Post: #1

I posted this on the Norwegian rape thread. I am making this thread since most people have never opened a Koran, and have never had a sincere discussion with a Muslim in his home country where he isn't afraid to censor his speech.

Quote:1400 years ago, a man is born in the Arabian peninsula. He is the most perfect man ever to walk this Earth and God reveals his message through him. This message is one of world domination to be achieved by the sword. His armies conquer the Middle East at alarming speed, even conquering the ancient city of Byzantium. Eventually, Islam dominates all of the Middle East, central Asia, India, parts of Southeast Asia, and even the Iberian peninsula. Those who refuse to convert are massacred and the few Christians and Jews remaining to "peacefully coexist" are forced to pay a crippling tax call jizya.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Europe is repeatedly attacked through the centuries by invading Muslim armies intent on forcibly converting the continent. With the exception of Spain, these armies are repeatedly repelled. This leads to the series of campaigns known as the Crusades, which are largely successful in subduing Muslim armies. The last military incursions during the 16th and 17th centuries are eventually repelled at the gates of Vienna.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

The African slave trade is established by Muslim slave traders hundreds of years before Europeans arrive. Justification can be found in the Holy Koran which states that infidels are all worthy of enslavement. Tens of millions of Africans are enslaved, and tens of millions die before arriving due to routine castration. Attacks on European and American merchant ships by Muslim pirates lead to the castration and enslavement of thousands of Europeans right up to the 19th century, and only ends when the American navy is sent to intervene in the two Barbary Wars. The economic stagnation of Italy in the 19th century is partly due to the abandonment of coastal villages for fear of Islamic invaders - there are even reports of Muslim pirates attacking Ireland.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Several generations ago, Muslim immigrants begin settling in wealthy, secular, liberal countries. They fail to integrate and are a massive economic burden on their host country due to dependence on welfare.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

We begin to notice a pattern of Muslim immigrants marrying their cousins in their adopted countries, leading to a huge spike in genetic disorders and learning disabilities, further burdening the health care and education systems.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

It is revealed that imams in European mosques are routinely preaching messages of hate against Jews and Christians, calling for their deaths and the domination of Islam across the world.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Muslim ghettos are formed in the hearts of European cities, effectively no-go zones where non-Muslims are not welcome and are likely to be harassed and assaulted. It reaches the point that these areas are so dangerous that even the police are unwilling to enter.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

We are presented with indisputable proof that thousands of "European" girls are traveling overseas to have their clitoris removed. In many cases, the procedure takes place on European soil.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Crime statistics show that Muslims in Europe commit a vastly disproportionate level of violent crime. In some countries such as France, Muslims make up over 50% of the prison population despite making up only 10% of the general population.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Millions of economic migrants from Muslim countries, mostly posing as war refugees, illegally force their way into Europe. Some are from war-torn Syria, but most are from Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan. At some poorly defended borders, guards are helpless to do anything as swarms of young Muslim men simply storm the border posts en masse. They bypass Greece and Bulgaria and head towards countries such as Germany, Sweden and France where they know they will receive welfare - they have no interest in contributing economic value to the countries they plan to invade.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Though largely covered up by the media on the orders of the government, we begin to hear stories of widespread harassment, assault and even rape committed by the migrants. Girls are told not to wear skirts so as not to cause "misunderstandings," and in some areas, locals are afraid to walk the streets. On New Years Eve, we eventually hear the truth about places such as Cologne where hundreds of women are sexually assaulted and hundreds of men are physically assaulted.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

ISIS publicly declares that there are thousands of their operatives among these migrants, and that Europe should prepare to be attacked.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Unprecedented terrorist attacks take place in Paris and Brussels, killing hundreds and maiming many more. At least one of the attackers fades back into the Muslim community and is protected by fellow Muslims.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

A man is raped by a Muslim Somali immigrant in Norway. The rapist imported a part of his culture from a country where rape is common and often used as a weapon of war. Unable to understand that rape is unacceptable in a civilized society, he did what he knew how to do and forcibly sodomised a native citizen of his host country.

However, we need to be tolerant, understand that Islam is a religion of peace and that diversity is our strength.

Post: #2

To play devils advocate...

At least they don't cuck.

Post: #3

(04-07-2016 08:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  To play devils advocate...

At least they don't cuck.

l
Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person." Western countries should only accept migrants who will be of net benefit to the host country. This criteria excludes almost all of the Muslim hordes sweeping across Europe.

Post: #4

If you want to get up to speed with Islam, I recommend you check out Bill Warner's website, Political Islam.

Post: #5

(04-07-2016 09:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 08:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  To play devils advocate...

At least they don't cuck.

l
Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person."

It is not altruism except as a symptom of narcissism, the root cause of most of the problems the West is having right now. Altruism pre-1945 was not really done for the sake of being a good person, it was typically out of a duty to a principle, a nation, a religion, or a God.

The West at large has systemically rooted out every major source of the feeling that man is not the centre of the universe and any obligation to serve something or be part of something bigger than himself. The Enlightenment killed God, World War One killed the Enlightenment, World War Two killed the nation, Globalisation has killed and is killing cultural ties and is trying its damnedest to kill national ties as well, and the cult of moral relativism is trying very hard to keep people's consciences, common sense, if not their very souls from punching their way out of the grave into which they have been buried alive.

Science perversely, and entirely unintentionally, assisted this process. Force-feeding man a universe both without a creator and seemingly empty of any other life to give human life context or make the void bearable, science gave people an excuse to turn inward, for their narcissism to flourish: if the universe is empty, and lightspeed is as fast as we'll ever go, and nothing happens after I die, then I really am obliged to think of myself as the God and main character of my own story and everyone else as a supporting player. Galileo doubtless would appreciate the irony: he was resolute that the universe did not revolve around the Earth, and four hundred years later, the beneficiaries of his discoveries have managed to convince themselves at a very deep level that the whole universe revolves around them.

An odd tangent: I realised one of Jim Carrey's speeches, frequently cited as a motivational speech, to a bunch of undergraduates sums up the insanity of the West today:

Quote:"Like you, I was afraid of going out into the world and doing something bigger than myself. That's when I realised: there actually is nothing bigger than myself!"

No greater meaning to existence, a world that tells you you can be anything you want to be, that you can make up the meaning of your own life? Fuck, man, of course you're going to turn inward and make yourself the centre of the universe!

Islam doesn't get this any better, because the societies from which it vectors are as narcissistic as you can get. Remembering that a narcissist can feel only shame, not guilt, Muslims are commonly observed to be almost fanatical about their standing in respect of their social circle. Ask yourself: why do they call them 'honour' killings? It's not the honour of the wayward daughter that's been wounded when they decide to drown, throttle, or incinerate her. It's the honour of the idiot father, or his idiot sons. That is, his social standing alone.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #6

(04-07-2016 09:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person." Western countries should only accept migrants who will be of net benefit to the host country. This criteria excludes almost all of the Muslim hordes sweeping across Europe.

And what have we had more of since 1945? The Saudis don't have any migrant hordes, what do they have less of than us? Democracy.
Bring back the kings and the Europeans will cuck no more.

Post: #7

Quote: ...diversity is our strength...

This.

For years now, I have always asked liberals to explain me this, and give examples.

I never got a valid answer. And, likely, never will.

Post: #8

The problem is not the invasion and subjugation of other countries. Every other race and group was doing it at various times in history.
The problem is it's still happening now.

Post: #9

(04-07-2016 09:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 09:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person." Western countries should only accept migrants who will be of net benefit to the host country. This criteria excludes almost all of the Muslim hordes sweeping across Europe.

And what have we had more of since 1945? The Saudis don't have any migrant hordes, what do they have less of than us? Democracy.
Bring back the kings and the Europeans will cuck no more.

I would say we don't really have a democracy in Europe either. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic.

If anything, the form of the government is wholly irrelevant to this issue, it is the character of the people which matters most.

Post: #10

related video explanation:




45 min video, very in-depth




shorter 5 min video of the former one, just visually demonstrating the 1000+ years of Muslim invasions vs. the short little burst of the Crusades

Post: #11

(04-07-2016 09:24 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 09:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 08:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  To play devils advocate...

At least they don't cuck.

l
Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person."

It is not altruism except as a symptom of narcissism, the root cause of most of the problems the West is having right now. Altruism pre-1945 was not really done for the sake of being a good person, it was typically out of a duty to a principle, a nation, a religion, or a God.

An odd tangent: I realised one of Jim Carrey's speeches, frequently cited as a motivational speech, to a bunch of undergraduates sums up the insanity of the West today:

Quote:"Like you, I was afraid of going out into the world and doing something bigger than myself. That's when I realised: there actually is nothing bigger than myself!"

No greater meaning to existence, a world that tells you you can be anything you want to be, that you can make up the meaning of your own life? Fuck, man, of course you're going to turn inward and make yourself the centre of the universe!

Islam doesn't get this any better, because the societies from which it vectors are as narcissistic as you can get. Remembering that a narcissist can feel only shame, not guilt, Muslims are commonly observed to be almost fanatical about their standing in respect of their social circle.

That is, his social standing alone.

Beautiful.

I think the thing Islam gets right is it allows unapologetic self-defense of a people.

Civilization is separation of people, and separation of people is structure, order, and society.

People need roles. People need borders. People need guiding principles. People need a society that has norms.

Like Foucault said when he debated Noam Chomsky, freedom is not a mixture of absolute liberty and order, it is the existence of rules. Rules are structure. There is no freedom without structure. And that requires separation, which presupposes self-interest.

Where I'm going with this is Islam has incubated a region of the world from the idea of globalization—the idea that people do not need rules, customs, tradition, roles and borders.

They can use their religion as an umbrella justification for the state. And with a lack of self-defeatism and guilt, they can preserve their own existence. That's the one thing we've forfeited.

Islamic societies are generally total shit. Total, total shit. But you're drawn to admire the fact that they can protect their own interests and people.

America's only interests now are with corporations, hippies and military-industrial ventures. It's an amalgamation of anything but its own people. No one class of people has lost more prestige and protection in the last fifteen years than the American citizen.

An inability to accept a border, the most fundamental presupposition for order and civilization, is so pervasive here and in the West that it's finally being taken advantage of by people who do have borders—and hate.

It's not that Islam is so advanced and badass, it's that they happened to have a shield against the great anti-cultural, pro-globalistic experiment.

Post: #12

(04-07-2016 10:58 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I would say we don't really have a democracy in Europe either. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic.

If anything, the form of the government is wholly irrelevant to this issue, it is the character of the people which matters most.

Democracy transforms the character of a people. It changes what they are taught in school, what they are taught at university, what comes through their TV sets, where their bread comes from, what they can and can not get away with, how they relate to each other.

I would like to see one non-democratic state which has a problem with feminism, multiculturalism, social justice warriors etc.

Democracy begets a ruling elite because humans must form hierarchies to function. There is no such thing as "rule by the people for the people" -- the rulers are always few and the ruled many for simple co-ordination reasons.

This is where the claims of "it isn't really democratic" comes from. Complaints that we only have 2 choices of parties, we don't get to elect our prime minister, the judges aren't democratically elected etc. "True democracy" is impossible. The only thing that would give something close to "true democracy" is randomly picking men off the street (which is closer to what the ancient Greeks did).

The EU is fundamentally democratic. Every person participating in that is ultimately put there by a ballot box.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutio..._Union.svg

The heads of the governments of the member states comprise the Council (all the heads get there by ballot box in their countries). That Council and the Parliament (directly elected) choose the Commission. Similar story with legislation.

Leftism (social degeneration) is a side-effect of no stability in the hierarchy. The man at the top is there for a matter of a few years, and gets there by being the most ruthless in pursuit of that power. That power is gained by politics -- brainwashing and playing off different parts of the population below you in anyway that can get 51% of their votes. Any 51% will do.

Do you not know where Merkels come from? They are simply those few humans among us, who innately have 100% desire for personal power alone, and 0% concern for the well-being of their people. They exist, and democracy will put them to the top. Why would a Merkel care about her people? A Merkel has her power so long as she plays the game, whereafter she will lose it to the next hedonist of power. She doesn't even have a child to worry about growing up in what she leaves behind, much less will bestow upon him the reigns of that country. A king is guaranteed his power by birth, but the quality of the kingdom his son will inherit is up to him.

To the democrat, single mothers that can be painted as down-trodden are a voting block, not irresponsible. Minorities that can be painted as victims are a voting block, not lazy. Gays that can be painted as persecuted are a voting block, not deviants. College students that can be brainwashed into SJWs are a voting block, not social subversives and misfits. And the more you can encourage people to break up into identity blocks, instead of just focusing on their own lives, the more pieces you have to play with.

The muslims are not afflicted by democracy. Thus, you will not see their single mothers, their pandering to minorities, their gay pride parades and tranny bathrooms, their SJWs.
http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/m...ble-47245/

Post: #13

(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Do you not know where Merkels come from? They are simply those few humans among us, who innately have 100% desire for personal power alone, and 0% concern for the well-being of their people. They exist, and democracy will put them to the top.

This is key right here and to me it represents the true problem with democracy. You've hit the nail on the head.

Repped (should have done so already).

Post: #14

(04-07-2016 10:58 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 09:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Bring back the kings and the Europeans will cuck no more.

If anything, the form of the government is wholly irrelevant to this issue, it is the character of the people which matters most.

Another perspective you may want to consider is Plato's and/or Aristotle's conceptions of the cyclic nature of a peoples character and their governments. They view both nature (character of people) and nurture (type of government) as influencing each other and the cycle.

Post: #15

(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I would like to see one non-democratic state which has a problem with feminism, multiculturalism, social justice warriors etc.

Norway has a king with the power to dismiss the government. Or, if you like, imperial rome.

Neoractionary utopianism is a red herring which keeps us from addressing the real issue: how can men in a society be successful and wealthy without becoming weak and decadent

Post: #16

(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 10:58 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I would say we don't really have a democracy in Europe either. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic.

If anything, the form of the government is wholly irrelevant to this issue, it is the character of the people which matters most.

Democracy transforms the character of a people. It changes what they are taught in school, what they are taught at university, what comes through their TV sets, where their bread comes from, what they can and can not get away with, how they relate to each other.

This is no different than how a monarch can change the character of his people. Traditionally dictators and Kings have directed the flow of information, religion, and other cultural institutions.

See Constantine the Great for an example. Mohammed of Islam as another.

Quote:I would like to see one non-democratic state which has a problem with feminism, multiculturalism, social justice warriors etc.

There have been plenty of monarchical states that suffered from abuse of power by women. This is not a new phenomenon.

For example, in the Byzantine Empire there were many abusive queens who empowered women over men. By the end of the empire men were no longer to have concubines (as Romans traditionally did), whoring was banned (on and off), and the men were often criticized as being weak and effeminate.

Likewise, in the Ottoman Empire, there was what was called the "Sultanate of Women," whereupon the Sultan's harem actually took over the empire by keeping the Kings in a perpetual state of seduction.

I will concede that personal vices of Emperors and Kings tend to be limited to within those circles, unlike democracy where the ruling elite have their vices spread to everyone else. But the difference is in a democracy the changes can only come over a 2-3 generations, versus a King who can impose them within 5 or 10 years.

Quote:Democracy begets a ruling elite because humans must form hierarchies to function. There is no such thing as "rule by the people for the people" -- the rulers are always few and the ruled many for simple co-ordination reasons.

This is where the claims of "it isn't really democratic" comes from. Complaints that we only have 2 choices of parties, we don't get to elect our prime minister, the judges aren't democratically elected etc. "True democracy" is impossible. The only thing that would give something close to "true democracy" is randomly picking men off the street (which is closer to what the ancient Greeks did).

The EU is fundamentally democratic. Every person participating in that is ultimately put there by a ballot box.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutio..._Union.svg

The heads of the governments of the member states comprise the Council (all the heads get there by ballot box in their countries). That Council and the Parliament (directly elected) choose the Commission. Similar story with legislation.

Sounds to me like this is an issue of scale. Democracies work better with smaller communities, an observation made by Rousseau and many others.

If America still had a Federal system of smaller democracies building into a larger one to handle extra-state issues, then I think democracy could work. But then again, perhaps not. It was America's Republic which gave the vote to ever increasing sizes of population as well as more and more power to the Federal government.

But I am not even close to convinced that having a single ruler is the answer. History has unlimited examples of shitty tyrants destroying their people.

Quote:Leftism (social degeneration) is a side-effect of no stability in the hierarchy. The man at the top is there for a matter of a few years, and gets there by being the most ruthless in pursuit of that power. That power is gained by politics -- brainwashing and playing off different parts of the population below you in anyway that can get 51% of their votes. Any 51% will do.

First of all, social degeneration has occurred under Kings and Tyrants as well. The majority of governments historically have been monarchies or oligarchies. Quite often countries get a shitty ruler who is the son of a King and does not give two shits about his country.

Second of all, if the King dies then once again it comes down to whoever is most ruthless in murdering and killing in order to take the throne.

Quote:Do you not know where Merkels come from? They are simply those few humans among us, who innately have 100% desire for personal power alone, and 0% concern for the well-being of their people. They exist, and democracy will put them to the top. Why would a Merkel care about her people? A Merkel has her power so long as she plays the game, whereafter she will lose it to the next hedonist of power. She doesn't even have a child to worry about growing up in what she leaves behind, much less will bestow upon him the reigns of that country. A king is guaranteed his power by birth, but the quality of the kingdom his son will inherit is up to him.

Right and that son could very well be a total fuckup who doesn't care about the country at all, or he's just a retard who can't manage a large empire. Has happened hundreds of times.

Quote:To the democrat, single mothers that can be painted as down-trodden are a voting block, not irresponsible. Minorities that can be painted as victims are a voting block, not lazy. Gays that can be painted as persecuted are a voting block, not deviants. College students that can be brainwashed into SJWs are a voting block, not social subversives and misfits. And the more you can encourage people to break up into identity blocks, instead of just focusing on their own lives, the more pieces you have to play with.

This could all happen under a degenerate tyrant as well. There is nothing unique about this beholden to a democracy.

Quote:The muslims are not afflicted by democracy. Thus, you will not see their single mothers, their pandering to minorities, their gay pride parades and tranny bathrooms, their SJWs.
http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/m...ble-47245/

Islam presents a refutation of the argument; it's not that the government matters, it's the culture that matters. No matter if Islam is ruled by a democracy or dictator, Islam will remain Islam. Religions for this reasons have always transcended political rulers and have outlasted them.

Long after the USA, EU, China, Russia, etc. have disappeared from the map, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will remain. That you can bet on, 100%.

Post: #17

(04-07-2016 01:30 PM)storm Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I would like to see one non-democratic state which has a problem with feminism, multiculturalism, social justice warriors etc.

Norway has a king with the power to dismiss the government. Or, if you like, imperial rome.

Sure, here's a list of the legal powers of the British monarch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_po...ed_Kingdom

Next time I see these monarchs using those powers (instead of rubber-stamping the decisions of democratic prime-ministers), I'll call their countries non-democratic. On the contrary, this is usually how it goes down:

Quote:In 1990, when a law liberalising Belgium's abortion laws was approved by parliament, King Baudouin refused to give his royal assent, only the second time in Belgium's history the monarch elected to do so. Instead, he requested that the cabinet declare him unable to reign for a day, which it did, thereby assuming the king's constitutional powers. All members of the government then signed the bill, passing it into law. The government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again the next day.

Quote:Neoractionary utopianism is a red herring which keeps us from addressing the real issue: how can men in a society be successful and wealthy without becoming weak and decadent

Meaningless statement.

(04-07-2016 03:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is no different than how a monarch can change the character of his people.
...
There have been plenty of monarchical states that suffered from abuse of power by women.
...
in the Ottoman Empire, there was what was called the "Sultanate of Women," whereupon the Sultan's harem actually took over the empire by keeping the Kings in a perpetual state of seduction.
...
But I am not even close to convinced that having a single ruler is the answer. History has unlimited examples of shitty tyrants destroying their people.
...
First of all, social degeneration has occurred under Kings and Tyrants as well. The majority of governments historically have been monarchies or oligarchies. Quite often countries get a shitty ruler who is the son of a King and does not give two shits about his country.
...
Second of all, if the King dies then once again it comes down to whoever is most ruthless in murdering and killing in order to take the throne.
...
Right and that son could very well be a total fuckup who doesn't care about the country at all, or he's just a retard who can't manage a large empire. Has happened hundreds of times.

Agree with all that. However none of this has been the norm. Some countries have a weak or shitty king from time to time. Some countries have a succession dispute from time to time. But this is not pervasive at all times and all places at once.

When your ship is on fire, you don't worry that your water is too dirty. You start pumping. The imperfections of monarchy are nothing compared to the abyss of self-annihilation.

To clarify, I'm in favour of balanced constitutional monarchy, not absolute. But since the current balance is 95% democracy, 5% nobility, 0% monarch, that's the direction it needs to go.

Post: #18

Quote:Neoractionary utopianism is a red herring which keeps us from addressing the real issue: how can men in a society be successful and wealthy without becoming weak and decadent

To the extent you understand what utopianism actually implies, any utopianism claim by NRx is by definition a red herring. However, most NRx'ers I've interacted with claim the opposite of utopianism (whether or not they are in fact driven by the equivalent of utopianism is up for debate).

Quote:This is no different than how a monarch can change the character of his people. Traditionally dictators and Kings have directed the flow of information, religion, and other cultural institutions.

I would argue that they are very different. A king is sovereign (there is no higher Earthly legal authority to which his subjects can appeal. Democracy was an attempt to make no one sovereign and to enshrine unsecure authority.

Quote:But I am not even close to convinced that having a single ruler is the answer.

Where are those who claim to want a "single" ruler? Throughout all of history, no king has ruled alone. There is a major distinction you seem to miss between being sovereign (no higher Earthly legal authority) and "ruling." Every king, monarch, and even tyrant has created a system of governing which granted certain (but not ultimate) authority to subordinates to carry out the various tasks of government.

In fact, I do know where the "single ruler would be awesome" devotees reside. They are the trans-humanist-borg-worshipping advocates of Friendly AI and can be found at the singularity institute, CFAR, MIRI, Future of Humanity Institute, and their various affiliates.

Quote:To clarify, I'm in favour of balanced constitutional monarchy, not absolute. But since the current balance is 95% democracy, 5% nobility, 0% monarch, that's the direction it needs to go.

And you would thus create the very conditions that have led humanity to its present state.

Post: #19

Just to be clear on the British Monarchy.

The Monarch does have the power to dissolve a government etc. Technically.

An attempt would end up with the country being either a Republic or a traditional Monarchy again.

It is never going to happen.

(There is one oddity in Britain though which is that the armed forces swear their allegiance to the crown not the state or government or people etc...they take this very, very seriously. The ranks and file of the Army are mostly Monarchists. It's an interesting thought experiment).

Post: #20

Quote: An attempt would end up with the country being either a Republic or a traditional Monarchy again.

It is never going to happen.

Re: The West generally (especially Europe, to a lesser [but still very significant extent] America, and to a still lesser [but still very significant extent] Australia) and how it relates to us; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-VcA7C6meg

That obligation rests with those whom the West credited with the authority, rights, obligations, and responsibilities to care for her. The West has forgotten that imitation entrusted with authority and right is far from being "the sincerest form of flattery."

Post: #21

(04-07-2016 03:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Second of all, if the King dies then once again it comes down to whoever is most ruthless in murdering and killing in order to take the throne.

Sometimes the murdering starts with the king. My vote for most senseless, tragic murder of a Roman Emperor is Aurelian in 275 AD.

While you can argue the size and Mediterranean hegemony had a lot to do with it as well, it's striking that there were almost no assassinations or political executions during the Republican period of Rome. But after Julius Caesar?

Fate of Roman Emperors

Quote:Emperors who died by Assassination/murder/execution

Gaius Caligula AD 41 ... Conspiracy led by Praetorian guard officers
Claudius AD 54 ... Poisoned, probably by Agrippina
Galba AD 69 ... Murdered by Otho
Vitellius AD 69 ... Murdered by troops of Vespasian
Domitian AD 96 ... Stabbed to death by a steward
Commodus AD 192 ... Strangled by a wrestler
Didius Julianus AD 193 ... Decapitated on the orders of Septimius Severus
Geta AD 211 ... Murdered by Caracalla
Caracalla AD 217 ... Assassinated by an attendant
Macrinus AD 218 ... Executed
Diadumenian AD 218 ... Executed by decapitation
Elagabulus AD 222 ... Assassinated
Alexander Severus AD 235 ... Murdered in a legionary mutiny
Maximinius Thrax AD 238 ... Murdered by the Praetorians
Pupienus Maximus AD 238 ... Murdered by the Praetorians
Balbinus AD 238 ... Murdered by the Praetorians
Phillip the Arab AD 249 ... Murdered by Decius
Gallus AD 253 ... Murdered in a Legionary Mutiny
Volusianus AD 253 ... Murdered in a Legionary Mutiny
Aemilianus AD 253 ... Murdered in a Legionary Mutiny
Gallienus AD 268 ... Murdered at some point during the battle of Naissus
Aurelian AD 272 ... Murdered by the Praetorians
Tacitus AD 276 ... Assassinated, probably by his own soldiers
Florianus AD 276 ... Assasinated by his own soldiers
Probus AD 282 ... Murdered by his own soldiers
Carinus AD 285 ... Assassinated by a tribune
Constans I AD 350 ... Murdered by Magnentius
Gratians AD 383 ... Murdered by rebellious generals
Valentinan III AD 455 ... Assassinated by followers of Flavius Aetius
Petronius Maximus AD 455 ... Kiled either by rioters or a roman soldier
Anthemius AD 472 ... Executed by Ricimir

Post: #22

(04-07-2016 09:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 09:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  Pre-1945, Europeans didn't cuck. I don't understand this pathological trend towards altruism for the sake of being a "good person." Western countries should only accept migrants who will be of net benefit to the host country. This criteria excludes almost all of the Muslim hordes sweeping across Europe.

And what have we had more of since 1945? The Saudis don't have any migrant hordes, what do they have less of than us? Democracy.
Bring back the kings and the Europeans will cuck no more.

Some countries don't seem ready for Democracy and yet countries (like the US) try to make it happen. Countries like Iraq and Libya needed strongman type rulers who kept order. Now look at the chaos.

Post: #23

Quote:But after Julius Caesar?

Every name on the list you copied?

Post: #24

(04-08-2016 08:55 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  Some countries don't seem ready for Democracy and yet countries (like the US) try to make it happen. Countries like Iraq and Libya needed strongman type rulers who kept order. Now look at the chaos.

I think too that the countries which aren't ready for democracy really don't have cultural values that allow democratic processes to function.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the types of government in place and not the culture that supports it. All government is, really, is an organizational model for society. The only concrete, tangible part of government is the people operating under its pretenses.

Take away cops, lawyers, congressmen, presidents, chancellors, governors, mayors, judges, and any other state employees, and you have anarchy. Government is only employees with parameters set by people on what that business can do.

If the parameters of one model of government are not compatible with the cultural substance of a people, then what the fuck is going to happen? A perversion or outright breakdown of that model.

If the people in America decided to do away with the Constitution, it could happen. Nothing stops the culture.

The culture is the most important aspect of a political body.

The government model are the clothes, but the culture is the beast. A collar might fit a dog, but it won't keep on a turtle. And a suit will not fit a snake. The government can only reflect the culture. The point of a governmental model at all is to lock in key values of a culture—to preserve its most vital preconceptions.

In the West, one such preconception is liberty. But even the very meaning of liberty shifts when you go from the American North to the Bible Belt, or from the US to Norway.

This idea of a top-down change to the people—using a model of government to completely change a culture—does not work well. The US has tried it to impose its own values throughout the Cold War, and most of the time we've been used to help prop up some power-hungry maniac here or stoke the flames of a long rivalry there.

In the Middle East specifically, it was a disaster. US involvement helped push the Middle East into its Islamic shell in the 1970's, and now it's solidified.

That's why the US exports iPhones and McDonald's with its democracy.

Post: #25

What exactly is 'ready for democracy'?

This 'ready for' term is used extensively by the left. I think America is ready for a black president. I think America is ready for gay marriage. I think America is ready for 'trannies' watching young girls getting changed. Let's just skip past 'is blackness or competence more important?', 'is gay marriage even legitimate?', and 'do the liberties of freaks supercede the privacy and safety of children?'.

'Ready for' is a sneaky form of condescension. We don't even need to discuss if it's good or not, I say this is what you need to do, and you need to be a big boy and grow up and start doing it. I think you're ready to start using the potty now. I think you're ready for using a bike without stabilizer wheels now. It's nothing more than smuggly skipping over the debate to your pre-decided conclusion. As though your position is inevitable and the opponent is just annoying stalling that inevitability. We should avoid this smug and arrogant language of the left.

The middle-east aren't ready for democracy. But they're also not ready for mass immigration of rapeugees, tranny bathrooms, and divorce rape. Lucky for them, not being 'ready'.