THE VULNERABILITY CREATED WITHIN OUR CIVILIZATION – TWICE
by Marra McKinney
November 6th, 2018 2:55 PM
When lower IQ people move to more feminised countries, they find an already existing parasitic environment (created by women) that is particularly well suited for people like them.
Women there already complain that they are victims, that they are oppressed, that men are privileged, that they deserve special quotas and affirmative action, that they should be given stuff via the welfare system, via special (without competitive bidding) government contracts and loans, via special grants and scholarships for women and minorities, or via alimony and divorce.
Obviously that environment will be great for low IQ “Give me, Give me, I’m Victim” people as well and they too will join the party and start behaving that way (until there are too many takers and the whole redistribution system collapses).
In contrast, low IQ migrants won’t find a parasitic environment like that in Turkey, Israel or Japan. No one there feels guilty, could be made to feel guilty, or is going to give them anything.
Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women involved in decisions about the perimeter (think of Merkel or Swedish feminists) results in what we see â open borders, multiculture, diversity, âtoleranceâ, border chaos.
In nature, when you weaken the local males, then other males move in and replace them. You can observe this among lions, among primates, or among europeans. After feminist women (with the encouragement of jewish thought leadership) weakened their own men, then other men (muslims) started moving in.
Males are the immune system of society. The nationalism that they create is the wall. Without them, there is no nationalism or resistance to foreigners. Weaken them, and then other foreigners, often males, start moving in.
Thus, we can expect any ethnic group with large female influence and female leadership to self destroy, as the female leadership will not care about preserving their own ethnicity or group cohesion, leading to the feminised group opening their borders, trying to help anyone in need, accepting anyone in, and eventually becoming a minority in their own country.
Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Women are less likely to support military action even against ISIS, a group known for enslaving women and using them as sex slaves, and are less likely to support ban on muslim immigration.
Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females . Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed). The survival of their genes, unless they were exceptionally ugly, was more or less guaranteed â whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. Men form tribes. Women join tribes. So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution (from men) and being nice to everybody (including those who arenât in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group.
Theory is that if you want to destroy an ethnic group, simply increase female influence in that group. Increase it a lot. And voila. Since females donât care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open itâs borders, will try to help anyone in need, and will welcome everyone. As a bonus, you will also get a negative birth rate for the feminized host group.
All kinds of other ethnic, religious and racial groups will move in, and will start vying for dominance; as for the feminized host group, its fate is to become a minority in its own country, to mix with the foreigners, and then to ultimately disappear.â