[Rip in peace youtube]

1 hour ago, mgggb said:

This would be terrible imo, but inevitable given the current trajectory. I can only speak about my own experience, but it was through youtube that I was able to discover atheism, libertarianism, fdr, and many other ideological structures that make up who I am. 

But I think the real magic (for want of a better word) is that everything is aggregated together. So you can easily search for "x" and "rebuttals for x". The recommended videos feature is probably the most underrated feature of the site because it gradually exposes you to new ideas. I would have never sought out fdr just based on who I was at the time, but found it through related videos on economics.

What I highlighted is similar to how I found FDR. Initially I was researching race and racial realism, as well as the Donald Trump phenomenon back when he first declared himself (I am semi-proud to admit I've been following/on the TrumpTrain since August 2015), I saw a certain bald head which I remembered because someone shared some of his race/IQ related videos. I started watching his political stuff, and after some inertia, watched some videos on anarchism and capitalism as well as peaceful parenting and all that good stuff. 

For all it's faults YouTube remains the dominant platform for content-seekers, especially directionless or fence-sitting ones. Alternatives might arise, but it'd take some major transitions for any real competition to arise and when it does....well, I'm sure it will be interesting. 

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

10 minutes ago, Fred Black Fox said:

What do you mean he came to you? What is he asking you for?

He's like a Siamese twin--we're very close. He's asking for advice on how he should handle it and whether he should eventually deFOO.

[Which is closest to AnCap paradise?]

1 minute ago, Gavitor said:

We should be making our Ancap paradise. If jews can get their own nation why can't we?

Because guns, friends, and money brotha! 

If we want to copy the Jews, then we have to act like Jews and exhibit a strong in-group preference; be deferential to our host culture; make friends with the established powers; and chart out our long-term plan of securing a slice of Earth for our An-Capital. 

[Which is closest to AnCap paradise?]

6 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. By strength I mean militarisation. Maybe I should have used the word "readiness" instead. If america joins a war, over half of the citizenry cannot contribute, and is therefore a liability. Israel is fiirst because pretty much everyone there is ready to hold a weapon at any given time.
2. It is NOT ACCURATE, but it is the best I can do.
3. I have linked 2 sources. One of them is a very bad list, the other is a more qualitative analysis of various education systems.
4. I think that is covered in absolutist ideology. Otherwise, I don't have a way of measuing that.

Well, with this clarification, I'd say that works. Still I wouldn't discount America since most Americans don't live sheltered in the cities--although it may be necessary to segregate them by race given racial conflicts appear to be inevitable--and a significant portion that do live in ghettos/bad neighborhoods (Whites included). 

Of course I can't expect you to know everything about a country's readiness to militarize given a disaster scenario, nor "gauge accurately" how well they'd do. 

For example I'd figure (also taking from outside the list) that China, Russia, North Korea, America, and Israel are in that order the most militarily powerful countries based on a combination of size of standing army/ready draft pool, geographic barriers, efficiency within the army, and likelihood of being endowed with military geniuses (based on population size and recent war history) which ultimately becomes the deciding factor on whether a country is truly a hegemonist in the long run.

But I think most of that is irrelevant, as you've said, since the main thing I think we all care about is civil liberty and cultural strength. On the list I'd reckon Poland to be the strongest in all those factors, and I wouldn't discount their historical hardiness either. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania (corrupt as it may be), Russia (the rising star), and Japan (which I assume will resurge after its aging populace dies) would be the best options for the AnCaps. America is much more dicey because I think it is far more likely that an authoritarian regime will seize power than one with respect for civil liberties. The culture will most likely be vivified but either under a fascist or communist dictatorship, therefore...well, "for how long" would come to my mind. 

[Which is closest to AnCap paradise?]

8 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I included the data I found relevant, reading the book "practical anarchy". But all you deem relevant is important too. There is a reason only 50 thousand people live on Greenland.

Here are the stats for Russia: Top 40th in education, +50 in economic freedom, 40% in ideology, 6th in strength
The reason I did not include Russia, is that I only picked countries that don't score well in economic freedom if they excell in 2 other fields. Russia only leads in strength, and that is the least important of the criteria. Hey, I love Russia too, but then again, I am not an anarchist.
Poland is not nearly the coldest of countries I listed. In case you were wondering, Poland scores so low on strength because of their extremely powerful neighbours. Otherwise they are very strong and will only grow as Germany wavers.

Well, "strength" I question how you measured since I'd assume America would rate much more highly than 20th given its own currency is the reserve for all others, has (apparently) the most intrusive and pervasive spyware, and fields an elite (though decreasingly so and ever-more strangely expensive) army. If you based it on relative-to-neighbors hegemony, then it'd be even higher as neither Canada nor Mexico really stand a chance against an army of American draftees--let alone it's standing army. 

As for economic freedom--I know you're using the index thing, however I don't know how "accurate" it is and I have no intention of trying to disprove it. Therefore I'd take it with a bag of salt as an approximation. 

Not sure how education is rated, since homeschooling is apparently the best and therefore education (except when there are laws against homeschooling) are irrelevant. 

I think "cultural strength" should be included. I.e., whether a culture has ethnic and moral backbone in the face of adversity.

Based on the list provided I'd say Poland is looking the best as they're a rising power. If they can make it work with Russia, they could potentially return to their golden age from 500-1000 years ago. If not, they are hardy sons-of-bitches and therefore I expect them to survive pretty much anything that might come from their neighbors. 

In order to have an AnCap society, a strong foundation in nationalism (both ethnic and "civil") is required alongside a strong moral system (like say Roman Catholicism) in order to safeguard a society's cultural and intellectual growth. AnCap is closer to an ends than a means to an end, as there is so much required in order to both abolish the state and ensure the general populace and wield freedom responsibly. 

[Which is closest to AnCap paradise?]

Hey man, where's Russia? A.k.a. my backup plan if/when America has a decades-long civil war? Otherwise I'd pick Poland since they seem the most redpilled and the least likely to invite Socialism back in while Chile seems to have a creeping Socialism problem. 

Also, on the weather side (since someone mentioned it), I prefer cold climates therefore Poland beats everyone. 

Poland is/can be basically the new Germany.

[Dealing With His Mother: Overreacting Or..?]

EDIT: I am talking about myself.

I have a friend, who is really having a hard time of it. I wasn't sure what to say to him, as this incident I'm about to describe was very revealing in lots of bad ways and I don't know how to answer it. 

Friend walks out and mentions to his mother some trivia about a show she was watching. 

She asks him not to mention trivia about the show, saying it confuses her.

He asked why. She started wringing her hands and practically said she was mentally retarded. 

He denied she was retarded, and then she started getting all passive-aggressive and sarcastic.

He asked her to stop being passive aggressive with her, and she got mad demanding "please be quiet".

Then she compared him to her own mother (his grandmother), whom he grew up hearing about how she beat her and abused her and neglected her, and the mother knew that comparison always hurt the son. He gave up and came to me.

Now I'm here asking "what the Hell? What do I do? What can I say? Sounds stupid but it clearly hints to a  much larger underlying problem. I know he's been considering defooing his mother once he's able to do so financially, but I don't know..."

Help me out, anyone wise and impartial about this sort of thing. I'm not an expert. I'm a layman who studies this sort of thing and tries to help himself as best he can, but I don't know how I can handle something so close to home. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Which brings to the fundamental assumption of your argument: "gods=champions of religion". Why does this christian view of deity apply to Pagan gods?

Because I am a Christian with a universal standard for everything.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Same goes for the expansionist Romans. They were warmongers. Does that mean they were not a true civilization? 

Modern American government is warmongering. Has been since WWI. Are we not a civilization? I'd argue we're becoming less of one. Likewise when the Roman Empire/Early Republic started to stray from its principles of freedom (which unfortunately meant war, but fortunately that war actually did something good for both the conqueror and the conquered when usually no one benefits) alongside a welfare-warfare state suicide fest, it signed its own death warrant. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Also, the Nords were actually the first international tradesmen. I know that they even used the Silk Road, but if memory serves me right, I think they were the first ones to use it (but don't quote me on that one). I got that from a David Friedman interview, and according to him, the Vikings - 100 years after they became a thing - were the closest thing to a ruler-less society as we've ever had. Although he is a ((( Friedman ))) so admittedly I may have been Jewed into believing this, I need to revisit this and come back to you.

If that's true I'll have to concede that to you. I didn't realize that. 

Of course Milton Friedmon was responsible for converting Pinochet into a NatCap, so clearly there are good Jews, to take a jive. After all subversion isn't in the best interests of them all. I mean, the smarter ones realize it's self-defeating.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

How do you justify applying a Christian standard to Pagan gods?

Because I am a Christian who believes in universal ethics and therefore hold everyone who can reason to a same standard.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Why would a god subjugate himself to human standards? One could argue that if Jehovah's standards apply to Jehovah then why call himself a god?

Because otherwise he's just a fat and useless piece of shit spinning tall tales. A God is either the creator of the universe or a champion of some aspect of a religion (if not it's entirety). 

Technically speaking, depending on how the pagans defined things like love or whatever, their gods could be inherently consistent. However that just makes them degenerate. Either because they worship a hypocrite or they worship degeneracy itself knowingly. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The Pagan genesis is a (now discredited) account of history. The Pagan values that humans must abide by are pretty much the good 'ole christian ones.

Eh...I don't know so I can't say either way. Assuming you mean Christian values originated from pagans.

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I think the problem here is that you fail to take into account that Christians have a completely different conception of God. Pagan gods were neither omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent; they certainly were not creators. They were more like imperfect super-humans, and Giants were their larger superiors. Titans were actually more god-like than the gods by those standards, as they actually created stuff (e.g. Kronos created time)

True, depending on the definiton used. I'm using "champion of a belief or aspect of a religion" as a definition, and using the same standard I'd hold anyone to with it. Since gods are supposed to be superior to humans, they require higher standards. I don't blame someone who is tone deaf for being unable to play good music, while I expert Mozart's incarnation or whatever to be super great at it. 

8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The Pagan genesis is the claim that the physically weaker Gods, overpowered the Titans and Giants through sheer wits and gained control.

Strength and wisdom as a role model was the point, as opposed to a set of rules to follow. That's what I'm on board with. I'm not on board with behaving like hedonic gods.

I see what you mean now. I'm weary about using false idols are role models since, as the saying goes, "honesty is the best policy except when murderers are involved". For example, I'd rather use Jesus as an example of resisting temptation, Sima Yi as an example of deferring gratification (in his dream of seizing ultimate power and pacifying WWII-level war torn China), Richard the Lionheart or Gustavus Adolphus for bravery, Zhuge Liang for wisdom, Aristotle for reason, etc. etc. Real people make better idols because they're harder to corrupt and are...well, from a human perspective, more inspiring because if a "mere mortal" could do it then "I" could too. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

For the same reason that Africans get to behave like monkeys without consequence, but Aryans don't. 2 races, 2 standards.

Also for the same reason that men get to behave like men, but women cannot. 2 genitalia, 2 standards.

Gods get to live hedonically, not humans. If a human were to do so, they would be ostracized by their fellow tribesmen.

If 2 standards were applied to people of the same group, then a case for hypocrisy can be made. But humans are not gods. Human standards for humans, god standards for gods. I fail to see any hypocrisy here.

Because gods are the champions of their races/religions. If the Champion is a hypocrite, then what foundation does the morality have? While a double standard makes sense when talking about humans and animals, I wouldn't treat women like children but rather the same I do men. That being said I'm not expecting women (using gender) to be soldiers, laborers, etc. but I do hold them to the same moral standard as men. Likewise I hold Africans to the same moral standards I hold Aryans. Hence why I consider them mostly "savages".  If I thought they were merely evolved monkeys, I wouldn't call them savage because...well, the same reason we don't call wolves barbarians. They would be simply incapable of being any different. Theoretically races can be reconstructed through the elimination of the unfavorable and the promotion of the favorable. 

But that's a whole other conversation. Point is; gods=champions of religion, champions=must be held to the standard otherwise they're less than animals. 

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Yup. If the anti-degenerate behavior of the Nordsmen was so notable to the highly K-selected Romans, that it was noteworthy enough to pen (and ink was very expensive back then), you can bet that the Nordsmen were quite K-selected indeed. Otherwise, the reaction would have been "meh... not impressed. We can do better."

Well I didn't know that. I can't say it was enough to make them a true civilization given they most just attacked my southern neighbors and often drafted my ancestors into their hirds rather than build a free market-based empire of their own.

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

I am pro-Odin or pro-Zeus as a wise and strong archetype to look up to. But context is important, they were gods. We humans cannot see ourselves as their equals, as we cannot engage in hedonic behaviors without consequence.

Calling them gods is degrading the word "god" to effectively mean "retarded animal without agency". After all we don't try to retrain rabbits out of r-selection because it is instinctual to them. They're rabbits. gods being degenerate and hypocritical makes them ungodly and in fact quite savage and lowly. God is synonymous with virtue, and the all-consistent Jesus is a true Champion of his own ideals. 

False gods are false in part for their hypocrisy. After all if X is so great why couldn't he hold himself to his own standards? Clearly he's just an entitled brat with a myth keeping his name alive.

As fairy tales used for fun, I don't care. But as actually worshiped and taken seriously religions, Norcism and Greek paganism are disgusting and...well, counter-productive.

Jesus and the Saints make far better heroes because they're all morally consistent and pillars of strength both in body and in character. 

To be clear; my position is that pagan religions are counter-productive and hypocritical and therefore destructive to Western Civilizations. I am thinking your argument is that they're not, but rather can be used as heroes to promote certain things and that it doesn't really matter if they're hypocrites because their title somehow excludes them from responsibility. Less than an infant to whom even the smallest agency is given. 

I put that P.S. mainly for clarification as I am not in the best of minds for the while.

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Same can be said of having 2 behavioral standards depending on divinity status. It inherently implies that there is fault with a commoner engaging in hedonism, and therefore it is by the commoner standard that Aryans have comported themselves.

I'm confused. However I also have a bit of  headache. How does paganism imply that there is fault in hedonism when there is a race of beings that can be hedonistic as it pleases without consequence? Hypocrisy smells, you know. People don't take hypocrites seriously.

5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Then how do you explain the fact that the Northern Aryans who were even more radically Pagan were the more anti-promiscuous and K-selected than the Southerners? 

You mean the vikings? Compared to what? The early Roman Empire/Republic which were about as k-selected and efficient as can be? Or their later halves which were becoming r-selected thanks to a welfare-warfare state? And then there is the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, France, etc. that came after. 

Islam is very anti-degeneracy, yet many Muslims live like degenerates either secretly or publicly  in the West. A strong stance against degeneracy does not necessarily get rid of it. However I'm confused as to the point intended to be made. Are you saying you're ambivalent about religion? Or advocating for Norse paganism? Or...? 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

why is it not hypocritical for Christians to re-testify away degeneracy? 

The creation of  new testament implies there is/was fault with the first, and therefore it is by the New Testament that Christians base themselves. 

If I were a hypothetical former smoker saying "don't smoke", I wouldn't be a hypocrite because I'm no longer smoking. Also, technically speaking, Christians are entirely the New Testament because before Christ there was no Christianity. 

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Does it not make sense for pagans to have different behavioral standards when there are clearly the divine and the commoner?

Yeah because it gives the ruling class license to be self-indulgent and corrupt with "muh Odin" and "muh Venus" as an excuse. 

Paganism is degeneracy made into a religion. Christianity is virtue made into a religion because God is synonymous with virtue. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Lots of degeneracy in the Old Testament. The degeneracy was explained away via God's re-testifying in the New Testament.

Wouldn't you say that the whole "degeneracy is not for commoners" argument achieves the same purpose?

See my first argument above. Venus and Mars are divine.

Not really. They're basically humans with magic powers. 

Hypocritical religions don't affect much in the way of character; they can secure compliance in the here and now, but rarely true faith.

Christianity (which is all New Testament) is highly consistent and while it varies per sect, very much against hypocrisy and is all-in-all a very White religion.

I mean, the atheist Stefan-senpai is so Christian the only thing not making him one is his atheism. U.P.B. is basically a secular bible in terms of lessons and meaning. 

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Thank you for the knowledge bomb, I stand corrected 

Look up "Hidden Christians" to learn just how powerful the religion is and how true the Japanese Christians remained without any White/Christian influence in 400 years. It's a very powerful testament to the strength of the Christ. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

5 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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?

 

You got that backwards. The idea is beaten into them and reasoned out of them. Abuse victims are naturally communists and fascists because both are projections of bad parents "disciplining" onto a bad society. 

Capitalism comes from friendship and learning to love competition and the cooperation inherent to it. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

@Siegfried von Walheim degeneracy is present in every religion. There's got to be some way to explain human genesis, after all.

In pretty much every religion I can think of, it is usually explained away as "oh, it was ok because they were divine, but you commoners can't do those things".

Not in Christianity... Jesus is totally virtuous and God is literally godlike in his character. @Mishi2 can probably explain more for details. 

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The teachings of the top Pagan God was always strength and wisdom. They never promoted degenerate behavior. In fact, Julius Caesar duly noted that the  northern hordes shamed and ostracized promiscuous behavior.

Brotha; ever heard of Venus and Mars? Two most widely worshiped gods of Rome before Christ and one was a whore who cheated on her husband with a man young enough to be her son.

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

EDIT: Aristotle, Augustus Caesar, and Kaiser Barbarossa were Pagans were they not?

Aristotle was (probably) an atheist; Augustus might also have been an atheist or at least "different" as he wasn't big on his own pantheon and deified his adoptive father/uncle. Kaiser Barbarossa was a Christian King and Emperor. Literally "Holy Roman Kaiser". 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

for some reason, I didn't answer that question.

I agree with the values, but Jordan Peterson has also persuaded me that archetypes (an ideal figure / role model to look up to) goes a long way. For Europeans, the wise but strong leader (Odin / Zeus) held the top spot leading up to the heyday of every empire. I think that's the way to go in terms of archetype.

Err...given how degenerate the pagan gods were, I wouldn't use them as role model examples.

Richard the Lionheart; King Henry V; Kaiser Barbarossa; Gustavus Adolphus; Aristotle; Augustus Caesar; etc. make good role models because they were molded into true Christian heroes.

 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

17 hours ago, Failla86 said:

I get what you're saying, but it does seem to me that if we were to deport every muslim back to the middle east tomorrow, things would improve literally overnight.  As for root causes you could say the root cause of these problems could be a number of things. One being governments. We need smaller governments. That way there'd be no welfare state, women would rely on men again for support, which would see the rebirth of the family, an increase in our birth rates, the preservation of our culture and race, and we wouldn't need to import a ton of people from the third world. There'd also be no EU, which is a big problem.

 

Maybe the decline of Christianity as well is the problem. Most people don't have a high enough IQ to be able to come up with a "purpose" of their own to guide their life. They're not smart enough to decide for themselves what they really want out of life and what purpose to dedicate their life to (eg you could aspire to be a musician, artist, entrepreneur, philosoper etc) as these all require a certain level of critical thinking so as a result they live their lives without purpose. Before atheism Christianity and worshipping God was what the vast majority of people gravitated to. Now that's gone, what do most people aspire to do with their lives? They're clueless hence why they rely on society to tell them what to do, and they get brainwashed that they must watch sports, reality tv, get the best grades at high school, go to college, graduate and do some soul crushing job that doesn't motivate them. As a result people go around purpose less. It further destroys men because feminism has taken away men's motivation to grab resources as women now have a husband known as the welfare state to take care of them. And it destroys women as they get brainwashed that they need to go to college until they're 28 and by the time they graduate they can't find a high value man because they're all screwing the young 23 year old models and don't want anything to do with them. So society is screwed without a purpose. Like I said if Christianity was still prominent it would solve a lot of our problems.

 

Then there's socialism that has totally screwed up society.  I'm starting to think it might be the biggest problem because it's down to the borderless, stateless, egalitarian marxist trash ideology of Socialism that Christianity can't coexist in our society because the marxists love to demonise it. As Karl Marx said, religion is "the opium of the masses". Socialism also loves feminism because it completely gets rid of gender roles to the point where we have gender neutrality. Remember the cultural marxists are obsessed with equality. Then you have mass immigration which socialism also loves because it's a way to create divisions in society so that we're all easy to control. Also it loves Islam as it's ruthless and brutal and makes a great friend, one they can use to bully and intimidate the lovers of freedom into silence and submission due to the threat of violence. 

 

So yeah socialism could be the main problem here...

As far as modern problems go, I'd agree the three main roots are "Lack of Christendom; Socialism; and Statism" and would add "Republicanism" to that as well. 

[Where is the European Struggle against Islam headed?]

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

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

I know this wasn't directed at me but...by God, can I resist???? NO! 

Republicanism, statism, and human nature. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable?

WASP. I don't know what "pure" means, since that's about as subjective as can be. WASP values and WASP genes are certainly what I'm big for. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world?

Over 9000. 

However given there aren't many if any people around 9000 or over 200, I'd say about 100 will do since that combined with Free Market = natural eugenics to Godliness. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What percentage of the population has to be white?

100% + maybe a good-Jewish enclave and good East-Asian enclave here and there as "free samples" of why the West is the Best and why "you all" should copy us. Plus I really like anime and know some great Jews to compensate for the bad ones, so...heavily biased in their favor. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to?

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. And of course a free market of ideas so that the best arguments (like UPB) can win since growth is far preferable to decline, and consent to the Church versus indoctrination always worked best for us. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom?

Free Market; no/tiny state. White people 100%. Christian values (even from non-Christians like Stef); NAPy; No child abuse; etc. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West?

I think Erwin has this answer down pat. Mine is similar but I'd focus less on the bad Jews and more on the State and the Marxist parasite. Therefore, war was declared by the first to raise his hand against his child, and by Karl Marx when he was around. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

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.

Far stronger values; absolutism; abolition of republicanism; and a big wall on the coasts as well as the north and south, with a Chinese dedication to maintaining them and protecting them. 

On 7/17/2017 at 9:09 PM, Mishi2 said:

On a bit more personal note... Do halfies get to stay?

Brotha if you mean "Half-white half-Asian" or "Half-white half-Jew--if they can be called not White" then youse as good as a brotha of mine so long as we share values and you follow the NAP. 

[Debating Monarchy]

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

These are all eamples of Muslims living in Islamic society, not White or East Asian people living in a free market or something half-way there. I semi-quote to Stef's debunking of the idea in the next;

"Slavery is economically inefficient; who'd want to sign a contract stating they must be responsible for the life of someone else? That someone can't be smart or skilled, if he was he'd have found work or started his own work; therefore he must be very stupid and unskilled; therefore he must cost more than he can produce. Therefore, the idea of someone idiotically selling himself into slavery and then someone else buying it while in a society that roundly condemns slavery is ludicrous"

Context: White free market society. Semi-quote=I just boiled down what I remembered.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

Pushing the goal post much? Actual slavery, and mob rule, are two different things. You started with actual slavery, i.e. the chattel kind, and now we speak of mob stupidity (which is also an argument for totalitarianism). 

A Free Market is founded on two things: the NAP and respect for property. Therefore there cannot be a coercive body to force people to do XY or Z. Everything would be voluntary. And in societies that were closest to that (like the early Roman Empire and early Roman Republic, post-Revolutionary America, Chile) were the least examples of infringement on the individual. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

Which calls into question "how does the Pontiff gain his authority? His cardinals that voted him also?" "From God" requires God to have a way of speaking or writing it. Therefore some mortals must have conceived of the idea of a cloister of scholars being the best agency to make the Bible and lessons from it digestible for the masses, as well as provide a place for public debate and sanctuary. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

"The People" are a historically passive institution with only a minority of them active. I suppose you could say a passive "meh" is a surrendering of one's right to chose, however "the People" have never had the right to pick "none of the above". 

I never say "We" because I am only myself. I refuse to be blamed for the actions of others, or take credit for the valors of others. Only pride and shame are sensible "collective" emotions because neither necessarily require the one feeling them to be the cause of them, and neither are necessarily words of judgement and condemnation. In other words we do not, in a just society,  execute the guy living in another town because he feels shame for being the distant cousin of Ted Bundy.   

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

<The awkward moment when I don't read ahead and find that question answered 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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. 

As a Roman Catholic, I admit fault and declare the Church possible of fault because it is comprised of mortals. Nothing tangible about the church differentiates it, no special system lacking by other agencies I mean, check it from corruption.

The easy example: Pope Francisco the First (and Last). 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

Yes. I started "knowing this" when Stef pointed it out, what the Dark Ages were like. I don't know if I'll actually dig for data beyond a wikipedia article or something describing a particular country or state as I am busy working today. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Right. I can run with that definition for now.

Name me the country that has been the most just in history.

The Early American Republic (especially the WASP northern half).

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Then name me one that has been most stable,

The Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

one that has most prospered,

1860-1910 American Republic; Later Pinochet and post-Pinochet Chile. Victorian England. 

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

and one that has been a champion of progress.

Early American Republic; Pinochet's Chile; Augustus of the Roman Empire; Nobunaga Oda's realm in Japan; etc.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

Do you think the will of an absolute ruler is more dangerous, or do you think the will of a mob is?

Easily the will of the uneducated and selfish mob. Even the whims of Dong Zhuo cannot be compared to the stupid sheeple that rolled over and took it anally when Lenin and Stalin came around. Both can be dangerous, especially when stripped of all morality (like Dong Zhuo), and neither can ever be truly "safe" since they all require the initiation of force. However I'd argue a decent and just King is superior to a complacent but not degenerate mob any day. The individual is far superior to the collective.

On 7/17/2017 at 10:10 AM, Mishi2 said:

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.

We do have half-way examples, in which case I'd point to the Roman Empire from Augustus to roughly 200 A.D. A pretty free society that had a very stable economy and the best living conditions in history until America came along, and it was only destroyed when the aging Empire started debasing the currency and acting like a typical republican government. 

[Debating Monarchy]

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

I apologize, I think I forgot the context and answered the wrong question. I think you should expect more of that from me given the length of our conversation as well as the text, however I'll try to avoid that when possible.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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).

The first thing is subjective; the second thing I agree with; the third thing I am weary of but consent is obviously better than resentment. However my two points was more for what makes a good ruler than a a good establishment.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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).

Who would sell themselves into slavery? And who would be wiling to buy? And in that remote hypothetical scenario, why does it matter? What is wrong with price tags as ways of measuring the subjective value of something? This show has a price tag based on how much money it costs to run compared to how much money is made running it. Likewise you're spending money (in the form of time) by communicating with me. 

You'll have to really make a seperate post about debating the free market because this whole "muh sell muhself fo' slavery" thing just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying letting marriages be consensual will result in the occasional bad marriage. Or more precisely, a marriage in which one partner willingly chooses to be the beta of the other. Who cares? How does that affect society as a whole? Unless selling oneself is being actively promoted, the rare fool or prostitute doesn't mean anything. In fact, natural selection is against that. And the Free Market epitomizes natural selection.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

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.

Well, I haven't kept up with what they've been up to lately. I like the sound of that. I'd accept any hands in fighting the evil invaders.

However it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that it's basically a more honest government. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Why be moral you mean? Sure, but I think the "why" is obvious. Number one: mutual gain. Number two: it feels good. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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 definition of legitimate authortiy is authority granted by God? In that case, how does one acquire legitimate authority? What standard is used to measure legitimacy? 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

To be clear, acting against God is synonymous with sinning I.e. being immoral. In which case, yeah. If my parents are bad, I owe them no heed. If they're good, I ought to heed them. 

Beyond consensual relationships the only people I am"forced" to obey are criminals and government. The former can be easily avoided by moving out of the ghetto (which is harder), and the latter by moving to a laissez faire county or town (also harder, but a simple and direct solution to minimizing restrictions based on power rather than virtue).

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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?

Simple: who has the bigger empire; who has the better living conditions; and who has the more morally consistent populace. If all else is equal, then what I prefer is automatically superior to the other because...well, I consider classical music superior to rap because I like it more, not necessarily for objective reasons. My culture, race, and nation I have more objective reasons to prefer it for, plus the more subjective and minimalist reasons. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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

The third point is why I fear a reversal of the pendulum. However that's their problem, I have my own house to fix.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

"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)."\

In other words, evil in theological terms is the result of disobeying God's commandments. In that case, I concede as that explains things from my layman's perspective. After all if I say "here's the proper diet", then I can also say fatness is the result of not following my diet. I think that analogy works. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Yeah, I've been busy so I haven't been watching as much. Dennis Prager was a guest I see. When or if I watch the interview, I'll get back to you. I can't argue something I don't know after all.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

My vision of God is subjective, true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a definition of Him.

I think my point was that the Church is fallible, therefore they can be wrong about interpreting His Will. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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...

Do your homework and be horrified of your own words then. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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. 

Agreed. I have some disagreements but as  a package deal, there is no better moral package on the market. It covers most of the bases and is consistent from what I know.

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

I meant the Church can be wrong, therefore God's true will cannot be directly reached for we have only scholars' interpretations to go on. Meanwhile Stefan lives and is willing to answer questions directly. I think I meant to answer this point earlier. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

"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?

The first that comes to mind is the Holy Roman Empire of approximately the 12th century, in which vagrancy was defended, charging of interest outlawed, and guilds dominated most forms of work. Russia's enslavement of 90% of it's populace being an easy red herring. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't agree with your quote. You are going to have to define "good" for me in this context.

Good: just, progressive, stable, and prosperous. Peace and prosperity being two key words. Bad: unstable, dangerous, in a state of war, etc.

The idea is that a autocracy can make bigger pendulum swings more quickly than a republic because the whims of the ruler are law under absolute monarchies such as China, Russia, and the German Empire. However I'd argue against myself that most monarchs were so-so rather than one way or the other, and so too most republican leaders. Also, since monarchies tend to live longer than republics most of the time, they may be more stable even in the worst of times. 

4 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I noticed that links automatically condemn the posts to purgatory. So this will be as well for sure.

It says posted 4 hours ago from the time I am clicking "submit reply". Not too bad. 

[Debating Monarchy]

On 7/14/2017 at 8:13 AM, Mishi2 said:

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. 

Again it wasn't the Enlightenment, which made people ask questions, which destroyed the old system, it was its age, vulnerability, and decreasing ability to maintain itself. 

A good monarchy requires the King, Emperor, or what-have-you to have TWO simple skills: Number One; recognition of his own limitations and; Number Two: a good judge of other people's character. Once a man knows his own limitations while having the ability to accurate judge the character and general quality of others, he has the potential to be a great ruler. It's not too hard for the former to be passed down through a family, the latter however is a bit chancy. Genes help, but how long until they're diluted? However historically a hereditary monarchy with a stable and consistent system lasts for a long time without much dramatic changes occurring to it. A Kingdom or Empire built on Classical Liberalism, Stefanism, and Christendom would easily be the country that eclipses the world and grow the people that makes other ethnic groups look like mere subhuman savages by comparison. 

Quote

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.

You do not know what the Free Market is if you think any form of coercion can have "free market principles".

The main principles of the free market are; the ability to choose, the non-initiation of force, and respect for others' property. A mafia forces the productive members of society to pay tribute to it and generally gives nothing in return for it's naked theft and extortion. 

Although inherently contradictory, a government can promote the Free Market and sustain it, at the cost of its own long-term power and an increasing likelihood of its own displacement.  A mafia, which unlike an established civilized government, does not even claim to give anything in exchange for its theft, is merely a tyrannical system of oppression of the productive in favor of the parasitical.

Quote

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.

...What?

Quote

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.

He argued this world only matters because we are here to make it matter. He has argued that the benefit of being virtuous is both a gratification for the good as well as, more practically, a surer-way of getting to the ideal "American Dream" of owning the roof over one's head, a family, and stability. 

He has made many arguments both moral and practical for the benefits of being good as well as why mankind matters. Haven't you at least heard them in passing? I heard most of them just by regularly listening to his call-in-shows and listening to the orgasm of virtue that pours out of his mouth. 

You can argue UPB based only on its contents, but you can't argue Stef if you don't have a full picture of him. Or at least not without a disclaimer along the lines of "based on what I know; based on what I've heard...".

Quote

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.

We are animals or at least mammals by definition. We just hold fellow mortals to higher standards than mere "animals" because we are naturally inclined to be pro-Human.

Of course I should add a caveat that not all things natural are evil. For example; it is natural to be pro-human, pro-self, pro-family, pro-nation, etc. etc. and all these things, when utilized or formed correctly, are good both morally and practically. 

It is true, I should concede, that when coming up with a governmental or societal system, human (or more specifically racial) nature is essential to knowing if it can work. One thing worth noting is that we have never lived in a society where the majority of it citizens did not in some way regularly abuse their children. We have no way of knowing for sure what can happen once society stops abusing their children, or if good people formed a colony and started a new civilization (but we do have some idea since America was built by the superior and entrepreneurial Whites who left behind the shit Whites in an effort to build a relative Utopia. The result was a Second Roman Republic, with all the good and bad associated with it. Who knows how big an impact a budding civilization can have if it stops abusing their kids?)

Human nature is something we don't really know, because it is generally human nature + abuse that we know. Many of the greatest men in history had uniquely good childhoods for their time. Others had commonly terrible childhoods. They all fought a personal revolution however with mixed success and failure. Few or none could have known or did know how much their own childhoods shaped them, as well as how their greatness could have been shared by liberating the children. 

Quote

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.

Now you must define legitimacy. Why should I obey my parents? Why are they automatically right? Pragmatism would state "survival". Dogmatism would state "power with bullshit excuses attached". What does the Philosopher say? From what I understand, the Philosopher states that we should obey only the wise and virtuous unless death is the consequence of disobeying. 

Quote

You said no, but you still confirmed. Maybe I'm wrong. What would be "good/best" for your progeny?

I denied materialism or libertarianism being my standard for morality, but rather enlightened Christendom and truth being my standards.

Honestly I don't know for certain how to answer this simple question.

However the two answers that come to mind are "truth" and "progeny".

What is best for my progeny is a long, happy, and fruitful life. The most direct way I can give that is by providing resources as capital, being a good father to instill high moral and spiritual character, and I can impart intelligence through genetics and wisdom through knowledge. All these things equal good prospects that are very rarely spoiled. 

I want my progeny to be safe, happy, and great. Safety comes from wealth and resources. Happiness comes from virtue and resources to a lesser degree. Greatness comes from genes plus early wisdom and a strong moral and spiritual character.

Quote

What is wrong with Allahu Akbar? How does the British Empire prove that?

Allahu Ackbar is why I as a hypothetical Muslim, unless I'm 50 and done with life, can't build a future for my children and why Whitey keeps beating me and not letting me into Europe to rape and pillage (until recently because Whitey went cray-cray). 

British Empire is why I, a non-hypthetical English speaking German-American, speak English, adhere to largely Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) values in spite of being a German Catholic, and why countries as far apart as China and Japan have English as a commonly studied second language. The British Empire, followed by America, is the most successful culture and race in history in terms of spreading both its seed and its values. Genghis Khan's conquests barely lasted beyond Kublai Khan, except in the Ukraine because the Russians were pussies back then, until Ivan the Great kicked them out. 

The WASP culture is why I can drink water from a faucet instead of running to a river. The WASPs are why I, someone living in a different hemisphere with a different cultural history, speak English and have largely WASP values. The WASPs are the main champions of Capitalism and the fruits born of it, such as a living standard equal to Kings, and a strong moral backbone that only the cancer of Communism and Feminism could break. 

WASP culture is the best. As a the representative of a  conquered and assimilated people, I can safely say the British Empire was the best in history and thank them for conquering me and convincing my recent ancestors to assimilate. 

Quote

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?

I'd say "Lol *bleep* you heathen". Why should I care what someone from an inferior culture thinks of my superior culture? Unless they can beat me in living conditions, adherence to true moral principles, or in a reasoned debate, I don't give a damn what they have to say. 

Note: I am saying this realizing White civilization is currently being insane. However this insanity is more a historical anomaly than a rule. I do admire the Muslims for their moral consistency even though they are degenerate and evil. 

Quote

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.

Well I don't know any who do/did, so I can't comment. 

As an American I respect forthrightness and honesty over false compliments and unnecessary titles. I'd rather be called "King" for successfully ruling a country than "King" because my Daddy was King. I'd rather be called a "good man" or "sir" for being worthy of respect than for just being alive. 

Now mind you I greatly respect Stef and Mike. However they're open to first names and prefer first names. Therefore I refer to them casually even though I exalt them for their heroism.

Quote

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?

It has a government, creeping socialism, and from what I know, a lack of self-knowledge and attention to child abuse. 

If it didn't have the first two (or really just didn't have creeping socialism) and had SK and a commitment to fight child abuse, it could swing AnCap rather easily. It's definitely the freest country in the world. Too bad I'm not Spanish. I have to actually contribute to the fight for freedom rather than simply inherit it. 

Quote

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.

If God has free will and created evil, then he is evil. That's why I don't argue God for ethics because he defeats himself, at least because theologians haven't squared the circle yet. 

Quote

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.

I have no idea who Prager is. However morality need not God, but rather truth. Is it true? Why yes, morality is by definition true because it is universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't moral. It is easier to make claims as to why murder is immoral than why charity is moral because the principle "murder is evil" can be universalized while "charity is right" cannot be. I think.

My arguments for morality tend to be more practical and ethnic in nature than reason-based, however I never drop reason when arguing with someone I know to be reason-based. 

Quote

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.

My point is that, most likely, your vision of God differs from the guy standing next to you, because he is abstract like "the Fatherland" and "the Greater Good". 

We have a similar approximation of Him but no definitive him. Ask one priest if spanking is evil, and one will quote "spare the rod; spoil the child" (in complete ignorance of the line's meaning) while the other would say it is evil and quote Jesus saying something like "do unto me first what you would do to the weakest and littlest among you". 

This subjectivity, or ignorance, causes problems in using the abstract concept of "the Church" as an argument because although there are some common morals there are also points of disagreement and misinterpretation.

I admire UPB and Stef because he is not divided in meaning and can be easily reached for doctrinal confirmation whereas God and Jesus have long since died and/or taken a back seat. 

Quote

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.

Eh, I don't know how they're ranked but I'll take their word for it since it "sounds" right.

Historically monarchies were very economically unfree, with inane numbers of laws and taxes with selective application of them, and even outright slavery of most of the populace. Modern monarchies are freer because they evolved with the Enlightenment or were destroyed. 

A simple line: "A good autocracy trumps a good democracy; and a bad autocracy is worse than a bad democracy" surmises my belief on the efficacy of monarchism versus republicanism. In order to maximize the good and limit the bad, a government must be tiny and the people must be moral. I just think a good autocracy is the only way to effect a revolution in the short term, while a restricted government is the best way to sustain the new society in the long term.

Quote

I noticed that too. Maybe we are just being so clean. Have you made that suggestion to him via email?

I haven't. I think we just got lucky.

Although I cursed a few times in this reply, therefore I assume it will be subject to moderation.

[Debating Monarchy]

41 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Theoretically it's very possible. If a government is defined as a centralization of force, then a decentralization of force would be AnCap. According to Practical Anarchy by the Stefpai, the police and military would be privatized as the essentials of national defense. Historically mercenaries, the Swiss Guard in particular, were the best soldiers around while the poor grunts dragged off to fight some stranger's war were typically not the best until early modern warfare equalized the capabilities of individual soldiers, until modern warfare which is starting to resemble and favor the copying of post-Roman pre-Early Modern individualism in combat and warfare. 

If I, a Marshal of some sort, overthrew the government of say, Greenland, and then ordered the creation of competing police and military insurances, then encouraged the populace to subscribe to their police and army of choice, I would have effectively made myself obsolete. Of course I'd have to be careful lest I risk the chance of one or more of these groups attempting a coup to seize power since I'd be "forcing freedom", which may be a bad plan to make AnCap happen but it's the first that came to mind as I typed. 

Hence I think the best thing until then is a laissez faire (I wish right clicking would tell me how to spell that correctly) monarchy/minarchy with little in the way of private regulation and much in the way of promotion of virtue would be required first. 

Quote

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.

Yeah, I think you're right. However East Asians are also easy to control as a minority, for the most part. Homogeneity is better since it takes out the inherent ethnic and racial tensions. However if something apocalyptic happens to we White folks, it's up to the East Asians to carry the standard as the last civilization group on the planet.  

Quote

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.

Which is why I "adjusted" UPB somewhat to be Christian since moral absolutism is a must for morality to really exist. Although Stefan is most definitely a moral absolutist, his arguments don't have the "sensational weight" that most religions have. Which isn't a bad thing for intellectuals seeking to learn, but the plebs need an idol. Even a false idol trumps no idol. 

Quote

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.

The most natural state is me going outside beating people up for resources and raping and pillaging like a dog. Child abuse is natural; slavery is natural; even ritualistic barbarism is natural. Nature does not equal good. Taking care of our bodies and not dismembering them is actually unnatural since human beings are naturally inclined to follow the will of the tribe, no matter how irrational it may be. Our values trump whatever is best for us in terms of our behavior. We'd sacrifice life and limb for a group of people that'd wish us to die if we thought it moral, no matter how stupid (and actually evil) it may be. 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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?

Authority= legal power then? In which case we aren't arguing morals but pragmatism. In which case the freer a society is the more pragmatic the outcomes.

Quote

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?

Er... 

No. My standards for morality is whatever is best for my progeny. The Free Market and AnCap as well as libertarianism and minarchism are what is best for for my family and bloodline. The mammalian will to provide is balanced with a strong adherence to the moral principles of truth, loyalty, love, and intelligence. Having said that not everything I mentioned is a moral principle. However since you asked what I claim as my moral standard, "Love" and "Progeny" would be them then. Intelligence and loyalty being the two "aesthetic" characteristics I very strongly prefer. 

Quote

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.

My reply is "Allahu Ackbar" and "British Empire." The first kills the point of Islam and the second proved White Christian values are indeed the best. 

Quote

A keyword you have used is FREEDOM. Unfortunately, I still need some proof as to why "freedom" is objectively good according to you.

America, 1900: Super nice place to live. Running water. Plumbing. Food. Lack of coercive central authority and lack of totalitarianism. Historically the freest country and time in history, second maybe to the "Wild" West (which was as wild as your average church or business office).

 Africa, anytime: a land of barbarism and carnage where life is both an orgy and a torture fest. No natively created running water or even food storage. Basically a land of animals. About as free as North Korea or the Soviet Union divided by a million. Everyone is someone else's slave at all times. It's basically Hell. 

Roman Empire, 50 A.D. Safe, peaceful, clean water, food, etc. etc. Second or Third freest country and time in all history, rivaled by America (until recently), Britain (until recently), and the first half of the Roman Republic.

North Korea: Starving, no privacy, concentration camps, etc. ec. Literally the definition of "unfree". 

Quote

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.

Technically Jews invented most of that. Jews also invented (or more precisely contributed greatly) to Capitalism and the liberation of countries like Chile. A pretty powerful and amazing race. 

But either way the Japanese exemplified, especially in the 50's-2000's, Americanism with an Asian flavor in terms of greatness. China is doing pretty well all things considered. Nowhere near as unfree or hellish as it used to be. Starting to look up to. 

Quote

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.

Well most of us on the forum call him "Stef" and his callers do too. Similarly for Mike. Therefore I joined in and did it to. I was wondering maybe you're being overly formal because it's an Asian thing.

Quote

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?

Well...taking a stab at it. 

0=AnCap

10=Post-Pinochet Chile

20=Early Roman Republic/Early America (1800's)

30=Roman Empire/1900's Britain/Pinochet Chile

40=Modern Russia.

50=China/America today

60=Modern Japan

70=Modern Britain/Germany

80=Modern Sweden

90=Hitler's Germany/Civil War Era America

100=North Korea/Soviet Union

I know it's rough and my ignorance as to exactly how "free" some countries like modern Russia and Japan are makes this foggy, but I'd argue we're freer than most countries in history but much less free than back when we were a growing empire.

 

Quote

Humans were created by God as well. That doesn't mean we are moral. Just as we corrupted ourselves, we have corrupted monarchy.

Then by that logic, God is corrupt and therefore the Devil. Or at least mortal. However that makes the Devil, who represents relativism and hedonism and general modern decadence, not that far from God then. However I assume you didn't mean to imply that, and as a Roman Catholic interested in moral absolutism, I would't preach that. However I don't pull out the G-card in general, because unless I'm giving a public speech or argument where sophistry is actually a useful tool,because pulling the G-card leads to a lot of confusion and subjectivity. 

For example I don't know what God means for you as compared to  me, nor how important He is to you relative to me, nor what you perceive to be His will etc. etc.  Which is why I'm trying (at least now I'm trying) to avoid using God as an argument because of my theological ignorance and the inherent subjectivity of an internalized father figure.

Quote

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. 

I somewhat agree. I know AnCap won't work today because White people need to regrow a spine first. AnCap can only work once a significant amount of White people have grown a moral backbone and a moral absolutists in what I'd loosely call a "Stefanist-branch of Roman Catholicism".  I.e., UPB and NAP + Bible= Evolution. 

Quote

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.

Yes, that's true. However there's a lot of elbow room with monarchism because it doesn't inherently specify an economic or legal system to live under, merely the existence of a hereditary dictator. 

Notice the most civilized and powerful races in the world do what they can to restrict the power of the State and the individual's ability to do harm unto others. Freedom to Bare Arms was put into the American constitution in order to prevent groups of political thugs or mafias from seizing power, and mitigating the danger posed by any existing or unknown future gangs. 

EDIT: I'm surprised I haven't need moderation pending in any of these posts. I think Stefpai may have taken my suggestion of totally abolishing the moderation system and leaving it to the reputation system to filter crap. 

Well, I feel special now... <3

[Debating Monarchy]

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

The viability of AnCap, which has never occurred in full, can be gauged based on how well societies do when they're close to it (like early America or the early Roman Republic and to some degree the Roman Kingdom and early Roman Empire) compared to far from it (like Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Communist China). Clearly trends show the less government there is, the better. White people and East Asian people in particular are shown to do better when there is less government control over people and more individualist control, i.e., controlling oneself, taking accountability for one's failures, suffering the consequences of bad decisions, ostracism, and stronger communal spirit through a common morality (which is universal by definition) and respect for private property.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Which begs the existence of God and the interventionism of God as well. Since God has given man free will and has largely taken a backseat to watch rather than intervene, man must act as if there was no God and therefore, like children grown up, hold each other accountable. 

Since there is no tangible way to determine whether God has truly given anyone divine right, divine right must not be something that can be given but acquired. Hypothetically speaking someone who lives morally and champions morality has the divine right because, if I define "divine right" as great moral authority (i.e. expertise), then a champion of virtue is by definition someone with the divine right. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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. 

In which case why do we speak of God? I cannot argue religion since I don't know enough, but I'd refer to Stef's arguments against the consistency of God's portrayal as to why we, the moral and intellectual leaders of society, cannot be lead by a ghost whose form had been robbed. However in spite of that I find the Christ itself to be very much worth heeding for its proven success in building and preserving White civilization. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

If that's the case then logically we should become Muslims since they are closest in behavior to our most ancient of ancestors. Nature is a poor argument for morality because nature is immoral. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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...

You do in terms of "why" the King should care? Beyond keeping the law enforced and fair, the King should care not for the commoner as much as he cares for the noble because the nobleman is by definition noble while the commoner is by definition common. 

Of course I'm not arguing an aristocracy should persecute the common, but rather realize they're common and treasure the rare and high quality for compared to the top 10% of humanity the bottom 90% are just fertilizer. 

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

What I found interesting is how learning about genetics just confirms the "age old bias" or whatever the Left would call it that is actually true. 

I'd argue nobility in the truest since could rise again in a state of freedom, without robbers and looters centralizing power.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Which can be dangerous as not every superior man has the inferior's best interests at heart, therefore the inferior man must be very aware of the superior man's history and record before employing him for whatever he might need. 

My mind is numbing a bit, forgive me if what I have said or start to say lacks sense in some way, and be sure to ask me for clarification since I have a strong suspicion I'm making less sense as a type.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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. 

Depends on the definition of authority. If I define authority as "possessing proven expertise" then it is not in and of itself moral, but it can be moral. 

Unearned authority would theoretically be someone claiming authority by compensating for their lack of authority with the power of a gun.

My parents are mine simply because they had sex. Having sex is not a granter of authority, but rather responsibility. My parents have as much authority over me as their records and histories would imply, and have great responsibility for me as I did not choose to be born nor to grow up in the conditions that I did. 

If you define authority as merely power, then we are no longer arguing morality but mere Machiavellianism.  

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

Consensus is not a guarantee for morality, agreed. My argument was that with competing champions, every other champion will have to redouble their efforts to live in what they consider to be moral as a way of proving the viability of their causes. I think ideally the Church would be the sanctuary for champions to debate publicly and the media a microphone and record keeper to ensure the champions are truly living by their own standards. Whether or not their lifestyles are sustainable, how much happiness they bring, and how productive they are, in a state of freedom being the ultimate test.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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?

Better than most, obviously. 

I am not arguing against the Church, but rather arguing to amend the Church for the Church has a history of occasionally straying from Godliness. The Church being defined both in terms of what the popular (by its members) interpretations of doctrine as well as its cloth-wearing members.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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. 

Well, if all goes well I'll prove it. Most likely though it'll never happen without first improving the quality of an ethnically homogeneous White or East Asian country's childhood and imparting Christian and UPB ethics upon them. Then it's practically a guarantee. However the first part is the truly challenging part.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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. 

Why do you call him "Mr. Molyneux"? I know you don't mean to antagonize, but I have noticed only critics refer to him formally whereas sympathizers and adherents address him casually. 

It's a tangent but it's the first thing that came to my mind.

I said earleir the best evidence for the success of AnCap is how the freer a society is the more productive it is. Compare China post-Mao (90's onwards) compared to during-Mao for a huge demonstration of how many lives freedom can save.

8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

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.

If God is moral, then divine monarchy must also be moral. If it isn't, then morality cannot be an argument for monarchism. 

My best argument for monarchism and aristocracy is ability and efficiency. I theorize the first AnCap society will arise from a laissez faire and morally enlightened and Christian Kingdom or Empire because its founding principles will be respect for the high quality and disdain for the degenerate and deadbeat.

[Debating Monarchy]

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

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

An interesting article. There were some points I mean to argue, I'll copy and paste them in bubbles.

Quote

“A Man is a Democrat because he himself wants to rule, a man is a Monarchist because he wants to be ruled well”

An interesting claim, but I don't know how true it is. Personally, I want to rule as well as be ruled well. I want to rule myself and the affects of my actions, and delegate matters I am unfamiliar or ignorant of to experts. Therefore, I wish to both rule and be ruled. My question is always how to single out the right people for the right jobs. I think the answer is "the Free Market". 

 

Quote

 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.

My biggest problem with the article is a lack of definition for authority. Depending on what is meant is what is really being said. If authority is a sensation or illusion given to he perceived to be the judge, jury, and executioner then mobs have authority. If authority is someone with known/demonstrated expertise in a given area, then a mob, unless comprised of experts about a specific subject, cannot have authority. However authority does not guarantee truth. A hundred scientists can say the Earth is flat and be proven true in everything else they've claimed/argued/proven, and still be wrong here. 

Therefore, authority is useful for delegating responsibilities to individuals with proven records in what they do because no man can be a true 100% fountain of expertise polymath.  

 

Quote

Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God.

Although I am a Christian, I won't accept this as proof if the definition of "authority" is expertise, unless by God what is meant is genes and the result and series of happenings since God's creation of the universe.

Quote

Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. God himself assures us of the natural truth we can so easily find evident in our natural logic. In nature, we see one strong leader emerge among groups of animals. The lion, the so-called king of the jungle, do not operate among democratic groups. Among every group, weak and strong, an alpha male emerges, and different groupings of animals keep generally to different areas. We see a natural case for nationalism, and taking pride in where one happens to be born and reside. What we see in the natural world clearly reflects the supernatural world. God as creator and King of the universe, and see among the ranks of heaven a hierarchy of supernatural beings and men arrayed under the headship of God. The most natural state of man is indeed monarchy.

Analogies aren't arguments. They can make an argument more digestible but the only argument I can find for monarchy here is "because it is natural". And I agree, one man or woman being in charge based on expertise is natural to civilization. So too, unfortunately, is beta resentment. 

Quote

 

The Role of the King:

 he King and the royal family have a noble responsibility to be an example to the whole nation. They are to, at all times, act with dignity and respect. In the very traditional notion of monarchy, the royal family has an obligation to strive to the ideal of family life. Everything in right order, the way they live their lives should be an example to the whole nation of decorum and proper function.

As a moral example, I agree. A leader ought exemplify his own spoken and unspoken beliefs and act as a champion to others.

Quote

The king is also the protector of the commons.

What is the commons? The singularly talented and unspectacular? Why? Why ought the King protect the "commons"? What are the commons in danger from and what are they owed? Why does the King owe him? How can the King cure their dangers?

Quote

...The Kaiser had a huge role in holding the nation together, as citizens of all backgrounds could look to him, and see the nation. The king and the royal family have a responsibility to be a lead example of secular morality, and refrain from public disorderliness, so that all citizens may look to them, and model their own lives off that of the monarchy.

I agree here that an Imperial family and a homogeneous culture (ideally based on a mix of Christendom, UPB, and NAP) can bridge the gaps made by race and ethnicity, to some extent, namely the extent to which ethnic and racial groups are capable of being assimilated with one another. 

A good argument as compared to a senate which would fuel the pre-existing fires of racial and ethnic and cultural differences.  

Quote

 

Nobility: One supremely unfortunate consequence of the enlightenment is the hatred espoused for even the idea that there can be distinctions among men, such as nobility, yet it is instinctive of every man to recognize they exist.

I don't know if the Enlightenment is responsible for that since, from what I understand, the principle of the Enlightenment is that merit and skill are to be valued far and above background and pedigree. Which I'd generally agree with when I can refer to someone's past and merits as a means of judging their quality. This does not necessarily hurt nobility unless the nobility is an institution promoting and maintaining the unskilled by artificially elevating them...

Which was sometimes the case. I'd argue "true nobility" can only be created, sustained, and fairly taken away by the Free Market. 

Quote

... As the king serves as the father figure to the nation, one should consider the nobility to be an older brother. As one does not only look to the father, but older siblings for guidance end example, one should also look to the nobility.

Ehh... superior individuals ought to be respected and allowed to handle the matters in which they're skilled. However unless the culture is homogeneous and the society's branches mutually appreciative, I can't say I agree with this notion. However I do think the Free Market plus Christianity = Productivity and respect for others as individuals.

Quote

... The monarchy has a sacred duty to protect the Church and enable its salvific mission to all mankind, and the Church in return consecrates the monarch, and endows his rule with a certain authority otherwise much lacking.

How does a church grant authority based on the reasoning that authority is expertise? Moral authority? 

Quote

The Church, as with all men, has a strict set of laws governing the actions of the monarch. He cannot order unjust actions without the condemnation of the Church, and is bound to act within certain parameters or risk losing support from the church, and his throne.

Possibly. However the Church cannot have a monopoly on morality as the Church is comprised of fallible mortals, therefore other groups (like FDR and the alternative media for example) ought compete as granters of moral authority. 

Quote

In the past year, there has been an active campaign to deny that there are even differences between men and women, seeking the active abolition of gender and gender roles. In the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, she tells us that the last battles of satan will be over marriage and the family.

Words to note in these troubled times of ours'.

Quote

Monarchy and fatherhood go hand in hand in strengthening the nation.

Fatherhood definitely. Monarchy maybe. Monarchy can only work in the long term if only the most able and best judges of character are in power. Nobility could potentially, as experts in whatever various things they do, alongside the moral authority granted by the Church, the media, celebrities, etc. (note I am not suggesting all celebrities and media should be moral authority, however they do hold moral authority over some people, and I think if "alternative media" or "alternative celebrities" weren't persecuted by the establishment then a true competition among celebrities could be had for who holds true moral authority and therefore who actually matters in terms of judgement), could most certainly work.

And the best way to create that is with an AnCap Free Market society since the most able always before the most powerful and productive in a state of freedom. 

[Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

4: Degenerates normalize degeneracy and remove the social costs of degenerate behavior.

There's that too. I think I said "by not aborting the children of rape victims, rape becomes a viable method of reproduction for the worst in our society as well as, in the case of war, conquest for our enemies. 

[Why not do the obvious... in regards to marriage]

On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

Man can not live on bread alone though right?(pretty much me, meat popsicle)

In Spain you're not classified as a man unless you're married, chico instead (like in GTA3). Property goes to the wife and is divided among the children.

I'd say the same thing, really. I can't call a man a man unless he's married with children. And there is some truth to that biologically as having kids changes men, generally for the better. 

On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

 

Yeah, have heard stories of people offering to buy the daughters and spouses of people on holiday in the Middle East(in broad daylight) don't know if it still goes on. Though could always trade in cows instead, 1 for 1 or something.

Ay yiy yiy. Glad I'm not a Muslim. I hate feminism but I doubt Islam would be much better, even for me the man because the poor kids would be abused and the cycle of insanity would continue. 

On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

Could always do what Eddie Murphy suggested, go out to Africa and find some bush bitch butt naked on a Zebra. Or could trade western girls with princess complexes for hardier eastern European ones.

Lol and I just saw that skit, like, a couple days ago...

I'd rather just improve my own individual quality and aim to both attract and acquire the top 1% of females by being the top 1% of males. It's not hard to predict most people based on their history and character; we as men aren't really taking a chance by fishing for women--so long as we stay away from blenders and black holes, neither of which are hard to spot.