Costa Concordia

[foobar75]

I'm sure you've been following this incident since last weekend. It could've been far worse in terms of the death toll, but tragic nevertheless.

There are two interesting stories emerging here. The first is the captain who apparently abandoned ship while hundreds (thousands?) were still waiting to be evacuated. This disgraceful coward would make Hollywood proud, as he appears to be the stereotypical metrosexual that is now being promoted as the new type of "man" these days. Here's the recording between him and the coast guard captain:

[video=youtube;wM9sam2u_Tk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wM9sam2u_Tk[/video]

Second is the matter of women and children first, a time-tested rule that is universally applied in times of disaster. It appears that this was not followed at Concordia, and it was everyone for themselves. Some radical feminists and mangina white nights have taken up this issue and written about it, here's one such article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...pened-women-children-first.html#ixzz1jqipFTDD

My take on this is very simple. Children first, absolutely. Send them with a couple of crew members, and maybe some older teenagers who can row. This is followed by the the sick and the elderly. After that, first come, first served. You wanted equality b*tches, you got it. Why should I sacrifice my life for some feminist harpy? For today's modern Western woman, a good, decent, honorable, chivalrous, generous, hard-working man is nothing more than a useful idiot, so why bother?

 

[Don Wassall]

I read the Daily Mail article yesterday. Some excellent comments before they were apparently cut off.

There's no question that a lot more men are starting to catch on to how the legal system and media are rather fanatically arrayed against them, many from very painful personal experience -- divorce (initiated by women some 80 percent of the time thanks to no fault laws) and the loss of a lifetime's worth of assets, bearing an unfair portion of child support, lack of child custody, domestic violence laws easily used to persecute, experiencing a wife or gf whose worst nature has been empowered by feminist poison backed by governmental law, etc. At least a lot of the men who use the internet for enlightenment and truth rather than just porn and sports that is; what percentage that is of the whole is still likely small, but it's also a group that on average is smarter and makes more money (better tax serfs). I wonder just how many parasites this sick system can create on top and especially the bottom -- and how many more good men it can afford to alienate to the point of withdrawing their support from it -- and still continue to function as a "developed" country.

 

[screamingeagle]

Women and children first applies only if you have time to organize. If the ship is going down fast, get off! Jump in the water or get in a boat. If anything you will just get in the way if you wait.
The Titanic took four hours to go under, so they had time to organized. The plan was upper class women, followed by upper class men, then 2nd class women followed by 2nd class men. This is where they started running out of space. What is notable that a number of the upper class men like John Astor gave up their spot so that others could be on the boats.

 

[Don Wassall]

Lots of good comments after this article from The Spearhead

Lifeboat Feminism in Practical Application

by Elusive Wapiti on January 18, 2012

This article by Rich Lowry over at NRO heaps shame upon the men of the Costa Concordia who allegedly jostled women and children on the way to the lifeboats. While I can relate to the author’s assertion that we as a society have lost something valuable when the strong push aside the weak, for indeed we have, it is but the natural and predictable consequence of decades of equalitarian social engineering that released women from the requirement to behave in a ladylike and chaste manner, and declared men and women absolutely equal and fungible. The author laments the lack of chivalry amongst the men; I assert it is merely what happens when men, having witnessed the liberation of women from their duty to act like ladies, decide that it is quite silly to die like men of auld for unrelated women and children:

[An] Australian mother said of the scene, “We just couldn’t believe it – especially the men, they were worse than the women.”

Another woman passenger agreed, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats.” Yet another, a grandmother, complained, “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.”

Guys aboard the Costa Concordia apparently made sure the age of chivalry was good and dead by pushing it over and trampling on it in their heedless rush for the exits. The grounded cruise ship has its heroes, of course, just as the Titanic had its cowards. But the discipline of the Titanic’s crew and the self-enforced chivalric ethic that prevailed among its men largely trumped the natural urge toward panicked self-preservation.

​

I have argued several times on this blog that this is the logical end of equalitarianism and sec-humanism. When women are declared the equals of men, their inherent biological vulnerability is papered over, and they are seen as just another male. Better smelling and better looking, but the same worth as men. And no more worthy of preferential treatment in the mad dash for the exits than the next guy. On the Costa Concordia, it was every human for him/herself. One would think women, the sex for whose benefit feminism tirelessly toils, would be overjoyed at this indicator of equal consideration. At long last, they have arrived! But they are not. Funny how feminist equalitarianism goes out the window when in mortal danger. Seems the two gals quoted above really don’t want to die like men, despite living as an equal to one.

It was also interesting to contrast the tenor of Mr. Lowry’s slightly anachronistic article and that of the vast majority of the comments. While they do not explicitly connect the dots wrt the lady-gentleman dynamic that is part and parcel to chivalry, the comments tended to pin the tail of responsibility for this present state of affairs on the feminist donkey. Thus, as far as the readership to NRO is concerned, there is at least a vague awareness that if chivalry is dead, it wasn’t men that killed it but feminism. And that it is quite presumptuous to demand preferential selection for a lifeboat when you demand equal-or-even-preferential treatment in all other facets of life as well.

Something else, too: Chivalry doesn’t mean preferential treatment for women, although it is frequently cast as such in contemporary culture. Neither is it necessarily manners, although that is a component of it. At its heart, chivalry was/is a code of conduct that sought to shape the behavior of warriors (who also enjoyed a superior social position) so that the strong protected the weak who could/would be harmed by untrammelled violence.

Viewed in this manner, in a way it is not unreasonable to appeal to chivalry when recommending the behavior of the physically strong (men) vis-à-vis the physically weak (women and young children). However, as political and social violence is force just the same as physical violence, given the socially inferior position of men in our society when compared to women, the principles of chivalry would require that women (the strong) yield to men (the weak). Let that bake your noodle for a while…feminism, by socially advantaging women in all aspects of life, and technology, by neutering the historical advantage of brawn, has flipped the script such that we should instead be saying “men and children first” rather than the converse.

I’ll close this post with a poem, supposedly written in 1912, submitted by a commenter to Mr. Lowry’s article:

“Votes for women!”
Was the cry,
Reaching upward to the Sky.
Crashing glass
And flashing eye-
“Votes for Women!”
Was the cry.
“Boats for women!”
Was the Cry.
When the brave
Were come to die.
When the end
Was drawing nigh-
“Boats for women!”
Was the cry.

​

Indeed. I do wonder how much more time cultural lifeboat feminism has left. For it doesn’t seem sustainable to demand manhood from men while not making a symmetrical demand for womanhood from women. And for far too long, womanhood has been an empty vessel, something one does not strive toward but is simply arrived at. If we are to have manhood once again–something I think our society won’t long survive without–it seems to me that we as a society will need to start demanding something more of womanhood as well. For manhood is the complement to womanhood, and if womanhood is an empty suit skirt, then the organism isn’t wholly complete.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/18/lifeboat-feminism-in-practical-application/

 

[foobar75]

Indeed, that is a very informative piece at Spearhead, with the usual brilliant comments that follow.

I also read the referenced NRO article by sissy-boy neocon lapdog Rich Lowry, and the comments there are also very good. There's no mistake about it, men everywhere are finally waking up to the realities of this poisonous, vile, corrupt idealogy known as feminism.

 

[Don Wassall]

I also read the referenced NRO article by sissy-boy neocon lapdog Rich Lowry, and the comments there are also very good. There's no mistake about it, men everywhere are finally waking up to the realities of this poisonous, wile, corrupt idealogy known as feminism.

I just checked the comments out after you wrote that, and you're right. Very heartening to see on such a neo-con, so-con site. Shows that the rank and file is far ahead of "leaders" like Mangina Boy Lowry when it comes to feminism and what it's done to "cupcake."

If the awakening comes first in the arena of man-woman relations, then hopefully it will spread from there to the many injustices and double standards imposed against Whites when it comes to race, including the imposition of the Caste System in sports.

 

[waterbed]

I'm sure you've been following this incident since last weekend. It could've been far worse in terms of the death toll, but tragic nevertheless.

There are two interesting stories emerging here. The first is the captain who apparently abandoned ship while hundreds (thousands?) were still waiting to be evacuated. This disgraceful coward would make Hollywood proud, as he appears to be the stereotypical metrosexual that is now being promoted as the new type of "man" these days. Here's the recording between him and the coast guard captain:

[video=youtube;wM9sam2u_Tk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wM9sam2u_Tk[/video]

Second is the matter of women and children first, a time-tested rule that is universally applied in times of disaster. It appears that this was not followed at Concordia, and it was everyone for themselves. Some radical feminists and mangina white nights have taken up this issue and written about it, here's one such article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...pened-women-children-first.html#ixzz1jqipFTDD

My take on this is very simple. Children first, absolutely. Send them with a couple of crew members, and maybe some older teenagers who can row. This is followed by the the sick and the elderly. After that, first come, first served. You wanted equality b*tches, you got it. Why should I sacrifice my life for some feminist harpy? For today's modern Western woman, a good, decent, honorable, chivalrous, generous, hard-working man is nothing more than a useful idiot, so why bother?

The tradition of women and children first comes probably from that they are the most important in a crises to survive as a tribe ,group etc.( pregnant age women most needed then childs , then old men and least old women)

you need less men, becuase 1 healthy men can impragnate multiple women in a short time.But you only need as much men as you need to get not to much inbreeding.The genetic inbreeding could be thinned when you meet others little generations later.

It is like whispering genes maybe who told the men: women and children first.It is discriminating, but this is naturel , discriminating is important for survive.We all do it when choosing friends, calculating risk, when you see black or a white guy etc.

 

[Highlander]

The tradition of women and children first comes probably from that they are the most important in a crises to survive as a tribe ,group etc.( pregnant age women most needed then childs , then old men and least old women)

you need less men, becuase 1 healthy men can impragnate multiple women in a short time.But you only need as much men as you need to get not to much inbreeding.The genetic inbreeding could be thinned when you meet others little generations later.

It is like whispering genes maybe who told the men: women and children first.It is discriminating, but this is naturel , discriminating is important for survive.We all do it when choosing friends, calculating risk, when you see black or a white guy etc.

But there was a basis to that tradition that no longer exists and hasn't for some time.

That tradition was based upon an implicit and understood contract of the natural order of things between males and females in a civilized society and the inherent desire and motivation of it to be maintained and continued into perpetuity. That implicit contract has been explicitly rendered "null and void" by feminists.

There was a selfish but very natural motivation to that traditional contract. For a man to be willing to sacrifice himself, he must be assured that he's getting something in return. That used to be faithfulness, chastity, loyalty, respect, and love from a wife that would bear him children and thus the assurance of passing his genes into the future.

This is no longer the case, thus the motivation and desire for a man to sacrifice himself for the betterment of society and to continue the civilization is gone as he's no longer getting anything in return. The loving and loyal wife has been altogether replaced by something else entirely, one that competes with him instead of complementing him, one that puts career above family and one that socially debases herself with her "Sex in the City" accomplices. She has little desire to bear him children and, in fact, will do everything she can to strip them out of his life forever at the smallest infraction and extract the majority of his wages along the way to support her actions. This type of social engineering results in a social construct that is not conducive for motivating men to save anyone but themselves.

 

[Don Wassall]

But there was a basis to that tradition that no longer exists and hasn't for some time.

That tradition was based upon an implicit and understood contract of the natural order of things between males and females in a civilized society and the inherent desire and motivation of it to be maintained and continued into perpetuity. That implicit contract has been explicitly rendered "null and void" by feminists.

There was a selfish but very natural motivation to that traditional contract. For a man to be willing to sacrifice himself, he must be assured that he's getting something in return. That used to be faithfulness, chastity, loyalty, respect, and love from a wife that would bear him children and thus the assurance of passing his genes into the future.

This is no longer the case, thus the motivation and desire for a man to sacrifice himself for the betterment of society and to continue the civilization is gone as he's no longer getting anything in return. The loving and loyal wife has been altogether replaced by something else entirely, one that competes with him instead of complementing him, one that puts career above family and one that socially debases herself with her "Sex in the City" accomplices. She has little desire to bear him children and, in fact, will do everything she can to strip them out of his life forever at the smallest infraction and extract the majority of his wages along the way to support her actions. This type of social engineering results in a social construct that is not conducive for motivating men to save anyone but themselves.

Well said, Highlander. Men strongly want to defer to women, but only when women defer to men in the proper areas. Virtually everything about the way men and women used to interact with each other -- including the many wonderful ways that were good for both genders and helped make life fulfilling -- has been blown up by the Cultural Marxists, similar to the way they have demonized everything positive about Whites as part of their revolutionary program to defeat Whites psychologically.

When the current system finally becomes completely dysfunctional due to continuing unsolvable economic decline and its many crimes against God and nature, women will again learn the joys of femininity. But it will also offer men an opportunity to define themselves and their roles in a better way, as "patriarchy" had as many negatives for men as women, if not more. Then again, maybe I'm feeling overly optimistic today.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

There are some really good posts in this thread! I'm thinking of using some of the points made when I discuss some related issues with my students. Should be fun!

 

[Thrashen]

Some fantastic posts in this thread, guys.

“Women first” is indeed the dogmatic psalm, shrieked into the ears of men, applied to every conceivable situation, every day, for his entire life. Thus, it might as well be applied to times in which white men and women are placed in life-or-death circumstances.

Since I find most modern white women to be so disgracefully repulsive (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, socially, culturally, racially, etc), I’d most certainly “defect” when the time came to “man-up” (like the sermons in every “Beer, Inc.” TV commercial have taught me) and sacrifice my meaningful, joyous, and love-filled life so that their sad little Femi-Saga of melodramatic soullessness, material-driven shopping sprees, permanently-inebriated nightclub binges, male-abusing ruthlessness, extreme sexual promiscuity, and selfish, childless homes with a freshly-aborted fetus still buoyant in her toilet water (waiting to be flushed to the nearest sewer system along the other once-sacred relics of a formerly-beautiful race and civilization).

There is exactly one woman who works at my company of 50 or so employees. She is 34 years old, unsightly, slovenly, never married, lives alone, and has no children. She “entertains” her male co-workers (all of whom are white) by recounting personal tales of hardcore drinking, minor drug usage, sexual debauchery, clubbing, bars, concerts, trips to casinos, and wild house parties. She’s been working here for a little over a year, and we figure she’s had at least 50 different sex partners. She brags that: “All the guys I go out with always pay for everything” and laughs about her constant “two-timing” of various short-term boyfriends (a wallet and penis attached to a body). This “professional woman” frequently comes to work with large purple-red marks on her neck (presumably administered by her countless sex partners), she’s constantly late, always leaving early, and is always calling in “sick” on Fridays and Mondays. A co-worker was once talking to her about his kids misbehaving, and she said: “I swear, if I ever did get pregnant, which I wouldn’t, I’d kill the thing immediately!”

Is the act of conveniently murdering a future offspring the “freedom” that Female Supremacists were referring to? Is such an evil existence the “emancipation from men” that they longed to possess? Is this alcohol-sopping, glorified prostitute the forseen “End Game” of their experimental “Girl Power” paradigm?

Would I sacrifice my life for a degenerate vagina-harpy such as her if our cruise ship was sinking? No, never. I think her bloated carcass would be far better suited as a personal floatation device, or as hemorrhaging bait to keep sharks and killer whales at bay. Then, for once in that wretch's life, someone would finally be “using” her.

 

[screamingeagle]

The crew came from the Phillipines and other third world dumps. Part of the problem was that the crew did not have a common language, either English or Italian. They also come from a culture where you think of yourself first. Woman and children first would be an alien concept to them.
Naturally, the media blames the white guys.