(10-16-2015 07:21 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I'd like to rebut this because of how central and important this issue is. Some people have mentioned their sense of hopelessness and powerlessness over the situation their homelands are in. This comes from confusion - they don't know exactly what the root cause is, or what routes there are out of the disaster, if any.

I've tried to raise the issue of constitution multiple times, but no-one seems interested. They can't see how this is ultimately the central question, rather than some dry academic discussion with no practical merit.

Rather, everyone likes to talk about 'bad guys'. The 'evil elites', these superhuman devils who are enacting their dastardly plan upon the world. This seems to be a common position here, and it's Roosh's position, that everything is being done by and to benefit some 'evil elites', and that the question stops there.

That certainly isn't where the question ends. The world has always had 'elites' and it has always had 'evil people'. There is always a "top 1%". To blame it on some group that will always, by definition exist, is a conscious act of accepting helplessness and procrastination. The question is why, in this historical case, is the elite engaged in sadomasochistic destruction of those below them?

And the answer is: there a fundamental, constitutional reasons for such an elite being selected over other types. And the common constitutional reason is unambiguously democracy.

It is a false dichotomy that you either have a democracy or a dictatorship. It's also a meaningless statement that 'if RVF controlled democratic institutions there would be no problem'. Democracy doesn't empower reasonable, moral men, or encourage the 'right mindset' in its citizens, any more than McDonald's makes people fit and healthy. Don't say that a giraffe could play piano "if we can just find it a better teacher".

The best constitution is the mixed constitution. This is what Britain had prior to 1911, including during the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and having the largest empire the world had ever seen.

The mixed constitution of a unitary state has a king, an aristocratic noble class, and democratic representation, all with equal power. All three must agree to new laws, and all three participate in administration in their own ways. It also has independent learned judges of the law.

Show me one state with a king and nobles who are deliberately destroying their countries? Why would monarchs or aristocrats deliberately fuck up their prized territory and homes respectively?

The king passes his territory on to his sons. Like any father, he has a vested genetic interest in maintaining the value of the assets he will pass on. He has a tendency not to "trash the house", both because he has to live there until he dies, and because his son will be left with it. His power is also final, so there is no need for him to play degenerative ideological divide and conquer, or to disrupt natural social structures to gain, maintain, or boost power.

The nobles have a similar vested hereditary interest. They are also far more numerous than the singular king, in addition to being independently wealthy. They are thus 'unlobbyable', in that swaying enough of them for immediate financial gain, at the expense of the 'long term capital value of the country', is nigh on impossible. They also act as a check on an incompetent or mad king, either by just killing him or threatening to do so if he starts being a tyrant (origin of the Magna Carta), or just due to their resistance and lack of cooperation (they tend to occupy the highest military posts etc). They also buffer the singular king from the numerous electorate. Their power is also final.

Finally the democratic representatives safeguard the remainder of the population (and traditionally only heads of houses vote) from abuse of power from the two other classes, and provide nation-wide input into the law making and administration processes.

It is beyond doubt that pure democracy, which has only been widespread for less than a century has been a failed experiment. The only question is how can the other two pillars of the mixed constitution be restored, while there are still countries left to be salvaged.

Well I hope some people read this. I've posted this before, and no-one seems to give a shit about it, even though they're not submitting a root-cause and plausible solution themselves. I know it's easier just to talk about evil scumbags and conspiracies and how "we're fucked", but I don't think it's a wholesome or agentic response.

I welcome any rebuttal to the idea of a restoration of the traditional European constitution.

TL;DR Stop just being angry instead of going to the effort of studying the nature of the problem, which would indicate the solutions that you may one day be forced to participate in, in the flesh and on the ground.

Earlier in the thread, I said that liberalism and liberal democracy are the root of the problem. However, I didn't explain my point as clearly as you did.

I also stated that everyone interested in the root of the decline in Western civilization should check Brett Steven's blog at http://www.amerika.org. He does a great job at explaining the many reasons why liberal democracy and liberalism fail. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into to much detail into what should replace our current system of government and simply says that an aristocracy/monarchy should replace it without much justification. As a result, I appreciated your brief analysis on the aristocracy and monarchy since it highlighted some of the strengths of the aristocracy and monarchy, which I wasn't unaware of.

Anyhow, I'm glad that you made this post. Recently, this thread has become overwhelming defeatist and pessimistic and your post has brought back some logic and reason.

I'll just want to add a few other points to counter defeatism in this thread.

1. The elites are not a highly secretive group of people who lay in the shadows of the public eye. I can read them about them at Forbes.
2. The elites are not an homogenous group with similar goals and objectives. All of them are looking out for their own interests.
3. The elites are not an infallible omniscient group of people who can perfectly predict the future. They are human too and are prone to error.
4. History is decided by a small minority with a strong will. Hoping that the majority of Europeans take action is an unrealistic expectation and will lead to disappointment and frustration. However, it is possible for a small movement to emerge and change the direction in which we are going.
5. The collapse of Europe will have unpredictable long-term global consequences. Thinking that you will escape the consequences of the collapse of Europe in another continent is wishful thinking at best.
   

If this is true, then things will get much much worse fast by next year:



An open border with Turkey might effectively mean open borders with the entire Middle East.

(10-16-2015 05:23 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  If this is true, then things will get much much worse fast by next year:



An open border with Turkey might effectively mean open borders with the entire Middle East.

Albanians, Bosnians, Moldovans can go to Europe visa free, but Turks who have a GDP per capita twice these guys can't?

Contrary to the popular belief not many people want to go Europe in Turkey, the ones that do are the ones that will come to smoke weed for a week in Amsterdam then leave. A lot of Turkish immigrants in Germany who hold German passports are returning home. Istanbul is one of the most visited cities in the world, it is a major financial hub GDP per capita in Istanbul exceeds $22k. Europe isnt that attractive as it was once for us, the gap is closing economically. I as a Turk don't want Turkey in the EU, not controlling your visa policy, monetary policy is the same as losing your independance. Many people share the same views as me. People are well aware now that joining the EU has more burdens than advantages. The only country which actually produces something significant in the EU is Germany. EU is bound to collapse.

(10-16-2015 06:25 PM)Turkish Republican Wrote:  Contrary to the popular belief not many people want to go Europe in Turkey, the ones that do are the ones that will come to smoke weed for a week in Amsterdam then leave. A lot of Turkish immigrants in Germany who hold German passports are returning home.

This will be a like a Turkish sausage trebuchet aimed at Europe.

This supposed Turkish visa issue ... Reportedly it's a demand by Turkey in order to stop the flow of refugees pouring into Europe from their side. But something looks awfully odd. This is "too simple". Though obviously turkish are more welcomed than other sorts of muslims from Afghanistan/Pakistan and the like.

(10-16-2015 02:22 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:21 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:23 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  While I'm on the topic, I also want to weigh in against the idea that democracy is the problem, which has been mentioned here a few times. Democracy is not the problem. Dictatorship is likewise not the solution. Democracy is as good/bad as the people within the country. A benevolent dictator also isn't worth much if the general citizen is a fat leftist phaggot. The key has always been control of the media, educational, and cultural/entertainment institutions. They are what shape the character of a nation. If RVFers controlled those institutions in the US and Europe, you can bet that democracy would work just fine, as the general citizen would have the right mindset and would execute his democratic duties in the appropriate way.

I'd like to rebut this because of how central and important this issue is. Some people have mentioned their sense of hopelessness and powerlessness over the situation their homelands are in. This comes from confusion - they don't know exactly what the root cause is, or what routes there are out of the disaster, if any.

I've tried to raise the issue of constitution multiple times, but no-one seems interested. They can't see how this is ultimately the central question, rather than some dry academic discussion with no practical merit.

Rather, everyone likes to talk about 'bad guys'. The 'evil elites', these superhuman devils who are enacting their dastardly plan upon the world. This seems to be a common position here, and it's Roosh's position, that everything is being done by and to benefit some 'evil elites', and that the question stops there.

That certainly isn't where the question ends. The world has always had 'elites' and it has always had 'evil people'. There is always a "top 1%". To blame it on some group that will always, by definition exist, is a conscious act of accepting helplessness and procrastination. The question is why, in this historical case, is the elite engaged in sadomasochistic destruction of those below them?

And the answer is: there a fundamental, constitutional reasons for such an elite being selected over other types. And the common constitutional reason is unambiguously democracy.

It is a false dichotomy that you either have a democracy or a dictatorship. It's also a meaningless statement that 'if RVF controlled democratic institutions there would be no problem'. Democracy doesn't empower reasonable, moral men, or encourage the 'right mindset' in its citizens, any more than McDonald's makes people fit and healthy. Don't say that a giraffe could play piano "if we can just find it a better teacher".

The best constitution is the mixed constitution. This is what Britain had prior to 1911, including during the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and having the largest empire the world had ever seen.

The mixed constitution of a unitary state has a king, an aristocratic noble class, and democratic representation, all with equal power. All three must agree to new laws, and all three participate in administration in their own ways. It also has independent learned judges of the law.

Show me one state with a king and nobles who are deliberately destroying their countries? Why would monarchs or aristocrats deliberately fuck up their prized territory and homes respectively?

The king passes his territory on to his sons. Like any father, he has a vested genetic interest in maintaining the value of the assets he will pass on. He has a tendency not to "trash the house", both because he has to live there until he dies, and because his son will be left with it. His power is also final, so there is no need for him to play degenerative ideological divide and conquer, or to disrupt natural social structures to gain, maintain, or boost power.

The nobles have a similar vested hereditary interest. They are also far more numerous than the singular king, in addition to being independently wealthy. They are thus 'unlobbyable', in that swaying enough of them for immediate financial gain, at the expense of the 'long term capital value of the country', is nigh on impossible. They also act as a check on an incompetent or mad king, either by just killing him or threatening to do so if he starts being a tyrant (origin of the Magna Carta), or just due to their resistance and lack of cooperation (they tend to occupy the highest military posts etc). They also buffer the singular king from the numerous electorate. Their power is also final.

Finally the democratic representatives safeguard the remainder of the population (and traditionally only heads of houses vote) from abuse of power from the two other classes, and provide nation-wide input into the law making and administration processes.

It is beyond doubt that pure democracy, which has only been widespread for less than a century has been a failed experiment. The only question is how can the other two pillars of the mixed constitution be restored, while there are still countries left to be salvaged.

Well I hope some people read this. I've posted this before, and no-one seems to give a shit about it, even though they're not submitting a root-cause and plausible solution themselves. I know it's easier just to talk about evil scumbags and conspiracies and how "we're fucked", but I don't think it's a wholesome or agentic response.

I welcome any rebuttal to the idea of a restoration of the traditional European constitution.

TL;DR Stop just being angry instead of going to the effort of studying the nature of the problem, which would indicate the solutions that you may one day be forced to participate in, in the flesh and on the ground.

I'm gonna rep you for this great post alone.

Constitutional Libertarian Democracry is by far the best solution to Europe's problems.

The Royal Families, in countries where they exist, are hugely popular and I always enjoy their speeches at New Year's Eve. They represent a kind of humanitarian elitist conservatism which really does and do act as the moral conscience of their subjects.

I can say with full confidence I'd prefer being rules by most these Kings and Queens over our Prime Ministers and Presidents.

And as you point out, this isn't meant to be tyrannical rule, rather you'd have the royalty essentially having veto power.

Although I really appreciate Phoenix's insightful and thought-provoking post, I do feel like I need to point out the obvious elephant in the room: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway and the UK are constitutional monarchies and these are some of the most leftist, feminist, muslim immigrant importing countries in the world.

While it is true that the monarch only has a ceremonial role in Sweden, in Belgium for instance he has quite a lot of political power. The UK even has the house of lords, which gives the nobles some direct (albeit limited) political power.

I am afraid that our current monarchs and nobles attach far more importance to their bank accounts and trust funds than to the prosperity and stability of the countries they will pass on to their children.

edit: I do understand that the king in a constitutional monarchy has far less political power than one in a mixed constitution.

(10-17-2015 06:32 AM)PhDre Wrote:  Although I really appreciate Phoenix's insightful and thought-provoking post, I do feel like I need to point out the obvious elephant in the room: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway and the UK are constitutional monarchies and these are some of the most leftist, feminist, muslim immigrant importing countries in the world.

While it is true that the monarch only has a ceremonial role in Sweden, in Belgium for instance he has quite a lot of political power. The UK even has the house of lords, which gives the nobles some direct (albeit limited) political power.

I am afraid that our current monarchs and nobles attach far more importance to their bank accounts and trust funds than to the prosperity and stability of the countries they will pass on to their children.

Exactly - the problem is not constitutional monarchy over liberal democracy if both are beholden to international usury money power. They are just bitches to the money masters. There were instances where even British kings opposed their interests back when they had more influence. King Edward for example was reputed to have been forced to abdicate in 1937 or he would not have survived the following year. He opposed vehemently some globalist plans. The love story was trumped up as an excuse. It was ridiculous of course since most royals had love lives and children apart from the official lineage.



It hasn't changed since those days when the British royalty seemingly ruled the Empire. The power structure is just more spread out now, but the business model hasn't changed.

This is not a new phenomenon by far:

(10-16-2015 06:25 PM)Turkish Republican Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:23 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  If this is true, then things will get much much worse fast by next year:



An open border with Turkey might effectively mean open borders with the entire Middle East.

Albanians, Bosnians, Moldovans can go to Europe visa free, but Turks who have a GDP per capita twice these guys can't?

Contrary to the popular belief not many people want to go Europe in Turkey, the ones that do are the ones that will come to smoke weed for a week in Amsterdam then leave. A lot of Turkish immigrants in Germany who hold German passports are returning home. Istanbul is one of the most visited cities in the world, it is a major financial hub GDP per capita in Istanbul exceeds $22k. Europe isnt that attractive as it was once for us, the gap is closing economically. I as a Turk don't want Turkey in the EU, not controlling your visa policy, monetary policy is the same as losing your independance. Many people share the same views as me. People are well aware now that joining the EU has more burdens than advantages. The only country which actually produces something significant in the EU is Germany. EU is bound to collapse.

Not many people want to go to Europe from Turkey? I see many Turkish people here. Plus theres plenty of immigrants in Turkey who may not be Turkish but definitely want to go to Europe from Turkey.

If this turns out to be true I don't think theres a 'might' about opening the borders to the middle east. If Turkey is not in Europe, then where is it, the middle east? Then the EU has opened its borders to the middle east by definition.

I'm old enough to have seen Nixon on TV saying "I am not a crook"--

--but the idea of an unarmed invasion of Europe by men from a completely incompatible culture sworn to dominate the very people who are giving them food, shelter, and money for no visible reason...

--is ever MORE surrealistic.

It's like Europeans are suffering from a mass delusion. You can even see the slightly stunned bemusement on the
MENA's faces as they are feted by hot blondes.

It's like a bizarre science fiction novel. If someone told me this would happen several years ago, I would
have laughed, it would seem completely impossible.

The only saving grace here is I think a lot of the MENA's are too smart to care about religious debates, they are more worldly and cynical than that. They might not work against jihadist assholes, but will be more concerned with nailing blond pussy than crazy adventurism.
Still the result is Europe becomes more fucked mating-wise for Betas.

One German is "doing something" and he has attacked a politician

http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2...er-attacke

Quote:Responsible offender has called as a motive after matching media reports, the German refugee policy. At the crime scene and later in the police car on the way to the police station he had emphasized to disagree with the refugee policy of Reker and Chancellor Angela Merkel, several media reported, citing police circles.

http://www.welt.de/regionales/nrw/articl...letzt.html

The man after the attack just kept on standing there and repeating: "I am protecting all of you!" while looking at the people.

Frankly he is right on that front, but woefully wrong in his choice of action.

But at least it shows the politicians that the people are getting fed up and more actions like that might happen in the future. If ever a daughter of a divorce-raped veteran gets gang-raped and killed by a Muslim group, then I expect much more to happen to the politicians.

Quote:NRW state premier Hannelore Kraft was shocked at the assassination of Henriette Reker. "This is an attack on all of us," she wrote on Twitter.

You got that right - traitor to your country and your people.

But I guess the media and the shills will milk the story and do some more anti-xenophobia marches - maybe hire more ex STASI killers.

(10-17-2015 06:32 AM)PhDre Wrote:  Although I really appreciate Phoenix's insightful and thought-provoking post, I do feel like I need to point out the obvious elephant in the room: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway and the UK are constitutional monarchies and these are some of the most leftist, feminist, muslim immigrant importing countries in the world.

While it is true that the monarch only has a ceremonial role in Sweden, in Belgium for instance he has quite a lot of political power. The UK even has the house of lords, which gives the nobles some direct (albeit limited) political power.

I am afraid that our current monarchs and nobles attach far more importance to their bank accounts and trust funds than to the prosperity and stability of the countries they will pass on to their children.

edit: I do understand that the king in a constitutional monarchy has far less political power than one in a mixed constitution.

Well as you mentioned in your edit, the European 'constitutional monarchies' are either figureheads or near-figureheads. I.e. "99% democracies". Even the Belgian king is a great example of this: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/...y-off.html

The house of lords is a perfect example to consider. The current political power of the hereditary peers is a mere token. Not only is the house only able to merely delay certain types of legislation for a short period, but most of its members are party-affiliated life-peers, not nobles. That doesn't mean the house of commons are finished with it, by the way. They still hate it and enjoy laying the rhetorical boot into its remaining non-democratic aspects. It will undoubtedly end up another democratic chamber, finishing what they started in 1911.

Before 1911, however, the house of lords had co-equal power. It lost this following a constitutional show-down with the democratic house (1911 Parliament Act). What is telling is the reason there was a show-down: the Lords blocking the democratic attempt to start expansive social welfare in Britain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Budget .

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eab_1445033279

An absolutely WTF video from Germany: Must watch

This is it. The moment an actual government official makes it clear. This is a total translformation. The end of rational law and rule by fiat and a population replacement. Germans told to leave Germany if they do not like the immigration policies of the Merkel government.

(10-17-2015 07:49 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eab_1445033279

An absolutely WTF video from Germany: Must watch

This is it. The moment an actual government official makes it clear. This is a total translformation. The end of rational law and rule by fiat and a population replacement. Germans told to leave Germany if they do not like the immigration policies of the Merkel government.

Isn't Merkel digging her own grave here? Who, in any country, wants to hear that?!

"If you don't like the alien hordes we're letting into the country your forefathers built, then leave!!"

It sounds like an out-of-control menopausal bitch bringing on her own demise to me...

Zelcorpion, if the politicians are the root cause of the problem than isn't stabbing one the right course of action? If the politicians are scared for their lives than maybe they will think twice about their actions?

Henriette Reker, the candidate for mayor of Cologne in her own words.

"As mayor I will:

I stand for equal opportunities, a self-determined life and the possibility to partake in political decisions for everyone.

Secure humane accommodation and support for refugees

As mayor I will:

Consider students‘ housing needs in a “housing master plan”

Whether we meet global climate and environmental goals will be decided right here in Cologne as well. That’s why we need an intelligent mobility mix and more green spaces in order to live healthy and responsible lives. I want our city to be ambitious in setting benchmarks for innovative environmental and climate protection.

As mayor I will:

Forcefully implement an environmental and climate protection plan
Support renewable energy in municipal utility companies and public services
Increase housing supply and its affordability"

(10-17-2015 07:49 AM)LEMONed IScream Wrote:  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eab_1445033279

An absolutely WTF video from Germany: Must watch

Wow





No subtitles, but the reaction of many people is clear there.

If you don't like to have millions of hostile Muslims enter and completely change your country, then you can leave Germany - a country where most Germans have been living for thousands of years.

What if all Germans just left? Would the coming soulmates and future husbands with an average IQ of 84 do an equal job?

I expect more assassination attempts.

And no - politicians are not the leaders. In the global power game they have the ranks of lieutenants to captains in the hierarchy of an army - assuming the army is led by someone like Napoleon who is ruler and commander at the same time. Firing a captain is bothersome, but does not impede the war effort. Dozens of commanders are waiting for a promotion, willing to take the risk.

(10-16-2015 07:21 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:23 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  While I'm on the topic, I also want to weigh in against the idea that democracy is the problem, which has been mentioned here a few times. Democracy is not the problem. Dictatorship is likewise not the solution. Democracy is as good/bad as the people within the country. A benevolent dictator also isn't worth much if the general citizen is a fat leftist phaggot. The key has always been control of the media, educational, and cultural/entertainment institutions. They are what shape the character of a nation. If RVFers controlled those institutions in the US and Europe, you can bet that democracy would work just fine, as the general citizen would have the right mindset and would execute his democratic duties in the appropriate way.

I'd like to rebut this because of how central and important this issue is. Some people have mentioned their sense of hopelessness and powerlessness over the situation their homelands are in. This comes from confusion - they don't know exactly what the root cause is, or what routes there are out of the disaster, if any.

I've tried to raise the issue of constitution multiple times, but no-one seems interested. They can't see how this is ultimately the central question, rather than some dry academic discussion with no practical merit.

Rather, everyone likes to talk about 'bad guys'. The 'evil elites', these superhuman devils who are enacting their dastardly plan upon the world. This seems to be a common position here, and it's Roosh's position, that everything is being done by and to benefit some 'evil elites', and that the question stops there.

That certainly isn't where the question ends. The world has always had 'elites' and it has always had 'evil people'. There is always a "top 1%". To blame it on some group that will always, by definition exist, is a conscious act of accepting helplessness and procrastination. The question is why, in this historical case, is the elite engaged in sadomasochistic destruction of those below them?

And the answer is: there a fundamental, constitutional reasons for such an elite being selected over other types. And the common constitutional reason is unambiguously democracy.

It is a false dichotomy that you either have a democracy or a dictatorship. It's also a meaningless statement that 'if RVF controlled democratic institutions there would be no problem'. Democracy doesn't empower reasonable, moral men, or encourage the 'right mindset' in its citizens, any more than McDonald's makes people fit and healthy. Don't say that a giraffe could play piano "if we can just find it a better teacher".

The best constitution is the mixed constitution. This is what Britain had prior to 1911, including during the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and having the largest empire the world had ever seen.

The mixed constitution of a unitary state has a king, an aristocratic noble class, and democratic representation, all with equal power. All three must agree to new laws, and all three participate in administration in their own ways. It also has independent learned judges of the law.

Show me one state with a king and nobles who are deliberately destroying their countries? Why would monarchs or aristocrats deliberately fuck up their prized territory and homes respectively?

The king passes his territory on to his sons. Like any father, he has a vested genetic interest in maintaining the value of the assets he will pass on. He has a tendency not to "trash the house", both because he has to live there until he dies, and because his son will be left with it. His power is also final, so there is no need for him to play degenerative ideological divide and conquer, or to disrupt natural social structures to gain, maintain, or boost power.

The nobles have a similar vested hereditary interest. They are also far more numerous than the singular king, in addition to being independently wealthy. They are thus 'unlobbyable', in that swaying enough of them for immediate financial gain, at the expense of the 'long term capital value of the country', is nigh on impossible. They also act as a check on an incompetent or mad king, either by just killing him or threatening to do so if he starts being a tyrant (origin of the Magna Carta), or just due to their resistance and lack of cooperation (they tend to occupy the highest military posts etc). They also buffer the singular king from the numerous electorate. Their power is also final.

Finally the democratic representatives safeguard the remainder of the population (and traditionally only heads of houses vote) from abuse of power from the two other classes, and provide nation-wide input into the law making and administration processes.

It is beyond doubt that pure democracy, which has only been widespread for less than a century has been a failed experiment. The only question is how can the other two pillars of the mixed constitution be restored, while there are still countries left to be salvaged.

Well I hope some people read this. I've posted this before, and no-one seems to give a shit about it, even though they're not submitting a root-cause and plausible solution themselves. I know it's easier just to talk about evil scumbags and conspiracies and how "we're fucked", but I don't think it's a wholesome or agentic response.

I welcome any rebuttal to the idea of a restoration of the traditional European constitution.

TL;DR Stop just being angry instead of going to the effort of studying the nature of the problem, which would indicate the solutions that you may one day be forced to participate in, in the flesh and on the ground.

I'm going to steadfastly maintain that democracy is not the problem, it's the elites who are the problem. You are absolutely correct that elites have always existed. The difference today is that the elites who rule us are not "us," and they hate "us." It really is that simple. If your enemy, somebody who hates you and wants to see you destroyed rules your country, that is the reason why your country is being destroyed. Whether the hostile ruler uses the machinery of a democracy or the machinery of a dictatorship is irrelevant. The relevant part is that an alien, hostile entity has taken over and is on a mission to destroy you.

Israel is a democracy. It's working fine for them. Ask yourself why?

Japan is a democracy. It's working fine for them. Ask yourself why?

The United States is also a democracy. It's not working for them very well. What's the delta b/w USA and the two aforementioned countries?

I'll cut the drama short: the difference is that in Japan and Israel, the ruling elites are absolutely, 100% Japanese and Jewish. The Japanese and the Jews are a people. It's perfectly possible that those elites are greedy, selfish, and shortsighted. However, the difference is that the people with the power are part of the same ethnic/racial group as the people they have power over. The Japanese elites may want to profit from their position of power, but they have no reason to actively go out of their way and seek to destroy their own people. Ditto Israel's Jewish elites.

This has not been the case in the United States and Europe since at least the second half of the 20th century. And a mixed constitution with nobles and kings will solve nothing. What makes you think that today's alien elites who buy and sell our democratically elected leaders like so many cheap whores will have any problem doing the same with your kings and nobles? I really fail to see how the system your propose is any better at protecting us from the depravities of the globalist class than the system we have now.

No, the problem is not the system of government. The problem is the very existence of the globalist elite that has completely hijacked the ownership structure of our people's most important institutions: the banks, the media, academia, and culture/entertainment. Get rid of their stranglehold, and you get rid of the problem and democracy will run just fine, just like it does in Japan and Israel. Let it sit there, and no system of government will help you.

It took two months of crisis for the first politician to get stabbed. I can imagine a bright future for Germany with 3 million immigrants coming each year and a lot of left behind native Germans at the bottom of the food-chain with nothing to loose fighting each other for welfare scraps. I think the 3 million number is a conservative estimation, because at the moment "half" of the third world seems to prepare to come to Germany next year. Just look at the videos from Africa saying they want to go.

There are a lot reasons to get the fuck out asap.

More diversity enrichment - this time the conviction of an honor killer - brother who killed his sister because she wanted to live a secular life.





Look at the reaction of the family - they are accusing the Germans to be Nazis and child fuckers (interesting claim when Mohammed has consummated the marriage with a 9 year old pre-puberty girl).

Somehow they cannot believe that a trivial and just thing like the honorable killing of their unbelieving sister can mean life penalty for their innocent brother.

But alas - it's all in the Quran and should not surprise anyone:



The unbelievers are those who don't accept the right of honor killings.

(10-17-2015 08:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Whether the hostile ruler uses the machinery of a democracy or the machinery of a dictatorship is irrelevant. The relevant part is that an alien, hostile entity has taken over and is on a mission to destroy you.

There are no aliens, no other-worldly super-human beings who are fashioning mankind as they see fit, like sand into sandcastles. There are only men. Do you think that the world is like the movie "They Live", and that if only we had 'detectors' we could just purge them all, and that would be it?

The rulers come from the constitution first. There is not a fixed stock of them, they are produced by something.

(10-17-2015 08:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Israel is a democracy. It's working fine for them. Ask yourself why?
Japan is a democracy. It's working fine for them. Ask yourself why?

I don't know enough about Israeli politics to comment, but as for Japan, it is true that the degeneration is only mild relative to the west (their hopeless public debt position and general economic management, their awful aging and birthrate problem). It is possible that the age hierarchy system and deference to family elders provide a cultural brake on democratic effects. Its a fair question though.

(10-17-2015 08:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  What makes you think that today's alien elites who buy and sell our democratically elected leaders like so many cheap whores will have any problem doing the same with your kings and nobles? I really fail to see how the system your propose is any better at protecting us from the depravities of the globalist class than the system we have now.

The king and nobles don't have to sing for their supper.

A Norwegian writer, Halvor Fosli, has just released a book called "Stranger in your own country" It`s about the problems ethnic Norwegians face living in Groruddalen, which pretty much is Oslos mini-Rosengaard (Malmø)

Nettavisen.no, is a 100% serious news website. They are the only ones who report a balanced view on immigration, and also keep open the comments section on the articles. Check this out! Facebook are now censoring the articles about Halvor Fosli. you cant share them, and you cant send them in messages. So much for "I am Charlie" and let all voices be heard...

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/nettavi...48314.html

Btw, fuck you and the hole lot Cuckerberg!

True that.

(10-17-2015 11:13 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  The king and nobles don't have to sing for their supper.

History shows us otherwise. Kings and nobles are not masters of their fate any more than other humans. A king or a noble is only as strong as the support they enjoy from third parties. Our globalist elite plies its trade precisely through the provision and withdrawal of such support.

A king without an army was just a guy in colorful panties. Without money he had no army and thus those dealing with the money could ultimately decide politics.

But frankly the discussion here is off-topic. Whether you think that the top elite are an international generational money elite or just a bunch of banks, corporations and politicians. The direction of guilt is aimed at the right group with only differences of opinions regarding how powerful they are and how much it takes to topple them.

Also what system is superior is a question for a different thread - and I think that there were already quite a few in that regard.

In any case - it won't be so easy to purge us from the elite (whoever you think they may be):



The most frustrating thing is to be one of the few who can see while the world is filled with so many who are blind and brainwashed.