RSS Feed
September 30th, 2020 
Awake Goy 
You might wonder what could be a link between feminism and recent BLM “protests”?
I am kidding, nobody could ever ponder this useless question, although, it has a definite answer that makes a lot of sense on its own. The link is the prominent among white female “protesters” sexual theme of symbolic offering themselves to black males.
This recent wave of “I only suck black” plaques rolling the streets of western cities rhymes with the almost identical “refugees welcome” wave, consisting of white female of reproductive age. This outrageous phenomenon is very interesting if you manage to overcome your outrage. I implore you to set emotions aside, and look into the biological core of human behaviours, look trough the mist of emotions, like a party that has no skin in this game.
This particular behaviour in its ubiquity among the certain social strata constitutes an ocean of evidence in support of the Genetic Hypothesis Of Feminism, in the light of “I Suck Black” and “Refugees Welcome” this hypothesis shines like a diamond.
The hypothesis itself is very simple: if there is a “rape gene” that causes violent sexual behaviour in males, this same gene is causing feminism in females.
It was proposed in order to explain the feminist push against the presumption of innocence in our justice system (if you excuse me using the word “justice” in 2020). The evidence is: “Title IX”, “rape shield”, “Bill C-51”, “Duluth model”, “meetoo”, “believe victims” and the multitude of nameless anti-justice feminist initiatives across the West, you name them. I am sure you know dozens names of unjustly destroyed men and boys.
We are going to connect the dots between “a gene” and “a legal initiative” — you can realize it is quite a task. But fear not, it is not difficult at all, and far from boring.
You can see the leitmotif of all the named feministic “laws” and the ENTIRE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAPE RELATED LAWS is the abolition of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. Only recently feminists started talking openly against the presumption of innocence, but in retrospection you must see that the relevant laws are growing progressively less provable for the last century. So the evidence is solid: on one hand they openly declare X, on the other hand the X is being gradually constructed over time, and you can not accuse me of “seeing X”, because the X is also openly declared.
The biggest practical effect of such development is the removal of the distinction between legal and illegal (in our case between normal sex and real violence) — without the effing presumption we simply can not determine the guilt! The Presumption is not a manifestation of humanism, it is a manifestation of cold dry logic and common sense — it allows us to distinguish between criminals and falsely accused. Without the Presumption all false accusations result in convictions! And it removes…. It removes the motivation to obey the law!!! Since you are going to jail anyway, why bother following laws?
I tell you why! Because some people are just good regardless of the formal laws! Some males don’t rape females because they DO NOT WANT IT. And these people are going to jail just as well as rapists! Thus feminism created a strong deterrent for reproduction of peaceful males, which is at the same time a practical reduction of reproductive capacity of those males — you can not reproduce in jail.
By treating peaceful males as rapists, feminism (a) reduces the reproduction capacity of peaceful males (b) deters them from reproduction (c) increases the reproduction capacity of rapists (by flooding the courts with false accusations, thus reducing their capacity to prosecute rapists, and by removing competition created by non-rapists). Who profits?! The principal profiteer here… No, not j-lawyers, lawyers are kindergarteners by comparison. The Principal profiteer is any gene specific to rapists. Pay attention, this statement does not depend on the existence of a “rape gene”: any gene that is prevalent in the population of rapists automatically receives profit from mistreatment of non-rapists in such a manner that increases the relative reproductive capacity of rapists. This is a MATHEMATICAL FACT, not a moral judgement.
So, if a rape gene exists, then feminists are SELECTING FOR IT, through social and political mechanisms. And this is an observable fact since we clearly observe the link between feminism and the legal initiatives listed above.
Posted in 
Tags: 
