Frame Tests and the Fate of the West, Part 1

This post provides an example of a double standard in female frame-testing of men. Its main point is to illustrate a problem to be discussed further in a second post. (Frame testing is when a woman tests a man to see if he’s a strong male or a weak male, for mating purposes. It’s a fundamental aspect of female sexual psychology.)

Photos of “tough guy” female Swedish politicians, then photos of them walking with smiles past a Muslim man, while they wear hijabs or whatever.

Then there’s Canadian tough guy lesbian politician, who visited a mosque and was told by the imam, you have to sit quietly in the corner because the men are praying, and you have to wear a hijab, and you have to sit aside there until we let you know we’re finished. And she did! This lesbian feminist meekly sat there, as ordered by a man. (Link with photo.)

Now what would happen if a white Christian pastor said the same thing to her? He’d just be ignored. Possibly, she’d tell her security forces to press the issue, and he’d have to admit her or risk being injured in an ensuing scuffle. Certainly, at a minimum she’d walk out, there’d be a media firestorm, and the pastor would be subjected to social media death threats and almost certainly dismissed from his church.

So it’s not just a matter of western men having enough balls to tell a woman to sit aside while the men pray. It’s that a white western non-Muslim man knows that she wouldn’t comply with that order if it comes from him. So it becomes, not a matter of cowardice, but of simple time-wasting. Why waste time pushing an issue where the best possible outcome is that the woman refuses and nothing else happens?

Well, maybe we should. Maybe we should push the issue, not because women shouldn’t be present when men are praying, but to force the hypocrisy and double-standard into the limelight. (Yes, I know that hypocrisy doesn’t bother the Left. But the point of such a move would not be to get leftists to change their minds. The point would be to present an outrageous double standard to the public. Make the left repudiate the hypocrisy or, since they almost certainly won’t, make them take the reputational damage of defending it.)

Anyway, you see part of the problem here; there’s a certain circularity to this frame test (a.k.a. shit test):

The Canadian female politician submitted to the Muslim man because that’s what one does in Canada now.
And that’s what one does in Canada now because refusing to submit to him will just get you kicked out of the mosque.
And you’ll get kicked out of the mosque because you won’t resist when the Muslim man kicks you out.
And you won’t resist because that’s just not what a liberal woman does in Canada when confronted by a firm Muslim man.

Yes, this goes in a circle. That’s part of my point. Western women give in to foreign invaders, but not to their own men. (They persecute their own men using the government and other socially powerful mechanisms.) And they do this because Muslim men are more powerful (at least in this sense). And Muslim men are more powerful because women give in to them, but not to their own men.

All the while western women sneer at western men for not being powerful enough. But it’s the women’s own behavior that creates the unequal social power! What exactly do you expect us to do, honey? Do you want a white Christian priest to pick a fight with five of your armed security guards? WTF? How is that a reasonable fight to expect him to win?
(And do you seriously not notice the fucking circularity in your own fucktarded shit test?)

You see the problem? If women were aware of shit testing at a conscious level and understood what a moronic shit test this sort of thing is, they’d stop it. BUT THEY AREN’T. THE FEMALE BRAIN DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. They’re just shit testing, automatically, as required by their genetic hardwiring. Hence the outrageous double standard and flinging of a shit test that it’s absurd to expect a priest to be able to pass.

Thus the problem: In a scenario with a white Christian priest, The woman seriously wants him to lose. She’s fighting to win! She has armed security guards with her precisely to make this happen! She is NOT subconsciously thinking, “I hope he beats me.” No, she’s trying to beat him. Yes, it’s crazy, but that’s the nature of shit tests.

A sane woman would think, “Why the fuck am I doing this?” and stop it. But sane left-wing women aren’t exactly in large supply.

This is why female sexual psychology is a devastating force for any society that does not control it. Every traditional society has kept women out of important decision-making positions. These examples illustrate why: Women are too inclined to submit to male invaders showing strong frame, while shit testing their own men, with whom they are more familiar. If the native men allow this to go on long enough, it creates a full-bore invasion.

“But how,” you ask, “did men historically understand this, and move to keep women away from this kind of power?”

The fearsome answer: Not all of them did.

Norma McCorvey, R.I.P.

Norma McCorvey, the woman who was “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade, died a few days ago. Since she was in the news, I learned that she repented years after that court case and became a pro-life activist. She even started a pro-life group called Roe No More.

Now THERE’S something the Narrative usually doesn’t tell you!

Video: Prominent Dems call for controlled borders

Via Heartiste:

Some choice quotes:

Bill Clinton:
“All Americans… are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might have otherwise been held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. …
That’s why our Administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of more border guards. By deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before.”

Hillary Clinton:
“There isn’t any sensible approach except to… secure our borders (with) technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary…
I voted numerous times when I was Senator, to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.”

Chuck Schumer:
“People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally. When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers’ we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.”

B. Hussein Obama:
“We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants… We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked…”

Admit Refugees, Get Slaughtered

Vox Day at Vox Popoli:

Last summer, a number of normally sensible people were shocked when I said that the European governments would be wise to sink the refugee ships that were crossing the Mediterranean… But my opinion is not based on any heartlessness or cruelty, it is based on knowledge of history. As it happened, I’ve been reading Charles Oman’s The Byzantine Empire, and the following incident caught my attention…

Day quotes from an account, set during the Roman Empire, of Visigoths under devastating attack from Huns. The onslaught eventually pushed the Visigoths against the Danube River, which formed the border of the Roman Empire at that point. Desperate, they appealed to the Empire to let them cross the river into Roman territory. As described by an observer of that period:

All the multitude that had escaped from the murderous savagery of the Huns—no less than 200,000 fighting men, besides women and old men and children—-were there on the river bank, stretching out their hands with loud lamentations, and earnestly supplicating leave to cross, bewailing their calamity, and promising that they would ever faithfully adhere to the imperial alliance if only the boon was granted them.

Day remarks,
Who among you would be so heartless, so cruel, as to deny hundreds of thousands of desperate women and children refuge from some of the most savage warriors ever to slaughter the innocent in the recorded history of Man?

Emperor Valens decided to be charitable and – he thought – prudent. He told the Goths they could cross into Roman territory if they would surrender their weapons and provide hostages to the Romans. Soon after they had crossed the river they started refusing to surrender their weapons. Hungry Goths attacked a marketplace and when Roman soldiers tried to repel them, they killed the soldiers.

As to the hostages,

The Goths drew their swords and cut their way out of the palace. Then riding to the nearest camp of his followers, Fritigern told his tale, and bade them take up arms against Rome. There followed a year of desperate fighting all along the Danube…

Eventually things came to a head in a battle against the Goths, led by the Emperor himself.

The Romans were slaughtered.

More than forty thousand of them were killed, including the Emperor who had so mercifully allowed the Visigoth refugees to enter his land.

38 years after the Goths crossed the Danube, Alaric the Goth sacked Rome itself.

The lesson here is too obvious to require mentioning. Wait, unless you’re a leftist. So, to be so clear that even lefties get the point:

And that, my dear bleeding heart moralists, is why you always sink the damn ships.

Lawless Judiciary, Part 12,834,019

It is not a subtle point that the President has the right to restrict immigration. It’s a blatant and undeniable aspect of US law, specifically U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182:

Federal Immigration law section 1182(f): (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

(Via Kakistocracy. Here’s a related link at Marketwatch, which if anything has an anti-Trump bias.)

So when any judge “decides” that Trump’s Executive Order on immigration is illegal, that judge is knowingly, brazenly lying.

We need to fundamentally change the judiciary’s role in the U.S. It will be good if Trump simply ignores an illegal ruling from the Supreme Court (should such happen) and orders immigration enforcement personnel to enforce his Executive Order, over the protests of the Court. I have hope Trump will do this if it comes to it.

It will be even better if, in addition to that, we reconstruct the government to make it explicit that the judiciary’s power is limited. However, there’s no way to do this that would be totally unambiguous, as far as I can see.

Therefore, we have to do away with an unelected judiciary. Including at the Supreme Court level.

What we have now is unelected dictators who feel absolutely at liberty to ignore the law, convinced they will never face any negative consequences. The sheer smugness in their blatant flouting of the law! A judge who reads the Constitution and finds a right to homosexual “marriage” in it, is a judge who feels that his position is absolutely secure. The insult to your intelligence is not subtle, or accidental.

Similarly, a judge who reads the passage above on federal immigration law and asserts that it prevents Trump from controlling immigration (!), or reviews the history of the nation’s restrictions on immigration and claims the Founding Fathers intended open borders, is a judge who feels absolutely sure that nothing unpleasant is ever going to happen to him as a result. It is a judge who is giving you a cocky smirk and saying, “What are you going to do about it?”

That question must be answered. And it must be answered sharply and painfully.

You cannot let someone abuse you and then say, to your face, “I can do whatever I want to you, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” without beating them down. It’s an existential issue, because if you don’t beat them down they will think they can do whatever they please to you in the future.

Make no mistake, these rulings are a deliberate shit test. This is the Left consciously testing us to see how far they can push us and get away with it.

What we are faced with now is dictatorship. That’s not a figure of speech; it is the literal state of affairs. There is a word in the English language for a person who
(1) makes law at will, unconstrained by tradition, institutions, or any other limits,
(2) is not elected.
Such a person is a dictator. This is speaking precisely, not rhetorically.

Since we can’t effectively prevent them from making up whatever laws they please, we are going to have to make them accountable to voters. Yes, the Constitution is going to have to be changed. This is not going to happen without… um… significant institutional reconstruction.

But that’s a reform for a little bit of a longer horizon. The immediately important thing is to ignore the “judge’s” ruling. And if this goes to the Supreme Court and the Court defies the law and the Constitution, then Trump and his enforcement apparatus must ignore the Supreme Court.

The DHA and the INS, or whoever enforces immigration law these days, must simply ignore the Supreme Court. And Trump should mobilize the military if that’s necessary.

Yes, we are rapidly heading for a Constitutional crisis. But the Left is seeing how much we’ll put up with, and we’ve put up with so much over the last 50 years that it has now reached the point of them saying, “Let’s see if they’re willing to go all the way to a Constitutional crisis!” Our answer must be “Yes,” otherwise it’s slavery to unelected dictators.

By the way, if the Supreme Court does hand down an open borders ruling, it’s not certain
(1) What Trump will tell the DHS, the INS, and the military to do,
(2) what they’ll do if he points out that the Court’s ruling is illegal and unconstitutional and tells them to ignore it, or
(3) that we’ll win any conflict that will arise out of such a scenario.

However, it’s certain that we’ll be totally defeated if we cave in on immigration, so there’s nothing to lose. This may end in a no-foolin’ shooting civil war. But so be it. Leftists – as the history of the 20th and 21st centuries bears out – have a tendency to get overcocky, which can’t be slapped down with mere words. At some point you have to actually show them, by direct action, that there really are limits to what normal people will let them get away with.