A Nation Undefended

Who defends a nation? It’s not women, or children, or recently arrived immigrants. It is always the men who resist invasion and plunder. At certain times, men are called upon to become warriors.

So it makes sense that if alien forces seek to subdue a country, to take it over and exploit its resources, men would be the primary target. Incapacitate the men by modern, surreptitious methods such as psychological warfare (4GW) and practically all resistance is removed. Co-opt the institutions, and demean and traduce the males, emasculating them, and malevolent forces can progress unimpeded.

Recently I witnessed the sharp end of this, and detailed some of the travesties against men I encountered here. To illustrate, let me turn some tables, exchanging the sexes.

Consider cuckolding by women, a “sex offence” by definition. David Buss, probably the best-known evolutionary psychologist, has detailed that female extra-marital trysts tend to occur during the woman’s fertile period, when she is ovulating. Statistics involving DNA tests over more than a decade indicate that about 1 in 6 children in Britain have a different father than the one they believe. This is wrongdoing on a massive scale. Firstly the woman has broken what is supposed to be a solemn vow. Secondly and much more seriously, if she falls pregnant, a man is tricked into expending resources on a child which is not his. His responsibilities last from infancy to adulthood (and perhaps beyond), and those considerable financial and emotional investments arise from betrayal.

Suppose then that we were to apply the new standards to this crime, the standards which are currently being applied to men. That is, retroactively applying laws based on what are often dubious memories of events alleged to have occurred up to forty years previously. This, incidentally, is contrary to the Statute of Limitations if not the now abrogated British Constitution. Another class of “crimes” which are certainly contrary to Common Law is the new offences invoking what they think you intended to do, what you were thinking at the time, or your motivations, instead of what you actually did.

Suppose that the State were to DNA-test anyone under 40 to establish whether their mother had engaged in this deceit, and imprison the women for fraud if they had. This is comparable to what is being done to men, and men have been imprisoned for domestic violence even when their spouse has objected to the prosecution. Except that in this hypothetical but entirely feasible scenario, the crime would be proven scientifically and irrefutably, with DNA evidence.

Or, turning another table, imagine that the thousands of “asylum-seekers” arriving on British shores were not almost entirely composed of young, military-age men, but instead consisted of petite and feminine young women, from the Orient say. The female instinct is to intensify male breeding competition (selecting for fitness), but if the situation were reversed women would never countenance such competition. There would be no ranks of women holding “Refugees Welcome” signs and similar advocacy.

What a disaster the emancipation of Jews and women has been! It’s said that “Doing what’s popular is rarely doing what’s right, and doing what’s right is rarely popular” but giving women the vote in 1918 was neither right nor popular.

Female influence has led to a dearth of critical thinking and objectivity. Instead there is sycophantic woman-worship, with men expressing emotions which are overwhelmingly borrowed second-hand from women. Instead of caring wives and mothers we have women addicted to smartphones and fussing over dogs and cats. Instead of warriors we have simps pushing prams.