is also the fault of Western men by giving them the choice and allowing their gender’s particular predilections to dictate what our civilisation’s values, priorities and ultimately what our future should and will be. And maybe Unwin is right. Maybe their is no paeceful way to resolve this crisis of our civilisation.
Our feminist society has not built an equality-rainbow that will usher the West into a Nirwana of peace and security based on mutual respect and tolerance. No, it has succeeded in paving the way for the take-over and islamization of the West. Ironically it will be feminist tendencies and policies that rule our society, that, if not kept in check, will bring down the more gender-inclusive states of the West and replace them with the tribalism of Africa and the hypermasculinity of islam. You can have a feminized society but it won’t survive islam. And her is the [inaudible] red pill of this video: Western men have given Western women freedom of will and choice in their own society and Western women are now choosing who will take that away from them.
Mooi, die christelijke traditie van monogamie om zo veel mogelijk mannen (een kans op) een vrouw en nageslacht te geven en dus verantwoordelijke en productieve sociale wezens te worden. Maar die islam is ook wel slim: alle mannen mogen vier vrouwen hebben en als er voor veel jonge mannen geen vrouwen meer over zijn dan stuur je die ten oorlog met de belofte dat ze zoveel mogen verkrachten als ze willen, dat de vrouwen van de overwonnenen hun seks-slavinnen zullen zijn en dat, mochten ze sneuvelen, er 72 maagden op ze wachten in het Paradijs.