Editor’s Note: This column was written by Alan Stang in response to Obama’s primary victory over Hillary in 2008. As the polls show a giant shift to Trump we thought it appropriate to savor the amusement of her past failures as we look forward to her future ones.
The Germans have a word for it. We don’t. I don’t know why that is, but it is. The word is Schadenfreude, which means joy at the misfortune of another. The nearest we come to Schadenfreude in this country are certain stupid shows on television, but in German it apparently is a well developed concept, and I am cautiously allowing myself to experience it now.
I refer of course to the defeat of the Hillary womanoid by Senator Hussein. When she finally did announce it – when I finally did hear the treasured words from her lips – I must say I experienced a surge of intense joy, so intense that it approached the spiritual, a joy that lingered, that kept returning to be relished. Whenever it flared up, I could do nothing but enjoy it.
Now I am ruminating on that unusual intensity. How to explain it? Consider that a year or so ago, we were told there would never be such a presidential campaign. It would be less a campaign than a coronation, a series of august personal appearances on the way to the throne. Her nomination and election would be mere formalities. The result was ordained. No mere male could contest it.
She was the wisest woman in our galaxy, the noblest woman of them all, much wiser and nobler, much more of everything than you and I. Of course it was ordained! She deserved it, not merely because of what she had accomplished, but because of what she was. Her presidency and its fruits (not a pun) would be the ultimate proof that predatory bull dykes should rule the United States.
All of this was a symptom, a manifestation, of the criminal mind Hillary exemplifies. She is a psychopath, incapable of normal, human emotion – who paradoxically can feign such emotion on command so brilliantly it seems more genuine than the real thing – a psychopath for whom the rest of us are nothing more than objects to be used, pack animals too stupid to deserve the truth.
One recalls that Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev disrupted a UN session in New York, pounding on the desk in his delegation with a shoe. During that visit, he marveled at American naiveté. “These Americans!” he exclaimed. “You can spit in their face and they call it dew!” He was right, of course.
And so it is with the Clintons. They spit in our face and tell us it is dew; and if we refuse to believe them they become offended. They are what Ted Bundy would have been had he entered politics. They are possibly implicated in more murders than he was, maybe because he was more discriminating. As far as we know Ted only killed women. The list of Clinton corpses is too long to cite here.
And so it is that I revel in Schadenfreude. As I said, I do so with caution, precisely because they are psychopaths, whose unfathomable evil approaches the supernatural. Yes, she has announced her campaign is dead but can we believe it? Dee Wallace thought Cujo was dead; after what she had done to him he should have been, but he wasn’t.
Michael Douglas thought Glenn Close was dead – no normal woman could survive under water that long – but she wasn’t either. And those are just a couple of examples. Can we revel in the assurance that the Hillaroid will not emerge in some different Frankenstein form from the dust bin, pull the stake from her heart and erupt in that terrifying cackle? Is her demise a trick, the two steps back Lenin recommended the revolutionary take when opposed?
Please do not write to tell me that Schadenfreude is not Christian, that it is utterly pointless, because Senator Hussein is as much a Communist as she is. I know all that and cannot help it. I know it but am consumed by a visceral delight much stronger than I am. If you leave me alone, in time I could recover. But there is a much more significant aspect of all this, that has nothing to do with some possibly misplaced revelry.
Hillary’s womanoid candidacy is the most malevolent, most destructive expression so far of the satanic feminist revolt calculated to destroy our civilization. It raises the perennial question of a woman’s “place.” What? Women have a place? Yes, I recognize that, because of lifelong brainwashing, the mere use of that word in that context inspires womanoids everywhere to whirl like dervishes; to which I say, whirl away. Because of that brainwashing, even normal women become disturbed.
All right, now that the dervishes have whirled off, yes, women have a place; I contend that women are not in that place and that is why so many women are so crazy. We know why women are not in their place; we have taken long looks at that subject in many of these pieces. Because it is our hope to salvage what we can, the question now becomes: What is their place?
The best way to answer that is: the woman’s place is to follow. The woman’s place is to follow the man. The lady’s place is to follow her man. The man’s place is to lead. Right here, I’ll wait a few minutes for those of you who by now think you have suffered major heart attacks to recover. You do not need to call the paramedics. You will survive. Just breathe deeply and catch your breath. You are the victim of too many female kung-fu movies.
Of course these modest, sensible comments inspire bull dykes and other deranged womanoids to fury. One of the reasons is that many of them believe I have capriciously made all this up because I am a “male chauvinist pig,” or a “sexist oppressor,” or whatever. And if that were true – if this arrangement were entirely my idea – then maybe I would deserve those endearing sobriquets.
The problem is that, because so many of these brainwashed womanoids are atheists, they don’t understand that this arrangement isn’t mine – I had nothing to do with it – it’s God’s. Hey, Ellen, ever hear of Him? How do we know this is God’s work? We know it because it is what He says in His book. It’s called the Bible. Yes, I know it’s by far the biggest seller of all time – no other book comes close – but, hey, Rosie, I know you’re a busy womanoid, about to remarry your girl friend. Maybe it got past you.
You’ve read the reviews – this feeble attempt is one of them – now read the Book and see for yourself. In it you will see not only that God assigns the woman’s place; He also assigns the man’s. The man is the leader because that’s what God wants. Why? I have no idea. God does what He does for His own pleasure, without consulting me. Can you imagine? In fact, let’s get really controversial. God is even smarter than Hillary Clinton. And I have found that things go much better for me when I shut up, stop complaining and get with the Divine program. You can complain about it all you like. You won’t outtalk God. We are both – male and female – the property of Jesus Christ who created us.
What does it mean to lead and to follow? How does the Divine program work? It begins with the future man obeying a woman, obeying her for years. This is an essential element in the process, because without it the future man will be a brute; he will lack the experience and understanding to lead another woman with sympathy. That is one of the many reasons the maternal presence is so crucial.
Confronted with this arrangement, the womanoids rage that it means sequestration at home, forbidden to leave, forbidden to pursue some interest or career. No, you are thinking of the Mohammedan sex, money and power racket, in which the woman is a prisoner, often permitted to show nothing but her eyes, if that much, forbidden to drive. Notice that the womanoids have not a screech to say about the anti-female horrors of Islam; instead, they go hydro about our Christian civilization, where women have the best lives they have ever lived anywhere.
We are not talking about suppressing women, but about liberating them. We are not talking about intelligence. Hillary, for just one example, is demonstrably brilliant, more so than many men, which is irrelevant. If a woman has a talent, a predilection, for something, I suggest getting out of her way and helping her if you can. That is not what we are talking about.
We are also not talking about strength. The strongest men yield to God. So do the strongest women. Do you really want a weak, whiny, wimpy woman? A dumb woman who can’t do anything? Of course not! You want the strongest woman you can get. An example of the kind of woman I am talking about – who certainly dates me, but you will know what I mean – are the movie personae portrayed by Maureen O’Hara. She is a red-headed spitfire, ferociously strong and at the same time intensely, totally feminine.
What kind of man does such a woman want? A “metrosexual” who isn’t sure what sex he is? A pansy who is sure? A wimp “in touch with his feelings” who knows how to “show his feminine side?” No, pal, that’s feminoid garbage. Take it from the world’s foremost authority on the subject. She wants a man who has the cojones to be her true spiritual leader. If she doesn’t get it, she feels cheated, becomes testy, a vulnerable target for feminoid propaganda, and takes her deprivation out on her man. Remember that in “Quiet Man” John Wayne doesn’t get to take wife Maureen to bed until he proves he deserves her.
The main reason today’s women are much crazier than they should be is that the predatory bull dykes who control that part of the power structure are inimically hostile to everything feminine. They say they are in favor of liberating women, but everything they advocate denigrates women. They want women strutting in pants, not in dresses. They want women to display the cracks in their tattooed heinies like plumbers. They want women in the military, killing like Rambo. They want women to foal and go back to work.
What is the worst thing a woman can do, where is the worst place she can be, in the deranged minds of these predatory bull dykes? Isn’t it being at home, making a home for her family? Where else would you think the phrase “just a housewife” originated? Remember that today’s feminism is a tool of the Communist scheme for world government. When a lady says she is “just a housewife” to me I become the Incredible Hulk. When I get done she never says it again.
Nothing is more important to the preservation of our civilization and country than the housewife. Did you forget? “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Sometimes, if I suspect a lady I have just met is getting ready to tell me she is “just a housewife,” I ask, “So, are you a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, a test pilot, a SWAT team terrorist, or are you something really important like a homemaker?” Instead, from earliest girlhood, she is told over and over that to be somebody important she must leave the home and forsake the family. No wonder so many women go berserk.
Without a woman, you cannot have a real home. You have a place to flop. Women are the greatest thing God created. Most of the time, I can tell if a place contains a woman. One of my single sons maintained a combination arboretum and insect ranch under the coffee table. Every few months, when I returned to inspect, it was still there, except it had metastasized. Is he stupid? No, in fact he has an M.A. in mathematics, and works for a huge defense contractor. If you get crossways with him, he could drop a missile in your lap. But he is male. Now that he cleverly has married a lady with two engineering degrees, the combination arboretum and insect ranch is gone.
I am decrepit enough to remember that the homemaker of old had immense authority. If you challenged that authority, she might whip you herself. Or, if she didn’t feel like making the trip to the wood shed, when Dad got home, she would merely point at the trembling offender. Also, didn’t women do most of the charity and other good works in the community? If the women are working all day and come home exhausted, who will do all that? Answer: the government. It works better when women do it.
Again, the best clue to what is wrong is Simone de Beauvoir, a drunk, a dyke, a traitor to France, a Communist and a founder of today’s feminism. Womanoids everywhere revere her. Remember she admitted that most women want to stay home, so in her ideal world that would be forbidden. They would be dragged into the street and forced into the office and the factory, as in the Soviet Union and Red China, which she passionately defended. They would not be allowed to stay at home.
So, the problem in our culture is not that Christianity would keep women at home. The problem is that feminism would kick them into the street. Again, feminism may well be the worst thing that ever happened to this country. We must restore the idea that if a girl has some talent she wants to express, if she wants to become a doctor or lawyer, for instance, that’s fine; and it is just as fine, just as important – more important – to make a home. We need to stop denigrating femininity.
© 2008 Alan Stang
Amen. As the father of a daughter, I have been careful to encourage her that, when she begins a family of her own, her most important job will be wife and mother, regardless of how many degrees or what career path she may choose. It is so simple. Women wield the most power and influence when they are at home raising the men to lead tomorrow and standing behind and encouraging their husbands of today.
Same here brother
I agree with you about your comment regarding how it is Biblical for the man to be the leader. However, there were a time or two when God did not call on a man, he chose a woman. Deborah was one. She was one of the Judges of Israel for a time. I think that is a comment on the state of men for a particular point in history when He calls up a woman instead of a man.
I remember when the feminist movement really got rolling in the middle 70’s. Those harpies did indeed berate women who chose to follow a more traditional path. But by their own logic, should that not have been okay? They were campaigning for women to be free to choose whatever they wanted to do with their lives. Some women wanted to be homemakers and moms. But I remember getting the ugliest feedback for that choice when I made the decision to marry and have kids.
One of the things we owe Martha Stewart a debt of gratitude for is the use of homemaker rather than housewife. She said at the time that she, nor any woman for that matter, was married to a house. She was more than that, she was married to a man, and she created a home for them. She gave the concept of homemaker a great deal of respect and I applaud her for that.
When you read the Proverbs 31 ideal of God’s idea of a woman, you see a word in that that describes her. She puts her hand to the distaff. In my dictionary the distaff holds the weight of the yarn, and it also a very old way of referring to a woman. A woman being the distaff of the home. A woman bears a lot of responsibility for the success or failure of that happy home. That to me was always more important than heading out to the job market when my kids were very young.
This was such a good post sir. A very will written and good post.
That social order is utterly impossible if more than the 4% of women who can compete with a median man also go to work. The reason you cannot support a family on a single income is because the workforce has doubled effectively cutting incomes in half. Now you Need two incomes yet now one must balance relationship work and children, leaving too little time to do any of these properly.
This also doesn’t take the female nature in consideration, hypergamy specifically. The women who work are incapable of feeling satisfied by a man of equal status. Which is precisely why it used to be that Only the women who demonstrated incredible talent at something were allowed in the professions.
You can take your control group from Iran, it’s an Islamic theocracy yet their fertility rate is at collapse levels like ours, why you ask? Women work.
You do have some good points here, but I would disagree with “the reason you CANNOT support a family on a single income…” as I have done just that for a quarter century. Several of the MOTW writers have as well. Is it hard? Sure, sometimes. But it is doable.