Women Would Vote for Hitler
A woman voting on anything other than American Idol or her personal favorite type of chocolate is like watching a small child run full speed into a wall. Clearly the fundamentals are understood. The child runs, it’s going somewhere and there’s no doubt about that. The child can run. But very quickly one comes to the understanding that somewhere, somehow, the process has been perverted. Then comes the wall. Then comes the crying.
Women would vote for Hitler. Not because a woman could be talked into buying a catsup Popsicle while she was wearing white gloves, but because women are all fascists.
Don’t believe me? Let’s leave the constant threat of castration out of it for the moment. That makes it a slam dunk in my book, but that’s fine. Women are just “joking” whenever they play fascism card #1.
How about oppressive dictatorship by force or threat of violence?
Anyone who’s married will tell you a lot of things. The first of which will be, “Don’t get fucking married for any reason you dumb shit.” But a likely secondary is that marriage is not a democracy. What is it then?
Marriage is a fascist dictatorship of oppression — and so is any relationship with a woman. Work, professional, “professional”; they’re all the same. If you don’t like the flavor of the Kool-Aid and you want to add some mix, prepare to have a wailing siren of bullshit go off in your ear. That’s assault and that’s oppression. That’s enforcing your opinion through the threat of violence. If you press the issue, prepare to receive the threat of withheld friendship — or even sex whether it’s applicable or not! There was another man who pulled the same kind of shit. Yep, Hitler.
The biggest women/fascism link is a woman’s reliance on violence. Women will be the first to hit during any kind of dispute. It’s not even a percentage. It’s as much of a guarantee as it is that the sun will rise tomorrow. And as men we can all understand that the sun rises because it’s actually a star that our planet rotates around, therefore it is guaranteed to rise. We are able to remove ourselves from our personal point of view and understand that the sun isn’t rising at all. It’s actually us who are spinning around the sun. Women don’t even fucking know that.
Every morning when a woman wakes up at the crack of 10:30 she’s thrilled to shit to see that the sun’s in the sky again and her fake orange tan will look just as radiant as it did yesterday. That’s one of the biggest reasons why women shouldn’t vote. They don’t know fucking anything about anything. They know nothing.
But that’s not why women would vote for Hitler if given the chance. Say what you want about the merits of an individual ethos of governments as you will. You’re all men and therefore deserve the right to express opinion unmitigated by slander or censure. What I’m saying is that by an intrinsic party affiliation — fascist — all women would check the box marked ‘Kill Or Savagely Beat Anyone Who Doesn’t Agree With Me’. That fact has always held women back more than any mythical glass ceiling.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 106 … 21 20 19 18 17 [16] 15 14 13 12 11 … 1 » Show All
you forgot goerge bush sr. and jr. KBM804.
Hitler may not have gotten that far were it not for women’s suffrage. Need any more of an explaination?
So let’s say that women all would vote for Hitler–quite a reach, but I’ll grant it. Does that somehow trump the fact that Hitler himself was a man? Is voting for Hitler somehow worse than actually BEING Hitler? Or Idi Amin? Or Saddam Hussein? Or every other leader since the beginning of time who has tortured and slaughtered his way to power–and have all, coincidentally, been men? With 90% of all murders, and virtually all mass murders and violent crimes, committed by men, the male sex is perhaps not the one that should try to get on some moral high horse. But I’m sure you have some explanaiton for this–I’d love to hear it.
What the hell?!!!^
ONE YEAR through a dedicated LONG DISTANCE relationship, my girlfriend let me believe she had been raped. after coping with her move to oregon, i was completely crushed and tried desperately to support her. for six months following, i tried to encourage her endeavors to “move on” and seek justice. Eventually, she admitted in an intercepted email to a friend that the whole “ordeal” was fabricated, probably because she couldn’t break up properly, or wanted more attention, or just wanted to DESTROY MY TRUST COMPLETELY AND CAUTERIZE THE FUCKING WOUND, leaving me to end the one relationship i’ve ever believed in. i have no one now, and no one has ever pleased and destroyed me in quite the same way as that girl.
however, i’m not a misogynist. i’m a misanthropist. i hate all people equally. both men and women lie to get what they want, and they mostly reach for self serving goals. the few people who dare to care about and have faith in someone will always be the first to agonize. both feminists and chauvinists are the lowest human beings on the planet. they only serve their selfish interests at the expense of others. i don’t usually generalize, but i can safely say most of the posts on this site were motivated by selfish prejudices. i can also infer that none of you particularly care if anyone else in the world is happy, beyond your superficial interest groups. if you want to be a real “man”, support your wife in every endeavor (yes, that would imply marriage), and if you want to be a free woman, find the one man who would do anything for your happiness… and then dare to give back the same.
There is that gwallan, good point.
-Strength and Honor-
I doubt it’s male at all.
Have another look at “Mark’s” post. Note the exclusive use of female shaming tactics. Manginas typically try to defend women rather than attempt to shame or insult the messengers.
Well apparently another mangina graces these hallowed halls.
-Strength and Honor-
Jake, I’ve seen his GF and wouldn’t touch her with a mouldy breadstick.
or maybe its because we all fucked yours.
You must be a fag or something, since you’re obviously too good to get within 500 feet of a woman. What do you think you came out of? Your views are so barbaric as well. It’s like you were educated in a cave in the middle of nowhere by a bunch of people who came in a time machine from 1822.
You must be a very lonely man.
Maybe the reason why you hate women so much is because you can’t seem to get a girlfriend?
Luka, you’ve got a serious misconception of what America is all about, in large part thanks to what Marxist history types love to write. Read closely what people like Dakota write. In many ways, their views on isolationism represent much more closely mainstream American views than mine. While America has generally shabbily interfered in Central America under the Munroe doctrine, I’d say that’s the exception rather than the rule — especially for the last 40 years.
As for democracy, let’s toss in preserving or gaining independence, and self-determination. (I shan’t count Cuba, because although she was liberated from both Spain and malaria thanks to the US, the level of US interference in her internal affairs was such as to practically make her a colony of the US for 50-odd years. And a not very pleasant one.)
But here’s a partial list off the top of my head. In part some of this list is merely decolonization and independence; some self-determination (e.g. Vietnam); some of it is democracy as well:
Great Britain 1939-1945 (merely fighting to help preserve her independence)
Italy 1943
France, 1944;
Belgium 1944;
Greece, Holland, Denmark, Norway then Germany 1944-45
Toss in the Marshall plan for all of the above — 1940’s
Berlin 1948-49.
Philippines - early 20th century and 1980’s
Israel 1948, 1973.
South Korea - 1950’s and 1980’s
Egypt, 1956 (patently no advantage to the US whatsoever).
China 1940’s; Taiwan 1980’s, 1990’s.
Vietnam, 1960’s/70’s.
Grenada ca. 1983
Kurds 1991-present
Kuwait (independence only) 1991
Afghanistan 2001-present
Iraq 2003-present
In part because of the balance of power. Remember that the Cold War still existed, and Iraq was leaning heavily to the Soviet orbit. Take a look at the weapons sales from China, Russia, even France vs. those of the US to Iraq in the 80’s.
-wolfe
Politik people.
Both of your questions are easily answered, Luka.
Saddam was seen as a powerful counter-balance to Iran, which we had sold F14 fighter jets and other military items prior to their Islamic Revolution, in which many American civilians were held hostage for a long time. Two helicopters full of Navy SEALs were killed in a botched rescue operation, which led to Jimmy Carter being smashed by Ronald Reagan in the presidential election.
Key neocon members of the Reagan and Bush 1 administrations were directly involved with our backing and arming of Saddam, because of the age old tenant of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Which is a bigger danger? Islamic radicals or a fascist but secular strongman? Both are scum, but 9/11 taught us which poses a greater threat.
Most of these points I can understand sots, what you said backed up my thoughts regarding the US acting out of strategem and political motives rather than any moral obligation.
I know what I am saying is sour and cynical, but I am more inclined to think the neocons used ‘moral obligation’ as an emotive baiting tactic for the American people. I think politics and morality don’t mix on a whole, they are very rarely bedfellows, except in very rare circumstances. This is why I question your fourth point.
Guilty conscience? I beg to differ. Why, if the US felt a tug on their heartstrings with regards to Saddam’s acquisition of chemical weapons being on their conscience, did they not topple Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in Halabja 1988? I suppose the First Gulf War was a response on the part of the US, but this did not happen until two years later when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
I know I am now talking about US Foreign Policy at a time when these neocons were not yet in power, but when you refer to such people in particular, why do they wait until now to do something? Better yet, why did they even fund such a tyrant in the first place? That very factor does make one question the judgement of the neocons in any case! An honest mistake on their part? Possibly? Though I find that hard to believe.
Luka, there were many things in play besides altruism that led to Iraq as the place to employ the PNAC strategem for the 21st century that made it much more feasible than any South American/African nation.
1. If it could be waged and won fast enough with low troop and equipment numbers(Rummy’s transformation strat), Iraqi oil would have paid for it.
2. A democratic Afghanistan and Iraq would be a powerful buffer on borders of Iran.
3. After 9/11, it’s easy to sell to the American people that all arabs = terrorists; hence we should go to Iraq, which the Neocons knew had nothing to do with terror.
4. Most of the Neocons in power now were directly involved with Saddam’s rise to prominence and his aquisition of chemical weapons, and their guilty concious was calling on them to liberate it’s people.
5. Saddam tried to kill George Bush 1.
Wolfe, we are in agreement then that this war had the utmost honorable intentions but has been a miserable failure? And that democracy won’t exist in a Muslim state for atleast a hundred years so let’s get out and save our troop’s lives.
wolfe,
I doubt the neocons wanted democracy for Iraq’s sake alone… since when has the US ever attempted to install democracy somewhere without there being a benefit for herself? Please note, I am not criticising the US for this after all, every country tends to act in their best interests and the US are no different but I would think anybody who honestly thinks the US is acting out of altruism for the sake of Iraq is naive.
One has to ask the question, why push democracy in Iraq and not in (say) another country in the Middle East or even one of the Latin American countries governed by dictatorship? Why does the US support democracy in one country and then support dictators in another? History provides apt examples of the US acting in such a way.
…and why the lies about weapons of mass destruction? how is Saddam linked to terrorists or even the events of 9/11? I am not aware of any link to Saddam and terrorists before the Second Gulf War so why are the two considered to be linked in some way now? Why the move to topple Saddam who (as we all eventually discovered) poses no immediate threat when we have North Korea acting as they are, testing their nuclear weapons and the US have done little more than shake their head in disapproval?
There are a lot of things I don’t understand with US foreign policy…but that might be why I am a student of language and not of politics, history or economics and so on. US foreign policy is an interesting subject though.
I agree that Vulcans/neocons are dangerously naive…it is clear that democracy cannot be imposed from above, it has to be brought about from below, Iraq needs to go through a certain economic, political and social revolution by itself in order to achieve Democracy…it is a long process. If you take Europe and the US as an example of Democratic rule it has taken years of civil wars, uprisings, coups, demonstrations from the people to achieve the results of Democracy. To invade another country and attempt to artificially place Democracy there is like attempting to run before you can walk.
no, no, my point 2 should stand as is - I said and meant that gaining oil was an added bonus, not a primary motivator.
Nonsense. If the US had wanted cheap oil and maximum profits to flow to multinationals that didn’t own nationaliseable oil fields, they’d have done what the French, Russians, and Chinese did — a quiet deal with Saddam Hussein.
Your point two should have been “to hopefully gain a strategically placed base in the middle east that ISN’T Saudi or a Gulf State”. US troops stationed in Saudi (the Kingdom of ‘two holy places’, Mecca and Medina) were, rightly or wrongly, a flash point for Wahabbiists.
Of course, so it seems, is everything else for the Wahabbiists.
And no, the Vulcans/neocons did want democracy for Iraq’s sake… which is a disturbing degree of naïveté.
Of course, so it seems, is everything else for the neocons.
-wolfe