Why hasn't there ever been a female dictator before? Surely of all the billions of females on Earth, there must be at least one slightly competent female living in some East European or Latin American shithole with some sort of ambition and fascist ideologies
Also, I don't think queens and other royalty really count, they have an army of male advisors and generals that pull the actual strings
Because the Y chromosome is the cutting edge of life. Initiative, aggression, order and progress all originate from the Y chromosome.
The X chromosome is the shit chromosome. It stands for parasitism, disorder and decay. Personally I am in favor of a personal genetic enhancement that moves all the important(vitally important) genes to the Y chromosome and getting rid of the X.
Elizabeth 1 of England, though she was a monarch.
There's never been a male dictator that didn't dictate to and require the attributes of women. So Cleopatra and Bodicea totally count. Dickhead. In modern times you would look to people like Thatcher for a no nonsense dictatorial approach. Quite prepared to send anyone to their death that required it.
There were loads of great women who have in the past, none of them would have tolerated the kosher pro-ZOG agenda of 99% of the aut-right style "Overton window" retards we see in the movement and especially on this board over the last few days of kampfy sponsored MAGApede maggots.
MARIA THERESA, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1771 - 1789) "Henceforth no Jew, no matter under what name, will be allowed to remain here without my written permission. I know of no other troublesome pest within the state than this race, which impoverished the people by their fraud, usury and money-lending and commits all deeds which an honorable man despises. Subsequently they have to be removed and excluded from here as much as possible."
However I doubt she'd have been so effeminate to post smug anime loli girl JPGs and got anywhere by associating homo imagery with her genuine strength and conviction in removing the jews.
Ruthlessness =/= Dictatorship
That's essentially like saying Trump is a dictator for his aggressiveness
But again, surely there must be at least one exception to this? Females have shown some level of competency, ruthlessness and fascist tendencies (during WW2, many concentration camp guards and commanders were female)
Hating Jews was a normal thing back then, it wasn't frowned upon. I'm sure if its revided as mainstream thing today, plenty of women would follow men in hating Jews
Because dictatorships require strength: physical, mental, emotional strength. The only reason women exist in any position of authority, ever, is because one way or another men have granted them that privilege. Today, it is the egalitarian state that permits women to achieve positions of authority well beyond their means. And this is also why women in power are typically fucking brutal: they understand that their power is unearned, hanging by a thread, thus they are absolutely vicious when it comes to taking out potential challengers. The moral of this story? Never give women power. Ever.
No, because women can't achieve a high station through personal merit. It's birthright or bust.
Queen Victoria, in practice an Empress? Catherine the Great, Empress of the Russian Empire?
Wife of Charles V, who more or less ran behind the shadows half of Europe?
The Ottoman Women Rule period?
I guess even though they were royalty, these are the closest examples (although I've never heard of women running the Roman or Ottoman Empires)
I don't think any Americans really make a good example
Empress Severina , Wife of Aurelian "The Soldiers Emperor" the greatest Roman Emperor who brought about the organized festival for Sol Invictus. YULE, SATURNALIA, CHRISTMAS
Empress Severina Rule for 2 1/2 years or so if I recall then either died or abdicated to a worthy successor
Jesus I should clean out my keyboard of chip crumbs
Because women are retarded boob animals who would never achieve anything without men carrying them across the finish line.
The "dictator" is a very modern concept. There have been plenty of female absolute monarchs who would today be declared ruthless dictators.
There have been ruthless and effective queens plenty of times in history. But is a monarch a dictator? You can play around with definitions with some justification, but in common usage, no, a monarch is not a dictator. How are they different? Dictators usually don't inherit their position, nor pass it down to their children (yes, I know the Kims are a glaring exception), and they don't claim their bloodline is the source of their legitimacy or their right to rule. That right there explains how you get more female monarchs than dictators: dictators generally have to seize power rather than inherit it. Men are much more attracted to high-risk/high-reward plays (like seizing power) than women are for obvious evolutionary reasons.
Also, the sexes have different methods of gaining and exercising power. Women manipulate and control men to accomplish their goals, while men act more directly. Dictators often have a "cult of personality" and make themselves into superstars and symbolic embodiments of their peoples or ideologies, with 50-foot portraits and boring books that they force everyone to read. This doesn't fit women's puppetmaster strategy. They'd rather be Lady MacBeth or Angela Lansbury in the Manchurian Candidate. mentions the Sultanate of Women in Ottoman history. This is a great example. For all their power, none of the harem women declared herself Sultana or Caliph. Officially, it was always their sons and husbands making the decisions and exercising power.
They're always less obvious. See: 8 Goddesses of Korea.
What are you talking about? Are you not aware of this whore called Merkel?
Myanmar's president is a man, but this bitch is generally thought of as being in control of the country. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi The west hates her for oppressing Muslims, she might not be a dictator, but all those SEA countries are authoritarian by western standards.
There was Mary Queen of Scots. She certainly favoured hish risk strategies.
Queen Victoria was nothing more than a figurehead. By that point the Parliament had almost all the power. Her being a female was actually very beneficial for the Parliament as it allowed them to limit the power of the monarchy even more.
Yes, and Julie down the hall is 6'4", so it's really a myth that men are taller than women. Fuck off.
Dictator? Depends on the definition of absolute rule as Queens of antiquity were always supported by a strong arm man to fuel their ambitions while the man actually rules.
Queen Cartamandua -> Venutius, later Vellocatus when he supplanted Venutius y manipulating Cartamandua
Empress Maud -> Bastard Brother, Robert of Gloucester
Queen Zenobia -> General, Zabdas
Cleopatra -> Antony, or any Caesar that she opens her legs for.
Fact != fiction.
Women are the way they are because of natural order and balance. There is nothing wrong with women. They just weren't born to be pretend-men.
"Dictatorship" in the modern sense is a fairly new phenomena. I'm not saying it didn't exist before the modern era (Sulla or the Pisistratidae are good examples of non-royal dictators in ancient times), but for most of history you couldn't just kill a leader and take his spot like you can in banana republics. The leadership typically had a sacred claim to their position. This was almost universally recognized; and if some upstart general attempted a coup, he would have very little support. But time went on and we had the concept of Nation-states which replaced familial claims, and republics, which replaced monarchs. Leadership became something very arbitrary, relative to its past. This gave strong figures in society the pretense to seize absolute power.
Who are these strong figures in society? Military leaders, the rich, and the heads of noble families. A military leader can be seen in someone like Napoleon or Franco. Military leaders are especially prominent after major wars. The Polish Pilsudski is a good example; he could have had a crown had he not been so humble. "The rich" might be a bad way to phrase it. It gives off the impression of some billionaire somehow gaining absolute power in the way Trump or Berlusconi seized limited power, but in reality "The rich" is more of a figurehead installed by a country's oligarchs. Post-Soviet Russia is a good example of this. Modern China might also be an example, but it's tough to say which came first: the statesmen or the oligarch? In general these figures just fill power vacuums. They're extremely insecure about their position, and you can see it in their policy. The heads of noble families should be pretty clear. I don't think it needs much explanation, but I will point out that I am using the word "noble" very loosely, and could very easily replace it with "famous." Like how anyone with the last name "Kennedy" or "Clinton" could easily win a house seat.
If someone is looking for female dictators, it would make sense to see how they fall into the above paradigm. Well women don't fare too well in the military. In fact they've only been allowed a place very recently, and are only just now starting to make flag rank. Women don't fit too well into the rich either. The female mindset is ill fit for business, especially corrupt business and "crony capitalism." Which is comical because females are so prone to nepotism. Women are also discouraged from business in nearly all cultures. They're also rarely the heads of noble families. Even in modern society people will look to H.W. Bush instead of Laura Bush as their family patriarch. Women only ever take this role in positions of extreme desperation. A young princess might be offered the regency if her brother is an infant, but unless everyone else is dead she's not going to be considered the "top dog" of a family. Her best bet is in monarchies, but her chances are almost none in the 21st century. In conclusion: Women have biological, psychological, spiritual, and social reasons for failing to achieve dictatorship. They have difficulty reaching the status as a contender for power, and their new access to this position only came at a point where democracy stabilized and the boom period of dictatorships in the 20th century ended. As such, there are no noteworthy female dictators. The only female figures which might come close to the aura needed are Eva Peron and Rosa Luxembourg.
Eva Peron is who I was thinking of when I saw this thread.
read a fucking book mate …
ITT we name civilizations with female dictators and people name the dictator.
Have you never heard of Ana Pauker? Granted, that kikess didn't last long, though.
no one man actually rules by himself either … Mao isnt fucking slapping up his entire army into submission.
all rullers do their dirt with the strong hands they command. This is just a dumb argument.
whore in chief
there has to be a first king before the bloodline can pass it down.
Monarch are the religious versions of the dictators… or maybe better put dictators are secular monarchs
but the same goes of each , absolute power, absolute control
they are the same … stop trying to twist words because you are scared of women
jesus christ, you should be ashamed of your own unoriginal ZOGbot mentality.
Is there anyone who uses this 'argument' who actually believes its target is "afraid of women"? This is a deceitful shaming tactic, nobody is afraid of women.
You're pretty much correct. When Wild Bill was in office, you ask the SS, and they'll tell you that she was the one holding the strings and making the moves. Wild Bill just wanted to philander around. Hillary was the vengeful, vindictive, scheming, plotting, architect. She was waiting for her chance to return to the office and step from the background and into the role she assumed in the 90s.
no it fucking doesnt … germans fucking argue endlessly about how immigration is good and the right thing to do
then why are you so hell bent of trying to argue a monarch is different than a dictator
its seems like you have not really given any reason that is important to how a monarch and dictator have ability to use their power but you want people to think that it is important to find them different
I think Ive figured out the puzzle … this is the MGTOW thread that is not about impowering men but about hating women.
Yes hate your mothers boys … they are weak and can never be dictators
Being a dictator is like 1 in 7 billion chance. If just being a man made you a dictator why are there not more dictators?
It has nothing to do with sex but has to do with opportunity and ruthlessness. Women definitely have the ability to be ruthless
So its agreed Monarch will be sustainable for this thread and any idiotic woman hate will be seen as cheap and empty.
So basically the question has been answered … the premise is false
This is why you shouldn't watch anime you fucking weebs. Disgusting.
You can say this about every Prime Minister, King or Emperor in History.
Not an argument
Keep in mind women are very good in doing Shadow Government and don't like to show her power levels.
South Korea was ruled by 8 women, the cult of 8 Godesses.
Catherine the Great Prussian princess. Converted to Orthodox. Got rid of her German Cuck husband. Ruled Russia with iron fist for 34 years. 1 to prove it could happen, but the likelihood that it happens again is slim.
Sweetie, I think you need to retake world history…
He specifically says that monarchs don't count, sweetie.
sweetie is a gayer word then faggot. It's gayer then taking 10 dicks up your ass at Tacobell on Wednesday Night while you watch Glee, assault a priest and attempt to molest a minor. Sweetie is the gayest word to ever have existed and the greatest indicator of a megafaggot that shall ever exist.
you mean like Merkel? any women who becomes a dictator will need to climb ranks in the army first, and unless she is a Mary Sue there are diferecne between sexes that women just can't surpass there are no female dictators cus there are barelly female foot soldiers
The great thing about female monarchs is nobody dared to elect them to begin with. They simply naturally assumed the throne in instances where male primogeniture couldn't. I'd hate to see how much a society has to fall to a point where electing a female is a viable option.
These days a few monarchies are trying to get rid of male-preferred primogeniture with egalitarianism. It's awful. Female monarchs were never elected, test the loyalty of a nation, and make things interesting. An elected female representative would likely gain power through a nation's downward spiral whereas a female monarch doesn't and sometimes contributes to a nation's glory. A male is preferable, but a female sometimes brings out the best in men. They can still be whores like any other thot, though.
so you want us all to be men?
that's kinda gay dude.
funny you mention that. considering most anti-Merkel votes were from that area. maybe the Sovietization of the East worked in the long run?
I don't even know what you are but get the fuck off of my website.
oh now 3DPD is suddenly 2DPD, fuck off easternkike, you have no honor.
No, it's the fact that you used someone who gets his shit pushed in five times by Kiryu, on top of getting run down by a gimp with only one hand and no driving skills. If that's you're idea of masculinity, then the only honorless faggot here is the one I'm looking at now…