The gist of this particular theory is: the (world's combined) Left might prefer/want a Republican to win in 2016. Which is one theory among many. It's just as easy to theorize that they want to keep the presidency. The tidbit that pretty much inspired this theory was a report/study from a few weeks ago, before trolling Trump's hands went mainstream, that claimed Hitler had a micro-penis. Just as 'Trump Is Hitler' and 'Fascism Has Returned (though it never left)' and 'Trump Is Finally Saying Out Loud What We've Been Trying To Warn You The Racist War-Mongering Baggers Have Always Privately Believed' claims were hitting a fever pitch, Hitler, whose every aspect has been scrutinized for 70 years, suddenly had a micro-penis when Trump's hands became a mockery. Instead of being another cultural parallel like white supremacy, economic ignorance, etc. between the movements behind Hitler/Trump, this new claim about Hitler, as Trump's hands were an item, provided similarities between the men/personalities leading those movements. So I couldn't help but think that this was tailor-made to help bind the roots of Trump's motivations/inspirations to Hitler's. Someone other than Trump would be bound to Hitler in some other foundational sense. Or maybe in the same way. Maybe it was always going to be a micro-penis.
This seemed like part of a deeper
psychological effort than the rote gold standard of "Republicans are
Nazis". In addition to shaming Republicans collectively as Nazis,
leaders/notables are shamed personally as Hitlers. I was casually aware enough
of politics during Bush's presidency to know Hitler comparisons are not new so
I think the timing and convenience of micro-penis implies a seedy coordination
that is more sophisticated than scribbling little mustaches onto Repubs'/Cons' pictures. If I take deeper coordination as a given, then what deeper plan is it
serving? IMO, just that Hitler's penis is associated with the word 'research'
lends any relevant comparisons a credibility that is not normally expected from
or considered in the making of "So and So is a Nazi" protest signs. So,
as Trumps hands come to be mocked and he and his supporters are inherently (though
casually) compared to Hitler and Nazis, along comes 'credible' information
which bolsters those comparisons. Maybe I can't relate to the financial and
institutional means of the masterminds of this strategy that they could and
would produce credible scientific/research material for the internet's
digestion just for kicks. Coordinate and fund bullshit research only for it to
be churned into irrelevance by the next day's or hour's meme du jour. That
seems like a waste of time IMO but maybe I don't have the resources to
contemplate that kind of latitude. Assuming for the purposes of this theory
that Hitler's micro-penis is not a miraculous coincidence in this
stranger-than-fiction world, what is that deeper purpose?
Defeating Trump in
the election seems like the obvious and maybe only purpose but I'm not sure
comparisons to Hitler, however esteemed or credentialed their origin, are any
more effective than giving Trump mustaches or putting Trump's head on the
bodies of Nazis in the absence of actual fucking atrocities. Godwin's Law does
not exactly suggest a tendency to grade each other's Nazism responsibly.
Comparing a candidate whose policies haven't been enacted, whose theoretical
genocide is pending until after the election, seems as irrelevant in Godwin's
universe as comparing physical features. Where the candidacy of Hitler's clone
would be un-phased by physical comparisons by virtue of Godwin's Cesspool. If scientific comparisons are no more persuasive than
photoshops, why bother with the expense of 'credible', pre-genocide Nazi
comparisons? Why hire a few (costly) experts to support your claim of someone's
Nazism when you can scribble a mustache on their picture for free? Why the
extra effort on a claim as legitimate in Godwin's Cesspool as claims without
that effort? If defeating a political opponent is the goal and comparing them
to Hitler is a tactic, why the extra time to organize or forge research when
you can shoop a mustache on Trump for the same effect? Why waste time?
criticized the claim that "people are stupid" (for doing those things
present company would never do) even though it can feel so right. Ultimately,
the claim is untrue or at least incoherent. Someone has asked if you can explain
a 'bizarre' action/event and your response is to imply that:
1) while members
of your species are stupid in general, you are not counted among them
all humans are stupid and you are not counted among them
3) that all humans
are stupid and you're one of them.
I doubt stupidity survived as a dominant
trait through ages of evolution so 1) incoherent 2) incoherent 3) incoherent.
One way or another you've introduced or promoted an untruth to the world.
However humorously or sincerely or privately or publicly you claimed that
"people are stupid", I don't think it is true and I'm not sure it can
be true at this stage in the evolutionary ballgame. At the very least, our
competence to survive is ancient. If humans act purposefully and humanity
persists, it seems that we must sometimes act purposefully to survive.
Stupidity is not helpful in this regard. Long story short, we are freaky genius
monkeys with a knack for survival that is more deliberate than whimsical. More
careful than hopeful. Maybe grant that others have a good reason for doing what
they're doing even if it is not apparent to you. Suspect guile before
So if Godwin's Cesspool regards all Hitler/Nazi comparisons not
accompanied by genocides as equally frivolous, why the extra time to lend such
a claim any scientific credibility? I have reasons to think doing so was not a
deliberate waste of time. Then time was the answer.
Instead of wasting time to
fluff a tenuous comparison between Hitler's and Trump's hands that would only
be sacrificed to Godwin's Cesspool, maybe the suggestion that Hitler and Trump
have a micro-penis in common was meant to survive Godwin's Cesspool. That the
credibility of the report was not wasted on the Cesspool but is intended to
rise from it. To rise from the slime of comparing Hitler to a genocide-less
Trump to a vindication of that comparison when president Trump comes to be
responsible for a comparable atrocity. If the micro-penis comparison is intended
to rise from the Cesspool it cannot reasonably be expected to do so only in the
hope that Trump might do something terrible. It could only be intended to
rise from the slime in the eventuality of an infamous event. Because I doubt
Trump is motivated politically for the purpose of genocide or lesser bloodthirst,
it seems that a massacre in his name is anticipated and will be drawn out of
him whether he likes it or not. A drone attack 'meant' for Al-Qaeda actually
kills thousands of civilians. Some kind of bad intel or betrayal that leads to
a massacre worthy of Nazi comparisons or some unique infamy. A massacre that
now validates every warning lobbed into the cesspool and incriminates every
feature Trump and Hitler share, including a micro-penis. Where a credible report
that Hitler had a micro-penis, once thought to be wasted in the Cesspool of
comparing Trump's murder-less micro-penis to Hitler's, is now evident of a
physical similarity between two notorious criminals.
This may start to get
Granting there's a good reason to do so, why would the plotters of a
scheme to lure Trump into Hitler-esque notoriety decide to promote a micro-penis
as the feature these villains share ahead of all other similarities? Why is the
evil a penis and why is it small? The people behind this scheme are party to a
massacre they will then blame on a scapegoat. In this instance, the scapegoat
would be a Republican president and his political opposition would benefit from the
sleaze cast over that president and his party. I've said the best strategy for
abusive power is to promote as much untruth as possible so that their
opposition is as ignorant as possible. I won't rehash that now. If such a
principled, abusive power staged this fake massacre in order to vilify a
president and his party then it follows that
promoting micro-penises as a relevant feature of mass-murderers itself promotes
as much untruth as possible. Where the greater the threat a micro-penis is
alleged to pose the less likely that threat. Where the bigger the penis the
likelier the threat.
Editor's Note: The content of this post was copied from a Twitter rant on March, 6, 2016. Other than some spelling changes and a new format, nothing has been changed.
UPDATE: I want to be clear about what I am saying in the final passage because, upon further review, I think it is important. I am not saying is that it is true that the bigger the penis the greater the threat. I am not saying that in order to promote untruth you would claim that the smaller the penis the greater the threat. I am saying both claims are untruth . The fact that individuals act, not groups, and we do so with our brains (or at least not with our genitalia), absolves all penises from culpability. What I am saying is that you can promote untruth by blaming any penis. And I also think it is informative of the moral compass of the position-holder when a small/large penis is blamed. That, in their minds, if their strategic/moral worldview is informed by the irrational belief (held as truth) that larger penises are indeed a bigger threat, then to promote the most untruth as possible, they would blame smaller penises.