The L Word
Love is a silly thing and also a major loss of Man Points to discuss. I, however, am going to have to shed those Man Points today as I drop the L-bomb.
Don’t worry about my Man Points though. I gained several thousand this week by drinking a beer into which some careless, anorexic, fatass shrew had discarded a cigarette.
Then I slipped her a free MenAreBetterThanWomen.com card and my Man Points lit up like a slot machine.
Christmas is getting closer, and that means expensive gifts are being purchased all across the land. That also means that a million women are about to fall in love; a love of jewelry and bath products and other lame bullshit upon which women base their lives and also credit for the foundations of a good relationship. Merry fucking Christmas.
Women are lousy at being at in love.
To a man, being in love is a lot like getting a promotion. Sure it’s exciting and it has the potential to improve your quality of life, but it requires at all times that we men behave with discretion and self respect. For example, you don’t see a man running out of his boss’ office and spiking a stapler or striping his shirt off, do you? No of course not. That would be completely classless. Perhaps buying a round of drinks or two for his friends. Now that would be a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Men look at love in exactly the same way. Something has happened which is good for the moment — in the present context, and now I will have to adopt my lifestyle in some way. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t; we’ll have to wait and roll with the punches. Surprise, surprise, women are exactly the opposite.
To a woman, being in love is a license to behave like a fucking lunatic. Firstly, women do not love other people — men, women, children, it’s all the same. Women love only things and it’s obviously true because they obsess like fuck about their precious trinkets every chance they get. That’s what women call love. It’s a self-love that’s also called avarice and greed, and because they don’t actually feel anything like the love that men feel, women behave like crazy people to fill in the gaps.
Women in love are like the mad inventor who never had the time to start a family of his own. He was probably too busy inventing time machines and T-shirt cannons and helicopters that ran on sunflower seeds. To compensate the scientist naturally builds weird robot replicas of families or other such things. Like Edward Scissorhands, that’s a good example. The guy didn’t have hands, so what did he use instead? Scissors. That’s the manner of shit women perpetrate when they want to be in love or think they should be. They just pull a bunch of emotions out of their ass and mix it up in a big gumbo of delusion.
“My boyfriend’s sixty pounds overweight but boy does he have a perfect ass!”
Yea, that makes about sixty pounds of sense.
Talk to a woman about love and she’ll go on for hours with all kinds of similar nonsense sayings and bullshit aphorisms. Women are like fucking car salesmen with the shit — all selling themselves the same used junk. Take my word for it if you want to do the manly thing and not ruin your evening by listening to a bunch of whining. The point is that women spend most of their time thinking about being in love. They think about it so fucking much that by the time it comes around for the first or fiftieth time, they’ve trained themselves to react like cult members or kung fu masters. Every signal and reaction is automatic, and from the barroom to the bedroom they’re on autopilot; just soaking in the adulation and shelling out the storybook shill.
Women debase themselves regularly for love. The love of not being wrong and not having to admit the fantasy upon which they’ve built their self-worth just isn’t going to work because it’s impossible and stupid.
The first step to being in love is growing the fuck up.
Related Articles:
December 19th, 2005 at 9:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1cc2bd319db66
Hi Wolfe. I am sorry if I offended you by saying what I did, as my personal opinion as it is pro tempus, was not the same before the war in Iraq, therefore I simplified the sentence on purpose.
Before the war in Iraq, my brother was in the Danish army, and I was about to choose my own career, which I was in doubt what to be, so because my brother was in the army (he was a driver in a leopard tank), I thought why not become an officer?, and I was just about to join the officer academy, when Denmark chose to join the illegal war. That was when I decided to resign my application (this is the truth).
(Wolfe) Quote: (“…The men who volunteer to fight for us do so honorably, at least in most Western militaries�.)
I agree, my brother also joined the army, because he wanted to help people in need, and it is unquestionable that there lies honour within that.
(Wolfe) quote “They do not do so for a “pay check�.)
In most cases no, but in the U.S. there is a tendency, that many people from the lower middleclass join the marines so it can be questioned, because you don’t see any rich people in the army. I also spoke with some Iraqis, who live here, and they said, that many Mexicans with whom they had spoken, only joined the U.S army to get a green pass, and they never wanted to be in the war in the first place.
(wolfe) quote: (“As for the suggestion that you will find neither moral force (I assume this is what you mean by vires; the usage is unusal, even for me) nor honesty in the Army, I think you are very very mistaken�.)
Unfortunately it is you who is mistaken, because the word “honestas� means honour, but even so I simplified what I said, because there is honour in the army. There is honesty in any army(I think I explained the necessity of truth in another post about men and lying), because you can’t have a functional chain of command without it. Also many battles are won because of information, and therefore you have to rely or depend on the person providing these info, as any misinformation could lead to a loss.
(wolfe) quote: (“As for the idea that there is nothing honorable about war? I don’t know. I know there is no glory.
But the war against Fascism, the War against Slavery and even the Cold War — ask most Czechs, Hungarians and Poles — were, I think, all honorable wars.�)
To say that there is nothing honourable about war in itself, is something different than an honourable war, as an honourable war has a noble goal, whereas war in itself isn’t noble, unless the goal is. Yes the wars against Fascism are honourable wars, because wasn’t it for the U.S. we would still have a Nazi regime today. I can also admire the U.S., when i.e. Bill Clinton attacked the Serbs, when they were killing Muslim men. While we Europeans were still in dialogue with them, you guys went to war without the U.N.´s permission, and who knows how many lives have been saved by that action, so there are indeed honourable wars.
It is quite interesting, I have read a book called “Empire� by the American philosopher Michael Hardt and Italian philosopher Antonio Negri, who say that even though the U.S. promotes Democracy in the world, they are not democratic within the globalization. (what are your thoughts about this?)
Half Soul
December 19th, 2005 at 10:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Long and written in haste. I’ll emphasize that I mean you personally no ill-will, but I find your response insulting and rude. You may find mine the same; if so, please remember it was written in considerable haste.
We had UN permission. Do you want me to list the applicable UN resolutions? In the case of Kosovo we definitely didn’t. Why is a war backed by multiple security council resolutions “without UN permission” and a war opposed by the UN “with UN permission”? This is strange revisionist history. Have you been asleep for the last 10-15 years?
Remember, the Kosovo bombing was a flagrant violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations (Iraq was neither). Unlike Hussein, Milosevic neither used WMD’s nor did he try to possess them. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic presented no threats to its neighbors and never invaded them. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic did not try to assassinate a US President. Unlike Hussein, Milosevic’s intelligence service did not participate in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (in ’93). Unlike Hussein, Milosevic complied with all UN security council resolutions relating to Kosovo. Hussein offered far more support for terrorists than Milosevic.
You’re going to claim Kosovo was legal and good? Fine, then either you’re irrational, stupid, or a liar if you don’t then admit that Iraq was far more legal. You can tell me which it is.
You can claim both wars were legal. You can claim neither was legal. You can claim Iraq was legal and Kosovo wasn’t. But you cannot be a rational thinking honest human being and claim Kosovo was and Iraq wasn’t.
According to the UN itself, Iraq was in violation of the terms of the ’91 cease fire. That meant the US could go back to war (as Clinton did in ’98 with the Desert Fox strikes) without any further UN authorization. In fact, there were over a dozen resolutions between ’91 and ’03 that supported US action. (Want me to cite them?)
Don’t make me laugh by citing Kofi Anan’s comments or those of the other evil corrupt Europeans who were sucking on the teat of kickbacks from Saddam Hussein via the Oil-for-Food Program. Just don’t, unless you want me to think you too were getting Oil-for-Food money.
If the war in Iraq is illegal, then there has likely never been a legal war. Kosovo did not involve the US defending itself; Iraq most certainly did. See also the British Attorney-General’s dossier on the legality of the war if repeated Security Council resolutions aren’t enough.
European dialogue is useless. No. Let me correct that. European dialogue kills and destroys. It brought us “peace” at Munich, it brought us at least a hundred million dead due to a European ideology: Communism. It brought us the killing fields of Cambodia, where literal mountains of skulls rose in a grisly tribute to European ideology.
European dialogue will likely bring Iran to the brink of nuclear weapons. Perhaps for you this is a pleasant thought; for those of us who consider the consequences of a spineless Europe coupled with a nuclear Muslim theocracy it is not all that pleasant.
If any city has to be nuked, I hope it will be Berlin, Copenhagen, or Paris that gets the Iranian nukes, but I fear it will be London, Warsaw, Kiev, or Tel Aviv that gets hit. Of course, I hope none get hit.
I don’t know how many tens of millions of Europeans need to die to shatter your continent’s mad arrogance; I hope it will not be many. I hope it will be none. Europeans seem to glory in death, destruction, and the hatred of dead-end bankrupt ideologies. I don’t know why. Sadism? Masochism? Who knows.
You seem to now agree that there is both honor and honesty in the army. Fair enough. You still claim I am mistaken, but I see no argument for this. Again, you are welcome to your views, but when you arrogantly respond “it is you that are mistaken” and provide no evidence for this (indeed only evidence that I am correct) it does not do your argument any good. I spoke of both honor and honesty in my post; the fact that you chose to disregard what I wrote was your choice, but do not let your ignorance make a claim of me being mistaken.
Since you chose to make a crack at me over “honestas� I will respond bluntly by pointing out there is no such word in the English language. Trying to determine what the devil you mean when you use manufactured words should receive thanks from you, not insults. Again I responded both to honor and honesty, and had you done me at least the courtesy of reading what I wrote you might have discovered this. Instead you chose to be rude. Your choice.
You claim “Mexicans� serve in the US forces to get a green card. Some undoubtedly do. People of all nationalities undoubtedly do, and it’s their free choice to do so. Or would you, in your arrogance, claim that the “lower classes� are incapable of rational thought and self-determination? Behind your argument lies the ugly spectre of European racism.
You’re wrong on the legality of the war. You’re wrong on UN support for Kosovo. You’re wrong on the lack of UN support for Iraq. You’re wrong on the honor/honesty issue. I’m not sure what you’re right on.
The Hardt/Negri book, Empire? I skimmed the first section when it came out back in 2000. I wasn’t impressed. It’s yet another facile attempt to restore to respectability the morally and intellectually bankrupt heinous faith of Marxism. An ill-thought rehash of classist analysis with a mélange of Derrida-ist post-modernism with a sprinkling of classical Hegelianism does not resurrect the dead. Thank goodness.
I’d also argue its arguments on globalism have been virtually turned on their head (as have Fukuyama’s arguments) by the events since 9/10.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve friends that stayed in the services and that are in theatre. I was in New York on 9/11 and I remember it well. If you think we’re going to let thousands more die to appease arrogant corrupt evil Europeans on the take from Arabia, then you’ve got another think coming. The stinking putrid rotten corruption of the French and German governments in particular make me sick to my stomach, and your unthinking adoption of their propaganda makes me shake my head in sorrow.
You’re welcome to think as you wish, but don’t try and debate when you are armed with neither facts nor wit. Again, I can respect your intellectual coherency and integrity if you claim both Kosovo and Iraq are immoral, illegal and wrong. But when someone tries, as you do, to claim the former war was just and legal and the latter wasn’t… words fail me.
I’ll have another look at Empire later if I have time. Perhaps it’s not as awful as I remember, but the description that sticks in my head at the time (“The Communist Manifesto for the 21st Century�) makes me think that’s unlikely.
Regards,
-wolfe.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:35 am - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
I know I should stay out of this one but I can’t. I don’t understand why the US or any other countries secret service couldn’t get to Saddam and his cronies and simply dispose of them without the need to go to war. I would think in this day of satellites, global positioning etc that it should have been possible. Yes difficult, but not impossible.
Re: is war honourable or legal debate? I don’t think it can ever be either. You are talking about killing people don’t forget. Yes I know I’ve seemed to indicate this is fine in previous posts but if you couldn’t tell I was taking the piss, then you need to lighten up. Seriously. I have lived with returned army personnel (toured in Somalia) and although we were supposed to be keeping the peace over there and not engaging in open combat, these guys had shocking psychological damage from what they saw and what they did while there. It’s not right.
Iraq has turned into a terrorist training ground and the US had better damn well stay there until order is returned. Shame what it’s going to do to your soldiers and their families though.
December 20th, 2005 at 8:28 am - IP Man-Hash: a0c7c73d83830
How laughable! A woman talking about satellites and global positioning like she knows what the fuck they are! What next, Female? Are you going to pretend to know about politics or finance?
What a dumb bitch.
-Dick
December 20th, 2005 at 8:30 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Remember just after the Gulf War in ‘90-91? The US tried to do that. Result was a lot of dead Iraqis and near total destruction of CIA assets in Iraq. Sadly, with Saddam having had 30 years of killing any opposition, iron control over state security, a network of doubles travelling around in his stead… it just couldn’t be done.
Your opinion is fair enough — it has logical consistency, unlike Half Soul’s, though I disagree with it. Again, was it honorable to fight the Nazi’s and empty the KZ camps? Yes, undoubtedly. Honorable to face down the Soviets for 40 years until Europe was free? Undoubtedly. The War on Piracy? Yes. The War on Slavery? Yes. (Success in the last two proves we can indeed fight a war against a concept, Terror, and win, but it also shows it will be a long, long struggle).
Is it honorable to kill a rapist caught in the act? (Especially for a police officer or the person being raped?) I’d say yes. A murderer attempting to kill? Again, yes. You’re welcome to feel differently, but then the consequence is that you tolerate murder and social disorder. Does that mean you’re happy about killing even rapists and murderers? Of course not.
Somalia is a sad example of an action begun with the highest of intentions that suffered horrible mission creep and terrible civilian leadership from a number of countries.
It already was one, though I agree the action stepped up substantially.
Here I agree with you.
Despite my arguments above, I’m not an ardent supporter of the Iraq War or Bush. I agree with some of the neocon arguments, but think they are laughably optimistic. Their fundamental problem is, ironically, the same problem that Communism and socialism have; they believe in the perfectibility of man via the perfectibility of society. The neocons believe that peace and democracy will flower swiftly in Iraq with little effort if they but transplant it. In fact, it will be a long twilight struggle against barbarism for democracy to solidly take root in Iraq.
I believe the US will have to be there (albeit in bases rather than on every street corner) measuring lives and money for a very long time to come. If it is not, then the neocon project will likely fail.
-wolfe
December 20th, 2005 at 9:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
In this area, as a graduate of the US Air Force Academy, a former pilot who flew in the 1st Gulf War the facts remain that:
1. We invaded illegally.
2. Bush #1 is a good, decent man and a mature President with the depth of experience to know what we could and could not do.
3. Bush #2 has never been effective and is a consumate liar and moron. James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and many other respected statesmen concur.
4. Flyovers were an effective tool.
5. Iraq will become, absent a strong, centralized govt. exactly what it was prior to be established the British as a nation, a nation divided by religious and tribal loyalties.
6. We did not keep our eye on the ball by focuing on Afghanistan and bin Laden, this is an error we will pay for.
7. We have destabilized the middle east and made it difficult for our dubious allies, the Saudi Royal Family, to keep control.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:01 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
(1) can be argued to be the case if you agree that Kosovo was also illegal.
Do you condemn Clinton’s illegal war? If not, why not? Moreover, what in your mind would have made Iraq legal? Another UN resolution? The 14-odd previous ones weren’t enough? The fact that two of the governments who would have vetoed that final resolution in the UN SC (and the Sec-Gen!) were bribed by Saddam doesn’t taint the UN’s authority for you? Was the D-day invasion of France illegal? No League of Nations approval after all, and the legally constituted French government didn’t want it. Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Gulf War 1? Somalia? Bosnia? Kosovo? Afghanistan? If Iraq was illegal, so then were a great many wars the US was involved in.
(2) By and large agreed.
(3) I disagree. Being mistaken or being wrong does not mean lying. Do I question his judgement — and even Bill Clinton’s — for trusting George Tenet? You bet. Baker and Scowcroft have axes to grind; they didn’t get nice appointments in this administration. Bush is reasonably intelligent, as honest as most politicians I can think of, but has certainly repeatedly demonstrated questionable judgement on many issues.
(4) For keeping Iraq WMD-free, it seems sanctions backed by flyovers were remarkably effective. For stopping Saddam from filling mass graves, putting people through industrial shredders, bribing half the west, murdering the opposition, bombing the WTC, trying to kill George HW Bush, supporting terrorism, flyovers were less than successful.
(5) Agreed. If this happens, it will be messy for Turkey (and Iran) to say nothing of Iraq. It’s not inevitable, though the invasion heightened the chances of this happening.
(6) I disagree. The idea that we’re not staying active in Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden simply is incorrect. Moreover, I (and many) believe Saddam’s support for terror made him a threat on a bin Laden scale.
(7) I agree entirely. So do the neocons. They view this as a feature, not a defect. They may be right, but it’s a tremendous risk.
-wolfe
December 20th, 2005 at 10:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 448b690b954fe
3. He is a liar.
4. Hussein did not have WMD’s and ALL of the UN Inspectors verified this, prior to our invasion. Hussein had NOTHING to do with Al Queda or with the World Trade Center. Please stop repeating already disproven propaganda.
6. You are incorrect here. Afghanistan was/is where the problems were until we invaded Iraq. This is a fact.
I am neither republican nor democrat. I presume you are a registered republican? I prefer to vote for the best qualified person, not a party wonk.
December 20th, 2005 at 10:58 am - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Gentlemen, seeing a need for it, I’ve made a special forum for this kind of discussion.
Politik Forums
-Dick
December 20th, 2005 at 11:22 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Good point Dick, thanks for doing so (and chiding us/me) gracefully.
I’ll take it to there. Political arguments can get pretty annoying fast for almost everyone except possibly those involved.
-wolfe
December 20th, 2005 at 12:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
The Iraq War/Military has no honor discussion continues here.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:22 am - IP Man-Hash: 05876c7260a2f
They act hysterical because they confuse lust with love…and I think you might be talking about 13 year olds, no?
As for admiring Muslim culture because the women don’t seem sex crazed, let me ask you this. If you knew that you would be risking a beating, if not death at your own spouses hands for appearing excited, don’t you think you’d soon start acting asexual?
Also, I know English isn’t your first language though you’re pretty good at it, but when you use the word “robots” I think you’ve applied it to the wrong cultural group, unless of course you were talking about Stepford wives.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: a2dadaa74aa7e
“The point is that women spend most of their time thinking about being in love.”
The only true statement in your article. Women fantasize about being in love probably at least 2wice a week. At least, I know I do.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
He is talking about the average women. They love nobody really but themselves.. And since you women never mature beyond a 12 year old that would be how they act.
Men know about robots and not some ignorant whore show.
One reason you are not welcome here is because you disrupt conversation.
Bug off bitch
February 13th, 2007 at 11:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: a2dadaa74aa7e
So, Why is love bad?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
He is talking about the average women. They love nobody really but themselves.. And since you women never mature beyond a 12 year old that would be how they act.
Men know about robots and not some ignorant whore show.
One reason you are not welcome here is because you disrupt conversation.
Bug off bitch
Well in point of fact, I had bugged off, but here you are calling me out by quoting me from 2005. Sad. Get with the times.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Because women are incapable of it and investing such in a woman can only deepen the inevitable disillusionment and regret later on.
- Sting - Shape Of My Heart
February 14th, 2007 at 6:06 am - IP Man-Hash: 1e9a4fd46c3a7
Read the article.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am - IP Man-Hash: a2dadaa74aa7e
Because women are incapable of it and investing such in a woman can only deepen the inevitable disillusionment and regret later on.
Very deep. But I don’t agree that women are incapable of love.
But it would really suck if you love her and she doesn’t give a rats ass about you. Tha’s why I don’t just give a man a chance just like that and be in a relationship with him. Cause I know I would be wasting my time, his time, his money(from dates and such the like) and most importantly I wouldn’t care about him at all.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: b970e8787af34
–> “I would be wasting my time, his time, his money(from dates and such the like)”
…Aye. And there you have it. The lamp is switched ON, but the chord ain’t long enough to make the connection. Always somthin’