Wait… what?

New York Post:

A California “shaman” charged with starting a wildfire that is threatening thousands of homes claimed it started by accident — while she was boiling bear urine to drink, according to local reports.

Alexandra Souverneva, 30, faces up to nine years in prison for allegedly sparking the Fawn Fire, which has destroyed 41 homes and 90 smaller structures and is threatening 2,340 others, officials have said. She has pleaded not guilty.

She is now being eyed for possibly starting other fires across the Golden State, according to the Redding Record-Searchlight.

As the fire in Shasta County raged on Wednesday, Souverneva claimed she’d been hiking and trying to get to Canada, according to documents obtained by the outlet.

She told forest officials that she was thirsty and had come across a puddle of what she believed to be bear urine — and tried to make a fire to boil it, according to documents obtained by the outlet.

She found it was “too wet for the fire to start,” so she downed the water that she thought was animal urine and continued on her way, the report said.

Souverneva eventually got trapped in the brush amid the inferno and had to call the fire department to help her, according to the report.

She was asked to empty her pockets and fanny pack — which had CO2 cartridges, a cigarette lighter and an item “containing a green, leafy substance she admitted to smoking that day,” according to Cal Fire officer Matt Alexander.

Workers at a nearby quarry reported seeing a woman toss two small CO2 cartridges that matched the ones found in her bag on the same day the Fawn Fire ignited, Alexander said in court documents.

On her LinkedIn, Souverneva lists “shaman” as her current occupation and indicates that she was a doctoral student at SUNY’s New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry.

An attorney for Souverneva told her initial court hearing that she’d made statements to law enforcement that indicated a possible mental health crisis “or something to do with drug abuse.”

“She is also under suspicion for starting other fires,” said the attorney, who was not identified by the paper.

Alexander said in a report that “there is a high possibility she is responsible” for a fire the previous evening, too.

Women shouldn’t be allowed to do anything.

It’s always going to end up with some destructive, weird thing.

If you thought that sluts had so much power that they couldn’t possibly demand more, than you are a dumb retard.

Sluts could have you locked in a medieval dungeon being tortured with the Iron Maidan, and they would still claim you are oppressing them and that you have to make more concessions.

The standard female technique of using their sexuality to oppress and exploit men and then claiming that mentioning that they are doing that is oppression against them is still an active tactic used aggressively.

Daily Mail:

Thirty Oklahoma high school students were suspended Friday after protesting the dress code, claiming it is sexist.

Dozens of Mustang High School students held signs reading ‘Dress codes are sexist,’ ‘My body is not a distraction,’ and ‘If teens midriffs distract you, you should not be working with teens’ at the protest.

The students complained that teachers – especially male teachers – were hyperaware of female students bodies and often ignored when their male counterparts violated the same rules in the school code.

That would imply that those male teachers are heterosexual.

TikTok user @777Jade, a student at the school, shared a video that became viral and earned more than 400,000 likes in the platform. The clip shows students holding the signs and taping them to the school’s walls.

‘Our school had a protest against the dress code discrimination and the sexual harassments from the male teachers,’ she wrote in the video.

She also accused school officials of taking and ripping their posters after having told students they would return them.

‘You know what, Paige? Shame on you. You know how many times I tried to help you. My mistake,’ a school worker can be heard saying in the video to a student in the principal’s office.

Mustang’s dress code prohibits students from showing their cleavage and midriff. Tube tops, halter tops, off the shoulder tops, spaghetti straps or backless tops are also prohibited.

The school’s handbook states that the purpose of the dress code is ‘to permit students to dress according to current fashions, and at the same time reinforce district guidelines and restrict disruptions to the learning environment.’

Kirk Wilson, director of communicators at the school, confirmed that ‘a handful of students’ had been sent home with a suspension to The Independent.

‘There was a small protest before school at Mustang High School on Friday, September 10, 2021. When class began, the protest ended and most of the students attended class as normal,’ said the statement from Wilson.

‘There were a handful of students who violated the student code of conduct after class began and those situations were addressed…we remain committed to supporting our students and providing a safe and nurturing learning environment,’ he added.   

Dumb.

The male teachers should have raped these sluts.

“If teens midriffs distract you, you should not be working with teens” is the most retarded statement possibly ever made.

A 16-year-old girl is fully sexually developed. Any heterosexual male is going to be distracted by a teenager girl showing off her body. This is literally sexual harassment of men.

This “age of consent” gibberish is now reaching into mythological realms. The male teacher’s inherent biological drives are supposed to recognize that she hasn’t had her 18th birthday yet, and then stop being distracted by her body based on that?

(Also, I think the age of consent is actually 16, but okay – whatever. It doesn’t matter. The point is, if a woman’s body is sexually developed, it is not possible for a man’s sexual system to not be distracted by her partially nude body.)

Consent theory is now entering into total voodoo realms. “Age of consent” was sold as a way to protect the chastity of teenage girls after the sexual revolution established that any woman could “consent” to have sex with any man without consequences. To say that the age of consent now determines whether or not a man can be distracted by a half-naked teenager just reveals how stupid this all was to begin with.

We NEVER should have allowed the sexual liberation of women. It was STUPID and JEWISH.

Related: An Intellectual Argument for Abolishing Age of Consent Laws

But hey, here’s a question: if the woman doesn’t desire to purposefully manipulate men, then why is she showing off her body in the first place? Surely, maybe it was an accident the first time and she didn’t think about it, but when men say “you coming to school half-naked is distracting me, because I’m a man and my biology reacts to visuals of women in states of undress,” a polite girl would say “oh, okay – sorry about that, I’ll cover my body in the future.”

But no – they demand the right to show off their bodies. What reason could they have for wanting to do this, other than to manipulate men?

This is where we get into the total retardation of modern Christian/conservative conceptions of women and sexuality. She is not innocent. She knows what she’s doing. She is able to see that men’s eyes are drawn to her body, she is able to see that it makes them uncomfortable, she is able to see that if she shows off her body, she gets completely different reactions from men. She understands all of that. Female sexual innocence is a stupid myth. There is no such thing as female sexual innocence, because as soon as she goes outside half naked, she immediately understands the reactions she is getting.

Women use their sexuality to control and manipulate men. That IS sexual harassment. A woman who refuses to cloth herself in an appropriate way IS engage in industrial scale sexual harassment of men.

There is one solution to this problem, and it begins with a “gang” and ends with a “rape.”

The other solution is simply to enact strict laws about women’s dress, and then beat them when they start claiming that their victims are actually predators.

And yes – there is a difference between a man’s body and a woman’s body. Women’s bodies cause sexual arousal in men. Men’s bodies do not really cause sexual arousal in women, because women have tiny levels of testosterone. This is basic science.

Also, men rarely walk around showing off their midriffs in the first place, so the argument doesn’t even reflect the practical reality any more than it reflects the scientific reality.

Getting half naked and then saying “stop sexualizing our bodies” is no different than grabbing someone’s arm and slapping them with it and saying “stop hitting yourself!”

This is what women do with “liberation.” They use it to sexually harass and exploit men. If you tell a woman “you can be whatever you want” they reply “I want to dress up like a slut and get all the men to stare at me and then accuse them of being perverts – except for the really handsome ones, who I will then manipulate into thinking I will have sex with them.”

If we do not control these sluts then we are utterly doomed. They can use their bodies to accomplish any goal by manipulating weak men. The only men who can resist them are those whose spirits are hardened by the Holy Spirit.

I recently discovered that debate is still raging about supposed “misogyny” on the right-wing. The male feminist side of the argument continues making the standard claims that the only reason anyone would oppose women’s liberation is that they are pathetic losers who cannot get laid. Though I still do not understand the goals or intentions of the right-wing male feminist movement, I will herein address the topic of right-wing male feminism in a general sense.

I am very much opposed to the male feminist procedure of claiming that anyone who expresses ideas against feminism is just angry that they can’t get laid. Using this shame tactic is clearly just a way to silence discussion. As with everything else, the ideas should be addressed based on their validity. Anyone refusing to do that, and instead claiming that the person making the argument has something wrong with them and therefore the argument should not be addressed at all, cannot be taken seriously.

We’ve all seen this in other areas:

• You just don’t like blacks because you’re jealous of their monster horse cocks
• You just don’t like gays because you’re secretly gay
• etc.

It’s a way to prevent open discussion.

Any serious person is able to discuss arguments based on their merit without attempting to personally shame the person making the arguments. Even if the person doing the shaming is capable of succeeding in silencing the person making the argument, the argument still stands unassailed. Nothing has been proven.

Perhaps the defining characteristic that separates the modern left from the modern right is the latter’s belief in the value of rational discourse. If women’s liberation is a good thing, there must be rational arguments to support women’s liberation. Thus far, I have never seen a right-wing male feminist attempt to make such an argument.

The good news is, there is a way to really simplify the discussion with a very straightforward question:

Was it a good idea to liberate women and bring them into public life?

For all of history, before the late 19th century, women were not a part of public life, and were considered property. This was the case across virtually every race and culture, excluding some parts of sub-Saharan Africa and probably among Australian Aborigines and related groups (Papuans, etc.). We might note that infamously, Margaret Mead’s claims that female sexual liberation existed among certain groups of Pacific Islanders, outlined in her 1928 book “Coming of Age in Samoa,” were proved to have been academic fraud.

Because patriarchy was a standard that existed throughout all of history, and certainly through all of prehistory, it seems to me obvious that those arguing in favor of this massive society-transforming change, which was part of the very distasteful and destructive Jewish social revolutionary movement of the 1960s, are the ones upon which the burden of proof falls to present an argument in favor of this transformation.

Obviously, it is more or less impossible to argue that society at large has benefited in any way from the liberation of women, and the list of negatives is so long as to probably include almost every negative thing that has happened in the last 100 years. Based on overwhelming data from the voting patterns of men and women, everything from the legalization and normalization of abortion and divorce, to racial integration and mass immigration, would have been impossible without the enfranchisement of women.

Before the male feminists even get to their arguments (if they ever decide to do so), this simple reality buries any kind of psychoanalysis about “you’re just angry you can’t get pussy, bro.” Women’s liberation has been utterly ruinous for civilization. It’s not some funny, cutesy joke, to be dismissed with “te-he-he, bro you’re just a pathetic virgin, learn to get pussy, bro.”

As an aside: if you want to play this game that this is all just somehow personal for anyone opposed to feminism, you can also go into the fact that the most attractive, richest, and powerful people on earth have been divorce-raped, which means that the problem is about a lot more than “getting laid.” But I almost feel that engaging on that level is below me, as the problems are so obviously self-evident that it’s like being asked to explain why it’s bad to huff glue or drink diet soda pop. Opposition to feminism is clearly personal for a lot of men, just as opposition to immigration or the decriminalization of drugs is personal for a lot of men. But that is totally irrelevant.

“But It’s Too Late…”

At this point in the discussion, the standard response from male feminists is that it is impossible to take away women’s rights, so we just have to be practical. (Obviously, that logic could just as easily be applied to any other issue, to the point where you could say that everyone should just go ahead and accept everything that is happening. But let’s address it anyway.)

“But it’s too late” is a complete movement of the goal posts, which also makes all of the psychoanalysis and man-shaming all that much more ridiculous. It is also just another way to avoid the discussion. (Is it an admission that anti-feminists are right? If so, then what was the point of the original attack on anti-feminists? Why not skip directly to “it’s too late and we just have to deal with it?”)

If we accept that it’s too late and we have to be practical, then what we are now talking about is not that it’s totally reasonable for women to have rights and anyone who disagrees is a pathetic loser who can’t get laid. We’re saying “yes, this is a ridiculous situation, but we have to figure out a strategy to deal with it.”

Well, writing essays on the internet is not a strategy to deal with it. Using any form of logic to communicate information to women is not a strategy for doing anything (other than getting yourself accused of sexual harassment and fired from your job).

If your goal is to convince women to accept right-wing ideas because you have no choice because they are already empowered, what you would do is look at what motivates women, and figure out how to exploit that.

The conclusion you would come to, very quickly, is that what motivates women is:

• Being attached to centers of power and social status,
• Being personally adored or otherwise being the center of attention, and
• Exploiting men for emotional and material resources

So, you would then figure out a way to exploit those things, which would require you to have power, which you can’t do without building or taking over some kind of powerful organization. Involving women in your project effectively means you will never build or take over anything. This means that the obvious thing you should do is avoid being involved with women at all until you have achieved some kind of power, and instead appeal to men.

Going around claiming that any man who claims that anyone who is unsuccessful with women is a pathetic loser is not going to help you build anything with men, given that basically no men in the Western world are successful with women. Male feminists like to pick on incels, because incels are the lowest people in our society, and are therefore easy to bully. But sexually successful chads, married men and divorced men do not tend to be very happy with the current sexual dynamics of our society either. The single group of men who are happy with the current sexual dynamics are male feminists, who enjoy being controlled by women. Due to the Stockholm syndrome that decades of feminism has created, this is a significant group of men, but not a particularly useful group of men if you’re trying to build a revolutionary political movement.

You also have to ask what possible benefit you can get from having “right-wing women” involved in your organization, assuming you do not control a government or political party engaged in electoral politics. I guess this goes back to the issue of what exactly is being communicated by male feminists in general, which has never been clear. Again, given the lack of arguments from male feminists, we could only speculate.

Ultimately, the whole conversation strikes me as completely non-serious, and likely actually ridiculous.

The goal of dissident right-wing politics should be to appeal to young men, period. Talking to those men about how to deal with women could be valuable, but that is completely unrelated to trying to convince women to join a political movement. (Although we’re not talking about electoral politics, I will note that if you did control a political party engaged in electoral politics, I would say that the strategy for getting female votes would be to advise your male members on how to deal with women, as if every male supporter has a wife or girlfriend, then you’ve potentially doubled your votes. Doubling your votes by presenting a platform that appeals to women would be impossible, especially given the number of male votes you would lose by trying to appeal to women.)

Women have never been political, and they are not now. Women’s involvement in politics is entirely based on instinctive notions of what will benefit them. There is no concept of right or wrong, or any form of idealism, or long-term civilizational security in the mind of a woman.

Please note the significant gap between the voting patterns of married and unmarried women.

Of course, given the way women’s brains function, there is no clear delineation between “what is personally materially beneficial” and “what is emotionally satisfying.” A woman’s emotional satisfaction with her decisions is largely or entirely based on arbitrary notions of morality as defined by the state/media, which she associates with social status.

So, if the question is “how can we convince women as a group to accept our political doctrine while we remain a marginalized minority?”, then my answer is “you can’t.” I would follow that up with “but why would you want to?”

Of course, the discussion has never and presumably will never get to this point, as every time I’ve ever made these arguments, male feminists have come back with “you’re just mad because you can’t get laid.”

Finally, I just want to say that I have no desire to fight for a new political order in which women maintain sexual liberation and political enfranchisement. In fact, one of my main social goals is to restore the traditional sexual norms which existed all through human history before the modern era. Frankly, I consider anyone who believes in women’s liberation to be a liberal, and I might even go so far as to say that a belief in the social and political enfranchisement of women is the defining value of liberal ideology.

For those readers who choose to engage male feminists on the internet, I have no advice. In my long years of experience, I have found that they will not ever address arguments, and they will not ever engage with honesty. However, I will say this: if you’re an incel, if you’re divorced, or if you’re in an abusive relationship, the chances that it is your fault are statistically near-zero. Remember that. And remember that what we are fighting for is a world where you can have a normal family, as normal men had all throughout the history of civilization. You have a right to that, and evil people took that away from you.

We are going to reclaim what belongs to us.

In a recent article about the problem of Pakistani pimps picking up young girls outside school and turning them into hookers, I wrote:

A lot of right-wingers want to come at the Paki Pimp Gang phenomenon from the Christian Feminist angle of “oh our poor sweet innocent princesses, corrupted by these evil foreigners.”

A reader responded, outraged that I would label these girls “guilty.”

How anyone could believe that young girls (age 11-14) from the white underclass who are groomed, given drugs, and taken advantage of at an extremely vulnerable age by men decades older are “just as guilty” is actually more tragic than it is offensive.

These are not 16 and 17 year old experienced sluts, they are naive innocents being corrupted by foreign enemies of war who should have never had access to them in the first place. They target girls from troubled households right at the onset of puberty – so at a time when they are experiencing hormonal and emotional changes with no involved parents to guide and protect them. I would bet that the vast majority of these young victims were inexperienced virgins before they were targeted and abused by the Paki rape gangs, even if it’s only because they were 12 years old.

The statement in question was made in a brief filler article. I can’t always give full explanations of every argument I make, but I repeat the same arguments over and over, so I assume that most people are familiar with them.

It’s been a while since we talked about this, so I want to give a full explanation as to why I would identify these girls as criminals and co-conspirators with the Pakistanis, as opposed to victims of the Pakistanis.

People want soundbytes, and if you don’t give them soundbytes, they will create their own soundbytes while knowing that there are a large number of people who won’t read a thousands of words long essay explaining a position.

So, before I give you the actual, lengthy explanation, let me give you the two paragraph soundbyte:

If you don’t mark young girls who join drug gangs as “guilty of a crime” and give them some form of punishment, young girls will continue to join these gangs in the future. If girls are punished for getting involved with drug-running gangs, girls will know that there is a consequence for getting in the car with a Pakistani man who is prowling around outside their school. 

Whether you believe these girls were totally unaware of sex or not, “don’t get in the car with a stranger” is something every child knows is a rule. When you make these girls “victims” after they’ve broken the rules, you are ensuring that as long as there are Pakistanis, there will be girls getting in cars with Pakistanis. By removing consequences for breaking the rules, and instead rewarding the rule-breakers with a prized status, you are sentencing future young girls to this fate. The purpose of punishing a crime is not to take revenge, it is to prevent others from doing it in the future. 

This is all so obvious that it’s difficult to process how someone would not immediately recognize this as true.

So now, let me walk you through the long version.

The Problems with Consent Theory

The first point to recognize is that the traditional view of sex has been replaced over the last several decades with a new doctrine, surrounding the slippery concept of “consent.”

Female consent is the theory that a woman has a right to decide who she has sex with. I believe that I am the first to identify this concept as “Consent Theory.” This supposed “right” of women was never acknowledged at any point in the history of Western civilization, up until really the 1960s. I went into some detail about this topic in a recent piece about the push to normalize pedophilia.

There is not a good historical context for “rape.” Typically, if a man had sex with a virgin he was not married to, he was forced to marry her (something we recently discussed). If she had already been betrothed to someone else, then he’d committed a crime, and he’d probably have to pay a fine (which could amount to years of indentured servitude), and probably also marry the girl. If a married woman had sex with another man, they would both be considered guilty of a crime (in Biblical times, they’d be killed, and at other points, it was fines). Women were generally expected to keep out of situations where they were in the presence of men who were not their husband or family members, and were considered responsible for any sex that happened because they were alone with a man.

If a woman was a prostitute, then illicit sex was not considered possible. It was fully the woman’s responsibility to not get drunk and accidentally have sex with a man. If the man beat her up in the process of sex (i.e., the way we more recently defined “rape”), that would be a crime of assault, and if he’d grabbed her off the street, that could be kidnapping. There was no concept of trying to figure out “if she really wanted it or not,” because that was not considered something that was knowable.

A natural sexual order is now outside of living memory, so people have created the post-factual fantasy that women’s rights are some kind of “Western value system,” and have used women’s right to contrast the West with Islam. In fact, women’s role in traditional European and American society was almost identical to what we think of as Islamic norms; their entire bodies were expected to be covered, save for their face, hands and feet, and they were not allowed to speak to strange men, or wander around outside the house.

In traditional society, sex-related rules were all logical, and followed a consistent pattern. Everyone understood what was going on. You can try to judge it morally if you want, but we live in a society that has child transsexuals, so judging historical sexual norms seems a bit wacky.

When women were given the ability to decide who they had sex with during the sexual revolution, society had to create an entirely new set of rules by which to regulate sex. Consent Theory is the basis of that. That then led to the legalization of homosexuality, because the men were “consenting” to sodomize one another.

Consent is an emotional state in theory, but it ultimately ends up being a kind of metaphysics. The word “consent” means “to agree to,” but there is no direct way to determine if a woman made an agreement to have sex with a man.

The bigger problem is that women more or less always make very poor decisions, and are almost always incapable of explaining these decisions. If they make a decision that is judged by others to have been a poor decision, they will always claim that someone else is responsible for the decision.

Please, try to get images from film and television out of your head, and just think of all the women you’ve known in your own life. Can you think of one single time when a woman took personal responsibility for a bad decision she made? You can’t, and no one can, because no woman has ever done that. Even in the context of a political setting, where a woman has a team of advisors telling her what to say, you are going to have a hard time finding this. Look at Hillary Clinton.

Go look at the court reporting of any woman accused of any crime. Here’s a somewhat high-profile case from earlier this month:

I recently listen to a podcast that Ethan Ralph did with a porn star, and this woman went through and explained that she did not want to be in pornography, that she actually hated sex, but was not personally responsible for the fact that she was making pornography. Being a porn star is a very specific situation to be in, and she explained that it was the fault of men in her life, and men in general, which left her with no other possible life path than to be in pornography.

What this woman was describing ultimately meant that she did not consent to being in pornography. What really hit me listening to her was that she truly believed this. I was actually legitimately sympathetic with the fact that in her brain, it was all someone else’s fault.

If a woman cannot take responsibility for bad decisions, then how can she be allowed to make important decisions? It just simply does not make any sense. You cannot have responsibility without accountability. Those two things have to be connected.

Are you starting to grasp the logic of the olden days a little bit?

Understanding Why We Punish Crimes

While they cannot handle the concept of responsibility for a bad decision, we must recognize that women are very capable of understanding consequences for behavior. They follow the law, generally. They do that because they see that people who don’t follow the law are punished for not following the law.

These girls who join Pakistani drug gangs as prostitutes are “guilty” in the sense that they should be punished for it, not in the sense that women should be expected to make good decisions in any situation, or in the sense that there is a need to feel unsympathetic.

There have to be consequences for crimes, or people will continue to commit the crimes. Punishing crime is not about revenge. Crime is punished so that other people see the punishment and do not follow that behavior pattern. That is a basic, ancient concept of justice. (Note: the modern concept of long-term incarceration, and “keeping people off the streets” is new, and arguably both stupid and unethical.)

This same issue of punishing women for sex-related crime came up during Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, where he argued for outlawing abortion. They asked him if he would punish the woman seeking the abortion or only the doctor, and he said “What do you mean? You have to punish the woman.”

If girls aged 11-14 join Pakistani drug gangs, they must be punished for it. If they are not punished for it, and are instead awarded the sacred status of “victim” for having joined the gang and serving as drug addicted prostitutes in a criminal enterprise, other girls will see that. When the Pakistani shows up outside the school, the girl will run through the consequences system in her brain, and understand that the worst possible outcome is that she gets caught and is given the status of “victim.”

The argument from those who believe these girls deserve “victim” status is that the girls don’t know what is going on. The assumption is that a girl, aged 11-14, is incapable of understanding the concept of rules. I don’t really believe they don’t know what sex is, and don’t understand any of the subtext of a man trying to pick them up in a car. Especially after this has been all through the media for years, and surely parents and teachers alike have warned girls about it, this idea that the girls have no idea what is going on is clearly somewhat absurd.

However, it ultimately doesn’t matter if they are totally unaware of sex completely, because every single child on earth knows you’re not supposed to get in a car with a stranger.

You can read the accounts of the girls.

Here’s a random snippet, just to give a bit more context:

One day I ran into a furniture shop in my hometown in the south of England and hid behind a pine wardrobe, breathless, scared and hiding from the man looking for me.

I was at school when this happened, a 16 year old white girl, and my “boyfriend” was 24 and a violent, drug-dealing thug – from his own accounts. He was also of Pakistani Muslim origin.

I was a naïve teenager, from a family where the circumstances could be described as “difficult” at best, especially if my absent father failed to take his medication. My mother struggled to cope with her life, and was often depressed and suicidal. I can look back now and see I was vulnerable, with low self-esteem and desperate to get away from home.

I met Zimmy through Zamir, who I truly believed to be a “friend”, although since friends tend not to take you round to their uncle’s and offer you for sex in exchange for heroin, I can see now that he most definitely was not.

Zimmy was Zamir’s dealer and didn’t hesitate in asking me out, although like “friend”, “out” meant sitting in his Audi smoking a drug I thought was weed but that he later told me was heroin. Being such a good ‘boyfriend’, he also later introduced me to crack.

It was 1996. Looking back I was stupid, but at the time it was an escape from the misery of my family life and I thought everything would be fine. Over the next few weeks Zimmy showered me with gifts, money and drugs, but also started to tell tales of torturing his drug rivals and threatening me and my family.

These accounts have been published extensively in all of the British tabloids.

All of these accounts start with a girl getting in the car with a strange, foreign man. And actually, they didn’t just take them and rape them. They would take them to their kebab restaurants, and give them alcohol and/or drugs. Then the girls would continue to go back to the men, and get involved in drug running and prostitution for years. The pimps would always be the “boyfriend,” as is typical of pimps. The girls would regularly be asked to get other girls from their school to join the gang. They would also move drugs. That’s what was actually happening. This is what has been ubiquitously called “grooming,” which is an ill-defined term, and seems to have been invented specifically to remove any responsibility from these girls for joining a drug gang and committing illegal acts for years on end.

However, even if this was as simple as “he told her to get in the car, then he took her and raped her – before that, she didn’t even know what a penis was” (which is effectively the narrative the media is presenting), the girl still got in the car with a stranger – something that she knows is against the rules.

There was never any point in my childhood when I would ever get into a strange man’s car, not when I was 5 and not when I was 11-14. Not before I knew what sex was, nor after, would I ever have gotten in a car with a stranger outside the school.

Calling these girls “victims” simply condones and encourages the behavior.

Punishment as Prevention

I don’t think the girls should be given prison sentences. Most of them commit these crimes when they are underage, and I generally agree with the policy of underage criminal not facing as stiff of penalties. I just simply do not agree with “no penalties” and “literal incentivization.”

What women respond to more than anything else is social shaming, and that is where the punishment should be.

What should happen is this: someone should write “filthy whore” across the girl’s forehead with a red marker. A picture of the girl with that written across her forehead should be shown on TV, and it should be posted on the wall at her school. The newsreader on TV should note that the image would be posted at the girl’s school, in the entryway, where everyone can see it.

If you did that even once, I can promise you, you would have a 99% drop in instances of girls getting in cars with Pakistani men.

Of course, none of us have the ability to implement these rules. If we were in charge of the country, we could simply deport all of these Pakistanis, which would make it a moot point. But we all have the power to reject this “victim” narrative.

Remember that girls are still getting in cars with Pakistanis. It is still happening, every day. You can believe they are all poor little innocents if you want, but they are getting in these cars, going to these restaurants, taking the drugs and having sex with the Pakistanis all while knowing that if they get caught, they will get a reward instead of a punishment.

You need to understand this: every time you agree that these girls are victims who should be coddled and told how horrible it is that they are victims, and how they are good girls and bad men took advantage of them, you are feeding this industry.

Even if you don’t think it feels right emotionally, you all know what I’m saying is true. It comes down to something very, very simple -which is likely to result in fewer girls getting in cars with Pakistanis:

1. Telling girls that if they join a Pakistani drug gang, they are victims, or
2. Using a red marker to write “filthy whore” across the forehead of any girl who joins a Pakistani drug gang and showing the image on TV and posting it at the school?

Everyone knows the answer to that. It’s very simple.

What is the Counterargument Here?

People will respond to these things emotionally. Someone will link this and say that I’m a very bad man. But no one will offer a counterargument. No one will explain how labeling the girls “victims” serves to do anything other than incentivize this industry.

Someone might claim that punishing these girls in order to prevent future girls from joining the gangs is “the ends justifying the means.” That doesn’t actually apply here, but I will mention it before someone says it. I’ve already been through my views on that concept, fully: “the ends don’t justify the means” is a stupid modern adage that just is not true. This should be especially clear when you’ve got a situation where some people have estimated that 1 million girls have gotten involved with these Pakistani gangs. I would think that it should be very clear that making a few girls cry and feel bad about themselves is a means that justifies ending that.

People will also claim that I just don’t like women, or something-something-whatever. I will tell you this: I have only ever told the truth. Many of you started out reading this without agreeing with me, and now understand. It is a very, very bad thing to have these girls doing this. It is bad for the girls’ families, it’s bad for society at large, it’s bad for the men these girls are supposed to be marrying, and it’s bad for the girls themselves. I do not think that we should be involved in perpetuating it.

As long as there are Pakistanis in Britain, they are going to be engaging in this behavior. It becomes pointless to talk about trying to stop Pakistanis from doing this. Bringing these creatures into Britain is like releasing a bunch of starving wolves in a nursery. The only argument regarding the Pakistanis should be that they are removed from the country. The situation is insane. It is insane to bring these people into your country. No one ever should have tolerated this. Everyone should have known it would lead to rivers of blood, including that of the hymens of little white girls.

It is all tragic. I just want to make that clear: these stories of these girls are true human tragedies. I don’t want anyone to think I’m discounting that. The way I present this is intended to separate people from the emotions involved, because the emotions lead to wrong thinking. But I do understand the emotions. I don’t think the girls “deserved it,” and I do think that girls should be protected in any way possible. My arguments are intended for that purpose. But the harsh reality is that the biggest danger to any girl or woman is her own decision-making process, and the only known way to restrict that decision-making process is through establishing consequences for bad behavior. Whatever the details of the situation, getting in a car with a Pakistani man outside the school is always a bad behavior.

Emotional thinking, accepting this narrative of victimhood, leads to this behavior pattern continuing in generations of girls. The entire purpose of punishing crime that has already been committed is to prevent future crime from occurring. It’s not about revenge.

I cannot think of a better example of the nonexistent morals and wanton cruelty of both Blacks and modern women.

Seeing stories like this, how can anybody reasonably question why we hate these groups?

On the plus side, the girl did recover.

ABC:

Derek Mason will spend the next 15 to 50 years in prison after being sentencing for beating up and severely burning his girlfriend’s 22-month-old daughter.

Police say the child, Natalie, was assaulted at a residence in Durand. Mason was accused of heating up water in the microwave and pouring it on the girl while she was taking a bath.

Mason pleaded guilty to assault charges before he was sentenced. Abigail Springs, who is Natalie’s mother, also pleaded guilty to assault charges and is awaiting sentencing in Shiawassee County next month.

Ah, Aryan Princesses.

Gotta fight for their rights.

That’s what the West is all about, after all.

Women’s rights.

Corriere Della Sera:

A couple have been seen having sex in broad daylight in the heart of Rome, surrounded by bars, shops and offices (including the headquarters of the Judicial Council, and of the newspapers Corriere dello Sport and Il Sole 24 ore). The photo, posted on Thursday on the “Roma fa schifo” blog, portrays a couple in a “compromising position” under the arcades of Piazza Indipendenza, using a makeshift love nest surrounded by piles of rubbish and huts used by the homeless. The scene played out under the eyes of office workers, who took photographs of this latest episode of urban squalor, in a busy area of the city in front of the bus station. The building in Via Curtatone visible in the background, the former headquarters of Federconsorzi, has been used as a squat for over three years, and Marco Coppola, deputy chairman of the “Castro Pretorio” committee, recounted that “it has been divided up into flats, and some have even had kitchens put in. We often go to the police, but they have difficulty intervening: they don’t know how many people are camping out there, and it’s not an easy matter to deal with”.

It’s her choice if she wants to have sex with a homeless African in broad daylight on the street on a pile of trash.

That’s what women’s liberation is all about.

Viewer warning: this video contains fat women shaking their asses in public.

They are demonstrating their liberation from the patriarchy.

Finally, we have progressed beyond sexism.

Welcome to the glorious equality, goyim filth.

Feminism and liberal values have “freed” these women. This is the result. One may ask: From what, exactly, are they now free from? Is this truly a substitute of equal value to motherhood, childbirth and family? Can these women look into the mirror in the morning and say their life is fulfilled?

If the modern Western woman has been “liberated” from everything that makes her female, what else can she do other than objectify herself by exploiting the only truly feminine trait she has left: Her body?

Feminism has no interest in helping females, the only purpose it serves is obliterating healthy relationships, causing extinction-level birth rates and therefore destabilizing the West. A true feminist supports healthy families and gender roles rather than harlotry, degeneracy and Islam apologetics.

Feminism: The suicide of a gender.

As I have said, we need to do away with the “bitches get what they deserve” meme (which I have probably inadvertently contributed to), which is truly as bad as the “women are equal and logical beings” Jew-feminist meme.

Instead of holding women responsible for their behavior, we need to recognize that they have been victimized by Jews who told them they are capable of making their own life decisions.

So: you have people who are incapable of making responsible decisions presented with the decision of whether or not to start making their own decisions.

There was nothing they could have done.

The anger towards women needs to be channeled towards the Jews who created this situation.

Women themselves should simply be ignored.

Young women today believe they have more job opportunities and a better chance of balancing parenting and a career than their mothers had at the same age, but then, for many, the picture becomes very much bleaker. A third do not believe there will ever be equal pay; a fifth say they have less respect and status in society than their mothers did; almost a third say they are less happy; and two thirds believe they are more prone to eating disorders and mental illness.

The information comes from a poll of more than 1,000 young women aged 16 to 30, which is part of a year-long review conducted in England and Wales, the results of which will be published tomorrow. The poll also reveals that 40% of young women are often lonely; 46% don’t know whom they can trust; 36% said “they often felt that they could not cope with their lives”; and one in four said that they felt they had nobody to whom they could turn when they were unable to sort out their problems by themselves.

The review also included a poll of the public conducted last week and the results of 10 focus groups by the charity formerly known as the Young Women’s Christian Association England and Wales (YWCA) and currently named Platform 51. On Wednesday it relaunches again as Young Women’s Trust (YWT). Deborah Mattinson, chair of trustees of YWT, said: “What we know from our year-long investigation is that there are over a million young women living with disadvantage in a system that offers them too few second chances. When the YWCA began its work 150 years ago, this was the group on which it focused. The new organisation is returning to that cause.”

The YWT research looked at qualifications, jobs, housing, health, family ties and outlook. While more than 58% of young women appear secure and in work, 42% are struggling with issues that include a lack of qualifications, difficult relationships with partners and family, debt, poverty, housing and depression. Five per cent of young women with degrees also suffer from depression and isolation.

“In popular culture, young women are stereotyped as a story of two halves,” said Carole Easton, YWT’s chief executive. “Either it’s about bad behaviour, having babies and benefits. Or they are portrayed as successful, salaried and sorted. The real story is quite different. Young Women’s Trust wants to challenge the stereotypes and change outcomes.”

Tammie Wingrove, 23, is resilient and articulate, despite the difficulties she faces. She is eight months’ pregnant and lives on £56 a week Jobseeker’s Allowance. Her mother died when she was seven, her father died when she was 13. A year later her stepmother threw her out. She went into care and was moved 15 times. She was diagnosed with dyslexia at 17. “Before that, teachers always said I was lazy,” she said. She returned to one of her care homes in a work placement. “I know how to handle little rude boys,” she said with a smile. “I know what it is to go to sleep with nothing and wake up with nothing.”

Read More