Nothing outrages Progressives more than the truth. Predictably, then, when Donald Trump voiced the undeniable fact that Hitlary Clinton is “such a nasty woman,” the mindless masses howled with fury.
I am no Trumpette. Nor did I watch any of the debates, including the last one with Mr. T’s comment. So I was incredulous as I scanned the headlines the next morning that those four words had earned The Donald yet another stoning from the corporate media and the aforementioned masses. What is so inherently “sexist,” so patently worthy of excoriation, in the phrase, “nasty woman”? If you’re as unfortunate as I, you’ve known plenty of nasty people, some of them male; nastiness is hardly exclusive to women. Indeed, Ed Koch, one of New York City’s former führers, called Rudy Giuliani, another former führer, a Nasty Man. In print, no less.
Recall, too, that Hitlary hasn’t exactly hidden her nastiness during four decades of sponging off us, and she’s traded on her sex every time she possibly could; Trump simply stated the painfully obvious. Why is either “nasty” or “woman” sexist? Or do they magically become so in combination?
Of course not. This latest mountain-from-a-molehill is yet another dishonest attempt to dismiss and to distract us from a reality Progressives abhor: Hitlary is a nasty woman—one of the nastiest ever.
No need to rehearse the infamous and numbingly extensive evidence for said nastiness: the volcanic tantrums Shrillary has unleashed on numerous victims, whether her spouse or underlings; her “proud stan[ce]” with the ghoulish butchers of Planned Parenthood; her contempt for the women her husband has raped as well as for all who loathe a totalitarian State. Far from castigating The Donald for noting such vileness, Clintonistas should appreciate his restraint: he might have chosen far more pejorative terms for Killary, several of them vulgar.
Given Trump’s penchant for calling it like it is, Clintonistas should also thank him for focusing on Hitlary’s nauseating nature rather than her criminality. Imagine the adjectives this shrewd businessman could conjure to describe her endless corruption, shady dealing in Whitewater, murderous rampage at Waco, etc.
Meanwhile, that Trump’s correct assessment of Madame Defarge elicits cries of sexism proves how yet again morally and intellectually bankrupt feminism is.
Not that the movement was ever in the black. Feminism, like its siblings racism and environmentalism, directly descends from Marxism. And each such –ism strips us of liberty while empowering the State.
No wonder, then, that feminists lust to destroy one of our most secure bulwarks against Leviathan, the family. Their century of effort has brutally usurped men from their rightful, God-given authority over their homes: the “Percentage of households led by a single mother with children under age 18 living in the household in the U.S. in 2015” was 8.1. Heartbreaking rates of easily obtained a divorce (i.e., either party to a contract may renege on the agreement without consent from the other) dumps more people into that group every day, despite its poverty and other pathologies.
Alas, those families blessed enough to live with a father often denigrate and deride him, per the loathing of men that feminism teaches. Its stranglehold on popular culture means that Hollywood portrays our husbands, sons, and dads as buffoons and imbeciles.
Skim the world’s literature from any era and you’ll find that the prerequisite for a good life, a compatible marriage, has always been tough to achieve. Yet feminism horribly complicates that difficult quest. It brainwashes women into mistaking men for predators while men naturally distrust the vengeful barracudas such propaganda produces. How can couples meet and fall in love when she damns all men as rapists while he fears false arrest and conviction for sexual assault?
Nor can we forgive this Satanic doctrine for emasculating men and American society. Feminism demonizes traditionally masculine traits, from logic and riskiness to discipline and rigor, while idolizing softness, irrationality, and emotion. It’s of a piece with the promotion of sodomy and “transgenderism”: why not transmute base masculinity into the gold of fake femininity? And since women, even feminism’s hateful and faux ones, are far easier to tyrannize than strong, courageous men, Marxist American governments enthusiastically push feminism’s agenda.
It’s no coincidence that Trump scolded the “nasty woman” when “Clinton was speaking about her commitment to ‘raise taxes on the wealthy’… ”
If that isn’t nasty—and Marxist—what is?