Post: #26

Quote:The government model are the clothes, but the culture is the beast. A collar might fit a dog, but it won't keep on a turtle. And a suit will not fit a snake.

Beautifully said.

@ Pheonix

You may want to consider your perspective and how the statement "Some countries don't seem ready for Democracy and yet (foreign) countries try to make it happen" applies to more forms of government than "democracy."

A sovereign monarch isn't above or below the "law," he is the "law" of his kingdom. But proclaiming or forcing compliance with a perspective doesn't make it so.

Post: #27

This image is going viral.

http://i.imgur.com/ocvAsDa.gifv

Post: #28

(04-08-2016 09:45 PM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:But after Julius Caesar?

Every name on the list you copied?

31, if you want a count. Follow the link for more details (which includes the Byzantines)

Post: #29

Different T, you've been saying a lot of vague statements.

State your position.

Post: #30

The current iteration of the West isn't capable of being ruled by a sovereign king (to say nothing of a tyrant). Through at least a few hundred years of selective breeding pressures and cultural indoctrination, Westerners in general have utterly lost the ability to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate authority (Blaster's list of dead emperors may be viewed as a record of such impositions' outcomes).

Post: #31

She could say that without reprisals? I'm surprised it was aired. Its true.

Post: #32

(04-07-2016 09:19 AM)Gilders Wrote:  If you want to get up to speed with Islam, I recommend you check out Bill Warner's website, Political Islam.

I've been watching his excellent YouTube videos. He really knows his stuff.
A great interview with him.

Post: #33

Islam is the coming of the anti-christ as predicted by the bible.
100% serious, the premise adds up perfectly.

Post: #34

(04-12-2016 08:38 PM)syrianguy Wrote:  Islam is the coming of the anti-christ as predicted by the bible.
100% serious, the premise adds up perfectly.

I have a post in my drafts where I predict that the pope will convert to Islam ushering in the end of times. Luther identified the papacy as the antichrist.

The reassuring thing in all of this is Jesus' second coming.

Post: #35

(04-08-2016 02:24 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 01:30 PM)storm Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 11:39 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I would like to see one non-democratic state which has a problem with feminism, multiculturalism, social justice warriors etc.

Norway has a king with the power to dismiss the government. Or, if you like, imperial rome.

Sure, here's a list of the legal powers of the British monarch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_po...ed_Kingdom

Next time I see these monarchs using those powers (instead of rubber-stamping the decisions of democratic prime-ministers), I'll call their countries non-democratic. On the contrary, this is usually how it goes down:
...

He is not ready, willing and able. He is able, he is ready, but not willing.

It is a character flaw of the monarch, and you already knew this.

It is quite common for monarchs to have character flaws, of this sort or of another. Any student of history knows this. I wonder why you do not point that out?

Quote:

Quote:Neoractionary utopianism is a red herring which keeps us from addressing the real issue: how can men in a society be successful and wealthy without becoming weak and decadent

Meaningless statement.

On the contrary, it is quite a precise and very meaningful statement.

Suggesting monarchy is suggesting a pretty lie. It is begging for Deus ex Machina in the classical meaning of the word. In general it is a terrible idea, and we can see this immediately because the average length between wars in monarchy is about ten years. Whereas Americans have not been drafted for eighty.

Or any other number of obvious reasons, such as life expectancy, literacy, health, happiness, money, social mobility, power, pick a metric.

Reactionaries basically want "some superhero" to save them. A monarch. It is the worst form of slave morality. Instead of actually solving problems a reactionary will ask for a monarch to solve them for him. Maybe next we will send prayers in the hope that girls will take us out on dates. Utterly utopian.

Moreover, this entire thread discusses the history of European Civilization. I will remind you that europeans have ancient non-monarchal traditions, for example republican Rome, domocratic athens, republican venice. It is the singly unique place in the world where it was entirely infrequent for there to be non-monarchal societies. Suggesting monarchy is the answer is, in a very deep way, suggesting european government has always been wrong.

There is a deep connection between struggle and strength/virtue. The west lacks struggle. If we do not solve this problem today then the next empire will fall as well. All of the work men do for the future of their children will only see those same children grow weak. It is extremely important, very hard, ancient, deeply related to human nature, and some change of government is so far away from an answer to this that we can only in the most generous sense describe it as utopian.

Post: #36

(04-09-2016 02:37 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  What exactly is 'ready for democracy'?

This 'ready for' term is used extensively by the left. I think America is ready for a black president. I think America is ready for gay marriage. I think America is ready for 'trannies' watching young girls getting changed. Let's just skip past 'is blackness or competence more important?', 'is gay marriage even legitimate?', and 'do the liberties of freaks supercede the privacy and safety of children?'.

'Ready for' is a sneaky form of condescension. We don't even need to discuss if it's good or not, I say this is what you need to do, and you need to be a big boy and grow up and start doing it. I think you're ready to start using the potty now. I think you're ready for using a bike without stabilizer wheels now. It's nothing more than smuggly skipping over the debate to your pre-decided conclusion. As though your position is inevitable and the opponent is just annoying stalling that inevitability. We should avoid this smug and arrogant language of the left.

The middle-east aren't ready for democracy. But they're also not ready for mass immigration of rapeugees, tranny bathrooms, and divorce rape. Lucky for them, not being 'ready'.

"Ready for" is a synonym for, if not identical to "It's the Current Year!". Why aren't you ready for a real Middle Eastern rape culture, it's the Current Year!

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #37

(04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:  He is not ready, willing and able. He is able, he is ready, but not willing.
It is a character flaw of the monarch, and you already knew this.
It is quite common for monarchs to have character flaws, of this sort or of another. Any student of history knows this. I wonder why you do not point that out?

As you can see in my response to Samsaeu, I specifically agreed that monarchs can have flaws. After all it's a monarch.

Also the Belgian king does not use his reserve powers from lack of will, but due to the consequences. Just because they are written doesn't mean he has the power to use them routinely. One man cannot act unilaterally against the collective will of the political class or the electorate -- he will simply be swatted aside. Reserve powers can only be used without constitutional backlash if they are used to resolve constitutional disputes themselves. A king restoring those powers to routine use could only be done with the support of other classes.

(04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:  Suggesting monarchy is suggesting a pretty lie. It is begging for Deus ex Machina in the classical meaning of the word. In general it is a terrible idea, and we can see this immediately because the average length between wars in monarchy is about ten years. Whereas Americans have not been drafted for eighty.

Reactionaries basically want "some superhero" to save them. A monarch. It is the worst form of slave morality. Instead of actually solving problems a reactionary will ask for a monarch to solve them for him. Maybe next we will send prayers in the hope that girls will take us out on dates. Utterly utopian.

This is a very dishonest response. I have gone to lengths to explain why the incentives of a monarch are different to those of a democrat, and why those different incentives are creating the difference between the Saudis and the Germans vis-a-vis the migrant invasion. In response you just dismiss that by saying "I think a monarch will be a god in a box or a superhero". You also put "wars every ten years" along side "we haven't been drafted in 80", expected me not to notice that trick. How many drafting wars happened under monarchy versus democracy? Or, how many conflicts of any kind (including bombing Serbia, Libya, Iraq etc) happen under democracy versus monarchy (including the very limited 'wars between princes')? If democracy is better than monarchy under the current circumstances, it will be due to facts and reasons, not emotion.

(04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:  Or any other number of obvious reasons, such as life expectancy, literacy, health, happiness, money, social mobility, power, pick a metric.

Also very dishonest. You know full well that correlation doesn't imply causation. Given that 100+ years have passed against the backdrop of technological advancement, democracy will always win by that logical fallacy. Unless of course someone with similar dishonesty contrasted UAE to ancient democratic Greece.

(04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:  Moreover, this entire thread discusses the history of European Civilization. I will remind you that europeans have ancient non-monarchal traditions, for example republican Rome, domocratic athens, republican venice. It is the singly unique place in the world where it was entirely infrequent for there to be non-monarchal societies. Suggesting monarchy is the answer is, in a very deep way, suggesting european government has always been wrong.

Most of European history, and in fact most of all human history, has been based on social hierarchy, usually with a monarch at the top. Everyone instinctively knows this: when people think history they think kings, pharaohs, czars, emperors etc. It is true that there have been fairly long-lived and successful republics, such as the Roman Republic. I don't argue that. I'm arguing that the current social malaise is caused by democracy, would not happen in any sustained and widespread way under monarchy, and thus nowadays we need more monarchy and less democracy if Europe is going to survive.

(04-15-2016 01:36 AM)storm Wrote:  There is a deep connection between struggle and strength/virtue. The west lacks struggle. If we do not solve this problem today then the next empire will fall as well. All of the work men do for the future of their children will only see those same children grow weak. It is extremely important, very hard, ancient, deeply related to human nature, and some change of government is so far away from an answer to this that we can only in the most generous sense describe it as utopian.

It is difficult to reconcile this paragraph with the previous one implying monarchy is worse because there is more war. To link your reasoning: monarchy creates more war, war is struggle (probably the highest form humans ever undertake), struggle is good because it creates strength and virtue, and thus monarchy is good. And yet you say monarchy is not good. Which point will you yield on?

Post: #38

Quote:Reactionaries basically want "some superhero" to save them. A monarch. It is the worst form of slave morality. Instead of actually solving problems a reactionary will ask for a monarch to solve them for him.

That seems a large mischaracterization. Most reactionary types seem to want smaller government and more personal liberty (though one could argue they also don't want any additional personal obligations/responsibilities), not "a monarch to solve them". A lot of them, however, view government as some sinister plot due to them previously being libertarians and/or free-market capitalist types.

Quote: It is begging for Deus ex Machina in the classical meaning of the word.

From my perspective, the more pressing risk is that it is a "red herring" for literal Rex ex Machina.

Quote:Suggesting monarchy is the answer is, in a very deep way, suggesting european government has always been wrong.

That's a sly reframe. As Pheonix pointed out, the default of human and European history AFAIK has not been egalitarian forms of government. And yes, it is suggesting that this basis "has always been wrong."

And it is evident that you haven't actually engaged NRx or reactionary thought in a meaningful way. A very large percentage (hard to put a specific estimate on it) don't want to spend their lives convincing Westerner's that they are stupid and being manipulated for the gain of an out-group, the motto is GTFO.

Post: #39

I will comment briefly on the correlation vs causation points.

Tell me, do you think that one can have a large wealthy middle class and also a functional monarchy?

Does it seem reasonable to you that if the middle class is wealthy we will see them insist on more political power?

Ultimately wealth = political power. All of those factors health, happiness, etc. are monotonically increasing functions of wealth in the strict sense. Such a necessary and sufficient correlation does actually imply causation.

I am saying money buys happiness. And that happiness means you are rich. It goes without saying that I am speaking in the sense of statistical distributions but I mention it here for other readers.

if you are as rich as the monarch no way you will let him call the shots.

For this reason you have seen "American democracy" turn into "Trump vs the establishment" in recent years. Look only to wealth disparity.

The reverse is also true. Calling for monarchy = calling for a disproportionately wealthy center, which necessarily impoverishes, which necessarily decreases health, life, etc.

Let me know if you see any difficulty in such an argument.

Clarifying my point on virtue.

One could argue that then men will be more virtuous because their life will have more suffering. But we have seen this cycle pass since the ancient times. Can we not find some way to fix the internal human problem of " comfort => degeneracy " without impoverishing everyone? Can we not be happy, wealthy, powerful, etc. and ALSO virtuous?

Namely. The relationship poverty ~ virtue is a fact of the human condition. How do we change this internally, so that we may have both wealth and virtue?