World War 2 Is a Fucking Hoax

World War II was the greatest conflict in human history... but was it faked!? Let's look at some of the evidence, and you can decide for yourself*.

I believe World War 2 didn't happen. Does that make me absolutely fucking batshit insane? A few years ago, I would've agreed with you. But then I started to do some research (also known as 'hard drugs') and what I found was astonishing, and it made me begin to ask more questions about World War 2, questions that I think deserve to be answered. Beyond that, I began to wonder if I was crazy, and I was surprised to find there were many historians, scientists, and other appeals to authority, who came to the same conclusions that I did.

Before I dive into this, I want to let you know that whatever you do, don't always believe everything you're told in official school textbooks, but also not to trust me, like ever, especially with money. I ask you to approach the topic of World War 2 with a critical and skeptical mind, to ask questions, and to always look for the truth, especially if it's the truth that I'm proposing. Okay, let's go.

1. Why would someone invent this story?

It all boils down to money. This "war" and the subsequent "Cold War" were both extremely profitable for Russian and American war industries. Trillions of dollars have been spent on two wars that did not even happen! The true is that The United States and Russia have been working together since 1917 to gain world supremacy, and after The Great War, basically carved the world up. The fear of another world-wide war has, ironically, led to tons of proxy wars (Like the United States and Russian involvement in Syria, Iran, Cuba, Angola, Bosnia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Yemen, Lebanon, etc.) and all-out wars, such as the United States invading Iraq and Vietnam, or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Countries that refuse to play ball are turned into battlefields and are ruined by trade embargoes, so while it seems like the US and Russia are in conflict politically, they're both working together to run the world. However, to keep people under control, people have to be afraid and uneducated. The fear of being ruled by an almost-comically evil government like the supposed 'Nazi Germany' that sends people to die for no reason keeps us living under a nearly-invisible dictatorship.

2. Hitler isn't real.

There is no forensic evidence of the existence of Adolf Hitler. No medical records, no birth certificate, no documents that confirm that he existed, and most importantly, no body. We have no dental records, no bones to examine, nothing! Not even any 'official property' of Hitler, such as his clothing, and so on. Additionally, the same is also true for many who were close to Hitler, who all conveniently 'committed suicide' and then had their corpses disappear from history forever. From a skeptic's perspective, this is extremely important that all evidence of Hitler's very existence is from second-hand accounts.

"But, the pictures!"

 All of these pictures are purportedly of Adolf Hitler. The problem is that some of them are clearly not Hitler unless he was a shapeshifter. Also, consider this portrait of the Fuhrer:

Nothing unusual, right? We see everything we'd expect to see from the Fuhrer: mustache, combed black hair, military uniform, swastika, and an angry look. I find it odd that Hitler would ask the artist to paint him looking distant and depressed. But this is the portrait that Hitler supposedly had put on postage stamps. But, there's a problem here: Hitler supposedly had blue eyes.

Hitler-worshipers often claim that Adolf Hitler had 'blue eyes', because it would make him more of a 'pure' nordic ubermensch. Conversely, you have the anti-Hitler crowd who claim Hitler's eyes are brown. This would be fairly easy to rectify if there are color photos of Hitler. Many color photos are edited to change the eye color from brown to blue, or vice-versa. Take this pic for example:

Which color are Hitler's eyes? It looks like an obvious "blue", but the entire photograph has a bluish hue. It is impossible to know with complete certainty because the picture is black-and-white. If Hitler were real, there would be no controversy over his eye color. It'd be an open-and-shut case, but this is not what we're seeing. On top of this, earlier pictures of Hitler show him with a narrow, pointy nose, and the "older Hitler" pictures show him having a wider, rounder nose.

This leads me to my next observation:

Nothing about Hitler makes any sense. According to historians, he was a madman who would scream and act erratically while conducting official business. How was he able to be a central figurehead in a state that would require a strong leader? According to every account of Hitler, he had a wild temper, was anti-social, made terrible decisions, and argued with his generals every step of the way because he had no fucking idea what he was doing. How could such a pointedly incompetent person run a country during an economic crisis, somehow get the resources to build an army, air force, and navy that was explicitly prohibited by the Entente powers, and then just start knocking down entire sovereign states like they were nothing? Furthermore, how could a man that cannot even be proven to exist do all of this?

It makes you stop and think, doesn't it? If not, it should.

Another weird thing was that Hitler was pure evil. The man has no redeeming qualities at all. He's like a comic book villain, because he seems impulsive, angry, hateful, and completely irrational. The book that Hitler supposedly wrote reads like something written by an psychopathic lunatic, not by a calculated man that could organize a movement, become a strong national leader, then take on four Great Powers with spectacular success until being done in by his own arrogance. Hitler is a character written to personify evil, a perfect villain to rally people against, and an excellent piece of propaganda for decades to come.

The timing of Hitler-related media is also a bit fishy. Charlie Chaplin started work on The Great Dictator (1940), an anti-Hitler propaganda film, before World War 2 even supposedly began.

When rumors of Hitler's death began emerging from the alleged 'Battle of Berlin', the Soviets claimed that the situation was chaos and the body of Hitler was 'lost', but were somehow able to report that Hitler had been killed, and later, released one grainy photo of a dead Hitler, because for some reason, there was a photographer on-site that knew that he was taking a picture of Hitler. Did the soldiers guarding Hitler's body tell the photographer that the body was Hitler's? If so, what did they do with the body? How did the photographer know where to go to get the picture? Why did he only take ONE picture and then go "Thanks, bye."?

Finally, all the Western newspapers heard about the rumor of Hitler's death, and all decided to publish the story at the same time, all exactly two days after the event supposedly happened:

3. Muh 40-80 million

According to dead historians, World War 2 killed more people than The Great War, and all other modern wars combined. The estimates for the war go from 40 million to 80 million. That is a margin of error of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. The real reason that the war is impossible to estimate is because all of the nations that claim to have participated in war give huge numbers of their own dead, because they want to show how much their nation sacrificed. The problem is that when you add up all of the estimates, you get ridiculously huge numbers with an impossible-to-rectify margin of error that would cause 4% of the world's total population to have been eradicated within a few years. 

There is no world census tracker that accounts for such a drastic loss in population.

Historians will claim that the reason for the discrepancy is because of disease and famine. They will claim that there have been more or less casualties based on how many people died as a direct or indirect cause of the war. I would probably accept this claim if they weren't outright lying to my face.

Yeah. World War 2 definitely killed 80 million people.

If the world had 2 billion people at the time of World War 2, and lost 80 million, the world population would drop to 1,920,000,000, or one billion, nine-hundred twenty million. 20 million goes into 2 billion 100 times, which means each 20 million lost would equal roughly 1%. No such loss is accounted for in world censuses.

The worst offender for misreporting casualties is Russia. Recent revisionist reworking of the casualty numbers now put the total number of Russian casualties at 26 million, although the original number was 46 million, which was later re-calculated to be 38 million casualties total. This includes civilians and military personnel. To easily see major contradictions in Russia's casualty reports, just look at what their historians are reporting:

At 1940, this chart shows a total population of 110 million. A loss of 26 million would bring the population down to 84 million.

 

The following screen shows a drop of 26 million, from 196 million (NOT 110 million) to 170 million.

Here's the chart, with lines added by me:

This chart shows the total Soviet population jumping from around 170 million to 200 million from 1939 to 1941, then dropping back down to 170 million. Why would the population suddenly jump like this? The Baltic States were annexed by the Soviet Union, sure, but that wouldn't add 30 million people in 1940. This leads me to believe the 30 million were simply 'added' to the census books and then subtracted to make it seem like the Soviet Union lost a huge bloc of population. 

According to this table, Ukraine lost 1.3 million casualties as soldiers. A majority of the civilian casualties of the Soviet Union are said to have been killed in Ukraine between 1941 and 1943. 

According to the official census of Ukraine's government, there was no significant dip in population between 1939 and 1949. Even one million military casualties would put a dent in population. However, we're being told that there were possibly tens of millions of civilians and soldiers killed, and millions more evacuated to escape Nazi occupation. 

"Academician Yuri Kondufor, Director of the Institute of History , Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, in September 1984 gave for the first time precise statistics of Ukrainian population losses in World War II. He stated that there was a total loss of 7.5 million (7,509,045) including the dead and those taken as slave laborers to Germany. The German occupation and World War II resulted in the extermination and death in Ukraine of 3,898,457 civilians and 1,366,588 military and prisoners-of-war for a total of 5,265,045. (Gregorovich, Forum No. 61)."

- http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-18.html 


Here's a bunch of varying estimates of Soviet casualties:

These figures are all by "Western" scholars who try to diminish Russia's sacrifice in the 'war', because again, people from nations all over the world try to overemphasize the importance of their own countries in the war, and lessen the importance of other countries. In 1996, Boris Sokolov published a study that estimated total war dead at 43.3 million including 26.4 million in the military. Sokolov's calculations claimed that official population figures in 1941 were understated by 12.7 million and the population in 1946 overstated by 4.0 million, yielding 16.7 million additional war dead, bringing the total to 43.3 million.

4. All the pictures are faked.

 These soldiers forgot they were in a war between takes.

 The evil emperor decided to look extra-evil today for this photo-op.

 I don't know what is even happening in this one, to be honest.

Why is there a cameraman on the boat? Is that necessary? Wouldn't the Allies want to be efficient with their space and let combat troops take the seats on the landing boats?

5. Conclusion

 It's hard to imagine a world without World War 2. Pretty much everything our society does is based on our mentality that was influenced by this manufactured conflict. It is a powerful means of manipulating people through the imagery all the decades of fiction added as canon to the story to give it depth and realism.

But it didn't happen. Also, I'm selling crystals that protect your brain from government mind-control rays. By placing one in your house and one in your car, you can be safe from waves of radio particles designed to change the chemical make-up of your cerebral structure. They are made of minerals, so I only need to pay for buying them, or sometimes just finding them in construction sites, and then shipping them, and this is definitely non-profit, so the low price of the crystals is 899.99 US Dollars per crystal. Their harmonic frequencies deflect radio frequencies.

No refunds. Peace out.

Footnotes:

*If you don't agree with me, fuck off.

Parody Feminists React To: Cute Cartoons!

DEAR GOD.

Before I begin, there's something I'd like to say, from the bottom of my heart, and it is this:

When laymen (or laywomen, cuz let's not use exclusionary language) talk about feminism, the selling point is always "Feminism is about equality" and "Men can be feminists too, because sexism hurts men". I guess if we live in a land of marshmallows and unicorn rainbow magic, that's true. Feminists sell 'feminism' as an all-encompassing solution to society's ills, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is absolute rubbish. Coincidentally, a rocket scientist did figure that out when his microaggressive shirt triggered at least 100 feminists. Why did they get so mad about his shirt? To understand that, we must travel into the magical world of feminism.

If feminism were simply about 'equality', it would be called 'equality'. The 'feminine' prefix to the -ism should be an indicator that this is, at its heart, a woman-centric ideology. There's nothing wrong with that. JUST DON'T LIE ABOUT IT. Whenever there is an institutional inequality, there will be a reactionary movement that forms to tip the scales against unfairness. Reactionaries, including so-called 'first wave feminists', were extremists, not 'moderates'. They did what they did to get shit done. The laws changed in the UK and in the United States to allow women to hold a job, own land, vote, and made it easier for women to have access to good education. In my opinion, those are good things to be granted to human beings by other human beings, because we all have to share the world we live in with each other.

The 'second wave' of feminism is generally attributed to the writings of Betty Friedan, although she was heavily influenced by Simone de Beauvoir, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who introduced and promoted the idea of Matriarchal Feminism, which is essentially political control of all aspects of society by women. Dorothy E. Smith describes patriarchy as “the totality of male domination and its pervasiveness in woman’s lives”, which is not to say that The Patriarchy is akin to the "illuminati" as an official organization, but a way of thinking that asserts that males should be dominant in society. The feminism of today is generally matriarchal, and is about obtaining power and domination.

The 'equality' spiel is completely false. It's a selling point, nothing more. If feminism were a religion, it would need literature, like a Bible or Quran, to dictate doctrine, and it does have scriptures. However, the scriptures have a wide range of opinions and interpretations inherently, but the dogma is there; The patriarchy is real, and male power must be torn down, doth saith Andrea Dworkin. 

"Equality"

"Equality"

So I saw this cartoon while perusing the internets (all of them) and wanted to maybe do a tweet about it, but it's a loooooooong comic full of bullshit, strawman arguments, and - might I add - the handwriting is terrible. I like the drawings stylistically. The cartoon characters look cute, and I feel like the intent of the author is good. I don't think the author/artist decided "I'm gonna manipulate the fuck out of people with these cute little people." So anyhow, the cartoon is basically "WHY WE NEED FEMINISM". Because apparently, it's going to cure normal human thoughts.

Why do we need feminism, gaiz?

"Because we think she's shallow." - first of all, that boy is a dumbass for walking up to a girl and just yelling, "Date me!"

Also, that girl is shallow. She doesn't like him because she doesn't find him sexually attractive, and won't bother to find out if he's funny, smart, honest, kind, or any of those good personality traits. So yes, she's shallow as fuck.

"But we think she's desperate." - This is the opening of the whole comic! It's a double-standard. The guy here is ALSO shallow. It doesn't matter if the person is a guy or a girl, they both are using aesthetic beauty as their metric for date-material. 

BUT GUESS WHAT?

That doesn't matter! They have the right to choose who they're going to date. They can be superficial, shallow assholes, and it doesn't fucking matter. That's their choice. Sure, getting rejected sucks balls, but feminism isn't going to magically fix being rejected, I'm sorry to say. I will say, though, that the thicc girl would probably get laid anyhow.

male female privilege

p-please... don't touch me...

What is the point of this? Is it that the guy won't fuck off, or that he knows he's being lied to? How is feminism going to change the fact that men are attracted to women and vice-versa? Sure, this girl isn't attracted to this particular guy, and her hair length changes in the second panel, but is this a realistic 'every day' scenario? This feels more like a personal anecdote to me. I know we're supposed to feel bad because the guy is all 'rapey', but this feels like one of those 'first world problems' memes, where the caption is "I'm too attractive and have to say 'no' to certain men while wearing my sexy mini-skirt."

Maybe they enjoy hanging out with him. 

So here's a complicated issue. I assume what happened was an autistic teenager saw her boobs and just wanted to touch them and didn't realize how inappropriate that'd be because of his extreme levels of autism that cause him to draw pictures of Sonic The Hedgehog obsessively. I mean, this shit just happens. You can't prevent these things. Here's where it get complicated: do we tell Simple Jack not to touch the boob-area of women that he doesn't know? Yes. Do we scold the girl for being genetically cursed to grow boobs, and wanted to wear a shirt that would help her to keep cool in the summer heat? I would almost always say 'no', unless she KNEW Simple Jack would get hot and bothered, and thought it'd be funny to tease him, but couldn't have foreseen that he would lunge forward in excitement and squeeze her tits. Then yes. Cover that shit up, Sally Sue.

This happens a lot, actually. Why don't guys wear their cups? "I wasn't expecting to get kicked in the groin." they say. Well, when you spar, people are going to be throwing kicks at you. You fail at Muay Thai.

This assumes all females are straight. Some women are lesbians, and want to get make-overs for their girlfriends. That aside, dating can be competitive. Everyone wants to find someone that is perfect in personality and appearance. You can't change your personality, though. You can, however, change your appearance. I could even argue that changing your appearance is a form of self-improvement, and can be good for your confidence, because you're not stuck with the same look. I know, some people like their look and don't want to change it. But some people are in a funk and need to change. There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting male OR female attention, either. That's part of what makes life meaningful; being accepted and valued by others. If your attitude is like, "Well, people should accept me as I am, and I can just be an ugly slob because fuck everybody." then good luck. I hope that works, but I can't promise great results.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with the girl on the left. It really just depends on how she feels and what she wants. I'm sure some guys will be attracted to her as she is. Others won't. That's not going to change if everyone converts to feminism.

Are you shitting me, my dude? How many levels of irony are you on? 5? 6? You're like a little child to me. Have you ever watched a movie, like, ever? Do you know who Ryan Reynolds is? 

This borders on intentional blindness. Men have to improve themselves the same way women do: by eating healthy, exercising regularly, wearing brand-name clothing, and having blue eyes. In fact - IN FACT - I'd say it's worse for men, because if a man just 'accepts himself', he's a lazy fat-ass, but if a woman accepts herself, she's brave. Don't believe me? Well... good. Because it's purely anecdotal, which means it's probably a bunch of bullshit.

This depends on where you live and what your family is like. I guess the main difference between male and female promiscuity is that women can get pregnant, whereas men cannot. I don't know if that is common knowledge or not. I just don't know anymore. I would also encourage women to stay with a stable partner that can support them and help them raise children rather than have kids willy-nilly. You should know this, because of alimony laws and stuff.

Also yes, I know condoms exist. But men aren't going to wear a condom if their partner is yelling "Oh god, fuck me in the pussy, I wanna feel you inside me, fuccckkkkk"

It's all relative. One person's prudishness is another's whore. However, pragmatically speaking, one can make their own estimation of how they are going to be perceived while wearing this or that. Maybe the 'prude' girl wants to be modest. Maybe she likes that look. Maybe the 'revealing' girl wants more attention from men or from lesbos. If either of them is upset because they're not getting the reaction they want while wearing the clothes they currently have, they can always change their clothes and see how the reactions of others changes. 

It'd be nice to live in a perfect world where we can just do whatever we want and be happy all the time, wouldn't it? Feminism isn't going to make that world happen. Feminism isn't trying to get women to be confident in their choices; it's trying to force others to accept women's choices. When you force people to think a certain way, it makes people unhappy. "Changing perceptions" is akin to thought-control. That may sound a bit orwellian, but people need the freedom to perceive things as they may. 

Same as above. Butch lady wants to be butch and girly-girl wants to be girly. If people are judging them in a condescending manner, feminism's response should be to empower those who are being judged so that they are confident enough to overcome judgement, rather than trying to tell everyone else what to think.

This isn't really a gender issue, and this very comic agrees with me, which you will see in a bit. Life is a balancing act above a punji pit. For whatever reason, we live in a mentally ill society where we can't balance for shit, and end up with 1,000 lb human beings who can't leave their own houses, and holocaust-survivor cosplay. We have body-builders who can't lift their arms up over their heads and look like they'd deflate if you stuck a needle in them - which incidentally, is what they spend a lot of time doing to their butt cheeks.

Yeah, society is overbearing with their trying to "fix" everyone when they're also dysfunctional as hell in another part of their life, but there is truth within the overbearing-ness. We should be thanking God there are people that tell us to get our shit together.

Literally what?

If there were ever a fault with feminism, it's that it tries to get everyone to stop thinking as individuals, and to force everyone to think the same. It's difficult to hammer this fact through the skull of someone who spent way too much time sucking their progressive professor's dick, but women are NOT a hivemind. Some people are going to be honest, others are going to be gossipy, others are going to be angry, others will be shy, others will be flat, others will be sharp, others will be anime fans, others will be gingers, and so on and so forth. It's not "sexism" if two friends gossip about someone else. That's just fucking shit that people do. Even feminists gossip about each other and accuse each other of being 'fake feminists'. 

Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and ate people. I don't respect him. Other than cases like that, I agree with the principle that people should be given the chance to be respected unless they show some despicable character trait that does not merit respect. I want to live in a happy world, and I want to believe that a perfectly compassionate world is possible, but I must acknowledge that we're not fighting an invisible enemy like "Satan" or "The Illuminati". The reason we don't have a perfect world is because of people. We are our worst enemies. So to propagate a worldview, one must oppose another worldview, and that means opposing other people. To enforce one's worldview on others by intimidation is the opposite of respectful. 

Like, if I said, "Okay, everyone must be rich." and forced everyone to have a billion dollars in gold, but there was a crazy old man in the woods in a cabin who was like "I don't want no gold! I don't want no riches!" but I'd be all like "Fuck you faggot, you're going to take your gold or face the consequences."

You can't do that. I'd love if the message was "Treat people well", but that's not what we're talking about here. The message is, "Society would be better if you did shit our way." with the assumption that your way is the 'correct' way.

This is one of those dumb connotations that exists in many languages and cultures. This is one of the instances where I agree with the cartoonist on this issue being valid. But how much does this affect me in my every day life? Very little. It's mildly annoying at worst. But I can't speak for everyone, so... yeah. 

I find this panel really fucking funny, and I don't think feminism is going to fix that.

So yup, according to this comic, body issues are problems for both men and women, and the solution is to empower women because men have too much societal power. Does that make any sense? 

There is an ironic sliver of truth in the cartoon. If that is the 'mother', who finds little Jimmy playing with some Disney Princess dolls, she's saying, "Hey, listen you little fuck, those are girls' toys." It shows that women, as mothers, sisters, friends, and so on, have a definite impact on the way men perceive themselves, and are expected to behave. That being said, I have no problem with boys playing with Barbies. I don't think most people have a problem with that, either. I do think that boys are just less inclined to play with girls' toys, because girls' toys are marketed in a disgusting dull pink, which is the same color as pink bismuth, which is used to stop nausea, gas, and stomach pain. By association, boys become nauseated by girls' toys.

I think John Waters would disagree. This seems more like a relic of a past culture that is fading away, as far as 'intolerance' goes. Also, dresses seem ergonomically superior for people who tend to shit in public, which is why the toga was so popular in the Roman Empire. 

Here's another problem that isn't going to be fixed via feminism. But this actually goes both ways. For example, a woman stays together with a boyfriend/husband that beats the shit out of her. People go, "You need to be strong for yourself and for your children." and shake their heads when she decides to stay with him. She is 'weak' mentally for being held captive, right? 

Additionally, men who get their ass kicked frequently, or back down from confrontations in general are seen as weak, regardless of who their conflict is with, be it man or woman. This is one of the most primal things that we haven't yet evolved out of. We have a strong impulse to lash out physically towards people who make us angry, and it's sort of a thing each person has to sort out for themselves how they're going to deal with anger in a way that doesn't cause pain to the people they love.

I'd like to quote myself from 90 seconds ago (depending on fast you read, I guess):

"[this panel] shows that women, as mothers, sisters, friends, and so on, have a definite impact on the way men perceive themselves, and are expected to behave."

If only men had some sort of individual rights movement to help them overcome this sexism... 

If you're going to insult someone, generally, you're going to jab at their identity. I remember recently being in a few arguments where my intelligence was brought into question. That's because the people I was arguing with decided to employ insults as part of our verbal conflict, and made the assumption that I value my ability to think intelligently. Therefore, they said I was uneducated and common street trash (both of which are fairly accurate) to get under my skin. If I were a man, and I valued being a man, being called a woman might make me angry because penis.

The author/cartoonist said it, not me.

Here's another one of those, "Oh shit, you're almost self-aware" moments. The cartoonist associates weakness with femininity here. What is not mentioned is that men are also called "dick", "asshole", "dumbass", "prick", "son of a bitch" (Which is essentially a 'bastard' or fatherless child, the implication is that their lives are worthless because they only exist because their father fucked a loose bitch and then split) and so on, none of which imply that the man in question is womanly. 

Fun fact: a somewhat common insult among women towards each other is 'dyke', which is a woman who is manly. For shame!

I don't know why feminists insist on double-underlining shit. But look at their signs, posters, and so on, and you'll notice it's just as common as the colorful hair cliche. That aside, this panel literally makes no sense to me, so maybe someone can explain it, and then I can go "Ohhhhhhh." and feel dumb.

On the left side, a guy is hitting on a woman, as he desires to fertilize her eggs and provide continuity to the human race. The girl is like "No, I'm not interested because you're a fucking nerd, and I only like bad boys who get arrested and cheat on me." and she feels super-uncomfortable and fears for her vaginal safety. On the right side, a girl is with a muscular, handsome man that she finds to be sexually attractive, probably for his genetic probability of producing healthy, strong children that will live longer than average. There is also a guy who is like "I'm jealous because they're together and I'm not with her." and BAWWWWWW poor guy! If feminism was more prevalent, the girl would want to go out with him because why...? The left side of the panel shows that if the boy were more confident, the girl would still reject him.

I guess the moral here is to be born attractive, you fucking idiots.

It is when you use the hashtag, "KillAllMen". It does when Men's Rights advocates are considered a 'hate group'. It does when men are told to 'shut up' and told that they have compulsion to rape. In fact, whenever men's rights and men's well-being are brought up, feminists freak the fuck out.

There's that goddamn double-underline.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with the girl in the last picture. I feel bad that she feels like she has 'internalized oppression' because she's having normal human thoughts. Someone told her repeatedly that her behavior is abnormal and that she has to learn to increase her thetan levels to over 9,000 or feel perpetually guilty. So that's why I'm saying that this isn't a system of 'equality' so much as it is a way of teaching people how to think. 

Men and women generally like each other after the fifth grade. Of all the cultural differences in the modern world, I'd say the relationships between heterosexual people are the least volatile. If there is truly a mutual understand being lacked, it's because opposing sides need to make concessions. I have yet to see a feminist make a concession like "The wage gap is a misunderstanding of statistics, so we got that one wrong." No, they give nothing. The 'mutual understanding' that men are told they lack is that feminists are right and they are wrong, and we all need to just come together to accept that, and it's kumbaya for humanity.

Double-underline again. Actually, this is where I agree the most. Listening to each other does help all of us. And if we work together, we can make life better for all of us. That being said, I feel like this final panel is not a concession by feminists to try to understand and respect men and masculinity more in return for men to try to understand femininity more. I feel like this more like an appeal to emotion for people who are either on the fence, or haven't put much thought into the issue, so they go, "Oh! Feminism is about bringing people together!" and that's all it seems to be. 

In conclusion, if you embrace feminism, you will be happy and if you don't, you'll be miserable and alone. The choice is yours, fuckface.