Source article here:
Currently, there is a very high birth rate in Africa and in Muslim countries, the average total fertility rate is 4 in Africa and 3,1 in Muslim countries. Africa is projected to have 4 billion people, and MENA 1 billion people. Nigeria alone is projected to have 400 million people in 2050. In most Latino countries, there is a positive birth rate, with the exception of Brasil. Birth rate is positive in India as well. On the other hand, white female TFR in the US is 1.75, in Europe 1.5, in Canada 1.5. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in the event of race mixing, you will need more than 2.1 in order to simply sustain the white population at one level. Even in western countries with relatively high birth rates, the people who are having kids are usually non-white women, as more than 50 percent of US newborn and more than 37 percent of French newborn (1) are already non-white. White female TFR is negative in all western countries. Therefore white people will disappear if they do not change their behavior.
In all feminist countries, you have negative birth rates that could lead to the disappearance of the native population if birth rates are not raised. Whites in the US are projected to disappear in 300 years. In all feminist societies you have massive third-worldization, lowering of IQ, race mixing with blacks, conversions to Islam, etc. The most feminist country in the world – Sweden, is dying right now due to third world/Muslim immigration. (2) Muslims are outbreeding Europeans in almost all European countries. (3)
Barbarism, to paraphrase Lenin, is the last stage of feminism. In decadent Rome, they were ultimately forced to tax single people in order to get them to marry and have kids. Remember what happened to the late Roman Empire (low birth rates, people did not want to get married, infanticide, extreme promiscuity, repeal of anti-luxury laws, etc.). Those masses of low IQ people swarming the Europeans are merely the symptom, not the cause. They are just like the opportunistic infection that takes advantage of an already weakened organism. The real cause though, is the weak immune system of the organism.
Luxury corrupts. Feminism is decadent behavior that can only occur in rich and powerful countries, who feel that they are not threatened by anything, and can therefore engage in various types of decadent behaviors that are actually weakening them. The British historian Sir John Glubb noticed that proto-feminism emerged in the later stages of various civilizations, before they collapsed (20). These are the stages of civilizations:
The age of outburst (or pioneers).
The age of conquests.
The age of commerce.
The age of affluence.
The age of intellect.
The age of decadence. (We are here. Decline could also be observed, as the western share of the world's economy and population is constantly declining, while at the same time the West has become the most indebted region of the world.)
The age of decline and collapse.
This is how feminism destroys itself:
It destroys itself due to its low, negative birth rates, leading to population decline of the feminised group. (You could clearly observe this in Europe, where there is Islamization going on and European cultures and peoples are dying). In the US, liberal white women are the group with the lowest birth rate and republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states. Coincidentally or not, the white women with the highest birth rate are from countries that banned abortion (Argentine and Ireland). One of the reasons why German women do not want to vote for their anti-immigration party is because they don't want to be mothers or to have more than one kid. (4)
It destroys itself because it is dysgenic (dumb women have more kids, while smart and career women are often childless). For example 40 percent of German college educated women are childless. (5) This leads to an IQ drop. Right now the IQ of western populations is dropping, and east Asian students are now outperforming western students according to PISA surveys.(6)
Reverse evolution: women in leadership positions are more likely to be childless: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jqsHWJn6X0E/V4PghmFlKOI/AAAAAAAAAFk/P19PGiGY3WkWuOxnFT_EJrJ48WDE2T9MQCLcB/s1600/maymerkel-large_trans%252B%252BqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png
When i saw the Economist’s cover for 2016, http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SmwpzySiiUc/0.jpg
i saw 3 western women on it: Angela Merkel (0 kids), Hillary Clinton (1 kid), and Janet Yellen (1 kid). Do you know what this means? It means that those women are dysgenic. That the future women are not going to look or behave like them. Future women will be probably brown or Muslim, and will be dumber than them. That’s quite ironic. The most successful women today are those with the weakest genes. Therefore they are not successful from evolutionary point of view, and the women of the future are not going to look or behave as they do.
3 It destroys itself because according to various studies, women are less xenophobic, and more foreigner friendly, compared to men. (7) They will welcome everyone. In other words, say hello to Refugee Crisis. Sweden, the most feminised country on the planet, willingly took more refugees per capita (who are mostly young single black and Islamic males) than anyone else in Europe. And many people are calling Germany crazy for taking lots of Muslim refugees. Well, Sweden is even crazier than Germany. 75 percent of western converts to Islam are women (8), as well as the vast majority of whites who mix with blacks. In Sweden, the more feminist the political party, the more it wants to open the borders. (9)
Thus feminised groups will open their borders (and their legs) to everyone and everybody, including to more masculine groups who have more kids, leading to the feminised group becoming a minority in its own country. This could be also observed in the real world. All currently feminised groups, such as western Europeans and white north Americans, have open borders policies and are becoming minorities in their own countries. In contrast, less feminised ethnic groups (Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Israeli Jews, East Asians) have closed borders and are more openly nationalist and xenophobic.
Women, in general, have similar behavior to that of minority non-white groups, so they reinforce each other. This could be also called the “women – minority alliance”. You will see lots of similarities between female behavior and minority/third worlder behavior. Such as:
Both use similar language – (I'm a victim, I'm oppressed by big bad white males, give me, give me, down with the 1950s).
Demand special quotas and affirmative action for their group.
Vote for more taxes/government/welfare, pay a small amount of all taxes, consume the vast majority of welfare, concentrate in big urban centers (where there is stuff to redistribute and infrastructure to exploit), and work mostly in public/government sector jobs.
One complains about white privilege, the other complains about male privilege. Uses magical words like sexist or racist, in order to obtain positions/stuff.
As you can see, the one group empowers the other, and they jointly create an environment that is particularly well suited towards parasitism upon white men.
What is interesting to me is that feminisation and third-worldization work together. You often hear the phrase “women and minorities”, “racism and sexism”, "white privilege and male privilege" etc. Those words often come together. Why is that? Because women pay only 30 percent of taxes, (10) but receive the vast majority of welfare, pensions and medical care, and benefit from diversity quotas/affirmative action, so they often support other parasitic groups and often work together with them to expand the welfare state and affirmative action/diversity policies. The more influence women have directly leads to more minority influence, and vice versa. There is a correlation between the level of female influence in first world societies and the third-worldization of those societies. You will see the opening of borders and the spread of low IQ immigrants in the most feminist societies, such as Sweden, Norway, Canada, Britain, the US, Germany, etc.
Why is it that low IQ people spread in feminist societies? I mentioned the low birth rate and the dysgenics, but there are other factors behind this as well.
When a bunch of low IQ people move to a feminised country, they will encounter an already existing parasitic environment that is particularly well suited for people like them.
When they enter a feminized society, they will find a welfare state and a massive redistribution system (created by women) already in place, a system they could use and exploit too. If they try to move to Turkey, Israel or Japan, they won't find that.
They will have greater availability of sex: imagine a group of Sudanese immigrating to more male dominated countries like Israel, Turkey or Japan - local men are not going to allow many of the local women to become the Africans' girlfriends or wives. In contrast, those African migrants will find sex and local women more easily available in feminised countries. Intermarriage will be fully acceptable, there will be plenty of women looking for black lovers (the whole world knows about this sexual fetish of many white western women), and there will be zero reaction from the local men. (26)
They will find lower levels of nationalism and xenophobia in the more feminised countries. They will have easier time getting there and staying there. In contrast, they will be promptly deported from countries such as Israel, Turkey or Japan. Local people will protest against them, will segregate themselves from them, and will create an unpleasant environment for the migrants. If those illegals are religious, they will have a hard time converting the local people to their religion, (these attempts could be met with protests and violence) and easy time in more feminised societies (where for example most of the converts to Islam are local women, who often convert in order to marry a Muslim or due to Muslim boyfriend). And, as mentioned above, there will be greater acceptance for intermarriage with the migrants in more feminised western countries.
When low 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 (27), 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.
Basically, many women and minorities have similar (parasitic) behavior and similar (more government, more affirmative action, more quotas, more taxes, more redistribution, more welfare, more “give me, give me”) goals. They also both fear potential white male violence, both complain about "too many white men" dominating this area or that area, and both shout "down with the 1950s". So basically white men in the West are getting attacked by a coalition of their own women working together with minorities. (25)
Female influence in society correlates with the level of nationalism/xenophobia in society.
The more nationalist countries are those with more male influence and no feminism, such as Israel (in many ways Israel is culturally similar to the US of the 60s), Eastern European countries, Muslim countries, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, etc. while, as mentioned above, the more liberal and "tolerant" countries are those with more female influence, such as those from Western Europe and North America.
In more male dominated societies, such as Israel, Japan, Muslim countries, or western countries in the past, marrying out is/was illegal or is very rare. Israeli Jews, for example, are not allowed to marry non-Jews. (13) In the past, when western countries were less feminised and more xenophobic, anti-miscegenation laws were wide spread. As western societies became more feminised, acceptance for "marrying out" and mixed marriages has increased. (24)
Do you think it is a coincidence that western societies became more liberal and opened their borders in the 60s, exactly the decade when contraception became widely available, women were freed from the burden of having multiple kids and entered the work force and politics en masse, and female influence exploded? I don't think so.
This is because:
- Studies show that women are more friendly toward foreigners/people who are not in their group, and care less about their own people/ethnicity/group. Men are tribal, women are relational.
Among children and adolescents, female play-groups tend to emphasize close (and often dyadic) interpersonal interactions (with relatives, friends), while male play-groups emphasize coordinated teams and large groups (tribes). Mastering nature and the environment, something traditionally done by men, required emphasis on larger groups and coordinated teams (tribes). Finding (and keeping) a quality man and raising children, something traditionally done by women, required emphasis on close, often dyadic, interpersonal interactions. And now you know why women (who are relational) watch soap operas, while men (who are tribal) watch football.
Women are less likely to put their personal desires aside in order to help their group. Basically, women are loyal to close people who directly benefit them. Men, in comparison, are also loyal to people with common identity (their tribe). In other words, women have Circle of Friends, while men see themselves as Members of a Group. (7)
2 Studies show that women are more willing to donate to foreigners in need (women are more altruistic towards foreigners/refugees in need). It follows that a country with lots of female influence should be more altruistic towards foreigners. (19)
3 They show that women are more egalitarian than men. (Definition of egalitarian: Someone who believes in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life, and advocates for the removal of inequalities among people). White women have significantly more favorable attitudes toward affirmative action, compared to white men. (28)
4 They show that women are less conservative, less “racist”, and less capitalist than men. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives. (7) (22)
So in virtually all western feminized countries, you will see those things happening:
Economic decline – as share of world GDP. For example Western Europe accounted for 28% of global economic output in 1950 and in 1970. By 1990, this had fallen to 24% and stands at 19% today. A Citigroup forecast suggests it will shrink to 11% by 2030 and 7% by 2050. (11) Similar economic decline is occurring in the US.
Older and declining native population.
Massive third-worldization and foreign (Jewish) infiltration (that infiltration happens easily because females are significantly less xenophobic than males, hence a feminized society will be less xenophobic and more friendly towards foreigners).
It is quite interesting that Jews, who are supposed to be smart, are not willing to implement feminism in Israel, and have large and stable families, very high birth rate (more than 3 kids per woman), few single mothers, higher marriage rate, and lower divorce rate compared to the average westerner. (12) A woman without a man in Israel is seen as something to be remedied; a woman without children – an aberration to be pitied. A Jewish woman in Israel is not allowed to marry a Muslim, and there are vigilante groups looking for women dating arabs (13) (while 75 percent of converts to Islam in the US and UK are local women). I wonder why is that? Maybe because feminism is not good for the Jews (but is good for the destruction of white people of European descent)?
There is a very high marriage rate in Israel, and a very low level of cohabitation without marriage. Only 5 percent of Israeli kids are born to mothers who are not married, compared to 40-50 percent in the West. (14) Why is marriage important? Unmarried women tend to vote for the left, married women – for the right. In the US, 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Obama, while the majority of married women voted against Obama.(15) Therefore a society with a high marriage rate (like Israel, or Japan) will tend to be more nationalist and more right wing.
If you want to get rid of white people, then it makes sense to promote feminism among them. First, it will lead to negative birth rates. Second, it will lead to more tolerance for immigration and open borders. And third, women will hardly care about the presence of Jews in the midst of their society, since women are less xenophobic than men. So I don't think that it is a coincidence that the people who are on record saying they want to get rid of white people of European descent are also supporting feminism in western countries (but not in their own country).
Nationalism correlates with the level of female influence in society. More male influence - more nationalism. More female influence - less nationalism. Men are the immune system of society. They react against invaders and parasitism. Women do not. No wonder our Jewish friends do everything possible to attack male influence in society, the way the HIV virus attacks the immune system of the body. After the HIV virus destroys the immune system, then various bacteria and parasites move in, and then the body dies.
A feminized society will be more tolerant and accepting society, while a masculinized society will be a more nationalist society. It is not a coincidence that Sweden, the most feminized country on the planet, took more refugees per capita than anyone else. There is only one anti-immigration party there (Swedish Democrats) and women were only 36 percent of its voters; the same is true for most anti-immigration parties in Europe. Women are 40 percent of UKIP voters and only 37 percent of AFD voters.(16) Recently, the majority of Austrian women voted for a pro-immigration President, against the wishes of their men. (23) And in the US, of course, it is well known that Donald Trump, the only one who said that he will do something about immigration, is rejected by the vast majority of women. (21).
Have a look at pro-immigration demonstration (lots of women)
and an anti-immigration demonstration (few women)
Look at Black Lives Matter events: you will notice more white women, than white men.
You will also see few women on anti-Islam demonstrations, such as those of PEGIDA.
So white women are not going to fix the islamization/third-worldization problems that the West faces, since, in many ways, they caused those problems in the first place, via “child-free” behavior causing negative birth rates (below population replacement rate), political support for “tolerance”, “multiculturalism”, the welfare state, dysgenic behavior (highly educated women are more likely to be childless compared to less educated women), and due to the fact that they often ally with ethnic minorities against their own men.
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 – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”, border chaos.
Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in females (17). 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 – whichever tribe they end up being with. That is why they are more accepting of foreigners and foreign rule. (18)
So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping anyone in need, regardless of their group. (19)
Therefore, dear westerners, say hello to the Refugee Crisis. It's not going to end any time soon.
Dutch women greet muslim male refugees with the song "Welcome to my land"
I don’t think it is a coincidence that Jews are supporting feminism for western countries, but do not support it for their own country.
My 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 don’t care about ethnicity that much, and are less xenophobic, the country will open it’s borders, 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.
see Sweden's terrible performance in recent PISA student tests, as well as its deterioration throughout the years
compare 2000 vs 2012 performance
Why Are Sweden's PISA Test Scores Falling? Immigration helps explain Sweden’s school trouble.
U.S. Republican states have higher birth rate than liberal states.
Currently, the birth rate of native german women is very low and below replacement rate, just 1.3 kids per woman, with 40 percent of college educated women being childless, so this female attitude is extremely selfish and shortsided and it will obviously lead to german suicide.
Germany agonises over 30% childless women, with the figure rising among female graduates to 40%.
Women in managerial and professional occupations are more likely to be childless.
New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies, internationally recognised expert on intelligence warns.
Notice the deterioration of western countries' student performance throughout the years: compare 2000 - 2006 vs 2012 performance, nowadays asian countries dominate the top 5 positions. The best western performer, Finland, has almost zero non-white minorities and is 97 percent white.
OECD asks what's wrong with Australia's schools?
Vietnam - a poor developing country - now has higher average scores than the U.S. in math and science.
"Negative Flynn effect" observed in Western countries
Average IQ in France has fallen by 4 points per decade due to "biological causes"
Women less conservative, less “racist”, less capitalist, more egalitarian than men
Men exhibit a stronger tendency to favor the in-group over the out-group than women
Women vs Men: Circle of Friends, or Members of a Group?
Women unwilling to take risks on behalf of their group
Women are more focused on the close relationships that they are part of, whereas men are more focused on the groups to which they belong. Men are more likely to put their personal desires aside to help their group, compared to women.
see Green Party programme
Feminist party: "Open the borders"
More women than men support Open Borders in Sweden
Israeli divorce rate is 28 % US divorce rate is 53 %
13% of israeli children live in single parent households compared to more than 40% in the US
Marriage Rates Reported Higher. Divorce Rates Lower for U.S. Jews
TFR for jewish women in Israel is 3,11 - twice as much as that of euro women
Very large gender pay gap reported in Israel
With very few exceptions, Israeli civil law does not permit marriages between Jews and non-Jews within the state of Israel.
Israel Bans Interracial Marriage Book
In Israel, intermarriage viewed as treason
Very high marriage rate reported in Israel
Men more xenophobic than women
Donation Behavior toward In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Role of Gender and Moral Identity
Women are more likely to donate to foreigners, compared to men, who donate to their own people.
Majority of US women reject Donald Trump
Just Google "women and minorities" to see how this works
Arab Migrants Promised ‘Free Blonde Swedish Girls’
No competitive bidding for women only contracts
White undergraduate women have significantly more favorable attitudes toward affirmative action in general and for an affirmative action college policy for Asians, in particular, than do undergraduate white males.
Women more supportive of affirmative action efforts to achieve "racial equality"