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: « 107 … 26 25 24 23 22 [21] 20 19 18 17 16 … 1 » Show All
But Cunt, how am I supposed to be a ware of a reply you posted somewhere I’m not even aware of? Post it here, you coward. I’m not going to read all that shit just to find out where exactly you replied to me. By the way, I did own you, evident by the fact that you replied to men, and I quote:
“I give. You’re far too logical and rational for me to debate with.”
Despite the sarcasm, the bottom line is that you gave up arguing with me, so I took that as an admission of defeat. So, Cunt, post your reply here and and let’’s see if you can debate me. I already exposwed the idiocy of you claims that fasdhion shows represent an exploitation of girls, by mentioning that it is mostly women and gay men who attend these shows and buy the clothes. So, it is women who are “exploiting” them. Furthermore, they voluntarily choose to be there and earn lots of money for it, so I don’t see how it’s an “exploitation”. And finally, the girls have mothers: why do they allow their daughters to do these shows in the first place? After all, fathers don’t have much power these days. I exposed your hypocrisy when you stated that Germaine Greer’s book showing half-naked boys was ok, but that you get all outraged over girls showing their belly buttons at fashion shows. That, Cunt, is called a double-standard. Combined with your faulty logic deliverd in a pseudo-authoritarian tone, it explains why no one takes you seriously.
P Coderch(a much, much brighter guy than you.)
SotS,
Of course. Violence (or the threat of it) has played a role and will always play a role in any large, successful movement where the powers that be are deeply entrenched and resistant to change. If good men took to the streets and busted a few heads today things may start changing.
Even the so-called peace movements of the civil rights era had the threat of violence lurking at all times, such as the ominous “by any means neccessary”, and “no justice, no peace.”
JFK said, “those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”
But no successful western movement can BEGIN with a violent, evil ideology or intention. It’s heart and it’s face must be good and righteous, and must appeal to the classical liberal individualist ideology western democracy was founded upon.
And you must face the fact BMU that it may have to come by force of arms rather than talk and peaceful activism. The political elites are cowards hidden in their towers. Many consider Bush to be the strongest leader in US history.. if that’s true I’d hate to see a weak one.
Of course… someone could simply introduce sterilizing elements into the illegal drug supply, the thugs and whores would die in our lifetimes without firing a shot or cutting a throat.
This is why it is important for good, smart men to create and enforce honorable competitive systems, where men on top deserve to be there, and benefit society by having more children … instead of what is happening now.. matriarchy has co-opted all of our western systems from public school on up to the business and political worlds - to favor the thuggish dishonorable men over good men .. to also favor the women who like and breed with them - thus forcing the good man to become a cuckold for bastards and whores.
We good men of all races and creeds must not seek the approval of the feminists (and all western women are latent feminists) before doing what is right .. we have a duty first to our fathers, brothers and sons… who did nothing to deserve this torture.
The fact is, all of our mothers, sisters and daughters are evil whores for putting us here and not caring one bit about our rights.
Until good men are able to face this fact, matriarchy will only tighten its grip, presenting straw man after straw man for us to punch at, only to realize too late we are punching at ourselves.
Our western systems are riddled with matriarchal exploits and must be re-analyzed, restructured and secured from top to bottom before anything can change.
Oh, I know. I still responded as I did because I believed you were being unfair (and misleading in at least one case). My loyalty is not simply to the US; it’s to trying to be reasonably accurate. Of course I suffer from biases, as do we all.
Have you read Paris, 1919? It’s worth a look, and there’s an excellent chance a major library would have a copy… well I’d think. Was a huge best-seller in the English speaking world, possibly top history book a year or two ago.
Fairly true. Americans vacillate between too much isolationism and too much intervention (see Iraq). It is not a good thing, but it beats too much intervention on its own. (See Russia). It probably beats too much isolationism on its own (See historical — not present day — China).
I hope positively. Rather than just the ‘force of wolfe personality’.
Heh, I could be a big fan of Pinochet… but yeah, as you have deduced, I’m not. I don’t view him horribly negatively — he’s no Castro — but he certainly is responsible for much evil, hence the opprobrium.
-wolfe
I honestly think that there’s a gray area dealing with underage sex. For example, a 50 year old person has sex with a 15-16 year old. It’s certainly condemnable yes? However what about a 19 year old and a 16 year old? Legally yes, however I know people that’re married and have larger age gaps then that. I don’t view that as such a horrid act, simply a bad decision. Nor would I view such a person as a “sex offender” either. I understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere, but on both sides of that line lay shades of grey.
-Strength and Honor-
career*
And no. I’m afraid what you more ro less candidly suggested, hopefully keeping a straight face, is not just beyond my aims, but also beyond my means. Plus, such carrier choices aren’t really as worthwhile as they probably are in the US or Canada.
Regards.
- BranVan3000 - Astounded
Wolfe, my remark was aimed almost exclusively at the Brittish and French governments, not the rather apathetically forgiving American government that reflected the will and opinion of its people and brokered to conclusion a separate and, I believe, quite equitable(?) peace with Germany in 1921. Likewise, the stiffy Brits and Frenchies govs. had the assentment of their peoples in their screaming for blood at Versailles.
It seems Americans have ever been, at best, phlegmatically weary of the European ‘powderkeg’(the “splendid isolationism” current of opinion, encounterable to this day and stronger than ever).
Good to have been replied to. It’s been educational. In several ways.
In other news… It seems Pinochet hit the bucket. I’m a “don’t give a fuck in a glass hut” kind of neutral about it. Though I do find it amusing and relish the opportunity to use the ‘hit bucket’ phrase on a figure of public notoriety completely free of the risk of flaming.
- BranVan3000 - Astounded
I’m not sure where Female said this. Possibly I’ve missed the thread. The feminist movement certainly has a track record of permissiveness where womens’ sexual(and physical) abuse of children is concerned. That said ANY suggestion that an adult should be able to interfere with a fifteen year old is unacceptable regardless of gender.
Do NOT do that in my presence. This goes for BOTH of you.
Are you threatening me? First of all, learn to read. I mentioned that as an example of anti-male bias, not that I want to have sex with underage girls. Of course, if women are allowed to have sex with undrage boys and not face legal penalties for it, then I think men should be allowed to have sex with underage girls as well. It is only fair. What I want, conversely, is for all adults to be forbidden from having sex with minors, including women. Adult men are fordidden from having sex with underage boys and girls, but women are only forbidden from having it with girls. That’s bias.
You’ll never have any men,. You’ll die lonely and unloved, with only a bunch nof cats to keep you company, and you’ll wither with cancer in agony very slowly, for years on end. I can’t wait for that. You cunt.
great post
I stand beside Gwallan on this, NO one should be allowed to harm a fifteen year old or any child. This discussion must stop NOW!!
I’m not sure where Female said this. Possibly I’ve missed the thread. The feminist movement certainly has a track record of permissiveness where womens’ sexual(and physical) abuse of children is concerned. That said ANY suggestion that an adult should be able to interfere with a fifteen year old is unacceptable regardless of gender.
Do NOT do that in my presence. This goes for BOTH of you.
You should stop stalking me too Billy, it’s old. Go find someone else to hate all over, Female’s a little busy right now.
Perfect example of the stupid hypocritical female attitude.
Well it’s no wonder they worry about violence against them.
And the dumb bitch can only wish someone liked her enough to stalk her.
Thanks for the continual laughs. Your ego really is the little entertainer, isn’t he? But seriously, you need to get over your ’supposed win’ over me, I’ll help you to do that by letting you in on a little secret. I didn’t just leave in a humilated defeat when we were conversing about Germaine Greer. The truth is, I did reply to you but my comments get moderated and the site owner must have thought my reply was rather too good for you to be able to respond to , so he didn’t allow my response(s) to be displayed. Thus allowing you to think you had intellectually defeated me. Wrong.
I actually did reply to you on another thread. You should go check it out sweetcheeks, http://wolfe.mabtw.com/2006/08/27/open-thread-for-women/#comments, see comment number 57.
Your advice that I should develop cancer and die a lonely, agonizing death is rather indicative that I managed to annoy you with my previous comments. So sorry, but your schoolboy response is really quite pathetic. I guess I’ve owned you there. Again.
Nope, no male bias there, not at all.
Stop stalking me you fool.
Ugh…you’re so fucking dumb. Of course there’s no male bias, cunt, but actually female bias agains men. Feminist cunts, like you, support gender legal discrimination based on gender. Duh…
I think you’re upset by how brutally I owned you some time ago, while discussing this very topic. I took your faulty logic and pseudo-authoritarian anti-males posts and intellectually ripped them to shreds. Everyone complimented me by how humiliated you were by me(n).
You’ll never have any men,. You’ll die lonely and unloved, with only a bunch nof cats to keep you company, and you’ll wither with cancer in agony very slowly, for years on end. I can’t wait for that. You cunt.
*sigh* is this what this is about? You are bemoaning the fact that you cant have sex with a minor? Get over it, pervert.
No, cunt, what I’m saying is that you think it’s morally righteous for women to have sex with underaged boys because somehow males are more sexually aroused than females, so that make sit right. Adult men who have sex with underage girls are locked for life, but when a woman does it to an underage boy everyone laughs it off because “he wanted it”. This is an ethical double standard which you support; ergo, you are immoral. I don’t want any adult to have sex with minoors, irrespective of the gender of both the minors and the adults. Get it, cunt?
Those who are not called Sony might want to skip this.
Sony, by and large it was a pleasure to respond to your latest writing. I felt there were a few digs, but I’ve done much the same to you in the past, so fair game. Most impressively, you pointed out shortcomings loosely connected with your argument (e.g. German terrible behavior), and stuck to quite a logical set of arguments. I have endeavored to respond entirely in kind.
“Did it first”
This is the fascinating response of the schoolboy caught hitting another, or stealing, or cheating. No, no, I do not ascribe such motives to you, Sony, but I do suggest it is perhaps a propagandistic error into which you have at least partially fallen.
First, on ‘did it first’: who started the War?
Second, hmmm…. the entire seas around Britain were declared by Germany to be a war zone with unrestricted submarine warfare from 18 February 1915 on. (At home, I have somewhere a translation of the German declaration). The British blockade (which did not involve the sinking of ships and murder of civilian passengers!) of Germany did not begin to bite until Fall ‘15, and harshly bite until Winter 1917. I am therefore not sure what you mean by ‘did it first’. [See below; I was originally mistaken, reactively, on this point and thought it did not begin to bite until '17]
Moreover, the British were never more than 6 months from starvation and collapse, with little in the way of a regular army. It is difficult to see why they should morally not have responded as they did, and used the power of their Navy, given that they were responding to an unprovoked war of aggression and reasonably believed they faced starvation, collapse and invasion if they did not.
Indeed, Germany was able to draw on the resources of occupied Europe to feed herself; Britain needed shipping to feed herself. The British could literally be starved to death; as long as the Germans occupied sufficient land beyond the industrial core of Germany, all a blockade would do is shatter morale and industry. Which, of course, was the British aim.
(Trivial example: the overseas imports of lamb, were, I believe roughly £2500 to Germany in ‘14, and £19m sterling to the UK in the same year. There’s a slight disparity there in basic food dependency.)
That said, harvests in the low countries were disastrously down in ‘15-’16; this certainly exacerbated German problems, and did help lead to starvation. The German response? To keep the civilian populace of occupied countries at starvation levels.
We agree entirely here, and I think we agree on submarine warfare aimed at civilians.
And just to demonstrate my desire to discuss rather than argue, it’s worth noting that the British were the modern originators of concentration camps.
Not, to be sure, for the purposes of mass extermination and genocide, but the bundling of Boer civilians in South Africa to legitimately deny Boer guerillas havens during the Boer War resulted in many unexpected and avoidable deaths due to disease.
Hardly sporting, if one can, at a hundred years remove, indulge in a remark of such dark and grim humor.
Prepare to be astonished. I concur completely with your assessment of the Morgenthau plan.
It is worth noting that the plan was strikingly similar to Stalin’s desires, and that Morgenthau’s right hand man, Harry Dexter White, was a Soviet agent.
Roosevelt himself backed off the worst of the plan before his death (and well before the end of the war). That said, the plan, and Stalin’s plans, certainly brought considerable suffering to Germany and Europe.
The US repudiated (not just partially as it had already done in ‘44) the Morgenthau plan Secretary of State James Byrnes famous “Speech of hope” in early September 1946, and of course, then adopted the staggeringly generous (though not infinitely so, since it also helped American industry) Marshall plan.
Not at all. You have a different perspective. Some of that perspective is objectively valid; some does not appear to me (or others) to be.
No, no, I’m talking entirely about the Second Reich — the German Empire (not to be confused with the Deutsches Reich — that ended in 1918.
Moreover, the motives were different. Britain did not intend starvation: Europe could theoretically support itself in terms of food. Britain could not.
You mean ‘reap’, meaning, literally, ‘harvest’. I wish I could agree.
Frequently, countries do not appear to reap the darkness they sow, and frequently, countries that do good do not reap good from what they sow.
America’s been nothing but a friend to Egypt in particular, giving billions of dollars a year to aid her. Yet where was our wonderful friend Mohammed Atta from?
America’s been a staunch friend to France, having bled in the millions to free her from tyranny and giving her billions… and the thanks? She runs around making sleazy corrupt deals for the personal gain of her leaders with third world dictators and obstructing any kind of morality in foreign policy.
Turning the Argument round
You will enjoy this final section. I could close with a “well, you are wrong”, but I shan’t. For while I think you are wrong, I think your point has merit. If I could wish but one thing in our future dealings, it would be that you reciprocate.
I have said logically why I think you are wrong. Now I shall say logically why you are not completely wrong, and why there is worthy study here.
Here, I make an admission. I hadn’t remembered the harvest situation in the low countries and occupied France in ‘15-16. While British intent may have been relatively pure, the results, through ignorance, were less so.
I’m not at home/university, so can’t check my own library, (I’ve an interesting collection), but a colleague reliably informs me that the British blockade did indeed start to cause troubles in ‘15-’16 — rather than, as I thought ‘17.
Also, one cannot objectively deny that hundreds of thousands of German civilians died (vs, say 30,000 English/Scottish and no more than 10-20,000 Commonwealth.). That’s at least a 10:1 ratio. At least. Some of this had nothing to do with food, and everything to do with influenza, and chaos to the east, but some of it undeniably had to do with starvation.
Third, on your ‘reap what you sow’: I think you are altogether too harsh with the US, but I will not deny that US foreign policy has been frequently motivated by good intentions rather than thoughtfulness, and frequently motivated by ignorance rather than knowledge.
Want to do a Masters’ in history with this as your thesis topic? (Kidding, mostly…)
Best,
-wolfe
*sigh* is this what this is about? You are bemoaning the fact that you cant have sex with a minor? Get over it, pervert.