Single women vote for foreign conquest and rape

I am opposed to anyone voting, except perhaps married men of property and wealth who are raising or have raised their biological children with their wives, but the worst voters are single women.

Sweden is now the rape capital of the west, due to importation of masses of North Africans to maintain the vote for failed welfare statism.  When Swedish men say “Hands off our women”, Swedish women say “We are not your women”, and vote for more mass nonwhite immigration and ridiculously light slap-on-the-wrist penalties for rape.

Women do not really want the kind of society where sex happens by consent.  (Check the xhamster porn videos preferred by women) Thus single women subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, want our society to be conquered, the men killed, and they themselves sexually enslaved.

In the ancestral environment, if you were a man and your in group was conquered, you were likely to be killed or enslaved, and thus be no ones ancestor.  If you were a woman and your in group was conquered, you were indeed likely to be enslaved – to a successful man in the victorious group who would have children by you, and, knowing his children were his own, raise them well.

So we are in large part descended from men who conquered, and who resisted conquest with absolute determination, and descended from women who took to conquest, abduction, and slavery like a duck to water.

The strong independent woman, the woman living the lifestyle that feminism and school teaches her she should have, has few or no children, for children take two, and the commitment to stick it out when things go bad.  In the ancestral environment, if you were a strong independent woman you were surrounded by weak contemptible men, in which case abduction, rape, and slavery was a good way to meet manly men.

Suppose the Taliban was to somehow do a Boko Haram and abduct a bunch of baristas with post graduate degrees in victim studies and a hundred thousand dollars of student debt.  They would probably wind up  having six children and umpteen grandchildren each, so we would expect women to have evolved to rather like this sort of thing.

Or, alternatively, you can believe that women was created to be a helpmeet to man, and in the fall was condemned to desire this sort of thing.

Lots of existing societies have arranged marriages or marriage by abduction.  It seems to work just fine.  When parents, society, or respectable authority tell women to fuck someone, they fuck him, and are happy to do so.

Large numbers of well educated and wealthy English gentlewomen in eighteenth century England married whom they were damned well told to, and I don’t see any memoirs or books from any of them complaining about it.

We hear a lot about women being involuntarily trafficked to brothels, and sometimes it happens, though less than advertised, but when white nights go forth to rescue these poor oppressed and victimized damsels in distress, they are invariably disappointed.

Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli, whereas commanding a woman to warm some man’s bed is like commanding children to eat their icecream.

In eighteenth century Australia there was a fair bit of lighthearted and unserious female resistance to shotgun marriages, they were far from entirely compliant, but looking at these incidents, those resisting shotgun marriage do not seem like poor pitiful victims of male sexual desire, but lustful bawds who were worried that the party was going to end.

Since Victorian times, historians have sought to depict eighteenth century Australian women as sexually exploited and sexually hyper oppressed, but they just cannot seem to find any examples of women seriously resenting, complaining about or resisting this supposedly horrid extreme sexual oppression. We see lots of disciplinary issues where women were punished for talking back to the husband that they were assigned to, or punished for failing to work as directed by their husband, or being absent without leave for short periods. We just don’t see any disciplinary issues, zero, despite vigorous and alarmingly imaginative search by historians, that seem plausibly related to disinclination to go to bed with the man to whom she was assigned.

Consent is useful and valuable to the extent that a women voluntarily swears to honor and obey her husband, and to stick it out till parted by death, and eighteenth century Australian authorities were pretty keen on obtaining more or less voluntary consent for that purpose.  If she is not credibly swearing that before God and man, consent serves no useful purpose to husband, family and society, women don’t really like it all that much, and the eighteenth century British and Australian authorities were untroubled by the lack of it.

11 Responses to “Single women vote for foreign conquest and rape”

  1. […] The reason for indirect use of Darwin is that our direct interventions are clumsy because they take into account far too few of the factors involved. Jim writes a convincing post about the evolution of female political inclinations: […]

  2. Alan J. Perrick says:

    One more thought on similar lines:

    Is explicitly asking for a woman’s vote as is commonplace in demotist societies, similar to explicitly asking for sexual consent in that it causes women to despise, resent and distrust those doing so?

    “Full democracy”, the end product of Republicanism, thusly has yet another case made against it…


  3. Alan J. Perrick says:


    Probably to the woman’s less developed brain (she appears to rely entirely too much on her heart, even worse than men in this regard) having sex with some-one is like a holistic learning experience. When the Feminists of today make such a big deal about “consent”, this is reminding the woman that she has a comparable amount of power compared to the one she is about to get it on with, which makes her wonder how much she can learn from that individual, and whether it’s worth all of the sweat since she wouldn’t be learning much if anything from somebody who has around the same amount of experience or power (usually the product of experience).

    Because you used the word “helpmeet”, “Jim” as did the chicken-commentor ‘neath the other blogpost, I will now give my opinion on that word. It seems that this one has been misinterpreted through the centuries, and it did seem as if that was the case from the chicken-commentor (who has apparently since “flown the coop”). Whilst the “meet” is now generally used only for the meaning of together or gathering and similar, in the more civilised Elizabethan period, “meet” was understood as having the meaning of “appropriate”. Then, who decides what sort of “help” is “meet” or appropriate? Of course, it would be the more powerful individuals (or society) around that woman who decides that…

    Best regards,


  4. Dave says:

    To the young female voter, big government is the father she never knew and the husband she’ll never have.

    • jim says:

      Beautiful line.

      • Dave says:

        Government is not the League of Women Voters, ladies, it’s the League of Men with Guns. And if those Men don’t get paid because too much money was spent on shit women think is important, the leaders elected by women will be thrown out on their asses.

        When I post this comment on any board frequented by women, it is quickly censored, so women will only learn its truth when it actually happens.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Security personnel already have a tendency to dislike the politicians in power. After all, security personnel tend to lean more to the right. But security personnel are also inclined towards obedience to the chain of command and to accepting the legitimacy of the Constitutionally-mandated elected government that sits on top of their chain of command. Now if this were to be abolished–perhaps by Hillary attempting to do a Julius Caesar to avoid a conviction (like the original), then I think security forces would resist simply because the Constitutionally-ordained authority would no longer be in place…

  5. peppermint says:

    » Commanding a woman to clean some man’s floor and cook his meals is like commanding children to eat their broccoli

    Has a woman ever broken up with a man because he was too controlling? Or do women always complain that a man was too controlling after having broken up with him? White knights need to ask themselves this question.

    My girlfriend loves it when I tell her what to do. Presumably, she would get butthurt about it if I were to break up with her.

    Also, christcuckery is the enemy of the White race and Western civilization till the bitter end, just look at which states vote for Ted Cruz.

Leave a Reply