A Few Harsh Facts About Feminism

from

Women, for their part, are always complaining that we raise them only to be vain and coquettish, that we keep them amused with trifles so that we may more easily remain their masters; they blame us for the faults we attribute to them. What stupidity! And since when is it men who concern themselves with the education of girls? Who is preventing the mothers from raising them as they please? There are no schools for girlswhat a tragedy! Would God, there were none for boys! They would be raised more sensibly and more straightforwardly. Is anyone forcing your daughters to waste their time on foolish trifles? Are they forced against their will to spend half their lives on their appearance, following your example? Are you prevented from instructing them, or having them instructed according to your wishes? Is it our fault if they please us when they are beautiful, if their airs and graces seduce us, if the art they learn from you attracts and flatters us, if we like to see them tastefully attired, if we let them display at leisure the weapons with which they subjugate us? Well then, decide to raise them like men; the men will gladly agree; the more women want to resemble them, the less women will govern them, and then men will truly be the masters. —Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Woman cannot be superior except as woman, but from the moment in which she desires to emulate man she is nothing but a monkey. —Julius Evola, quoting Joseph de Maistre

     Feminism has become part of the new western religion, the new paradigm for explaining reality, especially on the political and cultural left. In the modern west we started with Christianity as our official explanation for What’s What, then moved on to science and scientism; and now we appear to be in danger of moving away from empiricism, let alone traditional morality and values, and towards what is essentially ideological neo-Marxism. Feminism, especially in its latest manifestations, has become part of the cultural Marxist and neo-Marxist New World Order, despite the fact that most people are too indoctrinated, ignorant, or block-headedly conformist to notice it. So people in the west, especially leftist people in the west, are more and more seeing doctrines of radical feminism as a simple aspect of reality, and do not see that it is to some degree a fashion trend and also a tool exploited by socialists to gain control of western civilization without having to rely on the working class rising up in a glorious people’s revolution. Thus people on the left especially may be oblivious to some harsh truths about feminism, and about women in general. What follows, with all due respects to femininity, are a few of these harsh truths.
Women have privilege, and get away with bad behavior, because men are instinctively addicted to them and, more specifically, to pussy. As I say again and again, human beings are a species of animal, and we are veritably loaded down with animal instincts, also known as “human nature.” And one of those instincts is that men tend to feel protective towards women in general, and let them pull stunts that they wouldn’t accept coming from other men, largely because men instinctively want to mate with women and therefore want to keep them in good humor. So women in the west are “empowered” largely because men indulgently allow them to be empowered, not because women could simply take their rights and empowerment on their own regardless of how men felt about it all. This is a point to which I’ll return before I’m done.
The primary social power of a woman is her power over men. As just stated above, men are instinctively more indulgent towards females than they are towards fellow males; and it is also true that, on average, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and more assertive than women, thereby giving them greater individual power within society. Women are not completely powerless in these respects of course, and there are unusually big, strong, aggressive, and assertive females; but their main power is their power to get their way with indulgent men. A beautiful woman in particular can have any number of hormone-laden males wrapped around her little finger. I’m reminded of a scene in Dostoevsky’s The Idiot in which a young woman sees a picture of a magnificently gorgeous female (Nastasya Filippovna) and exclaims, “What power!” then, a little later, “Beauty like that is power. With beauty like that one could turn the world upside down!” But even ugly women have some of that power. The power of a man includes a great deal of power over his environment, including women and other men, with that power conditioned and enhanced by testosterone; whereas the primary power of a woman is the power to influence the power of men in her favor.
Men and women are not only physically different, they are also psychologically different. As I’ve already suggested, male animal instincts and female animal instincts are not exactly the same, though there is plenty of overlap; and this difference is emphatically not just cultural conditioning. Probably even most of the psychological differences between men and women are conditioned by sex hormones, including the aforementioned testosterone. And even hormone injections administered to transsexuals in childhood or adulthood cannot undo this difference, since a significant cause of psychological sexual dimorphism in humans results from prenatal hormones, especially a dose of prenatal testosterone received by unborn males throughout the class Mammalia. I’ve written about this plenty elsewhere, so I won’t belabor the point here, but nevertheless this is a crucial point to understand because of course it debunks much of the nonsense promulgated by feminists and neo-Marxists about “victim groups” (including women) being discriminated against as an excuse for their inability to compete with white males in certain respects. Women are less self-confident on average, less aggressive, less inclined to obsess on a career at the expense of all else, less willing to work long hours, less willing to work at dangerous occupations like oil-drilling or crab fishing…and, significantly, less objective and technically oriented on average, which helps to explain why fewer women work as surgeons, engineers, mechanics, and computer programmers. James Damore wrote a very mild, sane, and factual article on this subject back in July of 2017, and he was promptly attacked and expelled by radical feminized leftists. In fact, the very fact that feminism has become as hysterical and intolerant as it has is indicative of another aspect of sexual dimorphism in our species: females are also less rational than men, and more identified with their feelings. Which may as well fall under its own heading.
Men are more inclined to identify with their thoughts, and women are more inclined to identify with their feelings—which is resulting in feminism degenerating into a kind of hysterical cult. I remember being somewhat mystified by Eckhart Tolle’s claim that men identify with their thoughts, whereas women identify with their “pain body.” I’d never heard of a pain body before, so how could half the world’s population identify with it? But seeing the direction the feminized left has taken over the past several years, and the complaint, protest, raging unhappiness, and overall negativity that characterize it, it is more understandable now. The female-dominated political and cultural left have taken identification with feelings to such an extreme that now it’s the left who are rejecting empirical reality in favor of their unrealistic ideological ideals. (Science denial used to be associated primarily with conservative Christians railing against evolution, plus some mercenary conservative capitalists denying the harmful effects of overpopulation, pollution, deforestation, etc., but now it has become a leftist phenomenon also.) The trouble is that any society that flatly rejects empirical reality, especially fundamental aspects of it, is simply not going to survive, especially if it has to compete against people who are actually relatively still sane. A classic example of the feminine mind rejecting objectivity and demanding the reign of feelings is the new idea that maleness and femaleness are arbitrary and interchangeable. It used to be that males and females had different genitalia and different sex chromosomes, but now it’s a matter of, that’s right, feelings. And as I’ve said before, any civilization in which even medical professionals can’t tell the difference between boys and girls is just not going to survive for very long. It just isn’t. Also as I’ve said before, the rise of eunuchs into social prominence is historically a telltale sign that a civilization is in serious decline; though now the eunuchs are called trans. So an emphatically feminine national ideology is doomed, and the question is whether it will be allowed to take western civilization down with it when it falls.
The female psyche is evolved, designed by nature, to raise children, after first attracting and “hooking” a man. Over the course of the existence of the human race, extending way back into the Stone Age, women traditionally have also participated in such behavior as tending the sick, picking berries, catching frogs, and occasional peacemaking between hyperaggressive males; and of course everybody is born with instincts for simple survival—liking good food, seeking comfort, fearing death, etc. But nevertheless, for literally millions of years our ancestors were evolved in such a way that a primary duty of females has been to raise children and rely on adult males to protect the family and tribe, and that is built right into human nature. So it’s no wonder that women are more feelings-oriented than men are, less violent, more fearful, and more compassionate, on average. Also it’s no wonder that women are more attracted to babies and small children, and more concerned with their own sexual attractiveness (skin, hair, fingernails, clothes, etc.), especially when young and single, and also slaves to fashion chronically concerned with what their social peers (and the neighbors) think. Men on the other hand are evolved in large part to be fighters, hunters, and protectors; and to pit nurturing berry-pickers against aggressive hunters is a fight the outcome of which is easy to predict. The primary reason why feminists have progressed as far as they have in their fight against men, and have (I almost said “enjoy”) the privileges they have is, again, the male addiction to female flesh and men’s natural instinctive urge to tolerate or even indulge feminine irrationality, because it’s feminine.
White men created western civilization, and it stands to reason that they would be best at maintaining it and running it. Feminists do not hesitate to blame white men for most of the badness to be found in human society, as though no social evils ever existed independent of western civilization. It is true that the civilization invented by European men is not perfect, and has its shortcomings—just as every other civilization is imperfect, because every civilization is composed of imperfect people—but the opposite side of the same coin is that white men are responsible also for practically all of the good stuff too. Just look around you, and unless you’re in a wilderness or maybe in a rural non-western bamboo hut, pretty much everything you see around you has been invented by western men, aside from potted plants and other people. Hell, even the domesticated animals look the way they do because of white men selectively breeding them. Women (and brown people) are less competent to keep this invention of white males going, and are very likely to run it into the ground, as they’ve already managed to do in parts of Europe on the part of women, and in any number of third world former colonies on the part of brown men. One peculiar aspect of women is that for most of human existence they have been required to live up to a higher moral standard than men, especially with regard to sensual indulgence; and one upshot of that is that women have a less “robust” conscience, and less skill at navigating moral freedom. To some degree women with socially acceptable immorality or “empowerment” are like native Americans with tuberculosis or alcoholism—they have little evolved tolerance, and thus we see women going full-blast slutty in mainstream western culture and doing much to destroy the moral fiber of society. Hell, feminized leftists have even had to redefine morality so that debauchery and sexual irresponsibility are dissociated from the very idea of morals. The result is that “empowered” women are less happy, on average, than their grandmothers were (because, as Buddhism asserts, morality is directly related to happiness), and feminist-run societies like Sweden are degenerating into the ironic predicament of women being afraid to go outdoors for fear of being raped or murdered by the nice migrants who are viewed as morally superior to liberal, indulgent, relatively nonviolent European men. Sweden, the first feminist nation in modern times, is now the rape capital of the western world…with silly feminists trying to conceal the fact that brown men are perpetrating most of the rapes, because that goes against the feminist dogma of White Man Bad.
Males have a wider statistical distribution with regard to physical and mental traits, which results in most or even all super geniuses in the world being male. The wider variability of males over females is common throughout much of the animal kingdom, and it is related to evolutionary biology and our species’ primordial mating strategy of males competing for females (though females often do compete for males also). In species in which males may be polygamous, which has been common in non-western societies, the very best males get to mate more, whereas most females will find a mate even if they are part of a harem. So it is advantageous to a species that males who are outstanding in some way get to propagate their genes more efficiently, with less competitive “incels” or members of bachelor herds not mating at all, or very little. Thus the wider spread of the curve for males. Anyway, the result of this documented greater variability is that the most outstanding leaders of society—politicians, scientists, inventors, artists, writers, generals, whatever—are going to be mostly or entirely male. The fact that feminists can easily and smugly accept the flip side of this variability, i.e. the idea that most dysfunctional street people and imbeciles are male, while suddenly getting upset when the other end of the bell-shaped curve is mentioned, is simply another morsel of evidence that women are also less rationally inclined than their male peers, on average.
Women lack the power, physical and emotional, to take their rights and equalities against the will of masculine men. The only way women will gain social equality, assuming that they don’t have it already and then some, is if 1) men voluntarily let them have it, or 2) men are caused, or allowed, to degenerate into effete social eunuchs; and in this latter case, which obviously is happening to some extent, such a civilization is simply screwed. A feminized society in which masculinity is vilified and essentially abolished, is a doomed society, if only because some non-emasculated patriarchal society nearby will overpower and conquer it, socially and economically if not militarily. For various reasons, a feminist society will not be as strong as a more traditional one that accepts masculinity and femininity, regardless of all the hysterical propaganda and indoctrination generated by feminist activists and cultural Marxists. In fact the new feminists seem intent upon abolishing actual femininity also, producing a race of androgynous shemales, largely because they are too simple-minded to acknowledge that equality does not necessitate uniformity—though maybe deep down they realize that women can’t really compete against uncastrated males in many if not most fields of endeavor. So what will likely happen to a feminized society, if history is any indicator, is that the feminists, after vilifying and culturally castrating their own men, will willingly flop onto their back and spread their legs for the first wave of aggressive alpha males who decide to take over the civilization. Deep down, women, and even most feminists, have an intuitive, instinctive respect for men who have not renounced their own testicles and spine.
If women aren’t equal now, they never will be. Feminists and neo-Marxists in general may be able to engineer society enough that men are emasculated enough that women can actually compete with them in traditionally male fields of endeavor, but as I’ve said, this destruction of the natural balance will destabilize and wreck the civilization before long. The fact is, though, that women have always been the equals of men, though not following the same societal niches as men. True, men traditionally have had most of the political power, but they used that power largely for the sake of protecting the women. It has been men who have worked, fought, and died so that women and children could live safely and in relative prosperity. Feminists, going with the empirically false dogma that women and men are essentially identical in every way, mentally if not physically, may be able to bring about absolute equality of outcome, in accordance with socialist utopianism and social engineering, but doing so would require repressing men, or else indulging in such foolishness as requiring 50% of firefighters, police officers, and soldiers, for example, to be female—despite the plain fact that they aren’t as strong as, or run as fast as, or fight as well as males. If the most qualified person were always to get the job, or the position in school, then women simply won’t wind up exactly the same as men, nor will non-whites wind up the same as whites. There are inherent, genetically conditioned differences. But the point is that men and women have had a symbiosis going from the beginning, and both genders have their strengths and weaknesses, and their natural place in the family and in society. Women, for instance, have had the duty of raising the children, especially when they are small, helpless, and in their formative years. So women have had the huge responsibility of producing the next generation of people, and being their first and perhaps most important role models, and that is extremely important—certainly more important than rejecting family life for the sake of imitating men. Thus men and women have always had a natural balance, in accordance with male and female nature, and both are necessary for human existence. But if women want equality by becoming identical to men, then they will fail miserably, because they aren’t identical. And if they can’t be equal unless men allow them to be, then of course they will never be really equal because men are stronger and still in control, if only potentially. But I say women are already equal and always have been, especially in egalitarian societies like the western world. If feminists want to complain, they should perhaps complain about traditional Islamic culture—but of course they generally don’t because they’ve established the least misogynistic race of males on the planet to be the primary enemy.
     There are plenty more points I could make, but this is enough for now, if not more than enough. If any women read this and are offended by it, I would simply observe, again, that women really are equal to men, in my opinion, despite the plain fact that they are not the same as men, and not as good at all the same things, though better at some. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why the primordial male/female symbiosis has worked out as well as it has. Nature has designed our species in such a way that males and females are built differently and perceive the world somewhat differently, with males being the aggressive protectors and providers, and females being the nurturing emotional center of the family unit. There will always be individual variations, which is fine; but the traditional way is pretty much the natural way, and deviations from that are bound to be inferior as well as unnatural. Nature designed males and females to be different, and we reject that at our peril.
     To pervert the perennial male/female difference in temperament into a war in which men are viewed as an enemy to be defeated, which is what neo-Marxist radical feminism has degenerated into, is freakishly, grotesquely stupid, as well as an attempt at civilizational suicide. There should always be a symbiotic balance between masculine and feminine, just as ideally there should always be a symbiotic balance in society between conservatives and liberals. One side trying to defeat or destroy the other i
s insane. But then again, rational objectivity is a tool of white patriarchal oppression.
the most dangerous females aren’t “butch”

RELATED POSTS:

The Mainstream Left Are Turning Against SJWs

Leftist Identity politics operate on the idea that everyone belongs to an identity group, and all of those groups are brutally oppressed by “The White Patriarchy.”

The idea is that since they are oppressed, they deserve extra rights and privileges in order to “defend themselves.”

The problem is that they ran out of things to be oppressed by, so they had to invent “micro-aggressions.”

Micro-aggression are tiny little insults that are CRUSHING the “marginalized people” like a Nazi steamroller (!!!)

THE LIST OF MICRO-AGGRESSION GOT RIDICULOUS A LONG TIME AGO.

10 Most Absurd Things Banned On Politically Correct College Campuses

I saw an article by an SJW in the Harvard newspaper where the writer complains bitterly that he is oppressed by the mere presence of white people.

(You’d think that getting a $350,000 college degree would take the sting out having to be around white people, but nope.)

I just got done listening to a debate where two college professors said that they should have the right to censor free speech, because free speech is largely a tool of white men and that they literally are fighting for their very lives (!!!) each day at their incredibly liberal colleges.

It all amounts to a cynical power grab by poisonously hateful, tribal people.

The other problem that SJW face is that they love PURITY TESTING.

No matter how liberal you are, you’ll never be pure enough for them.

There was a lefty-ish college professor at Evergreen College who taught evolutionary biology.

Evergreen is an off-the-charts progressive Taliban zoo of a college and the college president is like a self-parody of a self-loathing white leftist.

Evergreen decided that all white people should be disinvited to campus for a day, so the minorities could enjoy a day of not being oppressed by their toxic, oppressive presence.

The biology teacher, Brett Weinstein, wrote an email saying that he thought it was a bad idea and that he was uncomfortable with the concept.

The SJW Army went completely berzerk and tore the campus apart, the guy and his wife had to flee the campus for their physical safety.

The chief of campus police resigned because the Marxist college president would not allow the police on campus to protect the safety of the faculty and students from the mob of SJWs.

The college president allowed himself to be held captive by the mob and meekly asked them if he could use the bathroom.

THE SJWS LITERALLY WANTED TO HOSPITALIZE THE PROFESSOR AND HIS WIFE BECAUSE HE WASN’T MARXIST ENOUGH AND SELF-LOATHING ENOUGH TO SUIT THEM.

Unfortunately for the SJW thugs, the professor turned out to be a courageous and extremely well-spoken guy and he made their thuggery famous.

bret weinstein evergreen – Google Search

You’ll never be pure enough for the SJWs until you have green hair and 14 cats and you parrot their new-speak down to the very last syllable.

Are you a white left-leaning feminist who voted for Hillary? Not good enough. Sooner or later you’ll be fed into the Purity Wood Chipper.

When Feminism Is White Supremacy in Heels

MORE SJW CRIMES
War On Free Speech Reaches Denmark

 

Send Those Who Question Transgenderism to Gulags, Says Student LGBT Group

 

A leftist student group at Goldsmith’s Univerity, London, defended Stalin’s Gulag abour camps Tuesday, calling them more “compassionate” than the “western, capitalist notion of prison”.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus Society at London’s Goldsmiths University suggested people who question transgenderism are sent to such camps, for up to ten years, for “re-education”. The are of course currently outraged that a transgender chick-with-a-dick who was sent to a womens prison for politically correct reasons must now stand trial having raped and sexually assaulted several female inmates.

“The ideas of [Trans exclusive radical feminists] and anti-Trans bigots literally *kill* and must be eradicated through re-education,” the student group wrote on Twitter before deleting their account.

When Claire Graham, a special education needs teacher, asked if their attempts to silence a list of academics who questioned transgenderism was “a bit fascist”, the account replied: “Na, we’ll just arrange to send you to the Gulag.”

Gulags were brutal labour camps used by Stalin’s Soviet dictatorship to lock up opponents and “enemies of the state”, resulting in the death of an estimated 1.05 million people.

Whenever I come across the particularly nasty version of fascism these people have embraced I am reminded of the words of CS Lewis on tyranny:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Which is why the stupid self – righteous followers of Corbyn and his sidekick, the Stalinist thug McDonnell should never be allowed to have even a sniff of power.

One in four Jeremy Corbyn supporters believe world is run by ‘secretive elite’

YouGov analysis of Labour supporters also finds most Mr Corbyn’s backers see America as the ‘greatest single threat to world peace’ in revealing research

And they call us conspiracy theorists …

The analysis went on to reveal that most of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believe America is the “greatest single threat to world peace” and one in four think a “secretive elite” controls the globe, according to pollster analysis.

Some 74 per cent of the Labour leadership front-runner’s backers would identify themselves as left-wing – around double the amount of any other candidates, according to YouGov research.

The vast majority of Mr Corbyn’s supporters also overwhelmingly back renationalising energy companies and the railway, decreasing private involvement in the NHS and redistributing wealth.

The findings come after YouGov looked into the views and beliefs of 3,777 people eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election.

It appears to confirm Mr Corbyn’s supporters are significantly to the Left of the other three candidates – but also hold views that are at odds with the population at large.

This is great news for UKIP of course. Not only does it show that the people branding Kippers ‘swivel eyed loons’ are in fact insane, swivel eyed fanatics themselves, but it also underlines the fasct that UKIP are the only party that stands for independence, personal liberty and traditional values.

And also that as I have always said, Labour are a party for lawyers, academics and self righteous elitists who despise the working class and everything to do with it.

RELATED POSTS:
Intellectuals have always feared the masses
Champagne Socialists
The fall of the intellectually bankrupt left
The left are not immune to bigotry
Militant left wing activism is a psychosis
The bigotry of left wing activists

The Left’s Rhetorical Technique Explained

In the first of what might become a long if irregular series of posts with the collective title, “Left Wing Authoritarianism for beginners,” your friend and mentor Little Nicky Nicky Machiavelli will expose the origins of the socialist left’s propaganda technique and its apparent dependence on slogans, dogma and mantras.

But first let’s play a little game, stop me when you think you know where this originates from, the Obama Administration Public Relations Office, the Labour Party Manifesto, Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’ or the writings of Karl Marx:

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Well if you said “None of the above” you’d be right. The left’s substitution of slogans for reasoned argument was recommended by none other than Adolf Hitler in his 1926 side splitter “Mein Kampf”; Chapter 6, “War Propaganda” (h/t George Chen).

Does that explain why they want to reduce every debate to ‘good guys versus bad guys’ and never ever discuss the issues.

Life In Libya Worse Than Under Gadaffi Say Evacuees

gaddafi libya
Muammar ‘Mad Dog’ Gaddafi maintained a brutal kind of social order in Libya

Occasionally we have the great good fortune to stumple upon a fully paid up, card carry member of the Idiots Association. There’s one visits my threads occasionally, usually announcing that he ‘works in a university’ as if that make his opinions more valuable than those of us who live and work in the real world and deal with its harsh realities every day, rather than spending our lives cocooned in the embrace of a cloistered environment.

His most recent contribution was to accuse me of being gullible enough to believe Russian propaganda about the downing of Flight MH17 over Ukraine. You can see for yourselves that my post What The Media Is Not Writing About MH17 did not say that I believe the Russians, only that I doubt the hastily composed narrative put out by the American Government claiming they had irrefutable evidence that Russia was directly involved. A position that has now been proved correct by the American government’s failure to supply any evidence and actually backing of from their position of blaming Russia. (look at the comment thread to see the guy wrigging rather than admit he’d been wrong again.)

Apparently the idea that in the absence of evidence there may be more than two possible answers to a problem is apparently too complex for those who work in higher education. We may assume however from this person’s belief that everything is either back or white that he has not heard of Fifty Shades Of Gray.

An earlier intervention from him, on a post in which I justified my opposition to military intervention in Libya by pointing out that the rabble of gangsters and warlords that passed for government after the fall of Gaddafi was worse than when the old Mad Dog was in power.

Our colleague jumped in to say that I could not seriously be suggesting that what existed in Libya under Gadaffi could be called law and order. Well all things are relative (another concept too difficult for the intellectual left)and yes, there was a brutal kind of order under Gadaffi as there was in Syria before the west sponsored a rebellion against Assad).

And what do the people of Libya have to endure now you might well ask?

from AFP via AsiaOne News

Libya is descending into a civil war spiral that is “much worse” than the unrest that toppled its dictator Moamar Gaddafi in 2011, residents fleeing the country said Saturday.

“We have gone through (war) before, with Gaddafi, but now it’s much worse,” Paraskevi Athineou, a Greek woman living in Libya, told AFP.

“Chaos reigns. There is no government, we have no food, no fuel, no water, no electricity for hours on end,” she said.

Athineou was part of a group of 186 people evacuated from Tripoli by a Greek navy frigate which reached the port of Piraeus early on Saturday.

In addition to 77 Greek nationals, there were 78 Chinese, 10 Britons, 12 Cypriots, seven Belgians, one Albanian and a Russian.

Among them were several diplomats, including the Chinese ambassador to Libya.

Libya has suffered chronic insecurity since Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011, with the new government unable to check militias that helped to remove him and facing a growing threat from Islamist groups.

“So many people died to make the country better. But now we started killing each other in a civil war,? said Osama Monsour, a 35-year-old employed at a non-governmental organisation in Tripoli.

Fighting between rival militias in Tripoli has forced the closure of the city’s international airport, while Islamist groups are also battling army special forces in the eastern city of Benghazi.

“War is in the city… and we civilians are under fire from both sides,” Athineou said.

“It is worse than 2011,” said Ali Gariani, a Libyan married to a Greek woman.

“That time were were being bombed by NATO. But now we are being bombed by the Libyans themselves, and that is really shameful,” he said.

As always I was right. Sadly with mainstream news media in the west becoming more of a government / corporate propaganda machine with every week that goes by, it often takes a while for events to prove me right.

So I wonder how many Libyans will have to die before our leftie friends will climb down off their high horse, start blaming the FUKUS axis and taking it leading from behind’ Obama for this mess. When they have done that they can admit they were wrong and then fuck the fucking fuck off back to their ivory towers, leaving the thinking to grown ups.

RELATED POSTS:
Lawless, Leaderless Libya Becoming Terror Hub
As the French government calls for international action to halt the development of Libya, a failed state since Gadaffi was deposed, as a hub of international terrorism, we wonder when western leaders will learn that all their interventions so far, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Mali, South Sudan etc. have caused far bigger problems that the ones they hoped to solve.
Another Obama Sponsored Genocide – not Alawi or Christians In Syria but Yazidi in Iraq.

Rape As A Weapon

Questions for Liberals #1. Is support for people who use rape as a weapon of war compatible with political correctness?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981838492

As I wander through gather these days I often find myself thinking how medieval and parochial the ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives are. No doubt many who wear those labels with pride would claim their political opponents the religious right are even more parochial and medieval.

Maybe the real religious right are but there are two point to consider here:

Not everybody who opposes the neo fascism of the progressive liberals is a Republican.

Not every Republican is a supporter of the religious right.

The conviction among progressive liberals that there are only two possible political positions rather proves my case about parochialism and medievalism and explains why so many of these lefties openly support medieval brutality.

When stumbling through Stumble Upon I chanced on this Washington Post headline, that made me think of how the liberals had cheered at the prospect of America supporting the Syrian rebels. The story was headlined:

Rape has become “significant” part of Syrian war, says humanitarian group.

Well I know that rape is a weapon of war, a weapon of genocide even, in tribal societies, but I wondered if those parochial liberals at gather did. And if so, do they know how rape can be used as a weapon of genocide?

It is necessary here to first understand that “they” i.e. the majority of cultures and societies outside western Europe and north America are nothing like us. A minory of elite intellectuals and wealthy business people might have adopted the politically correct mores of the west but generally despite the coming of technology these societies have changed little in a thousand years.

I can almost hear those liberals wailing and gnashing their teeth all the way across the Atlantic, they are crying “Oh no, that horrible Ian Thorpe cannot criticize Africans, Africans are nice, Africans are good, our beloved President is an African.”

(To which we would be justified in asking, “If Obama is an African what’s he doing in The White House?” but we’ll let that one pass for now.)

The first thing to understand is there is no African race as such. The Arabs and Moors in the north and the negros in the south might have dark skin but that is about all they have in common. The African continent is the most racist and racially divided place on this planet.

African nations are mash ups of ancient tribal societies and cultures. I’ll explain the significance of that of that later but first here’s some evidence that it is going on.

Rape as a weapon of war – Amnesty International

This report finds that rape and other forms of sexual violence in Darfur are being used as a weapon of war in order to humiliate, punish, control, inflict fear and displace women and their communities. These rapes and other sexual violence constitute grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report also examines the consequences of rape which have immediate and long-term effects on women beyond the actual physical violence. (also: Rape as a weapon in Sudan – Amnesty International)

Consultancy Africa: War rape: A Planned and targeted policy for genocide

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE LINKED DOCUMENT

War rape has a history as long as the practice of war itself. Rape that occurred in war zones was seen as a by-product of wartime activity, collateral damage or as spoils of war for a long time and was not considered as a violation of humanitarian law (2) or as a war strategy.(3) The change in policy happened with the Rwanda Tribunals, which prosecuted rape as a component of the conflict in the region and as a crime against humanity that served the goals of genocide. A big shift in thinking about rape happened. Thinking that rape is simply the ‘by-product’ of war was changed with the recognition that rape is actually a planned and targeted policy. Rape became recognised as a weapon of war. It was acknowledged that war enemies tried to achieve political objectives such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the occupation of enemy territory by targeting women of the opposite side or other ethnicity.(4) ‘Rape as a weapon of war’ is still not a legal term concept, but has at least taken on legal significance due to the work of the Rwanda Tribunals.

BBC News: How Did Rape Become A Weapon Of War A Report from Medicins Sans Frontiers for BBC News

Women’s bodies have become part of the terrain of conflict, according to a new report by Amnesty International.

Rape and sexual abuse are not just a by-product of war but are used as a deliberate military strategy, it says.

The opportunistic rape and pillage of previous centuries has been replaced in modern conflict by rape used as an orchestrated combat tool.

And while Amnesty cites ongoing conflicts in Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, Chechnya, Nepal and Afghanistan, the use of rape as a weapon of war goes back much further …

Â

But rape as genocide, how does that work?

It’s a little bit more subtle and a whole lot more cruel than gunning people down or disembowelling victims.

I have written here many times before that those “liberals” who are always wailing and gnashing teeth about the suffering of people in third world basket case tyrannies really do not have a clue how things work in these places. One of the most frequent complaints levelled by Africans at American and European guilt tourists is those do gooders glibly assume Africans yearn to live in societies modelled on those of America or Europe’s most advanced nations.

In reality we do not have a clue how the mindset of people who have always lived in rigid tribal societies sees the world but basically they despise us for our selfishness greed and lack of values. I don’t agree with them but respect their right to their opinion.

One of the big things in the life of a tribesman or woman (and remember we are talking about a huge majority of the people in the world) is their status as a member of their tribe or caste. Many books have been written on that so I’ll just leave it there for people to research if they wish. Lose your status in the tribe and you’re nobody, there is no way back.

Sexist, racist and primitive as it may seem, one of the things that gives a woman status is her virtue. Conventions vary in different tribes but almost universally if a woman is not a virgin she’s pretty much done for, and if she is penetrated by a man who is not a member of her tribe she might as well be dead.

This stems from a totally nonsensical but very powerful belief (that as recently as fifty years ago had not been completely eradicated in the west) that something of the essence of a man remains in any woman he has sex with. Children borne by a woman who had not been exclusive to her hubby were ‘tainted’ by her other lovers’ seed. And in tribal societies if a woman has been raped by a member of another tribe her children can never be full tribe members or belong to a caste. They are outcastes as is their mother whose only means of supporting herself will be either prostitution or begging.

No man would marry her of course, who would want his children to be excluded from the tribe. And so those women who are raped in a tribal war are effectively removed from the breeding stock. Rape enough young women and the enemy tribes ability to reproduce is seriously compromised.

Now I an not saying we should hate Africans, my view is that if they organise their societies in ways I can’t tolerate I will not go there but I will respect their right to live that way. We in the west cannot feed all those who do not get an adequate diet and most of the money we send to feed the hungry in famine zones ends up in the offshore bank accounts of tyrants and their corrupt officials.

We cannot eradicate all disease and we cannot force our way of life on people who have chosen to live differently. To try to do so is a form of colonization. And isn’t the evil of colonialism one of the things progressives find most abhorrent about the history of the west’s dealings with third world nations?

I have always been a non interventionist. When I said we should not invade Iraq because the country would fragment into a tribal society, a lawless failed state, I was accused of supporting the brutal tyrant Saddam. When I said we should not bring down Gadaffi because it would destroy Libya and open the way for Islamist groups to gain control of mineral resources in Mali, Chad and Niger that are vital to western economic interests I was scoffed at and called a right wing nut job. Libya is now a failed state and the weapons used in Al Qaeda’s attempts to gain control of Mali and the Algerian hostage crisis were smuggled through Libya’s southern border. I was called inhuamane when I said we should leave Assad to crush the uprising but instead of a few hundred dissidents being killed, that’s to the west’s arming the rebels via Turkey, an estimated 20,000 have died.

It is always folly to meddle in things we don’t understand and we do not understand foreign societies any more than they understand ours.

RELATED POSTS:

Will War On Terror Become The Perpetual War Of George Orwell’s ‘1984’

Living Within The Conspiracy

The Intellectual Elite Truly Despise People They Pretend To Care About

France sends more troops to Mali as UN backs intervention Assad Speak Out On West’s Syria Invasion

The Shadow Government.

Big Green Versus Big Koch

Libertarianism is not Laissez Faire.