M.2

Well, I wouldn't say they are restricted to India, but they are probably all genetically Subcontinental. I wonder why Hinduism never made it into high IQ countries, whereas Buddhism did. I mean they started in the same place at roughly the same time, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_by_country#/media/File:Hinduism_percent_population_in_each_nation_World_Map_Hindu_data_by_Pew_Research.svg Does Tatarstan count as northern Europe? It is longitudinally above Germany. Also, Christianity and Judaism started ther too. How does that defeat my argument? China is not the only country above 105. South Korea is majority christian, and they score at 106. Ironically? Marginal doctrine? I give up. I think you have only met protestants. If a Chinese catholic and a Subsaharan catholic met, you can be sure that they will use the same terminology and same concepts that are used in Rome when they discuss religion. We even have a universal language, Latin, in case there are language complications. The beauty of the Universal Church is such. This is an interesting subject you bring up, and I think it is very relevant to the topic of the thread. See of this makes sense to you. You are right, I don't feel loyalty to a "race". When I watch a movie about Mongols warring against Poles, When I watch a movie about Hungarians warring against Germans, I root for the Germans. When I watch a movie about Germans besieging the Vatican, I root for the Vatican. I think you get the picture. My values are not rooted in race, but in ideology. Quite frankly, I think Europe should die if they surrender their faith, but as you see, they don't need my encouragements. It's quite possible. Take the example of the World Catholic Youth Day, when over 2 million youths gather in one place from all over the world every few years. From there comes no scandal, no reports of rape, no molestation. Simply because we catholics have managed to adhere to the UPB of our own, all while the clever atheists are still figuring out whether they want communism or nazism. I don't understand the question. I am usually ready to murder everyone I meet before they prove their morality. Let me try to answer anyway... If I had to pick, I would rather leave my toys with a random arab christian person than a random aryan atheist person. Supposing that religion is NOT a factor, then I would without question want to belong to the Jews. I mean, how is this even a competition? The Jews are going to have all the Aryans wiped out anyway, and it is only a matter of time before they destroy Islam as well. You should join us, meet a nice jewish girl, put on the funny cap, move to Israel. After all, you are a racial relativist, right? Plus, your offspring would be most grateful.

Islam is a predominant religion only in areas where the average IQ is 80-85. Same goes for Hinduism. Atheism is only prevailing in a few countries where the IQ is above 98. Christianity just as prevalent in countries where the IQ is above 105 and where it is below 65. Sorry, for some reason I can't post a second peicture no matter what I do. I trust you know where to find your religions.

I can get behind that. Although some monarchs are in fact considered deities, like the Emperor of Japan. Asians are normally more prudent folk when it comes to speech directed at somebody of higher status. To them, a given person is surely of higher status because they know better, so "why would a lowlife like my criticise the King" is the attitude. It's as if I started railing against Mr.Molyneux for being a terrible presenter, all without having done anything myself. In other cases, which is not limited to Asia. heads of state are regarded as representatives of the nation, therefore any word against them is a word against the nation itself. In Poland, for instance, it is illegal to criticise foreign heads of state because a wrong word against say... Putin could lead to a diplomatic incident, and nobody wants that. That is the saddest argument against monarchy I have ever come across on the internet.

Right. I followed your link, and I think I get your definition now. So if I understand correctly, the more Aryan there is in a person, the better. Aryans definitely spoke Proto-Indo-European, so I don't see how that is a misnomer. Is it fair to say that you think UPB can only be achieved by the Aryans? Or do you think that there is no UPB? According to you, it was the Jews who convinced the Aryans to start surrendering their identity, correct? Do you think if Germany had not completely lost the war, and had maybe created a sizeable Aryan state, then the world would be a much better place today? Maybe even the Muslim problem would have been solved? This is not a bait question. I personally would have preferred that Germany won the war. I have a great-grandfather who died at the Battle of Stalingrad, and another who died during the Siege of Budapest, both against the Soviets. Sorry to say that I do live among "your people", and they seem to like me quite a bit. I don't really have a "folk" or a "kind" nor a "people", but I agree that without shared universal values, races are incompatible. There is however an ideological frame within which everyone has a place. That is the Universal Church. Christianity has been the single successful ideology that has incorporated all races from all over the globe. You can be Japanese, Chinese, Philipino, Aryan, Semitic, Subsaharan, Mestizo, low IQ, high IQ, and you can feel at home, provided that you leave your racial... baggage at the door. Maybe my grandfather counts as Aryan, because he was German Hungarian. But there is a grandmother of mine who has some Jewish heritage. I'm pretty sure we can't be friends. So by the way... How are you contributing in our struggle against Islam?

5. I added the official standard as well. Just copied a few definitions from wikipedia. The Aryan race was a racial grouping commonly used in the period of the late 19th century to the mid-20th century to describe peoples of European and Western Asian heritage.[1] It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the putative Caucasian race.[2] The Aryan race is an idea that was formed in the 19th and early 20th century. The term "Aryan" comes from the name of a supposed group of people in ancient Persia and India, who spoke an Indo-European language. It has been used to describe people of Iranian, Indian and European decent, but later it was used more for Germanic peoples because of new ideas about the Aryans. 1. I usually don't look Aryan. Especially when I'm tired. 2. I guess I act Aryan. At least I seem to be able to share a living space with them. 3. I identify with Aryans, except when I'm railing against them. 4. I don't know what that means. Supposing that fighting Islam counts, then I have probably done more than anyone on the forums. 5. By this definition, I am at the most 10% Aryan. Well, at least now we know we can't be friends.

I was bringing up examples of voluntary slavery. China, if you want an east asian example, still has slavery. Christians, Buddhists, FalunGong practicioners are interned, sent to labour camps and harvested for their organs. Also, North Koreans are regularly "loaned" to Russia and China for slave work, which is a great opportunity for the Koreans, because they get more bread there, so they go willingly, even though their freedoms are much more restricted there. If slavery is really so economically inefficient, then why do we have laws against it? You westerners automatically assume than anyone in the bondage of slavery was put there against their will. That is because you have gotten unfamiliar with the practice. More often than not, people willingly surrender their will to others. This is why I brought up the welfare state and the voting away of rights as an example. We are en-route to slavery ourselves. The first Pope got his authority from Christ himself, and everyone else got their authority from the clergy. Who were presumably appointed by the Pope, therefore having the authority. I wonder why this misconception is so widespread that cloisters were places where monks conspired to feed the masses with pre-digested information. I think the lie has been spread by people who have never been to a mass before, because every day on multiple occasions, we literally open the Bible and read from it, then explain the official doctrine. "But nobody spoke Latin" bullcrap. Everyone always understood latin, because latin was the official language of the Roman empire, and it was the Lingua Franka for many more centuries. Even I understand Latin, despite not having studied it. The people are made up of individuals. It takes millions of individual decisions to move the masses. And yes, "meh" is also a decision and an action. When we catholics enter a confessional, we don't only confess the actions, but the inactions. According to our tradition, the promise of Jesus Christ is a differentiating factor. But if you don't believe in that stuff, there is an argument that the Church, despite being under siege since its founding, has survived to this day against all odds, triumphing against the greatest of empires. I will argue on Papa Francesco when you bring me specific quotes along with the context. I also would like if you opened a separate thread, because its a bit off-topic. No offence; I think your knowledge on historical countries and economies is too limited for a deep-diving discussion. Anyway, we already have a thread fo "best country in world", so feel free to take the conversation there. I didn't know monarchs were allowed to murder and steal. The terms "murder" and "steal" have a connotation to them that they go against some sort of legal or moral standard. I suppose you mean to claim that monarchs are legally allowed to traverse moral rules. In that case, I would have to ask you for specific examples. Quite frankly, I don't think that should be the case, and it is beyond me why you believe I do. What's wrong with that?

You haven't really specified those standards. What is your duck like? I am also of the opinion that the government is here to stay for a while. Do I understand correctly that the greatest existential threat to the West is Islam? Or is it the Jews? Genetically, Jews are pretty much Europeans. And the Portuguese and the Maltese are pretty much genetically Arabic. So I see a few problems with your thinking. But now I'm a bit confused. Do you think it is ideology that is the problem, or is it genes? Or is it all correlated? I know that Soros is a Jew, even though his genes are more Hungarian, German and probably Slavic than Jew by now, but is Ben Shapiro in the same camp as he is? I think that Jews have had a hard time assimilating into Europe because of their absolutist ideology, not because of their genetics. And I also think so about Muslims. Egyptian Copts have become completely arabised by now, yet you don't see their incompatibilty when they move to the west. On the other side, there are the Bosnians and the Albanians who are absolutely European, yet simply cannot go a decade without a good old ethnic cleansing. Depends which side of the bed I wake up on. What are your criteria? 1. I completely agree, but there is a reason they got here in the first place, and that was not weak border security. 2. Governments grow because people surrender their freedoms. A tragedy for sure, yet still not the root cause. 3. Maybe not christianity necessarily, but an absolutist ideology is deffinitely what we are missing. The few times the West could actually give the Muslims a good whooping was under the symbol of the cross. But again, christianity is dwindling for a reason, and I wonder why. 4. Socialism is an idea that every healthy 13 year old dreams of creating. Then of course they grow up and get a job, and they realise that socialism would be the worst thing ever. What was the reason for some of these people not getting to grow up, and not having the idea beaten out of them?

I think even if we wiped out Islam to the last man, our problems would not end. The welfare state is only a symptom, the Islamic invasion is only a symptom, the cultural masochism is also just a symptom. What would you say the root cause is? i How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable? What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world? What percentage of the population has to be white? What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to? What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom? When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West? What needs to change so that we can be ready the next time they return? Because obviously they have been catching us off-guard lately. On a bit more personal note... Do halfies get to stay?

Why should a person do what is wrong, immoral or anlawful? Are you referring to the monarch? I don't believe a monarch is allowed to do wrong. If so, please point out where exactly that is the case. I see. Well, when I say "monarch", I usually mean the office of monarch, not the person. Sure, the person of the monarch is important too, but if that becomes too important, then we traverse into the territory of cult of personality. A good system, be it democracy or autocracy, should theoretically be functional regardless of the personality of the ruler. It is not theoretical at all, but very real and current. There are still millions of slaves all over the world. Most choose slavery because the alternative would be starvation. As an example, there are hundreds of thousands of slaves in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE right now, who have willingly rooted themselves up from their homes, usually India, Bangladesh or Indonesia, just to get to work as slaves in the Middle-East. As an example closer to home, Europeans are systematically voting away their freedoms willingly. In my home country, it is illegal not to send your child to kindergarten, it is illegal not to have social security, and it is illegal not to work (something, anything). This is already very much like slavery to me, and we voted for it. People have sold their souls on the not-so-free market. Imagine what they would do on the ultimate free market. Sure. Every royal crown, except the Napoleonic crowns, of Europe can be traced back to either the Holy Roman Crown, or some other crown that was granted by the Pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. Therefore, he has the authority to bestow authority. Legitimacy requires 3 things: The will of God, the will of the People, and the will of other monarchs, who were presumably crowned legitimately. If either one of these is failing, then, the legitimacy can be called into question. It does not automatically render a monarch illegitimate, but it is henceforth questionable. There is an argument to be made that government is in fact consensual. "We" voted for everything that we now call government. The "russian people" overthrew their Tsar, and they set up the soviet union. Without their consent, Lenin could have done nothing. I understand your stance, but how are your standards the "good" standards. When I ask you "what is good", you reply "consent, conditions, size...", and when I ask you why they are good, you say "I like it more". Do you have a standard of UPB, accoring to which your opinion is correct. Its fine if you don't, its just that it is hard to talk about good and bad when I don't know your grounds. This has been a point of conflict for hundreds of years, so I don't think we are going to resolve this here and now. We believe that no, the Church doesn't get things wrong. There are very very tight checks and balances in place in order to prevent doctrinal corruption. So is your statement that monarchies before the enlightenment were much less economically free than countries generally are today? I'm going to have to dig into some data before I can argue any further. I hope you will do the same. Right. I can run with that definition for now. Name me the country that has been the most just in history. Then name me one that has been most stable, one that has most prospered, and one that has been a champion of progress. Do you think the will of an absolute ruler is more dangerous, or do you think the will of a mob is? I would ask you how stable the free market is, but since we haven't really had a good example of a market-run society, I'll not.

I don't like the enlightenment, but in my sentence you responded to, I was talking about the enlightenment only as a reference point for cumpolsory military service. A good monarchy requires 3 things. A legitimate crown (can be an empty crown), an absolutist value system (christianity would be swell), and the consent of the people (counsel or parliament). This is actually my biggest problem with the ultimate free market. In a completely free market, humans would have a price tag on them as well. A completely free market should not have any limits, not even moral ones. If I want to sell myself into slavery, who has the right to stop me? This is how the mafia operates. To them, "coercion" is just a matter of negotiation. Yes they do promise many things in exchange for their theft (taxes). They offer security and order. Believe it or not, they actually deliver. At least the Mafia have been fighting the Migrant Wave, unlike their govenment. Yeah, I thought you haven't gone down that rabbit hole either. Thats ok, many people don't. Here is an exercise for you. I want you to answer the following question: "Be moral", by asking only the question "why?". Keep repeating it until you get a real answer, or hit a brick wall. I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, so if you are as wll, contact me via priate message. The definition was in the article: “Can two people give a person a right that they themselves do not possess?”. The obvious answer is always no. I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. The fact of life is that you will obey someone. Somebody will exercise their will over you. Unless they act against God, your parents are your best bet. My issue is that you have only stated opinions. They think you are inferior, and you think they are inferior. Only one of you can be right. Do you think there is a way to know who is right? Chile is the only sizeable country in the world where abortion is completely illegal. I think thats a good case for their attitude towards child abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile Their government is in essence constitutionally banned from interfering in the economy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile I guess you are right about socialism in Chile. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html "Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own wellbeing, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. August, De Civ. Dei, xii)." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZpjdHTWsfM Looks like you haven't been watching all of FDR lately. Let's get back to this after you have done your homework. My vision of God is subjective, true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a definition of Him. Spanking is not forbidden by the Church. That means that any priest you ask will only have an opinion. I personally, see violence as a form of communication. Not nice communication, but sometimes very necessary. Children can be pretty evil sometimes. And sometimes, they don't understand language. But again, I promised we would return to this one once I have done my homework... The Church is my moral dictator. I cannot argue without bringing it up. I think it was the Church that totally nailed UPB. That is why it is the most widespread faith in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "easily reached". Everything the Church ever taught is on the internet, unchanged for centuries, whereas he has been shifting around a lot, especially lately. "Very economically unfree" is the most subjective thing I ever read from you. Well, duh. But compared to what? Also, I don't agree that they were more unfree in comparison to modern monarchies. Do you think the Spain of 1400 was more unfree than the one of today? Or which specific country are you referring to? I don't agree with your quote. You are going to have to define "good" for me in this context. I noticed that links automatically condemn the posts to purgatory. So this will be as well for sure.

I got an idea. Here is how you do it in 10 easy steps: 1. Put on a shirt. (A coat too if its cold or raining) 2. Put on pants. 3. Put on shoes. 4. Grab a flashlight. 5. Go out for a 1 hour walk at 10pm. 6. Take a friend with you if you have one. 7. Ask him to bring a friend too. 8. Take turns going out at different hours. 9. If you see anything out of place, point your flashlight at it. 10. See what happens. I made a habit of doing this during the 2015 migrant crisis. I even upgraded my flashlight. Kind of hilarious to see people get so nervous when you cast blinding rays of light at them. Reminds me of cockroaches to be honest.

1. Why not just abolish government benefits altogether? 2. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F930 "Vous ne devez pas être déjà marié, que ce soit au regard de la loi française ou d'une loi étrangère." As you see, no, officially, polygamy is not recognised. Nor are sharia courts by the way. But also, unofficial polygamy is not punishable by law. 3. http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_4.html The french government only supports families with children, and does not support someone for merely having a wife. Don't you think you are far too focused on the symptoms, and not the underlying problem?

Congrats. I think we are both monarchists. As you mentioned, armies in the old days did not answer to a faceless state, but to the one who owned them... the monarch, or actually, to his noblemen. It is not until the oh so overrated "enlightenment" that the poor peasants were dragged off to fight the war of the centralised faceless state. There is a reason for why the organised crime system is so effective, notably in Japan, China, Russia, Italy. They operate on eclusively free market principles. What they have however, their leadership is also a form of government. Only it resembles more of a monarchy than a democracy. The fact is that Mr.Molyneux cannot claim to know what UPB is. His system of determining what UPB is, is already flawed. Because he does a pretty poor job at defining WHY something is preferable. Why should we be good? So that we can live a good life? Why should we be living a good life? What is a good life? Why does it matter? None of what we do on this planet really matters, since none of this will exist in a few billion years. I think we are in agreement. Allof what you listed is natural, since that is what we would expect from an animal. But we are not animals, so we do not aim for the natural, but the supernatural. Monarchy vs Democracy, for example, is not a matter of good vs bad, rather a case of bad vs less bad. Being more natural is a positive point in this case. Not legal power. Legitimate power. Here is an analogy: If as a child, you were were obliged by law to go to school, but your parents did not want to send you, then the police are legally right to arrest your parents, but your parents are morally right in not letting you go to school, quite simply because they are your parents. You said no, but you still confirmed. Maybe I'm wrong. What would be "good/best" for your progeny? What is wrong with Allahu Akbar? How does the British Empire prove that? Don't get me wrong. I agree those are good things. But what would you say to a guy from Quatar who thinks your country is abhorrent with all its freedoms? The more towards the east you go, the more formal things will get. The unspoken rule that Germanics (hungarians included) go by, is that you can only be informal if permitted by the elders, or by the women. Quite frankly, I have a bit of a disgust for Europeans who go all "heeeeeyyyy guuuuys" when speaking English. But this is just culture. I think that is quite accurate. There is the freedom index and the HDI that you can check out for the relevant data. So what is wrong with chile? What needs to change for it to become full on Ancap? Humans have free will. Every creature that was granted free will has a choice to follow good or bad. This doesn't make God bad. But this is deep theology. I think we need not discuss this here. I understand your point on the G-card. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer that you cannot have moral certainty wothout God. If we leave himout of the equation, then we are just discussing preference. So I disagree wholeheartedly; the pulling of the G-card is exactly what destroys relativism and subjectivity. I'm sure you have heard of Dennis Prager. He makes these points quite often. Not too well, but he does an ok job. The protestant revolution has made God subject to personal preference. That is pretty much why we cannot agree. Everything that I am saying is exactly what the Church teaches. I am not pulling anything out of my arse. There is an argument to be made that monarchy has always provided a freer economy than any other system. Now of course, we do not compare France of today to the Manchu empire of 1912. If however we compare within regions and between contemporary nations, then the top 10 countries within a region include more monarchies that democracies. Rankings by economic freedom: Freest countries in the World in order: Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UAE, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, Chile, UK. 4/10. (NZ and Canada are debatable, being part of commonwealth)Freest countries in the Middle-East: UAE, Jordan, Georgia, Quatar, Armenia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Lebanon. 6/10 Freest countries in Western Europe: Switzerland, Ireland, UK, Finland, Malta, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Germany, Netherlands. 6/10. (Malta is debatable, being part of commonwealth) Freest countries in East Asia: Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Brunei, Philippines. 5/10. (Singapore and Kazakhstan are dictatorships, Taiwan debatable) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World Please note that my ranking would be totally different. But this was the most objective data I could find. It is not gospel, but it is an argument. I noticed that too. Maybe we are just being so clean. Have you made that suggestion to him via email?

If I understand correctly, Ancap means No Government. If that is so, it is simply impossible. There is no such thing as a society without government, and there never was. Now of course, we can argue about HOW MUCH government there should be. I think the math is simple. If you can't police yourself, somebody else will. That exactly why we need the church, whose job it is to tell us how to do that without force. Mr.Molyneux rides a lot on the fact that East-Asians are smart, but he never mentions that we demand much more government than whites do. And that is because of the lack of an absolutist ideology. That said, countries where christianity has begun to blossom, people have become much more critical of government. See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia... in that order. The prevalence of Faith is invertly correlated to the prevalence of the State. The existence of God is another debate, but Monarchy works with pagan gods as well. It is about having an absolutist ideology to govern the state and the people. That ideology can be Islam, Christianity, or... just those two I guess. Sure, we can go into that debate, but I think the article does a good job at explaining divine right. This is something well worth discussing. Our God is goodness itself. He is what we compare everything to, he is the basis of our absolutist ideology. Whether Mr.Molyneux knows it or not, ABSOLUTISM itself is a Judeo-Christian invention. You cannot find absolutism anywhere else, not in China, not in Japan, nowhere. The only ones that came close to discovering Absolutism without christian help are the ancient greeks. And for you, modern western people, a relativistic world is completely unimaginable. Your brains are literally incapable of thinking without moral absolutes. I however, can, and I understand why Christianity and Islam are spreading like wildfire across the world. Without God, specifically the judeo-christian god, your "moral leaders" have nothing but opinions. Yes, I have read his book on UPB. Ha...good one. Genital dismemberment is natural indeed. On a serious note, no, natural is not evil, nor is it good. Natural is neutral. We, however, are not natural, but we are meant to be good. Islam however, is unnatural. As for monarchy, as a form of government, it is a necessary evil for our evil world. The only reason it is preferable to communism, is because it is far MORE NATURAL. It is still unnatural, but it is closer to zero than democracy is. This again goes back to morality. The answer is: because that is his job. Why should he do his job? Because God told him to. Sure, if monarchy were simply a raw dictatorship, then he doesn't have to care. There is no authority over him. Sure, everything is dangerous. We are all rotten evil. Theoretically, the noble has received his title for being a moral champion, so theoretically, he should be trustworthy. I think we actually agree. Just gotta clean up our terms. Authority is the right that was given to us by God. Ideally, he gives authority to those that have the expertise. Though expertise does not automatically grant you authority. If, by some chance an incompetent person is given authority, that is illegitimate authority, but it is still authority, because he was given that. An illegitimate authority can be disobeyed without violating any moral rules. Makes sense? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are making the pragmatist materialist argument. Which is that if it helps me live, it must be good/better. You say that viability, productivity, happiness, sustainability are the gold standards for your morality, right? You see, it is a very good argument, and it is the basis for the entire UPB theory. There is only one small problem. I can destroy the entire argument with a single word: ISLAM. If those are your standards, then Islam itself should be the UPB, since they are winning the war of cultures. A keyword you have used is FREEDOM. Unfortunately, I still need some proof as to why "freedom" is objectively good according to you. I would not put all my money on genetics if I were you. It was whites that invented communism, fascism, political correctness, and worst of all, globalism. Then E-Asians perfected all of them. He introduces himself "this is Stefan Molyneux" in his videos. And since he hasn't offered me to call him "Stef", I cannot do so. Contrastly, I call Mike Michael, because that is how he signs his letters. Is there a scale you could use to point out where all of these systems are? I understand AnCap is at zero, and theoretical communism is at 100. Where exactly is America now? Humans were created by God as well. That doesn't mean we are moral. Just as we corrupted ourselves, we have corrupted monarchy. Theoretically yes, theocratic monarchy is completely moral, but it simply cannot be moral because of our fallen nature. It does however, at least. work. I agree with you on that argument. AnCap could be argued to be moral, but since it is not in accordance with nature, it cannot work. When you are talking about subjects of AnCap, you are not talking about humans, or at least not the humans that exist as of now. As a matter of fact, monarchy has been proven to work in every single culture in the world. Whereas Ancap, even theoretical Ancap, can only work under very specific conditions that have yet to align.

Thanks for reading, Kaiser. I just found this article, and found it to be an excellent summary of what monarchy is meant to be. I actually learned a bit myself. The quote says that democracy has its basis on the arrogant will of man to rule himself. This definitely true. Democracy literally means the rule of the masses. I understand the popuar form of government in the FDR community is free-market anarcho-capitalism. However, I remain pretty much unconvinced about its viability as a system. People will be free on the free market, therefore, they will also sell their freedoms. Then you don't have a free market anymore. As far as history goes, Free-Market Anarcho-Capitalism has a worse viability record than communism. Authority, as the Church defines it, comes from God. The Monarch is chosen by God, and therefore he has authority. Authority is the divine right to tell other people what to do, and he can of course relay his authority through the government. Authority comes from morality, which means you are very much obliged to act morally. I don't think you would disagree. The moral authority for christians is God, in fact, he is morality in person. Being natural is as good of an argument as you can get. Whenever you create a system, it is bound to regress in time back to monarchy, and not necessarily to the good kind. The Roman Republic became the Empire, all the African democracies are effectively dictatorships now, the American Experiment is failing, as power is becoming more and more centralised, and all the Western democracies will follow suite if they don't get their act together. There is only one explanation to this phenomenon: We are naturally inclined to want monarchy/dictatorship. Somebody will eventually grasp all the power. If it is a person sanctioned by God, you have a monarchy. If not, you have a dictatorship. In British vernacular, the Commons is the everyday Joe. The King has an obligation, as the head of the government and representative of God, to protect the people from inner and outer threats. I don't think I need to explain any further... People much smarter than us have been debating this topic for ages, and I myself still haven't completely made up my mind. Actually, you are right about nobility. Originally, all nobles received their titles by demonstrating remarkable moral character. Hence the title: noble. What the text is refering to is the lie we have been sold that all men are equal (they mean the same). That is simply not true. Sme men are better than others, and they deserve to be recognised. And argument can also be made that their offspring may inherit that recognition because... genetics. People in the old days knew not of genetics, but they knew that personality and traits are hereditary. I think you are reading something into the text. It says simply that you ought to look to people who are better than you for guidance. The church is the presence of the Body of Christ on earth, thus the Church represents God himself, and thus has the right to grant authority to whom it chooses. Authority is not expertise. Your parents are not your parents because they are very good people. They are your parents and authority because God gave them to you. Now, whether or not an authority is moral or not is another question. This is the age-old debate we are having with our protestant brothers. Morality is not a matter of competition. You don't get to vote on what is moral and what isnt. By our faith, the Christ gave the Church to us, and promised that the Church will never be led astray. This of course refers to dogma and doctrine, and not discipline. I know this is a very poor argument, so I will state my personal opinion. If there is such a thing as UPB, then people are surely looking for it. How do we know who is the best at looking for it? You look at their records, their arguments, their history. The problem here is that Stephism is only a few years old, and seems to be in flux quite a bit. The church however has been a solid dictator of morality for 2000 years, and that is pretty compelling if you think about it. I know Mr.Molyneux has said that the Church has been pretty inconistent as well, but he is wrong. No matter what doctrine you look up, you are bound to find a solid basis for it in the documents that were written 2000 years ago. If you were given 2000 years to work on an argument, how good is your argument likely to be? By the time Ancap Free Market has had a few hundred years to prove itself, I'm sure we will know which system is better. I am going to take a swing at Mr.Molyneux here. That is something I rarely do, but here goes. Mr.Molyneux is a philosopher; his job is to think about morality, and he does that very well. Ancap and free market rule may be the best and most moral system on paper, but it has never worked yet. And I doubt it ever will, because that model does not take into calculation that we are living in a very broken world. Monarchy is not meant to be the most moral system ever. When the man started demanding a king, God was not happy about it. But humans have free will, so God sanctioned the establishment of Theocratic Monarchy. He did not sanction any other system, because there is no other system in which he can be the moral authority.

http://www.thecounterrevolution.org/2017/07/a-simple-argument-for-monarchy.html

Hi, RichardY ! Yes, Total War is my favourite genre, and my favourite game is also Medieval2, however I mod it heavily with Stainless Steel. It's been a while since I played, but it's truly the best game ever. I have found, to my great surprise, that gamers were some of the most agreeable people on the internet, which is quite contrary to popular belief. There is a lot we could learn from their forums. Trolling is indeed very hard to police, yet it is essentially non-existent on gaming forums, quite simply because gamers are the kings of trolling themselves, and therefore know not to feed the trolls. I never wanted to believe that D.D. was being malicious. But even if I did believe so, I still would have given him a lot of chances to conduct a civilised discussion, which I think we eventually came to do. It's all good, D.D. . At least from my part. I never thought you had bad intentions. Your donator status made it undisputable that you are very much committed to reason and evidence. If I have made a mistake in my arguments, don't hesitate to point it out. If I may, I think you and I have served a good example of what to do and not to do in order to create a better place for interaction on the forums. So in my opinion, we were very much on topic.

Thanks for the clarifications, Failla86 In my opinion, this will be the repeating of the fall of the Roman Empire. More specifically, the Western Roman Empire. Because the Eastern Europeans have proven much more resistent to Multikultur, Globalism, and Islam. Therefore, they will survive for much longer. Whereas the Western European countries will be embroiled in civil war one by one. There may be a few exceptions, like Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, but the western part of the continent will not exist in the form it is in today. At the end of everything however, I think Islam will be sent back to the desert, just as it was during the Reconquista and the Balkan wars. The Pope will convert the newly formed states, and the loop will start over again. If I were you, I would be much less reliant on the "ethnic europeans". There are many very european nations today that are not so ethnically european. The Portuguese, the Andalusians, the Maltese are all genetically closer to Arabs than to Germans. Then there are the Finnish and the Hungarians whose ethnicity is also debatable, but I doubt you would argue against their european identity. What makes us European is not our ethnicity, but our ideology. What I want to see is another video on the Fall of the Roman Empire, but this time on the Eastern Roman Empire, and how they handled the barbarian hordes. That should give us an idea of what is going to happen.

Hi, Failla! I am so glad you tossed up this question. Speculating about culture and geopolitics is my favourite passtime. I would first like to get on the same page as you, so I have a few questions. 1. Your question presupposes that there is a "European" struggle against "Islam". What do you define as Europe and European? What do you define as Islam and Muslim? 2. You also presuppose that we all agree that there is a "struggle" against Islam. As far as I noticed, half of the continent are not only not struggling against Islam, but they are actively inviting them in. So how did you come to the conclusion that there is a struggle? And if there is a struggle, who specifically is struggling? 3. You bring up the term "civil war". When would you consider the civil war to have begun? Some would think, as I do, that the civil war has already begun in some places. Just take a look at Hamburg, Brussels, Kaukasia, the rhetoric of Turkey and of Poland. 4. What do you mean by "our politicians"? Do you mean those of your country, or that of the EU, or that of broader Europe? 5. Would you entertain the possibility that the continent will splinter and go on their separate various paths, or do you think we are far too interconnected, and that we will all have the same destiny?

You are making it extremely hard for my not to be passive-aggressive right now. I was going to reply: "Oh. Look who is not done yet". Does that count as passive aggressive behaviour? Why do you assume that I was paraphrasing you in order to frame you as a bully? That was not my intention with that. I merely wanted to let you understand how I perceive our most fruitless discussion. In case you haven't realised, my initial post was not a CLAIM, but a QUESTION to the members of the forums. You can check the 2 days claim by seeing when my post went up, and comparing it the time of the notification you received of my post. That simple really. No, I did not write to Michael. I am pretty sure he has better things to do. I have had an email exchange with him back in December, and that was when I realised that my trivial issues are not worth his time. If it gets to the point where I am very bothered by this system, I will leave. Again... I posted the questions in order to get confirmation of whether or not my speculations were true. This very conversation is the lengthy process, at the end of which I was hoping you could give me some helpful info. So far you have only confirmed one thing for me: that indeed posts are being delayed. I am going to ignore your definition of ethnicity, as you probably would as well, since you did not post your source. Japanese is an ethnic group, Chinese is an ethnic group, but they are not the same ethnicity. They do however belong to the same East-Asian culture. I said "culture" very deliberately. Ethnicity is unrelated here in my opinion. But of course, we can disagree on what ethnicity is. Anthropologists still have not agreed on a definition. http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-ethnicity-and-culture What is this "winning" thing? I keep noticing that you think we are having a competitive debate. I am not using two different definitions, I am using mine. In fact, you do have more power, as you can take away reputation points from me, while I cannot do vice versa. In my very humble opinion, bullying is part of life, just as bigotry and relativism is as well. I often visit gaming forums, which are very loosely regulated, and they are still the most civilised places on the internet. See here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/ It is not necessary to police the forums in order to keep the forums from going down the path of trolling and unsubstanciated claims. All you need to do is ignore people really. Yes, you do make me uncomfortable, and you damn well should be able to. Meanwhile, others should be able to speak out against you, or downvote you, or even bully you for all I care. Maybe. Could it be that philosophy is generally unpleasant? See what I did there? Another speculation. Fear my unsubstanciated guesses! One last thing: If you doubt my data sourcing abilities, please check out my other posts. Here, I'll give you my favourite one (I sourced the ship out of this topic, you're gonna love it): https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48784-the-truth-about-the-migrant-crisis-and-hungary/#comment-443921

Geopolitics is probably one of the most complex and dynamic of the sciences, which is why I think we are going to have to go see what happened in in earlier situations like this in order to guess what might happen. I think the presentation on the Fall of the Roman Empire smashed the nail on the head not only because Mr.Molyneux highlighted how earily familiar the political state of the west is, but also because exactly like today, the eastern part of civilisation has a stark resemlance to the old Eastern Roman Empire, which did not fall for another 1000 years. If this parallel is true, and if we count the Expansion of the EU (2004AD) as the establishment of the Roman Empire (27BC), then we are actually right around the equivalent of the 10BC mark. The policies align pretty accurately, the state of the superstate is also similar in its level of integrity. The good news is that the time has not yet come for the fecal matter to really hit the fan. The bad news is that this is only the beginning of the end. 490 years to go. So if the example of the two roman empires is any clue, then we can speculate that it will get worse, then much worse, and then the Roman Pontiff will work out a way to convert the barbarians, and only then will it start getting better. If we are talking about only the next 20 years, then I think the civil war option is the most likely. But you know, 20 years is a very short time in the history of cultures.

I can see the points you make, and I appreciate the input. Of course, I am simplifying, which I love doing. I believe that someone who fulfilled all of these bulletpoints cannot go wrong. And it all starts with the individual. We very often use the word "society", but like all group-nouns, it does little to solve anything. You cannot "change society" so to speak, the way that goes is by changing individuals one by one, or rather, prompting them to change themselves. I think we completely agree on the second part of your post. Perhaps, if you disagree with what I deem "best western man", you can give us some of your criteria. In my opinion, and in the opinion of any absolutist, WE MUST PROACTIVELY TELL other people how to live before they make the mistakes we made. Values and traditions are passed on verbally. And once again, these are not my original thoughts, these are the thoughts of the wiser people in my life.

1. I was paraphrasing. Apparently both of us misunderstood each other quite a bit. This was what I was highlighting in this sentence which you deemed passive aggression: There aren't many people on the forums with whom we constantly speak past each other, but you are definitely one of them. 2. This is exactly my point. Many people do not have the patience to wait 2 days to see their posts go up. Which could be why they are leaving. Clearly, I myself am not THAT bothered by it, and therefore I am still here. 3. It was not ethnicity that I was referring to, but it was culture. You do not bully the same way throughout cultures, and I just explained to you what bullying is where I grew up... hence my use of the word (which I think fits the webster definition, since you happen to be a gold donator in this given case.) I think you haven't had enough cause and evidence to question my integrity, not that I was excused from it. But seeing that you still keep misunderstanding me, I shall drop this issue from here. My manners dictated to finish the discussion, but I genuinely hope this is the last time we encounter each other on the forums, as conversing with you was a was not a pleasant experience.

Right. Here is the problem: You are trying to have a debate, while I am trying to have a conversation. From my view, our Conversation looks like this: M: I have had a personal experience, and think others may have had it too. Has anyone else had this? DD: Your experience is not proven true. M: Yeah, I know, that is the point. DD: You have to prove it! M: I cannot. DD: You are terrrible at arguing and you are what makes this forum hell for the original folk. - My first point was that the forums may be too regulated. Which is substantiated by the fact that your posts and mine on this very thread take 10 hours to 2 days to getting through. Or they do not get through at all. You can check the dates. meetjoeblack has attested to this phenomenon already. - My second thought was that maybe people create an uneasy environment by bullying people because of the supposed bad arguments they make. You yourself are the proof to this point, as you keep arguing with me while I have no interest in doing so over something that is not even up for debate. My personal experiences. You call into question my integrity, my debating abilities, you accuse me of sophistry and passive aggression. I assume you would not agree with my definition of bullying either, but what you are doing, namely questioning my integrity, is the worst type of bullying that you could possibly carry out on an East-Asian. I am very offended in the truest sense of the word. - Thirdly, I made a point about the upgrade to the forums. And for some reason you felt like you had to question me on the reasons for my speculation. All questions which I was delighted to reply to until you began reminding me that all of my speculations are merely speculations. To me it seems like you set out to make a point when you replied to my post, and you made that point regardless of what I said. I mean... How do you manage to see malice even behind my apologies? What is the matter with you? Even if I admit to a mistake, you call that passive-aggression?

In which eposode did this Gabor Mate appear? His name is hungarian, so that makes me curious.