Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Women Destroy Civilization

The other day, we were discussing the Sultan of Brunei and his Harem.

I commented:
... and women STILL think he's a romantic figure. 
If it were up to the women - AND IT IS - this society would just cave in to Islam altogether. 
This is why I have become more and more convinced women should not vote. Our society has become so pussified in the 90 years since women were given the vote. 
The Feminist perspective completely controls Western civilization now, from collectivism to Pacifism to Earth mother bullshit in the guise of Global Warming,. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the gays and the "transgender." 
Only a feminized society would put up with this bullshit.
I find, here in this video, a man who more intelligently says the same thing.


Anonymous said...

Either YOU've been imbibing 90 proof java this am or I WILL need to seek stronger liquor to add to mine if I'm ever to finish watching that nonsense.

The Last English Prince said...

I actually bought this book, which I knew was a calculated loss of funds.


The Sultan is a romantic figure because he is massively wealthy. If he were a janitor (he looks like one) women would not spit on him if he were on fire.

christian soldier said...

that is why I have few (1) women 'friends' - when I am around a bunch of women I feel like I am in jr. high - again----the click mentality--
your and Crusader Rabbit- (NZ blog) - would do well together--

Anonymous said...

Rather ... you need to look around and seek different female friends.
I have NO female friends that are willing to stomach any of the new age gender bending bull crap. Not a one!
Granted, you're in So. Cal...near several academic incubators for this nonsense. On the other hand, my female acquaintances are over 40. Perhaps age plays a part, since NONE of this garbage was infiltrated nor mainstreamed into educational institutions of my day.

Pastorius said...

It has nothing to do with my friends. It has to do with seeing what is on Radio and TV amd in our Government and Schools.

How do you think it got that way?

Anonymous said...

How? Slow - persistent - generational -infiltration of the media, educational and government institutions which wedged into the entertainment industry. Can you name a current televised program that doesn't include and attempt to normalize at least one disfunctional behavior in it's script? Between media, education, government ...we've been inundated with b.s. 'human rights' inventions and interventions.

As for my vote, clearly it has been rendered meaningless as illustrated with the very instructive 2016 uniparty primary bread & circuses.

Then, there is the repeat of concerns with the integrity of Diebold election machinery...4/8 video link

The Last English Prince said...

Is it o.k. to say that if Bruce looks down at his genitalia and decides he is Caitlyn it is a form of mental illness?

Can we minimally note that gender fragmentation probably masks deep emotional distress? It is a masquerade mask, pure and simple.

And are we allowed to say that when any individual chooses (yes, it is a choice, just like choosing a favorite ice cream) a transgender role they may be giving up the very root system which defines them as a human being?

Perhaps I am not really a female, but a neurotic little male poodle. Now if I can only find someone to affirm my perception, adopt me, and take care of me for the rest of my life. Right-o!

Problematic with transgender acceptance is the financial toll to the rest of us to support a lifestyle of CONTINUOUS surgery to make the transition.

We have the God-given right to accept and reject as unhealthy, certain lifestyle choices. Being born, does not give the right to demand all seven billion people on the earth accept you.

Tag me: female heterosexual and damn proud of it.

Jesterhead45 said...


It appears to be down to the fact that society is Gynocentric together with women being largely collectivist by nature and today making up a majority of the vote, resulting in politicians always pandering to their short-term concerns / interests.

Their demands being fulfilled inevitably comes at the expense of men who are largely by nature individualist as well as the long term interests of any given civilization that men previously built / maintained / protected, with men increasingly alienated as a result of many disincentives where the cultural landscape of dating, marriage, and co-habitation / etc has become so hostile that men have decided to opt out.

Women's interest in people such as the Sultan of Brunei can be explained by innate female hypergamy in seeking only the top 10-20% of men (via the 80/20 rule) as well as a woman's insatiable desire for protection and provision aka resources.

The bottom 80-90% of men meanwhile are essentially reduced to disposable utilities fighting for the leftover women or even used as terrorists / weapons of war as is the case in many muslim dominated countries that have a China-like surplus of men, the latter an inevitable result of islamic polygamy, sex slavery, sex-selective abortion of females, honor-murders, etc in turn making women oppressed yet less disposable compared to men in such societies due to their artificially inflated scarcity value.

Worth checking the following video called Life History Cycle by Turd Flinging Monkey, who posits that we are in a continual civilisational cycle of ascendance and decline that has been present for much of human history.


Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter wrote an entire chapter
on single mothers and the damage they do to civilization. Women and their enabled hypergamy will destroy our civilization.

Always On Watch said...

If it were up to the women - AND IT IS - this society would just cave in to Islam altogether.

I kick ass over this.

Yes, I do.

I lose clients and income over this, too.

Pete Rowe said...

Married women tend to vote against collectivism. Women do not destroy nations, but where marriage is failed institution, women vote for the candidate who will provide the "safety net" since there is no husband to provide security. The failure of men to marry and to be serious about marriage is a problem. The failure of women to demand marriage before sex is large part of that problem.

Pastorius said...

Yes, I agree.

This is something Dennis Prager talks about all the time.

One of the things the women (who are getting angry with me on this thread) are neglecting to note is the video says, "Women naturally gravitate to a harem". If society is brutal. They gravitate to the harem of brutal men to protect them. If society is feminzed, then they gravitate to the Government to take care of them.

Single mothers want welfare benefits, Section 8 housing, Food Stamps.


That's the point of the video.

That sounds controversial, but it is incontrovertible

Pastorius said...

I think you would agree with me that Transgenderism is an expression of Body DIsmorphia, decadence, malaise, and boredom.

A easy and permissive society will breed more and more of this kind of ridiculous behavior.

If the world were more brutal (as it will be under Islam if we keep up the nonsense) then Transgenders will not be tolerated at all.

Pastorius said...

AOW and I discussed this video on the phone. She has some very important points to make about how, in our current society, intellectual women marry intellectual men and how that might contribute to the epidemic of autism, and some of the other problems that are more specifically discussed in this video.

The Last English Prince said...

Thank God, then, that I married a man with a low I.Q. wink

Actually, if memory serves me, engineers who marry engineers have a disproportionate number of children with autism.

Pastorius said...

Yes, AOW was telling me that.

Pastorius said...

When you listen to this guy's presentation, there is an implicit idea built into the statistics and other information he presents.

That is, the reason society is collapsing is because weak men are more likely to agree with women, and vote Feminine ideas.

I can see this has been true in my life. I am not proud to admit it, but the first 23 years of my life, I bought into an awful lot of feminist bullshit.

Pastorius said...


I don't know if you watched the video, but your comment is essentially a outline of the contents of much of the video.

I think it is important to make that distinction that women are generally collectivist and men are generally individualist.

I would add to that, however, that men are TEAM PLAYERS. They believe in Tribe. They value loyalty and honor to the Tribe. But they do not generally seek to have someone else pay their way.

If a woman doesn't agree with the ideas in this post, she should state what she disagrees with and present a counter-argument. That has not yet been done.

Anonymous said...

"Single mothers want welfare benefits, Section 8 housing, Food Stamps.


That's the point of the video.

That sounds controversial, but it is incontrovertible"

These single mothers are certainly not the ones aiming at the 20% of top men. They are also the ones dealing with the bottom 80% of men.

Educated, professional women who happen to be divorced or widowed, do not wait for welfare benefits, section 8 housing and food stamps. They do their best to provide for their children, many times without a cent coming from the men. And yes, it stinks, for the kids and for the parents, but trust me, it's a lot better for everybody not to live in an environment of violence and lack of respect.

The video is right in many aspects. Women, being the nurturers, tend to look for protection, and the social revolts of the 20th Century, with its sexual revolution have had unforeseen consequences for society.

Always On Watch said...

The book that I mentioned is NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity by Steve Silberman.

Jesterhead45 said...


Have watched the video previously though similar themes have been explored in Men on Strike by Dr Helen Smith, Esther Vilar's works, the Sexodus articles at Breitbart, Shedding of the Ego site and what is known as MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way. (https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3t1t5f/meet_the_men_giving_up_on_women_martin_daubney/)

The top 10-20% of men is not limited to just wealth aka resources, but also in terms of looks / genetics as well as man’s ability to protect aka a man’s willingness to inflict violence upon others up to the point of becoming objects of outright Hybristophilia by women (even if the women ends up on the receiving end of that violence) or a sometimes combination of the previous 3 traits and more, though nowadays the government is increasingly seen as the Ultimate Alpha Sugardaddy and Protector White Knight as it were.

It has also been confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's, revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference outside of cooperating with other men as part of a team towards achieving goals.

Pastorius said...

Does "in-group bias" mean women stick by each other better than men?

Is that what that means?

It would seem so.

Jesterhead45 said...


Much of the stuff brought up here is not really new information, rather it has been known since ancient times even without the benefit of modern science to confirm it.