Author: therig19_wp

We in the West are in the process of bankrolling a full-scale invasion that is poised to destroy Europe as we know it. The migrant crisis is perhaps the largest existential threat to Western Civilization since the fall of Rome.  Europe, shockingly, does not have the heart to say no to the migrants that are threatening to destroy their civilization. In fact, it is financially subsidizing their arrival by providing transportation and granting access to their generous welfare states. This is because Europe is ruled by its women and their emotionalism. This kindness has led to an existential threat that extends to all of European civilization because the EU allows free movement of the migrants to other European nations (except for England once they finalize their exit). It can only be stopped if we embrace traditional masculine values once again. It is the men in Europe who will have to say no to this invasion, since women by in large support the parties that are in favor of allowing migrants into their countries. Men are the ones who have to rediscover their protective instincts to save their civilization. Unfortunately, feminists have been busy destroying any semblance of masculinity in our culture for the last 50 years.

When I talk about feminism, I am talking about the modern feminism that has infected universities today. Men are no longer appreciated in our culture as a result of the feminist ideology. They are repeatedly told, unjustly, that they are patriarchs who promote a rape culture. Feminists’ favorite targets for this vitriol are white males. White men in particular are attacked for their white male privilege and are blamed for colonialism, sexism, racism and every other ill in the world. This criticism is particularly powerful in Europe, where men are having this message beaten into them ad nauseum. In addition to be attacked for their supposed privilege, men are also told that they are not necessary when it comes to raising a child. They are no longer viewed as the protectors of the family or even as providers. This is reflected in the dramatic increase in single motherhood in Western nations.

Modern feminism is largely a product of the rise in single motherhood that the West has seen over the last four decades. In the EU, single parents constitute 19% of all households with children in the EU. Single mothers make up 85% of them. Since single motherhood became so ubiquitous, many men in Europe have been raised by women. This is also due to the high divorce rates in the West. If they were not raised by a single woman, they grew up in a largely feminized culture that worships single mothers. They therefore do not act like men. Many of them were brought up by women who were a part of the 1968 movement and raised their sons to be like women. Danish journalist Iben Thranholm has highlighted this in one of op-eds. She says, “The average modern Western male has been feminized, with no knowledge or habit of manly virtues like courage, resolve, self-sacrifice, justice, temperance, self-reliance, self-discipline and honour. He has no sense of true expression of manliness.” Feminism despises these traditional male virtues and any expression of manliness. In fact, feminists call an expression of those virtues “toxic masculinity.” Sadly, the men in Europe do not have the will to say no and close the door to the migrants that are invading their countries. Instead, they along with their politicians are trying to be all inclusive and act like mothers to the migrants. The result is that the women in Europe are now left defenseless in the face of a dominant male culture brought in by the migrants.

The fallacy that feminists have fallen into is that by breeding masculinity out of their own culture, they will remove violence and danger from their societies. The downside to this is that when danger presents itself, there will be no masculine strength in the culture to fight back. This has proven to be right in light of the sexual assaults that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. The capacity to commit violence is inherent in men. However, it is violence committed on the part of decent men that stops evil men from doing harm. It is unfortunate that there were no men to protect those women from the gangs of migrants who had organized an effort to rape women that night.

Biologically, men exist to protect women. It is their responsibility to defend their civilization. In any species of animals on Earth, it is always the males that protect the tribe. Men have therefore evolved to perceive threats to a much better degree than women. In order to get men to perform their biological role, they need to be given an incentive to protect their civilization. This has traditionally been done by having them fight for their wives and children when they are threatened. Europe, for centuries, has followed this norm up until the last 50 years. Unfortunately, thanks to feminism, men no longer have anything left to defend. Western women have become so unappealing that the men have no incentive to protect them anymore. In Suzanne Venker’s article The War on Men, she says that “women aren’t women anymore.” Women have been raise to think that men are the enemy and have created a “women good/men bad dynamic” that has destroyed gender relations. The media has also contributed heavily to this, with movies, TV shows and even commercials portraying women as smart and competent while men are maligned and ridiculed. The results of this continued browbeating of men has manifested itself in marriage statistics. In the UK, marriage is now at its lowest level since 1895. There has been a 41% decline in the number of marriages from 1972 to 2011 in Great Britain. In the United States, the share of Americans who have never been married is the highest it has ever been. In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older (about 42 million people) had never been married,according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data. According to Dr. Helen Smith, the author of “Men on Strike,” “[Men] don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.” With women initiating 65-90% of divorces, men are reluctant to commit to them given the severe negative consequences they face in a divorce. The destruction of gender relations paired with a loss of masculinity has stopped men from fulfilling their role as protectors of society.

Germany is a good example where men are not standing up to female leadership that supports migrants entering their country. Angela Merkel, who in spite of all the recent terror attacks in Europe plans to continue to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter Germany. “We will live up to our humanitarian responsibility,” she said. “The refugee crisis is a historic test for Europe, which I am convinced it will pass. Even if everything we do in Europe is interminably arduous.” Merkel seems oblivious to the threat the migrants pose and instead wants to nurture them like a mother. This may be because she does not have any children of her own and wants to be a mother to the migrants. Her words show that allowing the migrants is a purely emotional decision, which is feminine in nature. She sees this as a test of the German people’s kindness. Passing the test would involve providing for the migrants as if they were their own children. This good will is going to lead to the end of a nation if current trends continue.

According to an analysis by Professor Adorján F. Kovács from the Goethe-Universität at Frankfurt am Main, if the current rates of migration into Germany continue, German men in the 20- to 30-year-old age group will be a minority in their own country by 2020. There is no going back once this point is reached. This demographic shift is due to the large number of men between the ages of 20 and 35 who are entering the country. Many of them go on welfare and have children who are supported by the taxpayers. With family reunification, the muslim population is set to quadruple to 20 million by 2020. When you also take into account how the aging German population will eventually die off, you can only imagine what the demographics of the nation will look like in the future. Dr. Stefanie von Berg, a member of the Hamburg Parliament, said “Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be German majorities in our city.” She went on to tell the radical right wingers who oppose this that “this [change] is good.” This is yet another example of a female politician not acknowledging the threat that this demographic shift will have on her country. Germany as a nation may survive, but the native population that makes Germany, well, German will no longer be in control of their own country. Forever.

A simple question should be asked of people like Dr. Berg: Do you want to live in a Middle Eastern country? The reason this question should be asked is because people are not interchangeable. Germany is a creation of ethnic Germans and their culture. They have a tradition of Western civilization and freedom of religion. The migrants, on the other hand, come from countries where the vast majority of muslims are in favor of sharia law. A new survey showed that 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only source of law in the country. That figure in the United Kingdom is at 69 percent. Sharia law is antithetical to Western ideas of freedom of religion and rights for women and homosexuals. If all the people in the Middle East and Germany switched geographical areas, you would have a much hotter Germany in the Middle East and a much more temperate version of the Middle East in Germany. The geography may change, but the values that people carry will not. If the answer to the question I asked earlier is no, why would you want Middle Easterners to become a majority in your nation? If you want to preserve individual liberty and equal rights for all people, you would fight to stop an antithetical culture from entering your country.

As Thranholm puts it, Europe is like a “battered wife.” In the face of the migrant crisis, the political leaders in Europe “acted like timid mother hens, not as strong men responsible for guarding their country from an invasion.” I do believe there is a solution to this problem, albeit a brutal one. That solution is a financial collapse. Eventually, the governments of Europe will end up running out of money trying to support their native population and take care of all of the migrants who are going on welfare. Given the the high percentages of migrants on welfare, they will probably cause mayhem when their benefits no longer exist. They have already demonstrated a propensity for violence through riots and sexual violence.

When the collapse happens, women in Europe will have to look to their men for resources and physical protection, especially if they have children. I think they will try to return to traditional values during that crisis. However, I fear they may be disappointed to see that their men are not willing to oblige. Men are very aware of the disadvantages that they have in entering a relationship and are tired of continuous verbal abuse they have received from feminists. They have woken up to how they are being treated as disposal ATM machines subject to scorn. Only look at marriage statistics and the popularity of the MGTOW movement to know this is true. I think that many men will decide not to protect or provide for women in that dangerous time. The resentment that men feel will manifest in their unwillingness to help the very women who abused them for so long. This will serve as an exceptionally grim lesson for all women. So grim, that it will be a lesson that is passed on for generations to come. Women will come understand that belittling and emasculating their men resulted in a disaster that left them bereft of protectors when danger reared its ugly head. Hopefully, women decide to embrace traditional female virtues before they end up trying to make a naked transaction for money and protection. I pray that it happens before Western Civilization is destroyed.

We have heard time and again from politicians and gun control advocates that America needs to follow the example of the rest of the developed world and impose strict gun control laws. Piers Morgan ran a crusade for gun control after the shooting at Sandy Hook, asking Ben Shapiro in an interview, “why don’t we try our way?” Morgan was referring to the total gun ban in the UK. Hollywood stars have also called for gun control, with Matt Damon saying that Americans “need to evolve further” in order to be open to implementing Australian style gun control. Put simply, Americans are too brutal and primitive to understand the wisdom of liberal gun control policies. In this post I am going to argue on behalf of the philistines and make the case as to why we support the 2nd amendment and are against gun control.

Let us begin with the language and interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The text reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Progressives read this and say that only people in a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This is a complete misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment and must be fully refuted. Author J. Neil Schulman conducted an exercise with retired Professor of Journalism Roy Copperud to examine the language of the 2nd amendment and its meaning. Copperud taught journalism at USC for 17 years and is on the usage panel of the America Heritage Dictionary. Miriam-Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Schulman asked Copperud a series of questions on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I have part of their conversation below:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

This exchange clearly shows that Americans have a natural right to keep and bear arms that is not granted, but rather protected by the 2nd amendment. A well-regulated militia is one of the benefits of having an armed population. However, it is not the only reason for a population to be armed. The right to keep and bear arms belongs only to the people, not the militia. A militia, by definition, is made up of a group of people who bring their own guns. It cannot exist without an armed population. The reason the Founding Fathers adopted this amendment is because they had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical king. They recognized that they could not have won the Revolutionary war without an armed population. Therefore, they decided to protect the people’s natural right to bear arms in the event that they face another tyranny in the future. They wanted the people to be able to start another revolution if necessary. Thomas Jefferson once said in a private letter, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” Only look at the unarmed masses who were made to submit to tyrants in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China to see the wisdom of his words.

In addition to resisting government tyranny, we as human beings have a right to defend ourselves from those who try to hurt or kill us. I once had a conversation with a friend who, when asked if he would use a gun to defend himself, said that he would rather let the assailant kill him than use a gun to defend himself. I did not believe him. While his words may impress his friends at a cocktail party, I think if he were facing death he would want a person with a gun to save him. When someone makes that argument, what they are saying is that humans are the only creatures on Earth who do not have a right to defend themselves. If we see a lion chase after a gazelle and during the altercation the gazelle injures the lion with its horns, would we fault the gazelle? Doesn’t that gazelle have a right to defend itself? Why then would we deny the right of self-defense to humans? We have a right to kill someone who is trying to murder us in the same way that the gazelle has a right to hurt or even kill the lion that tries to eat it. Lions are predators that hunt the weakest in the herd of gazelles. Criminals are the same in that they target those who cannot defend themselves, namely the unarmed.

Having a gun is a strong deterrent against violent criminals. How many felons who are sitting prison would say that they want their potential victims to be alert and armed? None. It would be suicidal for them to attack someone who is armed. Gun control laws would only make it easier for them to commit crimes. When you pass a law that disarms the population, the only people who will follow it are law-abiding citizens. In other words, not the criminals. For example, mass shooters look for areas with unarmed potential victims so that they can kill as many people as they can. They therefore go to gun-free zones where they know that nobody will shoot back at them. If you look at mass public shootings from 1950 to July 10th 2016, 98.4% of them took place in gun-free zones. The recent shooting in Orlando also took place in a gun-free zone. The innocent people inside a gun-free zone during these shootings must wait until the police show up for someone to defend them. Until then, they can only pray that they are not killed. It is important to note that the police do not stop crime, they arrive after the crime is committed. They only draw the chalk outline of where your body was after you were murdered. Only you can stop an assailant when a crime is in progress with your own firearm. The residents of my hometown of Chicago are not allowed to have the gun they need to defend themselves. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but extremely high rates of gun crimes and murders. Between last Friday and early Thursday 99 people were shot in Chicago, 24 of them fatally. The laws that were instituted to stop those shootings are in fact allowing them to happen.

The fallacy of gun control is that it is an attempt to ban murders by banning guns. That is fundamentally impossible for two reasons. The first is that human beings have been murdering each other well before firearms existed. Violence and murder are a part of the human condition and cannot be stopped by laws. If someone has the motivation to kill someone, they will not care if they violate a gun law in the process of committing the murder. The second reason is that there is no way that the government could get rid of all of the guns in America. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are more than 300 million guns in America. That is almost one gun for every person. It is impossible to track down all of them. Even if gun control laws were instituted, criminals will still find a way to get their hands on guns. Even if we call the police when they commit a crime, we will still be relying on men with guns to defend us.

When liberals say they want gun control, it is really a misnomer. Their position is that guns should not be in the hands of private citizens, but exclusively in the hands of the government. Advocates for a total gun ban in reality want the government to use its guns to take guns away from citizens. The irony is that their proposal to ban guns requires the use of guns. Furthermore, they will make it much easier for a tyrant to subjugate us by taking away our means to resist. We will also be left defenseless in the face of violent criminals. As one of the philistines, I am not smart enough to see the wisdom of these policies. Until I can, I will remain ignorant and support the 2nd amendment and my right to defend myself with a firearm.