[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: 15 Evil Or Incompetent Women Who Prove That Females Are Horrible Leaders
Source: Return of Kings
URL Source: http://www.returnofkings.com/154877 ... t-females-are-horrible-leaders
Published: Mar 1, 2018
Author: John Carver
Post Date: 2018-04-11 14:54:51 by Liberator
Keywords: War, AgainstCommonSense, AndMenAndWhitey
Views: 5435
Comments: 50

A common argument amongst feminists (in addition to their emasculated white knight and soy boy allies) is that women are better suited for leadership positions in the modern world. It doesn’t matter whether it’s being President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or CEO, because men are just “too violent” or “too corrupt” or “too sexist”, and will inevitably ruin things for everyone like they have for many millennia.

Yup. Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Dwight Eisenhower really ran the country into the ground alright.

However, they are dead wrong. Female leaders throughout the course of history have proven themselves capable of dishing out just as much wanton violence as their male counterparts, and a string of female leaders in modern times have equally proven themselves to be corruption-riddled grade-F garbage.

This article will showcase fifteen prominent examples, and make a valid argument that men should continue to be the best choices to run a country or corporation.

1. Wu Zetian – Empress of China

Rejected – China’s only Empress in it’s vast history would have been a shoo-in to be a “Diversity Disney Princess” if not for her horrible deeds

Proof that the world’s least criminally inclined gender and racial combination (East Asian Females) are not immune to being absolutely corrupted by power, it’s no wonder that one of China’s very few female rulers in over 3,000 years of history is not a modern feminist icon.

The 7th century autocrat is widely believed to have strangled her infant daughter to death in order to frame a key rival for the throne, ordered numerous people to commit suicide, and handed out treason charges like they were candy, among numerous naughty exploits.

Recognizing a problem before things got out of hand, the middle kingdom hasn’t made many attempts with female rule ever since. Much like East Asia has wisely opted out of western style “diversity” in the early 21st century, after seeing it’s negative results elsewhere.

2. Park Geun-hye – President of South Korea

She is currently languishing at the Seoul Detention Center

Clearly, China’s smaller next door neighbor (if you exclude North Korea) didn’t get the memo of what’s at stake when you put a woman in charge. The first female president of South Korea (2013), and the first popularly elected female head of state in East Asia in general, Geun-hye was impeached in late 2016 on charges related to influence peddling by her top aide.

And it doesn’t stop there. On 17 April 2017, she was formally charged with abuse of power, bribery, coercion, and leaking government secrets.

It sounds like Seoul Detention Center is exactly where she needs to be. Oh, and here’s a 2016 video of hundreds of thousands of Seoul residents taking to the streets in protest against her dismal leadership.

3. Cristina Kirchner – President of Argentina

800px-Cristina_Fernandez_Comandante_en_Jefe

If the Argentinian people had some high hope that Ms. Kirchner, the wife of former president Nestor Kirchner, was going to put an end to the countries notorious reputation for corruption and cronyism when she took office in 2007, they were left just as disappointed as ever. In fact, it arguably got even worse.

Four years into her presidency (2011), Wikileaks cables revealed that diplomats from the United States and several other Western countries had expressed deep concern about the current levels of corruption in Argentina. “Under President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner,” reported the Heritage Foundation in 2013, “respect for markets and the rule of law has deteriorated and corruption has boomed.”

Post-presidential indictments for corruption, money laundering, and even a federal judge calling for her arrest for treason, only amplify just how mediocre she was in hindsight.

4. Dilma Rousseff – President of Brazil

Brazil elects mate-slurping former Communist revolutionary into office. Proceeds to run the Brazilian economy into the ground and gets impeached.

Taking the helm of the world’s 5th most populous nation in 2011, Dilma became not only the first female president in Brazilian history, but also the first democratically-elected female president in the world to be impeached and removed in 2016. (Park Geun-hye of South Korea would closely follow suit in 2017).

Initially somewhat popular with Brazilians (both on a personal level and with her government), things soured quickly in 2015 after revelations of corruption were endemic in her left-wing / SJW administration, sparking the world famous 2015–16 protests in Brazil. The rapidly expanding economic crisis in the country played a huge role as well.

In July of 2015, her approval rating reached a new pathetic low of 9%, while her disapproval rating reached a whopping 64%. With the Brazilian people clearly getting tired of their Marxist matriarch running the show (into the ground), Dilma was suspended from office in May 2016 and impeached later that August.

5. Angela Merkel – Chancellor of Germany

Prost! To the death of western civilization!

Much like Dilma Rousseff, ‘Mother Merkel‘ was indoctrinated with much Marxist-Leninist garbage in her youth, despite being born in the prosperous free-market Republic of West Germany rather than the “everyone is poor but at least we’re equal” Communist East. The key difference is while Dilma presided over Brazil to temporary economic doldrums, Merkel may go down in history as the woman who caused more long-term damage to Germany than (literally) Hitler could ever imagine.

She has been supportive of a seemingly endless influx of “refugees” and other welfare-loving migrants to her country. Most of whom tend to have minimal job skills, zero compatibility with western values, and a vastly elevated propensity towards crime (especially rape).

Bombing Dresden and other cities to ashes didn’t permanently destroy Germany in World War II, but the sheer demographic replacement of the nation due to her policies certainly will in the long run.

6. Hillary Clinton – Two Times Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate And Ongoing Cuckquean

We gon’ get you Putin! We gon’ getcha!

This is one nasty woman. Hillary Clinton, also affectionately known as “Hitlery” or “Hilldog” by her 100+ million domestic detractors, has been a giant metaphorical gnat on the U.S. political landscape for decades. No matter how many times you swat at her, she just…… won’t…… go away.

Sinister, conniving, fraudulent, feminist, and known to treat her staffers like dog shit, we can thank the lucky stars this ticking time bomb did not become president. Also a bloodthirsty Russophobe, nobody in the oval office would have ever brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than her.

7. Jacinda Ardern – Prime Minister of New Zealand

jacinda ardern

Durrrrp! Can I make my country more mediocre too please?

Better qualified to be gnawing on thick carrots rather than running a small country, New Zealand’s woefully inadequate selection to be their latest Prime Minister has gone on record as saying “capitalism is a blatant failure” amongst other feminist and SJW rubbish coming out of her Mr. Ed mouth. (Would she prefer that New Zealand, consistently rated among the world’s top 20 most prosperous countries, become more like Venezuela as an alternative?)

Jacinda is also a firm believer of the “gender wage gap,” a boneheaded social position which should disqualify anybody from public office, due to their lack of ability to comprehend logic, reason, and the insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Most insultingly, the 37-year-old Ms. Ardern got herself pregnant for the first time very early into her role. A nation’s leader needs to be concentrating on the welfare of their country first, second, and third for the duration of their tenure. Not taking lengthy maternity leave and juggling raising a child in its most vulnerable first years.

8. Mary I – Queen of England

She liked to burn people

Bloody Mary‘ is a well known monicker (and red colored cocktail) derived from this 16th century English tyrant. And when you consider her legacy, it’s not too difficult to understand why.

As part of her aggressive attempts to reverse the English Reformation which was put in place by her father (Henry VIII), more than 280 religious dissenters were burned at the stake via her beck and call. Now that’s not very feminine behavior!

9. Ranavalona I – Queen of Madagascar

queen ranavalona I

She wuz queen (and she was shiet)

Black women don’t get off the hook for horrible violence or screeching ineptitude in a position of power either. In fact, this lady was notoriously bad for both of those things.

Ruling Madagascar from 1828 to 1861, Ranavalona I was hardly a sweet mother figure for the large island nation off the coast of eastern Africa. Her reign was beset by regular warfare, disease, forced labor (black-on-black slavery!), and cruel measures of justice which resulted in a high percentage of the population being prematurely killed.

Just how out of whack was “Ranavalona the Cruel”? Well in 1845 for example, the queen wanted to go on a buffalo hunt. Naturally, she brought along her entire court and (black-on-black) slave community for the ride. About 50,000 people would march for four months on this wild and unprofitable expedition, with one-fifth of the party dropping dead from exhaustion, while others were killed for trivial infractions.

10. Elena Ceausescu – “Mother Of The Nation”

The wife of “President” (Dictator) Nicolae Ceausescu in the former Socialist Republic of Romania, Elena became the second most powerful figure in the country thanks almost entirely to her husbands influence within the Communist party. In retrospect, she is now known as a professional nothingburger.

Her extreme vanity and desire for (meaningless) honors led to her being appointed as “Mother of the Nation” and Deputy Prime Minister of Romania, along with an ever expanding cult of personality. She was even promoted as a scientist, and was bafflingly awarded a PhD in chemistry despite having minimal formal education.

After the Revolution of 1989 and her execution along with her husband, several scientists came forth and claimed that Elena had forced them to write papers in her name. Today, nearly all universities and academic institutions worldwide refuse to acknowledge her alleged academic merit in any shape or form.

11. Elizabeth Holmes – Founder/CEO of Theranos

Deified by the feminist/cultural Marxist western media for being an ultra-rare self-made billionaire with a vagina, Elizabeth Holmes’ blood testing empire famously went crashing down from “4.5 billion to nothing” in the span of a year (2015-2016) due to propagating fraud.

Following these revelations, Fortune named Holmes one of the “World’s Most Disappointing Leaders”. The Wall Street Journal investigative reporter John Carreyrou, who was responsible for uncovering and exposing the allegations, stated that “the company was, in effect, a sham.”

12. Elizabeth Bathory – Hungarian Countess

A Hungarian noblewoman who lived between 1560-1614, Elizabeth Bathory has the devilish distinction of being the most prolific female serial killer in all history, and quite possibly the most prolific serial killer in history.

Bathory and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of young women between 1585 and 1609 (purported to be over 650!), and these crimes were verified by the testimony of over 300 witnesses and terrified and mutilated survivors. Now how’s that for a “Me Too” hashtag campaign?

Her powerful birthright status was no doubt vital in helping her avoid arrest and retribution for many years, and it was only after rumors of her heinous atrocities spread throughout the kingdom that King Matthias II ordered a full investigation. This finally led to her apprehension, proof of guilt, and solitary confinement until death.

13. Heidi Beirich – Chief Ogress at the SPLC

Fee Fi Fo Fum! What can I do today to shank the goyim!

“Intelligence Project Director” is the fancy title that ‘Fat Heidi’ holds at this cancerous Montgomery, Alabama based shanking organization. Clearly angry that she got heavily beat with the ugly stick at a young age (and accordingly was probably never very popular with men), she now wants to redefine men’s improvement websites such as Return of Kings as “hate groups“.

Why? Because they teach their readers how to make more money, avoid divorce rape, get in shape, and sleep with women who look at least 4 or 5 points higher on the 10 scale than her. She’s a liar, a fraud, and acidic to the eyes and ears.

14. The Defense Ministers of Albania, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, and Italy

defense ministers

Those women aren’t even worth naming. They are nobodies.

It’s easy (preposterous, but easy) to place a woman in a virtue signalling role as defense minister when your country is guaranteed protection by the United States dominated, and British and French supplemented, NATO defense shield.

This stands in stark contrast to the clearly far more qualified and serious minded defense ministers of Russia, Iran, and China. They are tasked with defending their nations FROM the United States.

Any member of the armed forces of Albania, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, or Italy should be absolutely insulted that these women are their bosses. Absolutely insulted.

15. Theresa May – Prime Minister of The U.K.

We must ban this “Roosh” character from entering Britain! He might ask for women’s phone numbers on the street and later have consensual sex with them!

Last but not least. The current head honcho of the United Kingdom doesn’t bathe in the blood of young girls (or at least not that we know of), but her gross incompetence as a leader was put on display when she was a key figure in having ROK publisher Daryush Valizadeh (Roosh V) banned from entering her country for “unacceptable behavior” in the form of non-violent thought crimes.

Any leader who lets emotions and hearsay falsehoods dictate their policies in lieu of concrete evidence, logic, and reason, is thoroughly unfit for office. Mr. Valizadeh presents the ridiculousness of his predicament in the following video.

Conclusion

Beyond a few Tudor-era mega killers, a rambunctious African queen, and a Chinese empress who was arguably never supposed to be there in the first place, did you notice how contemporary a lot of these women are? That is because this wild experiment with female leadership is mostly a very contemporary concept, and it is clearly not working out how people would have hoped.

A few isolated examples of successful female leaders from the past do exist (Britain’s Queen Victoria, Spain’s Isabella I, and Russia’s Catherine II come to mind), but they are both few and far between, and were bred and trained for those positions via royal birth.

In modern times, popularly elected female leaders have proven themselves to be a disaster, time and time again. They are weak, ineffectual, prone to corruption, or dangerously SJWey. For the good of our nations, it’s time for women to “lean back” from filling up offices and government cabinets, and start filling up baby cribs again.


Poster Comment:

Great subject. DO females actually make for "horrible leaders"? This question obviously won't be answered at any mainstream media outlet.

(And did you see the "Defense Ministers" of several EU countries??)

The Proof of the charge is IRREFUTABLE.

Just look at these "leaders"; And the list isn't nearly complete. At the local and state level of the US, women are razing this nation.

Frankly can't this list be expanded to include thousands of fascist-Leftist women who are "leading" the world and the USA straight into the ground via pubic schools, as gummint officials and drones, as wicked corporate witches, as legislators and as AA military and LE saboteurs?

WHO or WHAT is behind this insane trend?

Women-in-Charge generally lead to dangerous, bloody confusion and inevitable ruination of EVERY good thing Western man has ever built -- whether governance or the essentials for survival and of modern creature comforts. Women are NOT by nature "Leaders" of men.

What do all these women in "leadership" (as well as militant feminists) have in most in common?

They are MARXIST. FASCIST. Can't handle power. They abuse power. They are cruel, lack compassion, and seem to regale in the suffering of others -- especially men.

They are pro-homosexual and pro-Islam. They support emasculating boys and men. They are anti-Christian and anti-God (because God-the-Father is THE symbol of all paternalistic society.)

Whether you are a Believer or Unbeliever in God, "Killing God-the-Father" helps usher in the Age of Gaia and Mother Earth. At its foundation, "Feminist Leadership" is about rebellion and over-turning nature. God's own rules and laws were intended for Man to be "Head of Household".

So-called "Feminism" is anti-instinctive, fascist and allied with everything subversive. It is about murdering their respective nations, murdering the unborn and with it civilization itself. It goal seems to be one of cratering all humanity's innate logic and common sense.(16 images)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Liberator (#0)

Hillary Clinton, also affectionately known as “Hitlery” or “Hilldog” by her 100+ million domestic detractors...

I think Hilldog is the name used by people who love to hate her but will still vote for her.

I'm one of the few I know who call her Hitlery, at least here at LF and in real life. I had no idea it was supposed to be some widespread Thing. Maybe in some other region of the country.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-11   15:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)

I think Hilldog is the name used by people who love to hate her but will still vote for her.

Never heard the term before. Maybe its a take on Bubba's "horn-dog"? Can't understand those who hate her but still vote for her.

I'm one of the few I know who call her Hitlery, at least here at LF and in real life. I had no idea it was supposed to be some widespread Thing. Maybe in some other region of the country.

As well as I. The moniker is such an apt fit. I've been referring to "Hitlery" so much that if I try to type "Hillary" that "t" nearly always finds itself after the "i" no matter what.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-11   15:23:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#1)

" I think Hilldog is the name used by people who love to hate her "

I have long called her " Shitlerly "

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

Stoner  posted on  2018-04-11   16:17:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Liberator (#0)

DO females actually make for "horrible leaders"?

The Proof of the charge is IRREFUTABLE.

I'll refute it.

Female leaders who were equal to, or better than, the best male leaders of their era:

(1) Queen Elizabeth I (good queen Bess). Brought peace, prosperity and stability to England after years of turmoil. Outfitted the English fleet that defeated the "Invincible" Armada of Spain. Prevailed over the English cultural golden age.

(2) Margaret Thatcher. Reversed four decades of British decline.

(3) Catherine the Great. Made Russia the greatest power of her age.

(4) Queen Victoria. Ruled the British Empire at its zenith.

(5) Boudicca. Destroyed Roman legions. Burnt London.

(6) Isabella of Spain. Finished the job of driving the Muslims from Spain. Funded Columbus to discover America.

(7) Maria-Theresa of Austria. Holy Roman Empress. Reformed central Europe. Defeated France, Russia and Prussia to preserve the Hapsburg empire.

(8) Queen Elizabeth II - a lodestar of dignity and stability in our ridiculous era.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-11   16:59:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Liberator, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#0)

La reina, Isabel I de Castilla (1451-1504) the creator of the first global superpower, the Vanquisher of Muslims in Spain.

Katherine the Great

Indira Gandhi

Golda Meir

Queen Victoria

Empress Irene, the restorer of Christian Faith:

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-11   17:29:11 ET  (6 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A Pole (#5)

I wouldn't put Indira Ghandi up there, just as I wouldn't put Eva Peron. Yes, they were powerful leaders and they did some good, but they were really, really corrupt. The others stand.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-11   17:38:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Indira Gandhi was the greatest and beloved leader of the greatest republic in the world, and in the history. Defeated Pakistan. Was hated by the American elites and media.

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-11   17:57:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A Pole (#5) (Edited)

Katherine the Great

Katherine the Great was also an animal lover.

She really,REALLY,LOVED horses!

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-04-11   18:09:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: sneakypete (#8) (Edited)

Katherine the Great was also an animal lover.

She LOVED horses!

Saddam Hussein loved putting people in the shredder and throwing premature babies out of the incubators.

Germans during WWI loved impaling babies on the bayonets.

Jews make matzos with blood of babies.

Yeah, it all must be truth if you say so.

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-11   18:13:23 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: sneakypete (#8)

Katherine the Great was also an animal lover.

She really,REALLY,LOVED horses!

That's the legend. I doubt it. In any case, she was a great ruler of her country.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-11   18:22:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Liberator (#0) (Edited)

#13

heidi

The cross burning wiTch

WhiTe males

chrisTians

Love
boris

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2018-04-11   18:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

That's the legend. I doubt it. In any case, she was a great ruler of her country.

Well,she was a great ruler for Russia,but she was German.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-04-11   19:08:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: sneakypete (#12)

Well,she was a great ruler for Russia,but she was German.

Reagan was Irish, so?

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-11   19:34:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A Pole (#13)

Reagan was Irish, so?

No,Reagan was born in America.

You could at least TRY to keep up,comreade!

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-04-11   20:46:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A Pole (#13)

No, but Obama is Kenyan.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-11   22:03:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Liberator (#0)

6. Hillary Clinton – Two Times Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate And Ongoing Cuckquean

As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I knew Clinton would be a favorite. Congratulations!

buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-11   22:18:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Liberator (#2)

Never heard the term before. Maybe its a take on Bubba's "horn-dog"? Can't understand those who hate her but still vote for her.

I think "Hildog" came from South Park.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-11   23:31:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: A Pole (#5)

Golda Meir

I thought she was a bit overrated. Not terrible, just not great.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-11   23:33:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Liberator (#0)

This article is both informative and entertaining. :-)

redleghunter  posted on  2018-04-12   1:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)

Thatcher was great. So is Queen Elizabeth II.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   7:57:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

True. Even Victoria was probably a better-than-average monarch when you judge her by the expansion of the Brit economy and empire.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-12   8:02:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A Pole (#9)

Saddam Hussein loved putting people in the shredder and throwing premature babies out of the incubators.

Saddam's secret police did put people through wood shredders.

The throwing babies out of incubators was a complete fabrication. It was peddled to the American public without ever mentioning that the young woman who supposedly witnessed this horror was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. She played her part well as slipping an extra casus belli into the rationale for America ejecting Saddam from Kuwait.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-12   8:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Tooconservative (#21)

England has always done better under the reign of her female Queens.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   9:52:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)

Despite a few religiously feisty ones, I'd concede your point.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-12   10:28:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)

Despite a few religiously feisty ones, I'd concede your point.

Her female Queens have been better than the male ones.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   11:17:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Again, hard to disagree.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-12   13:06:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Tooconservative (#26)

Again, hard to disagree.

Elton John exception. And Freddie Mercury. They were among England's best Queens.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   13:19:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

DO females actually make for "horrible leaders"?

The Proof of the charge is IRREFUTABLE (NO).

I'll refute it.

Ah, but what DID you prove?

Al you did was present isolated past historical cases of competent queens or leaders. Yes, they existed (PAST TENSE). Even so, for good reason (nature), past female "Leaders" of societies, tribes and nation were relatively rare.

You've provided ONE contemporary case of excellent female leadership on Maggie Thatcher. PERIOD. Why no others? And why no refutation of those contemporary women who are demonstrably DETROYING Western Civ??

Try defending female "Leadership" within the last 40 years or so, and then you've made an actual case.

There is NO question to the answer, "DO WOMEN MAKE GOOD LEADERS?". It is a resounding, "ARE ARE KIDDING ME??" The above samples given by the author just scrape the surface. Female leadership is TOXIC to the natural paternalistic order of mankind. And WHO is the authority for such "order"? GOD HIMSELF.

And btw -- just because YOU crave a return to 19th century monarchy and return to Holy Roman Empire doesn't mean the rest of us do. OR Americans specifically.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-12   13:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: redleghunter (#19)

This article is both informative and entertaining. :-)

Glad you saw the truth in it (and entertainment value :-)

The critique of #7. Jacinda Ardern – Prime Minister of New Zealand -- was brutally funny.

And so was the singling out of those so-called "Defense" Ministers of the continent of Estrogenia (who we were reminded ALL rely on the umbrella of defense from the USA in any case)...then comparing them to the REAL Defense Ministers, aka MEN.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-12   13:51:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#9) (Edited)

Nice try.

Like Vic, you've desperately posted the few past competent leaders -- European queens, going back 500 years. Then Meir and Gandhi (*yawn*). THAT is ALL you've got.

And LIKE Vic, you completely dismiss the last 40 years of recent history as toxic "Feminism" has completely and utterly taken a sledgehammer to Western Civ and the USA -- and with it, to Common Sense and Logic.

Enjoy the noose around your shrunken testicles and the female-driven, Sharia-Loving noose around Western Civ as women continue to get elected and appointed to positions of power.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-12   13:58:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Liberator (#30) (Edited)

Like Vic, you've desperately posted the few past competent leaders -- European queens, going back 500 years. Then Meir and Gandhi (*yawn*). THAT is ALL you've got.

You are bullshitting again.

BTW, Empress Irene goes back 12 centuries plus. Meir and Gandhi would not let you clean their shoes.

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-12   14:26:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#31)

You are bullshitting again.

You wouldn't know "bullshit" if you were mummified in a shit-sarcophagus with a blow-hole for "ventilation".

Who then is the one who has completely dismissed the last 40 years of recent history as toxic "Feminism"? YOU.

Who is the one who pretends that female "leadership" has NOT taken Europe AND the USA to the brink because of their complete and utter nonsensical politics? YOU. AGAIN.

You've been apprised in a brief sampling of contemporary western "leaders" as having obviously taken a sledgehammer to Western Civ and the USA -- and with it, to Common Sense and Logic -- and yet YOU and Vic are still in denial of the truth of the matter.

BTW, Empress Irene goes back 12 centuries plus.

And...THAT example is supposed to mitigate the near total destruction of Western Civ by female "leadership"?? You can't be serious.

Meir and Gandhi would not let you clean their shoes.

OUCH!!

Golda Meir governed LIKE A MAN. Pragmatically without a lick of gender politics. That is what made her an effective leader. Same case as with Thatcher. Same as with Indira Gandhi. They were un-corrupted by Identity Politics. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME OF TODAY'S WOMEN in positions of authority?

The one unifying trait of ALL three international female leaders (the ONLY three in the "modern era") of so-called female "leaders" were their penchant for governing for the benefit of ALL their respective citizenry, without concern for tribalism like "gender","sexual orientation", race or any other PC criteria. And they were all a bit authoritarian, but not overly so. Much like an good male leader.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-12   15:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Liberator (#32) (Edited)

Same case as with Thatcher.

English people loved her:

One of the MANY street reactions to the most brilliant idea of Maggy - POLL TAX !!!

As a result she was forced out in infamy.

"The riot in central London did much to contribute to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned as Prime Minister on 28 November the same year. The national opposition to the poll tax (especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland) was the major factor; an opinion poll had found 78% opposed to it. John Major, who succeeded Thatcher, announced that the tax would be abolished."

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-12   15:48:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Liberator (#28)

return to Holy Roman Empire

The Holy Roman Empire was a shambling German/Austrian affair. That is no model of monarchy from my perspective.

The Dutch or Scandinavian monarchies would be my idea of effective monarchies, and Elizabeth II has been quite a leader.

As far as female leaders of the past 40 years, I presented Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II. I can only think of one MALE leader worth spit either: Ronald Reagan. Ok, I can think of one more: John Paul II. Besides them, there haven't been great leaders of either sex.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   17:38:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Liberator (#30)

And LIKE Vic, you completely dismiss the last 40 years of recent history as toxic "Feminism" has completely and utterly taken a sledgehammer to Western Civ and the USA -- and with it, to Common Sense and Logic.

Do you really BELIEVE this nonsense?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-12   17:40:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

Do you really BELIEVE this nonsense?

No, you're right. I wouldn't pigeon hole you into that kind of thinking on that subject.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-13   11:39:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A Pole (#33)

She [Thatcher] was forced out in infamy.

And so was Britain's OTHER great leader: CHURCHILL.

We know why you'd hate Thatcher: SHE WAS ANTI-SOCIALIST.

John Major, who succeeded Thatcher, announced that the tax would be abolished.

So he bought the votes of short-sighted socialist Brits who have proven to be so utterly myopic that they've now succumbed to a Muzzie London Mayor, Third World Invasion, and national Sharia Law. Yeah, BRILLIANT Sheep!

John Major was a NWO Toolbag and ineffectual nerfball "leader" (which is to say NOT a "leader".)

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-13   11:44:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#34) (Edited)

The Holy Roman Empire was a shambling German/Austrian affair. That is no model of monarchy from my perspective.

Wait...you mean though it was STILL controlled by Rome??

The Dutch or Scandinavian monarchies would be my idea of effective monarchies, and Elizabeth II has been quite a leader.

Elizabeth 2 -- One monarchical leaders out of how many over several centuries?? The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are just too tiny to consider "successful". That said, perhaps you're suggesting that Monarchies MAY work in much smaller nations/kingdoms -- and you may be right.

Monarchies -- "leadership" by birth -- just doesn't make any sense for a Free People or representative gummint of a Republic.

As far as female leaders of the past 40 years, I presented Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II. I can only think of one MALE leader worth spit either: Ronald Reagan. Ok, I can think of one more: John Paul II. Besides them, there haven't been great leaders of either sex.

We pretty much agree on that; Except for Pope Paul. His legacy was tarnished when his kissed the Koran.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-13   11:49:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Vicomte13, A Pole (#4)

In reading both yours and A Pole's initial posts, perhaps you overlooked the author's admission of a couple of specific examples of past excellent female leadership (which both you and Pole mentioned, thus are not "refuted":

"A few isolated examples of successful female leaders from the past do exist (Britain’s Queen Victoria, Spain’s Isabella I, and Russia’s Catherine II come to mind), but they are both few and far between, and were bred and trained for those positions via royal birth."

The author -- Roosh V (whose amusing youtube vid explains how and why Teresa May's Britain banned him from visiting their quaint Mooslem Caliphate) also notes with specificity:

"A common argument amongst feminists (in addition to their emasculated white knight and soy boy allies) is that women are better suited for leadership positions in the MODERN WORLD. It doesn’t matter whether it’s being President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or CEO..."

Note: "MODERN WORLD".

Isn't Roosh correct in his characterization that women in the vast number of cases make for disastrous "leaders"??

I don't believe either one of you has definitely answered the question.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-13   12:55:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Liberator (#39)

Isn't Roosh correct in his characterization that women in the vast number of cases make for disastrous "leaders"??

I don't believe either one of you has definitely answered the question.

No, he's wrong. I have not myself seen women in leadership to be notably better, or worse, than men.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-13   20:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Liberator (#38)

Wait...you mean though it was STILL controlled by Rome??

The Holy Roman Empire was medieval Germany. It had virtually nothing to do with Rome. It was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor really an Empire - just a name.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-13   20:31:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Vicomte13 (#41)

The Holy Roman Empire was medieval Germany. It had virtually nothing to do with Rome. It was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor really an Empire - just a name.

Downtown of medieval Rome:

A Pole  posted on  2018-04-14   6:12:49 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)

You should get a job for the poop hell denier. You can make excuses for Catholics moral failings and perversion of scripture.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-14   7:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#43)

You should get a job for the poop hell denier. You can make excuses for Catholics moral failings and perversion of scripture.

Doesn't pay enough to support my lifestyle.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-14   10:44:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Vicomte13 (#41)

The Holy Roman Empire was medieval Germany. It had virtually nothing to do with Rome. It was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor really an Empire - just a name.

True -- "neither Holy nor Roman."

Apparently it took Pope Leo to authorize the new moniker. And presumably in exchange for Papal approval, Kings and Monarchs would be sure to send tribute...back to Rome. Nice little system.

I must admit -- for this I had to research "Holy Roman Empire". (one official explanation below)

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. The Holy Roman Empire was a feudal monarchy that encompassed present-day Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech and Slovak Republics, as well as parts of eastern France, northern Italy, Slovenia, and western Poland at the start of the early modern centuries. It was created by the coronation of the Frankish king Charlemagne as Roman emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day in the year 800, thus restoring in their eyes the western Roman Empire that had been leaderless since 476.

Charlemagne's Frankish successor emperors faltered under political and military challenges, and his inheritance was permanently divided in 887. After 924 the western empire was again without an emperor until the coronation of Otto I, duke of Saxony, on 2 February 962. This coronation was seen to transfer the Roman imperial office to the heirs of the East Franks, the Germans. The position of emperor remained among the Germans until the Holy Roman Empire was abolished in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars in 1806.

In 1512 the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" (Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation) became the official title of the empire, which spanned central Europe between the kingdom of France to the west and the kingdoms of Hungary and Poland to the east. In the north it was bounded by the Baltic and North Seas and by the Danish kingdom; in the south, it reached to the Alps. At no time in its long history did the empire possess clearly defined boundaries; its people, perhaps fifteen million in 1500, spoke a variety of languages and dialects. German predominated, but the advice of the Golden Bull of 1356 that future princes of the empire should learn the "German, Italian, and Slavic tongues" remained apposite.

SOURCE: Encyclopedia.com

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/german-history/holy-roman-empire

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-16   19:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Vicomte13 (#40)

No, he's [Roosh is] wrong. I have not myself seen women in leadership to be notably better, or worse, than men.

In contemporary times??

Are you sure you actually understand Roosh's allegation correctly? Women in leadership positions -- from corporate-to-government -- are unequivocally CRATERING the West. 90% of these women are LIBERAL and HARD LEFT. The proof is in the pudding and seen every day.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-16   19:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Liberator (#46)

Are you sure you actually understand Roosh's allegation correctly? Women in leadership positions -- from corporate-to-government -- are unequivocally CRATERING the West. 90% of these women are LIBERAL and HARD LEFT. The proof is in the pudding and seen every day.

I understand him just fine. What is cratering the West is complicated. It isn't women. It isn't simply sex (although the paucity of children does mean a straitened future for the West and Japan). It isn't simply egotism and feel good things like drugs. They are a symptom of something else.

What killed the West was hypocrisy. Christianity was a good, holy and noble belief system, and many people - especially the common people - really believed in it, just as the common Muslim in Arabia or the common Hindu in India really do still believe in their traditional religions. The problem is that the political and economic leadership of the West (not just the West, but PARTICULARLY the rest for reasons to be discussed in a moment) routinely and quite relentlessly behaved in manners that were decidedly un- Christian, in particular with regards to poverty and brutality, both internally and in foreign war. Conquering and subjugating vast swathes of the world in order to economically exploit people up to and including slavery is not Christian.

But the leaders of Christendom, from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Doctors of Theology, to all of the Kings and aristocrats - the whole lot of them - said it was. Christendom, which is to say Europe, then America, got rich through plunder and imperial exploitation, and got ever more powerful, and unequal at home, through industrialization and the pauperization of former farmers, and exaltation of the concentrated wealth of industrialists.

That set up incredible tension between the common people, who were still Christian, and the ruling classes and governments, who claimed to be, but behaved in ways that are the very antithesis of Christ.

That tension, then, led to explosive revolutions in the Christian world. Ultimately, the incredible concentrations of power and wealth in a few hands in various countries provoked the titanic national struggles of the two World Wars and the intervening epidemics and revolutions and counterrevolutions. So much bloodshed, impoverishment, bereavement and desperation - and the desperate immoral sex that soldiers and sailors and poor women indulge in when torn up from their homes and sent off to very likely die horribly.

Two successive generations of men, who would otherwise have stayed down on the farm and close to home and been incorporated into the Christian community, were drafted, trained to kill other mostly Christian men, brutalized by the Army, and lost their virginity to the whores of Paris and of Asia.

They came back "heroes", but they were fundamentally hollowed out, different, and the soft society of home was not sufficient for them. They had been changed by war and debauchery, and they came home and saw rather clearly a society organized on non-Christian economic lines.

160 million were killed by human decision between 1914 and 1945, and that went on afterwards, tallying up to 187 million by 1990.

That's not disease, which ravaged societies worse than it would have because they were disrupted by war and revolution.

The problem, and it is particular to Christendom because the Christian world is what tore itself to pieces in the World Wars and the revolutions, is that the behavior of the societies, all of them, at the level of everything that is important: violence, sex and money, was all the antithesis of the religion. And the state structures and cultures all urged on the violence and the economic structures (the sexual depravity exploded because of the general violence and economic degradation). So, nation and state and economic form and individual behavior - in massive drafted armies driven along to conformity by mass media - all went to war with Christianity. And Christianity lost.

The slow death of the West, by spiritual cancer, is because of the death of Christianity. Dar es Islam and the Hindu sphere have stood up better, despite their obvious violence or grinding poverty, because the societies resemble their belief systems. Western society came to behave in ways almost diametrically opposed to the precepts of its religion, so the religion wilted but was still held as a talismanic touchstone. That is where we stand, and THAT is what cratered the West.

Women? The reason women entered the work force en masse is because European men decided that it was important to fight World War I and Revolution and World War II. Men went off to war, and that meant that the women came out of the home to man the economy to produce things while they were gone, which meant that women gained the independence and responsibilities of working men, which changed society in a way that can never be undone.

The notion that men are better at running things than women is foolish. The women were in the factories BECAUSE the men are so incompetent and evil that they were out destroying Christianity and the entire fabric of our civilization in two World Wars and a series of revolutions. The women, by contrast, were at least peaceful.

That's really what happened.

Unfortunately, the evil lessons of nationalistic Christianity in ALL of the Western states denied all of this, and continues to. When the Germans marched off to war in World War I with "Gott Mit Uns" - "God is with us" on their regulation belt buckles, they really believed it. They all believed it.

Jesus was not with any of the leaders who decided to kill 187 million people over the course of 75 years. That is where Western civilization gave itself AIDS.

And even today, Western "Christians" will STILL not admit any of it. No, WE were right! they will proclaim, and try - once again - to claim God for their side. The Crusaders and Byzantines did the same thing in the Middle East in the 1000s and 1100s. But they lost to Islam. The former Christians of those regions went over, pretty much en masse, to Islam NOT because of the sword at all, but because the Muslim conquerors offered them a simple choice: convert to Islam and be free of your Christian slavemaster, or stay Christian and stay the slave of another Christian. 90% of the people chose the freedom of Islam over the lifelong debt slavery of Christianity.

Because of the particular moral claims of Christianity, because Jesus really was and is the Son of God, when Christians behave in a hypocritical manner and disregard Christ and act with power, it is PARTICULARLY devastating to the human psyche, and leads to particular devastation in the culture all out of proportion to what would occur anywhere else.

Where religion is false pr pagan, everybody sort of knows it's mythical. But Christians really believe it, and their religion really teaches true Good. So when Christian leaders take their societies in places that are opposed to Christ, it really hurts the Christian mind and heart much more than when other national leaders in other cultures resort to violence and greed. For one thing, the other religions don't condemn violence or greed. They make big carveouts for rulers. Christ and his Father DID NOT.

Truth is, Christianity was true, and still is, but Western society does not want to follow it. What Western people want is the promise of heaven and life everafter, but the freedom to be rich, comfortable, big swingin' dicks while alive.

But Jesus said many times that that was unacceptable. Western society ignored Jesus, did what it wanted - which was violent, greedy, sexualized and oppressive - and now has AIDS, and low childbirth, and no ability to right itself because we won't renounce either the greed or the violence. Instead we look to simpler solutions that are not real.

Women are not the issue. The immorality of our society is what doomed us. It will not be fixed either. When one converses with Christians, which pretty much one has to do in the Americas because Europe has abandoned the faith, one finds what one sees.

One finds the fight here on this board.

There are people who just hate religion, and can you blame them? All of the religions except Christianity are not true, and have various ugly features to them. Christianity IS true, at its root, but Christians don't actually FOLLOW Christ, and have libraries full of doctrines to self-justify why they don't have to be good in the ways Christ said to, or comforting themselves that if they do it these different ways, that it will still be ok for them, and all of the other things that drug addicts and alcoholics and fat people do when they are in denial.

It's the way it is. It's not women. It's because we call ourselves Christian but live in societies whose structures most reward the very opposite of Christianity.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   9:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47) (Edited)

I understand him [Roosh] just fine.

What is cratering the West is complicated. It isn't women. It isn't simply sex (although the paucity of children does mean a straitened future for the West and Japan). It isn't simply egotism and feel good things like drugs. They are a symptom of something else.

But women-in-positions-of-power IS an obvious facilitator and component of what is helping to crater the entire West. That much can't be refuted. It is FACT. Specific examples were cited -- most are contemporary. The reason? Please read on...

Are there other factors to be considered? Yes, those reasons can be more complicated than just blaming women-in-power.

What killed the West was hypocrisy.

Christianity was a good, holy and noble belief system...but...with regards to poverty and brutality, both internally and in foreign war. Conquering and subjugating vast swathes of the world in order to economically exploit people up to and including slavery is not Christian.

Christianity STILL is a "good, holy and noble belief system". None can be better if truly based on Christian morals and ethics. But NONE of that "subjugation" and "brutality" can be claimed in earnest to be waged "In Jesus' Name." (although it must be noted that Popes may have done so in the past.

Isn't everyone actually a "hypocrite" to one degree or another? EVERYONE has "exploited" SOMEONE ELSE out of necessity, self-preservation, or greed. That is everyone whose name is NOT Jesus Christ. But let's not toss out the baby with the bath-water here with respect to "Christianity". Too many people are making NO distinction between a Christian who follows Jesus and a Mooslem who follow Allah. THAT comparison in the context of "religion" is ridiculous.

Let's remember that Biblical ethics and morality is the basis for law and the establishment of the same USA which became the Gold Standard for Liberty, Justice, AND Tolerance of OTHER people and religions. FACT. Biblical wisdom has also provided the moral and ethical underpinnings for fairness and justice in Europe. (UNTIL it became largely Atheist/Secular Humanist.) It is patently unfair to take the worst of "Christendom" and lay TODAY'S FUBARed situation at "Christianity's" feet.

The truth of the matter is...SECULAR HUMANISM has cratered America as well as Europe. It is the RELIGION of Secular Humanism that replaced Judeo-Christian based ethics and morals and tossed God out of the classroom in 1963 and then out of the government. We can easily chart a graph showing the dramatic decline of ethics and morals since then. True or false?

Christendom, which is to say Europe, then America, got rich through plunder and imperial exploitation, and got ever more powerful, and unequal at home, through industrialization and the pauperization of former farmers, and exaltation of the concentrated wealth of industrialists.

So what are you saying? The same as what the Commies, Mugabe and 0bama say about the West and colonial Whitey?

Those wealthy "imperialists" and industrialists (who may or may not have been Christian) helped finance and establish technological advances. Tell me -- WHO on this earth has NOT acted tribally and in their best interest to advance their territory? Vic, you can NOT set 21st century standards in the 19th century.

And anyway, what about the BENEFITS and dramatically raised standards of living for much of the world as a result of Christian-Western technology? Of Christian-Western Law and Ethics?

Jesus was not with any of the leaders who decided to kill 187 million people over the course of 75 years. That is where Western civilization gave itself AIDS.... Western society ignored Jesus, did what it wanted - which was violent, greedy, sexualized and oppressive - and now has AIDS, and low childbirth, and no ability to right itself because we won't renounce either the greed or the violence. Instead we look to simpler solutions that are not real.

All true, but again, you've veered waaay off tangent here. Whose fault is all this?

Women are not the issue. The immorality of our society is what doomed us. It will not be fixed either. When one converses with Christians, which pretty much one has to do in the Americas because Europe has abandoned the faith, one finds what one sees.

Woman ARE "an issue"; especially the ones who claim a natural dominion over men...

As to your observation that rampant immorality and lack of application of faith contributing quite a bit to the cratering of Western Civ, I would hardily agree with you. That is the problem in a nutshell. Then again, Christendom is not only on the retreat, but the church faithful are being quashed and censored in both Europe as well as Canada. We even see this persecution creeping into the USA lately.

I must remind you that all of what you state above is surely NOT a "Christian" by-product; it is all as the result of Secular Humanism's takeover of Christendom.

In addition, Secular Humanism is a Religion, one that in displacing Christendom as victors of the Culture War have also declared war on men, (God the Father by proxy), emasculated Western society as Secular Humanism exalts women as supposed Super Heroes (or "Goddesses".)

Women simply are not naturally inclined to be placed in positions f power...like running the national defense for several European nations; becoming war generals and infantry; becoming Congress-critters and Governors to lord over nations and men. The reason they NOW do (only during the last 20 years or so) can be blamed solely on Secular Humanist LEFTISTS as part of their War on God/Jesus. Are you able to see this?

The notion that men are better at running things than women is foolish.

It is?? Then tell it the God The Father. He's the One who created the Male's natural leadership, his superiority physicality, and superiority in certain mental aptitudes that compliment his natural leadership quality.

Women? Yes, they CAN "lead", but in leadership roles they are by far exceptions to God's Rule. Women were designed by God to be nurturers of mind, body, spirit and family. God also created woman to inspire men.

There are people who just hate religion, and can you blame them?

Yes, I CAN blame them. Why? Because one cannot just lump and dump all "religions" in one yuge basket. ESPECIALLY the one who lump and dump followers of Christs (REAL Christians) in with Islam (A satanic Death Cult). The two are diametrically opposed in close to EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.

It's not women. It's because we call ourselves Christian but live in societies whose structures most reward the very opposite of Christianity.

Let's circle back to THE issue here and initial claim that Women in leadership positions -- from corporate-to-government -- are unequivocally CRATERING the West....

I say it's true. And THE reason women have been placed in power is... the hijacking of Christendom by the religion of Secular Humanism and its politics to turn nature upside down as an affront to God the Father.

Your position in brief (and correct me if I'm wrong) is: Women are just as much born to lead as men. A woman should be expected to be as good a field General as a man. Moreover, the reason Western (and America's) societies are immoral, unethical and weak is because Christians are either bailing on their faith or not living as "good" Christians.

To that I would merely repeat my claim: The juncture at which America began faltering as a nation in all ways (circa 1963) was when "Christian" America was supplanted by Secular Humanism's own doctrine which has proven to be a de-stablizing societal force AND antithetical to nature. "Nature" is to be construed as including a reversal of gender roles in positions of authority.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-17   14:54:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Liberator (#48)

But NONE of that "subjugation" and "brutality" can be claimed in earnest to be waged "In Jesus' Name." (although it must be noted that Popes may have done so in the past.

Just the Pope's?

How many Catholics were in the Confederacy? What is the Southern Baptist's excuse, before the Throne of God Almighty, for enslaving blacks, for pounding down on them with segregation (and lynching for the "uppity" ones who got out of line) for 100 years after slavery ended, and for claiming from the pulpit that black slavery was justified by the Bible because of the Mark of Ham?

Answer me that before we go on.

I am tired of the relentless snarky Pope bullshit. Baptists are the farthest from the Pope you can get. There are no Catholics to speak of in the old Confederacy outside of New Orleans. American slavery and segregation were not perpetrated by Catholics, not ever. The Confederacy was a Protestant country with Protestant ideas that held a third of its population in brutal chains and segregated it until well within my lifetime, and did so with moral claims from the pulpit that this was proper and right by God.

Catholicism never had a thing to do with Baptist Protestant evil in America. Nothing. Zero guilt. The moral guilt, all of the claims, everything before God is 100% purely the fault of white Protestant Americans living in white Protestant states. White Protestants, church-going believers, Americans, are every bit as guilty of the worst morally crimes against humanity as Roman Catholics everywhere, and Roman Catholics STOPPED doing that a century before the American Protestants stopped doing it.

So stop with the anti-Catholic snark. The Protestants in America were every bit as bad as the worst of the Popes.

This is a problem of CHRISTIANITY, including AMERICAN Christianity. There's nothing exclusive to Catholicism about it, and trying to deflect Southern slavery on the Pope is an example of just exactly the sort of shucking and jiving hypocrisy that Christians do that has cratered our civilization.

It is not the women. It is the refusal of white male Christians, including - and in America ESPECIALLY - evangelical Christian Protestants - to accept moral responsibility for their crimes against humanity, to try to shunt it off on others - that has eroded the very base of Christianity and caused it to founder and falter and turn into a fun house that cannot support the civilization anymore. THAT is what failed.

There was always a right answer to this, and Christ taught it true 2000 years ago. I've always acknowledged all of the unforgiveable Catholic sins. Protestants need to start acknowledging their own self-willed sins, black as hell, as evil as anything the Catholics ever did, as the reason things have gone queer. This was not a good society that went off its moorings, it was an evil society that claimed Christ but didn't follow him, that went off its moorings BY the evil, and that can't settle itself because it won't come to grips with its evil.

THAT is what happened. The solution has always been a return to Christ. But THAT requires confession and repentance before God. I'll confess the Catholic sins, and my own, all day. But this is a Protestant country, and has been since it was founded and settled. If the Protestants won't admit THEIR sins that blackened THIS country, if they pretend that the evils they did here were somehow, someway, the fault of the Pope, then all is utterly lost - and should be - for God gives no rest to the wicked.

That is what I meant by hypocrisy.

No, the problem is not women. Women are not cratering the West. Hypocritical Christians cratered the West. And continue to do so. And as they show no sign at all of repenting any of it, the West SHALL DIE, from the want of birthrate. The wages of sin is death.

The same death that Christianity died in the Eastern Mediterranean is being experienced in the Western Mediterranean, and more slowly, in America.

And the solution to that is not some sort of made up crap about women. It is doing unto others as we would have done unto us - which MEANS a just justice system, a measured and controlled police system, a prison system that is reformatory and not designed and run like the first circle of hell, a system that looks to the poor, and a way of looking at struggling people as fellow Christians and humans, not as disgusting animals.

If Christians cannot or will not build such a system, then they aren't really Christians, and the society will continue to die, whether there's a cross on the wall or not.

But hey, YOU believe that it was the reversing of gender roles that caused society to start to die. Well, if you're right, then society as we knew it is dead, because that will never be reversed.

The future, then, will be balanced between Latin Catholics on this side of the ocean, European and Middle Eastern Muslims on the other side of one ocean, and the Chinese on the other side of the other.

If women in power is the root of the problem then Islam is destined to rule the world, because both the Latin Catholics and the Chinese have female equality and women in positions of great power. Islam alone forbids that because of their religious beliefs.

If I'm right, the world will be tripartite, with a Catholic Western hemisphere, a Muslim Europe and Middle East, and a Communist China. The Chinese and Africans will eventually come to Christ, because Christianity is better and freer than Islam, and ultimately Islam will be isolated and will gradually change.

If you're right, then the societies with female equality and female power will be dominated one by one by the one and only society whose religious beliefs prevent that: that Muslims.

I like my version of the future better than yours.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-04-17   15:36:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49) (Edited)

Just the Pope's?

How many Catholics were in the Confederacy? What is the Southern Baptist's excuse, before the Throne of God Almighty, for enslaving blacks, for pounding down on them with segregation (and lynching for the "uppity" ones who got out of line) for 100 years after slavery ended, and for claiming from the pulpit that black slavery was justified by the Bible because of the Mark of Ham?

No, not just Popes; Yes, anyone who claimed to be "Christian" Baptists who chained up Blacks AND poor Whites.

How many Catholics in the Confederacy?? Now you're being ridiculous. No, I'm not chasing that red herring.

It's not as though any Baptists "leader" or Evangelical policy advocated raw slavery or lynching "In Jesus Name" now, is there? If so, these preachers were fake preachers.

Yet many Popes through the centuries promised Heavenly Reward "In Jesus name" for murdering others. Sanction BY the Vatican. You can't justify it. No way, no how.And you can't compare it to Protestant equivalents...because there are none.

Catholicism never had a thing to do with Baptist Protestant evil in America. Nothing. Zero guilt. The moral guilt, all of the claims, everything before God is 100% purely the fault of white Protestant Americans living in white Protestant states. White Protestants, church-going believers, Americans, are every bit as guilty of the worst morally crimes against humanity as Roman Catholics everywhere, and Roman Catholics STOPPED doing that a century before the American Protestants stopped doing it.

So stop with the anti-Catholic snark. The Protestants in America were every bit as bad as the worst of the Popes.

I won't humor your "Ham" theory or fantasmic delusion of moral equivalencies between Protestants (those who established America), result/aftermath of slavery and the Papal slaughter of millions who refused to kneel before so called "Vicars of Christ".

The Founding Fathers were comprised 95% of Protestants sects. The ONLY reason we even established a constitutional republic and USA was because of Protestant Ethics and Tolerance. When controlled by the Vatican, Catholic nations turn into South America. Sorry, the truth hurts.

To drag the morality of Confederacy or immorality of Lincoln and his Puppemeisters into a thread subject about how "Women in positions of power" is irrelevant to this convo.

It is not the women. It is the refusal of white male Christians, including - and in America ESPECIALLY - evangelical Christian Protestants - to accept moral responsibility for their crimes against humanity, to try to shunt it off on others - that has eroded the very base of Christianity and caused it to founder and falter and turn into a fun house that cannot support the civilization anymore. THAT is what failed.

I have NO idea where this tangent of yours is going...

Hey -- it's NOT Evangelicals in Gummint who are FUBARing America; It's pro-abortion, pro-socialist Dem RCC women like Pelosi and men like Tim Kaine. RCC support abortion to about a 40% tally. Why so high??

It's Evangelicals who are trying to keep the USA's head above water. It's Evangelicals who are messing up the NWO One World Government that Pope Comrade supports. And speaking of "accepting responsibility", how can the RCC lay claim to ANY high ground when homosexuals have infested its ranks for centuries? Won't support Republicans in elections? Choose for their "Vicar of Christ" leader a Commie who kisses Mooslem behinds, is a One World Government tool, a Tree-Hugger, and anti-Bible, anti-God advocate?

As to your demands that Protestant must repent for something they have not done...WHAT is up with THAT?? I don't ask forgiveness for my great grandfather and don't expect you to apologize for the past Popes. I *hope* you now not advocating Reparations too...

If women in power is the root of the problem then Islam is destined to rule the world, because both the Latin Catholics and the Chinese have female equality and women in positions of great power. Islam alone forbids that because of their religious beliefs.

IF Islam is destined to rule the world, it will be because Secular Humanism and Atheism's fetish to declare war on the white male, aka "Toxic Masculinity/White Patriarchy". Yes, already the world's Christians and its Western leadership have been replaced in what is the most destructive Coup in history. (This is already prophesied to be the case. (No thanks to Popes who kiss the Koran and say and do nothing to defend millions of contemporary RCCs in Africa and the Middle East from Mooslem slaughters.)

If you're right, then the societies with female equality and female power will be dominated one by one by the one and only society whose religious beliefs prevent that: that Muslims.

If I'm right, the world will be tripartite, with a Catholic Western hemisphere, a Muslim Europe and Middle East, and a Communist China. The Chinese and Africans will eventually come to Christ, because Christianity is better and freer than Islam, and ultimately Islam will be isolated and will gradually change.

The fact remains - Europe is controlled by daffy, New Age Secular Humanist women; Europe has invited satanic Islam into their countries. They are doomed.

The Vatican has fallen prey to satan. The Pope now advocates and practices a counterfeit "Christianity" in which he hope to co-op Islam as well as the Seculars. Many others in the West will have surrendered and fallen prey to Secular Humanism's self-worship. The remaining who truly practice the Christianity of Jesus Himself will have to persevere and endure persecution until His return.

I like my version of the future better than yours.

I don't think we have a choice in what happens. A world in which Women and Islam control the world? Good luck with THAT. As Roosh noted, we see how badly that is turning out already.

In any case the future is bleak...except for those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior.

Liberator  posted on  2018-04-17   16:54:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com