M.2

Ideal you say - meaning it doesn't necessarily exist? Well again, I am in no way an expert on this, but I hope this reasoning helps: The best existing Monarchy I can think of is the Holy See, which is a Non-hereditary, elective, absolute monarchy. ​The worst I can think of is a ​Constitutional, hereditary, crowned republic, ​which would be Sweden. 1. The crown must be from the Roman Pontiff, or the Patriarch of Moscow. Otherwise it has no legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans. 2. There has to be a foundational document that outlines the power of the crown, but not a constitution, more smth like Canon Law. 3. An elective monarchy has always worked best, but I think it rational to elect the son of a supposed "good king". I mean... genes. 4. By tradition there always were 3 branches of gov: the Monarch, the Religion, and a Council, so I see no reason not to have those.

You are mistaking monarchy for absolute monarchy. I listed the forms of governments up there to show how much variation there can be just within monarchy for instance. The monarch can be elected for merit, like they do in the papacy. Or the monarch can be extremely limited in his power like the Duke of Luxembourg. The seat of the King is ideally a fourth wing of the government that keeps in check the moral developments of the country the same way the US Constitution does. That said, I will not pretend to know how much power a Sovereign should have ideally. If I knew, I would not have posted this thread. I believe so, yes. There are many arguments based in psychology, or on sentimentalism, or in human nature, all which I consider equally important, but those would be harder back up with data.

Not yet, but now that you brought it up, I just might. Is the Decline of the West ​what you suggest? Anything you would like to address about it? All well said, RichardY The reason why numbers matter is that if an ideology is evolutionarily disadvantagious, the adherents will most likely die off, whereas if said ideology supports life, then will it grow in numbers. So as an example, no matter how much Muslims massacre each other, and no matter how "civilised" Christians are, numbers don't lie. Perhaps we should reconsider the option of burning heretics, how'bout that? Answering your question on the Pope. Papal resignation in Canon Law:http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/03/can-a-pope-everresign/

A debate over the Monarchial form of government has risen between myself and another member on a different thread, but I thought this topic deserves its own thread. These are arguments for Monarchism. The vast majority of countries these days identify as some form of democracy or republic. There are however still some relics of the past left called monarchies. Even in Europe, 12 of the 51 states have some form of Monarchy. Current popular forms of government: Democracy: Representative, Direct, Deliberative, Socialism Republic: Crowned, Single Party, Capitalist, Federal, Parliamentary Monarchy: Absolute, Elective, Constitutional, Non-sovereign Communism: Authoritarian Dictatorship: Military, Authoritarian Further reading: http://www.politicalsciencedegree.com/the-five-most-common-political-systems-around-the-world/ It is granted that nations such as the USA (most successful republic in history), Greece (first democracy), Switzerland (best kind of republic), San Marino (doing rebublic since before it was cool), Poland (first constitutional republic) and India (biggest republic ever) are all very proud of their Systems. There are however countries whose glory days ended along with their monarchs such as France, Russia, Austria, Germany, Turkey, Iran... And there are those that stripped their monarchs of power, and are now in this weird state balancing between monarchy and democracy: UK, Thailand, Japan, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden... Further reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html The only way to judge which system is best is, of course, to compare them. You can use this site to compare countries by economy, human development, health, wealth... EVEN IN THE PAST: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Government/Government-type ​According to the UN Human Development Index (note that I don't find them trustworthy), 11 of the top 20 countries are officially Monarchies. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi There are also arguments for monarchy based on less measurable factors. Empires that had their basis in the Monarch have split into several weak ethnostates, making everyone unhappy. Example: Habsburg Empire. Support for the reinstation of the Emperor is strictly surpressed in all former Imperial domains, and yet 22% of Austrians proudly claim to be royalists. The Sovereign is often mistaken for being a dictator, but in truth the Christian Monarch is only the equivalent to the US Constitution, being the safeguard of the moral code of a nation, a symbol of the people, and the representative of the authority of God on earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism ​​Extra fact: All Western, except for the Napoleonic and the Orthodox crowns have their origins either in the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire, or the Roman Pontiff himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_royal_crowns

I believe we may have unjustly hijacked this thread from Donnadogsoth. But I would love to continue the discussion, as mgggb brings up some fair points. What do you think? Should I open a brand new thread regarding Monarchy, or would one of you fine gents do so?

The link puts forth a pretty lazy argument against monarchism, as it had become quite unacceptable to abuse power so much by the rennaissance era. That said, the level of power a monarch or government should possess has been an issue debated from the time of the Roman Empire, to the Magna Carta, and until this day. And I will not pretend to know the answer to this question. So I will not argue on theory, but only facts. I believe you have read too much into my words. I never said I wanted an absolute monarch. There are however different levels of power that monarchs of today hold. Absolute monarchs for example are the King of Saudi Arabia, The Pontiff, the King of Brunei... Sovereigns with only veto power are the Queen of the UK, King of Norway... Ceremonial Monarchs can be the Emperor of Japan, Duke of Luxembourg... You can look it up further here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_sovereign_monarchs My argument that pertains to the topic of the thread: First: Many confuse King with dictator. The King (at least the European one) is given by God, much like the US Constitution. A dictator takes power by force. Second: History. ​Most countries in Europe have their glory days behind them. And they lost their glory since they got their Monarchs deposed or rendered useless. Germany under the Kaiser, Austria and Hungary under the Habsburgs, France under the Bourbons, Russia under the Romanovs, Belgium under II.Leopold, Spain under the house of Castille, UK before the Queen became a clown. This is something not up for dispute... Every country in Europe that stripped their sovereigns has been worse off since. Third: ​Note that nobody said that a Monarchy is the perfect System, as there is none. I mean, even the US Constitution needed a few ammendments. But since some of us lost our kings in Europe, there is nothing for our dumb ethno-nationstates to stand on. Our governments can very well be considered illegitimate, since nobody knows what their values are, or who they are as persons for that matter. Fourth: About minorities in an Empire. ​Since the French revolution, every country that sacked their Kings was automatically fractured into tiny powerless ethnostates. Before that, there was relatively little strife between peoples, since the King was expected not to take sides. The Habsurg Emperor, for example, learned every minority language in the Empire, and made great efforts to ease the tension between ethnicities. (See CP Franz-Ferdinand). And guess who were the saboteurs? Thats right... the elected polticians who always wanted to divide the empire along ethnic lines. (sound familiar?) The era of kings was not without flaws, but was definitely better than what we have today. At least there would be no protected minorities in Europe. Acceptable perspective? Hey, Donnadogsoth! I believe the term you are looking for is: Democratic Majority

I am going to pretend you didn't mean to insult me. I understood that the cis-white male thing was sarcasm, but I think you were serious when you wrote "king". Yes, there are many monarchists among us in Europe. As you may know, 12 of the 51 Independent states of Europe are still officially at least partially monarchies, and there are still many Royalists left over in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Malta, Italy, France and Russia. So may I hear your argument?

There seems to be a very big obstacle that prevents you from understanding what I write and from responding with the same courtesy that I do to your passive aggressive tone. If you are to accuse me of making a bad argument, you had better make a good case, otherwise it is just an insult.

This is excellent advice. I do not have experience with western liberals, but my bro lives in Belgium, where he often takes up the role of the extreme liberal just to mess with their heads. It Works like magic... gets liberals to actually think.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but could you explain why you said King at first? How exactly is a KIng encouraged to hit you while you can't hit back? I am myself a monarchist, so I wish to hear your arguments.

Basically, I made a case for the initiation of force, and force being an absolutely necessary option in the real World. The "who threw the first punch?" attitude is not viable in geopolitics nor in daily life. You detect threat, you make a 2 second choice, you pull the trigger, then you can afford the luxury of hindsight, and that is how our species has survived until now. Philosophy is a very good thing, but one ought to be caruful applying it to real life. In other topic: I wonder why you didn't mention the Korean Wars. Does it not fit your narrative? How about the US presence in Taiwan? I'm quite sure those people who live there are of different opinion than yours.

There appears to be this interesting notion you seem to have that violence springs out of completely irrational and unjustifiable causes. As stated many times by philosophers, ​war is the continuation of diplomacy. ​When words fail, that is where violence begins. And I am sorry to tell you, but words... will fail. In that case however, as the americans and the swiss have been doing, we must be prepared to use force, even if it is against the government or our fellow citizens. I have had a conversation about the government with my mother not long ago, and I took to convince her that the government should not initiate force against its citizens. But as usual, she introduced me to this thing called "reality" where governments exist specifically to enforce with force. That said, how intuned the government is with its citizens, is another question. The more the agreement, the less the violence. Here I like to bring up the example of China. The CCP, as we know, is a horrible totalitarian dictatorship that regularly uses force against its people. So, have you wondered why the chinese haven't overthrown their government yet? It is because the CCP is exactly what china needs. Were it not for the CCP, China would be embroiled in a brutal civil war that would take the lives of at least a hundred million, plus it would spread to other countries. So far, the CCP has taken "only" 40 million lives. We, as westerners love our freedom, but you would be sorely mistaken to think that other cultures want that same freedom.

Would it make sense if I said that unchecked immigration is not the underlying problem, but just a symptom? Mr.Molyneux talks about this often. I would actually go further. Donald Trump, Brexit, LePen, terrorism, all of these are just symptoms. They are all the symptoms of the state of the societies of the West. My diagnosis may not match with yours, but I share the opinion of Mr.Molyneux, that only an absolutist ideology can stand up to an absolutist ideology, that formerly being Christianity. I can accept the opinion that Christianity is no longer "suitable" for the West, but the West had better come up with something better in its stead. Hey, Goldenages! Could you open a thread telling us in great detail how Austria is faring at the moment? I know they copied the fence idea off of Hungary, and so that is a good sign. Are people being redpilled? Are they considering joining the Visegrád alliance? Will we ever have a common emperor again?

That depends. What do you think the problem is?

There are currently 16 nations in the Commonwealth. The biggest are UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.. The rest are tiny islands. The ratio of Anglicans vs Catholics in each are: 20:9, 17:25, 29:39, 12:13. (numbers rounded up) Source: World Factbook As you see, none of these countries, except UK, have an Anglican majority, but rather a Catholic majority. Whatever the anglicans are doing, they are doing it wrong. Or at least the Catholics are doing it better. My apologies, Iron Horse! Your argument is not lazy, rather just completely irrelevant to the discussion. My statement was that protestantism was doomed to fail. Then you said it will not, because Anglicanism is going to be around in one form or another, because the Queen is the Head...?. Now I say that there is no proof to your claim, and I show you numbers that suggest that in countries that were supposed to be 100% Anglican (since the British founded them) Anglicans are decreasing drastically, even in comparison to Catholics. If this trend continues, there will be literally no Anglicanism in 400 years. UK itself used to be 88% Anglican in 1800, now at 20%. They have been losing a percentage point every 20 years. http://www.brin.ac.uk/2012/eighteenth-century-religious-statistics/ Similar trend applies to Australia and Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Australia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada This thread is about the war of cultures. A few million Anglicans are not a considerable fighting force.

The clash of cultures is one of my favourite topics to discuss. It is an eternal war, a sort of natural selection on the most macro level. The best part about it is that there is a lot of room for speculation and theory, but in the end the outcome is always surprising. The West, as most commonly agreed upon, is the sum of Judaism, Greece+, Rome+, and Christendom. ​The East, as we know it, is ​Buddhism+, Hinduism, Persia+, Egypt+, Japan, China+, and Islam (+) means dead The greatest contending cultures of current times are: Christianity: Includes Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox ​Islam: ​Includes Shia and Sunni ​Hinduism: ​One big clustertruck. Not going into details. Secularism: Includes ​Socialism, French-style Secularism, Asian Pragmatism Buddhism: ​Already lost the war in my opinion, so not to be discussed. Judaism: ​Harder to kill than a bag of cockroaches. Probably going to outlive everyone on the list. Seriously... How on earth did Israel win 16 wars in 70 years? So which culture is going to prevail in the end, and why? And which country will take its culture to its full glory?If you think another ideology is going to prevail, please make a detailed case. I would love to learn more. My opinion: I think protestantism is doomed to fail, as most countries that went that way turned out secular. Example: Northern Europe Orthodox christianity should eventually reunite with the Church, as demonstrated by the Copts, Assyrians, Greek Catholics... The Catholic Church has already proven resiliance by surviving the Roman Empire, and by rebuilding the West. Here to stay. Islam has been winning the war since its inception, and it is here to stay. Secularism ​has yet to take shape, since it is still too young of a culture. So far, not doing well, as demonstrated by the Soviet Union, China, Japan, France, Northern Europe. Who will win the War? For a while it puzzled me why Islam has been winning over Christendom lately. After all, the West is best, right? As I always do, I did some research in history to see what patterns show up. How could a no-name village in Latium build the greatest empire of the Ancient World? Then how could a bunch of illiterate barbaric animals beat that same empire at its height? Also, how could a beggar boy and his playmates from the middle of the steppes of build the largest empire the World had ever seen? Then how could the death of a drunk dude mean the end of that same empire? What was it that the Romans and the Mongols lost that they used to have beforehand? It was certainly not land, not technology, not manpower, not money, not natural resources, nor anything that would normally amount to something in the field of geopolitics. I think it was willpower. Math and theory cannot explain how the Romans breached the walls of Messada, nor how the Mongols breached the impenetrable wall of China. But where does this power of will come from? And who will be the one to have the will to dominate the World? What I am really curious about is: where does Islam draw its willpower from? They have no tech, no money, no overwhelming resources, nor a numerical advantage, heck they don't even have water. So how the hell are they winning? I think it is high time we learned about the winning side.

I presume you are referring to the Tillerson comment that everyone is fussing about. I don't think anything will come of North Korea anytime soon. On another note... Best movie about North Korea ever:

So here is the thing... When the next wave arrives from Turkey, how will they get into the Schengen zone? The Carpathians block the route east, the Alps block the West, and inbetween are the borderwalls kickstarted by Hungary. Nevertheless, the migrants will break through. So where exactly will that be?

Thanks for the posts! In short, I don't necessarily came here for solutions, but merely to discuss problems issues and to acquire helpful info, and if someone has a solution for anything, I shall take it. So if you say there is a solution, please shed some light on it. I think you mistake the role of Mr.Molyneux. He is a philosopher. A philosopher does not have to come up with a solution, as that it the job of politicians and scientists. In fact, it would be quite concerning if he claimed to know the answer to everything he talks about on this show.

So, basically Utah is the Poland of America. Q: Why did the Polish couple decide to have only 4 children? A: They'd read in the newspaper that one out of every five babies born in the world today is Hindu.

Hey, thanks for reading, Donnadogsoth. When I brought up the Wars, it was not as the cause, but rather as an approximate point in time where I can see the seeds of this problem of immasculation sprouting. If you have an idea of what event may have kickstarted this issue, I would love to hear it. - I think all of this, in some way, ties back to the question of totalitarianism vs libertarianism. It all depends on how much the people of a Society trust each other to run their personal lives the way they want to. - I know the title says "west", but the symptoms of immasculation are already showing in the East, for example in Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, India. Whereas to the West, (as RichardY pointed out) countries like Serbia, Russia, Bulgaria, have far yet to see this trend get as bad as it has in Sweden or Germany. What this trend correlates with very earily, is increasingly intrusive government. You can spot the trend even among US states. And to your question probably yes, as Gavin McInnes often points out, feminist politicians have basically made it illegal to flirt with a woman, as they deem it sexual harrassment. Even though most of what flirting consists of has been a natural part of the mating ritual since the beginning of time. Just as they want to outlaw perfectly consentual male communication, they want to outlaw communication between the sexes.

I thought it may be simpler for you to edit your already existing post instead of writing a new one. To be clear, I am in no way advocating for violence. I am simply describing how cultures in East Asia, particularly how Mongolians view violence in everyday life. All rules apply to men only. Catfights are unacceptable in East Asia. Rules of War of the Mongols 1. What a fair fight means: · A fair fight is essentially what we call duelling. They are consentual by all parties, and have unwritten rules. Unfair fights are by at least one party unconsentual, and at least one party does not honour the rules. Both are considered war. · A duel is communication. Primarily it is a statement that two or more parties make, claiming that they cannot coexist, but also that they would be willing to do away with each other “honourably”. Not because they respect each other, but rather because they respect themselves. · Unlike the Japanese, Mongolians use no tools or weapons. · Allies, meaning people who haven’t been offended, but support one side, are not expected to take part in the fight, unless of course the opposite side breaks a rule. (This rule does not apply in China and Korea.) · Big no-nos: Laying hands on an innocent person, insulting somebody’s mother, or hitting below belt can warrant your death even in the eyes of your allies. · What I mean by “offended”: In Eastern Asia, social harmony is paramount. Even the slightest hint of hostility may send a signal equivalent to saying that you want the other to die. The word “offence” is not the same as understood by the SJW of the West. 2. Prelude: · Violence begins where words fail... When circumstances arise in which at least one side deems there not to be room left for words. This usually happens when one party has been severely offended either by words, actions, or simple disrespectful gestures of any sort. · The severity of the offence is immediately evaluated by the offended, and discernment is made about whether or not a reaction is worth it. The ages of the parties, the statuses of the parties, potential collateral damage to persons or property are all taken into account. If the offended judges that it is worth it, then he makes the first move towards escalation. · The offended party has to make a clear statement that they have been offended. This can manifest itself through the making of a relatively loud and harsh verbal statement, and demanding compensation. · Next the supposed offender has to recognise the situation and make evaluations for himself the same way by judging if escalation is a sensible option. Is the offender admits fault, and extends an apology and a hand, then the offended is in most cases expected to accept and cease escalation.However, supposing that either the offender does not admit fault, or that the offended does not accept an apology as worthy compensation, then they are both bound to fight. 3. Cold War: · Before the first punches are thrown, parties attempt to discourage each other from fighting through display of strength and willpower, specifically by making menacing eye-contact, throwing and breaking something, being loud, or in classy ancient roman fashion, being dead silent and calm. · After the fighting parties have demonstrated how offended they are, the one best demonstrated is expected to throw the first punch. However, this honour can be handed over to the other party by a simple tap on the opponent’s head. (I believe this gesture only exists in Mongolia, and maybe Japan in another form.) 4. The fight itself: · In Mongolia, the first punch is most often a blow in the face, or if humiliation is a goal, a very big slap. As far as I know, Koreans love to start by kicking (horribly inefficient), and Russians by pushing. · After the first few punches, it is customary for the allies to step in and offer to break up the fight. By this time, both sides have ideally gotten a punch in, and also felt that of the other. If both still strongly insist on continuing, they should not be restrained, for that would not be proper. That said, in 80% of cases, this is where they end the fight · In other cases, the fight is usually over within 4 minutes. With the end result being one party utterly destroyed, or one party running away. · It is customary to end fight when someone gets injured, or if they do not get back on their feet. 5. Conclusion · When a victor emerges, supposing that the initial cause of the confrontation was not unforgivably severe, and if both sides have shown flawless honour and courage, it is customary for the victor to extend a hand and make peace. In this case, if my experience means anything, these two parties will never fight again. · If peace is not made, either because one ran away, or if in some other way shown dishonour, he will have forever dishonoured himself, and therefore, nobody will ever trust him. - Nobody who is healthy likes fighting. However, it is a fact of life that men wage war. After the world wars, the West has picked up this unorthodox notion that violence only brews violence, therefore violence must be avoided AT ALL COSTS. Basically all other cultures tolerate violence, and see it as an acceptable form of communication. Like all communication, this too has rules in every culture.

I can see your point, grithin. And I have just listened to Mr.Molyneux's last speech as well, and I found every word true. But he talked about "peace-time" situations. I would like to discuss situations that go beyond that, meaning... war. What first prompted me to write this long rant was an experience of mine at one of the refugee camps. Where we (refugee service workers) arrived to the sight of 100 newcomers (all military age men) lined up for some reason in front of the building we were supposed to go to. This was most unexpected, but it was the April of 2016, so the Second wave was already underway. We (the refugee service workers) were not well acquainted, but all the women suddenly lined up behind me as a squad of troops would behind a Tiger1 Tank, even though I was the youngest male of the team. This was because the women all recognised the situation for what it was, and they all instinctively knew that I was the only one who knew how to deal with physically dangerous situations. And I myself looked around and immediately knew that none of the men around me ever had a physical confrontation in their lives, and that I could not count on their help. Thankfully, nothing happened that day. ​Life isn't fair: nothing teaches this better than when you have to protect your little brother of 6 years from three boys of 10 when you are only 8. Humility: when when you get your a$$ kicked for having a big mouth, that is when you first learn what humility is. Cheapest course available. No mommy: When you get effectively 2 seconds to decide whether you want to get a knife in the belly or 3 broken ribs, that is when you realise how little you are allowed to whine in the real World. And you still have to figure out a way how to drag yourself to a hospital. Friendship: No friendship is tested until only the two of you stand before 6 older guys all ready to grind both of you to shreds. It's truly fascinating how much one can learn about his best friend in 2 minutes. Fragility of Human life: there is no moment like the one you experience when you stand over your beaten, pathetic, stripped of his pride, borderline weeping opponent who you were ready to murder only 5 seconds ago. Then you suddenly realise that you could just as well be in his place, because we are all pathetic, weak. Then you realise how terrible violence truly is, and next time you will do better to avoid it. Thanks for the question. The answer is simple. You. You will punish them. Because remember, there is no mommy, no government. By the time they arrive, 7 germans are already dead. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain unwritten rules of war in every Society that everybody knows. I only know how the rules in Mongolia are, but I would be happy to write them down for you in detail if you are interested. Just edit your post above to let me know.

This was the third time I tried to start a conversation on this topic, but apparently this is the only thing on FDR not open to intellectual discussion, hence subject to removal. Funny thing is that I visited the Community Guidelines multiple times to see what I did wrong. Oh well... I tried. ​​NO LONGER RELEVANT

I don't think I can agree with your premise that it was the Wars that integrated the Germans. Germans have always been the model minority. Whether they lived in Petrograd, Bohemia, Transylvania, Chile, Argentina, Pennsylvania, Volgograd, etc, they always strived to make their adopted land better, to serve their neighbours, to learn their language, and to build cities. Such was the attitude of the German diaspora best verbalised by Carlos Anwandter, the father of the German Chileans: We shall be honest and laborious Chileans as the best of them, we shall defend our adopted country joining in the ranks of our new countrymen, against any foreign oppression and with the decision and firmness of the man that defends his country, his family and his interests. Never will have the country that adopts us as its children, reason to repent of such illustrated, human and generous proceeding,... — Carlos Anwandter