Women, witchcraft, and the vote

Well, it looks like the feminist idiots have gotten bored with trolling me for recommending that women not put themselves in situations where they would be easily rapeable. When I found out that the hysterical male feminist wasn’t just whining about me, he was telling women that it is safe to strip and get into bed with men they have no intention of having sex with, I banned him for aiding and abetting rape by giving dangerous advice. But he kept commenting, even though he knew I was deleting his comments unread. This guy claims that women can take off their clothes and get into bed with him and he’ll “respect” it when they tell him no, but he won’t respect it when a woman tells him, repeatedly, that she’s not interested in wasting her time on conversation with someone as stupid as he is. Maybe he figures that when I told him, “No, I’m not going to have a conversation with you,” and then proceeded to discuss the viewpoints he expressed with smarter people, I was giving him “mixed messages”. I guess I’ve learned a lesson about giving stray morons who comment here even the slightest encouragement.

On to today’s links. First, the Editrix has posted debunking the Margaret Murray feminist crap about witch-burnings.

Burning of witches was almost unknown and strictly rejected by the popes. In the 17th century, when all over the Protestant regions north of the Alps the stakes were burning (there is an estimation of 25,000 victims), not a single witch trial was performed. In Spain, about 300 “witches” were burnt at the stakes, in strongly Catholic Ireland 2.

The frequently traded number of 9 million victims can, interestingly, be traced back to Heinrich Himmler, the second most powerful man in the “Third Reich”, who intended to fuel thus anti-Catholic resentments. In fact, even his “research team” couldn’t fabricate more than 30,000 victims.

This is one of those things liberals try to gloss over these days: one of the many things that Nazis had in common with today’s liberals is that they practiced pseudo-pagan religions. After they had won the war and finished killing off the Jews, their plan was to abolish Christianity, which they saw as a Jewish sect. Today liberals try to demonize Christianity, but neopaganism (Nazis) and secularism (communists) have killed more people in a few decades than Christianity’s worst moments did for centuries.

Thanks to feminism, the history of the European witch hunts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries has become ideologized and bent out of shape to their liking and, interestingly, 9 million is the number incorrectly and widely bandied about. While witch hunts were seen in the early 1900s as outbreaks of religious hysteria for which an ever-sinister and oppressive Catholic church was responsible, in the Seventies, feminist revisionist historians claimed that they had been a systematic campaign by the patriarchal system to do away with the remnants of — Yeah, right! — goddess-worshiping pre-Christian religions.

A Razor for a Goat is a detailed debunking of Margaret Murray’s revisionist history of witchcraft.

Anywhere, more evidence to throw on the pile that women have no business voting: Unmarried Women Deliver…Big Time

Last night unmarried women supported Barack Obama by a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin according to calculations based on the Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool published by CNN. This margin exceeds the support Obama generated among both younger voters and Hispanic voters. Unmarried women similarly supported Democratic House candidates by a 64 to 29 percent margin, matching their progressive support in the 2006 elections.

In fact looking back at martial status, unmarried women consistently generated large progressive margins, but never as large as we saw last night. In fact, there emerged a 44-point difference in the behavior of married women and unmarried women. If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women’s vote and with it, the White House.

Ann Coulter once figured it up and said that if we threw out the female votes, there would only have been one Democrat president since women’s suffrage happened. I rest my case!

Also, Roissy:

Why There Is A Gender Gap

In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta.


3 Responses to “Women, witchcraft, and the vote”

  1. The_Editrix Says:

    I guess that another reason is that unmarried women (even more than married women) live a life by proxy, hence the success of phoney icons like, say, Princess Diana. If I think of the more recent presidential elections in your country, the Democrats were very often physically more attractive than their counterparts. Obama certainly is. Kennedy most certainly was. Clinton was by majority standards (although he gave me, personally, the creeps), the much more attractive Gore was only a close second and even Bush was more attractive than Kerry, Bush sen. was probably prefered to Dukakis because he could profit from the huge success Reagan was, Jimmy Carter's election will remain an enigma in EVERY respect anyway and Johnson and Goldwater… Awmegawd what a choice, lookwise!

    Just an idea to play with!

  2. Female Misogynist Says:

    I was always amazed when women claimed Clinton was "handsome", but I figured, I'm gay, what do I know about goodlooking men?

    Anyway, I don't doubt that looks are a factor. Which makes me sad when I look at old pictures. I have my criticisms of Roosevelt and Churchill, but they had plenty to be admired for, and would they have been chosen these days? Nowadays we want leaders who are thin, for Pete's sake! As if that made any difference!

    Last fall, a Democrat woman of my acquaintance told me that she wasn't voting for Hilary in the primaries because "I couldn't stand four years of pantsuits. Wear a skirt!"

    I didn't say a word, just sat there mourning the fact that my life is controlled by a government which people who make decisions this way are allowed a say in.

  3. The_Editrix Says:

    "Last fall, a Democrat woman of my acquaintance told me that she wasn't voting for Hilary in the primaries because "I couldn't stand four years of pantsuits. Wear a skirt!""


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: