Self-Sacrifice as Virtue

Martyrdom is only a powerful force in society if the narrative of a martyr is promoted as heroic or religious myth. In the case of the RMS Titanic disaster, a much celebrated myth with no connection to maritime law arose:

Women and children first.

Perhaps this myth was promoted for public relations purposes by the passenger ships.

In other maritime disasters, women tended to fare poorly. According to a study by Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson of Uppsala University, a more accurate cliché is the following:

Every man for himself.

This just goes to show that for most men, women and children are a luxury to be enjoyed during good times rather than a life necessity beyond the mere sexual.

Hence, self-sacrifice among men is generally framed as a duty under State, Church, or ideology, with such duty often enforced at the barrel of a gun. In addition, there might be a reward by way of payment for services, or the possibility of social advancement through glory, assuming that one survives the experience; or payment to the survivors if not.

Alternatively, civilian life might offer so few rewards that the adventure itself is the reward.

Who then is to promote self-sacrifice among women as virtue when even the slightest limit on a woman’s choices is framed as “Patriarchy?” Other women is who.

Essentially, women police other women to ensure that the social behaviors of the particular circle are maintained as a standard. Men will also police other men.

Meanwhile, martyrdom of women being severely psychologically wounded (that is raped and degraded) at the hands of Jihadists is surely beginning to penetrate popular consciousness. However actual deaths at the hands of Jihadists are surely higher on men. Besides, paradoxically, women tend to distance themselves from female victims except to promote convenient political narratives.

In a sense, withstanding the advances of these rapefugees is being framed as necessary civilian sacrifice in service to the noble objective of “compassion”.

Exploitation of women by the narratives promoted by other women well exceeds anything that non-Islamic heterosexual men can devise.

I am one of the few voices so far who dares to include within Jihad the largely overlapping movements of La Raza and Black Lives Matter. Given that we have a Catholic Pope who is an Islamic appeaser, as well as the reality that oil producing nations in Latin America are politically subordinate in terms of oil economics to Mideast interests, La Raza becomes a weapon of Jihad whether by default or design. Drug economics also play a role in terms of the rise of Hispanic gangs in the U.S. and throughout Latin America, along with cooperation with Islamic-based drug trafficking.

Myriad pressures of rival gang activity to include outright genocide, the flood of drugs themselves, and lack of entry-level jobs for citizens together put a terrible pressure on the Black American community to convert to Islam, and for lower class Whites to adopt the mantle of the supposed menace of White male fraternal societies. All directed rage on the part of Whites creates the boogieman with which all grievance politics dance.

In addition, a fair amount of both funding and personnel in Black Lives Matter has an Islamic flavor, with cop killers thus far being overwhelmingly Islamic influenced. A lot of that conversion occurs in prison.

Similarly, Communist/Socialist elements to include Feminism and LGBT advocacy by default or design serve Islamic creep by hamstringing competitive interests such as Fundamentalist Christianity.

Meanwhile, other Christian and Jewish organizations are receiving funding from multiple sources in order to relocate Islamic “refugees” into the West.

It would almost seem that the rhetoric of these advocacy groups is incidental toward an Islamic objective or “creep” throughout society. Even Atheism or the supposed religious neutrality of Western governments is being used to disproportionately elevate Islam into protected status.

Anti-Smoking and other Healthism serves an Islamic creep objective by eliminating ways for non-Islamic male-dominated socialization to occur. This rhetorical imposition of silence and submission onto non-Islamic men effectively forces a rhetorical martyrdom upon them, right along with a very real economic marginalization, until learned helplessness and suicide together accomplish a slow genocide.

A society that provides no limits in female choice, whether in consumerism, sexuality, commitment, political power, spiritual beliefs, or loyalty vs. conciliation with rival interests basically makes that society ever more vulnerable to invasion. Therefore, bestowing unlimited choice among females of a particular society is effective martyrdom of the entire society.

Assuming women are even capable of making choices that even benefit themselves or society at large is a projection based on myth, consumerism, and Democracy.

Ironically, women through their own professed sexual fantasies and erotica geared toward them, desire to be subjugated sexually and every other way by powerful men. However these desires compete with what they are told that they want by major media and advertising. Moreover, the myth that rebellious hoodlums are preferred by self-proclaimed “sluts” over gentlemen, ignores the reality that “the third option”, that is a strict patriarchal leader, is infinitely more arousing to the majority of women, all rhetoric to the contrary. However, such a creature is increasingly rare.

Those who are not already as busy as they can handle are being driven out of The West, sacrificed, or forced into hiding.

In the face of the strong irrational desires which guide most women, attempts to appeal to women using rationality with regard to the creeping threat of Islamification are bound to fail. Simply promoting Christianity and societies and governments created under it as being “more respectful” toward women than Islam is not going to be effective. Rather, the very fear mongering with regard to the supposed criminality of Christian Patriarchy is its own pornography. Therefore rationalizations are almost counterproductive or even self-fulfilling prophecy. Furthermore, if the “moral” arguments for according special status to Islam comes with the threat of marginalization for all who disobey, then women, who depend more on society’s approval than men do, are going to reject countering arguments outright, regardless of how reasonable they might be, unless they come from authority.

An example of such a rationalization:

(My comment.)

Harems are inevitable without large scale female martyrdom. Are they to be government harems or Islamic harems? Men are going to assign outcomes to women, and not likely through mere rhetoric. Rather, the most aggressive are going to win out over the gentlemanly reasonable. In a sense, authority represents the most aggressive viewpoint even if the official rhetoric is mere “tolerance” for that aggression.

How many women would prefer to be able to choose both non-Islamic and non-Feminist servitude rather than be conquered by Islam? My guess is that, paradoxically, those most likely to speak up on behalf of their own desires have the least amount of both rationality and humility. A woman such as myself, for instance, has very few romantic chances in the way of incentive to promote my own humility. I therefore speak my mind. It is my own way of self-sacrifice for a greater good.

I doubt that I will achieve either glory or reward for this…on Earth.