I heard on Radio 4 this morning: "Fathers refused to obey the WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST rule because they didn't want to be parted from their families." Disgraceful.
"Captain abandoned ship before all his passengers could." Disgusting, I thought, until I saw how close to shore it was. Was he supposed to stay on it for days and days and days until all the passengers (some unaccounted for and stuck in their cabins) were all off?
It would have been quite interesting if a ship full of White European passengers had sunk in open seas.
Because European men have now been feminised and made depraved by feminism and the matriarchy, as well as indoctrinated into believing the lie of gender equality, they would of course understandably think that the WOMEN AND CHILDREN rule no longer applies after so many decades of liberal feminism.
Imagine, then, the men easily elbowing their way past their women and their mostly illegitimate children because of their greater strength to get to the lifeboats first. The captain is invited to join them because he was considered a good person to have on their lifeboat because it was felt his seagoing experience would increase their chances of survival, breaking another sacred rule that a captain should go down with his ship.
Months later, the all-male survivors are rescued but found to have been practising cannibalism. They had eaten the youngest and most wholesome-looking male of their number, after gang-raping him (one of the male vegetarian and non-cannibal survivors allege, who thought he might as well sell his story to the highest bidding tabloid).
In a rational and moral society such behaviour would result in these men being collectively and publicly executed for being a disgrace to their race and civilisation. But our feminised and demented matriarchy would not dream of doing such a thing, and our depraved and hypocritical media will pay them for their stories.
There is a EUGENIC reason for the WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST rule, of course, but dumbed-down Westerners have now forgotten what it was, and no longer thinks it applies to them.
Let me put it this way then. If the passengers of that boat represented THE ENTIRE WHITE RACE, then the entire white race would die out because those men who got to the lifeboats disobeyed the WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST rule.
No rational women of any other race would want to mate with these cowards if they learnt that these survivors had let their women and children drown so that they themselves might live. Their life after that would literally not be worth living, and quite right too.
Women and Children First
There have been outraged reports that during the evacuation of the Costa Concordia women and children had to fight with men for places in the lifeboats. Apparently a very different scenario from that documented on the Titanic memorial:
“To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic April 15, 1912. They gave their lives that women and children might be saved." But should the Victorian notion of prioritising women and children in disaster situations be upheld.? Is this just a sexist relic of another era? And how do people generally behave in a crisis situation? Jane speaks to Professor Ed Galea, an evacuation specialist at the University of Greenwich.
Chillingly, the Professor said that the reason why the male passengers of The Titanic allowed women and children to go first was because they unthinkingly obeyed the social mores of the time. Now, the scenario I have painted above - of men rushing to the lifeboats while leaving the women and children to drown - is the far more likely outcome.
http://theincendiaryinsight.blogspot.com/2012/01/sinking-ship-women-and-children-last.html makes a similar point.