I write this post mostly as a cautionary tale honestly about war. So let’s look at Germany in the 1900s.
Firstly, obviously, World War l happened before WWll. Why is that relevant? Because the Nazi party was originally a party for the disenfranchised men who had come back from WWl. But that tale has some interesting tidbits I felt I should at least share, before going into my main point about how women dictated the direction of Germany in my eyes, in more ways than biased summaries of literature might reveal.
Women made up the majority of the electorate, and therefore were the primary decision makers in who got into power in Germany after WWl. Because of the heavy loss of male life in World War I, there were millions more women than men in Germany. This meant that the total number of female votes for Hitler eventually became a massive, indispensable part of his total count.
German men never had a say against conscription. They were just told, ‘whoops, we have to fight the Russian barbarians guys’, and any man who said they don’t want to, was executed, or sent to life in prison. Sounding familiar?
Please note, however, that in this time period, whereby the men were the only voters, the social democratic party of germany was the most popular party, for a number of reasons including its anti war rhetoric. The party leaders of course, betrayed their voters.
So the men went off to war.
Effectively, if you were not a healthy man after the war, tough luck. You couldn’t get a job? No woman for you. The women had jobs, and maintained those jobs. Additionally, these men who had been FORCED into war (not allowed to stay in your little factory job), were being discriminated against for their conventional jobs in preference for women. Again, sound familiar?
Employers gave reasons for discriminating against these men who had been made to serve such as:
The “Jumpy” Worker: Men with shell shock (PTSD) were considered dangerous in a factory setting. If a man suffered a panic attack at the sound of a steam whistle or a metal clang, he was a safety risk. Managers openly refused to hire veterans who showed signs of “nervousness.”
The Disabled “Drain”: Germany had millions of amputees. While some “War-Blind” or “War-Crippled” were given token jobs like selling matches or stamps, industrial employers didn’t want to pay for a man who moved slowly or needed special accommodations.
Young men who had been drafted at 18 returned at 22 with no apprenticeship, no trade, and no professional network.
Employers preferred hiring the 18-year-olds who had stayed home and finished their training during the war. The veterans were seen as “unskilled labor” despite their years of “service.”
Instead of helping, this made employers resentful. They viewed these hires as a “tax” or a “burden.”
They would often give the veteran the most humiliating, dead-end job available (like a night watchman or a bathroom attendant) just to meet the legal quota, while refusing them any chance at real career advancement.
By 1923, there were hundreds and thousands of men, unemployed.
There is a level of contradiction here in my eyes with how women are phrased to have ‘felt’ about their men after WWl. On one hand, they would claim that they seemed violent and scary, and understandably there was quite a bit of ‘why we lost in the war’ rhetoric and so forth. But there clearly was also mention of women being ‘tired’ of having to provide for the husband. They didn’t like that their men had come back broken, they say, they wanted their providers back effectively.
1 German men following the WWl disaster, felt that they had been forced by their aristocrats to die for them in war, by force. Witnessing the Russians, apparently they were getting the idea of revolution and ‘firing their leaders’. This was thwarted by the elites via 2 ways.
- The Freikorps
- Women
2 Women did not care about those mandates thrust onto men, they only cared about stability, food and not to be dependent on their traumatised men or financially unsuccessful men who had returned. For they were and always generally have been adversarial to men, including in this instance. The moderate government (led by Friedrich Ebert) was terrified that the regular soldiers—who were forming Communist-style councils—would start a Russian-style revolution. And so, in order to thwart men who were mad about being forced into war, forced into unemployment, and replaced, they introduced the women’s right to vote.
They brought in the women’s vote, after never giving men the right to say no to war, the right to work, the right to life, so that they could muffle out men’s frustrations, with women’s wants for luxury and independence. Effectively, that’s how women got the right to vote. It was used as a weapon against men, who to this day, ARE BEING TARGETED FOR CONSCRIPTION. That was in the 1900s, and we are having this conversation yet again today for Europeans. Against Russia, again.
Women were given the right to vote so that men’s would not matter.
The contempt for men never ceases to amuse me. Through and through, women alienated men, from their freedoms. But here is the kicker.
Never mind that not a single woman faced trial for their very strong involvement in the Holocaust, including against their own German people for being fucking disabled. Never mind that women evaded being prosecuted for the involvement by claiming that ‘they just did it because patriarchy’. Nope, they were the victims. Listen to this psychopathic prose.
We [women] are different people than when they left. We’ve learned to stand alone, to kill, to steal, to survive. When the men come back, they look at us with fear, and we look at them with a kind of pity that feels like ice.
And of course, German women, like any other women, do not want to associate with men without status, and the status of losing leads to, German women choosing to get with the occupying forces’ soldiers instead.. Now of course I wouldn’t want to pretend that some of this wasn’t innately just racism after all… But notice how the German women who were active participants in the Holocaust had no trouble engaging in this behaviour. This is fundamentally why I would argue, racism just serves feminism and female supremacy. Women will happily kill their own Germans for being disabled, or for not being pure bred, and the next moment, get with ‘impure’ people.
Men were FORCED into war since the 1900s in Germany, and never ever had a say against being sent out to die. This is not to be confused with the idea that soldiers did not have the right to refuse to kill innocent jews. No. But reporting in for duty to die for war? Mandatory. And yet, most literature will whine about women not being given the right to vote while the men. This is a repeated psychopathy in historical literature and modern discourse. There is a serious talking point about ‘rights and votes and freedom’, meanwhile, there is this mysterious elephant in the room that at the drop of a hat, you as a man are a criminal liable for execution if you say, ’no thanks I don’t want to fight in a war’, from which women have always had the privilege of not having to do.
And when German men came back from the failed WWl from their eyes, lots of them were deselected and had to fight for pensions following their disabilities following trench warfare. Some were called the ‘faceless men of Germany’ - Les Gueules Cassées. Many German men came back to wives who simply wanted to divorce them. Divorce rates tripled in Germany between 1913 and 1920.
Following all this, there have of course been numerous instances of misandry in general. For eg, remember how in this length of history, German men effectively didn’t really have any say in much of anything, and have been made to do what they have been told to do in this course unless they were amongst the commanding officers? Well, in yet another common thread of misandry, we have clowns like Dagmar Herzog over here, a woman, talking about how ‘men were so pathetic, that they had to be propped up by the state’ via the famous German Wirtschaftswunder (Economic Miracle) of the 1950s - calling it a coping mechanism for this crisis.
The 1950s “Nuclear Family” in Germany was hyper-enforced by law. Why? Because the government was terrified of the total collapse of the male ego. They passed laws (like the 1953 Civil Code) that gave husbands the final say in all domestic matters—not because men were strong, but because they were so fragile that the state had to “propped them up” legally.
After writing this all up, I wanna cap this off by saying that fundamentally, women and some politicians are the primary beneficiaries of war. They got to enjoy the anti-jewish rhetoric, they got to enjoy the genocide, they got to enjoy the benefits of being a mother with children, they got stop men from ‘complaining about their problems’, and they got jobs and independence, all thanks to war. And after a history of being forced or shamed into war, what have women learned about war? Let’s shame men about how they used to go to war to ‘be a real man’. OR, women shame men for having gone to war in the first place.
Both sides, the left and the right that you see online in general, when they talk about war, understand that most of them, will have one of these 2 positions, and they are both fundamentally misandrist, feminist, psychopathic positions to hold.
War is one of the most feminist things in history
Here are a few fun facts about germany’s history I have been reading up on.Firstly, obviously, World War l happened before WWll. Why is that relevant? Because the Nazi party was originally a party for the disenfranchised men who had come back from WWl. But that tale has some interesting tidbits I felt I should at least share, before going into my main point about how women dictated the direction of Germany in my eyes, in more ways than biased summaries of literature might reveal.
How women dominated the voting decisions in Germany
Hitler eventually became popular with the ladies with the Great Depression worsening. In some specific Protestant districts, the female vote for the Nazis actually surpassed the male vote.Women made up the majority of the electorate, and therefore were the primary decision makers in who got into power in Germany after WWl. Because of the heavy loss of male life in World War I, there were millions more women than men in Germany. This meant that the total number of female votes for Hitler eventually became a massive, indispensable part of his total count.
German men never had the right to say ‘no’ to war historically
There was no white feather movement in Germany to bring men to die into war. Germany simply had compulsory conscription, and anyone who objected was jailed lmao. No need for shame.German men never had a say against conscription. They were just told, ‘whoops, we have to fight the Russian barbarians guys’, and any man who said they don’t want to, was executed, or sent to life in prison. Sounding familiar?
Please note, however, that in this time period, whereby the men were the only voters, the social democratic party of germany was the most popular party, for a number of reasons including its anti war rhetoric. The party leaders of course, betrayed their voters.
So the men went off to war.
Shell shocks and broken machines
Men didn’t just get shell shock from their forced warfare, they came back home to a country that had effectively moved on from them, with their ‘war injuries’ which were an inconvenience to a country, especially one that had just lost the war.Effectively, if you were not a healthy man after the war, tough luck. You couldn’t get a job? No woman for you. The women had jobs, and maintained those jobs. Additionally, these men who had been FORCED into war (not allowed to stay in your little factory job), were being discriminated against for their conventional jobs in preference for women. Again, sound familiar?
Employers gave reasons for discriminating against these men who had been made to serve such as:
The “Jumpy” Worker: Men with shell shock (PTSD) were considered dangerous in a factory setting. If a man suffered a panic attack at the sound of a steam whistle or a metal clang, he was a safety risk. Managers openly refused to hire veterans who showed signs of “nervousness.”
The Disabled “Drain”: Germany had millions of amputees. While some “War-Blind” or “War-Crippled” were given token jobs like selling matches or stamps, industrial employers didn’t want to pay for a man who moved slowly or needed special accommodations.
Young men who had been drafted at 18 returned at 22 with no apprenticeship, no trade, and no professional network.
Employers preferred hiring the 18-year-olds who had stayed home and finished their training during the war. The veterans were seen as “unskilled labor” despite their years of “service.”
Piss poor attempts at ‘repairing the damage’
The new Weimar Republic passed the “Severe Disabled Persons Act” (1920), which mandated that companies hire a certain percentage of disabled veterans.Instead of helping, this made employers resentful. They viewed these hires as a “tax” or a “burden.”
They would often give the veteran the most humiliating, dead-end job available (like a night watchman or a bathroom attendant) just to meet the legal quota, while refusing them any chance at real career advancement.
By 1923, there were hundreds and thousands of men, unemployed.
Blaming the men for everything
These men, brought into war by force, were now being considered to be ‘boys who never knew how to not stop being at war’.There is a level of contradiction here in my eyes with how women are phrased to have ‘felt’ about their men after WWl. On one hand, they would claim that they seemed violent and scary, and understandably there was quite a bit of ‘why we lost in the war’ rhetoric and so forth. But there clearly was also mention of women being ‘tired’ of having to provide for the husband. They didn’t like that their men had come back broken, they say, they wanted their providers back effectively.
Thwarting men’s desires for communism, with feminism
I am quite fascinated by this part, and I think this really is the main part I really thought would be interesting to share.1 German men following the WWl disaster, felt that they had been forced by their aristocrats to die for them in war, by force. Witnessing the Russians, apparently they were getting the idea of revolution and ‘firing their leaders’. This was thwarted by the elites via 2 ways.
- The Freikorps
- Women
2 Women did not care about those mandates thrust onto men, they only cared about stability, food and not to be dependent on their traumatised men or financially unsuccessful men who had returned. For they were and always generally have been adversarial to men, including in this instance. The moderate government (led by Friedrich Ebert) was terrified that the regular soldiers—who were forming Communist-style councils—would start a Russian-style revolution. And so, in order to thwart men who were mad about being forced into war, forced into unemployment, and replaced, they introduced the women’s right to vote.
They brought in the women’s vote, after never giving men the right to say no to war, the right to work, the right to life, so that they could muffle out men’s frustrations, with women’s wants for luxury and independence. Effectively, that’s how women got the right to vote. It was used as a weapon against men, who to this day, ARE BEING TARGETED FOR CONSCRIPTION. That was in the 1900s, and we are having this conversation yet again today for Europeans. Against Russia, again.
Women were given the right to vote so that men’s would not matter.
Why did women vote for Hitler?
Same reason women gave for why they killed jews. They got money, status and power, from staying at home, and birthing children. The great depression made the economy worse and worse, and they got tired of it. They even admitted to saying that ‘working in the factory was akin to slavery’ anyway. Hitler also represented the ’strong man who wasn’t a baby broken by WWl’ lmao. Women were complaining about men being broken after a war. The psychopathy regarding how men are toys to throw away for war existed then, and it exists today.The contempt for men never ceases to amuse me. Through and through, women alienated men, from their freedoms. But here is the kicker.
A Woman in Berlin (Eine Frau in Berlin)
After having alienated men from their desire for freedom from their aristocratic oppressors, no matter right or wrong, after of course having been forced to die in war, or suffer lifelong injuries in war. It was of course, the women, who apparently suffered the most.Never mind that not a single woman faced trial for their very strong involvement in the Holocaust, including against their own German people for being fucking disabled. Never mind that women evaded being prosecuted for the involvement by claiming that ‘they just did it because patriarchy’. Nope, they were the victims. Listen to this psychopathic prose.
We [women] are different people than when they left. We’ve learned to stand alone, to kill, to steal, to survive. When the men come back, they look at us with fear, and we look at them with a kind of pity that feels like ice.
And of course, German women, like any other women, do not want to associate with men without status, and the status of losing leads to, German women choosing to get with the occupying forces’ soldiers instead.. Now of course I wouldn’t want to pretend that some of this wasn’t innately just racism after all… But notice how the German women who were active participants in the Holocaust had no trouble engaging in this behaviour. This is fundamentally why I would argue, racism just serves feminism and female supremacy. Women will happily kill their own Germans for being disabled, or for not being pure bred, and the next moment, get with ‘impure’ people.
Women’s disrespect, disdain and discounting of men is a constant in history
Even within all this literature, the phrasing employed to describe how men were forced into WWl for example, is unironically paired somehow with the ‘burden of women having to wait at home and taking care of the children and the factories’. They phrase it like men have a choice, but you have to dig deeper. In isolation the literature will tend to just leave it open to interpretation that ‘oh the silly men, they left the home to leave the poor women to sort out the mess they made because men implicitly just went to war for fun’.Men were FORCED into war since the 1900s in Germany, and never ever had a say against being sent out to die. This is not to be confused with the idea that soldiers did not have the right to refuse to kill innocent jews. No. But reporting in for duty to die for war? Mandatory. And yet, most literature will whine about women not being given the right to vote while the men. This is a repeated psychopathy in historical literature and modern discourse. There is a serious talking point about ‘rights and votes and freedom’, meanwhile, there is this mysterious elephant in the room that at the drop of a hat, you as a man are a criminal liable for execution if you say, ’no thanks I don’t want to fight in a war’, from which women have always had the privilege of not having to do.
And when German men came back from the failed WWl from their eyes, lots of them were deselected and had to fight for pensions following their disabilities following trench warfare. Some were called the ‘faceless men of Germany’ - Les Gueules Cassées. Many German men came back to wives who simply wanted to divorce them. Divorce rates tripled in Germany between 1913 and 1920.
Following all this, there have of course been numerous instances of misandry in general. For eg, remember how in this length of history, German men effectively didn’t really have any say in much of anything, and have been made to do what they have been told to do in this course unless they were amongst the commanding officers? Well, in yet another common thread of misandry, we have clowns like Dagmar Herzog over here, a woman, talking about how ‘men were so pathetic, that they had to be propped up by the state’ via the famous German Wirtschaftswunder (Economic Miracle) of the 1950s - calling it a coping mechanism for this crisis.
The 1950s “Nuclear Family” in Germany was hyper-enforced by law. Why? Because the government was terrified of the total collapse of the male ego. They passed laws (like the 1953 Civil Code) that gave husbands the final say in all domestic matters—not because men were strong, but because they were so fragile that the state had to “propped them up” legally.
The primary beneficiaries of war
I hope it is somewhat clear, that at every step of the way, women’s desires had been appealed to, at the expense of men’s.After writing this all up, I wanna cap this off by saying that fundamentally, women and some politicians are the primary beneficiaries of war. They got to enjoy the anti-jewish rhetoric, they got to enjoy the genocide, they got to enjoy the benefits of being a mother with children, they got stop men from ‘complaining about their problems’, and they got jobs and independence, all thanks to war. And after a history of being forced or shamed into war, what have women learned about war? Let’s shame men about how they used to go to war to ‘be a real man’. OR, women shame men for having gone to war in the first place.
Both sides, the left and the right that you see online in general, when they talk about war, understand that most of them, will have one of these 2 positions, and they are both fundamentally misandrist, feminist, psychopathic positions to hold.
