Swedish Women are to BLAME for Migrant Sex ATTACKS (say Police)

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Swedish Women are to BLAME for Migrant Sex ATTACKS (say Police)”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    So… where are the slut-walk girls now?

    Are they “not asking for it” only when the men in question are white?

    Feminists and social justice weenies are often accused of hypocrisy, but I think the truth is worse than that: they suffer from a pathologically fragmented perception of reality that borders on psychopathy.

    The irony in this case is that they are right, in a back-handed sort of way: women can only get away with flaunting themselves in front of strange men when they can count on those men being neutered poodles.

    When faced with men whose spirits have not been crushed by a Western, politically-correct upbringing, these women quickly remember that there are very good and practical reasons to avoid being excessively provocative when they’re out in public without a man to protect them.

    Yet this doesn’t prevent them from accusing timid Western mama’s boys of propagating a “culture of rape.”

    One has to wonder if they’re really so deluded that they don’t see the contradiction…

    or just cynically aware of who they can pussy whip, and who the can’t.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Oh, Codeslinger, I fear it is worse than your worst fears.

      These women truly and honestly believe that the castrated poodles that pass for European males nowadays are truly predatory, but that ‘it’s not rape if it is done by a Muslim’ is also true because in the intersectional, 3rd wave feminism studies, they are taught that it is only rape if representatives of the white patriarchy (locust of power) do it, but it is a cry for help when anyone else commits rape.

      Because they’ve been, in some way, shape or form, marginalized by the white male patriarchy.

      They truly and honestly believe this. It is not cynicism, it is brainwashed acceptance.

      I do not know how to help people as broken as this…

      • CodeSlinger Says:

        I do.

        Sadly, it’s not legal in gynocentric cultures like ours…

      • xanthippa Says:

        Please, CodeSlinger, do expand on your statement.

        If not as a reply in a public forum like this, then in a private message.

        Because if there is a way to save our culture – even if extreme – I, and the people I am working with, really, really need to know. Both here and in Europe. We can use all the advice we can find. Truly, your voice will not go unheeded.

      • CodeSlinger Says:

        Xanthippa:

        I had in mind, perhaps somewhat facetiously, the old woman’s advice to Zarathustra in chapter 18 of Also Sprach Zarathustra, by Friedrich Nietzsche:

        “You go to deal with women? Do not forget the whip!”

        For a more genteel take on the subject, I would draw your attention to Petruchio’s handling of Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew. Shakespeare was not only a great poet and playwright, he was a keen observer of human nature. No wonder this play is no longer taught.

        Returning to Nietzsche, we find in the same chapter a particularly succinct and pragmatic prescription for the proper sex roles:

        “Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the succor of the warrior; all else is folly!”

        Just look at Europe today to understand how true this is. And why.

        Further, Nietzsche told us – 150 years before the fact – precisely why modern Western women treat modern Western men the way they do:

        “Whom does woman hate most? Thus spoke the iron to the lodestone: ‘I hate you most, because you attract me, but are too weak to capture me.’ ”

        Modern Western women treat modern Western men exactly as women have always treated weak men, everywhere in the world and at all times in history.

        Nowhere else and never before, however, have they been praised for it.

        Except during the fall of Rome…

      • xanthippa Says:

        100% agreed, CodeSlinger!

        Though, I would like to make a slight exception – in the same way Vikings honoured ‘shield maidens’: women who, before taking on the role of the mother, were also capable warriors in their own right. This is rather selfish, of course, because I would like to be included in this exception.

        But once a woman becomes a mother, her role as warrior is over – until her children are grown and on their own. This is the small price women pay for the wonder of motherhood and wifehood.

  2. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    To take a wider view of the question, we are seeing a revolt of the normal people – people who resent the legal, economic, and cultural changes that make it hard to keep a marriage together, rear children properly, and lead a prosperous life.

    The most important thing to do in the short run is to support this revolt and prevent the fascists from hijacking it.

    First and foremost, this means promoting a culture that expects men to be masculine and women to be feminine, and pushing for tax and legal reforms that discourage divorce and encourage women to be homemakers.

    At least half of all jobs will be eliminated by robots and artificial intelligence in the next 20 years. What better way to handle it than to get the women back into the home?

    Second, it means promoting home schooling and a pushing for a mechanism of funding public schools that enables parents to choose which school receives their tax dollars and educates their children.

    Notice that Christian parents are largely responsible for the rise of home schooling, and only now are significant numbers of non-Christians beginning to climb on the bandwagon. Notice also that the bulk of the heavy lifting in creating a resistance to cultural Marxism has been done by Christians. These are perfect examples of why strict separation of church and state is essential, and also why would be a big mistake to eliminate religion entirely.

    Third, it means reversing the tide of globalization and off-shoring jobs so as to encourage entrepreneurship. A large number of small domestic companies is far preferable to a small number of large global companies – both socially and economically. A healthy domestic economy reduces a nation’s dependence on export revenues, and thus breaks the cycle of currency devaluation that underlies the current race to the bottom.

    Fourth, it means vigorously promoting classical liberalism and individualism, with particular emphasis on small government and inalienable individual rights, together with the elimination of all forms of identity politics – equality means that right and wrong do not depend identity.

    • xanthippa Says:

      CodeSlinger,

      you are preaching to the choir.

      I agree wholeheartedly that children need to be raised by their parents – not government institutions: and this includes modern ‘public’ schools.

      Frankly, I do not care which parent is in the home raising the kids and which one is working: this is, in my view, a function of the individual couple and their complementary abilities. Yes, it does mean a few fathers raising the kids, while the overwhelming majority of parents at home to raise their kids would be women. That is the function of our species’ sexual diversification – as well as that of individual differences.

      As for the economy: we have become a sickly ‘economy of whales and plankton’ – rather than the healthy economy which includes businesses of all sizes.

      That is a huge problem, the solution to which lies in de-regulation of industries in order to permit the tinny ‘plankton’ businesses to grow, without artificial, government imposed barriers (as they are now) into medium and large ‘fish’ and prevent them from being swallowed up by the ‘super-predators’ who depend on government regulation to keep their number small and their businesses without rivals.

      It is just a part of the story – but these are the necessary pre-conditions for our society to return to its proper path of respecting individual rights and freedoms.

  3. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Good point about the economy.

    In that regard, two facts tell us everything we need to know:

    1. Jobs are disappearing. Everywhere.

    2. Governments are broke. All of them.

    The Greek government has already converted its debt to perpetual zero-coupon bonds. Italy will be next. Then Japan. And it won’t stop there. This is debt that pays no interest and will never be repaid. In other words, a gift.

    Bonds that have a maturity date, meaning they actually have to be paid back one day, have negative coupon amounts. Meaning you pay for the privilege of lending money to bankrupt governments.

    This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. As Janet Yellen tells us, negative interest rates are the new normal.

    Who is buying these bonds? Institutional investors. Meaning pension funds and mutual funds. And they are buying these bonds with your retirement money.

    On reaching retirement age, you will find that you are destitute.

    At the same time, you will not even have the option to keep working. More and more people will have no choice but to go on welfare. No matter how willing they are to work.

    Robots will take over manual work; not only taxi drivers, janitors, delivery and long-haul truckers, the factory floor and the battlefield, but at the high end, too – airline pilots and surgeons for example. Even hookers will be replaced by robots.

    And artificial intelligence will take over the service sector, again, even at the high end. Not only cashiers and burger flippers, but copy writers, legal secretaries, technicians, stock brokers, and so on.

    Most people who work in any of these jobs can forget about retraining, because any job they can be trained for will also be eliminated by machines.

    Unless you have the brains to get into MIT, you will be unemployable.

    And the government will be too broke to help you.

    Indeed, even a doctorate from MIT will not save you – if you’re very lucky, you will still be working when the system comes crashing down around you.

    When we read that half of all jobs will be eliminated within 20 years, we are tempted to think that this matter is not urgent. We feel that 20 years is a long time, and “they” will come up with something.

    But will “they?”

    Not on your life. Because “they” are too busy keeping us arguing about transsexual bathrooms and fearing our own shadows.

    We are already feeling the effects. Now.

    Thus we must begin crafting the solution. Now.

    And to hell with “them.”

  4. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Well, I think we are witnessing the beginnings of an answer unfolding in the USA right now (and also in the UK and Europe).

    People have had it up to here with white guilt, radical secularism, misandry, anti-heteronormativity, pathological altruism, multiculturalism, and globalism.

    The result is that the Democratic Party is melting down, the neocon RINOs are being routed out of the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party is polling at 13%. These trends will continue to accelerate.

    Every indication now is that Trump should win in November. If he doesn’t, millions and millions of ordinary people will take this as proof that the system is rigged against them.

    This momentum can and must be channeled into a restoration of classical liberalism, whether or not Trump wins.

    Similar considerations apply throughout the Western world.

    On the economic front, it seems that anti-globalist sentiment is now sufficiently strong and ubiquitous to force a renegotiation of NAFTA and TPP, and perhaps more.

    Equally important, however, is the undeniable fact that technology has advanced to the point where there simply is no work for an increasing number of people and there never again will be, because machines are doing it.

    We must convince the right that this is a fundamentally new economic paradigm, which renders current right-wing thinking about “welfare bums” obsolete.

    The number of people on welfare is set to increase to the point where the bureaucracy required for means testing is more expensive than simply paying everyone, whether they need it or not.

    This will be one of the most difficult realities to drive home to the right – especially those of us who believe in self-reliance and hard work, and belong to the Austrian school of economics.

    When I first started working, there was so much opportunity in this country, it was literally true that if you weren’t working, it was because you didn’t want to.

    Nowadays, nothing could be further from the truth. Nowadays, the kind of thinking that lead me to tell panhandlers to “get a job, ya lazy bum” would be downright delusional.

    Although the official employment rate of 61% doesn’t look that bad compared to the record low of 56% in 1982, this is a highly misleading surface picture.

    The underlying reality is that it only took one income to support a family in 1982, but today it takes two. So the ratio of the number of people working to the number of people who need to be working to make ends meet is much worse today than ever before. And the bleeding continues to worsen as taxation and inflation conflate to erode purchasing power and high-paying industrial jobs are eliminated – or at best replaced by low-paying service jobs – at an accelerating pace.

    The confluence of these factors will soon reach crisis proportions. Soon, very few people will be able to afford to live off what they can earn. And there is no economy if there are no consumers.

    There is no way to avoid the fact that one day in the not-so-distant future, a universal income will be the only way to keep the economy alive.

    But there is one way to delay it.

    And that is to encourage women to leave the work force and return to the sadly-neglected and unfairly-denigrated task of raising children.

    This can easily be done. Simply shift funding from daycare to child benefits for intact families.

    Over time, this would naturally cut the number of jobs in half, which would allow wages to double without increasing labour costs by one iota.

    This sort of thinking does not currently sit well with conservatives, but it is a reality they must accept.

    If they don’t, they will bring about everything they are fighting against.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Indeed, CodeSlinger, indeed.

      We are in full agreement.

      But, let’s think back to the RUR

      What happens when more than 50% of the jobs are done by robots? More than 90%?

      There is a contradiction between the human mind and the human soul:

      The human mind is programmed with the game the system, to reap greater benefits than the efforts put into them. This means that even poverty is tolerable, as long as it is more comfortable than the effort that went into attaining it, in the mind of that individual.

      On the other hand, the human soul needs to be creative and appreciated on its achievement. Thus, if there is no perceived/recognized achievement, regardless of the comfort a human is living in, the soul will suffer.

      This tension between that instinct for getting more than you give and the desire for recognition of achievement for personal performance is what the struggle of humanity has been throughout our existence. With increased automation, regardless of the percentage of the population whose work (and thus achievement) will thus be recognized/valued by society, we need new and creative ways to find that will maintain this tension, which is central to a ‘good’ human experience.

  5. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    The balance between the comfort of laziness and pride of achievement is very much determined by individual temperament and ability.

    Imagine a society in which all the necessary work is handled by machines, so that no one is forced to work to live in reasonable comfort.

    It’s easy to see that many of those who can excel at something will use their freedom from drudgery to do just that, and those who can’t will mostly just sit around and vegetate.

    So what?

    Neither group will affect the viability of the economy as a whole, so it will be a non-issue.

    Indeed, that’s more-or-less how things are today, except those who can’t excel at anything vegetate while flipping burgers.

    The only reason it’s an issue today is that this large group of people who have little of real value to contribute must be motivated to work, because we cannot afford to support them.

    Just like drugs, the bulk of the harm done by welfare is caused by the legal and moral censure surrounding it.

    Once the economic reasons for that censure are gone, why should the censure remain?

    Once the censure is gone, the harm will be eliminated – or at least greatly mitigated.

    If I didn’t have to work, I would divide my time between doing research that may or may not yield results during my lifetime, mastering every martial skill known to man, and relaxing on the beach.

    If someone else, who doesn’t have to work either, spends their time playing video games and smoking pot, how does this affect me?

    It doesn’t.

    So why should I care?

    On the other hand, forcing people to work when they don’t have to – just because we think it’s good for their souls – is nothing but tyranny.

    Tyranny for the sake of saving people’s souls is the hallmark of ideology run amok.

    Nothing good can come of it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: