Feminism and Defeated Tribes

Fjordman included the following note with his latest essay:

Because so many people have been so generous, I have been a little bit slow responding to those who donated via my PayPal button at Gates of Vienna. I will speed up my replies this week, and plan to send a personal thank-you email to all donors by the end of this week or shortly thereafter.

At least one donor failed to receive an email last year, and for that I apologize. There may be a handful of others that I inadvertently missed. In some cases, the email address provided by PayPal did not seem to be working.

Anyone whose gift was not acknowledged may email GoV [gatesofvienna (at) chromatism (dot) net], and I will contact them.

Feminism and Defeated Tribes
by Fjordman

In 2008, the regular columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet wrote that “Islamophobia is the most dangerous ideology of our time.” Michelet was earlier the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league,” and is the daughter of Jon Michelet, a notable Communist author.

None of this has prevented her from becoming a leading columnist in one of the country’s three largest newspapers. There is little stigma attached to being a Communist, in contrast with being a neo-Nazi. Communism is merely a misunderstood ideology that just happens to have killed an estimated 100 million people.

The funny or absurd aspect of this is that in 2012 Marte Michelet warned against dangerous totalitarian movements, specifically singling out anti-Islamists as being one of them. Hearing Communists warning against totalitarian movements is like hearing actor Charlie Sheen warning that it’s stupid to use drugs.

Marte Michelet was personally mentioned by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a potential terror target. Although I consider her to be a political opponent, there are some things you don’t wish even for your opponents, so I sympathize with her in this case. That, however, does not place her above criticism for her public statements as a high-profile writer.

Michelet’s partner is Ali Esbati, an Iranian-born writer who has been active in the Left Party, a reformed Communist party in Sweden, but currently lives in Norway. He was personally at Utøya to speak when Breivik started shooting, but survived by hiding from the gunman. He wants the attack to be seen as a political act.

Ali Esbati blames what he calls the rhetoric of Islamophobia for creating the basis for Breivik’s terror attacks. He recalls that he came to a safe and friendly Sweden from Iran in 1986, and laments that the country and Europe as a whole is now less safe and less friendly. That could be true, but perhaps the mass immigration of people from distant parts of the world contributed to this negative transformation? With his revolutionary Socialist background, Esbati concludes that “real safety” can only come from changing the entire society.

Ali Esbati has previously voiced sympathy for terror organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). During the late 1960s and 1970s, the PFLP and other Palestinian Jihadists pioneered aircraft hijackings and other forms of terrorism as a means of drawing media attention to their cause. The PFLP fostered links with militant groups across the world, including the Red Army Faction (RAF) or Baader-Meinhof Gang, a left-wing terror group in Germany for which Anders Behring Breivik has expressed his great admiration. These revolutionary Socialists murdered dozens of human beings, but also received a lot of media attention.

The RAF trained in bomb-making at Palestinian terror camps during the days when Yasser Arafat had emerged as the senior Palestinian leader. Some years later, the terrorist Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize from Norway due to the (failed) Oslo peace process, partly brokered by members of the Norwegian labor movement.

What is most interesting about Marte Michelet and her newspaper is that they are at they are very much in favor of Muslim mass immigration and oppose “Islamophobia,” but at the same time have a strong Feminist profile.

On the one hand, Dagbladet can at times resemble a soft-porn magazine that just happens to be published every day, with very detailed and graphic descriptions of how to perform better oral or anal sex. They have run positive articles about nudists as well as testing of dildos, vibrators and other sex toys.

Now I can understand that. What I find harder to understand is how they can at the same time support continued Muslim mass immigration and even say modestly positive things about the Muslim Brotherhood. How many Hamas-run dildo stores are there in the Gaza Strip, anyway?

I’ve been struggling for years to come up with an appropriate term for this policy of supporting Islamization, including veils, at the same time as supporting nudity and sex toys. I finally came up with a suggestion for the ideology: Dildo Sharia. To radical Feminists of the political Left, freedom seems to be a vibrator with a burka.

Marie Simonsen is the political editor of Dagbladet and one of Norway’s most high-profile newspaper commentators. She expressed surprise when I stepped forward from anonymity as Fjordman in 2011 and turned out to be a young man still in my thirties. Simonsen thought I was older, partly due to a few critical comments I had made about radical Feminism. According to her, my texts are brimming with an idea of “biology.”

As a sure-fire sign of my alleged extremism, Simonsen highlighted that I was “on the biology track” in my writings before this became fashionable, after the Norwegian comedian Harald Eia along with Ole Martin Ihle miraculously managed to get the state broadcaster NRK TV to air a TV series called Hjernevask (“Brainwash”) about the realities of human biology vs. the fake reality constructed by academic Political Correctness.

Well, I have some news for radical Feminists and Multicultural anti-racists: You may not believe in biology, but biology believes in you.

Besides, what else is considered backward extremism? Believing in gravity?

One of the hallmarks of Dagbladet and left-wing Multiculturalists throughout the Western world who think like them is biophobia, the irrational fear of biology and the belief that mentioning genes and genetic differences makes you a “Nazi.” Anti-scientific biophobia now constitutes a much bigger problem than Islamophobia does.

Simonsen also mocked the idea that some Western men think they have lost out during the past fifty years, including when it comes to their own children. As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible to claim that Anders Behring Breivik is partly the product of the policies of state Feminism found in Scandinavia and elsewhere.

One of the first to mention this possibility was the writer Steen, who is behind the independent website Snaphanen in Denmark. He is old enough to have gone to an all-boy school, which sometimes entailed fistfights. Boys, being young male mammals, will sometimes fight in order to establish a hierarchy among themselves. This can be brutal, but it is a part of nature. What they did learn by doing this was a controlled and civilized use of violence, that is, to (usually) stop fighting before somebody got killed or seriously injured.

In contrast, Breivik has never learned this. He grew up largely without his father, and his stepfather was not up to the job, either. He also did not do any military service. The only form of masculinity he has picked up is a deformed, hyper-violent one shaped by computer games, violent TV series and al-Qaida videos of beheadings.

ABB’s father Jens Breivik has received much criticism. I have to agree that he does not appear to have been a terrific father, but in his defense, he also had the cards stacked against him. The young Breivik’s mother has later been alleged to suffer from serious mental defects and accused of abusing, possibly even sexually, the boy Anders when he was of preschool age. Yet even when psychologists from Norway’s center for child and youth psychiatry reported that she was hurting her child, the father was still not able to obtain custody, although the mother was obviously unfit to take care of the boy and had divorced the father for no particular reason.

Since the 1980s, it has sometimes become easier for fathers to have more contact with their children after a divorce, but not always so. As a matter of fact, in the autumn of 2012, the avowed Feminist Inga Marte Thorkildsen from Norway’s Socialist Left Party (SV) who is Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion (yes, that is the official title) in the Stoltenberg government, sent out a bill for a suggested law giving one parent the right to stop the child’s interaction with the other parent without asking a court for permission.

In plain words, if a newly divorced mother claims that her ex-partner will be abusive when he meets their common child, she can unilaterally deny him any access whatsoever to their mutual child. Perhaps this could be for the best of the child in cases where one parent is extremely abusive, but this system could easily be misused.

Now, this is merely a proposal; such a law hasn’t been passed yet, but the fact that it can even be proposed it opens up some dangerous perspectives. In the 1980s and 90s there were a number of documented cases, partly backed by Feminist newspapers such as Dagbladet, where fathers were wrongfully convicted of sexual abusive of their children because the mother wanted to harm them after the divorce. The female journalist Ingrid Carlqvist was accused of being a “friend of pedophiles” when she wrote truthfully about such cases in Sweden.

To what extent does the breakdown of the nuclear family contribute to instability in society? A few female authors such as Melanie Phillips have dared raise this question and have often been attacked for this by the Left.

The traditional nuclear family has been presented as a source of oppression and abuse ever since Karl Marx. Can it be? Sometimes, yes. But this does not mean that so-called alternative family forms involve less chance of abuse. Some men and women do abuse their children in various ways. In the most extreme cases, it is probably beneficial for the children to grow up with somebody else. However, in majority of cases it is safest to stay with your biological parents, who usually don’t want to harm their own offspring and thus the continuation of their genetic line.

Statistics indicate a heightened risk of abuse and social problems in families involving non-biological parents. Yet this pattern is often ignored by those who refuse to take a biological basis of human behavior into account.

A French reporter has published a book entitled Les Proies: Dans le harem de Kadhafi (“Prey: In Gaddafi’s Harem”), containing testimonies from young women who were kidnapped, beaten, humiliated and raped by former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. According to Annick Cojean, “Gaddafi had a harem of women kept in the basement of his residence, in little rooms or apartments. These women, obligated to appear before him in their underwear, could be called at any time of day or night. They were raped, beaten, subjected to the worst kinds of sexual humiliation. For Gaddafi, rape was a weapon … a way of dominating others — women, obviously, because it was easy, but also men, by possessing their wives and daughters. Similarly, he forced some of his ministers to have sex with him. He did the same with certain tribal chiefs, diplomats and military officials over whom he wanted to get the upper hand.”

Yes, Gaddafi was a sadistic dictator, but there could also be a wider cultural pattern in this behavior of using rape and sexual dominance as a weapon, not just against the women, but at least as much against their men.

By raping or sexually abusing their young women, one not only hurts the women, but also humiliates all of their men and relatives by showing them that one is dominant and that they are weak and pathetic and unable to protect their daughters and sisters. It’s psychological warfare at least as much as physical warfare.

The gang rapes that we are witnessing today — especially targeting white women in Dutch, Swedish and German streets, in English cities and French suburbs or for that matter in South Africa and certain cities in North America — constitute warfare. That’s how they should be interpreted. It’s not just the raping of the women, either; it’s a wider pattern of looting, robberies, muggings and violent attacks targeting the men as well as the women.

Do you think this claim is an exaggeration? Well, it was directly confirmed in a study made in Sweden in 2006, one of the rare cases where this was openly mentioned in the otherwise heavily censored mass media there.

In March 2006, Dagens Nyheter in Sweden, one of the largest newspapers in the Nordic countries, published an article about certain immigrants groups waging a war against the natives in the streets, and bragging about this.

In a sociological survey entitled Vi krigar mot svenskarna (“We’re waging a war against the Swedes”), young immigrants in the troubled southern city of Malmö have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. About a thousand years ago, Malmö was one of the first cities in what is now Sweden to become Christian, and currently looks set to become the first majority Muslim city in the Nordic countries a few years from now.

The escalating wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This was the explanation given openly by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups. Almost 90% of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals.

“When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times to Petra Åkesson. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explained, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” They added with barely concealed glee that “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.”

In our Marxist-immersed culture, crime is usually explained as a result of poverty and oppression, or “racism, discrimination and social exclusion” as it’s called in Multicultural Newspeak. In practice, this means that if Muslim or African immigrants gang-rape native European girls, the natives should respond by giving more money to their “socially deprived neighborhoods.” And if criminal Gypsy gangs rob and abuse old ladies in the streets, this can only happen because we’re mean to Gypsies.

It’s always our fault. And the worse and more violent other ethnic groups behave towards us, the more we should apologize. Such is the logic of Marxism.

Yet these fine young gentlemen interviewed in Malmö probably all enjoy a higher standard of living in Western Europe than they would ever have had back home. That doesn’t make them more positive towards their adopted homeland, though. They just despise the native population more for being weak prey and giving them money.

As they freely admit, the young criminals don’t use violence because they are poor; they do this as a display of aggression and power, in order to humiliate other ethnic groups and thereby show that they are dominant. It’s all about power and humiliation, our humiliation.

Dissident writers who dare to suggest that this not merely random “street crime” but a campaign of ethnic warfare against Europeans are frequently dismissed as cranks promoting “conspiracy theories.” Yet when the people doing this themselves freely admit that this is what they are doing, is it still a conspiracy theory?

European jails are being filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crime. A few of them plan bombing attacks. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of this. That is because they cannot, or will not, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bomb. If many of the newcomers see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense.

Sweden’s allegedly conservative Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has stated that the original Swedish culture was merely barbarism; everything good was imported from abroad. He said this in 2006 following a visit to the town of Södertälje, close to Stockholm. A police station there had been hit by shots from an automatic weapon following a big confrontation between immigrant youths and police. The trouble started after a Swedish girl had been called a “whore” and she reacted to this. Many of the natives are now moving away from this and other urban regions that are becoming flooded with non-European immigrants, not all of them Muslims.

Ethnologist Maria Bäckman in her study “Whiteness and gender” followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby near Stockholm, where the natives have been turned into a minority due to rapid mass immigration. Some girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid unwanted attention and sexual harassment. Being called “whore” is now so common for white girls in certain schools that teachers no longer react to this.

Another report tells of how being a young Swedish girl increasingly means feeling unsafe in the streets of your own country. They are scared of being raped, a possibility that appears very real. Many have to plan how to go home at night, how to keep their keys in their hand to defend themselves or to simply run all the way home. The heavily censored Swedish mass media nearly always refuse to link this trend to immigration, but there is a link.

“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid, a young Muslim man in an interview about one of many gang rapes in Sweden involving immigrant perps and a native white girl. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f***ed before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame.” He claims that it is “far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f***ed to pieces.”

Notice the total lack of any distinction between voluntary sex and rape in the statements by this Muslim man.

A new trend in forced prostitution in the Netherlands involves the cultivation of young, vulnerable girls by men who befriend them and then coerce them into prostitution. In Amsterdam, Dutch-born women rank first among the victims. Some anti-trafficking NGOs believe that there are as many as 10,000 Dutch victims of this, which often involves second- and third-generation immigrants. Police and social workers largely point the finger of blame at Muslim Dutch-Moroccans who use promises of romance and even marriage to win the trust of young girls who they then trick into working as prostitutes. The police refer to this process as “brainwashing.” Moroccans are more than twice as likely as their native Dutch counterparts to drop out of school and remain unemployed and are over-represented in the prison figures, as are Muslims and certain other groups in all Western countries.

England has been sparked by a wave of extremely brutal sexual torture of young white girls committed by Pakistanis or other Muslims, which had been downplayed by the police due to fear of being called “racists.” Many of them, not just in England or Britain but in other European countries as well, see white girls as “easy meat.”

Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly, a mufti and prominent imam based in Australia, during a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney in 2006 blamed women who don’t wear hijab (Islamic headscarf) for sexual attacks. “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat,” he said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.” “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.” Along similar lines, in 2004 Shahid Mehdi, an Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen, Denmark, sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape.”

In October 2012, 14 immigrant men accused of repeatedly gang-raping two teenage girls in a run-down Paris suburb dominated by Muslims received light sentences or acquittals. The court decision sparked widespread outrage in France. Women’s organizations called the verdicts “catastrophic” and decried a culture of “impunity.” The two victims said they had seen a “judicial disaster” after the verdict in the attacks. They said they had been repeatedly raped in sordid places — in basement cellars, stairwells and car parks.

With the rapid advances in the genetic sciences we are now witnessing, a new branch of biohistory is emerging. This includes pioneering books as The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, who show that genetic differences between different groups of humans have practical consequences and that human evolution is accelerating, and Understanding Human History by Michael H. Hart, who focuses especially on ethnic differences in genetic intelligence measured in IQ as a driving factor in human history.

We have almost arrived at what might be termed “genetic archaeology”. Instead of digging in the earth, we can now study our own genes to see the imprints of past changes and population movements. Among other things we can discover patterns where known cultural expansions are followed by the expansion of genes, especially male genes.

Among the mixed populations of Latin America today, there tends to be a higher percentage of native female DNA combined with European male DNA. This is the genetic imprint of an encounter in which Europeans, primarily some European men, conquered large territories and took control over the local women.

This pattern is quite common in many different parts of the world, from the Vikings in the North Atlantic to the first Neolithic farmers entering southeastern Europe: A successful (or aggressive) group of men expand, move into a new territory and take control over the fertility of the local land as well as the fertility of the local women.

Human history can be quite brutal. During armed encounters, it is not unheard of for the entire defeated nation to be slaughtered, men, women and children. Yet a very common pattern is for the women of the defeated nation to end up as sexual playthings and concubines for the men of the conquering nation, whereas the men are enslaved or worse. It may be unpleasant to speak about this, but honesty requires that we note is in many cases the rule, not the exception, for the local women to have sexual encounters with the soldiers of the victorious nation, be that voluntarily or involuntarily. That was the case in prehistoric times as much as it was in Berlin in 1945.

Rape as a part of warfare probably exists in most part of the world, but it is particularly prominent within certain cultures. The slavery aspect of Islamic culture, for instance, has always had an unusually strong emphasis on the sexual side of this, as historian Murray Gordon explains in Slavery in the Arab World. Slavery remains perfectly legal according to Islamic law to this day and is practiced in certain places, barely concealed.

If we notice this pattern then it is very easy to see that it is present in many Western cities today, with immigrant men from certain communities, Muslims and Africans being among the most aggressive, preying on local white women. They instinctively see this as conquering a new territory, which entails looting the locals for their property and imposing their own cultural symbols as well as sexually dominating the native women. And that is precisely what they are doing now. When they can sexually harass and abuse the local women virtually unopposed, they think they are dealing with a defeated tribe — and they are probably correct in that assessment.

What I will say next will cause great offense to some Feminists, but it’s nevertheless a fact which we can discover from human history. While women are immensely important for the social fabric of any society, a civilization is first and foremost created, maintained and defended by men. In all societies, even ones such as ancient Egypt, or the Germanic cultures of Europe where women enjoyed much freedom and respect, most of the political and military power was in the hands of men. A society is primarily protected by men who have masculine pride in their culture. If they lose their masculinity, their cultural pride or both, men from other tribes may not even have to fight much in order to invade and conquer; they can simply walk in and take over the territory and the local women. If we look around us, is this not what is happening in some Western cities today?

Ultimately, this situation has only two possible outcomes:

1.		The invading men win and establish their lasting dominance over the conquered and colonized territory.
2.		There is a resurgence of masculine cultural pride among European men, who reestablish control over their countries.

Option 3, “Girl power kicks ass,” only exists in certain myths promoted by modern popular culture. Women can take some measure of responsibility for their own protection, for instance by carrying a gun, and some women can contribute meaningfully to the defenses in various ways. Yet in the end, the basic responsibility for protecting society and keeping predators off the streets will always fall to the men. I say this as a quiet man more at home with books than with fistfights, but this is what studying human history and biology shows us.

Cultural and political feminization for a society seems to correlate rather strongly with perceived weakness by outsiders. For instance, is it a coincidence that Sweden by the late 1960s was a relatively safe society, whereas hyper-Feminist Sweden today has one of the highest reported rape rates in the world? This trend happens to coincide and overlap with a wave of non-European mass immigration over the past 40 years, which has widely been cheered on by the very same groups and organizations that supported radical Feminism.

Left-wing Multiculturalists and Feminists champion a number of policies that in combination are toxic:

1.		They support the mass immigration of culturally distant groups, especially Muslims but also others.
2.		They disarm the local men culturally and ideologically.
3.		They teach the local women not to expect or ask for protection from their own men, but not do they teach them to protect themselves properly, either.
4.		They teach the local women to think that men from other cultures are just like the men from their own culture and that it’s very, very racist and evil to think of or behave differently towards them, at least in any negative way. As a matter of fact, they, too, are oppressed and discriminated-against victims of the incomparably evil white man.

The combined function of these policies is to create young Western women who look, act and dress in a sexually liberated manner in front of hyper-masculine men from other cultures where white women are seen as sluts. The native men have been actively discouraged from displaying any sign of traditional masculinity or cultural pride. The women are not asking for this, and at the same time they have been taught to be naïve and trusting in front of aggressive groups of young men who view them as booty to be conquered. In short, Multicultural Feminist have turned young Western women into prey, and have contributed with their policies to the gang rapes and sexual torture we can now see from Swedish towns via English cities to the suburbs of Paris or Marseilles in France.

We’ve currently experienced several generations of Marxist-inspired radical Feminism in the Western world — and Western women and their children have arguably never been less safe in the streets than now. At some point we have to point out a possible correlation here.

This does not mean that Feminism alone caused this, nor that women are necessarily to blame. One could equally blame the men for abandoning their responsibilities. It is also possible to argue that radical Feminism is at least as much an effect and a symptom of a decaying society as its cause. Perhaps it is a little bit of both, but the correlation is nevertheless too powerful to ignore.

In the city of Trondheim in Norway, the white native girl Eva Helgetun took her own life on 28 May 2011, shortly after having been gang raped by a group of young immigrant men. She was only 14 years old.

There are numerous stories like hers in other parts of Western Europe. I also read about an Egyptian Muslim man who had raped at least half a dozen Norwegian women, at least one of whom killed herself, and those are only the ones who reported the crime. Even the Oslo police that among assault rapes, certain immigrant groups, particularly Muslims or Africans, are grossly disproportionately represented.

Although hearing this will no doubt anger them, I am of the opinion that Multicultural Feminists such as Marie Simonsen and Marte Michelet from the newspaper Dagbladet have for years supported policies that led directly to the destroyed life of young women such as Eva Helgetun. As long as they continue to support the mass importation of people from aggressive cultures, they will contribute to scores of future young women having their lives destroyed in a similar manner.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.