We have now reached the stage where we cannot even adequately protect our own women from mass rapes: in Britain, Rotherham and dozens of other places; in Germany, Cologne. No doubt in other white countries, there are similar hidden scandals waiting to be uncovered. Frankly, when you get to that point, you know that you no longer live in a society worth preserving.
What is additionally disturbing about the Cologne rape scandal, as if the bare facts are not disturbing enough, is that, perhaps for the first time, women are at the forefront of defending the multi-cultural orthodoxy that has resulted in this mess. It is a prominent woman, Angela Merkel, who brought these rapists into Germany, and she did so enthusiastically. It is a woman, Henriette Reker, the Mayor of Cologne, who, intentionally or not, has played a part in normalising mass rapes by telling women they should keep their distance from men. Feminists are also acting to divert attention from the race and immigration issues by suggesting that white men are equally culpable in raping and assaulting women.
Merkel, Reker and the other feminists defending the rapists are nothing but pimps. They are selling the flowers of Germany to Third World sub-races, all for capitalism and the enemies of the White Race. For those who dabble in reason, the irresistible conclusion is that feminism itself is part of the problem.
No doubt the feminists will argue that the problems are patriarchy, and such things as misogyny, not individual female politicians or feminism. Very well then, let us for the sake of argument agree with the feminists that the problems are patriarchy and the misogynist attitudes of men. It’s wrong, but it’s not a completely wild or unreasonable position to take. After all, white men do commit rapes too, so let’s run with it. The question we must then ask is why most of these same feminists seem to support the influx of more men from what they would regard as primeval patriarchal and ‘misogynistic’ cultures? Shouldn’t feminists be opposed to mass immigration, even opposed to non-white immigration altogether?
Well? Any answer? It’s doubtful we would receive a logical or coherent answer to this from feminists, and to be fair, it’s quite the conundrum for them. The puzzle is easily resolved when we reject the feminist thesis by pointing out how patriarchies are designed to protect women and, in their purer, more traditional form, are far from misogynist in that they actually put women in a highly-privileged position in society.
Why have feminists supported things that might harm women? Because feminists are women, feminism is female nature, and all women are feminists. However, different women understand and experience feminism in different ways. The pimping feminists are a small minority of women. For most ordinary women, diffused feminist ideological tenets interpolate their daily lives without them being conscious of this. The more conscious feminists, i.e. women, like Merkel, and similar others lower down the hierarchy, pimp out white women because they can, and because they think nobody will notice the social effects, and also because, like most women, they have a tendency to use shaming tactics against men who would oppose them. Ordinary women go along with much of this because they perceive that feminist social goals suits their personal interests, for which we can thank the highly effective propaganda of the mainstream media and the film and advertising industries, and so on. Most women will not be aware of the link between feminism, leftism and problems such as rape, sexual assault, disrespect from men, lower birth rates and the destruction of families.
Feminism also addresses the deep, subconscious psychosexual needs of women: to be protected and dominated, and to reproduce with genetically-fit men. To fulfill these impulses, feminism manifests a dialectical nature: it is a reaffirmation of the patriarchy, by rebelling against it in some ways, and by working for patriarchal goals in other respects. In this regard, feminists ally with the Third World immigrants and their defenders because they wish to strengthen the genetic pool of available men in a social environment where, due to feminist and leftist propaganda, men have been morally and spiritually weakened and so are not perceived to be as ‘strong’. In short, men have failed the test set for them by women. Feminism threw down the gauntlet to men, not in any conscious way, but as a manifestation of unconscious female nature. It is just another example of the eternal call from women that men should be men, that men should protect women, and that men should pursue their primal territorial destiny.
So the safe space will have to be recaptured. It is a challenge that can only be met through violence. All other efforts – the groups, the political parties, the factions, the articles, the books, the marches, the rallies, the speeches, the nice internet chats – are all an evasive deferral and diversion from what must happen.
Only one question remains: When?