FSTDT

[Historypill] Why the Western white men have become such cucks

It's a bit long text but I can't put it any shorter.

The men that I have in mind: White heterosexual middle class and working class men from Western Europe and Northern America. Why have they become such cucks?

These men have had a very specific cultural and social history. They have been conditioned through centuries to obey their elite and to respect the hierarchy. First during the medieval and post-medieval feudal system. Then in the 19th century, these feudal states transformed into secular nations. The non-aristocratic men of all classes were technically given liberty but at the same time, they now had to follow a new religion of being loyal to the nation and its institutions, its symbols, its cultural and industrial elite. This was furthered by secularism which removed the power religion to a large extent and separated it from the state, so the state became THE religion.

These regular white men had to work hard in factory, support their families, go to wars for their nations and were expected to be blindly loyal to the Institutions of the State and its Law. A modern ideal of manliness was born out of this that among other things included the idea that you should accept all the hardships ("men don't cry", men aren't supposed to show emotions etc.) and that you should always blame yourself for your failures, because you live in this wonderful nation that provides you with everything. This is the mentality from which the incels are judged today (basically as a man, you should never complain, and if you have a problem, it's your own fault).

During the 19th century, these Western European nation-states became the dominant superpowers and controlled almost the entire world. The white Western men suddenly became an aristocracy of their own in the global perspective, fueled by the ideas of the white racial superiority, and they started to see themselves as such. The white race as a whole adopted the aristocratic mentality that they are the noble men who have to spread civilization all over the planet (the idea of the white man's burden). The white men now became the gentlemen, the white knights, the nobility of the world.

Meanwhile, the Western society started "liberating" all kinds of "vulnerable" groups from the supposed "oppression". After the WW2, this process was intensified and was systematically directed by the institutions of the Western states. The Western white men were expected not only to continue to respect their regime and its institutions and its new ideology, but also to stoically accept all the insults and provocations from all the feminists, gays, degenerate "artists" and other groups dedicated to shame the white men and their past. The white men were expected to bear all this and they did because they still saw themselves as some sort of gentlemen and aristocracy that is "above this". It's basically like the concept of noblesse oblige where the nobility is expected to be held to a different code of conduct than the rest of society and to be generous and benevolent, not lowering itself to the conduct of the plebeian lower classes. This is basically what you have in the society today, one code of conduct for the white men (you have to be liberal, respectful, humble, work hard, don't complain) and another for everyone else (you can complain, be loud, insult). White men were raised with this code of chivalry for a long time and have integrated these ideas about protecting the weak. They repressed their manly impulses which would mandate them to lash out and respond aggressively.

This is why the middle class and working class white men allowed all of this post-WWII feminism, LGBT, sexual liberation and other degeneracy to flourish. They believed that they still held a position of power and that they have a responsibility to serve the Western civilization (which became synonymous with liberalism, capitalism, feminism and 'freedom'). So they not only accepted all the degeneracy and all the insults, but even became proud of it and bragged to the entire world about what kind of freedom they have. They were doing it from a position of power, feeling as if it's their duty to protect the weak. This why you have all these manly men in Western armies bragging about fighting against the Muslims or other non-Westerners for "muh Western freedom" while their Western women are whoring themselves out at home. They're actually proud of this degeneracy. They see it as a sign of power and progress. Ever wondered why the American army doesn't have any equivalent to Muslim nasheeds? Because for the Western men, listening to some degenerate rap is their nasheed as it symbolizes the alleged power of Western liberation and global supremacy.

The thing is, all these vulnerable groups that the regular white men are supposed to protect and bow down to in fact aren't weak at all. They have been systematically protected by the increasingly more powerful State and its Institutions (that the white men are blindly loyal to) for decades. The West gives this groups like women, LGBT, immigrants etc. special privileges like the old feudal kings used to do in the past, so that in turn, they can expect their support and loyalty. This is basically what we have in the West right now, these "weak" "vulnerable" groups serve the system, they endorse it, they want stronger state, stronger institutions, stronger police repression (at the excuse of protect this vulnerable groups) etc. And the system gladly accepts their demands.

It's very interesting to note that the feminists never really opposed the white-knightism and chivalry of the patriarchical Western culture. They're perfectly fine with the middle class and working class white men thinking that they hold this alleged position of power where they have to help women. They don't want to convince them into true equality because if there was true equality, they wouldn't need these white knights, and the white knights would no longer help them. The feminists are just promoting a specific type of ideology that tries to strengthen the system and its ideological norms and which tries to humiliate the white men while at the same time giving them a false impression to these men that they're actually being noble and strong.

The white Western men are still too blind to see all of this. They still believe in the old conduct of chivalry, either in the form of being a left wing cuck, or a right wing cuck. They both very similar in mentality when it comes to protecting "muh freedom" (which in reality just means giving more power to the state which gives you this "freedom" and protects it). Both left and right wing cucks are blindly loyal to the West and see it as the peak of all human civilization and progress.

The attitude towards racism is very similar in the West too in terms of white-knightism. As a white male you're supposed to formally criticize every form of white racism, but this comes from a specific position of power as well. As a white male, you're also expected to be much more liberal than a non-white male. Non-whites can get away with certain anti-liberal ideas but the whites can't (eg. Muslims can be much more radical than the white Christians who get persecuted for the slightest offense). This is because as a white man, you're supposed to be a gentleman and protect the "weaker" races. This is literally what this so-called liberal "anti-racism" is all about. It's not about equality of the races, it's about white men being expected to be cucks and white knights for other races. So it's essentially racist in itself, although it doesn't really benefit the majority of the white race (and arguably it doesn't help the non-white races either).

Note, I'm talking about middle class and lower class white men here. There are whites who do perfectly fine in the West now, the rich oligarchic elite which holds the power, the politicians, judges etc. They hold a similar position to the aristocracy and clergy in the feudal systems, they're the ones who are actually above all of those things and laugh at the pathetic white peasants who work like idiots for this system while being humiliated and insulted by all the privileged "weak and vulnerable" groups at the same time.

What keeps the regular white men going? Four things: 1) century-long blind loyalty to the state, the church (the churches have unfortunately become too westernized and weakened to stand up to the anti-Christian secular states), the institutions, the legal system, the hierarchy etc. 2) an utopian belief that they can ascend to being the elite themselves. No matter how bad the situation is for them, they still have some weird hope that they can get a normal family, earn big money etc. This comes from the American capitalist mentality of pursuit of happiness, American dream (this mentality is now prevalent all over the West). 3) Relative economic prosperity which still enables all kinds of copes. The illusion of the mighty West that will continue to dominate the world through science and technology and solve everything. Addiction to the materialistic world and hedonism. 4) Fear of going against the Western idea of manliness where as a man, you're not supposed to cry and complain. This is further fueled by the secular humanism which promotes the idea that you are the master of your own destiny and if you have a personal problem, you have to find a solution yourself and solve it.

Incels are a problem for the regime because they have opted out of all this and don't share this mentality (other than maybe what I described under the number 3). This is also where this obsession with painting incels as "frustrated white men" (when there are in fact plenty of non-white incels) comes from. The regime fears that the white men will abandon it and stopped being the obeying little peasants. They want the white men to continue thinking that they're the gentlemen and noble white knights of this system because once the local Western white men stop being productive, it's pretty much the end for the West as we know it. That's why they want to shame the white men who turn incel.

The end of the West will come either way. This society has nothing more to offer (culturally, philosophically), it has clearly degenerated way beyond the point of no return. While not necessarily blackpilled, people are more and more cynical, they don't want to serve their nations as much as they used to (harder and harder to find people who want to serve in the army), this whole nihilism that the West promoted in regards to religion and traditionalism is now backfiring and is starting to question their own liberal ideology as well. Incels are simply a sign of things that are about to come as the men abandon the Western ideals of manliness.

It is amazing how this stinking movie genre of World War II lies, which started with The Great Dictator in 1940, is still going strong after 77 years! Boy oh boy, evidently The Great One (that's Hitler for all youse newbies and normies) must have really shaken the New World Order gang to its rotten Satanic core.

Though we just cannot bring ourselves to the theater and subject our volatile emotions to two hours of fraudulent filth on the big screen, based on reviewing several extended You Tube trailers, and in light of the fact that a “historian” named Joshua Levine (cough cough) was hired to help develop the script, we already know the oh-so-predictable historical spin of the Dunkirk “escape” that this propaganda film will surely present. Let us debunk the lasting lie about “the miracle at Dunkirk.”

Sandwiched around our explanation of why the British were able to so easily “escape” at Dunkirk, are critical bits of before and after historical context, excerpted from “The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War II.”

1. As part of prepping the American public for eventual entry into World War II, Communist Charlie Chaplin, described in FBI files as a "secret Jew" (here), mercilessly mocks Hitler in 1940 film, The Great Dictator. 2. Fake historian Joshua Levine (cough cough) collaborated on the script of Dunkirk. 3. The Bad War (banned by Amazon) sets the record straight! (here)

OCTOBER, 1939 — MAY, 1940

HITLER PLEADS FOR PEACE WITH BRITAIN & FRANCE

The quiet period between the end of the German-Polish (started by Poland) war until May 1940, is dubbed by a U.S. Senator as "The Phony War." During this time, Hitler pleads for the Allies to withdraw their war declarations. Towards France he declares:.

“I have always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts."

To the British, Hitler says:

“I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and in no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests—.Why should this war in the West be fought?”

Hitler’s pleas for peace are ignored as the allies begin to mobilize more than 2,000,000 troops in Northern France. Plans are openly discussed to advance eastward upon Germany, via “neutral” Belgium and Holland, as well as establishing operations in “neutral” Norway and Denmark, with or without their consent.

During his speech of October 6, 1939, Hitler pleaded for peace. Meanwhile, the British government shamelessly frightened its own people with idiotic tales of imminent German gas attacks.

MAY 10, 1940

GERMANY LAUNCHES PRE-EMPTIVE INVASION OF BELGIUM & THE NETHERLANDS

The massive invasion of Germany’s industrial Ruhr region is to come through the ostensibly “neutral” League of Nations member states of Belgium and The Netherlands, whose governments are under intense Allied pressure to allow safe passage for the planned Allied attack on the bordering Ruhr region of Germany.

As an act of national self-defense, Germany takes the fight to the Allies before they can bring it to German soil and reinstitute a 2nd Versailles Treaty. In a stunning advance westward, the German Blitzkrieg quickly overtakes the smaller nations and pushes the Allied armies into a full retreat towards the beaches of northern France.

The Globo-Zionist press, as well as today’s history books, portrays the Blitz as “the Nazi conquest of Holland, Belgium, and France.” But the menacing presence of the massive Allied force on Germany’s industrial frontier is conveniently ignored, as is the undeniable and extensive collaboration between the “neutral” Low Countries and the Allies.

After the invasion, the German government published “Allied Intrigue in the Low Countries.” which is a 50-page English language paper detailing the full extent of Belgian and Dutch cooperation with the Allies. The western press and modern court-historians have buried these allegations.

MAY 27 — JUNE 4, 1940

AS A SIGN OF FRIENDSHIP, HITLER ALLOWS THE ALLIED ARMIES TO ESCAPE AT DUNKIRK

After Germany’s stunning advance, the Allies are trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. The entire force can be easily captured, but Hitler issues a halt order --- since spun by court historians as being due to concern over tanks getting stuck in mud or just plain carelessness.

The truth is, Hitler doesn’t want war. As a show of good faith towards his western tormentors, Hitler believes that the British will be more likely to make peace if they can escape with their dignity intact.

A massive boat lift involving British fishermen ferries the troops across the English Channel back to England. The Globalist Press maliciously spins Hitler’s gracious act as a “miraculous escape right under Hitler’s nose.”

The alcoholic Winston Churchill vows to keep fighting as he frightens the British people with tales of imminent German invasion.

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. ....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere."

- German General Gunther von Blumentritt

MAY - JUNE, 1940

CHURCHILL DELIVERS HISTORIC RADIO ADDRESSES USING A VOICE ACTOR TO IMPERSONATE HIM

Throughout the spring and early summer of 1940, the brainwashed people of Britain cluster around their radios to hear defiant and motivational oratory from what they believe is the mouth of their new Prime Minister.

The ‘We Shall Fight on the Beaches’ Speech

On June 4, after the evacuation of the defeated British army from Dunkirk, the radio version of the British Mad Dog pledges:

"We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender."

“And if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet would carry on the struggle until, in God’s good time, the New World (United States) with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

It is now known, in spite of what some ‘in-denial’ Churchill sycophants still refuse to accept, that this radio broadcast and others, were made not by Churchill, but by an actor hired to impersonate him. Norman Shelley, who voiced for Winnie-the-Pooh for the BBC's Children's Hour, ventriloquized Churchill for history and fooled tens of millions of listeners.

Perhaps Churchill is too much incapacitated by drink to deliver the speeches himself; or perhaps his difficult-to-understand speech has been deemed not suitable for a radio audience. So you see, not only was Churchill the “literary giant” a proven plagiarist who also used ghostwriters; it turns out that Churchill the “orator” was also a sham!

- Nothing is real about the British Mad Dog — nothing! 2- Norman Shelley delivered the most famous radio speeches in 20th Century British History 3- Shelley later voiced for the children’s cartoon character ‘Winnie the Pooh’ -- an inside joke made to mock ‘Winston the Piece of Crap’, perhaps?

JULY 20, 1940

HITLER DROPS ‘PEACE LEAFLETS’ OVER LONDON!

With Germany in total control of the continent and the war situation, Hitler responds to Churchill’s unilateral air bombardment by dropping mass quantities of leaflets over London. The 4-page broadsheet contains an English language summary of Hitler’s recent speech before the Reichstag. The speech is entitled, “A Last Appeal to Reason,” in which he closes with a final appeal for peace:

"In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal, since I am not the vanquished, begging favors, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices it will claim.

Possibly Mr. Churchill again will brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely born of fear and of doubt in our final victory. In that case I shall have relieved my conscience in regard to the things to come.”

The British respond to Hitler’s sincere plea with mockery, threats, and more bombs. UK warmonger Sefton Delmer, the future head and mastermind of British “Black Propaganda,” is just about to make his debut broadcast to Germany on the BBC when he hears about Hitler’s "last appeal to reason." He rejects any notion of a compromise peace. Bigmouth Delmer announces:

"Herr Hitler," you have in the past consulted me as to the mood of the British public. So permit me to render your Excellency this little service once again tonight. Let me tell you what we here in Britain think of this appeal of yours to what you are pleased to call our reason and common sense. Herr Führer, we hurl it right back at you, right in your evil smelling teeth."

Delmer's inflammatory statement upset a few peace-minded Members of Parliament, but undoubtedly pleased Churchill, his Jewish handlers, and other assorted "patriots" very much.

And that, dear reader, is the true before-during-after story of Dunkirk that you’ll neither see nor hear out of Jewish Hollywood. Sight unseen, (other than the various extended trailers) we give this soon-to-be released "summer blockbuster" one big "rotten tomato." Save your money, and pick up a copy of The Bad War and/or The Hitler Photo Album instead.

Boobus Americanus 1: I am looking forward to that movie about the British escape at Dunkirk.

Boobus Americanus 2: Me too. World War II movies never seem to go out of style.

Sugar: That's becausse the &^%$#*%* @%&* run frickin' Hollywood, you idiot!!!

Editor: And the Fake News, and the major universities, and the banking system, and Wall Street, and the courts, and the arts too.