In defense of Maria Ladenburger’s fate

(A DISCLAIMER – this is not a call to violence. It is not even supporting violence in general. It is an intellectual argument that philosophically justifies a certain violent act to a point by contextualizing it within an already very difficult and bleak situation).

NECESSARY READING TO UNDERSTAND THIS POST BETTER (If you haven’t read any of these by the order outlined here)

https://caamib.wordpress.com/the-story-of-your-incel-an-inconvenient-truth/

https://caamib.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/darkness-2/

https://caamib.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/i-support-the-islamization-of-europe/

blackpillMaria Ladenburger’s murder  doesn’t seem to have that many articles on it online, which is just what I expected. The subject is one liberals don’t like to talk about so the mainly liberal media ignored it – a young German woman was raped and drowned by a Muslim. Well, I guess it is not surprising given that it seems her own family immediately showed themselves to be massive cucks, but even without this amusing epilogue this is a story Western European media wanted to avoid.

The reason for this, as I came to realize in the recent years, isn’t just some simplistic explanation that would involve a word “political correctness”, a word that would somehow have to explain everything. The actual reasons, once they’re actually explained in a manner that relates to actual people and events and not some phrase, is that liberals erroneously believe a certain incorrect picture of the history of the world (I was gonna write more on this when I do an article on liberals in general but am having trouble finishing it)  which goes something like this – “Around 1500 AD the whole non-European world was free, happy, sane, prosperous and probably even liberal when these evil Europeans enslaved everybody. They’re the ones who caught blacks and brought them to Europe and America, they’re the ones who destroyed massive Indian populations and they should be punished as the scum they are for the rest of their existence.”

Now, as for more on the intellectual origins, I really don’t know. I’d check Roosh’s writings on Frankfurt school but you should take everything on such issues (from everybody, the problem is not Roosh himself) with a grain of salt. Intellectual history can be extremely complicated and by now it is quite irrelevant anyway.

The point that is relevant to this post is that liberals know nothing about things like Arab slave trade and its extremely high rates of mutilation and mortality, have no idea that Arab pirates captured European slaves up to 18th century, that most of North America in 1500 AD was huge patches of empty land, and, most importantly, can’t understand the idea that not a single acre of the world was liberal in 1500 AD and that these European “conquerors” were the first to become liberal.and spread this disease to some parts of the remaining world (basically just North America, Australia and some parts of South America), with huge areas of the world never ever becoming liberal.  Amazingly, these areas that never became liberal are some that liberals tend to think about most fondly, at least in their writings. Of course, actually living there is usually a different story though, luckily, having strong convictions about this got a few of the more convinced liberals killed.

In the lieu of these misconceptions, liberals have no real problems with classes they see as underprivileged killing the privileged ones. What they do have a problem with is the underprivileged classes still being presented in what might be a bad light to some people. Now, if everybody became liberal tomorrow there wouldn’t be this problem and liberals could freely express what they really feel. But since the cultural mores change so slowly, and in some instances can be even set back (think of the strong backslash against feminism and liberalism in the recent years) liberals still need to maintain appearances.

But let us get back to Maria Ladenburger. Of course, with knowing this it is easy to understand why liberals are in fact happy about this murder (a white woman got what she deserved due to acts of her forefathers by an under-privileged minority) but less happy with it being talked about, given that such murders still provoke negative feelings in non-liberals, especially what we would call “The Normies” (more on that later).

This text isn’t really addressing liberals much. Liberals and myself agree with this murder. I will say once again liberals agree with and and are celebrating Maria Ladenburger’s murder.  To liberals the murder of Maria Ladenbuger is just oppressed people taking what belongs to them – and that is everything they ever wanted. Her life, your life and every life. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand basic facts about liberalism.  

But, who is unhappy with this murder? Well, I can roughly define two major groups of public that would be outraged by this murder.

First group are what is now referred to as “The Normies”, which would in sociopolitical context basically be people without too many strongly held or fringe views on things. And this would still include the majority of people on majority of things, from economics and crime to race or basically anything else. To an extent that they have any views their views are basically some kind of vanilla middle ground view of their current culture. So if you were to try and observe the views of such people on economy or governance in general they would likely resemble some kind of vague, vanilla social democracy. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these “Normies” are some kind of blank slates though – the views of these people in the West will likely be extremely slanted to the left. I wrote about this some time ago, basically trying to extrapolate why what is the current formal liberal teaching seemingly so close to what what would be seen as sane views of empathy, redemption or universalism – they still resemble a version of what in Christianity ! . Of course, current liberals no longer believe in this and have moved to much harsher racism/sexism against whites and males, but these “Normies” would basically be the people who still buy into the “Scripture”. So, these are the first kind of people to be outraged by this because they sort of function like machines and get off on keywords like “rape, murder, young girl”, despite not really having any kind of coherent, sensible ideology behind it.

The second group would be the right or alt-right. I am still differentiating between these groups and would normally never put them together but I will blend them this time due to what would, at least from my judgement, and I could be wrong, be the similar reactions on this. And these are predictable and really don’t need that many words – accusations against Islam and migrants.

And these accusations would be ok, if they weren’t missing the bigger point.

Back in January of 2016, after making a post suggesting that a Muslim takeover of Western Europe and the remaining sane Western Europeans living as dhimmis is the only sensible option remaining to possibly save civilization in it I was surprised at just how positive most of the reactions were, even from people who do have some stake in the current system remaining in one form or another, like married mothers of small children. The decay runs deep and many people are aware of this.

Yet, there were some in the alt-right who called me traitor and suggested I be hanged. This, obviously, is an alt-righter still interested in fixing the current Western culture.

So, where does this disagreement come from?

I’m going to be brave enough, no matter how much some members of the braindead army of total morons following me might use this to say “Yeah, you’re just angry because you can’t find a girlfriend!” (which is absolutely correct, you cannot find a girlfriend in the West and this makes me angry to no end), that the way you see the problem is mostly about how successful you are with women and what do you mean by success.  Of course, I am talking about those in the Alt-Right. Being a moron itself doesn’t guarantee you won’t be an incel anymore. The amount of morons is just too large for that. There are many, many incel morons of various stripes, from liberals who would die to enact the same policies that will make them single and childless for life, to lookists obsessed with facial ratios and believing that some magic number in that aspect will solve their problem.

If you are in the Alt-Right and you have a girlfriend or a wife then there is a fairly good chance you will believe there is something to fight for, despite the decay you’re seeing. This is pretty understandable and natural – even if you lack any friends or even people you like in the degenerate culture you will likely feel you have a stake in it if you have a romantic partner because there is a possibility that your genes might have a stake in it. Even if you don’t have kids now you might in the future, so again – your genes have a stake in it. So you will work to try and fix the sickness you see around you. Why do you think people like ramzpaul are against Muslims? They have kids and thus a stake in society.

On the other hand, even if you have some friends you find decent in the sick culture there will be little investment in it from you unless you have a partner.

These things are so obvious to any sane person that even 15 years ago writing about them would be completely unnecessary, to a point of explaining we sometimes have to eat and piss. Now they must be pointed out.

Who, then, is correct about their estimate? Those who want the West handed over to the Muslims (it is much better to use this expression than abolished or destroyed, given that most of the policies that made West powerful and successful are gone) or want it fixed?

Well, obviously this is not math or physics to have what would sometimes be a straightforward answer akin to “1 plus 1 equals 2¨. Embarrassingly enough, were some miracle to occur and and I could find a sane girlfriend/wife in the West it’s possible that my opinion could change from wanting the West handed over to Muslims to wanting it fixed. But, then again, even in such an unlikely scenario my opinion could once again change once I’d encounter the problems of raising my kids in what is surely to be an even more insane, wicked society than the one we have now or having other males pursue my wife.

So I will offer my opinion as somebody who believes West should just be given upon.

It is not a coincidence I offered a sort of brief story of my life and trauma I suffered up to February 2014 as pre-reading for interested readers. It describes various shenanigans done by women to me through some years (true hilarity being that my own “shenanigans” like, coercion and even attempting blackmail, were always amply awarded by women with their cunts, mouth and tongue while serious, fair and kind behavior never got me anywhere). Purely chronologically the post is a bit obsolete. I could add a lot more of female craziness and my own backslash to today’s situation. Since then I had a baby with a schizophrenic woman, a baby I’ve never seen and all this as a part of an arrangement, told my best female friend that I won’t accept her when she couldn’t go anywhere but stay at my place unless she fucks me, to which she consented and doesn’t have a problem with now,  and that’s just the things I can talk about – when it comes to most of it I unfortunately can’t.

And mind you, these are not women who are from places like Germany or France. They’re Central European in their mentality. They have more in common with Czech or Austrian women then either British or, for example, Russian women. Yet, their taste in men, their capability to maintain relationships, all of it was, is and always will be completely mangled.

Basically, in what is my opinion, and I stated as much in my last article on Trump, I believe modern Western women are not salvageable and that no superficial political changes will do much about this, as these will not have much influence on the way people will lead their day to day lives. Much like George W. Bush presidency didn’t improve the quality of modern American women I have no reason to believe that the Trump presidency will. Same for a place like UK – did the Conservative government in UK, which had been in power since 2010, make British women better? And examples like these are all over the rest of Europe where you have the so-called “conservative” or “right-wing” governments. Even in a place like Poland, which bans even abortion, you have Nixonian level riots by liberals and constant tension, with big cities like Warsaw swarmed by foreigners and women who are actually worse than even most American women in smaller cities (which is more of an indication of how bad these Polish women are than the quality of such American women).

The battle is lost. I don’t know what is there to explain anymore. Trump or any other political figure aren’t going to change female behavior because, at the end of the day, these women don’t give a fuck who is in charge of the country. For the kind of change some alt-right readers are suggesting Western political figures would have to have immense power that would affect even religious matters and implement this power in a way that would completely change the basic tenants of current Western societies and this will not happen

As much as I would like for many of these alt-right people to be right, I really don’t see how any kind of Western renaissance will happen in 2017 or basically in any year. Checked your Tinder or OKCupid accounts lately, gents? Are women saner and more civilized now because some orange idiot is in office?

When looking at some of these alt-right women, I rarely if ever see any ready to get married and squeeze out some kids. Most are just talk and not much else.

I know it would probably be easier for the kind of audience this blog had been attracting during the last year or two to play I’m very hopeful but it’s been years since I had the energy or patience for this. I am simply even more certain today than I ever was that Islam is our future. It is the only religion and an idea to combine such robustness with correct values and it is, unlike the hated altright, completely protected and held sacred by liberals.

With all this in mind, who was Maria Ladenburger? Well, her Wikipedia article says she was a German medical student who died when she was almost 20 and unmarried (search results on other sites say she was a daughter of some EU official but that is less important for the quantitative part).

So let us try to bring statistics into this equation. This amusing Durex study shows that she was likely not a virgin. These stats show that it was about 35 percent likely she would have a child out of wedlock in just 2014 (Table 3) and that her chances of being married at all were… well, getting slimmer every year, with a slight change upwards in 2014 (Table 1). That is if she would ever have kids – luckily, there’s Muslims. Now, we can speculate this or that on her personality. Obviously none of us knew her. But even using just some quickly found statistics one can easily see why Maria Ladenburger was, like most young Western European women, likely on her way to be a slut who was to be childless or have a child out of wedlock. And bear in mind, she was not even 20. All the indicators I outlined here will get worse, not better. As one character from a TV show I used to watch said “I know it’s tragic to think that way but you can’t argue with the fucking logic !” 

Qualitatively, things are a bit more tricky as they go into the emotional aspect which can’t be expressed with just numbers. But I’ll argue that they’re covered well enough. Most decent, moral men have their horror stories with women. Along with my February 2014 text, I highly recommend these stories written on CoAlpha forums in September 2015. One of the worst problems with anecdotal, qualitative evidence is that you can always find some moron whose stories with Western women were happy and most of our idiocratic society will find his story to be more uplifting and credible because the author is mainstream, even if it’s obvious by the way he acts later that his success was due to the fact that he was a massive asshole and as dumb as dirt. But, I won’t go into that any longer, seeing I already covered it and concluded that one must make their own conclusions on whether or not today’s Western women are worth it.

Maria Ladenburger was likely to become everything or at least most of things this blog is so vehemently against. Her parents’ money would likely ensure that she is protected from any consequences of her future shenanigans and that she is able to proceed with these on a high level. She was likely rotten even at the time of her death and even more likely to become rotten very soon. And she was, like current women in Trump’s USA, not to improve if some right wing party had won the elections. Had she lived, she would very likely be a source of trauma for every decent man in Germany (well, um, both of  them) who was unlucky enough to see potential for anything more serious than careless pump and dump in her. She would almost certainly be a pest, let us be honest, Westerners. She is the kind of girl who would reject you for treating her respectfully so you can be called an asshole and a “nice guy” by her brain-dead army of liberal virginal fanatics (whose ultimate prize isn’t pussy anyway but being loyal soldiers of their own tragedies) if you object in any way while the moron with an IQ of 20  fucking her somehow has “actual personality” – a stance these loyal liberals would hold as long as those being annoyed with Maria are members of the appropriate groups one is allowed to hate (you can usually tell them by the color of their skin and lack of gay mannerisms).

With its brain-dead youth, assholish majority of population and complete internalization of cancerous social policies like feminism West is dying old man. So Maria was a sad but a necessary victim of a situation where West has forfeited its reproductive, economic and every other future to a stronger group like Muslims.

On a lighter note…

6 thoughts on “In defense of Maria Ladenburger’s fate

  1. You know I always find it amusing when the Left defending Islam. Before 9/11, before the Bush-era Republicans, Muslims were the biggest Republican voting block in the year 2000 (http://www.metafilter.com/121606/70-of-Muslims-in-America-voted-for-Bush-in-2000), although it’s hard to find data on this era because there just weren’t that many Muslims voters in 2000 in America. When you discount Muslims who are Nation of Islam or other American-made Black Muslim groups (which I feel are usually quite phony in their beliefs anyway, let’s be honest) and focus on Muslims from foreign countries, that number climbs to a staggering 80%! White, Christian, married men don’t even vote in a bloc this strong for the Republicans!

    So what happened? Well 9/11 happened, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and then plundered Iraq, and these voting numbers reversed. I think between the Dot-com bubble, 9/11, and the subsequent wars, winning the 2000 election was disastrous for the Republicans image. Winning in 2004 would be even more disastrous with the recession and housing crisis being blamed squarely on them, when in fact both parties supported the policies that led to it (As well as both parties supported the wars). It was Bill Clinton after all that repealed many of the protections that would have prevented the Housing crisis or softened the blow. That’s why I call the 2000 and 2004 elections as two of the biggest Pyrrhic political victories in the history of mankind.

    Just look what happened after. The explosion of anti-White and anti-Male hatred the likes of which the world has never seen starting since Obama got elected. It wasn’t Obama’s fault though honestly, but his deranged and loony supporters. 8 years of it going on 9. Bush won in Florida by a few thousand votes, and the Muslim vote there easily turned the tide for the Republicans. That’s the great irony of it, with 9/11, voting patterns reversing, and their inevitable outcomes, one can only laugh at all the coincidences. It’s hard to imagine it being a giant conspiracy.

    Getting to the article, I honestly don’t give a crap when these people die. If her dad was an E.U. official then that is just icing on the cake, as we all know these people are at the forefront of open borders immigration. Hahahahaha. Look at how weak these people are, even 30 years ago you could imagine a gang or someone trying to kill this immigrant for doing that, now he’s being paraded like some hero by the Left. The Left is absolutely deranged at this point, like a madman wildly swinging an axe through a giant crowd of people crazy.

    The Left has been holding this cognitive dissonance since at least the past 10-15 years if not longer. Islam is very masculine, patriarchal, extremely homophobic, not afraid to enforce rules, intolerant, exclusive, and engage in all sorts of ethnic, racial, and religious hatred across the globe. Whether it is the fault of the U.S. or E.U. is irrelevant, these people will not change their behavior in the foreseeable future.

    So what does the Left do? Nothing. Do they shame them for this behavior? No. In fact they shame you for even pointing it out. So what’s happening? Well let’s do some math, if you let in one million of these people in your country and your liberals have no children, you lose demographically. In fact someone pointed out that there were somewhere between 690,000-740,000 “German” births in 2016 (And that’s a high estimate and includes immigrant German births, https://www.thelocal.de/20150821/germany-sees-biggest-boom-of-births-in-decade), yet they let in over one million Muslim immigrants, that far exceeds the rate of native growth, perhaps more than twice! For example if 200,000 of those 700,000 births were Muslims, and over one Millions were let in, that would mean that 500,000 Germans were born vs. 1.2 million Muslims coming in, over 2-to-1. It doesn’t take a genius to see where this is going. In reality, I think it’s far more skewed than even that.

    So one of two options will happen:

    1) The Right will drop their Islamic hate as petty and team up with them to attack liberals. American Republicans also similarly need to drop their love affair with Israel, it’s not doing them any favors at this point and is becoming politically unpopular. I would recommend this option the most. I love Islam, I love Muslims, and I love the power they can wield without apology. Islam represents a masculine strength and energy that the world is lacking. Women convert to Islam in the U.S. and U.K. at twice the rate of men. This is the best option.

    2) The Right won’t drop their hate and Muslims will simply attack both Rightists and Leftists. Playing both groups (Left and Right) off each other when necessary. In reality they don’t care about any of these political Western distinctions, they just want whatever party will offer the best deal for Islam.

    Lastly, normies as you call them, are morons, cucks, dumbies, and pushovers. They routinely fall for whatever is both socially popular and politically expedient. I don’t expect any resistance from them, in fact I don’t expect anything from them at all. That’s how they are, they are like mountains, unmoving and unchanged by anything. Most normies are basically either hard-core or soft-core liberals with a different degree of belief in liberal dogma. Believing normies are going to do anything besides maybe a sporadic attack or pass a light bill or law is like expecting a dog to go get a degree in nuclear physics.

    Refugees, welcome!

  2. Hi caamib.

    As for Maria Landenburger and cases like hers, I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other, since strangers do not have strong feelings about me one way or the other.

    Also, I see this as a natural consequence of people choosing multiculturalism, as if someone chooses to beat themselves in the head with a hammer and then complains about the pain. I also see Islamic men as a tool used by God to punish societies for their degeneracy. I discuss this in my YouTube video: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

    I’m certainly a member of the Alt-Right, but certainly a Christian believer who follows Christian Scripture too. I’m just convinced that most of today’s believers misinterpret Scripture.

    President Trump just put out an executive order to block refugees from 7 Islamic countries from entering the United States, which was overturned by judges. Per that situation, last Sunday my preacher announced “We as Christians stand with the refugees.” So I typed him an e-mail: “I as a Christian stand AGAINST the refugees.” I told him I’m a Nationalist, and that him and the head of the church choose to put our country at risk from terrorists in order not to hurt some people’s feelings. I also said that we both can’t be right; someone is dead wrong, and that we’ll all face God one day for the positions we hold, and that’s something to think about.

  3. Great article as usual. But I will add my thoughts.

    The best way to think about liberals is as godless christians. From this point of view, god-based christians and the alt-right are heretics, while Muslims and other outside groups are targets of liberal evangelism. And because Liberalism is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), and because Liberals have pure and devout faith in their religion, they have no doubt that others including Muslims will eventually see the light and become liberals themselves. So from this point of view, unrestricted immigration makes sense.

    It is the spirit of christianity for each christian group to consider all other christian groups as heretics. So while liberals and the alt-right share the same basic values, they consider each other to be heretics. The alt-right is basically another godless christian sect. But they have the sense to recognize that Islam is a threat to their culture/religion. So they want to persecute the heretics (liberals) at home, and keep the Muslims out.

    I totally agree with the idea that having a genetic investment in a society produces an allegiance to that society. This is true regardless of whether that genetic investment is from a stable relationship or from promiscuity. I have noticed that many Christian saints, beginning with Saint Augustine, are repentant promiscuous sinners. And this makes sense since after investing genetically in the society, they change their focus and then invest spiritually in that society. Modern culture is different from previous Christian cultures in being almost purely evil. So it actually makes perfect sense that Trump, a man who boasts about having sex with other men’s wives, would become the patron saint of modern culture for the alt-right. After all, Trump is defending a culture that is optimal for him, a culture that encourages adultery and theft. The members of the alt-right are basically little beta Trumps, men without morals who want to protect their immoral society from the moral threat of Islam.

    Being a practical person, I want these ideas to translate into practical action. What should moral men do? One obvious choice is to convert to Islam. And for those who can fully accept Islam and the Quran, I recommend doing this. I personally can’t fully accept Islam due to my upbringing which was based on reason, science, and Enlightenment values. So another option is to find a way to ally with Islam without joining them. This is something that we Mikraites are currently looking into.

    • Franklin,
      Despite our differences, I truly liked you and respected you. I even saw a picture of you on the Internet, and you looked like how my beloved grandfather looked years ago.

      But sadly, your post here is WAY OUT OF LINE. So let’s not blaspheme Jesus by twisting His quote in John 14:6.

      NO, it is NOT in the spirit of TRUE Christianity to consider all other Christian groups as heretics.

      NO, liberals and the Alt-Right DO NOT share the same basic values. I am Alt-Right. I dare say that we are closer to God than all the others. And you are saying I have no morals, while I have more morals than you have.

      For everyone I highly recommend a version of Christianity tailored to their own culture. Everyone can believe on the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and do so with their own heart, and reject society’s baggage that wants to come with it.

  4. @K.C.

    What he says is true, Liberals have a great deal in common with old school Tridentine Catholics even if their doctrine is a complete 180 yet they are nearly identical in how they practice when in majority.

    Also, what do you define as true Christianity? because if it is a belief in free will, universal salvation and man’s choice (the supposed innate ability for a utterly corrupt creature to come to God by an act itself) you are in accordance with the Catholic Catechism and the Council of Trent, I reject free will, universal salvation and man’s ability though I call myself Christian, Calvinist/Reformed but still Christian.

    Yet the Council of Trent condemns anyone who believes in Predestination, Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, Unconditional election as heretics worthy to be burned.

    If true Christianity truly does not reject other sects, why then does the bastion of free will and universal salvation, the Roman Church condemn the Lollards, Albagensians, the Waldensians, the Wycliffites, the Puritans, along with Huss, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and other Reformers?

    One need not take any measure of pain to take the last bit apart, “Everyone can believe on the Son of God” one little word shall fell it, if all can believe either Jesus was a lair when he said to the Jews who asked to tell them if he was who he said plainly “Joh 10:26  But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” if all could believe the gospels would testify to that fact yet that group of Jews was told to their face that they could not believe because they were not his sheep.

    Also, I admire your blog Caamib, I must confess it is a shameful thing to be apart of a people (Canadian) that is one of the two nations that has spread the poison of feminism throughout the world that there is no escape to return to the old ways and I have found what Cornfed said to be exact, as for the world (the majority of mankind), it cannot be saved and wants to be deceived: Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur, or “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.”

  5. Johann Bachmeer:

    Perhaps I was too harsh with Franklin; maybe I was in a bad mood. I still like and respect him. I think he’s pretty cool.

    Your question is very easy. True original Christianity is that of its first 800 years when there was only one united Church. We therefore easily sidestep all the junk doctrines you mentioned.

    John 10:26: Classical Christianity teaches that it’s first a movement of the heart, then belief. So they don’t believe because they choose to not have their heart turn to God. This is common knowledge. So your contention that it easily falls apart is nonsense.

    Caamib: I admire your blog too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s