Sweden is proud, today, to say that it has a woman president and a largely female Cabinet. This is lauded by feminists the world over. Yet Sweden is unable to provide the basic level of protection that its own citizens require. And those who suffer most are women, who are the victims of rape jihad at the hands of Muslim immigrants.
The Duty of State
The primary duty of a State is the protection of its people. This is the social contract we make: we consent to be governed in return for protection. If we require to look after our own security, why should we pay a State to do it? Why not buy a pistol or a shotgun and learn how to use it? Why not form militias or vigilante groups and defend ourselves? If it’s defend yourself or be raped or murdered, what right does the State have to demand taxes, or hobedience to its laws? The point of having a State at all is to avoid anarchy; but that is precisely the result, when it cannot protect its citizens.
So a state that cannot provide quotidian security for its citizens has, by definition, failed. Sweden, therefore, is a failed State.
Sweden has, for political reasons, invited large numbers of people, from a historically and provably hostile culture, to come and live within its borders. Then, instead of requiring that such people adopt Swedish standards, it encourages them to retain their own and even to set up enclaves where the native language is never spoken and where the law of the State is flaunted. Rather than educating the children of these people in the culture they have arrived in, it allows the incomers to teach them their own, with all its hatred of and hostility towards the host.
Can that State then protest innocence when it finds itself under attack from these people? It didn’t have to let them in; it could have kept them out or incarcerated them. Instead it fed and clothed them, gave them succour and allowed them to keep their language and culture.
Over the last 40 years, violent crime in Sweden has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
(This increase coincides exactly with the emasculation of Sweden and its open-door policy to Islamic colonisation.)
I hear what you say: this State expected the incomers to behave as its native citizens would, elsewhere. But that is beyond naive. We know from the history of Islam, from its texts and the words of its preachers, that it is, and always has been, determined to destroy European culture and replace it with its own.
So how did Sweden get into this mess? Have the Swedes collectively gone mad? Do they have a suicidal death-wish? No. What has happened is that they have allowed their society to be emasculated. And the root cause of this is feminism.
Five thousand years ago, matriarchal cultures flourished all over the Fertile Crescent and beyond. Then something began to happen that changed everything. The King of Lagash, Eannatum, decided to rape and pillage all his peaceful neighbours. He sacked their cities and killed, tortured and enslaved as many as he could. It is said that he invented terrorism.
It’s unlikely that Lagash was the first patriarchy or that it was alone. But this was certainly an early example of civilisational war between a developed, city-based patriarchy and the matriarchies around it.
The result was devastating. Within a few centuries, all matriarchies in the area had been destroyed. Their cities were razed not just once, but time and again. The rape of Ur is even documented in the Old Testament. While their successors retained elements of the previous culture in their religions, this was a hangover. Inanna, the great Sumerian goddess, became Ishtar, a military goddess under the control of the king; and he answered not to any goddess, but to a god.
The Fertile Crescent
This happened all over the Fertile Crescent and across the Middle East. On Crete, successive waves of violence between goddess-worshipping (and therefore matriarchal) and god-worshipping (patriarchal) cultures left evidence of destruction and death. Everywhere, men assumed control of society, if they did not already hold it. They built strong defensive cities and soon were forming armies not only to defend their own but also to attack and plunder other cities. Being a matriarchy, then, was societal suicide: it was necessary to organise as a patriarchy or to die.
The fact is that men are more suited physically to warfare than women are. They are stronger, bigger, faster and much more aggressive. This natural divide, which had made men the natural toilers and workers in the fields of Sumer, now made them the foot-soldiers, the defenders, but also the aggressors, captains, generals and kings. The patriarchy had arrived.
The rule established by what happened in Sumer, Akkadia, Crete, Greece and elsewhere is this: matriarchies cannot defend themselves against systematic, organised attacks by patriarchies. They either become patriarchal themselves as a counter-measure, or they are overwhelmed and have patriarchy imposed upon them. Patriarchies are, by definition, sociophagic: they consume the cultures around them.
Modern feminism has long since abandoned its egalitarian roots. Today, feminism is about establishing a matriarchy: about putting women in charge.
Whether or not this might be a good idea in abstract or philosophical terms is for discussion. I am an egalitarian, and seek to see neither sex dominant. But as a result of this pressure from feminism, being masculine has become reviled. In today’s context this is vitally important.
Swedish culture has become the most feminist in Europe. It is almost completely emasculated. And it has invited into its territory the most vicious and sociophagic patriarchy on Earth today.
Sweden represents what happens when the tipping-point has passed; when the see-saw rocks. Feminism has won the day — or perhaps we might say, the Left has won the culture war. It has left an emasculated society in which men’s role as defenders and protectors has been totally destroyed.
In old Sumer, and in North America, in pre-agrarian cultures and even in the early stages of agrarian civilisation, patriarchal and matriarchal cultures seem to have co-existed. Some do, even today. This probably had to do with a lower population density and so, less competition for territory.
However, these matriarchies were not defenceless. They did have strong, masculine men. They were the hunters and the protectors of the women and children. This was a function of the sex-based division of roles, upon which the social conventions of gender are based. So why were patriarchies so easily able to destroy them?
Because of an innate sex-based difference between men and women in the way that decisions are taken. Women tend to favour long consideration and the input from as many as possible; they are naturally inclined to sort out differences by discussion. Men tend to favour rapid response and quick reaction. They do not favour lengthy debate and would rather arrive at a consensus. If they appoint a leader — and they usually do — this will be a strong alpha male with a proven success record; and then they will follow that male without question. In short, they prefer action to deliberation.
War and Peace
In peacetime, of course, the deliberative approach is commendable. Every point of view is heard and the subject under discussion is minutely examined. If it takes a day, a week or a month to arrive at a consensus, this probably has little consequence.
But today, we are at war and in wartime this is a recipe for disaster. Male abilities — of rapid response, fast decision-taking and ruthless application thereof, are vital to success, especially when faced with an enemy who is already doing just these things.
In this situation, one group of men will take over: either the attacking patriarchy will destroy the victim and, in the past at least, kill and enslave all the men and take the women as wives, or the attacked culture will itself become a patriarchy in order to fight back. And once the patriarchy is installed, the chance of removing it is small. Soon the culture will be pillaging and raping itself, sociophagically preying on the weaker matriarchal cultures that remain.
In the West, since the Renaissance, we have built a culture that is more tolerant, inclusive, egalitarian, rewarding of individual ability and generally peace-loving than any the world has ever known. On every measure, it is a jewel of human achievement. To do this, and over centuries, we tamed our patriarchy. We put checks and balances on its power and ability to act autonomously, and took away the absolute power of monarchs. Abolishing slavery made us the first culture, ever, to do that, and we made women the equals of men. We constrained our generals and made our soldiers obey ‘rules of engagement’ that were designed to prevent them carrying out atrocities in the heat of battle.
We put systems of democratic governance and judicial due process in place that prevent oligarchs and despots from wielding too much power. And this is all, generally, to the good.
However, there is a point in our self-emasculation that we must not pass. Ours is not the only patriarchal power. 1400 years ago another evolved that has, ever since, been gaining power. Through all of its history, our destruction has been its obsession.
The Gates of Vienna
A fully masculine patriarchy would take action to counter the threat, as ours did in Spain, the Holy Land and before the Gates of Vienna. But today, our culture has been emasculated. It has been told that we should tolerate other, hostile cultures, rather than fight them, and that this will make them tolerant of us.
This is a lie; but it is a plausible one. It is how Sweden has come to be the agent of its own inevitable destruction. It has attempted to use an emasculated, feminine approach towards a patriarchal enemy that knows only violence and anger, which hates any sign of emasculation, which detests women above all other things and sees any kindness as a sign of weakness that it should exploit. And, across Europe, we have been accommodating this enemy and showing it how weak we are, for over forty years.
Europe at risk
Europe is at greater risk today than it has been since the Dark Ages, when the night of Islam overran huge areas of it. And today, unlike then, we have destroyed the power of our patriarchy to respond, to strike it with the hammer-blows that are all it understands — as King Jan Sobieski of Poland did when he led a thousand Winged Hussars in a charge that routed the Turks before Vienna.
We should mobilise
Clearly, today, we should be mobilising to counter the civilisational threat that Islam and global jihad presents. But that is not what we are doing. All across Europe, as in Sweden, police and other officials are told to cover up evidence of Muslim crimes. Rapes by them are routinely unreported, and they are at epidemic levels. Child-raping teams of Muslims act with impunity for decades, for fear of ‘upsetting Muslims.’ Girls have their genitalia hacked off and nobody stops it. The list of our cavilling submission to the foulest cult on Earth is without end.
Rather than protect their citizens, our emasculated States dare to tell the women they are duty-bound to protect to cover up their skin, to cover their hair, not to go out at night and even, for goodness’ sake to wear ‘anti-rape’ belts. They punish policemen for telling the truth about the rape epidemic and they censor journalists, preventing them from accurately stating that criminals are Muslims when that is what they are.
Feminism has emasculated our culture and the result will be more rapes, more domestic abuse, more murders and enslavements of women, more mutilated children and more riots and public violence; because such an emasculated culture cannot resist and may only succumb to a hostile patriarchy. And that patriarchy is Islam.
Modern Western feminism is the principal tool through which the most retrograde, aggressive and misogynistic patriarchy in the world today, Islam, will consume us.
Just look at Sweden.