You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

When was that, exactly?

For the US, at some point during the 60s. For Europe, around the turn of the century.

so you'll have to be specific.

I already was in the previous post. Tolerance of degeneracy is a sign of weakness, fatigue and loss of confidence. Healthy, young, strong empires conquer, enslave, rape and win. Men with the most number of enemy kills are celebrated as heroes, they father countless children. Sick, old, weak late-stage empires redefine "winning" as voluntarily handing over all the power to women and men sticking their dicks into other men's disease-ridden assholes.

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago 

Well said.

If only people realized this we wouldn't be in this mess where 3rd world shitskins are displacing local population in white nations.

0
0

[–] intrepiddemise ago 

For the US, at some point during the 60s.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the U.S. was still executing gay people for being gay and women who were raped because they were raped (a woman who is raped is not the same as a woman who is a whore, in case you didn't notice that little difference) during the 1950s and 1960s? Citation badly needed. Before we can weigh the merits of your argument about "degeneracy" causing the downfall of "empires" (does the U.S. qualify as an "empire"? Yet another issue to be addressed...), we must establish what exactly qualifies as "degeneracy," and look for current examples of the phenomenon you're talking about.

Additionally, by your comment, I'm assuming that "losing" implies handing power over to women and gay men. Is there room for meritocracy under your system for these groups, or are they to be barred from leadership of any kind? If so, I'll need some reason for this requirement, especially assuming that at the very least, some individuals within these groups will be more competent than their heterosexual, male peers, on average.

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago  (edited ago)

I'm assuming that "losing" implies handing power over to women and gay men. Is there room for meritocracy under your system for these groups, or are they to be barred from leadership of any kind? If so, I'll need some reason for this requirement, especially assuming that at the very least, some individuals within these groups will be more competent than their heterosexual, male peers, on average.

Here's the fact. Giving women and gay men powers, despite how competent they are, tend to move political spectrum to the left and will result in the genocide of this "compromised" weak culture (eg. progressive western) by the more alpha traditional culture (eg. muslims, spics, and niggers).

Here's the thing, there would always be heterosexual male competent enough to lead a country. Case study would be Asia. The best countries in Asia are very much male-dominated. South Korea gave power to a woman, and it fucks them hard. Philliphines, Indonesia, Thailand, etc are all fucked by elected "women" president. One day if Japan/China/Singapore gave power to a woman or a faggot or effeminate beta like Trudeau the country WILL go down hill for sure.

Every single of these "female" leaders in Asia are all fucking terrible. Ancient Chinese dynasties ALWAYS get fucked when a woman took power. In fact there's a saying about this as well. Not all straight male would make the best nation's leader, but any other alternative is guaranteed to be a terrible choice. Like literally, extreme disaster such as Hillary and Merkel.

Straight males who believe in politically wrong right-wing ideologies tend to be a good choice to elect. Like Trump. Like Orban. Like Xi Jinping. and even Bibi.