White countries need White Shariah

I didn’t know that you are a fundamentalist Pagan turned Christian.

Seems like a cool dude:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glRbKOahBrY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBGH1ldybsQ[/youtube]

Ah, Emily, the “Pistachio Girl” who dreams of disparaging people unless they are giving her money, then she smiles, she charms, she looks them in the eyes with a connection. A bitch who would do anything to get her movie made. Let your mother pick your white, alpha, top-o-the-hierarchy husband and live under your white sharia or shut the fuck up! It’s been over a year since you coined white sharia, time to live your lies dumbass! Stop coddling yourself, Emily! Surrender your freedom and your womb.

“This post was made by WendyDarling who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.”

Nah.

Beta males. Kek.

In memory of my signature… you shall be missed

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNvFPKujc5w[/youtube]

I think one of the biggest issues us WHITE SHARIA folk face is sexism.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZrAUJ3dGJU[/youtube]

Women don’t want weak faggots, they want fascists. Yet Western men continuously insist on being weak faggots. So women import immigrants in hopes that some of them turn out not to be weak faggots.

All women really want is for a powerful masculine order to ruthlessly subjugate them, because they associate being dominated with being protected and cared for. When they aren’t dominated they act out until men finally say “ENOUGH” and put women in their place. Women are instinctively aware of their weakness and incompetence with regards to fulfilling masculine duties so if they are in control they know something is wrong, which is why they act out until strong men restore order. Because all women really want is a safe environment in which to raise their children, where they aren’t burdened with masculine responsibilities of protection and provision and are thus free to carry out the feminine role evolution designed them to carry out. And is this really too much that they’re asking for, fellow men?

See how happy she is?

NOT subjugating women means not giving women what they truly want. It is the true sexism and misogyny. The inferior males, these despicable faggots and cucks, THEY are the true sexists.

All us WHITE SHARIA folk advocate is giving women what they want.

See how happy and satisfied they look? Why do you not want women to be happy? Why do you hate women?

Those are some interesting ways you connect the dots, but I don’t think psychologically it’s that straightforward. Many powerful men have a desire to be dominated by a woman (dominatrix); in fact many of dominatrix’ clientele include men in the positions of power. We can’t say that its because these men, too, are trying to get in touch with their evolutionary Feminine side, can we? It is something else that is driving them, a desire for a release from responsibility and stress/power, even self, and that is something that is unisex, psychologically. There may be additional factors, depending on psychological history (trauma, emotional pain, etc.). It is not a ‘healthy’ coping behavior, in my opinion, whether it is done by men or women. There may be advocates for it (like trixie) but I’d say that it does more harm to the person than good. I would equate something like this to someone who cuts themselves to get rid of some kind of deep psychological stress or pain, it would merely serve as a distraction of sorts, not as a cure. In these cases enduring pain 2 to forget pain 1 is not a solution in my opinion. People may do it, and it may actually work for them, but it’s not the best/optimal solution.

Powerful does not necessarily equal masculine in this society. In particular not in ‘civil’ society.
Secondly, I heard that this idea of so many powerful men who go to a dominatrix is a lie which has been put into circulation.

The sales and reader demographics of 50 shades of grey suggests to me that most women like a dominant male as a lover.

I’d file 50 shades of grey with Harry Potter somewhere, because to me it’s just some kind of children’s/juvenile fantasy, not something to be taken seriously.
What need would a man have who already had everything under his control/power? Those who do not have it want it, so I can say it is the disempowered man who wants to dominate others, because it is his need. He gains something; the man who already has it doesn’t gain anything he doesn’t already have ( he has no such need anymore).

It could be considered a kind of decadence I suppose. Only after you secure the basics can you venture off into eccentric stuff. Many powerful characters become quirky and adopt strange habits that are often uncharacteristic to their degree of power. Think of godfather figure, for example, who spoke softly but carried a big stick as well.

Pandora,

You’re not that far off. The average woman is a kind of a child/juvenile. A woman is a half-child, half-adult. Most women aren’t much more emotionally mature than this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR1HtkiTmYU[/youtube]

Yeah yeah I get it, I know that you, Pandora, in specific, aren’t like that. But most are.

Just like the little girl is programmed by her daddy into wanting to vote for Trump, women are programmed by their daddy, daddy state, into adopting certain political positions too.

They don’t know exactly why these positions are good, what their long-term consequences are, even what their short-term consequences are, and what possible side-effects they can have, but they want to vote.

Imagine how catastrophic it would be if such people had any sort of political power. Wait, you don’t have to imagine anything, because they do.

They were first fed what to think, told they have freedom of expression, then they use their freedom to regurgitate nonsense they were told, which is often self-destructive. The whole thing is is just insane.

Then if they don’t have it their way, they throw these childish tantrums, exactly like the little girl in the video. It baffles me how anybody can seriously advocate that women should have any place in politics whatsoever.

Anyways my point about 50 Shades of Grey is that it without a doubt indicates what women in general they desire sexually, which is to be dominated by a fit man of a high social status.

Whereas the masculine sexual fantasy is something more akin to what the pictures I provided in this thread illustrate.

For example, off the top of my head my fantasy would be to sit on a throne like the king in my sig while a woman in lingerie or leather slowly and sexily crawls to me on all fours and tells me she is mine to use however I please.

Goddamn I’m laughing so hard at that video. It’s all cute and funny and shits and giggles until you actually give these girls/women rights.

Then it becomes scary as the very survival of the group is threatened by their immaturity and idiocy.

Imagine if that little girl could vote and if opposing her opinions (or rather, the opinions she parrots) could be considered “hate speech”. It’s kind of what we have now.

Stop peeking! :evilfun: :laughing:

If adult people read that stuff, and they do, then calling it childish or them childish doesn’t change that they do read that stuff.
If you call it only a game, only some quirky fantasy, whatever you try to minimise it as a present norm, doesn’t change the amount of readership and what they like to read.

If a man wants a stable family then he will have to dominate his wife. He needs to be the leader or she will be flakey and bring the family apart.
You are right, men have needs.
Being dominant and having a family also feels good to the healthy man. It promotes his well-being within a family and it secures offspring in which he can also invest, mimetically and with resources.

Being dominant in a relationship is not very good for the woman herself, if her goal is having a stable family and having a man who invests in her offspring.
But, many women can afford to follow the created fashion trend of being more dominant even if they were not inclined to it themselves in a more neutral social environment because they get support from the government. The government which under the current leadership wants women to not have children and rather be incorporated into the corporate system. Because why promote your own people having offspring of their own if you don’t see them as your people but just some economic unit to be replaced by just any other unit available.

That being said, there is a reason why women are always trying to take the lead away from the man.
It’s her way of making sure that she doesn’t follow a loser but a worthy leader.

This thread is a disgrace to Europeans. If you had any respect for our people you would take it down. Does Europe have so few noble traditions that you must seek out Islam for inspiration? If you wish to counter the ill effects of feminism, why not do it by putting something worthy in its place? Why resort to such reactive tactics?

You think the best thing to do for women is whatever makes them happy, even if it is a contribution to degeneracy?

There is an example from European history, why don’t you follow that? Or are you a muslim?

When Europeans come looking for their own, why don’t you provide them a display of virtue rather than further depths of degeneracy to revel in?

And your defense of dictatorship in other threads is a further betrayal of Europe. Are you completely unaware that the regime which reveals the European spirit is aristocracy and not dictatorship?