28 Replies to “Does This Include Justin”

  1. Justin is neither a man nor a woman.

    It is an androgynous peoplekind fantasizing about a post national state full of third world slaves ruled by an elitist cabal of androgynous peoplekinds.

    1. I like this comment –

      “This is who runs our Country aside from the WEF: A failed drama teacher as PM, a failed journalist and a WEF board member as finance minister, a radical criminal activist as environment minister, A foreign Affairs Minister who ran/runs in the same circles as Trudeau, A transport minister who has been convicted 3 X for drinking and driving. Last but not least, an alliance formed with another party, whose leader (Jagmeet Singh) supports terrorism against a friend and strategic ally. What could possibly go wrong?”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op2-rdDzmm4

  2. Western civilization started collapsing at pretty much the same time women got the vote, so I’d say the answer to that would be a huge NO.

    1. Standing by for lots more misogynistic commentary like this tired example.
      We all know men are better for taking charge. Some sterling examples include Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Trudeau, Biden, Macron, etc….

      1. Stevie, straw men are good for influencing women, men not so much. The simple fact is that women emote more than men, which make them kinder and gentler, but the world is not a kind gentle place. An effective leader needs a ruthless streak, much more common in men. None of this is a criticism at all, just evolutionary biology, which is a real thing, no matter how many men have been cucked by modern society. Strong ones refuse. Not because they are better, but they predate and protect, it is just in their DNA.

          1. “Standing by for lots more misogynistic commentary ”

            Self fulfilling prophecy, much?

      4. Polling shows that if women didn’t vote the last US democrat president would have been Kennedy. Without the female vote we never would have had either Trudeau.

  3. Is the world better with women in charge?

    Now that is the mother of all rhetorical questions?
    With a very few exceptions, women are disastrous political leaders.
    There are many reasons for this but the prime one is that political leadership is not in accord with their nature.

    1. I agree – I can only think of a few women who were effective leaders. Queen Elizabeth II was effective with her advocation of the Commonwealth and its importance; Margaret Thatcher was ruthless and right to shut down the miners (now robots which are computer controlled are sent down in the mines) and Golda Meir was effective during the Yom Kippur War.
      My sister and I generally have a very “low” opinion of our sex. Nice people, but not great business people or leaders.

      1. Queen Elizabeth the First One was particularly canny. There are records of two or three female Egyptian Pharoahs that seem to have been at least adequate and in one case better than average (Hatshepsut).

        I think there’s a bit of a self-selection problem there, though; to even have a serious shot at claiming a throne, a woman would have had to be exceptional in the first place.

  4. The very fact that this question gets asked in a serious fashion is just another sign of how the west has fallen.

  5. Emotionalism shuts down logic, and women are far more emotional than men , in general, but so are bible pounders, like 30 pence the fck. So maybe we should exclude all religious fools as well.

  6. Simple answer is no, it isn’t. For Stevie: if women had been in charge those villains you mention would have won. Now that they are in charge, those villains are unnecessary, things will go to totalitarian hell without their help.

  7. Isaiah 3:12:

    “Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.” NIV

  8. “Is the world better with women in charge?

    Clearly not. If the world is better I didn’t get the memo. Women proved they can be just as nasty and conniving as men if not more and can lie with the best of them. Some are dumber than a bag of rocks which makes them especially dangerous once their boney fingers get a hold of the steering wheel and precisely why I shudder whenever I think how close Kamala Harris is to being the leader of the free world.
    And to our friends South of the border lest you think I’m singling you out…you might say we exceeded our quota over here.

  9. If I become King I’ll certainly employ many female ‘advisors’…

    One of the problems with the here and now and the prevalence of female influence is that women think everybody should get a say in decisions when clearly many people should STFU because they’re idiots – like GYM.

    Women also like to share. It sounds nice, but its a big fckn strike.
    Women are also too trusting. That sounds nice too, but its a big fckn strike.

    Near a job site I’ve been working at recently there’s a coffee shop I sometimes frequent.
    Its 80-90% women in there, chatting, laughing, tippity-tapping on computers, etc.
    My construction site and another nearby is 99.9% tradesMEN.
    My point: women don’t build shit and that’s strike fckn three.

  13. Jemima Olchawski. Sounds like a nasty Ukrainian perogie reciepe.

    “Men gathering in influential places to the exclusion of women is profoundly status quo. They’ve been doing it for hundreds of years. … There are plenty of women-only spaces that will continue to exclude men, but they do so to resist power, not to hoard it.”

    What happened to all the Girl Bosses? Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Budica, Catherine the Great etc? Heck I saw a Netflix show the other day showed she was black and kicked Marc-Antony’s ass in hand to hand.

    This is schroedinger’s feminism. A woman is both a victim and a boss at the same time. Then an event happen and the feminist will either be revealed as a boss or a victim depending on her whim.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation