Here’s an excerpt from her translation of a lengthy interview:
| Q: | It’s the Belgians who must adapt to the immigrants? | |
| A: | So it is yes. Women must be able to walk about safely night and day. We haven’t fought 50 years for our liberation in order to be set back in time now. We don’t want that in any neighborhood in Brussels. | |
| Q: | Who are those men? | |
| A: | It’s particularly Moroccan youth, who think they have a right to impose their standards on girls. It also happen by the Turks, particularly in their community, but it’s just as unacceptable. |
Go over to the post at Islam in Europe for the rest of the interview.
[Nothing follows]
25 comments:
Camera's won't work, nor speaking with those savages about their religious behavior. The police should not sent in "negotiators", but a guy with a gun and a license to shoot.
The best and the cheapest is to punish hard, denaturalize and extradite criminals to their fatherland Morocco when they posess two nationalities. If they only have one nationality: dungeon and chain gang might do some good. But the government has to be removed first. It is them who enable savages to rule the streets.
The only thing that will work is expelling these people and not letting in new ones like them. But yes, that requires an entirely different political-ideological regime.
Until the native population actually starts to wake up and take back their land, Belgium will be Dhimmified in a few years. Then the women's groups will be vilified and dismantled. And women will have no rights what so ever.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Dhimmis. This is what happens when you let Islam into your nation.
We don't accept that and want respect
they will send out street educators who would speak to the boys about their behavior
How is that working for you? Why would any Muslim man or boy offer an infidel woman respect?
These comments show the interviewee is deluded. The whole situation shows that women have freedom only because men give it to them. Until Belgian men step up and start protecting their women nothing will change.
Bert: The police should not send in "negotiators", but a guy with a gun and a license to shoot.
Maybe, unless it's this kind of "negotiator":
AKANIT: Send someone to negotiate!
KORBEN: Mind if I go? I'm an excellent negotiator.
COP 1: Uh... Sure, go ahead.
COP 1: We're sending someone in who's authorized to negotiate.
[ Korben walks quickly into the room, heads straight for Akanit, raises his gun and puts a bullet through his head. ]
KORBEN: Anyone else want to negotiate?
COP 2: (to another Cop) Where'd he learn to negotiate like that?
I say hit the macho Muslim male where it really hurts. Chemical castration anyone? Loss of sexual potency and the ability to reproduce would probably cause the savage to die by his own hand. I can dream cant I?
Why use chemical castration. Let's do the real thing. And it will be permanent. Especially for those who like little girls.
Findalis-
Fine with me! I was just thinking If anyone EVER considered castration it would have to be the least "barbaric" version available. Never mind the barbarism that brought us here. Actually I am doing a disservice to barbarians. Savage is a better term for these people.
This emphasis on "negotiations" makes my point from a thread earlier on this subject.
Tackling the problem of rape requires both a constant police presence, but also a mindset that encourages young men to risk their lives to aid the victim.
PERIOD.
Which, will require women to lose political power. Hence the desperate attempt to try things everyone knows won't work to try and retain that political power.
If Belgian men didn't tolerate this treatment of Belgian women, these rotten immigrants wouldn't dare treat the women poorly. Shame, shame on the Belgian men. Cowards!
What would you have them do, Joanne?
Seriously.
You are asking them to risk death to prevent rape. What's in it for them?
Will they be arrested for a "hate crime?" Probably. Will they be tarred as "racists" in the Media? Likely. Will they be denounced by feminists as "patriarchs" who "resort to violence?" Absolutely. Will they face retaliation from the criminal network of the assailants in question, with no help or protection from the police? Without a doubt! Will they face immediate danger of death or severe, crippling injury? Unquestionably.
If you want men to intervene, you must long before CREATE the social dynamics such that men do not ask questions. They simply act, instinctively, without reasoning. Secure in the instinctual knowledge that they will face only the immediate physical threat from the assailants and thereafter, be lauded as heroes.
whiskey_199: If you want men to intervene, you must long before [then] CREATE the social dynamics such that men do not ask questions. They simply act, instinctively, without reasoning. Secure in the instinctual knowledge that they will face only the immediate physical threat from the assailants and thereafter, be lauded as heroes.
Gotta go with you on this one, whiskey. Either feminist women halt their assualt upon all things White, Male and Christian or they can stop whinging about the abuse being dished out by the cretins they enable with their overly tolerant Politically Correct taurine fecal matter.
You gals want the bad boys? Boy howdy you're gonna get them with these barbarous Muslim cretins. Sweden's ultra-feminist pro-immigrant government is the pluperfect example of this.
If you want heroes, you'd damn well better start rewarding men for acting like them instead of punishing every last bit of functionally aggressive male behavior. Learn how to respect men who will not tolerate the abuse of women. Overly protective? Yeah, just maybe. Paternalistic? Perhaps, to a fault. Chauvinistic? Nope, just chivalrous. Got a problem with that? Go tell it to your Muslim boyfriend!
The abandonment of Christian values manifests itself in the most insidious ways.
Whiskey said,
"You are asking them to risk death to prevent rape. What's in it for them?"
Honor and dignity, for starters. Some things transcend "What's in it for me?".
I'm with you Joanne. One wrong does not justify another. Europe is screwed with that attitude. But I do share the sentiment that feminism is in large part responsible for Europe's sorry state of affairs. Exacting revenge is not the way to deal with it.
Failure to act out of fear is cowardice. Plain and simple.
Sometimes, a man's gotta fight, even if there's no real hope of survival.
Chalons and Grimmy, you are asking for the impossible. If you want an instinctual response, you must first create the conditions for instinctual response.
We have taught Western Men not to act for about 40 years, and now complain that we get exactly what we taught them.
Gare du Midi is not unique. Virginia Tech, and many other situations in the US come to mind.
You can argue about "shoulds" all you like, IMHO, but people respond to the overwhelming training and cultural influence. There is not time to "think" only do.
It certainly won't be solved by "negotiations" ... only violent force by the police and passers by when the police are not there.
whiskey:
You're placing instinctual response into the realm of conscious decision.
Instinctual is just that, instinct. Not a conscious decision based on reasoned appraisal of a situation.
Any man that turns his head and walks away from a violent rape is a coward.
This isn't about rational thought, it's about the primordial urge.
But, I do agree with you on one aspect... EUnix are dominated by a long indoctrination of the Cult of Cowardice. There's no end of easy rationalizations available to the males of the area to slather themselves with to ease the sickness that fills their souls and churns their stomachs as they continue to live on their knees as peasants before their new masters.
The women of the area have emasculated their men and now have nothing to protect them but their delusions.
Oh, and for clarification...
EU and EUnix refers to those within that geographical area, and those intellectual inbreeds that live in the US and are working so hard to turn our own country into the same socialist utopian totalitarian sump hole.
As Islam is to Europe, Mexico is to the U.S.A. Americans are also dhimmis in every community that's been invaded by Mexicans and other dysfunctional people.
Let's think about what it means to say men should defend women, that will solve the problem. That's part of it, but I want to point out the elephant. These crimes against women wouldn't be so epidemic, if both Europe and the USA didn't have all these third worlders running around.
In my youth in the 70s, I frequently walked home alone from clubs, slightly impaired, after midnight, in Manhattan. I felt and was safe. Now, thirty years later, I wouldn't even think of walking by myself after midnight in my fairly nice little suburban California town, even armed, because if I did so I would almost certainly have to shoot someone, and I'm equally certain that person would be someone from a third world culture.
So while I appreciate the chivalrous thoughts and agree, that's not the main thing. The main thing is, we need to be able to choose our neighbors. The problem is our new neighbors are predators. This didn't use to be true.
In fact, when I was a kid in suburban New Jersey, I walked around and rode my bike everywhere alone. Now I see parents driving their kids everywhere, because of the crime wave against kids. Many of you don't even see the changes, because you're too young to remember what a safe community was. But I grew up in a safe community, which happened to be 100% white and American. Sorry to be un PC, but it's the truth.
Latté Island,
"As Islam is to Europe, Mexico is to the U.S.A. Americans are also dhimmis in every community that's been invaded by Mexicans"
"Many of you don't even see the changes, because you're too young to remember what a safe community was. But I grew up in a safe community, which happened to be 100% white and American. Sorry to be un PC, but it's the truth."
Well, Island, why can't we state the obvious instead os saying that Mexicans make Americans dihmis?
Why can't we all see clearly that no first world country can be made of Third world people?
Why can't we say that third worlders don't have a place in a First World Society? Why can't we have a European Europe when in Africa Europeans are hunted like in Zimbabwe or in South Africa?
Is it so dificult to understand that if we want to create a "nice" community it will have to be more than 95% homogeneous and European?
Why is it so difficult to understand that if Europeans are to become less than 50% of a neigbourhood, they are heading towards extinction?
These immigrants keep their own women in line, now they are keeping your women in line, while they are keeping homosexuals in line, and then they are going to come after the rest of you and keep you all in-line.
These immigrants wouldn't rape a woman with other people mulling about unless they figured no one would bother stopping them. Well, they surely have you all figured. From the looks of it, the men are falling in line as planned. How truly sad!
the feminists never realized that the men of the west were not the thing they were making them out to be.
now that the men are without a reason tohelp, defend, care, or anything.. its interesting.
after all, in the real world, men would defend women... but in the fantasy world, women are equal/same as men.
do you see women running to help men? or do you see them working to make men as useless as maybe a fish needing a bicycle.
while this is all sarcasm, because i would rather defend and make a nice society... i know that i will be puinished fore doing so.
so there is a huge amount of men whose attitudes are, why should we defend you, protect you, and help you... if your intent is to marginalize us, push us out of families, and so on.
after all, they didnt believe that a mans body guard job was worth a womans 100k houseworkers equivalenc.
its sad.. the young girls getting run over by this never had a change to choose between an old way... and a new way.
well, now they have a new way, and they will have to figure out how to defend what they "fought 50 years for"...
who did they fight against, and defeat?
they dont even want to credit that the peopel who won the fitht for them were the men.
so now.. how do they propose to do this. after all, the situation was creatd by their destruction of family that led to not enoubh people and the import of these otehrs.
their left communist doctrine of multiculturalism made sure the new guys wouldnt assimilate and become new mangina men of the west..
their socilaist games gave these immigrants more statuis thant their mates.
their legal games have pushed the men they defeated for 50 years out and alientated them.
want to know how this could happen?
easy... the men are doing what the women wanted them to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they are no longer men, they are women who have male bodies. and the women who pretended to be men in womens bodies have fouid out that they cant stand up to REAL men.
so what will they do?
i will tell you that otehr than sympathy for the victims, a heck of a lot of men are saying, your on your own sister... you got the power.. you got the mouth..
you got the gumption by beating up on people that love you and would work their lives for you and pissed on them.
now see how you fare with competituion and force from those that hate you.
destroying the ones that love you was the plan to make the west open to be taken.
i guess these feminsits were so focused on nasty men who invaded (for their women and family back home), and ignroed the men that would defend them as being the same.
now there are no men to defend them. though perhaps the women in the police and military can do it. they are equal to the men. so i dont know why she is whining. she can just send the womens corp out to fight the crimes and stop these men.
no?
lay down with dogs get up with fleas
when you make yrou bed you often find that your the only one willing to lie down in it.
[and before anyone hollars at me for being a pig, if i was in the subway, i would have defended that girl. i have done so three times in the US, and ask no reward for it. but after this year with being rabbit puched by female strangers as they exit the subway.. after being denied my son after his mom robbed a bank.. and so on... i just dont go out and let teh saving happen to others. i will not stand idle by, but i dont have to be out and about either. i am tired of being polite and crapped on.]
i am tired (and so are the other men) of having the obligations to die for some stranger that hates us while claiming not to.
this is an awful situation, but its not the situation the men created, we talored it all to the womens desires, and they tailore it to the communists.
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
Like it or not, spell check and grammar or not, Artfldgr is onto something that women can ignore only at their own peril. whiskey_199, I'd really enjoy hearing your own appraisal of Artfldgr's above comment.
It is really unfortunate men feel this way towards women, for whatever reason. Even men and women are at odds with each other now according to the comments here. We can't control what others do or say, but we can control our own actions, so it is up to all of us, individually, to set high standards and live up to them.
joanne, the reason its this way, is becasue the women adopted an ideology that denies nature.
the men do not want to fight internally to the women they love. contrary to what the feminists have said, the men do not want to oppress women!
i can prove it.
if they did, they would just do what islam does, and taht would be the end of it and you and i would not have this discussion at all.
so its a bunch of lies. and the lies and things have been put in a positino where wahtever the men want is irrelevent. or rather less than that. they are painted evil to the core, and so should be eliminated.
while the majority of women probably dont feel that way, which is why they are confused.
the ones changing the constitution the burden of proof, the resurectiuon of peonage, affirmative action that denies the better candidate, and so on.
most women dont think about the dynamics, if they did they would call the feminists fruit bats and walk the other way!!!!
i am sorry to inform you about the truth of your last statement.
our high standards came from our judeo christian ethos which reflected things like the virtues. the athistic communist pragmatic thing the feminists are making (so say them), will have noting with it, and in fact it promotes the seven deadly sins as virtues to destroy the very thing that they create which is what your wanting!!!!!!!!
want to know what every single mother with a son that succeeds teaches him no matter what? that he is a fifth wheel, useless with no purpose.
i would recomment you reading bella dod, and you will see that nihilism and empty purpose leaves on with only the cold sociopathic communism to give one meaning.
we forgot the history... read her book school of darkness and you will be reading as to tactics and things you can see today!
anyway... lets analyse your request.
We can't control what others do or say, but we can control our own actions, so it is up to all of us, individually, to set high standards and live up to them.
that first part, is the old way. social morals and things did control what other did or say. which is why that was co-opted and turned into PC, which is the same old soviet right party mind.
we do control our own actions, but the willingness not to control others is a learned thing, and will not happen if the reward for controling others is not there.
i am not trying to be difficult, i am trying to show you that men and women think differently and that women dont generally see the forces that play in external poitics.
for instance, your missive is exactly what a heterosexual family would teach by living it!!! but that doesnt apply to how we HAVE to functon to survive in the external world. because in the external world, if i dont follow that, and everyone else does, i can get more for my family. and if you dont think that he is doing it for them and his wife, you have swalloed the lies... (which is why he expects her to handle the mroe peaceful and cooperative home front. i will die for you to get you all that we need to fulfill our purpose, you have to help me by creating a place where i can rest, i can bring what i win for us, and so on. instead he goes from battles he coudl possibley win, to battles that are impossible to win no matter the outcome!!
meanwhile, you dont get taht that missive you just stated is exactly the rule the men are following and the women are not!!!!!!
the men are not imposing something on the women, the men are controlling their own behavikor and refusing to grant gifts and sacrifice to people that dont deserve it, dont want it, beliettle us for it, and so forth.
your rules are male rules..
contrast those rules with how females behave (under rad feminism).
do you see women letting men say what they want and have needs?
so are they following we cant control waht otehrs say or do?
follow the link on the story and read the fruitbat natasha, then read elle try to chastise me for saying what i want. both natasha and her seek to control what others do and say.
in fact to show you how disengenous this is and you dont realize it. you are calling that after women have abandoned the rules your stating that men should still stick to them and perhaps women should return to them.
i guess you as well as the other women ever thought atht what you were smashing was a delicate crystal glass that held the future inside of it.
50 years later after such behavior of abuse to your own families (who else are the women attacking most of the time. the men who rape in trains, or their husbands who are their partners?)
here is the other part your not getting. the women have turned america into a collective. so how can you say that we have to INDIVIDUALLY do something?
this is what the men refer to as the female problem of trying to have it both ways and refusing to employ logic which would deny that. reality has other ideas than to listen to somone being illogical
we are a collective now, we dont think individually. the feminists wanted to hammer out all male qyualities of men as evil, adn adopt them to them to replace men as the stars of the world.
so they did.
so how can you sit there and not get that the guys are following womens commands adn that the women will not let women like you stress that the old way of individualism, personal responsibility etc are the way to go.
personal responsibility leads to sexual syuppression, which leads to women not having COMPLETE freedom, whch they defeine as being able to do anyting they want without consequences (which is how they imagine the patrarchy to have been, even though like moriarty it never exists. its just the natural way that we fall to that they have to crush)
you see joanne, they removed the support structures that make what your proposing a good thing. they watne to replace the pwoer of our culture with the power of the state, so that tehy can control the otucomes.
the problem is that you dont realizet hat these are the outcomes that they watned.
they are dividind the species into two units, a permanent mentally deficient underclass, adn a mentally proficient over class.
what else do you get when yo remvoe those who have a sense of adventure, dispromote peopel who can function, and so forth pahying the disfunctioal to nave lots of problem kids?
duh.
here is bella dodd
"The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them.... War-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete." (153)
There was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of American Women, a forerunner of the feminist movement.
"Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals." (194-195)
see.. naive inthe ways of the outer world the young and women once granted the same status as the older and males, end up being the target of the forces that wish to remove the things that you just listed out.
if we control ourselves and behave what happens to the need for so much statism? if we had our own morals, then cant he state decree them and expect its slaves to follow.
after all, a devout religious man whose morals are separate from the state, would become a saint rather than compromise them at the orders of the state.
if the public cant control themselves then the state will do so totalitarian ways.
and sicne the feminsits are makin totalitarian ways, then letting men rape women helps their cause!!!!!
if the didnt ahve these things happen, then what would be their purpose?
read the bella dod thing sicne she was the head of the communist party in teh usa, and part of the area that took control of teh teachers union and so took control of what you and i learned and what the kids learned. that way they implemented lukacks tuff.
go read about the horrible acts that kinsey did to jsutify for the feminists that children were sexual.. and that to have morals was to be oppressing them.
which is why all tehse girils are little what ever you want to call them.
i would first go back adn examine each of the main points of what you women are listening to.
you obviolusly are trying to tell and control waht others do or say, and they are obviosly showing you that yuo dont control them.
they are giving the women what they want... the problem is that you dont define what women want.
the feminists do as the feminsits speak for all women.
you will now deny they do... but i dont see the feminist oppositino party coming out to figtht vawa, or to have their own pack funds, or such.
so you might not think they do, but in the absence of your attendence in the state, and the billions that they get, you dont matter.
which is why feminism means nothing. you can have feminsits for porn, feminists against, porn, but to the leaders its clear that whether its for porn, or against, all teh women are under feminism. which is why they tack it to everyting. two opposing camps united for the leaders purpose under one banner.
no wonder they set you girls at each other. your too busy fighint on the lawn trusting the peopel setting you at everyone and everything, while they get to vote your position for you.
the men cant speak. go to the link as i said, and see if they accept my opinon. see if they treat me with respect. see if they try to manipulate me with shame,. or some derrisive comment as to my inability to stick my tool in a hole (as if doing so would make me a real person and because i cant do so i must be a non person. in a way they just said your nothing unless you can take women, and we wont listen to you till you can. in essence saying only lotharios that lie will we listen to!).
joane, you have no idea that not only women have valid experiences. men do to, but men cant tell you about it, feminist experts tell you what men think and you dont listen to the men!!!!!!!!!!
what you also dont get is that the islamics have set high standards of behavior! higher than yours! the thing you dont see is that in the absence of something like judeo christian thought, all standards are EQUAL!
see, you dont eeven know the thing your supporting
the islamic standard is much higher than the western standard. so they can induce their people to commit henious acts to further their cause.
is this any less than the left who is sedistions, willing to plant bombs at the pentagon, willing to kill their own families to get what they want?
tahts why they arent doing antyhing. they are the same.. and both are means to a staet that they can then dictate outcomes.
the men are actually ilving up to high standards, and you are so clouded you dont see it.
they are saying we do not grant the fruits of ourselves to those that dont deserve it. thats a higher standard than your saying!
the men are doing the hard thing of refusing to help people that hate them and are indifferent to them, and would not help them (the men are under seige, we know they arent helping us!).
they are deciding that what they do has value, and that value would have no meaning if they gave it away. in fact, if they do tht, then the worst women coudl then use them by creating situtions where the men have to come to their aid.
sorry, unlike you the men are much more sensitive to manipulation.. they dont follwo blindly like women. this is why you are the target of the politics. they know that your willing to compromise your values to get what you want. ergo tehre are more male saints than female ones. (but there are female saints!).
a man is made to die for his principals. women would not have anything else as the best choice of mate. so thats how we are.
men are less gullible, more effective in the real world, more focused, more driven to a goal, and willing to go much farhter to get it (how many female crab fishermen you see?). this is what women select, so this is how men are.
men dont select women by their ability to navigate the mean world, so they dont do it as well.
men dont select women because they are strong and willing to die rather than protect the kids... so they dont. (which is why the family dies when the order is chnced, he is programmed to protect women and children, she is programemed to protect herself and children.. ergo, when she is in the driver seat he has no place. and then she has boys, and they have no place, nihilism comes, and then the despotic arrive.
the mates are kileld or taken away, and the women are left with the winners.
so your not complaining that the men dont have high standrds, your complaining that their standards are too high and not what you think are the right ones. but alas, the ones that you think are the right ones are the ones that you and otehrs supported in getting rid of.
you cant put the crystal glass back together.
until a new glass is made to repalce the loss of more than 2500 years of cultural developm,ent the wopmen through away, there is none.
bet they didnt explain that to you.. men knwo that. thats the real world.
your missive shows that you have lots of desires, And lots of thoughts on how it should be, but no ability to actually make it that way. nature did that, so that any society that decided to not live inthe real world woudl be ineffective and fade away.
the western culture was so good, it was sweeping the others off the planet..
nwo the western culture has been rotted and redivined that they can sweep us off the table.
what part of this didnt you women understand? oh yeah.. the part where we still iive in a natural real world that operates by its own rules that we have to live with. you know, things like biology, phyusics and chemistry.
made soft by eons of men working to make life easy for you, and not having to make things work yourself is why women are more gullible.
they have to side with a force that can provide, or not have anything,.
which is why in the absence of loving mates, they still need the state to provide. feminism is and was wrong, biology IS destiny.
only people who are ignorant of the natural forces of the outside world woudl accept such stuff!!!
which is why men target the women and the kids to get the system to grant them and their families everthing.
if the women are loyal and smart, they side with those that lvoe them.
if they are not, they side with the ones who wish to peel them away from their defenders then take everything they have, including their choice of who to have as mates!
its a pretty simple formulea men have known through the ages. which is why they get so angry when women are not loyal to the family cause above their own selfishness.
that is the doorway that an enemy cancome through to slaughter and take everything.
the house can be locked up tight, but if she gets up int eh middle of the night and unlocks the doo, there is nothting the ones that lvoe her can do to save her, or themsevlves.
let me know how loyal women are to family nw, and to their mates?
now you know why men will not protect them. they want a mate that will help them reach the life goal of family with work as a means, not an end in istelf (which is why they do things they hate in exchange for more than they need!)
if women are too busy rinnig aroudn with the idea that their life is about the work they do, are they good mates? would promoting that and protecting that, create a good society?
so the mens biology, knwos how to respond. its the thing i mentioend above. you cant make us perform in ways that isnt conducive to the goals of life. the resutls of other thigns is the end of those lineages!!!!
you forget that men are not here for all women.. which is what the colelctive says.
no, men are here for their mates, to do a job at producing good proructive kids.
so a man willing to protect or defend a stranger, is a bad family man who risks his whole genetic lineage for anotehr mans line.
so you will not get tehm to defend strange women (why the more primitive societies were veils, adn such. the italians did too, adn they were not muslim when they did!). in fact, biologicvally, letting her get attacked is advantageiuosu to his family
however, that all changes when we havea normal society in whcih we all are following the sociali contract! (which women tore down!)
in that society, the men would help knowing that if somethign happens to their own, strangers would help theirs.
however, the women shorted that syustem. so the men know that there is no more cohesive society (justifyint totalitarian control), and so there is no plus for them and ojnly negagives for helping, so they naturally wont.
the women think that this is their choice, but its not. men who made up societies that reacted and acted right, lived and prospered. men that didnt, did not.
your denying competition, your denying the existence of different outcomes, and most importantly, your denying the importance of the individual! or how can you assert that the individual has to come to the aid of someone?
when individuals were importatant because god made them. then jumping in was not just a choice of a pieve of meat in a world, it was also the choice of a moral being tht existed in both worlds.
we killed god, and so now according to humanism, we are just pieves of meat. a complex slime mold said dewey the man who wrote most of the hunmanist manifesto. the ideas that feminsits follwo.
what they didnt do was figure out what it actually means that we are part of a collective.
we are not important as individuals, so there is absolutely no reason to risk the totally important life of the self, for a very complex slime mold that has no importance.
its the implication of the premise that the women promote that creates out actions in reality.
the tribe is important than everyone is expendilbe, if everyone is expendible, then why have effort to save waht is not worth anthing.
do you lament the skin cells falling from your body in death?
when you accidently cut yourself, do you cry for the celsl that are no more?
well wake up to the collective dear, you dont cry for these... any more than you teh colelctive entity cries for the blood cells lost down the drain in the kitchen.
its why 45 millino abortions, millions in work camps.. why nothing is done to help the girls.
its how a colletive operates, and is more efficient.
otehr than the leaders of the feminist movement, everything else is expendible.
and so that girl raped is expendible and more valuable as a victim than as a healthy indivudual finctioning independent person.
hope i woke ya up a bit..
[personally i dont like all this, but unlike others my imagining thar reality is different than it is would make me a bad male for a mate whose wife and family needs him to be effective. so lots of men know what i wrote, even if they arent verbal enough to say it. we cant delude ourselves as you do because we cant destinguish ourselve that way and have yuo select us from the crowd. ]
Props to Whiskey, Zenster, and Artfldgr for a series of great rebuttals to the simplistic and somewhat naive criticism of Joanne, Chalons, and Grimmy. You guys hit the nail on the head regarding the feminist issue, and the paralyzing effects of Marxist "de-masculinization." Feminism was never anything more than another tool in the Marxist "Deconstruction Toolbox." It has so little logical and internal consistency because it is not a true science or an honest philosophy, but merely an illusory and artificial means of attacking the "Patriarchal" (i.e. safe, prosperous, and functional) West.
Women have generally been useful stooges for Marxist and New World Order-style social engineering, due mainly to their emotional and idealistic (as opposed to factual and "hard") approaches to politics and reality in general. This is simply the result of different evolved behaviors and functions attached to males and females which, to most people, are patently obvious.
Women no doubt have a hard time understanding this, but a tremendous amount of Marxist and Leftist "socialization" has had the result of putting SERIOUS barriers in the way of any Western man who would like to be chivalrous in the case of a minority-on-white attack. The Western (and especially European) male has MORE to fear from his own State/government, incredible as it may seem, than from the (usually) Muslim assailant. This is the sad state of affairs we are living in, and as one astute commentator above noted: Don't you dare think for an instant that the elites and social engineers who have created our current environment did not INTEND IT 100%.
It is very hard to dominate and rule over a proud, homogeneous, and culturally-confident people. It is easy to rule over a divided rabble of races and nationalities who can be played against each other. The difference between a proud, homogeneous, and culturally-confident people versus an internally-rifted and sectarian rabble is the difference between Japan, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (for the time being re. the latter two) and Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and Israel-Palestine.
The EU and the US--practically the whole West, really--are in Empire Mode. They have turned their once-homogeneous and united societies into divided racial, religious, and victimological hierarchies. In doing so, Western elites have adopted a strategy that is at least as old as the Roman Empire.
Post a Comment