M.2

I'm good, thanks. I'm more passive than active these days.

What makes that your estimation? Are you talking about the Visegrad4+1? Poland and Hungary have already been triggered Article7 against due to their insubordination. I would count that as a rebellion. Yes, some sympathetic countries have been drawing up plans to accept Western European refugees. In fact, the unofficial flight to the East has already commenced, and will only be increasing in the future. More than 80 thousand white South Africans have left the country just last year. Most to other commonwealth nations, but another lot to other countries that would rather not draw undesirable media attention to themselves by advertising their programmes. I am not authorised to say who these prudent nations are, but you will no doubt learn about them after the new land reforms are implemented at the end of August. That's when they will have to crank up the scale of these evacuation programmes, and there won't be any hiding it then.

In some regions of Poland "doesn't even go to church" is the worst thing someone can say about you. Just a fun fact. I have witnessed hundreds if not thousands of people at their first mass, and if it makes you feel better, I haven't seen any of them feeling comfortable. In fact, my favourite comment I heard was "it's a weird religion, according to which we have to look at a dead guy nailed on the wall for an hour every week". There are of course a lot of bizarre things catholics do, and it would take a lot of studying if you wanted to understand them all; most people don't, and that's perfectly fine, because catholicism does not demand you to understand everything. To intellectual types it is a hard thing to accept that Christianity seems so irrational. What you can do in that case is remind yourself that a lot of people a lot smarter than you could accept the religion. This a bit of a tangent, but I have heard so many people rhetorically ask "why don't intelligent people in various religions agree if they are all so intelligent?" The answer is that theology is not principally about facts or reason, but about values, and values are not up for debate. The difference between a Muslim and a Christian is not that one thinks Yahwae is the true god and the other thinks Allah is. The difference is that one values faith, charity and hope, and the other values faith, obedience and struggle. There is no intellectual debate to be had between Islam and Christianity. If you want to intellectually understand what the mass is about, that's great, good luck. Above all however, you must see that the mass is a place for you express faith, act charitably, and fuel hope. If you manage to garner a reputation among the Poles that you don't go to church, it doesn't simply mean that they see you as a lazy bastard, but they view you as someone who doesn't share their morals, doesn't support the weak and the poor, and does not care for the afterlife.

In relation to languages? A language is inseperable from the manner in which the native speakers think, feel and act. You don't have to do all that yourself, but you have to understand how and why they are the way they are. When you stumble upon a foreign concept that you know to be non-translatable into your own culture, that's when you know you are learning.

1. I like to do that too. 2. You should be suspicious if you are so comfortable in your beliefs. 3. I am a sucker for simplicity as well. Complex reality clearly has to be optimised for our cerebral video card. Video cards are not created equal though. 4. In school, I used to do a lot of calculations in my head, for which my teachers deducted points reasoning "I am not scoring your answers, I am checking your process. And I cannot do that if you don't write it down. In science, everything needs to be written down." 5. e=mcc seems simple enough. Doesn't mean we get it. 6. What's wrong with infighting? 7. Yeah? So what did they say? 8. So what did they say? 9. Here I know you haven't been outside the Judeo-Christian bubble. No. The ten commandments were never common sense, but in fact revolutionary when they were first introduced, and are still uncommon in the world outside Christendom. When a buddhist tells you not to kill, he means something entirely different that is lost in translation as he tries to convey it to you, unless you know ancient sanskrit of course. Priests study ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin because they need to know what exactly the writers meant to have said, and they cannot do that only knowing modern English. What seems to be completely common sense to you is not directly translatable to other cultures. Your wisdom may still retain some of its original meaning if I put it in French or Dutch, but will sound hilarious no matter how I would try to say it in any of the easten languages for example. Here is an exercise to prove my point. Ask your friends to define the act of "STEALING". You may notice that even amongst people with the same native language as yours, you cannot come to an agreement. Then learn Japanese and ask people in Japan. (I do mean LEARN it; not the way americans "learn" Spanish.)

1. I don't think anyone can escape from the Chinese government within China. The CCP is a totalitarian government, but I don't need to tell you that. Belize is also a terrible example for reasons obvious. My own example would have been worth responding to, even though you decided to ignore it. 2. You just made a very compelling argument against AnCap. Are you saying whether countries are big or small, it doesn't matter because they will be controlled by government anyway? I say the MORE governments the better. Then at least some of us may be doing it right instead of all of us stumbling down the same path to hell or heaven with 50-50 odds. Multiple governments spread the risk. The smallest government being the head of the family unit of course. 3. Clearly I will remain uninformed since you missed the opportunity to enlighten me. 4. You missed my entire point, but whatever... let's focus on that. Trump is the executive of the country, and he has every power invested in him to secure the border. I don't doubt he wants to secure the border, so all I can do is attribute his failiure to inability. There is also proof of the Americans' willingness, since there already is a sort-of border barrier there, it's just completely ineffective due to incompetence. I can only look at the evidence, and I don't see lack of intent (Trump's election is also proof of intent), but if you can magically read the heart of America, then I suppose you are right. Before you insult my intelligence and smarts again, I will have you know that by age 20, I had sat at a table with 7 seasoned Jesuits, discussing geopolitics and philosophy in French and German simultaneously. Please treat me with the same respect that I do you. I come here to learn, not to be told without basis that I am wrong.

I have to support your anecdotal evidence by my anecdotal evidence. At some point a stack of anecdoatal evidences have to become statistics, right? if I hadn't met my mother, I wouldn't believe there were women who didn't care about money. My mother had begun supporting herself when she was 18, so she is clearly not fiscally illiterate. She then devoted years of her life studying, spreading the Truth basically for free, because her target audience was dirt poor. The she married a man who was essentially a beggar in the beginning, but had a backbone of steel... Which evidently was what attracted my mother. I think Jsbrads is complaining about modern western women, which is completely fair, as in my estimation, western women are indeed mostly trash. There are however quality women, and I think you are willfullly ignorant if you don't know where to look for them: Church (or Mosque in fact). I don't know your values, maybe you claim to be an intellect-worshipping humanist, or a secular liberal; then I would say you have no reason to complain about your options, since these women are your product. In a society without an absolutist moral code, there will be no moral absolutists. Without abstract values, people opt to tangible values, which are material, and all which are measured by money.

1. Though all true, it would be impossible/pointless to normalise for indoctrination as of now because it roughly coincides with real education. The education system with the most leftist indoctrination would be one of the nordic countries, all of which also happen to be objectively decent at education. Physics, biology, geology are all dominated by danes and swedes. There are indeed a few countries who have gone off the edge with their leftism and took education with them, but even such countries, like China and Cuba, are masters in some fields. 2. Yes, people have been complaining about misleading stats, and I am well aware of all of it. Unfortunately, I cannot do better than this. And the very least I may have done is start a conversation based on SOME data, instead of just utopistic dreaming, something that many ancaps like to do. 3. If I had wanted to be truly free, I would have gone to the pcountry with the least population density, and which is also relatively safe from invasion. Nearly a third of Mongolia's population is living the ancap dream: essentially off the grid, in the middle of nowhere, riding cars with no speed limit, doing whatever the hell they please. Even if the police tried to look for you, you would be nearly impossible to find, because you keep moving every season from one place in the middle of nowehere to the next place in the middle of nowhere. It's a tough life, but it is the freest life I know exists. Despite this, I did not place Mongolia on the list, because this is not data, but anecdotes. 4. There were 30 countries in the entire world back in 1914. 30! Some thought it will only get less from there. Now there are over 200 and counting. Even though we are all in the cultural shadow of America, China, Russia and the EU, in essence there are more options now than there were a century ago. The way I see it is that global power is on a decentralising trend, and the globalists are in full panic mode. The EU was basically all of their chips, and I think they bet wrong, as demonstrated by the V4. Even America cannot project power effectively anymore, which is a shock to all of us because they are on paper by far the biggest force the world has ever seen. They can't even defend their own borders. Open to arguments as always.

This is a good one. I'll expand the question a bit. What is the method of determining whether someone is self-responsible legally, morally, biologically, mentally and in other ways? As far as my knowledge goes, it seems uncomfortably arbitrary the way we do it in our species.

Thanks for sharing. There are currently towns in Western Europe where the fences around people's homes are literally 10cm tall, and people often just don't bother locking their doors. In such places have the EU politicians planted migrant camps since 2015, and the air is changing drastically. I currently work in such an area, and since a few weeks ago, I have been instructed by my superiors to not let my female colleagues go out alone, for there was a rape/murder committed recently. Despite such drastic changes, people have yet to wake up. Especially the women, they have been so spoiled by the welfare state, by wonder woman propaganda and by western men, that their sense of danger and survival has been completely dulled. They go out partying at night, wearing red mini-skirts, blonde-dyed hair, high-heeled boots and such a pretentious attitude towards life that one would rightfully assume they were time-travelling street girls from the 80s. Make no mistake however, as Eastern Europe are going down the same path. Were it not for the veterans of socialism, the millenials would have already committed cultural suicide as well. Let's hope generation-Z turns out alright.

1. I have already made a scientific comparison of the freest countries. Feel free to check it out. A) You are going to have to give me more than just anecdotes and sentimentalism. I think you just believe that because you are an anglophone. The best works that I have read on freedom were all originally in latin or italian. The first GLOBAL abolishion of slavery was in 1537: Pope Paul III forbids slavery of the indigenous peoples of the Americas as well as of any other new population that would be discovered, indicating their right to freedom and property (Sublimis Deus) Americans were pretty late to the party. B) I get that you love your freedom. It is just sad that you took it away from everyone else. (I acknowledge only 2 success stories of freedom crusade) C) My concern exactly. D) Well... If I wanted to speak my mind, america is not the place I would pick. E) Here is where you are uninformed. The ÖVP have won a massive victory, and are leading the country towards V4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_legislative_election,_2017 That's not even mentioning the back-and-forth state of Ireland, the silent nationalism of Switzerland, and Luxembourg the hypocrite. Or are these not Western European? Please don't be Ignoramus Americanus. 2. Whatever he did was in the end a failiure anyway, so I don't know why we are even arguing over it. Almost all of the freedoms won by the american revolution had been lost within the proceeding 50 years. Just as it was with the French Revolution, your revolution ultimately failed. I don't think you can deny this. Australia, who stayed under the crown, are by now far more free than the US. To go further, some provinces of Canada are freer than most US states. 3. Awfully familiar words... Did uncle Lenin say something like this back in 1921?

Very well. Everyhing that looks even REMOTELY NICE in the world was built under not only monarchy, but absolute monarchy. As we know, architecture is the expression of the soul of a country.

I suggest putting the replacement of religious holidays to the UPB test. If everyone in a society suddenly gave up religious holidays, what would happen? Hedonistic festivals of Netherlands and Sweden? Morbid gluttonistic gatherings of Japan and China? Petty and sour family dinner conversations of France and Czechia? Materialistic Christmas markets with a pinch of truck attacks of Germany and England? ...Or maybe you could go to midnight mass, light a candle, enjoy listening to the hopefully angelic latin songs, sitting on the freezing benches beside your fellow peasant stumbling through life, spending a couple hours empathising with a dead guy on a torture device, and being glad that you are not in an atheist shithole.... Just a thought.

Are you really willing to do this with me? Would you risk the possibility of finding out that you just made a stupid claim without know anything about monarchy? https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49464-debating-monarchy/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-453810

Nation states are only abstract entities. Monarchy is the only potentially legitimate form of government, because it is based on private property.

1. I don't think the math is clear on which country is freer than the other, which is why it is worthy of discussion. According to my estimation, it's either Switzerland or New Zealand that is the freest. I would say the Vatican is the freest, but I understand why one would object. The obsession with liberty is definitely an american thing, I grant you that. The German value system does not emphasise liberty that much. It is also true that the obsession with free will is uniquely a christian thing, and therefore it's quite clear why the japanese don't even have a word for liberty. But it is unfair to say that the discussion has not flourished in other languages. As I said, the French have a thing for liberty, though they may mean something different by it, and the Swiss too, who fought a civil war over liberty just like you did (I already directed you to the swiss constitution). I only speak French and German, so I cannot comment on other cultures. It is also worth noting that even anglophones do not agree on what liberty really is. You can ask any two people from two anglophone countries to define liberty, and they will give you radically different answers. There is an argument to be made that the current popular interpretation of liberty by the americans is not quite healthy, leaning more towards freedom worship than the respect for free will. I am open to having this argument. Alles in Österreich ist verboten = Everything is Austria is vorbidden (hyperbole, but true) 2. Your example still makes my point, not yours, I think. 3. This is what I was talking about a while ago. Libertarianism is very appealing to me, but unfortunately it hasn't been implemented yet, not even on a small scale. If we were to implement it in a large superpower like the USA, it can very well end ugly, just like Russia did with their experiment, and it will not only be the americans who will suffer, but literally everyone else too. There is reason to believe that libertarianism is even more incompatible with human nature than communism is. 4. I am hard at work currently studying the policies of Luxembourg, Switzerland and Ireland on how they keep stealing all the best minds from the world. No matter what you say about the USA, it is no longer near the top freest countries in the world, and the evidence is there. 5. Thanks. I love learning on FDR, but the occasional hostility of members is a repellant to many, including me by now.

1. I can live disagreeing with you on this. 2. I think you are a smart guy, and I don't mean to insult you, but that is a very weak argument. What does it mean that the language of liberty was written in english? The word "liberty" itself is Latin imported from French. And maybe you should check out the old Swiss Constitution; it already includes all of the values that the americans claim to have discovered 500 years afterwards. It was written in Latin by the way. 3. Thomas Paine was English, not American, and he went to America as an adult. If he held the attitude that you propagate, he would have begun his quest in England. Instead, he took my advice, and started his project where there was the most possibility of success. 4. We are all free-marketers here. If America is not worthy of the greatest minds anymore, like it used to be, then it deserves to lose them. America does not agree with you - Every invention worth mentioning that came from America was created by escapists; either by Germans, by Jews, or by German Jews. Who is the passive-aggressive asshole downvoting my posts? It's not an argument.

I didn't miss your point. Wouldn't you agree that you can only create it where there is already a lot of liberty? That is why he went to America first, is it not? Are the first american pioneers just escapists? Are north korean refugees just escapists? Are zionists just escapists?

Provocative topic indeed, but I love it. It always used to strike me as barbaric and backwards that in the bible it says a woman must subject herself to a man... But then I was introduced to Europe. Essentially everything that a woman has unchecked power over goes to shit. That includes herself. A woman can't even handle herself in the world, let alone anything else. Not saying that women should be property, but the evidence points in a certain direction. Cultures where women are treated as second class citizens are much more successful at the old Darwin game than other kinds.

Hello! I always jump on threads dealing with homeschooling because it was the single most valuable experience in my life, even though we did it for only two years. I am 21, so I don't know much about life and employment in general, but I can tell you how my parents made it possible. After about 7 years of school, my mother was convinced that the public/private school system was very toxic to me and my brothers. Note that we always went to the best schools. In short, school undid every piece of parenting that we received during the summer breaks. So she went to persuade my father to consider the idea of homeschooling. Homeschooling was and still is illegal in both my home countries, so we had to work through back doors. My parents were always rather poor, even by post-communist standards. So what they did was that my mother schooled us in the mornings, and then went to work late in the afternoons. This was possible because my father was her employer. He was however always very sceptical of the idea, and gave in only because he was also aware of the state of public education, and he trusted his wife's judgment. He himself was the boss of the company, therefore worked day and night as usual, but it was difficult without his best employee being fully present. He usually went socialising and networking in the evenings, but as a commitment to the homeschooling, he came home every night and talked with us for hours about life. They made much less money than before, as one can guess. In summary, parents went out of their way, sometimes quasi-illegally, to make this experience possible for us. They worked non-stop, they never took vacations, they decided to forego getting a new place, and they took the effort to wrestle with 3 adolescent boys whom the school system had completely demolished in every way. In the beginning, we hated the new system, we threw tantrums every single day, we were socially distant from our peers (not that we wanted to be near them). It was so difficult that they could only manage it for 2 years. If my parents could do it, you can too. Even if you don't eat some days, it is still worth it.

2. We disagree. That's fine. 3. You have not proven your definitions logically consistent. Not saying they are wrong, but they definitely differ from vernacular english.

There was no liberty in the new world in the 18th century? I think your math is wrong. And why are you americans so obsessed with america? Is it because you don't study other countries? America is awesome, I agree, but there are many other places that outdo them in certain areas, particularly in freedom. Either way, no. The first thing I would try to do is establish my utopia. Because so far anarchism and libertarianism are both only theories, and rigorous experiments have not been conducted yet. In order to convince the world that my theory works, I would have to bring hard proof. This attitude is what the russians must be commended for: They coducted the largest experiment to test their theory of communism, and since the results did not match the hypothesis, they moved on. Liberty lovers should do the same.

1. Well, so far communism has a longer track record than libertarianism or anarchism. So if we deem communism an unsustainable system, what of libertarianism? Not being a dick, just an observation that so far the teenager anti-fascits anarchists have accomplished more than the AnCaps. I am genuinely interested in AnCap theory, and my many posts on it prove it, but I still only see talk and no action. Ok, I guess you don't have to move to Liechtenstein, though I think there would be plenty of room for all the dedicated libertarians. History has it that a powerful ideology bent on spreading, needs a seat of power, an HQ if you will. The Catholics have the Vatican, the Muslims have Mecca. So far, libertarians are so divided even amongst themselves that they have no chance of spreading into other territories. I can tell you right now that libertarianism has at least 5000 years before it can set foot in China, and that is a fifth of your target audience right there. And then good luck winning over Africa. 2. What are you talking about? Every democracy has a bill of rights. They copied it from you guys (more like you forced them to). And I wasn't talking about the freedom within the US. I was referring to all the stuff the US has done outside of its borders. There are something like 2 success stories, and 200 blunders in your quest of exporting freedom. Americans call terrorists "freedom fighters", so I assume by "freedom activists", you mean saboteurs. Regarding immigration, just do us all a favour and vote Trump in 2020. I honestly don't care what he does in America, but illegal immigration to Europe has been rapidly declining since his election, and he is openly supporting the V4, so I'm content.

1. You are giving me a lot to pick at here. - Him killing his brother was probably the only sin we have documents of him actually regretting. Why did you have to bring that example? - His empire lasted 160 years, and he was the one that divided it up. Do you know how many countries there are currently that are 160 years old? Less than 10. - Here is my rule of thumb on the inquisition... If you say "inquisition", I just assume you are just an anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "spanish inquisition", I assume you are a cultured anglo-saxon idiot. If you say "papal inquisition", now we can have a debate. If you say "Dominicans", I don't bother because you have probably already won the argument. - Asians look at morality very differently than westerners. In fact, the western way of looking at morality is very odd in comparison to other cultures, all thanks to christianity. The reason Mongols, kazakhs, Turks and others still worship the great khan is because he used every method in the book to create peace and unity in the world, and was even pretty successful. Which proves that he actually cared about that stuff. Asians are more pragmatic and utilitarian, so the end justifies the means. 2. You missed my point. "That we are talking shows a preference for talk, as opposed to violence." This argument is terrible because it argues morality from current human tendencies. Just because we prefer talking over killing each other, that does not indicate that arguments are objectively more moral than violence. 3. Missed my point again. Never mind. The Japanese are even higher in agreeableness. In fact, asians are generally pretty high in agreeableness. On the other hand, Angolans are not, nor are Congolese, nor are Cubans. I don't think agreeableness is a good indicator for communism. 4. I suppose you can use your own definitions, and I can see your point, but that only means that you are using a different language. Or maybe you could justify your definitions so that we can learn your language.

1. You are working backwards twards your claim. 2. I thought my question was rather simple. So we don't know? 3. Now you have switched from "alike" to "identical". And you contradict yourself in the net point. 4. You used the word "objective" which confused me. And you are confusing me even more now. I didn't say it was excluseively a christian ethic. I said the explanation of Jesus was not "logical consistency". 5. I thought my question was rather somply. Clearly not. 7. So you can only be logically consistent of you are consistent with the Tuth? We still haven't determined what the Truth is. 8. You, sir, are dangerous. Thanks for the conversation. I learned a lot. Just a couple of things... 1. I love how you westerners just take it for granted that Genghis Khan was amoral or immoral. A third of Asia still worships him (literally). We got him sitting at the gates of our parliament for instance. We think he was a swell guy who lay the way to Pax Mongolica. Don't you like peace? 2. The fact that 60% of women have abortions by the end of their lives does not indicate that abortion is objectively preferable. 3. The Russian revolution was not nearly the most aggressive revolution. I could name 5 revolutions in chinese history that were more bloody. 4. None of your defintitions are justified. There is nothing to pick at. You can't just create your own definitions for words.