I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14847141
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I suppose I could ask why do you feel they should have to earn it?


Because we are talking about a ruler. Inherited power means even the weak or extreme can rule - and rule for a long time at it as well. Some of the most suppressive regimes are monarchs BTW. At least in a democracy you can remove an idiot if he proves to be less than worthy.

However, my real answer is that monarchy is the state of nature from the natural and historic development of nations from family units governed by fathers. That is, groups of families, joining together, and intermarrying, are the origin of the nation and the structure of that nation under monarchy is merely a continuation and extension of the natural family model that serves as the basic unit. The king is ethnically related to his people and rules as representative of them as a father over his family, or a lord over his clan. Why this natural structure is preferred to later inventions such as the social contract and democracy is demonstrated by historically observed stability. Monarchies last longer and are more stable and democracies revert back to monarchal or authoritarian systems overtime, we are headed there now.


Monarchy's are not natural. It is a human invention. It is also a form of dictatorship - perhaps only spared such a definition because Western nations still have them today.

Nonetheless I question your notion that 'we are headed there now'. Monarchy's are on there last legs and have had to change their attitudes towards their subjects to have some form of relevance today. Younger generations are less interested in them than their elder counterparts. In a generation or two I expect a British revolution. Especially if there was a economic downturn and taxes were going to rebuilding stately homes of the aristocratic rather than feeding the poor.

Not "sole" purpose, but definitely her primary "civic" purpose. When childbearing is abandoned as the primary civic service for women a rise of infertility and social decadence emerges which eventually results in overall civic apathy on the part of the populace, moral decadence, and a need for mass immigration from foreign nations that results in the nation's eventual collapse. There are no exceptions to this as a historical pattern for civilizations and they have all tried it. The expansion of sexual opportunity ALWAYS leads to the collapse of civilizations.


Humans are not dying off. Women are also still having children. Why do you think women's human rights of choice should be extinguished because of a problem that doesn't exist?

The Anglosphere is, at the least, the United Kingdom, Canada, The United States, Australia, and New Zealand.


Do you think the entire world wants to be an image of Western values? There is a reason why the West has an issue with terrorism today. Nonetheless, even your political view conflicts with Anglosphere politics. Perhaps you would be more interested in Saudi Arabian politics. It actually suits you quite well.

I cannot conceive of Trump becoming such a monarch, but if he does and effectively unites the anglosphere in the ways I have outlined, then yes we should. That would be an "Imperium" scenario like the rise of the Caesars in Rome, which were effectively expansionist Monarchs.


Fuck that. If we (the UK) had King Donald I crowned at Westminister, I'm the first fucker sharpening the Guillotine ready for the revolution. It is bad enough we have idiots in parliament. At least we can remove them.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

The Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica were not accomplished by pacifism, and as Edmund Burke once said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Pacifism does nothing and we allow the evils that go on in the middle-east and Africa to continue even though the implementation of our worldview there could solve it. That is the triumph of evil.


And yet your political views are similar to that within the ME. But actually, we wouldn't have a problem with the ME if we actuallly did nothing. We only have a problem now because we did something.

Irreligion has never benefited a civilization's survival and people left to their own devices always tend to irreligion, it is therefore in the interest of civilization to promote religion, especially true religion.


Religion is one of two main causes of conflict. The other being economics. Perhaps a more civilized society would be to promote 'no religion'. But a fairer society would be to promote choice and not dictate.

That depends on your definition. I affirm that Anglo-Saxon civilization ought to survive and thrive, but historically that is impossible if women have expanded sexual opportunity and political enfranchisement outside of the family role of producing children. So I cannot be pro-civilization, pro-western, pro-Christian, or any such values and support feminism in any sense whatsoever, the two are opposed at their root. I choose Civilization and when its survival is threatened (which is coming soon) most people will end up agreeing with me. The time is coming. buckle up.


People really are not dying off. I can assure you of that. If anything there are too many of them. So you have to be sexist or stupid.
#14847144
@The Immortal Goon,

I. Preface.

Let me just say that I really appreciated your response because its angle was different, examining the conditions of development behind the manifestation of historical systems. In preface, I can say that such "Why" questions regarding the historical development of such seems speculative when it comes to environmental specifics, but it is very safe to assert the notion that human nature is the author of these structures (atleast in the temporally-manifested sense), for such historical systems of family, nation, etc., as well as their need to expand via war, enter into empires, decline, and collapse seem to be universal. That is, such human developments emerge inevitably out of human nature and follow the same patterns because of this same human nature at the collective level. So whether we are talking about Sumeria, Ancient Rome, Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, etc., the structures appear the same and collapse under the same faults. When something is universally human (universal in the broad sense, of course), then the culprit for this universality tends to be in the humans themselves.

I will address the rest of your criticisms, numbered in accordance to the four sections of your response. My replies will be short as some of the common characteristics to each section are covered in the above preface. I did not quote you, but I think you can follow the points.

1. I do not think the familial development of nations is dubious, anthropological evidence would indicate this was the case even if historical-literary evidence did not already confirm such, which it does; likewise, I do not argue that the determination of patrilineal succession in monarchy is a flawless matter, historically speaking, but it has been more stable and less bloody historically speaking than, lets say, communist revolutions. ;) I also do not believe the argument is warranted that our current geo-political situation is such as to preclude monarchy for the anglo-sphere. In fact, I would argue the opposite, we are heading into a situation where a return to monarchy, or some other form of far-right authoritarianism, has been more likely than in the past 100 years and may be heading to a "caesar" type situation. None of this would necessitate feudalism. Indeed imperialism is a post-feudalism position.

2. This is a metaphysically complex question, and have not the room to go into detail, but I would say that the domination impulse is a precondition of perceptual intelligibility and is embedded in pleasure/pain aspects of all constituent sensations. The naturalistic fallacy states that one cannot infer "ought" from "is." So, I am arguing that the will to dominate is our "is" and that our survival depends on actions consistent with such and that all decisions are either more or less consistent with this "is", but ultimately there is no "ought" by plain reason unless we assume something like human extinction to be morally bad, and if we do, then acting consistently with the domination impulse is morally good and the more consistent one acts with such the more moral the person and therfore imperialism is the highest collective good. As a Christian, I believe that this domination impulse originated in our creation wherein we are designed to fulfill the dominion mandate: "to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth and subdue it." Therefore, God's commands are the best moral system as they most perfectly represent pro-human choices of our inherent dominating nature, which further reinforces the need for a national church.

3. This claim is entirely false. The magisterial reformation, everywhere it went, established national churches over-and-against foreign rule through the papacy. Protestantism was the mother of nationalism in Europe. The Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), The Church of England (Anglican), The Church of Denmark (Lutheran), The Church of Holland (Reformed), etc, etc., This was a return to Constantinian Imperialism; wherein, the supreme ruler institutes and defends a national religion for the sake of the Empire. Even modern nationalism followed this, the Iron Guard in Romania defended orthodoxy as the national religion, Hitler attempted to establish a national church, and Mussolini struck a deal with the pope to defend national Catholicism.

4. In order of priority: restriction of opportunity, education, incentive, enforcement.

Women would be politically barred from much of what they can do today, educated against contraception and educated about their civic duties from an early age and also trained to fulfill them. They would also be incentivized to have children monetarily and culturally, and the "enforcement" would likely come in a banning of contraception, both its production and possession. I suppose, beyond that, I don't care too much because I think the problem will generally be solved for most, but a stricter view might require couples that fail to reproduce at a rate considered medically healthy to have regular examinations and if no physical conditions exist to explain the lack of pregnancy, illegal activity may be assumed.....but that is a hypothetical and I do not think it would be necessary. I think getting the birth rate to 5 children per women in the Anglo-Sphere could be accomplished with very little political work to be honest; especially, if the churches get back to the pre-Lambeth (1930) position that contraception was immoral for Christians.

4B. I am an American, and I think this could work. I do not think the Southern Irish could be part of the Anglo-Sphere.
#14847148
@Victoribus Spolia

You have enough responses, and there are a lot of points to go on from here, but I would say that the base objection I would have is that the monarchy as described does not seem to be a universal system, but the result of a particular set of circumstances.

But this objection is hardly worth mentioning as, even beyond this we have a metaphysical problem with how we view the universe. You see it as divine, and I see it as material. This is, of course, something for another debate.

I appreciate you getting back to me.

Just so you know, in our future sparring, I tend to pontificate like the literature that I read. A lot of it is Marxist and take Marx's tone; Marx himself was a Prussian educated as such, and in that time and place there was a lot of rough language and innuendo. It is something I try to curb, but if I have a bit of whiskey it can tend to come out stronger. It's nothing personal for you or anyone else. Just know that when we end up discussing some of these things in more detail later on.

And welcome to Pofo. You should fit in nicely.
#14847150
@B0ycey,

Since the majority of your last post contained nothing interesting or original that was not already covered with great sophistication by others, and that the rest of your post demonstrated a clear lack of requisite education, I do not see much to respond to other than to ask you a few questions to demonstrate basic points I thought everyone was aware of.

HINT: I already know the answers to these questions and once you answer them honesty, most of your argument becomes, well.....fucked.

1. What is the average rate of birth for native English in England? White Americans in the United States, white Canadians in Canada, white Australians in Australia, native Germans in Germany, native Italians in Italty, native french in France, etc? And how does this compare to the minimum rate of population replacement of 2.1 births per woman?

2. If the European Empires had retained authoritarian control in the middle-east until today, would Islamic regimes have been able to form there and would we have the same rates of immigration and terrorism that we do today, and why?

Or, if you like, answer this instead: do we currently have more problems with terrorism from peoples in countries that we occupy or do not occupy, statistically speaking?

3. How many Hectacres of farmable land do we need to sustain the earth's population and is there enough availabe in the guinea plateau of Africa alone?

4. How many people could we fit comfortably into the state of Texas, assuming we supply each family of four with a home and a small yard?

5. Name one civilization that continued more than four generations after expanding political rights and sexual opportunity to women, without patriarchal revolution or collapse by invasion?

6. Which regime killed the most civilians in human history and which regime killed the second most, were these regimes Christian or even religious? Which regime (different than the two above) killed the highest % of people in the world and was it Christian or religious?

7. Did the rising of the Caesars in Rome (Expansionist Super-Monarchs) emerge from a successful run of smaller monarchies, or from a post-monarchy republican environment following the previous rise and fall of populist politicians?

Have Fun....Cheers. :D
#14847154
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@B0ycey,

Since the majority of your last post contained nothing interesting or original that was not already covered with great sophistication by others, and that the rest of your post demonstrated a clear lack of requisite education, I do not see much to respond to other than to ask you a few questions to demonstrate basic points I thought everyone was aware of.


Perhaps if you find my posts are nothing interesting, why ask me rhetorical questions to counter my points. :lol:

You will fit in nicely in PoFo, if you remain. You seem articulate and could debate I guess. But I doubt we will get along.

As for your questions, are they rhetorical or do you want me to answer them? They are very easy to return by the way.
#14847156
You can do whatever you would like as far as answering the questions, they are not rhetorical per se, but they are definitely being used for dialectical and not didactic reasons, so feel free, but the answers are easy to find and I would like you to answer them clearly and not with any attempt to dodge them. If you do so, please, by all means, tell me why, after reviewing the answers you give, I would ask such questions given the content of your last response to me?

If you seem to dodge my questions or give shit answers, I will drop a citation and statistics avalanche on you, so answer if you like, but at your own risk. But try to get the "rhetoric" value of my point. Hell, you may be able to answer the questions just from how they are worded without even having to look anything up.
#14847162
Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. What is the average rate of birth for native English in England? White Americans in the United States, white Canadians in Canada, white Australians in Australia, native Germans in Germany, native Italians in Italty, native french in France, etc? And how does this compare to the minimum rate of population replacement of 2.1 births per woman?


Global population is increasing. Sure birth rates in Western nations are below 2 per woman, but so what? We already have global fuel and food shortages. Increase of human population will only create more problems.

2. If the European Empires had retained authoritarian control in the middle-east until today, would Islamic regimes have been able to form there and would we have the same rates of immigration and terrorism that we do today, and why?


Jesus would have been a terrorist to a Roman empire. Also ask yourself why Rome fell. So yes terrorism would have occured even now had European Empires succeeded. As the crusades proves, people don't like being oppressed.

Or, if you like, answer this instead: do we currently have more problems with terrorism from peoples in countries that we occupy or do not occupy, statistically speaking?


Most terrorists are homegrown. So occupy.

3. How many Hectacres of farmable land do we need to sustain the earth's population and is there enough availabe in the guinea plateau of Africa alone?


There is actually enough farmable land on earth to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that the wealthy nations populous eat more than they need to. But a shortage of farmable land is a reason to reduce the global population, not increase it.

4. How many people could we fit comfortably into the state of Texas, assuming we supply each family of four with a home and a small yard?


Who cares. We have an entire planet to live on. What is the relevence to this?

5. Name one civilization that continued more than four generations after expanding political rights and sexual opportunity to women, without patriarchal revolution or collapse by invasion?


The UK. I count 6 generations here.

6. Which regime killed the most civilians in human history and which regime killed the second most, were these regimes Christian or even religious? Which regime (different than the two above) killed the highest % of people in the world and was it Christian or religious?


Mao and Stalin. So Communism. What is the difference between a dictator and a monarch? You are advocating suppremacism, not me.

7. Did the rising of the Caesars in Rome (Expansionist Super-Monarchs) emerge from a successful run of smaller monarchies, or from a post-monarchy republican environment following the previous rise and fall of populist politicians?


...or the Roman army and their coin. That one.
#14847188
This claim cannot be substantiated. The Marriage Act in Nazi Germany was arguably the main reason they got out of their depression according to all scholars on the Third Reich and they did exactly what I am suggesting. The reason that Islamic states failed is because they could not maintain western-like economies without western oversight. Think of Egypt, from the time of its Independence from the British until its descent until islamization was barely a couple of decades and its economic contribution to the world did not improve post-colonialism. The problem with the Islamic world is Islam and its adherents, not its views on gender.

Besides, for being such a good papist, you have some pretty "progressive" views on childbearing, I just wonder where you really stand as a supposed greater catholic and traditionalist than I?


I am proposing following the authentic northern European way of running a society, there a reason we have statues of Boadicea in the UK, you are the one proposing we follow a culturally Islamist path in our treatment of 50% of Europeans not me. Do you also pray towards Mecca I wonder?

Image

This is what an authentic tradional European woman looks like, you are proposing something more like this.

Image
#14847201
Decky wrote:I am proposing following the authentic northern European way of running a society, there a reason we have statues of Boadicea in the UK, you are the one proposing we follow a culturally Islamist path in our treatment of 50% of Europeans not me. Do you also pray towards Mecca I wonder?


Ah, you are such a good papist, citing and praising egalitarian pagans. :lol: You are also shitposting troll, and you do not have an argument.

Contraception is anti-Christian and anti-European and there is nothing Traditionalist about it.

B0ycey wrote:Global population is increasing. Sure birth rates in Western nations are below 2 per woman, but so what? We already have global fuel and food shortages. Increase of human population will only create more problems.



No, you see, this is called "begging the question" (Petito Principii) and is answered by the other questions, if overpopulation is myth and we actually have sufficient resources and room, then the issue with european population cannot be dismissed because of overpopulation, because it is an irrelevant issue. The issue is resource management when its comes to starving people in, lets say, Ethiopia (not overpopulation), but the issue with Europeans is civilizational decline as I have been fucking arguing this whole time. You made blanket statements against my argument that population was not going down and so I was "obviously just stupid" when I was clearly talking about the Anglosphere. Your argument was both a red-herring and a non-sequitur. Major Fail #1.



B0ycey wrote:Jesus would have been a terrorist to a Roman empire. Also ask yourself why Rome fell. So yes terrorism would have occured even now had European Empires succeeded. As the crusades proves, people don't like being oppressed.


Ah, a non-violent innocent man who encouraged obedience to Caesar against the rebel-supporting Jewish establishment was a terrorist.....now i've heard everything and it does not help your point at all. Major Fail #2.

You also know nothing about the Crusades, which were primarily a retaliation against Islamic expansion which wiped out almost the entire middle-eastern, Persian, and North African Christian populations (all of which were Christianized regions), took over Visigoth Christian Spain, and were preparing to wipe out the Greek and Anatolian Christians when Alexios I of the Byzantine Empire requested assistance from the West which led to the First Crusade. Major Fail #3.
B0ycey wrote:Most terrorists are homegrown. So occupy.


You are making a false dichotomy, terrorists being homegrown does not imply they are part of the native population. Terrorists now are typically foreigners or second-gen Muslims to these foreigners, but they are not typically from currently occupied states. This implies, that Muslim populations seeking refuge or emigrating to the U.S. are not from occupied lands or that those who do come from those lands had previously been vetted and pacified by occupying forces. The FACT is that most of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslims have not been perpetrated by Muslims from the lands currently occupied by the U.S. This is a consequence of the occupation, occupied lands are less likely to produce terrorist.....one great proof of this: Iraq. Isis came into existence because of a lack of occupation, not the opposite. Major Fail #4.

B0ycey wrote:There is actually enough farmable land on earth to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is that the wealthy nations populous eat more than they need to. But a shortage of farmable land is a reason to reduce the global population, not increase it.


You just claimed that there is "enough farmable land" and that there is "a shortage of farmable land" that is a contradiction, so which is it? Major Fail #5

I agree the problem is land management and resource allocation, but that has nothing to do with population and so restricting European population does not follow as a solution, that is a non-sequitur. In fact, given that a huge % of the food that these malnourished Africans do get comes from Europeans, if European populations continue to decrease they will likely lose the necessary tax base (since they are already about to default on their social security systems) to care for these Africans which will only increase their starvation and misery. So in that case, population decrease in Europe will increase suffering in Africa especially since the Africans have a high rate of birth. However, if to solve our tax problem we require African and Islamic immigrants to Europe, we will find that they will turn Europe into a third world shit hole. We have seen this in the formerly white-ruled states of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa which were once first world economies, what makes you think Europe will be different? Only 3% of the migrants in Germany are currently employed full-time and all collect benefits. What do you think is going to happen to the starving Africans then? Will the new Black and Muslim Europeans create an awesome economy to send them food aid like we are doing currently once white Europeans go extinct? The historical evidence does not support such a ridiculous notion Major Fail #6

B0ycey wrote:Who cares. We have an entire planet to live on. What is the relevence to this?


You claim that we are overpopulated, but everyone in the world could fit in Texas comfortably. The point is that colonialism is the only way to get food to Africans, and not decreasing the European population. The starving parts of the world starve because they cannot create healthy economies, are constantly in a state of genocidal war, have rulers so corrupt that they make Hilary Clinton look like the Holy Virgin, and are incapable of sustainable land management and food production. African starvation was not such an issue under Imperial rule, and only with this rule could first world standards return to Africa. This is just a fact, there is no exception to the contrary. First world standards, even for the blacks in Africa, only existed when whites ruled there. Their sorry state now has nothing to do with overpopulation, in fact, these areas have some of the lowest population densities in the world.
Major Fail #7.

B0ycey wrote:The UK. I count 6 generations here.


The United Kingdom has not had six generations since the sexual revolution you Twat. 1,000 years is 40 generations (roughly), even if we go back to women's suffrage in the UK during 1928, we are talking roughly three and that is still not full sexual and political opportunity, that did not occur in the Anglosphere until the 1960s, which is two generations. These Labor-Party voting women are a huge reason that the Empire went from its highest state in 1920s to its dismal state of today. The correct answer, is that none have survived and we can now see how our nations are doing after women's rights....great huh? Major Fail #8

B0ycey wrote:Mao and Stalin. So Communism. What is the difference between a dictator and a monarch? You are advocating suppremacism, not me.


No, you are dodging. You attacked my argument for the religious justification of empire by saying religion was the source of all the problems, wars, etc. But it was Atheism that has killed the most people, not Christianity, so if anything, religion is the answer to genocide, not secularism, for secularism holds the gold and silver medals for genocide and if we include the syncretic and secular Mongols which had the highest % of people killed, then secularists would hold the Gold, Silver, and Bronze. So how do you like them apples? Major Fail #9

B0ycey wrote:...or the Roman army and their coin. That one.


The Roman Army supported the Caesars, but the population almost revolted over Caesar's death, they loved him and hated the Senate. It was disillusion with the republic that led to the return of an authoritarian monarchy system, a hatred for the Senate which began when the Senate had the beloved Gracchi executed for trying to "Make Rome Great Again." In our day, Trump & Farage are not the Caesars, they are the Gracchi which point to the Caesar yet to come.

The fact is, people do not trust the representative government anymore, they are turning to charismatic strong men to fix things. This is the where the signs for the return of my position are becoming clear. You dissed this view by saying that monarchy was visibly in decline so saying it was going to make a comeback was B.S., but that is the proof, there has not been an effective monarchy in Europe for almost 100 years because it was replaced with Republicanism, some countries for almost 250 years have been republics now, but we can now see that the people are getting tired of it, just like in Rome. Once again, you are wrong. Major Fail #10.
#14847237
Persia was Zoroastrian, never was Christian, never will it be.

When colonial rule was in Africa and south and south east Asia, the largest famines in history took place because imperial rule intentionally took away supplies from the people to use for other purposes.
Along side the fact that most of Africa and large parts Asia, under colonial rule, were built not for people to live in and act as a country, but rather as an resources mining and extraction colonies with slaves as workers.
The main reason many African nations today are suffering is directly linked to the fact that they have artificial borders, drawn by colonial empires, that doesn't represent their actual nations. And the other fact that these state structures weren't designed to be nation states as mentioned before; Thus resulting in entire generations who did not have any experience in leadership or administration since those were killed off early on under colonial rule and no new ones were trained and most people weren't skilled enough to build an actual economy. Not because they didn't want to or because they were inferior (i.e the regular bullshit your type says), but because they were intentionally deprived of the ability to obtain and learn such skills. Other than the ones required of them by the enslavers ofcourse.
So Africa is the way it is because of colonialism and imperial rule and thus you and your Imperial rule can go shove it.
Last edited by anasawad on 29 Sep 2017 04:04, edited 2 times in total.
#14847238
@Victoribus Spolia
I'll make a few comments on your claims just so we can get to know one another.

Firstly I'll say that for 8000 years of human civilisation monarchy of one sort or another has been the mainstay with the rash of republics which sprouted up after WW1 being more or less an aberration of the trend. Even today with the great profusion of republics on this earth it is clear those monarchies which remain out perform them almost invariably. The only republics to give monarchies any serious competition for quality of life and good governance would be the US and Switzerland and arguably the US competes more on quantity, being a superstate, than quality. So it is that I tend to favour monarchies.

Successful monarchies produce prosperous economies, advanced technology and civil accord, they do this foremost by rational good governance. Successful monarchies will then have the means to expand their good governance over more peoples and lands to the detriment of the poor governors and this is imperialism. As an expansion on the idea that all it takes for evil to triumph over good is for the good men to do nothing, not all empires are of equal virtue some like the imperialism of the communists and the Islamists are a veritable bane on humanity, a plague!, so it must be for those who are adept at good governance to practice imperialism for if they don't someone less good will do so instead. Imperialism is the duty of the just and the competent.

My comment on your claims then:

1. Ethno-Cultural Civic Nationalism.


Blood matters, common culture matters, a kingdom or nation with homogeneity in these factors will be easy to govern if the governors can operate in accord with them but an empire necessarily must find a way to transcend such parochial concerns or be torn apart by them!

2. The Domination Impulse.


I don't really follow your argument here. I think more prosaically domination is about winning: to live is to play, to play is to attempt to win, winning is domination. Within the scope of the art of governance there are some parallels to parenting. Any parent even the most incompetent may dominate their offspring but the wise parent aims to use their dominance lightly and judiciously to impart wisdom without crushing initiative. So it follows for governors and their subjects. The governor's duty is to inculcate civility without crushing liberty.

3. Religious Unity and Justification.


I doubt that a state religion is really a necessity for good governance and in particular I doubt Christianity is ideally suitable as an imperial cult. In this day and age I believe what we may call scientism flavoured by folk religion will do as well as anything else.

4. Fecundity.


This isn't the 19th century, wars are no longer won by cannon fodder but by elite professionals wielding high technology super weapons. Fecundity has almost no bearing on military fitness at this present time. With the AI revolution just around the corner neither will manpower be quite the defining attribute of civilian economic power either. In the context of a world that may indeed be somewhat overpopulated a naturally declining population needn't be a great concern and may indeed by something to celebrate. More concerning to me than fecundity is eugenics. Of those that procreate the most, are they the best? What Darwinian pressures are producing the next generations? It has been said that during and before the Industrial revolution the richer one was the more children one produced, assuming those most capable of making themselves rich possessed good genes for success then this effect would produce next generations of comparable or better quality. However in this age those that produce the most offspring are more likely to be lumpenproles in search of a fat benefit cheque, while the most gifted bear no children for posterity!

It would do to look carefully at the procreative incentives to ensure that the best reproduce over the worst.

The issue (pardon the pun) now is quality not quantity.
#14847239
The largest issue for your empire is the Latin world, aka Catholics, that would form a counter Empire. A Latin Empire (add here Jews and Greeks) would be more powerful, more cohesive, more adjust as a society.

The word Christian is usually used by Non-Catholics who want to include Catholics in their group without Catholics wanting to be included in the group.

Your so called Empire would face a strong opposition by the counter empire that will naturally be formed by Catholics. No need to mention Muslims wont like the idea of your Empire and unlike the Catholic Empire you have tons of Muslims inside your State. The Muslim Empire would grow stronger and they have a lot of Muslims inside the Anglo sphere.

If a Protestant Anglo-Saxon Empire is formed the Union of Southern Europe with South America and Japan/South Korea will form the counter Empire.

You can argue your military would be stronger and larger and I can argue your Empire will be formed by countries and cultures that can't stand each other while the Latin Empire would be formed by countries and cultures that like one another. Plus the Latin Empire is richer in natural resources

In resume, your Empire would recreate a counter movement that will become the second coming of the Roman Empire.

There's a reason why countries like Greece, Italy, Brazil and Portugal are not recipients of Islamic terror.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:So,

I am looking for some initial reactions to see what kind of general knee-jerk reactions there are to my position. This is a beta-test. After examining some initial reactions, I will start another thread where I will actually make some argument to spur some debate. I will only observe and ask questions on this thread.

So, I am a Paleo-Colonialist and a Monarchal-Imperialist. I go by Imperialist for short.

The major claims of the position are defined under general claims which are those claims which must be common to all who hold this position in order to qualify as being such. The specific claims refer specifically to what define the particular variety I propose.

I. General Claims.

1. Ethno-Cultural Civic Nationalism.

I am threading the needle on this because my position on this leaves room for some leeway, but it is definitely not "white nationalism" in the specific sense, but does not preclude "elements" of that. Rather, this tenant claims that the identity of a nation is NOT defined by a social contract, but by patriarchal and patrilineal origination of a historical culture that self-identifies as that nation. Hence, families and clans are acknowledged as the historic origin of a people on a particular land, who's national identity originated in history through the manifestation of some common cause and sense of destiny, and as a consequence; a shared culture; including and especially religion. For these reasons, Monarchy is necessary as a monarch represents the heir of the oldest patriarchy in the nation as the natural ruler. Another point in this position is that the "identity" of a person's children is determined by ethno-cultural identity of the father alone, of which the women and children are subsumed and assimilated. This implying that the historic practice of one ethnic group killing the men of another ethnic group and taking all of their women for reproductive purposes, does effectively result in the former ethnic group replacing the latter without committing a simultaneous suicide of its own identity.

2. The Domination Impulse.

This claim states that the rise and fall of civilizations is directly correlated to its expansive energy. Human beings desire not to merely survive, but to thrive and dominate, and this impulse is acknowledged as natural and moral under the proposed position. In order to prevent the nation from collapsing due to decadence and apathy, a nation must always have an exterior purpose that unifies the people to promote its values. A society that focuses on itself will eventually dominate itself through critique and deconstruction until it collapses, this is because the domination impulse must always be satisfied whether against others or against oneself.

3. Religious Unity and Justification.

This domination impulse and cause for expansion, as well as the establishing of those morals necessary (at home and abroad) to sustain such, must be justified by a state supported (or established) faith. In the case of my position, it is a robust Trinitarian and Augustinian Christianity. This is because, without a hearty theological and metaphysical grounds for a sense of morality, destiny, and imperative, the nation comes to question its values and loses steam. Likewise, without a metaphysical and divine grounds for rituals and traditions, cultural cohesion beings to fade away.

4. Fecundity.

For the preserving of a pro-military society, men and women are to have delegated roles, the woman's role is defined in terms of childbirth and women must be taught from an early age that their civic duty and sacrifice for the nation is child-birth, which is likewise, like all other values, religiously justified.

II. Specific Claims.

1. That the Anglo-sphere, and NOT the west or whites in general, represent an Ethno-Cultural Civic Nation-Group and should be unified under the English Monarchy after it has been reformed and restored to an authoritarian and traditionalist state of nature.

2. That the Anglo-Sphere could solve most of the world's "ills" through a re-colonization of its former Empire under fierce military campaign by a militarized and re-masculated culture and then maintained by a rigid governance of occupiers and anglo-sphere settlers.

3. That the restoration of a confessional and traditional Christian faith, to be supported by the state as a medium of citizenship, should be made.

4. That women's suffrage should be retracted, and the state enforcement and incentivization of childbirth made.
#14847252
Apart from the number of rule two violations you cited, the only #major fails going on here is that these points have little relevence to something I wrote prior to your questions. :lol:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, you see, this is called "begging the question" (Petito Principii) and is answered by the other questions, if overpopulation is myth and we actually have sufficient resources and room, then the issue with european population cannot be dismissed because of overpopulation, because it is an irrelevant issue. The issue is resource management when its comes to starving people in, lets say, Ethiopia (not overpopulation), but the issue with Europeans is civilizational decline as I have been fucking arguing this whole time. You made blanket statements against my argument that population was not going down and so I was "obviously just stupid" when I was clearly talking about the Anglosphere. Your argument was both a red-herring and a non-sequitur. Major Fail #1. Who's fucking stupid now, ya jagoff.


Humans are like locus. Sure there is enough land and resources now. But things are not infinite on Earth. Space and resources are running out. Your proposal is to make women second class citizens and produce more humans. I can only assume you have read something within the bible to make you think this is a good idea. :lol: Either way your views are similar to that of the ME. Which is ironic as it appears you think Islam is barbaric. :lol:

As for European birth rates, I have not used it as an example of over population.

Ah, a non-violent innocent man who encouraged obedience to Caesar against the rebel-supporting Jewish establishment was a terrorist.....now i've heard everything and it does not help your point at all. Major Fail #2.


I never said Jesus was a terrorist. I said to the Romans he was. :lol:

Do you think they crucified friends and allies during Roman times?

You also know nothing about the Crusades, which were primarily a retaliation against Islamic expansion which wiped out almost the entire middle-eastern, Persian, and North African Christian populations (all of which were Christianized regions), took over Visigoth Christian Spain, and were preparing to wipe out the Greek and Anatolian Christians when Alexios I of the Byzantine Empire requested assistance from the West which led to the First Crusade. Major Fail #3.


There is no doubt you are well read. But unfortunately the only #epic fail here is from you. The crusades was some religious fascination to restore holy land to Christian territory. It wasn't to fight Islam per se. But even if it was, so what? What does this have to do with your political view or my reply to it? :lol:

You are making a false dichotomy, terrorists being homegrown does not imply they are part of the native population. Terrorists now are typically foreigners or second-gen Muslims to these foreigners, but they are not typically from currently occupied states. This implies, that Muslim populations seeking refuge or emigrating to the U.S. are not from occupied lands or that those who do come from those lands had previously been vetted and pacified by occupying forces. The FACT is that most of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. by Muslims have not been perpetrated by Muslims from the lands currently occupied by the U.S. This is a consequence of the occupation, occupied lands are less likely to produce terrorist.....one great proof of this: Iraq. Isis came into existence because of a lack of occupation, not the opposite. Major Fail #4.


Exactly how many terrorist attacks have occured on US soil in the past 12 months? Then compare this death rate to your second amendment over the same period. But I am guessing you are not going to be advocating the removal of this precious right. :lol:

But again, this has no relevence to something I wrote prior to your bizarre questions. Please quote.

You just claimed that there is "enough farmable land" and that there is "a shortage of farmable land" that is a contradiction, so which is it? Major Fail #5


There is enough farmland to feed everyone on this planet if the food we produce was shared fairly - it isn't due to the wealth of nations. But over population and its problems are not just food related. What do you think would happen to global warming if the world populous used oil to the same amount as US citizens did now? Do you think oil is finite?

I agree the problem is land management and resource allocation, but that has nothing to do with population and so restricting European population does not follow as a solution, that is a non-sequitur. In fact, given that a huge % of the food that these malnourished Africans do get comes from Europeans, if European populations continue to decrease they will likely lose the necessary tax base (since they are already about to default on their social security systems) to care for these Africans which will only increase their starvation and misery. So in that case, population decrease in Europe will increase suffering in Africa especially since the Africans have a high rate of birth. However, if to solve our tax problem we require African and Islamic immigrants to Europe, we will find that they will turn Europe into a third world shit hole. We have seen this in the formerly white-ruled states of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa which were once first world economies, what makes you think Europe will be different? Only 3% of the migrants in Germany are currently employed full-time and all collect benefits. What do you think is going to happen to the starving Africans then? Will the new Black and Muslim Europeans create an awesome economy to send them food aid like we are doing currently once white Europeans go extinct? The historical evidence does not support such a ridiculous notion Major Fail #6


You begin by agreeing with me, write something that I don't really disagree with and end it with an Major fail #6. Nice.

You claim that we are overpopulated, but everyone in the world could fit in Texas comfortably. The point is that colonialism is the only way to get food to Africans, and not decreasing the European population. The starving parts of the world starve because they cannot create healthy economies, are constantly in a state of genocidal war, have rulers so corrupt that they make Hilary Clinton look like the Holy Virgin, and are incapable of sustainable land management and food production. African starvation was not such an issue under Imperial rule, and only with this rule could first world standards return to Africa. This is just a fact, there is no exception to the contrary. First world standards, even for the blacks in Africa, only existed when whites ruled there. Their sorry state now has nothing to do with overpopulation, in fact, these areas have some of the lowest population densities in the world.
Major Fail #7.


You think the world population could fit in Texas quite comfortably? People like space to move. Not high rise living. But who cares.

As for Africa, you could argue that the West have destroyed their economies. Do you think capitalism or loans help African nations? Then there is global warming. What do you think happens to arable land in drought? Also there is over population in Africa (something you advocate :lol:). What happens to limited food resources and malnourishment in a poor over populated area?

The United Kingdom has not had six generations since the sexual revolution you Twat. 1,000 years is 40 generations (roughly), even if we go back to women's suffrage in the UK during 1928, we are talking roughly three and that is still not full sexual and political opportunity, that did not occur in the Anglosphere until the 1960s, which is two generations. These Labor-Party voting women are a huge reason that the Empire went from its highest state in 1920s to its dismal state of today. The correct answer, is that none have survived and we can now see how our nations are doing after women's rights....great huh? Major Fail #8


From my family to 1928 I count 6 generations. But do you think the UK is going to fall into Armageddon or invasion when the fifth generation of children are born since this 'sexual revolution' of the sixties you mentioned? :lol:

No, you are dodging. You attacked my argument for the religious justification of empire by saying religion was the source of all the problems, wars, etc. But it was Atheism that has killed the most people, not Christianity, so if anything, religion is the answer to genocide, not secularism, for secularism holds the gold and silver medals for genocide and if we include the syncretic and secular Mongols which had the highest % of people killed, then secularists would hold the Gold, Silver, and Bronze. So how do you like them apples? Major Fail #9


Not just religion, economics causes conflict too. I did say this though. Poor economic environments results in fascism uprising and this was my point to your question.

The Roman Army supported the Caesars, but the population almost revolted over Caesar's death, they loved him and hated the Senate. It was disillusion with the republic that led to the return of an authoritarian monarchy system, a hatred for the Senate which began when the Senate had the beloved Gracchi executed for trying to "Make Rome Great Again." In our day, Trump & Farage are not the Caesars, they are the Gracchi which point to the Caesar yet to come.

The fact is, people do not trust the representative government anymore, they are turning to charismatic strong men to fix things. This is the where the signs for the return of my position are becoming clear. You dissed this view by saying that monarchy was visibly in decline so saying it was going to make a comeback was B.S., but that is the proof, there has not been an effective monarchy in Europe for almost 100 years because it was replaced with Republicanism, some countries for almost 250 years have been republics now, but we can now see that the people are getting tired of it, just like in Rome. Once again, you are wrong. Major Fail #10.


With your Latin quotes and Roman references, I can tell you are well educated in history. I think the Alt-right could have an ally here in you. We do have our fair share of posters on here who do enjoy writing historic references to address a point.

Nonetheless, can I ask, do you REALLY want the US to have a monarchy, the very thing it fought a war in expelling? And if so, what do you think the 'strong men' of Farage and Trump would think if the next in line was a weak individual who wanted to turn America into 60's Woodstock and disarm its military to stick and stones for the name of peace? Remember, you do not choose a monarch. It is born privilege. You are not guaranteed the next Joffery, Caesar or Trump. You could end up with Gandhi.
#14847289
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless, can I ask, do you REALLY want the US to have a monarchy, the very thing it fought a war in expelling? And if so, what do you think the 'strong men' of Farage and Trump would think if the next in line was a weak individual who wanted to turn America into 60's Woodstock and disarm its military to stick and stones for the name of peace? Remember, you do not choose a monarch. It is born privilege. You are not guaranteed the next Joffery, Caesar or Trump. You could end up with Gandhi.


Founder monarchs choose themselves with the backing of a military and as such are invariably military men themselves, generals. If the US republic were to become a kingdom or empire then the founder monarch would necessarily be a Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Reza Pahlavi and not some hippy-dippy.

The only way the US could start with a hereditary monarch would be if they were to fall under Queen Elizabeth II (or as it may be King Charles III) as the heir to King George III.
#14847306
@Politiks,

I don't really have much in the way of objection to your concerns. I am not entirely unconvinced that the scenario you outline would not happen, though I think you may be exaggerating the notion that the peoples of Latin America "like each other" while the members of the Anglo-sphere "can't stand each other." I think this might be overstating your case. I actually have a harder time seeing the Latin states creating a coherent Empire, it would likely look more like a Confederation designed to protect South American interests against the possibility of an invasion from the Anglo-Sphere, but that would make it an empire with a lower-case "e." Plus, with its resources and generally poor standard of living conditions, such a confederation would likely use it expansive energy to improve itself before looking beyond its borders, and that could take generations.

For this reason, the creation of such a Latin-Bloc would not likely be rivals of a revived Anglo-Saxon Empire in expansionist concerns. There is a historical precedent and need for the Anglo-sphere to be expansionist and imperialist in both Africa and the middle-east, what real interest or precedent do the Latins have? I doubt a cogent argument could be made that South America will revive the old Spanish Main under a King Phillip II like figure. What expansionist claims would they make that would lead to WWIII? The Falkland Islands (Again)? Beach Front Resorts in The Caribbean? Please.

I also think you may be right that a Eurasian Bloc would form, but I do not think it would include current allies like South Korea (which generally sees itself a Christian now) and Japan (which has lost a sense of REAL identity in the nationalist sense). I think a Eurasian Bloc would likely include Russia and China under the Fourth Way theory of Alexandr Dugin and would likely be the Anglosphere's main adversary, but mostly in the pacific and in claims of newly reconquered areas of Islamic controlled western Europe (e.g. fights over whether a reconquered Germany will be Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, etc). In the end, though, the historical experience and power of an "Empire of the Sea" that includes both the U.S. and the U.K. would undoubtedly reign victorious in the pacific and Atlantic even if it conceded the war against Islam in Western Europe to a Eurasian Bloc. They can have it, what else would western Europe have to offer but monuments of bitter-sweet memories?

As for the Islamic question, I do not think Muslim populations in the Anglo-Sphere are a hindrance to the creation of an Empire, but will be one of the main catalysts for its formation (before they are ultimately assimilated or removed, of course).

Thanks for the feedback though, good food-for-thought on the future of Geo-Politics.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]