Nine more items showing the erosion of the West thanks to leftism and Islam: Links 2, May 21, 2018

1. It appears that police and media in the West compete now to see how little information they can let out to the public when certain types of events happen. In Canada I predict it will move from failure to provide any meaningful information to out and out lying, as we see with the attack on the mosque in Quebec a couple of years ago, where the Trudeau Liberals are happy to paint a picture of an anti-Islamic hate crime, and yet the criminal charges against the man who confessed to the attack do not include either terrorism or hate crime. So Canada has already moved into outright deception.

2. 4th day of Ramadan sees 20 explosions in Southern Thailand

(If I still had the time to think of, write, and produce a Ramadan music video it would be the Thirty Days of Ramadan, sung to the tune of the 12 days of Christmas and detail the actual things the bastard barbarians do for each day. On the 4th day of Ramadan my imam said to me, “20 bombs in Thailand, four Afghan tourists, three, Church a-blaze… “)

PATTANI: The fourth day of the month of Ramadan has been marred with incidents of violence with about 20 bombs targeting Automatic Teller Machines (ATM), going off in some parts of southern Thailand.


The bomb blasts started from 7 pm (local time) in the turbulent Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkla provinces.

“The authorities received reports of four bombs exploding in the Muang district of Pattani, while a bomb each exploded in Saiburi, Nongchik and Yarang, all placed at ATM machines,” Pattani police chief Maj Gen Piyawat Chalermsi said today.

3. Once again, Ontario teaches us all that laws are for suckers. Meaning of course, non-muslims.

4. There is enough bullish*t in this communist’s pitch to fertilize enough fields to feed much of the world’s poor. Its too bad that communists destroy farmers each and every time they take over an area. One of the first stunners is that the people who are coming across the border are refugees. not one of them is. In fact a large percentage of them are people who flew into the USA from far away and then walked across the border into Canada as part of what is clearly the grand scheme of Soros, Trudeau, Merkel, Obama and all the other global communists who are attempting to end civilization.

5. Vlaams Belang member gives Junker about 1/100th of what he deserves

6. Here is a hard coded version of Rasmus’ social experiment reproducing the socialists’ ‘Gay Jesus’ thing with gay Mohammad.

7. Bill Warner takes questions on political Islam:

8. Another splendid example of avoiding informing the public about a noteworthy event

I really did lose track of everyone on this post. A lot going on and some of it Im quite excited to tell you all about when its closer to ready to release. Some of it should be soon! But for now, here are a few more items that are worthy of a look.

Thank you all for sending this material in. Please, please keep your eyes open and send in what you see that is worth of this audience.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

24 Replies to “Nine more items showing the erosion of the West thanks to leftism and Islam: Links 2, May 21, 2018”

  1. 20 bombs in Thailand, four Afghan tourists, three Church a-blazing, two stabbed Lee Rigby, Theo-Van-Gogh. More Dhimmitude, be Frenchmen, Frau Merkel cucks, and a carnage in a city.

      • I’ll take a recycled Ramadan Song,
        Thank-you very much.

        In the holiday spirit – some of the people here haven’t seen your classics, like The Rotting Head of Mohammad.

        • I’ll take a recycled Ramadan Song,

          As time permits, I’m working on “Ramadama-Shamalama-King-Kong”. Can’t promise how this is going to turn out. It gets pretty weird. Silverbacks in the harem and all that … Just kidding!

  2. Soros, Trudeau, Merkel, Obama and all the other global communists who are attempting to end civilization.

    As far as I can see the destruction is just about complete, when we manage to defeat the left it will take many decades to restore the rule of law and to bring the educational establishment back into teaching instead of indoctrinating.

    • … bring the educational establishment back into teaching instead of indoctrinating.

      You m, m, m, mean that there’s a difference? [gasp!]

      What with the neighbors think?!?

      • What with the neighbors think?!?

        Yeah, it’s been a rough day …

        What WILL the neighbors think?

        As if I really ever cared, eh? To quote the everkind (sadly and, evidently, not a much-needed word in today’s modern vocabulary) much less delightfully, eloquent Baron Bodissey:

        I spit on the grave of my reputation.”

        What’s not to like about a man of such character?

        The lot of you Liberals, please don’t all speak up at once!

        MY PROMISE: I will expectorate upon my own as-yet-uncharted-resting-place in equal or greater measure, but (to my eternal discredit) probably not with anything near like the repetition-rate and vehemence of our venerable Baron (or even dear Dymphna).

        Enough of this groveling down with the …

    • The EU are introducing on May 25th 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation with ten special protection categorizes, one of which is “trade union membership.”

      “This is because special category data is more sensitive, and so needs more protection. For example, information about an individual’s:

      ethnic origin;
      trade union membership;
      biometrics (where used for ID purposes);
      sex life; or
      sexual orientation.”

      Why would the Marxists hide their trade union memberships?
      A freedom of privacy that Freemasons, and other self-support groups are virulently denied? A rigged system that will get you exorbitantly fined to ruin. A weapon of the State, should you ever seek to find the cause of the Common Purpose.

      • Nobody ever voted for those people. They presume to be able to draw on the money of savers and taxpayers. A free market would quickly bring down their Punch and Judy show and make it obsolete.

        They recognize the communist egalitarianism in the companies, for example, by the so-called harmonization, the women’s quotas, the conditions, restrictions and levies.

        They prescribe “tolerance” to others, but are undemocrats themselves. This is post-modern and -factual fascism in the guise of “humanism”. The same system like China, which acts pseudo-materialistically and thinks communistically.

        • A free market would quickly bring down their Punch and Judy show and make it obsolete.

          Are you talking about the EU or Islam?!? [/s]

          See my next (maybe tonight?), Notes from NorseRadish™ for some interesting perspective on this snake-oil-enema being sluiced into the rectum of a once-majestic West.

          Neither the EU nor Islam can openly compete in a truly Free Market (be it economic or intellectual–spiritual, respectively). Whether it is Brussels, Riyadh, or Tehran, all of them are in for a rough patch as the West finally gets back off of its knees.

          It looks like a lot of time will have to be reserved for teaching Europe pulling up its socks. Tough sh!t, Eurotrash, and your tantrum-prone Antifa Snowflake unicorns. Get some lead in your collective pencils or toddle off to live out your West-murdering fantasies on whatever favorite ISIS battlefront (one-way tickets only and passports collected at boarding, thankyouverymuch).

          As to Islam, it’s made its own bed and it’d damn well better hope it didn’t leave behind too many bedbugs (or “it”s) because we may not be coming back to fumigate again, like we did in Iraq … unless, this time, it’s the Full Flaming Monty™.

          Both of these autocratic Pricktatorships™ (mine!) are unbelievably fortunate that, before now, someone so enthusiastically talented and exuberantly anti-American as 0bama was down there on his knee pads—if only because any new attempts at encouraging BHO’s sort of dedicated fellating will likely lose you your tackle!

    • Iran Nuke Deal an Exercise in Self-Deception

      [All condescension sincerely placed aside, as I hope you will, too]

      Note to all who remain capable of fogging a mirror

      Any one of you who ever thought that the Iran Nuclear Deal had slightly more validity than that meticulously hand written slip of brush-drawn calligraphy inside of your not-so-Chinese “fortune cookie” had best, right away, withdraw your employment applications with the National Defense Establishment or America’s State Department.

      PS: In case of any lingering doubts, the NSA (“No Such Agency”) is right out!.

      Not-so-Best wishes with your ISIS, SVR or FSB résumés and CV submissions. They might adore you (in a hotel maid’s uniform).

      As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s immortal defective, Sherlock Holmes, was know to say, “Quick, Watson, the needle!” “Ah, Watson, it’s a wicked world. And when a clever man turns his brain to crime, it’s the worst of all.

      Allowing cretinous, Neanderthal (incidentally, my sincerest, deepest, heartfelt apologies to any and all surviving, high-functioning – literate Neanderthals anywhere that might be reading this) Iranian mullahs the satisfaction of replicating Kim Jong Un’s archaic, schoolyard bullying tactics would be more of an insult to this world’s dignity than even America’s other “superpower” enemies should be capable of bearing.

      Bwahahahahahaha … what on earth was I thimking? Silly, silly me!

      Of course, America’s “superpower” enemies likely would be willing to ride the tiger’s back straight into white-phosphorus and Napalm™ drenched, glowing Old-School™ brimstone-laden hell—all the way into a gobbling galactic-core black hole that takes them straight back through time into a purely Christian universe.

      ANYTHING! … Rather than endure Infidel suggestions of toleration, mercy, or the slightest hint of peaceable coexistence. Of course, we’ll see all about that squawking, intolerant, flibbertigibbet shite when it comes time to count up thermonuclear warheads.

      PPS: Any allusion to those vomit-worthy “COEXISTENCE” bumper stickers (link intentionally NOT provided) will be insulted, “A SECOND TIME!

  3. “The future is female, the future is colorful”: Feminization always leads to Third Worldization. Currently there is a very high birth rate in Africa and Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3.1 in Muslim countries. 4 billion people are expected to live in Africa and 1 billion in the MENA region. In Nigeria alone, 400 million people are expected to live in 2050. Most Latin American countries have a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brazil. The birth rate in India is also positive.

    On the other hand, the white female TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is 1.75 in the US, 1.5 in Europe and 1.5 in Canada, the replacement rate is 2.1, and in the case of ethnic mixing you need more than 2.1 to simply keep the white population at a level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who have children are mostly non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborns and more than 38 percent of French newborns are already non-white. The white female TFR is negative in all Western countries. That’s why white people will disappear if they don’t change their behavior.

    All feminist countries have negative birth rates, which can lead to the disappearance of the indigenous population if birth rates are not increased. The whites in the US are expected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies there is massive Third World conversion, reduction of IQ, mixed marriages with the colored, conversions to Islam, etc.. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden – is currently dying as a result of immigration from the Third World. Muslims are displacing Europeans in almost all European countries.

    Barbarism to parody Lenin is the final stage of feminism. Sparta, where women became very influential, died because of the low birth rate. In decadent Rome they were finally forced to tax single people in order to marry them and have children. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire – low birth rates, people did not want to get married, men thought that women were unmarried, infanticide, depopulation, extreme promiscuity, simplified divorce, repeal anti-luxury laws, etc.. The masses of people with low IQ streaming into Europeans are only the symptom, not the cause. They are like the opportunistic infection that exploits an already weakened organism. However, the real cause is the weak immune system of the organism.

    Luxury corrupts. Feminism is a decadent behaviour that can only occur in rich and powerful countries that feel threatened by nothing and can therefore engage in different types of decadent behaviour that actually weaken them. J. D. Unwin found that once a nation has become prosperous, it is becoming increasingly liberal in terms of sexual morality, losing its cohesion, dynamism and purpose. The effect, he says, could be irreversible. The British historian Sir John Glubb noted that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilisations before they collapsed.

    These are the stages of civilization:

    1. the age of the pioneers.

    2 The Age of Conquests.

    3. the age of trade.

    4 The Age of Prosperity.

    5 The Age of the Intellect.

    6 The Age of Decadence. (We are here. A decline was also observed, as the western share of the world economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region in the world).

    The age of decadence is characterized by: Defensiveness (e.g. through the construction of border walls), pessimism, materialism, frivolity, immigration of foreigners, feminization, welfare state, weakening of religion. Decadence is due to a too long period of wealth and power. selfishness, love of money, loss of sense of duty.

    7) The age of decline and collapse.

    Thus feminism destroys itself:

    1. it destroys itself because of its low, negative birth rates, leading to a decline in the population of the feminised group. (This can be seen clearly in Europe, where Islamisation is taking place and European cultures and peoples are dying. In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have a higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate come from countries that have banned abortion (Argentina and Ireland), or from religious US states like Utah. One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party AfD (which wants to increase the German birth rate) is that they do not want to be mothers or have more than one child.

    2) It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (stupid women have more children, while smart and working women are often childless). For example, 40 percent of German university graduates are childless. This leads to IQ waste. At the moment, the IQ of the Western population is falling and East Asian students are doing better than Western students, according to PISA surveys, with some Eastern European countries now also outperforming Western countries.

    Reverse evolution: Women in management positions are rather childless. Front page of the 2016 Economist features three Western women: Angela Merkel (0 children), Hillary Clinton (1 child) and Janet Yellen (1 child). Do you know what that means? It means these women are dysgenic. That future women won’t look or behave like her. Future women are likely to be brown or Muslim and dumber than they are. That’s pretty ironic. The most successful women today are those with the weakest genes. Therefore, they are not successful from an evolutionary point of view, and the women of the future will not look or behave as they do.

    3) Feminism destroys itself because, according to various studies, women are less xenophobic and more xenophobic than men. You’ll all be welcome. In other words, they welcome the refugee crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country in the world, voluntarily took in more refugees per capita (mostly young black and Islamic men) than anyone else in Europe.

    And many people call Germany crazy because it has taken in many Muslim refugees. Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of Western converts to Islam are women, as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with the colored. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open borders. Feminist groups allied themselves with Muslims to protest against Donald Trump. The march of women against Trump demanded open borders.

    Feminist groups such as FEMEN and Pussy Riot are also known for supporting open borders. Recently it was found that British women travel to Calais to help refugees and have sex with them in the migrant camp “Jungle”. Swedish helpers systematically have sex with the refugees. This is also happening in many other European countries. Do you think that women in Europe do not know that they are mainly young men with a migration background?

    Thus, feminised groups will open their borders (and legs) to all and everyone, including more male groups with more children, making the feminised group a minority in their own country. This could also be observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups, such as Western Europeans and white North Americans, have an open border policy and become minorities in their own countries. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed their borders and are more open.

    Women generally behave similarly to non-white “minority groups”, so that they reinforce each other. This could also be called the “Women/Minorities Alliance”. You will see many similarities between female behavior and the behavior of a minority or a third party. For example:

    1) Both use a similar language (I am a victim, I am oppressed by great, evil, white men, give me welfare, down with the baby boomers!

    2. demand special quotas and positive measures for your group.

    3. vote for more taxes/government/welfare, pay a small amount of all taxes, consume the vast majority of social assistance, focus on large urban centres (where there is goods to distribute and infrastructure to use), and work mainly in public/state areas.

    4. one complains about the white privilege, the other about the male privilege. One complains about “Mansplaining”, the other about “Whitesplaining”. One strives for “feminine liberation”, the other for “black liberation”. One demands “female emancipation”, the other “black emancipation”. One complains that there are not enough women in the area, the other complains that there are not enough minorities in the area. One speaks of “gender equality”, the other of “racial equality”. Uses magic words such as sexist or racist to get positions/goods/special treatment.

    5) Even the US government classifies women together with minorities (suitable for better credit conditions for businesses). I guess the US government believes that white women are closer to minorities than white men because they both need special treatment.

    As you can see, one group empowers the other, there are arrangements between them, and together they create an environment that is particularly well suited for parasitism against white men.

    It is interesting that feminization and Third World education work together. The words “women and minorities”, “racism and sexism”, “white and male privilege” etc. are often heard. These words often come together. There’s a deal. Why is that so? Because women pay only 30 percent of taxes but receive the majority of social assistance, pensions and medical care and benefit from affirmative actions, they often support other parasitic groups and often work with them to develop the welfare state and affirmative action/diversity policies.

    • Currently there is a very high birth rate in Africa and Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3.1 in Muslim countries. 4 billion people are expected to live in Africa and 1 billion in the MENA region. In Nigeria alone, 400 million people are expected to live in 2050. Most Latin American countries have a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brazil. The birth rate in India is also positive.

      On the other hand, the white female TFR (Total Fertility Rate) is 1.75 in the US, 1.5 in Europe and 1.5 in Canada, the replacement rate is 2.1, and in the case of ethnic mixing you need more than 2.1 to simply keep the white population at a level.

      First off, Bernd, you seem to be a recent arrival in terms of commenting at Vlad Tepes Blog and it is always a pleasure to welcome anyone (like you) who is so dedicated to well-formatted, factual documentation—something, without which, the counterjihad will NEVER be won.

      Secondly, your observation about how more than a 2.1 replacement ratio is strictly survival-based for any race needed for Westerners (should ethnic-mixing be the case) is a—seemingly obvious but entirely unapparent conclusion for those who are genetically unversed—crucial recognition that the Caucasian West™ (unlike a very few parts of Central–Eastern Europe) is headed up that proverbial (bureaucratic) Sh!t Creek without a (reproductive) paddle in a barbed-wire (Social Benefits) canoe unless it purchases a clue and protects its own indigenous populations in the same way that nearly all other global cultures have done since the beginning of human existence.

      In the unlikely event that any clarification may be required, please do not hesitate to ask. Until then,

      Welcome aboard,


    • The Life Cycles of Empires

      “Sir John Bagot Glubb (1897-1987), a highly honored British general and historian better known as Glubb Pasha, wrote about the collapsed empires of the past. In his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival, he described a common pattern fitting the history of some fallen empires. They went through a cycle of stages as they started, expanded, matured, declined and collapsed.”

  4. The more influence women have directly, the more minority influence and vice versa, resulting in a positive feedback loop “more diversity”. There is a connection between the degree of female influence in the societies of the First World and the Third Worldization of these societies. You will see the opening of borders and the spread of low IQ immigrants in most feminist societies such as Sweden, Norway, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, the Netherlands and so on. Meanwhile, most of the world, which consists of less feminised countries, is more xenophobic and keeps its borders closed.

    Then there is the question of shared loyalty. Feminism means being faithful to women first, while patriotism means being faithful to one’s own ethnic-cultural group first. Feminism could cause a German woman to support a foreign quota woman against a German man and put the foreigner above the German. If German women feel closer to foreign women than German men because of feminism and “sisterhood” and turn against their own men, then their ingroup cannot survive this betrayal. Therefore, feminism is incompatible with national interests and the survival of the ethnic group.

    Why do people with low IQs spread in feminist societies? I mentioned the low birth rate and dysgenia, but there are other factors behind it.

    When a group of people with low IQ migrate to a feminised country, they will encounter an existing parasitic environment that is particularly suitable for people like them.

    1) If they enter a feminised society, they will find a welfare state and a massive redistribution system (created by women), a system they could use and exploit. If they try to move to Turkey, Israel or Japan, they will not find it.

    Two, you’re gonna have more sex: Imagine a group of Sudanese immigrating to more male-dominated countries like Israel, Turkey or Japan – local men will not allow many of the local women to become friends or wives of Africans.

    By contrast, these African migrants will find sex and local women easier in feminised countries. There will be many women looking for black lovers (the whole world knows about this sexual fetish of many white Western women), and there will be no reaction or backlash from the local feminised men.

    British women are even known to travel to the “jungle” migrant camp of Calais to have sex with the refugees. Swedish helpers systematically have sex with the refugees. This is also happening in many other European countries. During the civil rights movement in the US, many white civil rights activists slept with black men because they felt guilty of racism and wanted to show loyalty to black men.

    3) They will find less patriotism and healthy scepticism towards intruders in the more feminised countries. You’ll find it easier to get there and stay there. On the other hand, they are immediately deported from countries such as Israel, Turkey or Japan. The people on the ground will protest against them, part with them and create an unpleasant environment for migrants. If these migrants are religious, they will have a hard time converting the local population to their religion (these attempts could be answered with protests and violence) and it will be easy for them to convert to feminised societies (where for example most of the converts to Islam – 75 percent – are native women who often convert to marry a Muslim or because of a Muslim friend). And, as mentioned above, there will be greater acceptance for migrants in the more feminised Western countries.

    4) When people with low IQ migrate to feminised countries, they find an existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly suitable for people like them. Women there are already complaining that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and positive measures, that they should be provided for through the social system, through special (no tender) state contracts and loans, through special grants and scholarships for women and minorities or through alimony and divorce.

    Of course, this environment will also be great for people with low IQ (“Give us, give us, we are victims!”), and they too will attend the party and behave until there are too many recipients and the whole redistribution system collapses. In contrast, migrants with low IQ will not find a parasitic environment like in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or will give them anything.

    In principle, many women and minorities have similar “parasitic” behaviour and similar goals: more government, more measures, more quotas, more taxes, more redistribution, more welfare, more “give us”. Both are afraid of “potential white male violence”, both complain about “too many white men” who dominate this or that area, or who, like a certain sector, are “too male and white”.

    If you look at the political parties that support feminism, you will see that they also support more minority influence and vice versa. For example, the Canadian elections, in which women won the liberal Justin Trudeau, led to more women and more minorities in parliament and government.

    Trudeau, who calls himself a feminist, has introduced quotas for women in government, said Canada has no core culture, and promised that Canada will always remain open to refugees, including those rejected by the US.

    The UK Labour Party, the only British party with all women on shortlist for MEPs, is also the most immigration-friendly party promising to rub the right’s nose in diversity and has both more women and more minority MP candidates than any other British party. The parties that support feminism more (Liberals, Greens or completely feminist parties) also support open borders, immigration, various gender/minority quotas and the “import” of refugees.

    There is a growing belief among the left that there is an intersectional network of “oppression” that includes ethnicity, gender, class, nation and sexual orientation, that all “oppression”, for example racism and sexism, are linked and that several groups should unite and complain that they are “oppressed” by white men. This is the natural result of the search for “equality”: Women say “we should be equal”, then the other ethnic and sexual minorities say “We too!”

    • Bernd,

      A quick question whilst I finish reading the above tract.

      Did you write this (singlehandedly)? I only ask because it is sadly infrequent to encounter someone with a German moniker who, nonetheless avoids (for instance) adjective–noun transpositions that are common to primary speakers of Teutonic or Scandihoovian dialects for whom, English is a second language.

      I’ll keep reading and look forward to your reply.

      In the meanwhile, I’m sure how we both know that your attempts to biologically distinguish between human genders is the stuff of near-mythical (future) lawsuits whose proportions may well be enough to cripple Western Civilization—all on their widdle-liddle-bitty own. Whatever can we do to thank this world’s lawyers enough for that?

      [With Eeyore’s permission, the forum is now officially open to lawyer jokes]

      • Q: What’s black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

        A: A Doberman!


        A criminal defense attorney is walking down the aisles of city hall and encounters a federal judge he once went to law school with.

        The lawyer asks his old alumni pal if he might donate ten dollars to the unexpected funeral expenses of a dear, legal colleague’s family.

        The judge hands him a twenty and tells him, “Here, bury two of them!”

  5. The march of women against Trump also called for immigration and open borders and claimed that “no man is illegal”. Meanwhile, non-white feminists use the same methods as men against white feminists.

    The day after the inauguration of Donald Trump, many thousands of women are expected to meet in the capital for the Women’s March in Washington. “Yes, equal pay is a problem,” said Ms. Sarsour. “But look at the relationship between white women and black women and Latina women.” For too long, according to the organizers, the women’s rights movement has concentrated on issues that are only important for wealthy white women.

    Jennifer Willis doesn’t want to participate anymore. “This is a woman’s march,” she said. “We shall be allies, equal pay, marriage, abortion.” Why do they now say, “White women don’t understand black women”?”

    Well, Jennifer, when you speak of “I am a victim, I am oppressed, give me welfare,” don’t be surprised if others talk like that. And that they may have a higher status in the sacrificial hierarchy than you do. You’ve been targeting white men with this kind of parasitic thinking, now non-whites will target you with your own methods. At least you taught her well.

    For example, white men in the West are basically attacked by a coalition of many of their own women who work with minorities. Green politician Dr. von Berg in the Hamburg city parliament: “We should agree to become a minority in our own country, and that’s a good thing.”

    The female influence in society is related to the low level of patriotism in society. The more nationalist countries are those with more male influence and without feminism, such as Israel (in many respects Israel is culturally similar to the USA of the 1960s), Eastern European countries, Muslim countries, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, etc., while, as mentioned above, the more liberal and “tolerant” countries are those with more female influence, as those in Western Europe and North America.

    In more male-dominated societies such as Israel, Japan, Muslim countries or Western countries in the past, marriage is illegal or very rare. Israeli Jews, for example, are not allowed to marry gentiles. In the past, when Western countries were less feminised and therefore “xenophobic”, laws against abuse were widespread. In the rather male past, it was very difficult for a Western woman to marry a black man or convert to Islam. The social pressure against such behaviour was enormous. With the increasing feminization of Western societies, they became more tolerant of foreigners, and acceptance of marriage and intermarriage has increased. Greater support for women’s suffrage and gender equality correlates with greater support for multi-ethnic marriage.

    Do you think it is a coincidence that Western societies became more liberal and opened their borders in the 1960s, precisely in the decade when contraception became widespread, women were freed from the burden of having several children, and entered the world of work and politics in masses, and the female influence exploded? The reason is:

    1. studies show that women are friendlier towards foreigners/people who are not in their group and care less about their own people/ethnicity/group. Men are tribes, women are relatives. Men understand well human group relationships, women – personal relationships.

    Men are experts in the formation of groups – millitias, armies, gangs, biker groups, vigilantes, tribes, etc.. Women, not so much. There is much to suggest that human social organisation consists of men in large groups and women in smaller groups or interaction with individuals. Men participate more easily in the coalitions organised to measure violence, a trend that is intensifying in the presence of intergroup competition. Men’s coalitions require less investment and may last longer than women’s coalitions in view of group conflicts. The vast majority of people in extreme right-wing groups are men. Nationalism and tribalism are group activities, therefore men who are experts in group formation and more xenophobic than women are also historically dominated nationalism and tribalism.

    For children and adolescents, female play groups focus on close (and often dyadic) interpersonal interactions (with relatives, friends), while male play groups focus on coordinated teams and large groups (tribes). Mastering, hunting, conquering and protecting nature and the environment, traditionally done by men, required a focus on larger groups and coordinated teams (tribes). Finding (and keeping) a good man and raising children, which is traditionally done by women, required the emphasis on close, often dyadic, interpersonal interactions. And now you know why women (who are relational) tend to see soap operas, while men (who are tribesmen) tend to see football (and riot for their team).

    Studies show that women are less willing to set their personal wishes aside to help their group and less willing to take risks for their group. In principle, women are loyal to close people who benefit them directly. Men, on the other hand, are also loyal to people with a common identity (their tribe). In other words, women have a circle of friends, while men see themselves as members of a group.

    2) They show that women are more willing to donate to foreigners in need (women are more altruistic towards foreigners/refugees). It follows that a country with much female influence should be more altruistic towards foreigners.

    Three, they show that women are more equal than men. (Definition of egalitarian: someone who believes in the equality of all people, especially political, economic or social life, and who works to eliminate inequalities among people). Compared to white men, white women have a much more favourable attitude towards beneficial measures.

    4. they show that women are less conservative, less “xenophobic” and less capitalist than men. The right to vote coincided with an immediate increase in government expenditure and revenues and a more liberal electoral behaviour of federal representatives.

    5. They show that men try to create a hierarchical society, while women try to create an “equal” society. Research shows that men generally have much greater preferences for group-based systems of social hierarchy than women.

    Across all cultures, periods and samples, research has repeatedly shown that men have on average more “xenophobic”, ethnocentric attitudes than women. In a related topic, studies suggest that men can identify more strongly with their tribal origin than women. For example, men tend to associate their favorite color with a group, such as their favorite sports team or the flag of their country, and also rather complete the statement “I am….” with a group membership, such as indicating that they are a member of a particular group.

    In a variety of different cultures, research has shown that men always perform better in SDO (Social Dominance Orientation) than women, suggesting that men have a stronger preference for group-based hierarchies. It is important that SDO scores tend to be positively associated with a variety of social attitudes and ideologies that tend to legitimize existing hierarchical systems, including social conservatism and patriotism.

    Many of the policies and ideologies that men support, including militarism and patriotism, have to do with the “rule” of one social group (e.g. nation or ethnicity) over another. Many of the policies and ideologies supported by women, including social welfare programmes, affirmitive action and social equality, would increase the outcomes of lower-status groups such as women, LGBT people, the poor or blacks. In the most abstract terms, the first types of policies and beliefs serve to promote the group-based social hierarchy and the second serve to weaken it.

    So you will see these things in practically all Western feminised countries:

    1. economic decline – as a share of world GDP. Western Europe accounted for 28% of global economic output in 1950 and 1970. By 1990 it had fallen to 24% and now stands at 19%. A forecast by Citigroup assumes that it will shrink to 11% by 2030 and 7% by 2050.

    A similar economic decline can be observed in the USA. For the first time in 250 years, a non-Western country (China) is to become the largest economy in the world and have an economy twice the size of the USA. Asia alone is expected to account for 50 percent of the world economy by 2050.

    According to Jean-Claude Juncker, head of the European Commission, Europe is in severe decline and in 20 years’ time not a single European country will be among the seven largest economies in the world, with the European population expected to account for only 4% of the world’s population.

    2. older and declining indigenous population. By the end of the 19th century, white people made up 30 percent of the world’s population. After their feminization, whites have now fallen to less than 15 percent of the world’s population and are expected to make up less than 10 percent of the world’s population by 2050.

  6. 3) Massive Third World influx and infiltration + manifestation of non-cultural ideologies.

    4) Decline in IQ due to low IQ migration and dysgenic behaviour (highly educated women are more childless than less educated women).

    A woman without a man in Israel is seen as something to remedy; a woman without children – an aberration to be pitied. A Jewish woman in Israel is not allowed to marry a Muslim, and there are watchful groups looking for Arab-dating women (while 75 percent converts to Islam in the US and the UK are native women). There are few women in the Israeli government and parliament. Israel has understood that feminism is not good for the Jewish people. Jewish institutions are not willing to implement feminism in Israel, large and stable families have a very high birth rate (more than 3 children per woman), few single mothers, a higher marriage rate and a lower divorce rate than the average West.

    There is a very high marriage rate in Israel (almost all marry) and a very low level of cohabitation without marriage. Only 5 percent of Israeli children are born to mothers who are not married, compared to 40-50 percent in the West. The number of single Israeli mothers is also low (13 percent compared to 30-40 percent in the West).

    Why is marriage important? Unmarried women tend to vote for the left, married women for conservatives. Unlike women, however, both married and single men choose the conservatives. In the 2012 US elections, 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, while the majority of married women voted against Obama. In the 2016 election, women led by men (married women) voted on the right. Single women – those who were left to their own devices and their volatile nature – chose left.

    Therefore, a society with a high marriage rate (Israel, Poland or Japan) will be more nationalistic and right-wing, and societies with a low marriage rate, like Western societies, more liberal.

    Single mothers are important supporters of the left and the welfare state. Various studies show that the children of single mothers perform worse in life than the children of normal families. Marriage therefore supports social unity and cohesion, makes a society more conservative and reduces the need for a welfare state and the associated parasitism.

    If you want to get rid of white people, it makes sense to promote feminism among them. First, it will lead to negative birth rates and destroy the family unit. Secondly, it will lead to greater tolerance of immigration and open borders. Thirdly, it will divide and destabilise the desired ethnic group and turn the men and women of this group against each other. It is no coincidence that those groups that proclaim that they want to get rid of people of European descent also support feminism.

    Nationalism (in our case: patriotism) correlates with the degree of female influence in society. More male influence – more nationalism. More female influence – less nationalism. Men are the immune system of society. They react against intruders and parasitism. Women don’t. After the virus has destroyed the immune system, bacteria and parasites enter, then the body dies.

    A feminised society will be more tolerant and accept society, while a more masculine society will be a more nationalist society. It is no coincidence that Sweden, the most feminised country on earth, has received more refugees per capita than anyone else. There is only one anti-immigration party (Swedish Democrats) and women were only 36 percent of the voters; the same applies to most anti-immigration parties in Europe.

    Women are 40 percent of UKIP voters and only 37 percent of AFD voters. Norway’s FP has more than 80 percent more male than female voters. Recently, the majority of Austrian women voted in favour of an immigration-friendly Green President, against the voice of their husbands.

    In Canada, Justin Trudeau’s liberals, who have promised to import Muslim refugees, lead among women, while Stephen Harper’s conservatives, who want to ban burqas, lead among men. And in the United States, of course, it is known that Donald Trump, the only presidential candidate who said he would do something about immigration, receives far more support from men than from women.

    International surveys show that immigration-friendly politicians such as Barack Obama, Hillary Cinton and Angela Merkel receive the highest support in the most feminised countries such as Sweden. In Western Europe, women love Obama – and hate Trump. Women in Germany support politicians like Angela Merkel, who have opened Germany’s borders to the Third World. German women (35 percent) were far less susceptible to nationalist “populism” than German men (65 percent).

    It was found that US college women are more liberal than US college men. Among white men, the U.S. Republican Party has a big advantage of 61% to 32% in identifying lean parties. Among white women, approximately as many registered voters identify themselves as Republicans or lean on the Republican Party (47%) as they call Democrats or lean Democrats (46%).

    Take a look at a demonstration to promote immigration (many women) and a demonstration to combat immigration (few women). Check out Black Live’s Matter Events: You’ll notice more white women than white men. But you will see few women on anti-Islam demonstrations like that of PEGIDA. The male to female ratio is 6-7 to 1 for most nationalist demonstrations.

    White women will therefore not solve the problems of Islamization/third world view with which the West is confronted, since they have caused these problems in many ways, through “childless” behavior, negative birth rates (below the population replacement rate), political support for “tolerance”, “multiculturalism”, the welfare state, dysgenic behavior (highly educated women are rather childless compared to less educated women) and the fact that they often ally with ethnic minorities against their own men.

    Men developed to protect the environment from men from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimpanzees do the same). The participation of women in perimeter decisions (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) leads to what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.

    In nature, if you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. This can be observed in lions, primates or Europeans. After feminist women had weakened their own men, other men (Muslims) moved in. Men are the immune system of society. The nationalism they create is the wall. Without them, there is no patriotism or resistance to invasion.

    So we can expect every ethnic group with great female influence and leadership to destroy itself, as the female leadership will not bother to maintain its own ethnicity or cohesion, leading the feminized group to open its borders, trying to help everyone in need to accept everyone in its own country and eventually become a minority itself.

    Women are mostly concerned about resources and smoothing out conflicts. They have evolved to take on this role. Women are less inclined to support military action against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and less inclined to support a ban on Muslim immigration. Stockholm syndrome is more pronounced in women. Psychological research suggests that women may react too kindly to threats. Women were often captured by other groups (or in some cases traded with them), and so they developed to smooth out the difficulties with distant groups (while their male relatives were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed – no matter which strain they were with. Therefore they accept more foreigners and foreign rule. After every war, it is women who first defect to the occupant and collaborate with him. Men form tribes. Women join tribes.

    Thus, women tend to vote for the redistribution of resources (from men) and to be nice to everyone (including those who do not belong to their group), and to help those in need, regardless of their group. Therefore, dear Westerners, welcome the refugee crisis. It won’t end soon.

    If you want to destroy an ethnic group, you simply have to increase the female influence within the group. The most powerful (in the negative sense) and thus equally unhappiest woman in the world is not in vain the childless Mrs. Merkel. Even the “defence ministers” of Western Europe are now mostly women, that is no coincidence.

    Increase feminization many times over. And voila. As women are less concerned about ethnicity and less xenophobic, the country will open its borders, try to help everyone in need and welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also receive a negative birth rate for the feminised host group.

    All kinds of other ethnic, religious and cultural groups will move in and compete for supremacy; as far as the feminised host group is concerned, it is their destiny to become a minority in their own country, to mix with the foreigners and then finally to disappear (outbreeding).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.