Chapter Eight - Men Learning to Love
So how successful have women been in teaching men how to love? On the face of it, not a lot has changed. We still have wars, and even genocide. While the gap between rich and poor is as wide as it always had been. Yet we know two thousand years ago Roman’s had Gladiators who would fight each other to the death, just for the entertainment of the Roman crowd. There is no-where in the world today, where that would be acceptable. We also use to have the Aztecs and Mayas who did human sacrifice on an industrial scale. Or the Carthaginians and Babylonians who had the custom of child human sacrifice.
If we look below the surface we see a lot has changed. Up until the 19th century, slavery was still normal and we even still had serfs in Russia. Yet, during the 19th century both slavery and serfdom was abolished. But it has been pointed out that this hasn’t stopped the exploitation of workers and where slavery was converted into wage slavery. As explained in the song, Sixteen Tons, by Merle Travis.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Yet during the late 19th century there has been a ban on child labour as well as an increase of worker’s rights. Where workers were allowed to create their own unions. We have even seen in the 20th century, laws that give women equal rights in Western countries.
Children up until the 20th century were basically brutalised in the Western world. It was normal for parents and school teachers to cane, birch and whip children. A favourite saying then was, “spare the rod and spoil the child”. This probably came from the Old Testament which to quote: One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him. Proverbs 13: 24, World English Bible.
But other sayings about children in the 19th century were; “children should be seen but not heard” and “if you see a child look guilty. Hit him. You may not know what he did, but he does”. Children were brutalise even as babies. Male “child experts” in the 19th century wrote, that a crying baby was being wilful, and mothers were encouraged not to pick up crying baby. They were also told; that a baby that cried too much, was to be put in a room and lock the door, to let it cry itself to sleep. The psychoanalyst Dr Alice Miller wrote of what this does to the baby:
The only possible recourse a baby has when his screams are ignored is to repress his distress, which is tantamount to mutilating his soul, for the result is an interference with his ability to feel, to be aware, and to remember.
Also, infants the moment they began to walk and talk, were subjected to physical punishment. This was done not only to teach children discipline from a very early age. But also to make, “real men” out of boys. In other words by being brought up in a environment of violence, the children naturally became violent themselves. Then as the 20th century progressed, women began to gain equal rights and had more a say in how their children should be brought up. Female child experts and more moderate male child experts like Dr Spock began to write books on child care. The development continued to the point, where today, what was normal for children in the 19th century, would be seen today as child abuse. Also, husbands beating wives was also normal up until the mid-20th century until feminists made policemen enforce the law to arrest wife beaters. Children in the past were subjected to sexual abuse as well. Back in the 19th century child prostitution was normal, while child sexual abuse also went on in normal households.
That man who tried to bring this to people’s attention was surprisingly, a young Sigmund Freud. In 1896 he presented a paper entitled; The Aetiology of Hysteria. In this paper he said he had discovered that the neuroses suffered by his female patients stemmed from sexual assaults and violence they had suffered as young children. Most of these assaults coming from their own fathers, brothers or other male relations in "respectable middle class" homes. This paper went down like a lead balloon as his colleagues put great pressure on him, to suppress his paper. Which was singled out from all the other papers presented in Vienna in 1896 to not be published in psychoanalysis's Journal; Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. Moreover no discussion of his work was allowed. In the end Freud caved in. To save his career Freud did suppress his paper and then came up later with other theories which hinted at child sex abuse, but never openly said it. But now because of feminism and the empowerment of women, child sexual abuse is more out in the open and not even Roman Catholic priests can get away with it. The result is, that in the 21st children are being far less sexually and physically abused in the Western world. Although unfortunately it still goes on.
But men are changing for the better, even in Islamic countries. Where in spite of all the pressure Muslim men are under to oppress women, many of them are rebelling against this. In many Muslims countries they have ‘honour’ killings. According to Islamic customs, a woman would ‘dishonour’ a man by not obeying him or not respecting him. The only way he can restore his ‘honour’ is by killing her. This custom is a powerful weapon to oppress women. The Turkish Journalist Ayse Onal investigated what effects ‘honour’ killing had on the men who did kill women, and wrote a book about it called, Honour Killing: Stories of Men Who Killed. She discovered they also felt they were victims of this custom. Many told her they were duped by their community into killing and strongly resented the pressure put on them by the Muslim community to do this.
One man she met killed his own mother, he told her he now wanted to hold workshops to discourage other young men from doing what he did. She discovered that many of these men who kill are very regretful for the crimes they had committed, and want to persuaded other men not to do the same. Another man told Onal, that he gave in to community pressure to kill his sister and told her: If you live in our neighbourhoods, you would kill. We have to change our neighbourhoods, otherwise we will keep on killing.
She began to investigate this subject when in 2004 she heard of a terrible incident where a young pregnant woman and her lover were stoned to death by their townspeople. She wrote about the men who did this saying: Who are they, how do they think, how can I understand their terrible motivations? This was when I realized I have to look at the men's side. It was this that brought it to my attention.
Ayse Onal makes clear in her book, none of these men wanted to do these terrible things. They are forced by the customs and traditions of Islam to be cruel sexist men. Again this shows this is not their normal behaviour, if they have to be persuaded and pressurized into killing. So the problem is not with the common Muslim man, because like women, they are also the victims of Muslim customs.
So why do Muslim men no longer want to oppress women and are rebelling against the social pressure that is forcing them to do this? In many Muslim countries men are not only put under pressure to oppress women but to not get too closely involved with them. Probably because women teach men how to be more loving people. This suggests that women are being successful in teaching men how to love, so they no longer want to kill women. Perhaps the role women play in teaching men how to love, is working, in spite of the patriarchal system we live in.
Although, another factor in this is the internet. At one time Muslim governments could control all knowledge that their populations receive. But with the personal computer and mobile phones, people have access to the internet. Which has given Muslim people access to how other people think throughout the world. So there are now online ex-Muslim organizations that question the beliefs of Islam.
But men are also changing on the battle-field. The purpose of a soldier is to kill the enemy and if you watch too many Hollywood films you would be forgiven for thinking that men are natural born killers. Because what you see in films are heroes and villains killing other people as casually as swatting a fly. They may even sometimes make jokes while doing it. What is very rarely portrayed, is how difficult it is for people to kill other people and the mental stress that killing can cause. This is a secret that the military doesn’t like to make public, and that is, most men in modern times are reluctant killers and have to be trained to kill.
This was explained in a book called; On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He explained that at the end of World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall had a team of researchers study what soldiers did in battle. They decided to interview all the returning troops to see if they could learn anything from their experiences. What they discovered was that only 15-20% of American combat soldiers admitted to firing their weapons at the enemy. The majority claimed they deliberately shot over the heads of the opposing side. (Although 2% of those interview also said they enjoyed killing enemy troops). For the USA military, this was alarming news, because a soldier that refused to kill the enemy was useless in war. To quote Lt. Col Dave Grossman:
I began to realize that there was one major factor in the simple and demonstrable fact that there was is within most men and intense resistance to killing their fellow man. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it.
This is not unusual, as this has been a problem in many other wars. Even Fredrick The Great reported that he had problems in making his Prussian troops shoot to kill. While Officers in the First World War had to patrol the trenches with drawn swords to coerce their troops to aim their rifles at the enemy and not fire over their heads. Officers also had to stand over men firing machine guns to make sure they fired at the enemy and not deliberately miss.
Grossman reports that after the Battle of Gettysburg 27,574 muskets were picked up from the battlefield from dead or dying soldiers, 90% of which were still loaded. This is an anomaly, because soldiers took 95 percent of their time to load muskets and only 5 percent to fire. So if the musket was loaded why didn’t the soldiers fire them? But there was another problem, 6,000 muskets had up to ten rounds in them. It suggests that the soldiers with multiple rounds in their muskets, were only pretending to fire their weapons and kept on reloading shots down the unfired musket barrels. This all presents a very different picture about the nature of men in war, than is portrayed in films or books. It means that success in war, depended on how many psychopaths, you have in your army, as they will have no scruples about killing.
Japan ranks with Southern Ireland and Switzerland as being of the most non-violent and crime-free countries in the world. Yet in the Second World War, Japanese soldiers were even worse than the German and Russian troops for being brutal killers, So what did the Japanese military do to turn their soldiers into killing machines? When Japanese young men first join the army, on the first day they were beaten up by older soldiers. Then after a year of training they were then ordered to beat up the new recruits coming into the army. So they were being systematically brutalised by being beaten up and encouraged to do the same to other soldiers.
Then when Japan fought China in the 1930s they had many Chinese prisoners of war. The Chinese men were used as live dummies in bayonet practise. Or publicly executed while the Japanese troops were made to cheer this. Then afterwards they were given a the best meal the Japanese military could supply and the use of ‘comfort girls’. The idea was to associate in the minds of the Japanese troops, the killing of the enemy, with pleasure. This form of training was so effective, it resulted in the infamous Nanjing Massacre. Where the Japanese soldiers got out of control and it was estimated that hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians were raped and/or murdered.
Even the Nazis had problem getting German soldiers to kill. When it was decided to murder all the people in concentration camps. The first idea was to simply take a number of them into a forest and shoot them. But this caused so much mental stress to the soldiers ordered to do this, that they had to abandon this idea. They then had to used gas chambers to do the killing, because you only needed a few psychopaths, to do the actual killing. Also, with this system there was; shared responsibility. Where there wasn’t one-on-one killing and the people involved, felt they were just clogs in a machine.
This is also why the military uses firing squads to execute soldiers, as they know that most soldiers will aim to miss. But in a squad of a dozen men or more men, at least one might be a psychopath who will shoot to kill. But that’s not guaranteed. So the military also uses psychological tricks on the men to persuade them to kill. Like loading two of the rifles with blank ammunition but not telling the men which man has the blanks in his rifle. So the soldiers might hope they have the blanks in their rifle when they aim to kill. Many times the person who is executed is blindfolded, but this is not for the sake of the person being executed, but for the soldiers who are firing at him. As most soldiers don’t want to look a person in his eyes, before shooting him.
When the USA military realised that they had a problem with the reluctance of their troops to kill, they turned to Behaviourism and something called, Operant conditioning. All they did was to replace bulls eye targets with images of real people. Then in training they would then try and act out what would happen in a battlefield with targets suddenly popping up and the solder was required to shoot at it quickly, before it disappeared again. Then on a real life battlefield they would do as they were trained, but this time kill real people. But as this was a split second trained reflex, the troops didn’t have time to think about what they were doing. By methods like these, the USA military has greatly increased its kill rate by as much as 90%.
The problem with this, and the military doesn’t like to talk about it, is that now in recent conflicts, more soldiers fighting in them commit suicide afterwards, than die in battle. During the Falklands war 250 British servicemen lost their lives. 20 years after the war, 265 men who saw action during the war, have since committed suicide. This is true of many more wars but it is hard to get exact figures because the military tries to keep his a secret. There is a big controversy over the number of American soldiers who fought in Vietnam that since committed suicide afterwards. As the USA military try to cover it up. So by using Behaviourism, modern militaries has solved the problem of soldiers not wanting to kill the enemy. But many soldiers who do this, can’t live with themselves afterwards and commit suicide.
It seems that military training is responsible for many racial attitudes in our societies. When two countries go to war, the soldiers on each side are taught to hate each other, so they will more likely kill soldiers deemed as the enemy. If the enemy is of a different ethic race or skin colour that would be also used in teaching their soldiers to hate. The problem is that when the war is over, the soldiers still remember the hateful things they have been taught to think. So they will carry these attitudes back to their communities and teach them to their children. By this means these attitudes can last generations. The last time the British and French fought each other was in the Napoleon wars that ended in 1815. Yet there is still some animosity between many French and British people today, over 200 years later.
A lot is made of the Nazi’s telling their troops they are the master race and therefore superior to everyone else. But again this indoctrination helped make it easier for German troops to kill their enemies or commit genocide. Because they have been told the people they kill, are inferior to them. It’s crazy thinking like this, that is created by warfare and the need to teach men to kill. The reason why armies have to indoctrinate soldiers to hate their enemies, was shown at the Christmas truce of 1914 between the British and German soldiers. On Christmas Eve both sides in the trenches sang Christmas carols and could clearly hear each other. Then on Christmas morning some German soldiers came out of their trenches and called out, “Merry Christmas” to the British troops.
After a while some British troops did the same and both sides met on no-man’s-land and began talking to each other and exchanged gifts. On one place along the line the British and German soldiers even organized a football game. In their conversations with each other they made the staggering discovery that they were exactly the same as each other. They even found out that the reasons they were told they were fighting the war, was exactly the same. The military propaganda on both sides had told them they were fighting for freedom. The officers on each side then had real problems in getting their soldiers to go back into their trenches so they would continue to kill each other. But unfortunately, they somehow managed to do this, because in the end men are still obedient to those in authority. Although according to Richard Dawkins, the German and British troops did continue to try to cooperate with each other, when possible, throughout the rest of the war.
During the First World War, the number of casualties is estimated to be 15 to 22 million deaths. But historians don’t agree with each other over why this war was fought. It seemed to be a pointless and meaningless war. Yet, countries had no problem in calling up men to fight in this conflict. But then that seems to be true of all wars.
Atheists will tell us it makes sense that men would rule the world, because men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive and competitive than women. This was explained by Steven Goldberg in his book; The Inevitability of Patriarchy, where he writes that the biological differences between men and women will always result, in men becoming the dominant sex. Because, if we look in the past; men have always ruled the world, according to recorded history. Goldberg claims, this is because men have all the biological advantages, like more testosterone. Which makes men physically stronger and mentally more assertive and aggressive than women.
So it makes sense to assume that men have all the advantages when men and women compete for power. And history seems to prove this because we are told; men have always rule the world. But military history tells us something very different about men and that is a good soldier is an obedient soldier. Battles are won by disciplined troops who give unquestioning obedience to their officers. This is because with very disciplined troops, a general can use his men like pieces on a chess-board to gain an advantage over the enemy. An example of this is the Roman Empire that once conquered most of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, depended on the strict discipline of their troops to do this.
This may be why when Rome made Christianity a state religion, they left Matthew chapter 5 and Luke chapter 6, in the Bible. They knew that a good soldier was a submissive men who will unquestionably obey orders. So a soldier who will, “turn the other cheek” if struck by an officer, is the type of man they wanted as their soldiers. The Romans knew that the reason why the Roman legions were so successful in wars, was the discipline of their troops. Who will obey orders without question. Total obedience is also extreme passivity, which is what Jesus was teaching. This then gives a whole new meaning to what Jesus preached, when he said.- Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5. American Standard Version.
It means that the foundation of the Roman Empire was that the Roman soldier was meek and obedient. The Roman symbol was the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound together with leather straps with a projecting single-headed axe. The theory being that single stick is easy to break. But a whole bundle of sticks is a lot stronger. So it’s the unity of Roman soldiers that gives Rome its strength. But another aspect of the fasces is that, it was also a symbol of punishment to enforce discipline. Because sticks can be used for flogging while the axe can be used for execution. This symbol was co-opted by the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the 20th century, but somehow he failed to make it work. As the Italian military in World War Two, didn’t perform a well as Roman soldiers, two thousand years earlier.
So what we call discipline is unquestioning obedience. To the degree that if an officer orders his troops to obey an order that more likely will have them killed, they will still obey him. This was dramatize in the poem; The Charge of the Light Brigade, By Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
There are many examples of this, in many battles throughout the world. So when ordered to come out of their trenches to face machine-gun fire, like in WW1, men obeyed without question. The Battle of the Somme resulted in over one million total casualties. The British and French forces suffered over 600,000 casualties. While the Germans suffered about 500,000 causalities. What is surprising is that so many men unquestionably obeyed orders that caused them to die and they went to their deaths; “like lambs to the slaughter.”
An example of extreme discipline was in the Zulu war between the Zulus and the British in the 19th century. The discipline of the Zulus won them their first battle against the British, in the Battle of Isandlwana. There is no way that a Zulu army armed only with spears, should be able to defeat an European army with breech-loading rifles, but that’s what happened. The Zulu warriors obeyed the insane order to run at British soldiers who were firing at them with rifles, until they overwhelmed the British army. But in doing this, the Zulus suffered enormous casualties. Although, there might be another factor in this, if we take notice of what Lt. Col Dave Grossman discovered. It could be many of the British soldiers were reluctant to shoot the Zulu warriors running at them with only spears and fired over their heads. As the result, too many Zulus managed to get close enough to use their spears, in hand to hand fighting.
The Japanese took obedience a step further with Kamikaze suicide attacks in WW2, where pilots deliberately crash their aircraft into enemy ships. Kamikaze pilots weren’t volunteers; they were ordered to do this. Which suggests that in spite of men’s macho image, what we find is that men can easy be trained to obey orders, that would result in their deaths. Suggesting that men can be extremely submissive to those in authority over them.
This means the military knows how to train men into total obedience and the way they do this is not a secret. When a man becomes a soldier the first thing that happens is that a sergeant shout orders at him and most men obey. Then they are put onto a parade ground and a sergeant major will shout orders at them and march them up and down the parade ground until they become conditioned to automatically obeying orders. The conditioning then becomes so powerful that soldiers will obey orders that will most likely result in their deaths. Or in the case of Kamikaze pilots, they obeyed orders to die.
It is men’s complete obedience to authority that paradoxically is why men rule the world. The Feminists once had a slogan; “the sisterhood is powerful”, but totally failed to create a powerful sisterhood. It can be also said that men haven’t produced a powerful brotherhood either, but they did the next best thing. Men’s total obedience to authority allows alpha men to gain great power, by being able to mobilise large numbers of men, who do as they are told. A despotic dictator has great power over the people, because he has an army of young men who will obey him. So if he orders them to beat up, murder, rape or even torture any member of the public, will obey his orders without question. But if men where not so obedient then the power of the dictator would evaportate. This means that the average man is not dominant but very submissive, because it is man’s obedience to authority, that keeps the whole patriarchal system going.
This is why in most patriarchal counties we have a huge gap between rich and poor. If ordinary men were as macho and assertive as they claimed they were. They wouldn’t put up with a very few men hoarding most of the wealth of the country for themselves, while millions of people live in poverty. Logic suggests the common people should rise up and take the extreme wealth away from the ruling elite. As Percy Bysshe Shelley, wrote in 1819 in his poem; The Masque of Anarchy, in response to the Peterloo Massacre:
'Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.'
But that doesn’t happen, because of men are too passive and are totally obedient to those in authority over them, even when the ruling elite abuse their position of power. The problem is that if you ask any man, “are you submissive?” he will deny it completely. This is because men all over the world have been trained to think of themselves as dominant. Or at least dominant as far as women are concerned. And the men who would most likely to strongly deny their submissive behaviour, would be soldiers. After all soldiers do have a very strong machismo image, and to suggest they are submissive, would be like suggesting that they are wimps. And if you pointed out that soldiers would always obey orders without question, he would claim it’s discipline.
Yet whether a person is disciplined or submissive, the result is exactly the same, both types of people, do as they are told. The only difference is perception. So although macho soldiers are not a sort of people we normally associate with submissive behaviour. But the reality is that their extreme obedience to authority, where they will risk their lives or even commit suicide, when ordered to do so. Does make them very, very submissive.
The same is also true in the civilian world. Most men like to claim that they only obey their boss at work, because he pays the wages. Yet, even though men may moan and complain about their bosses, or the politicians, or anyone else in authority over him. Men on the whole, do as they are told. But it is this instinctive obedience by men, that is the foundation of patriarchy. If men didn’t instinctively obey those he considered to be in authority over him. Then rulers would lose their power over the people.
This then is the basis of political power. If we look at the patriarchal society as a whole, then men look up to and even sometimes hero worship those in he perceives as being above him in the pecking order. While at the same time ruthlessly exploit those he perceives as being below him. In all patriarchal countries nearly all the wealth and power of a country are in the hands of a few alpha men and the rest are poor and powerless. According to the Oxfam wealth inequality report:
Key findings from the 2026 report include:
Historic Concentration: The number of billionaires surpassed 3,000 for the first time, and their combined wealth grew by 81% since 2020.
Wealth Disparity: The 12 richest billionaires now hold more wealth than the poorest half of the global population (over 4 billion people).
Political Influence: The report argues that extreme wealth is undermining democracy, noting that billionaires are 4,000 times more likely to hold political office than ordinary people.
Inequality Trends: While billionaire wealth soared, one in four people globally still faces hunger, and global income inequality has grown for the first time in 25 years.
This is of course extremely unfair that a small minority own so much, wealth while millions of ordinary people live in poverty. But the strange thing is that the ordinary people rarely rise up to try to overthrow the ruling elite. Yes, it has happened like in; The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381,The German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, The English civil war of 1640-1660, The French Revolution of 1789, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Chinese communist takeover in 1949. But they all failed, because the huge gap between rich and poor still persists. Although, it has to be admitted the Communist government in China, has manage to take hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
So men don’t rule the world because they are bigger, stronger and more assertive than women. As claimed by Steven Goldberg. The reason why men rule the world, is because of the hierarchical system which allows men to work together. But this system depends on men on the lower rungs of this system, to obey without question, the men above them in the pecking order. But why are men so passive that they will unquestioningly obey orders from those in a position of authority? It would make sense if the ruling elites of patriarchal societies did cared about the men giving them unquestioningly obedience. But they don’t. As we see in the huge gap between rich and poor and the way the ruling elites use men as cannon fodder on battle fields, fighting insane and senseless wars. So we have the stupid situation where men will obey other men, who don’t care about them.
The common man seems to behave very much like Jesus preached on the; Sermon on the Mount. It’s true that most men are unlikely to, turn the other cheek. But they do some of the other things Jesus suggested. For instance, don’t resist him who is evil. Very few German men tried to resist Hitler when he came into power in the 1930s even when he took Germany into a disastrous war. This is true of many other despotic rulers. Another line from Jesus is; If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. This happens all the time in patriarchal societies, where the rich find ways to exploit and rob the poor, who seem to be incapable of preventing this happening.
And finally; But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you. Many common people do love their enemies, which are the ruling elite. Who are contemptuous of the poor regard them as “losers”, “useless eaters” or “the great unwashed.” Yet many people worship the ruling elite and think their wonderful. We see this in Britain where crowds will cheer the Royal family when they come out in public. Some people will even cheer corrupt politicians, even while they are attempting to take away people’s freedoms and pass laws making it easier for the rich to exploit the poor.
The reason why this is happening, is that women have been successful in teaching men how to love. But in so doing, has turned them into docile, acquiescent puppets which the ruling elite find easy to manipulate and exploit. And then the ruling elite teach men how to hate, train them to kill in wars and to abuse women. So women have made it too easy for most men to be exploited by the ruling elite. The only way women can protect men from this exploitation, is to take over and rule the world and then be caring rulers of our world.
Unfortunately, women politicians have shown themselves as corrupt as male politicians. A recent example is Jacinda Ardern who became Prime Minster of New Zealand. She presented herself as a caring and loving female leader but she was be very different to that. When she first became Prime Minster she promised her government will be, “open and transparent”. Yet, her government showed itself to the opposite to that, as it has attacked free speech and the right to protest. The editor of the; UK Spiked On-line, Brendon O’Neil wrote:
Tyranny has had a makeover. It’s no longer a boot stamping on a human face forever. Authoritarianism is well-dressed now. It’s polite. It has a broad smile and speaks in a soft voice. It is delivered not via a soldier’s boot to the cranium but with a caring liberal head-tilt. And its name is Jacinda Ardern.
What Jacinda Ardern showed is that people will vote for female leaders who seemed to be loving and caring. But unfortunately, in reality she wasn’t like that, she was just another corrupt politician doing the bidding of large corporations, like international drug companies. Rather than what the people want and need. So after the experience of being duped by a con-woman like Jacinda Ardern. New Zealand voters will be wary about voting for another female Prime Minister who presents herself as a caring and loving person. The voters will assume she is just another con-women. Unfortunately, she is not the only corrupt female politician, there are many more, like Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton.
Some female politicians want to try to prove they are even more macho than male politicians. An example of this is Margaret Thatcher the Prime Minster of Britain in the 1980s. She was called the “Iron Lady” and proved herself to be an extremely uncaring leader. Another female politician like this was Hillary Clinton, in a infamous interview in 2011 she laughed about the killing of the Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and said, "We Came, We Saw, He Died!" The tragedy of this was that up until then, Libya was a stable and prosperous country, where the people enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa. Then NATO intervened, supporting rebel groups and destroyed its government and killed it’s leader. Since then Libya has been a failed state with competing warlords fighting over its oil wealth. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the USA at the time and the driving force behind this disastrous intervention.
Politicians nowadays are protected from public opinion by a very compliant media. So when Hillary Clinton was made the first women’s chancellor at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 2021. She was shocked when a large protesting crowd heckled her and called her a “war criminal”. So Hillary Clinton found out she wasn’t as popular as she thought she would be, in trying to prove how macho she was. The infamous interview probably did a lot of damage to her politically, when she tried to become President of the USA in 2016 and was defeated by Donald Trump.
But to be fair about this. Any female politician that showed she cared about the ordinary people would not get any support from the billionaire class. Who only want politicians to represent their personal interests. So a caring politician would be unlikely to get into any position of power or become the leader of any country. And even if she is devious and pretend to do what the billionaire class wants her to do. But when she becomes the leader of the country, she switches to help the common people. But she wouldn’t last long as corrupt politicians who have been brought by the billionaire class, will soon get rid of her.
So does this mean it’s impossible for loving women to rule our world? From our point of view, this might be true, but we have to remember that the Great Mother is the most powerful force in the universe. To put it in the words of Jesus; For with God nothing will be impossible. Luke 1:37 Webster’s Bible Translation. So if the Great Mother decides that this should happen, then it will.
But women have to understand their loving and caring ways is not a weakness but a strength, if women are to gain power then take over and rule. The world urgently needs caring and loving women to rule the world, because it’s clear men are their own worst enemies. This is why they need to be guided and controlled by women. It’s even more urgent now with nuclear weapons in the hands of aggressive world leaders. If men continue to rule the planet then it’s only a matter of time before we have a nuclear war, which will destroy our civilization and could even make the human species extinct. Or at least, bomb us back to the Stone-Age.
Comments
Post a Comment