Author: admin

It’s a while I wanted to write about this topic. We all know what is happening in Europe with the mass invasion of third world individuals that started back in 2015 and before with the war in Syria. So the refugees started to come to Western countries because of the war in the Middle East. Still back then, those migratory fluxes were quite fishy. ln fact, in every video and picture of the refugees’ crisis there were very few women, no children and no old people at all. How come those refugees were all 20-35 years old men? Where were the women and the children? Did they leave them in the war zones?

After the war in Syria ended, lots of economic migrants started to come to Europe from Lybia and Africa. Another bizarre fact about all this migratory stories is that the Middle Easterns allowed in America, under Obama (and in Europe too) were only Muslims: no Christians were allowed to flee the war? How absurd is that? Actually, the Christians were the most at risk since they have been killed regularly by the Muslims following their Koran commands from Allah, about decapitating the Kafirs.

Now, you may ask: “how do you connect all this disastrous invasion of third world people into Europe, to women?”. Simple: Angela Merkel, the politician who passed the legislation that gave free access to Europe to everyone  (and who curiously won the Kalergi Prize), justified her suicidal betrayal of Europe saying that since the population of Europe is visibly shrinking, new young people were needed to fill the gap. In other words, Merkel justified the mass immigration of Europe saying that since Europeans did not have enough children the population of Europe was aging fast with disastrous effect on the economy. Young people are needed to pay taxes and to support the part of the aging population that is exiting from the job market. According to Merkel, the solution was to get young people from third world countries. It would be interesting to ask Angela Merkel how thousands and thousands of illiterate and unskilled migrants who spend their entire lives on welfare could ever improve the economy? Those migrants don’t pay taxes, they suck the welfare paid by the citizens of Europe instead. They cost a huge amount of taxpayer money just because of the number of crimes they commit.

So, even if the argument brought by Angela Merkel is idiotic (dear Angela Merkel if you want immigrants who contribute to the economy and pay their share of taxes you gotta import them from Japan or from New Zeland, not from Africa and the Middle East) that was her justification for mass immigration: declining European population. However, this will be the topic of another article that will be focused on the Bank Cartel with George Soros and their plan to turn Europe into a giant Communist continent.

The point is that all the masses of third world migrants pouring into Europe are justified by the fact (ridiculous per sé) that the shrinking European population needs to be replaced. So, why the populations of Europe – and all White/advanced countries in general – are shrinking? Because Europeans don’t have kids and don’t even get married anymore!

I love YouTube even if I think we should all migrate to BitChute since Google is operating as a fascist anti-freedom of speech tyrant by shutting down YouTubers who express anti-socialist ideas. Anyway, I follow many independent channels on Youtube, in order to escape the fake news on tv, and I saw many YouTubers say that the European shrinking population is the fault of Feminism. But I don’t think so. I cannot stand the modern Feminism and I consider it plain pathetic with its ridiculous hate toward the male and its absurd tentative of emasculating all Western men. What a toxic, negative movement! However, I honestly don’t think that women initiated this. And that because I am a woman and I know the nature of women. Maybe some obese feminist with a ring in her nose gave up on men, but the majority of women WANT a man in their lives. And that is natural and beneficial. So many girls I met when I was younger and even, later on, wanted to get married and start a family. I believe that this desire is instilled into the very soul of every woman.  The desire to be a mother at some point, and to have a man next to them is a natural feminine instinct and desire.

When I was into dating, before getting married, and later on after my divorce, I have always seen the same scenario, both here in the United States and in Europe where I am from: almost the totality of men avoid commitment, avoid marriage and avoid responsibilities altogether. The large majority of men want to have a large number of sexual partners without having the responsibility of a wife and children. That is the real reason why women don’t get married and don’t start a family: it is not because they rather dye their hair green and proclaim themselves feminists! It is because the large majority of men don’t want to get married. So, with what alternative women are left?  Marry each other? I believe that many women embraced lesbianism because of the desire of a having a stable partner that could not be found among men. As a woman, we all had pretty much that same experience of dating a man who calls only at the end of the week when is planning to go out and possibly have sex, but for the rest of the week is gone, like he doesn’t belong with you. Personally, I am not interested in something like that and at some point, because of this common and disrespectful behavior of men, I just quit dating.  However, I know plenty of women and girls who keep dating and keep having this same, depressing experience: the guy only wants to go out and have fun but nothing more. Impossible not having met one guy like that, being the number of men out there who behave like that simply huge.

Some people (especially men) try to explain this behavior by saying that since the law is always on women’s side and if a man got a divorce, probably lost everything so that is the reason why men avoid commitment. I have to say that this is a valid argument and in fact, I disagree with the fact that the man has to support an ex-wife and go to prison if he cannot afford to pay the alimony. Also, the custody of the kids should not always be given to the mother and should be more equally shared. If a man cannot pay the alimony, he should not be imprisoned for that, in fact, that is unjust and totally crazy. In addition, a divorced woman should contribute to support her children and not only rely on the alimony check and on the government aid. People, in general, should be more responsible and not having kids if they cannot afford them. Eventually, by stopping forcing the man to support his ex-wife, women and men would try harder to make their marriage work and that would be very beneficial for all the society.

If you surf YouTube you can find literally plenty of YouTubers claiming that women with their feministic behavior destroyed the institution of the family in the West and so justified mass immigration as a politic maneuver to get more “young people” into Europe. Here are just one of the many videos proclaiming that the destruction of the family is totally women’s fault:

In this videos like in many others, they say that women refuse to have a man and prefer to jump from bed to bed when they are young, wasting the best years of their lives instead of getting married. This is where I disagree, in fact, this is simply not true. I spent the first part of my life in Italy and, like so many girls my age, I would have been very happy to get married at 22 and have a bunch of kids. But since then, men did not want to get married, usually pointing out that they were too young and they preferred to wait at least until their 30s.

What I believe is that Feminism did not create the decline of the family like all those YouTubers say. I believe that happened the exact contrary! Men at some point decided that the responsibility of a family was too much of a burden and so it was just better for them to have sex with multiple women and avoid any commitment with any specific woman. This is what created Feminism, in my opinion. Feminism was a woman reaction, triggered by the rage and the frustration of not being able to follow their natural instinct and being wives and mothers.

The reaction of women to the refuse of men to form families is what ruined the society. This reaction of women to the behavior of men created Feminism. So, Feminism has been triggered by the men in the first place.

But the question to ask is: “why men stopped to want a family?”. In fact, men used to get married in the 50s, so what happened? Happened “the sex liberation”. In other words, women started to have sex freely with men that were not their husbands. Before that, it was a requirement by the society in its whole that women did not engage in sex before getting married and the social price to pay for not respecting this social rule was the shame and the social condemnation. So, women just did not engage in sex before being married. Men had to get married if they wanted to have regular sex consistently with a woman.

When women have been sexually liberated, they began to have sex freely with any male partner without necessarily asked to be married to him. After this point in time men started gradually to stop to marry women. The reason why men don’t marry women with whom they can finally have sex is summarized in a popular saying from the 50s that mothers used to repeat to their daughters “A man doesn’t buy the cow if he can have the milk for free”. This saying was said to convince young women to avoid sex before marriage and “says it all”!

What finally ruined the West by destroying the family, have been two facts:

1. Sex liberation in the 60s, so men finally could have sex with girls without marrying them
2. Consequently, men stopped marrying girls

At this point, the family declines. Nowadays, men want sex and avoid taking responsibilities by playing a multitude of games in dealing with women. Consequently, women feel used (fair enough) and some respond by getting pregnant and using this trick to force their sexual partner to marry them, usually ending up as a single mother or as an ignored wife. All this made the relationships between men and women faker and faker and more and more difficult. The result is that the populations in Europe are declining extremely fast. And phony politicians, following the EU agenda (like Angela Merkel), are quick to use this excuse to destroy Western civilization and attempt the transformation of the world into a giant communist entity easy to control.

I am sorry, but men are guilty for the declining of the West as well as women are. In fact, women are guilty of not being able to think logically and of following phony movements encouraging the mass immigration of people who are hostile, unemployable and ultimately the enemy of the country that hosts them. Men are guilty of being able only to seek temporary pleasure without seeing the beauty in the continuation of their own civilization, through the creation of families and new progenies.

When the safe and rich Western countries will become like third world shitholes countries, with women sold as slaves, men pooping on the sidewalks, rampant criminality, injustices, poverty, total lack of human rights and total chaos, will be a great consolation for the new generations to know that men and women have been working in a team to throw the Western Civilization down the toilet.

 

 

After a tyrant government arrested Tommy Robinson and condemned him within 4 hours, the judge ordered to the British press of not reporting the arrest of this innocent man or they will be arrested too.

It seems that now the British government has changed its tactics and instead of the totalitarian intimidating behavior adopted the tactic of lying to the British people. After the attorney of Robinson refused to release information for fear of being arrested, the press, curiously, broke the silence and begun publishing articles calling Robinson and his numerous supporters “Right Wings”.

There is no much to be surprised, being the destruction of the reputation of the adversary a very common maneuver used by tyrants, criminals and dictators in general. Also, another tactic very common to dictators and mass murderers is to make “disappear” their political opponents. From Kim Jong Un, to Mao, to Castro, all major criminals and assassins in history have used this tactic. In Communist Russia the government – and in China as well – used to arrest its political opponents and make them vanish.

The truth is that Tommy Robinson put his hands on something really big. He was outside a British court during the trial of Muslim gang rapists denouncing the favor treatments that those muslim rapists received because of their always inconsistent punishments.  Basically the English courts always release all the muslim who gang raped girls. They are rarely condemned for their crimes. The British government is in fact involved in a massive cover-up of the muslim gangs.  For at least 10 years the British authorities had refused to condemn any muslim group raping children. If we take a look at the statistics it’s easy to see that the sexual assaults perpetrated by muslims are about the 25% of all rapes happening in England and about the 80% of the gang-rapes. If we consider that in England the muslims are only the 4% of the entire population, those numbers are simply astonishing! The terrifying question is: when muslims will be the 15% or the 20% of the population what will happen in the streets of London?

After the muslim population begun to immigrate in mass to the Western countries included England, other crimes skyrocketed, like the acid attacks, in fact, while Stockholm became the rape-capital of Europe, London became the acid-attack-capital of Europe. Throwing acid in the face of women is a common behavior in islamic countries, where women have been harshly punished, humiliated and tortured on a regular base.

The question is: Why the British government (and the German Government) keep covering up the crimes of the muslim migrants? And why they insist to import thousands of those muslims at risk of their own citizens? Why those governments do that?

According to InfoWars and FoxNews the Western government cover-up muslims crimes consistently because muslim gangs are working for the elite.  The muslim gangs provide young children for the pedophile orgies on the style of the American Pizzagate and Spirit Cooking going on in certain exclusive circles of the international jet-set.

This hypothesis makes quite sense and explains why the muslims are always protected by the corrupted governments of Europe, no matter how many crimes they commit. That’s because the elites are pedophiles and pray on children, and muslims are like their dealers providing them with what they want. The same is happening in Hollywood. That explains perfectly why celebrities love Muslims so much. Do not forget about Roman Polansky and the passionate defense of such a rapist and pedophile from part of Meryl Streep. No surprise that many have begun to call Hollywood “Pedowood”.

Initially, the British government prohibited the press to release any information about the sketchy arrest of Tommy Robinson. At that point, a huge support from outraged people stormed the internet and the streets of London. Since the elite could not cover up what was happening anymore, they decided to lie. So the government changed his tactic and allowed the press to publish articles about the arrest of Tommy Robinson.  This concession was made on the condition that the journalists would call the numerous supporters of Tommy Robinson “Right Wing” or “Far Rights” in order to defame them.  Useless to say that those are all lies and the people who support Tommy Robinson are everyday people, of all races, genders, and ages. Calling these people “far right” is not only disrespectful and utterly ridiculous but it also shows how deceptive and dishonest the elite is.

A petition to free Tommy has reached almost its maximum limit of 200,000 signatures in a little more than 4 hours!

On the streets of London, many citizens exhausted by the crimes of Muslims and the corruption of their government showed up to support the release of Tommy. Tommy Robinson has been sentenced within 4 hours from his arrest to 13 months in a prison filled with jihadist that will probably kill him.

The government of England has power but no authority because is no longer doing the will of their people. In fact, the government has totally ignored the result of the Brexit referendum. The crooks in power are trying in every way to reverse Brexit and nullify the will of the people.  The British people didn’t vote for mass immigration of muslims into their country and it’s clear that the majority of them (not far-right but regular people) don’t want them in their country. The fact that this government ignores the will of the people, suppresses the freedom of speech and jails the dissidents make it an illegitimate government.

Unfortunately, the situation is no different in France, Italy, and Germany where the governments are completely ignoring the will of the people, in favor of the impositions from the European Union. The mass immigration of Muslims seems to be orchestrated by some obscure shadow government that is planning to replace the original population of Europe and to establishes dictatorial regimes all around the continent.

Nobody will ever talk to an American or to an Australian about the “duality” of Italy because, like many topics involving racial tensions, this is a prohibited subject. One of those that makes people uncomfortable and so nobody ever dares to talk about. Especially to foreigners, to whom is only natural, to show only the beauty and the art, and hide instead all the fights, the internal tensions and the frustrations of a country. If you are a foreigner who lived in Italy for a while, especially in the northern areas of Veneto, Lombardia or Piemonte, you probably know what I am talking about.

As an Italian teacher sometimes happens to me to stumble into the differences that exist between the North and South even in the Italian language. For example, differences in the use of grammar, in fact in the South of Italy people tend to use the verb “to stay” as a replacement for the verb “to be”, that is instead used in the North of the country. That is probably due to the history of Italy where the South has been dominated a lot by the Spaniards in the past centuries and so the language got from the Spanish the use of those two verbs with similar meanings. The Southern part of Italy has been also characterized by the continuous wars and conquests from part of the Muslims that, in the past centuries in their desperate tentative to conquer Europe, attacked Sicily a multitude of times. As a reminder of the Arab influence in Italy, we have a funny word used by the Southerners to refer to any unnecessary cheesy attitude that is called “salamelecco”; this word clearly derived by the Arab Salameleico.  Italians often say “bando ai salamelecchi”, literally translated: ” let’s avoid all the formalities” – and get to the point. (in the Italian language the plural of the word “salamelecco” is “salamelecchi”). Grammatically,  Northerners use different verbal temps respect to the Southerners, in fact in the North is common to use the Passato Prossimo Temp to build sentences expressed in the past, while in the South is common to use instead the Passato Remoto Temp. Also, the word “watermelon” translates “anguria” in the North and “cocomero” in the South of Italy, and so on.

After the fall of the Roman Empire and the conquest by the Barbarians and the Muslims, Italy became a battlefield, and it remained a battlefield for more than one thousand years until the General Garibaldi unified Italy under the direction of Italian King Umberto di Savoia in late 1800. The South, like I said has been conquered war after war by the Spaniards and the Muslims, while the North has been conquered by the Vikings, the Northern populations, the Germans, the Frenches and the Austrians. This is visible in the architecture, in the language, in the culture, in the foods and in the physical appearance of the people, being Southern Italians generally with dark eyes, dark skin, and olive complexion, while in the North, especially in Veneto, blonde hair and blue eyes are the norms.

The truth is that Italian Northerners and Italian Southerners never liked each other. The Northerners have always accused the Southern of being lazy, rely on welfare instead of working and basically being criminals and Mafia affiliates. It is true however that the Mafia originated in Sicily, the Andrangheda originated in Calabria, while the Camorra originated in the city of Napoli.

In the United States of America, in Australia, Germany and so on the Northern Italians are unknown because Northern Italy has always been rich and so its population never emigrated abroad. The Italian immigrants to foreign countries are all people from the South. Southern Italians have a different culture, a different attitude, different food, different appearance and different accent respect to Northern Italians. In fact, as a Northern Italian living in the United States, people are astonished to hear that I am Italian, and very often everybody thinks that I am German or Russian (due especially to my accent). There are not many Northern Italians like me in the world and in America, so it is not surprising that around the world, most people have not a clue of how we look like.

Because the South of Italy has always been poor and run by Mafia and corruption, people from the South of Italy instead were forced to emigrate abroad a lot; and those are really the only Italians that the rest of the world knows.

Like I said Northerners do not like Southerners especially due to the massive immigration of poor Southerners to the rich North of Italy. Like always happens people from poor lands emigrate to the lands of richer people, and the latter are never happy to have to share their wealth, their lands and their privileges.

In the early seventies in the North people begun to call the Southerners with the depreciative term “terroni” that is used still today to describe people with poor manner, poor education and not very trustworthy. Southerners had all the right to move inside their own country and so they emigrate to the Northern rich cities of Milan, Turin, and Venice anyway. Those cities changed deeply, in fact, the newcomers went in the cities to be close to the farms (FIAT in Turin for example) and so in the cities have been built lots of large building with cheap apartments to accommodate all those people. The originals inhabitants of the Northern cities instead moved outside the cities in the suburbs.

In the eighties the Northerners accused the Italian government to be infiltrated with Mafia and corruption, being almost all the Italian politicians and all bureaucrats of Southern origins. Rome, the Italian seat of the government, has been accused of collecting a massive amount of money through taxes from the rich North and to redistribute them to the lazy and corrupted South. For how funny this may sound, some Northerners still curse Garibaldi for having unified Italy.

It is true that the North is extremely rich and that if the North did not have the South of Italy to support, it would be ways richer than Switzerland. Rome has been compared to a vacuum swallowing all the money of the Northern taxpayers. That is the reason why in the North had been founded the “Lega Lombarda” (Lombard League), known also as “Lega Nord” (North League). The original purpose of this new party founded by the politician Umberto Bossi, was to secede the North from the South at the latitude of Tuscany and have a newly independent country called “Padania” with its capital in Milan.

 

 

 

In Italian, bad words or cursing is called “parolacce”. Now let’s see one second where this Italian word come from. In Italian the translation of the English term “word” is “parola”. So “parola”means “word”. All clear until there, but so how did it became “parolaccia” instead? First of all a little of basic grammar about the gender and number of nouns. In Italian, the majority of nouns work this way: they are masculine when they end with the letter “-O” and they are feminine when they end with the letter “-A”. Pretty clear right? Remember, not all Italian nouns follow this pattern, in fact some end up with the letter “-E” both at the feminine and at the masculine, but let’s forget about that small number of nouns that are no more than 20% for now. Let’s consider just the largest part of nouns, and they do end in “-O” when they are masculine and in “-A” when they are feminine. This happens also with the name s of people. Do you know that Italian is the language of the vowels right? And that all the Italian words end with a vowel? The few words used in Italian that do not end up with a vowel are foreign words from English, French and Spanish that entered in the language. Those words have also irregular plural. Some words that do not end up with vowel are straight from Latin, the mother of the Italian Language. Like for example the word “gratis”. This word is commonly used in Italian is Latin and means “for free”, like something you don’t have to pay for. “Gratis” is a Latin declination of the Latin word “gratia” that means “favor” or “concession”. This word evolved from Latin and become “grazia” in modern Italian. However all that just to tell you that, with exclusion of a few words, the large majority of Italian words end with a vowel. I was saying that most words end with an “-O”” when are masculine and with an “-A” when are feminine. Is interesting to notice that that happens also with the names of people. Take most Italian proper names and you will see. For example the Italian name Marco is masculine, same with Paolo, Francesco, Stefano, Alessandro, Mario, Massimo and so on. Let’s see with women names like my own for example: Laura! Feminine! Or others like Stella, Samanta, Federica, Simona, Elena and so on. See? O masculine and A feminine!  All those masculine Italian words ending in -O, at the plural will end in -I, while the feminine words ending in -A, at the plural end in -E.

The word “parola” that means “word” is feminine singular, in fact you can check that it ends in -A. So now let’s see how it become instead something like “parolaccia”. Actually “parolacce” that you see in the title is the plural form of this feminine word and it literally means “bad words”.

Latin is a language that works differently than any other modern language. In fact in Latin there are not active prepositions, meaning that Latin prepositions exist but they are only indicative of the declination that follows. In Any modern language, the prepositions are posted before nouns to indicate a kind of relationship between this noun and other elements in the sentence. So basically Ancient Romans indicated the relationship “the dog of the boy” not by using the preposition “of” but by the ending of the word “boy”. In short Latins instead of posting prepositions in front of nouns changes the ending of the word. In Italy we have some Grammatical and Syntactical construction that still work this way. For example by changing the ending of nouns or adjectives, in Italian, you can enhance or modify their meaning. For example if you add the ending “-issimo” to adjectives you enhance its meaning. “Bello” is an adjective that means “beautiful” but if you add the ending and you make it “bellissimo”, now it means “extremely beautiful”, “amazingly beautiful”. This particular grammatical form is called “superlativo assoluto” or “absolute Superlative”. The term “superlative” shows the enhancement made on its meaning and the term “absolute” means that is not compared with something else, it is “amazingly beautiful”  in an absolute way. In contrast there are the “Superlative relative” constructions made with the adjective, when there are some form of comparison. Like for example “la mia macchina é la piú bella”, (my car is the most beautiful), in this case is implied that my car is the most beautiful compared with other cars, in fact that sentence implied that my car is the most beautiful among other cars.

The absolute Superlative construction applies the concept of enhancing the meaning of adjective by changing its ending. This end-changing of a word to change its meaning is a construction coming from Latin.

So if my friend is tall, in Italian “alto”, I can enhance the meaning of this adjective by saying that my friend is “altissimo”, and that expresses the fact that my friend is incredibly tall.

Now, in order to finally arrive to explain how we got to the term “parolaccia”, we have to apply a similar construction, that instead changes the ending of nouns (instead of adjectives) in order to change their meaning. Since “parola” is a noun and not an adjective, we have to apply this new construction.

 

 

There are 4 grammatical models that change the meaning of nouns without having to use an adjective to do so, like is done in English (because this structure does not exist in English). So let’s take the word “gatto”, that means “cat”. If we want to use the first of the first construction we will use the masculine, singular ending since “gatto” is masculine, singular (see previous chart – because is ending in -O). So let’s cut off the last letter from the word “gatto” and we get the stem of the word that is gatt- and to that we add -ino. The result is “gattino” that means “small cat” without to have to use the adjective “small”. In English you have a specific name for “small cat” that is “kitten”; in Italian we use this structure to construct words that have incorporated in itself the adjective “small”, “big”, “bad” and “pretty”.  Now if we want to say “bad cats”, we have to make the word “gatto” at the plural that would be “gatti”; then we need to use the vezzeggiativo that means “bad” and take the one masculine, plural that is -acci. The result is “gattacci” that is the perfect translation for “bad cat”.  In Italian this construction is used a lot, but many nouns are not regular and don’t follow that patterns but they have their own.  Let’s see some example and try to see if you can build them yourself!

So you can see some exceptions here, for example “donnetta” does not mean pretty woman, is actually mean noisy, silly with the meaning of “small person”, and is a negative meaning. The world dog then is totally irregular, that is because if the word “cane” would have been used literally with this construction, it would have generated the word “canino” that means “canine” the tooth. So in order to avoid confusion the use of the construction with dog is “cagnolino” and not “canino”. The ending -accio means bad or ugly so in the case or “parola”, we can easily see that “parolaccia” means bad word. The meaning is specifically of cursing. “Parolacce” is the plural of the term. Voilá!

Now I am sure you want some Parolaccia? Here you go.