Frankly, I didn't thoroughly peruse this thread, but will the migrants just not drown in 81 millions of germans, ffs?

(12-23-2015 06:57 AM)Filbert Wrote:  Frankly, I didn't thoroughly peruse this thread, but will the migrants just not drown in 81 millions of germans, ffs?

So your contention is that these migrants will assimilate since there's so few of them, comparatively speaking.

You do realize that some nearby Eastern European nations have ~2m people, total, right? Islamic migrants seem to not want to assimilate and will most likely start forming little nations of their own, as they have been doing in Sweden.

There is no Magic Dirt, Filbert. These populations will not assimilate, only grow and become a bigger and bigger problem until the issue corrects itself in the natural way that humans tend to do.

(12-23-2015 05:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 12:46 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 11:23 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Europe's existence literally depends on the return of kings.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Monarchy may very well be the only way to have a stable form of government, but WHO'S TO BE THE MONARCH?

The son of the last one. (To be specific, for Germany that would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Frie...of_Prussia )

That's the whole idea. It's 'his' country, and thus he has a vested incentive not to fuck it up, and to protect it. So he will do so. He also has a vested incentive to do whatever the fuck he wants within that, which is why you counter-balance that with a co-equal noble and democratically-elected house.

The opposite of that is a temporary, mentally-diseased fuck-up like Merkel, who has no children, and who has no long-term incentives, and literally sees no problem with setting fire to the country for her own sick fetish reasons.

Putin is also asking the Romanovs to return home and become Czars once again, if only in name and no political power.

Several European countries still have monarchies, off the top of my head:

UK
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Monaco
Luxemburg
Netherlands
Belgium

In most countries these monarchs mainly act as entertainment for gossip rags, most they do also participate in acting as a moral compass, their speeches around New Year are watched by everyone.

It would not be that unthinkable to have them play a more active role in governance, to begin with, they could exercise their constituional power to veto laws, which several of them have on paper.

(12-23-2015 06:31 AM)LE50 Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

The idea of a single ruler might be the way to go, but to choose the ruler basically at random is.... well, no. Just no.

Also you're implying that Merkel is the ruler right now and she somehow decides on what's going to happen. The fact that that's untrue is at the very core of our problems in this world. She's a puppet to bigger interests and having children or looking good wouldn't have saved her from that.

It doesn't matter who's at the top of this system. Schröder didn't do any better before her and he's pretty damn alpha.

In that fantasy world we're dreaming up right now (it's not gonna happen) our leader/ruler/monarch should still be elected. But voting rights need to be earned by citizens. Through knowledge on political topics, service to the community etc.

That way the Merkels of the world wouldn't stand a chance in elections.

After all leftists first and foremost suffer from a lack of information and education. If they were forced to study history, ancestry, economics, social dynamics/psychology (all with real data, not skewed/faked/madeup BS) their world view would shift within months.

Those who choose to remain ignorant can't vote. Simple.


Like I said, it's a fantasy anyway, so we shouldn't get too serious with this discussion. But to wish back a real monarchy with inherited kingdoms which now include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the power to crash the world economy or fuck up the entire agricultural landscape for centuries to come...

[additional snark]?

You seem to have a pretty strong opinion for someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

"Well no, just no". "How about no". I'm guessing you're early twenties German, perhaps 20, right? Also, are you involved in computer science in any way? I've just spotted a trend in this kind of language, that's all.

Eventually your programming not to question democracy will hopefully be eroded by common sense.

1) A man born with his power is the safest from becoming a puppet.

2) Having children would influence her decisions in a longer-outlook direction, albeit in sum with other influences. This is stating the obvious.

3) Who will set the rules on 'how you earn your voting rights'? Angels, or the political system itself in a self-sustaining cycle? What will be 'true' and 'false' on the exams of 'political knowledge'? Will the angels set that too? What will constitute 'service to the community', and how will the judges of that not be instantly corrupted to serve the political class?

4) Did Lenin suffer from a lack of information and education? Did Marx? Both were highly intelligent men. Lenin spent more time reading and working in libraries (eg. British Museum library and Jagellonian University's library) than probably anyone here. It is not true that Leftists are just idiots -- the ones at the bottom are, and the ones at the top are intelligent power-hungry sociopaths.

5) Claiming Kings with nukes would immediately start nuking each other and throwing around biological and chemical weapons is the same gibberish argument as clueless gun-control advocates make -- that people with guns will just spontaneously start shooting each other. Mutually-assured destruction applies equally to monarchs, probably even more strongly, because even if the king himself avoids death, his personal kingdom will be ruined.

6) Dismissively calling these ideas fantasy ignores some obvious geography and history. Firstly, the world still has monarchs, including absolute monarchs. How many refugees is King Saud letting in again? Secondly, absolute democracy has only been in existence for about 100 years -- for the rest of almost the entirety of history, power hierarchies have been the norm. For this reason, the burden of proof lies on democracy, as to why it isn't fantasy.

7) A hereditary king is not just some 'random' individual. The king and nobles often tend to come from better genetic stock than the rest of the population, simply because their fathers get 'first dibs'. They also have access to any esteemed advisers and educators they want.

Perhaps you can leave your snark over in that corner of the web Jezebel occupies, and just offer your objective arguments here.

(12-23-2015 07:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:31 AM)LE50 Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

The idea of a single ruler might be the way to go, but to choose the ruler basically at random is.... well, no. Just no.

Also you're implying that Merkel is the ruler right now and she somehow decides on what's going to happen. The fact that that's untrue is at the very core of our problems in this world. She's a puppet to bigger interests and having children or looking good wouldn't have saved her from that.

It doesn't matter who's at the top of this system. Schröder didn't do any better before her and he's pretty damn alpha.

In that fantasy world we're dreaming up right now (it's not gonna happen) our leader/ruler/monarch should still be elected. But voting rights need to be earned by citizens. Through knowledge on political topics, service to the community etc.

That way the Merkels of the world wouldn't stand a chance in elections.

After all leftists first and foremost suffer from a lack of information and education. If they were forced to study history, ancestry, economics, social dynamics/psychology (all with real data, not skewed/faked/madeup BS) their world view would shift within months.

Those who choose to remain ignorant can't vote. Simple.


Like I said, it's a fantasy anyway, so we shouldn't get too serious with this discussion. But to wish back a real monarchy with inherited kingdoms which now include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the power to crash the world economy or fuck up the entire agricultural landscape for centuries to come...

[additional snark]?

You seem to have a pretty strong opinion for someone who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

"Well no, just no". "How about no". I'm guessing you're early twenties German, perhaps 20, right? Also, are you involved in computer science in any way? I've just spotted a trend in this kind of language, that's all.

Eventually your programming not to question democracy will hopefully be eroded by common sense.

1) A man born with his power is the safest from becoming a puppet.

2) Having children would influence her decisions in a longer-outlook direction, albeit in sum with other influences. This is stating the obvious.

3) Who will set the rules on 'how you earn your voting rights'? Angels, or the political system itself in a self-sustaining cycle? What will be 'true' and 'false' on the exams of 'political knowledge'? Will the angels set that too? What will constitute 'service to the community', and how will the judges of that not be instantly corrupted to serve the political class?

4) Did Lenin suffer from a lack of information and education? Did Marx? Both were highly intelligent men. Lenin spent more time reading and working in libraries (eg. British Museum library and Jagellonian University's library) than probably anyone here. It is not true that Leftists are just idiots -- the ones at the bottom are, and the ones at the top are intelligent power-hungry sociopaths.

5) Claiming Kings with nukes would immediately start nuking each other and throwing around biological and chemical weapons is the same gibberish argument as clueless gun-control advocates make -- that people with guns will just spontaneously start shooting each other. Mutually-assured destruction applies equally to monarchs, probably even more strongly, because even if the king himself avoids death, his personal kingdom will be ruined.

6) Dismissively calling these ideas fantasy ignores some obvious geography and history. Firstly, the world still has monarchs, including absolute monarchs. How many refugees is King Saud letting in again? Secondly, absolute democracy has only been in existence for about 100 years -- for the rest of almost the entirety of history, power hierarchies have been the norm. For this reason, the burden of proof lies on democracy, as to why it isn't fantasy.

7) A hereditary king is not just some 'random' individual. The king and nobles often tend to come from better genetic stock than the rest of the population, simply because their fathers get 'first dibs'. They also have access to any esteemed advisers and educators they want.

Perhaps you can leave your snark over in that corner of the web Jezebel occupies, and just offer your objective arguments here.

Great post. You are right to highlight the particular importance of understanding that many leftists are extremely clever and able individuals. Some, arguably, are not leftists in actuality, they merely push the doctrine because they can see how far it advances their cause, and Lenin is perhaps a good example of this. Marx to me seems more complicated, if only because his unquestionable intellect was never applied to anything other than intellectualism itself.

On the point of the merits of hereditary power, this is the real reason for the abolition of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords here in the UK. Though it was done under the guise of Equality, the true motivation was surely a recognition that these men would be motivated by a gentle but firm conservatism and long term thinking. Noblesse Oblige is a real thing, and I believe it is a fundamental motivation of the inherently noble soul to apply its gifts for the betterment of all people.

(12-23-2015 06:51 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 06:31 AM)LE50 Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 12:46 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 11:23 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Europe's existence literally depends on the return of kings.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Monarchy may very well be the only way to have a stable form of government, but WHO'S TO BE THE MONARCH?

The son of the last one. (To be specific, for Germany that would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Frie...of_Prussia )

That's the whole idea. It's 'his' country, and thus he has a vested incentive not to fuck it up, and to protect it. So he will do so. He also has a vested incentive to do whatever the fuck he wants within that, which is why you counter-balance that with a co-equal noble and democratically-elected house.

The opposite of that is a temporary, mentally-diseased fuck-up like Merkel, who has no children, and who has no long-term incentives, and literally sees no problem with setting fire to the country for her own sick fetish reasons.

You're kidding, right?


The idea of a single ruler might be the way to go, but to choose the ruler basically at random is.... well, no. Just no.

Also you're implying that Merkel is the ruler right now and she somehow decides on what's going to happen. The fact that that's untrue is at the very core of our problems in this world. She's a puppet to bigger interests and having children or looking good wouldn't have saved her from that.

It doesn't matter who's at the top of this system. Schröder didn't do any better before her and he's pretty damn alpha.

In that fantasy world we're dreaming up right now (it's not gonna happen) our leader/ruler/monarch should still be elected. But voting rights need to be earned by citizens. Through knowledge on political topics, service to the community etc.

That way the Merkels of the world wouldn't stand a chance in elections.

After all leftists first and foremost suffer from a lack of information and education. If they were forced to study history, ancestry, economics, social dynamics/psychology (all with real data, not skewed/faked/madeup BS) their world view would shift within months.

Those who choose to remain ignorant can't vote. Simple.


Like I said, it's a fantasy anyway, so we shouldn't get too serious with this discussion. But to wish back a real monarchy with inherited kingdoms which now include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the power to crash the world economy or fuck up the entire agricultural landscape for centuries to come...

What, are you saying that an elected president (of any very big Western country) does not have "total control of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, plus the power to crash the world economy or fuck up the entire agricultural landscape for centuries to come".

I mean, the French or American presidents currently both have exactly the (potential) powers of mayhem that you've described... Do you know that the French president for example has a box in his office with a nuclear push-switch in it, so he's got the potential power of nuclear war at any time of the day. Also, he has the potential power of, I dunno, shutting off the Suez canal (where our submarines lurk), and "crash the world economy" whenever he'd want (just has to say without warning, "I quit the eurozone and will pay my oil in gold").

So, your argument is rather void, given that several presidents of the world currently have the exact powers of a king. And as Phoenix said, kings have more incentives not to fuck things up, because they are linked by heart and blood to their beloved lands. Whereas most presidents are just in for 5 years of plundering...

I gotta get to work so I can't respond to all, but I knew this particular straw man argument was coming, so real quick:

I didn't say that an elected ruler wouldn't have the same power (check my post; I didn't).

But seeing how ANY single ruler would hold that power, which one would you rather give it to

1) an elected one

2) a random one

?

I was simply pointing out the ridiculous idea of giving a potentially truly mentally retarded person absolute power over a first world country because of "birthright".

^^Phoenix, if that was the case, why is it that more often than not Emperors/King turn out to be incompetent/corrupt and more concerned about getting orgies than taking care of his country?

Sure the greatest people in history have mostly been monarchs, but they are still fewer compared to the royalties who fuck shit up. Off top of my mind there's Louis XVI who fucked up so bad the French revolted, and he was enthralled to that Marie Antoinette, far from being alpha. Then there's our own Vietnamese King who basically let the French in and pillage and colonize as long as they get a share of the loot, and eventually got made into puppet. Then there's all the fuzz about the late Roman Emperors.

And the genetic argument... ask the Pharaoh.

Still I would say absolute monarchy under a wise monarch is better than even a the current republic any day. But you dont get to pick and choose your king. Give me Charlemagne and I'll sign up any day. Give me king John and I'll join the revolution.

Democracy is by far the best political system. It's just unfortunate that in the West, our institutions, namely the banks, media, and academia, were taken over and corrupted by a hostile tribe which then used its control to corrupt the political system in turn. But to pretend that going to a monarchy would improve the situation is frankly insane.

(12-23-2015 07:53 AM)LE50 Wrote:  But seeing how ANY single ruler would hold that power, which one would you rather give it to

1) an elected one
2) a random one
?

I was simply pointing out the ridiculous idea of giving a potentially truly mentally retarded person absolute power over a first world country because of "birthright".

Error is highlighted. You can't inject your own conclusion as a premise to a question and expect people to answer it.

No one is 'giving' the king power, he is born with it. In cases where a king just happens to be born retarded, the other nobles tend to take a greater leading role.

(12-23-2015 07:54 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  ^^Phoenix, if that was the case, why is it that more often than not Emperors/King turn out to be incompetent/corrupt and more concerned about getting orgies than taking care of his country?

Sure the greatest people in history have mostly been monarchs, but they are still fewer compared to the royalties who fuck shit up. Off top of my mind there's Louis XVI who fucked up so bad the French revolted, and he was enthralled to that Marie Antoinette, far from being alpha. Then there's our own Vietnamese King who basically let the French in and pillage and colonize as long as they get a share of the loot, and eventually got made into puppet. Then there's all the fuzz about the late Roman Emperors.

And the genetic argument... ask the Pharaoh.

Still I would say absolute monarchy under a wise monarch is better than even a good republic any day. But you dont get to pick and choose your king. Give me Charlemagne and I'll sign up any day. Give me king John and I'll join the revolution.

To clarify, I'm advocating the mixed constitution (king - nobles - electorate). It's currently unbalanced because it's 100% universal suffrage democracy, thus I advocate "more king and nobles".

Absolute monarchies draw their own problems, I only highlight them as a comparison.

Also on the Vietnamese king, it's nothing any other form of Vietnamese state would have been able to avoid better. A government can't conjure might out of thin air.

Also even with the orgy-indulging king, he still has a large incentive not to fuck up his country. He can't focus on plowing teenage pussy all day if he's busy putting down civil unrest, and foreign invaders and terrorists have a nasty habit of taking pot-shots at the otherwise orgy-enjoying local king.

The track record of kings is also much maligned. Tyrants were not the norm -- they just make for good stories. This page made a good argument on this, by providing a historical snap-shot of how stable a monarchy can be: http://www.moreright.net/monarchy-faq/ .

At the very least, I can't remember a king who has ever deliberately and actively tried to destroy his own country, as we are seeing today with democracy.

(12-23-2015 08:02 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Democracy is by far the best political system. It's just unfortunate that in the West, our institutions, namely the banks, media, and academia, were taken over and corrupted by a hostile tribe which then used its control to corrupt the political system in turn. But to pretend that going to a monarchy would improve the situation is frankly insane.

Not insane; well-reasoned. Still waiting for you to tell us more about this sinister invisible "hostile tribe" which can magically control everybody without resistance.

(12-23-2015 08:19 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 08:02 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Democracy is by far the best political system. It's just unfortunate that in the West, our institutions, namely the banks, media, and academia, were taken over and corrupted by a hostile tribe which then used its control to corrupt the political system in turn. But to pretend that going to a monarchy would improve the situation is frankly insane.

Not insane; well-reasoned. Still waiting for you to tell us more about this sinister invisible "hostile tribe" which can magically control everybody without resistance.

This is not the thread for that. But Roosh among others has written about it, I suggest you can start with that and then do your own research on the aspects you find yourself skeptical about.

(12-22-2015 03:37 PM)scotian Wrote:  "Brownshirts are back" as Muslim "sharia police" patrol German streets -- with official approval

This is precisely the type of thing that calls for armed resistance. If the men of Europe haven't been completely pussified, this makes civil war inevitable.

I hope you guys in Europe get strong, organized, and armed however you can. Looking forward to crystallizing Roosh's "tribes of men" idea.

(12-23-2015 08:50 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 03:37 PM)scotian Wrote:  "Brownshirts are back" as Muslim "sharia police" patrol German streets -- with official approval

This is precisely the type of thing that calls for armed resistance. If the men of Europe haven't been completely pussified, this makes civil war inevitable.

I hope you guys in Europe get strong, organized, and armed however you can. Looking forward to crystallizing Roosh's "tribes of men" idea.

Shit will happen eventually and I hope to be around to see it. The disenfranchised taking back their country will be glorious.

An essentially disarmed populace makes it more difficult however.

(12-23-2015 08:19 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 08:02 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Democracy is by far the best political system. It's just unfortunate that in the West, our institutions, namely the banks, media, and academia, were taken over and corrupted by a hostile tribe which then used its control to corrupt the political system in turn. But to pretend that going to a monarchy would improve the situation is frankly insane.

Not insane; well-reasoned. Still waiting for you to tell us more about this sinister invisible "hostile tribe" which can magically control everybody without resistance.

Yea, don't play dumb. You know exactly what he's talking about.

British History is the best area of study when considering the merits of various governments.

Inherited power is way too hit and miss...there are thousands of years of evidence to back this up.

The current democracy, votes for all, we have is clearly not working.

What did work, however, was the initial form of British democracy; votes given only to men of age whom owned land. This system produced the golden age of Britain.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(12-23-2015 08:25 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  This is not the thread for that. But Roosh among others has written about it, I suggest you can start with that and then do your own research on the aspects you find yourself skeptical about.

(12-23-2015 09:02 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Yea, don't play dumb. You know exactly what he's talking about.

Yeah I get it, those debates can stay on the boards they belong on. But it's not fair for Eddie to bait that debate when I can't rebut him without opening that disallowed topic. All I can say is that even if he believes that "hostile tribe" is responsible, it doesn't refute my argument in any way.

(12-23-2015 09:25 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  British History is the best area of study when considering the merits of various governments.

Inherited power is way too hit and miss...there are thousands of years of evidence to back this up.

The current democracy, votes for all, we have is clearly not working.

What did work, however, was the initial form of British democracy; votes given only to men of age whom owned land. This system produced the golden age of Britain.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The golden age was actually under the following constitution:
Hereditary King
Hereditary Nobles
Electorate of land-owners

The requirement to own land was actually dropped in the 1867 Reform Act, paying at least 10 pounds in rent each year was sufficient to qualify for the vote, and this broadening of the franchise was expanded in the Representation of the People Act 1884.

Thus land-owning was disempowered earlier than hereditary rights were, which happened later in the 1911 Parliament Act.

It's also worth noting that Prime Ministers were also, sometimes more frequently than not, appointed from the house of lords instead of the commons.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/p...-of-lords/

Regarding democracy, I've mentioned this before - the ideal system would be something akin to what the founding fathers originally had in mind, that only those who had a stake in society had the franchise. For them, that was owning a certain amount of land or paying a certain amount in taxes.

Something similar should be done in future societies. You have a stake if, say:

1. You currently serve or have served in the military.
2. You own a certain amount of land.
3. You pay a certain amount in taxes.
4. You own a business.
5. You're a mother not on welfare.

There should also be an IQ limit and a test on the laws of the land and certain issues.

But I also like the idea of a monarch of sorts that can protect the people from the politicians and who rises above politics.

The 18th century in Britain serves as a sort of example of such a system.

But that's all an unrelated musing, I suppose.

(12-23-2015 09:46 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 09:25 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  British History is the best area of study when considering the merits of various governments.

Inherited power is way too hit and miss...there are thousands of years of evidence to back this up.

The current democracy, votes for all, we have is clearly not working.

What did work, however, was the initial form of British democracy; votes given only to men of age whom owned land. This system produced the golden age of Britain.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The golden age was actually under the following constitution:
Hereditary King
Hereditary Nobles
Electorate of land-owners

The requirement to own land was actually dropped in the 1867 Reform Act, paying at least 10 pounds in rent each year was sufficient to qualify for the vote, and this broadening of the franchise was expanded in the Representation of the People Act 1884.

Thus land-owning was disempowered earlier than hereditary rights were, which happened later in the 1911 Parliament Act.

It's also worth noting that Prime Ministers were also, sometimes more frequently than not, appointed from the house of lords instead of the commons.
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/p...-of-lords/

None of this happened under a omnipotent king though.

This period coincides with the industrial revolution and the Golden Age of the Empire.

1911 is at the tail end of the Empire.

Representation to the productive classes is a positive thing. It's hard to argue otherwise.

(12-23-2015 09:51 AM)Libertas Wrote:  Regarding democracy, I've mentioned this before - the ideal system would be something akin to what the founding fathers originally had in mind, that only those who had a stake in society had the franchise. For them, that was owning a certain amount of land or paying a certain amount in taxes.

Something similar should be done in future societies. You have a stake if, say:

1. You currently serve or have served in the military.
2. You own a certain amount of land.
3. You pay a certain amount in taxes.
4. You own a business.
5. You're a mother not on welfare.

There should also be an IQ limit and a test on the laws of the land and certain issues.

But I also like the idea of a monarch of sorts that can protect the people from the politicians and who rises above politics.

The 18th century in Britain serves as a sort of example of such a system.

But that's all an unrelated musing, I suppose.

Something like Heinlein shows in Starship Troopers. I agree.

Nomad, Portugal hasn't had a monarchy since 1910!

(12-23-2015 07:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  7) A hereditary king is not just some 'random' individual. The king and nobles often tend to come from better genetic stock than the rest of the population, simply because their fathers get 'first dibs'. They also have access to any esteemed advisers and educators they want.

I don't claim to know what the best way to govern a country would be but I'm pretty sure this statement of yours doesn't hold up. I doubt kings came from such an outstanding genetic stock because usually marriages served as a bond between the king and some other kingdom/nobles, and weren't decided based on genetic matching. Or sometimes rulers even married their own cousins.

I think something like what Libertas described could work quite well. The problem is basically every adult was given the right to vote, how can this be taken back?

(12-23-2015 12:00 PM)marty Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 07:32 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  7) A hereditary king is not just some 'random' individual. The king and nobles often tend to come from better genetic stock than the rest of the population, simply because their fathers get 'first dibs'. They also have access to any esteemed advisers and educators they want.

I don't claim to know what the best way to govern a country would be but I'm pretty sure this statement of yours doesn't hold up. I doubt kings came from such an outstanding genetic stock because usually marriages served as a bond between the king and some other kingdom/nobles, and weren't decided based on genetic matching. Or sometimes rulers even married their own cousins.

I think something like what Libertas described could work quite well. The problem is basically every adult was given the right to vote, how can this be taken back?

Have a look at Prince Charles of England. Where's his chin? Yeah, that's some fine breeding right there. His offspring also lacks any significant chin, and was bald at 25. Fine breeding my ass.

Not to derail the current conversation threads that are going on here at the moment, I wanted to mention a programme on Irish TV at the moment.
It's presented by a (effectively secular) guy who grew up in Dublin with one Irish parent(mother) and one Egyptian(father), not surprisingly he was brought up more Muslim than Christian but still it seems his Muslim father didn't put his foot down in enforcing the Muslim faith on his family.
I believe the guy means well but like a lot of his generation in Europe, he takes a very simplistic Millenial-esque view of things, he uses his relatively unsophisticated view of Islam ("Well no Islam people I've ever come across support ISIS, etc") and can't seem to understand why radical Islamic terrorism is happening.
Perhaps he is just very naïve, but somehow he misses (knowingly or otherwise) the elephant in the room, that Islamic doctrine itself is the problem.
The amount of times I heard 'Islamaphobic' during the series and also "ISIS and this radical terrorism has nothing to do with Islam" would drive you to drink!
I still found it an interesting watch, but rather than facing up to the harsh realities of what increasing Islamisation means for the West, it chose the easy way out and presented a nice cuddly version of Islam for the viewers, shame.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/baz-the.../10505890/

(12-23-2015 06:57 AM)Filbert Wrote:  Frankly, I didn't thoroughly peruse this thread, but will the migrants just not drown in 81 millions of germans, ffs?

Translation: Frankly, I'm ignorant, lazy and not ashamed to admit that. But I'm emotional and upset you guys don't think 1 million migrants won't just be easily assimilated into Germany's 81 million population. Even though if I wasn't such an emotional pussy and rational instead I would be able to see that quite easily.

FFS you bunch of jerks, why can't you learn to think with your emotions like me!?!?!

(12-23-2015 06:52 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  One of the best articles you will read all year. A subtle, thoughtful examination of terrorism, Islamic incompatibility, and the virtues of Western cultural and religious inheritance, by the inimitable Roger Scruton:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html

Scruton's article has a very good point on why the migrants are winning despite the massive technological and intellectual superiority of the Europeans which would allow them to wipe out the migrants if they wished. The issue is not our military might, our scientific knowledge but is rather spiritual in nature.

Quote:This culture of repudiation has transmitted itself, through the media and the schools, across the spiritual terrain of Western civilization, leaving behind it a sense of emptiness and defeat, a sense that nothing is left to believe in or endorse, save only the freedom to believe. And a belief in the freedom to believe is neither a belief nor a freedom. It encourages hesitation in the place of conviction and timidity in the place of choice. It is hardly surprising that so many Muslims in our cities today regard the civilization surrounding them as doomed, even if it is a civilization that has granted them something that they may be unable to find where their own religion triumphs, which is a free, tolerant, and secular rule of law. For they were brought up in a world of certainties; around them, they encounter only doubts.

If repudiation of its past and its identity is all that Western civilization can offer, it cannot survive: it will give way to whatever future civilization can offer hope and consolation to the young and fulfill their deep-rooted human need for social membership. Citizenship, as I have described it, does not fulfill that need: and that is why so many Muslims reject it, seeking instead that consoling “brotherhood” (ikhwan) that has so often been the goal of Islamic revivals. But citizenship is an achievement that we cannot forgo if the modern world is to survive: we have built our prosperity on it, our peace and our stability, and—even if it does not provide happiness—it defines us. We cannot renounce it without ceasing to be.

Who is going be willing to die or even just to merely fight for the right for have sex with whoever you want, to put whatever sort of drug you want into your body, or tolerance for the sake of tolerance? These things may be fine and dandy but they aren't going to exactly inspire the rise of the heroes and martyrs we've seen in the past. At best you'll these people sign a petition on Change, march in a few Slutwalks, and maybe submit a strongly worded article to Salon or Huffington Post if they are in a position to do so.

I strongly believe that secular government run by the rule of law as opposed to the arbitrary powers and whim of an individual or small elite group is needed for civilized, livable societies but I also think those things are a means and not an end in itself. They provide us with an environment where we can pursue higher ends without being excessively handicapped but they are not the higher end themselves. A problem with Communism is exactly that it treats the state as a final end and denies the reality that most humans have the need for "brotherhood" that goes beyond mere citizenship.