I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - Page 5 - 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.
#14848066
I miss Abu Rashid. He was the Islamist mirror image of the "only asking questions" crowd on the alt-right. :lol:
[youtube]_pju1hin600[/youtube]

Pants-of-dog wrote:Thanks. I had assumed there was at least one here.

So that's one white guy celebrating Islamic colonialism, as compared to how many white guys celebrating European colonialism?

Oh, I was just responding to your request. Don't take it as an endorsement of SolarCross et al. :)
#14848164
@Victoribus Spolia

It was intended to amuse. I'm glad you didn't take seriously. It would be a shame if you did.

I simply appreciate the fact that he is the only other Iranian here who understands Iranian history and I thanked him for representing me and other Iranians. If you were one of the only conservatives on this forum and a liberal was spouting misinformation about conservatism wouldn't you too be thankful for anybody who corrected him?

So…..when he blows his load in your mouth, do you require a beverage to wash it down? Or do you prefer a chaser after choking it down? I am legitimately curious as I am not privy to the dynamics of such a relationship.


And now I love you. You've now solidified your status as a top-tier poster in my eyes. You're certainly an eccentric poster with your quite unique ideas and crass language (something that isn't seen in PoFo that much) and not only that, but you're one of the few crass PoFo users that's actually intellectually debatable and that, my friend, is what matters to me. If I met you in real-life I would give you a big 'ol hug and buy you a beer. It'll be a pleasure for us to cross swords in the future.

If that is the case then I would like you to re-link those sources. Furthermore I am not criticizing you for linking to Wikipedia. I myself linked to the Arabic Wikipedia to provide information on ethnically Arab Jews. Furthermore I am not criticizing you for being un-scholarly but for being too scholarly. As I said in the conclusion to my first point, simply because some scholars think so doesn't mean that it's correct, far from it actually. First, academia is heavily divided, there's multiple opinions on several different subjects. Second, history in academia is especially divided as most historical events are heavily based on interpretations rather than concrete fact. Just as there is a theory that the Sassanid Empire was once Christian there could be another theory that the Byzantine Empire was once temporarily Muslim. One is not less implausible than the other as both depend on the interpretations of one specific, irrelevant recording's implications.

This is why you need to give me the evidence that these scholars have to prove that the Sassanid Empire was temporarily Islamic because otherwise it's as meaningless as an average joe claiming that the Greeks were black.

Then the entirety of the Crusades was meaningless since, during the Islamic Golden Age and even throughout the Umayyad Caliphate, the Caliph funded churches and many high ranking officials prayed in churches. This means that the Caliphate was secretly Christian according to your logic. Not only that, but the Ottoman Empire even made Christianity a major part of it's Empire and also funded churches as well. This is even more proof that Caliphates are secretly christian!

Your certifications for what constitutes a Christian nation are too broad to be meaningful. It means that any nation or empire that funds a church is or was a Christian nation. This would mean that India and Japan were once Christian nations which is ridiculous to think about.

Constaintine I's Rome had Christianity as the official state religion. This is completely different from Iran, which never had Christianity as the official state religion at all throughout it's entire history. This was your original claim or at least the one that I have seen.

Listen, dude, you're not expressing on opinion here, you are arguing that an historical event was due to a specific factor. This requires evidence and proof to back up, not a personal specification. Nowhere in Crusade propaganda did Persia pop up at all and even if Iran was Christian at one point, the Crusaders wouldn't be aware of it because, chances are, they know nothing about Iran. There wasn't anything known about Iran at all outside of Exodus and some Persian merchants. The only interactions Europeans had with the Middle East was through the port cities of Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey. I don't even think the Europeans even knew Baghdad existed.

You have no historical evidence to back up your claims at all, that's why your claim is wrong.

I don't care about what your opponent thinks. I would've responded to your post anyways regardless if @anasawad at all. I responded to a specific part of your post I think is wrong, that's all there is to it. I'm not in kahoots with @anasawad and planning world domination with him or something. I'm just some average poster who simply disagrees with your post.

Furthermore, if the Islamic Slave Trade is irrelevant here then why did you mention it in the first place?

Ok so? I'm not @anasawad. He can respond to you himself. I'm completely independent from him and I act independently. The reason why I responded to you is because you, in essence, were trying to defend the British colonization of India. I disagreed with it and gave reasons for why the British colonization of India was horrible for everyone involved. Anasawad's claim doesn't matter me.

I never claimed that these were civilizations so I have no idea what you're talking about. You were the one who claimed that they weren't civilizations and since my point isn't that African civilizations are civilizations, you have the burden of proof to prove that African civilizations weren't civilizations.

You simply don't know if there are or aren't many accomplishments that are significant enough to display the civilized nature of Africa so you can't be right or wrong. Your original claim was that African civilizations weren't civilizations because there is nothing Africa has to show for in terms accomplishments, this claim is neither right nor wrong because Africa has certain accomplishments that show hints of civilization. There just isn't enough information about these accomplishments. That's why you can't be sure that you're right or wrong.

Listen, when you become a big boy, then you'll move on to bigger and better things. You're still too little for that right now.
#14848167
@SolarCross

Because Ottomans = Every Muslim in existence. Yeah, sure. The Ottomans were pretty terrible and corrupt rulers that's for sure, but they certainly do not represent all Muslims. Furthermore, you have not given any proof that all Muslims support colonialism. The only actual Islamic group advocating for colonialism is ISIS and that groups becoming increasingly discredited by the second.

Yes, many Muslims want a Caliphate but it usually consists of Islamic territories (i.e. the Middle East) and nothing else. Some secular Turks put the Balkans in there, but that's as far as the Caliphate goes into Europe or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Many of them don't even put in Kazakhstan in there either.

@Bulaba Jones

Wait, such a guy legitimately exists? Holy ****.

This guy has no idea the amount of trouble he could be in right now. Honestly, he is in some deep shit.
#14848316
Constaintine I's Rome had Christianity as the official state religion.

No, it didn't. Constantine merely made Christianity one of the officially tolerated religions in the Roman Empire, on the same level as the cult of Isis and Mithraism. It was the Emperor Theodosius about a generation later who decreed that Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire and who defunded and started demolishing the pagan temples. Constantine himself was only baptised as a Christian on his deathbed. Ironically, the bishop who baptised him wasn't even Orthodox, but was an Arian heretic. Lol.
#14848366
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Potemkin wrote:No, it didn't. Constantine merely made Christianity one of the officially tolerated religions in the Roman Empire, on the same level as the cult of Isis and Mithraism. It was the Emperor Theodosius about a generation later who decreed that Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire and who defunded and started demolishing the pagan temples. Constantine himself was only baptised as a Christian on his deathbed. Ironically, the bishop who baptised him wasn't even Orthodox, but was an Arian heretic. Lol.
Really, wow! Potemkin, you must of been there to know that much about the surface symptoms. What was Constantine like, did he have one or two bowel movements per day? I want a first-hand account, not a second-hand history lesson. Oh wait, that's right, you're regurgitating a regurgitated story, letting second-hand thoughts control your reality. This thread is as relevant as E! True Hollywood Story. Furthermore, since historical gossip is not science, how will this trivia lesson help humanity reach the stars? Discussing the history of fixed perspective is a waste of time. Sure, 'history repeats itself,' well, stop reviving dead ideas and glorifying ignorant individuals. "RT, it's human nature and history-" No. Belief influences reality and we can transcend natural selection through technology. Time to let go of the past, Potemkin.

Here, I'll fix it:
A conceited individual merely made a myth one of the officially tolerated dogmas in the Empire of bullshit, on the same level as the cult of limited perception. It was the other conceited individual about a generation later who decreed that a myth was the official state dogma of the Empire of bs and who defunded and started demolishing geometric structures. The 1st conceited individual was only baptised as a myth on his deathbed. Ironically, the role player who baptised the conceited individual wasn't even an ideological convention, but was a human being. Lol.

This :eh: inducing post is brought to you by human thought.

:)
#14931709
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.

Is this really what you believe or are you conducting a thought experiment of some sort?
#14931716
Bleh wrote:Is this really what you believe or are you conducting a thought experiment of some sort?


I believed it at the time, I am now an Anarcho-Capitalist etc., per my views on my profile. I keep my profile updated, so it should always accurately reflect my current views.
#14931812
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I believed it at the time, I am now an Anarcho-Capitalist etc., per my views on my profile. I keep my profile updated, so it should always accurately reflect my current views.


Change happens, lol. A person generally does not change the inner core of what they believe in however, it's part of something too reflective of their being (which itself does not change very much). What does tend to change over time, i've seen, are one's reactions to the world around them, actions and reactions.

I imagine too that there probably is a certain amount of disconnect between what you find practical to follow politically at this present time and moment, and what you find to be the ideal situation. What is, and what should be.

But what I find personally to be interesting with your situation, is that I have been of the opinion for some time that far from being some political outlier ideology, Anarcho-Capitalism is something that I believe is actually developing in the real world as a political and socio-economic fact. My ''Socialism'', or whatever of my ideology still exists that can be called that, nonetheless saw Anarcho-Capitalism as an inevitability, a prognosis missed I believe by Socialists of whatever stripe universally.

I am by no means reconciled with what I see to be an eventual fact, but I'd be interested to see from you what you think will happen during the eventual transition phase between Capitalism and Anarcho-Capitalism. I mean, that's where the wheels tend to come off, during these kinds of critical periods.
#14931954
Potemkin wrote:Constantine himself was only baptised as a Christian on his deathbed.

I'm no expert on Constantine, but I've heard it claimed that death bed baptism was common to avoid sinning after baptism.
#14932067
Rich wrote:I'm no expert on Constantine, but I've heard it claimed that death bed baptism was common to avoid sinning after baptism.


Yes, it was a measure of how seriously they really did take the matter of receiving baptism, not at all a measure of how little they regarded sin and human frailty.

I can see this because I was baptized as an adult into the Orthodox Church, and I felt a genuine pain when I fell down a bit later. However, I also have the grace to be picked up and to continue on my journey.

Infant baptism was a therapeutic pastoral concession for many souls, but as Pascal once noted, brought enemies into the bosom of the Church as well.
#14935231
annatar1914 wrote:but I'd be interested to see from you what you think will happen during the eventual transition phase between Capitalism and Anarcho-Capitalism. I mean, that's where the wheels tend to come off, during these kinds of critical periods.


The smarter vested land-owners and intentionally seperatist communities will pursue agorist secession within the United States, basically networking in a process of economic independence and apoliticism to create security for themselves; meanwhile, the collapse of the state will proceed along the same lines that thinkers from all across the political spectrum have predicted. The states on the modern west are financially and culturally unsustainable just like Rome was before collapse.

We may live to see Washington DC sacked by Islamo-Mexican Horde :lol: , marking the end of an age, meanwhile independent communities and farmers in Montana and Eastern Ohio will go about their business operating a new ancap system based on landedness. America will continue with hundreds of independent little regions that are privately owned by sole proprietorships, little kingdoms (though likely not described in those terms), theocratic no-go zones, and maybe even a few little democracies or dictatorship sprinkled here and there and many of them will trade with each other, while others are at war with each, etc.

The mass violence and lotting following the fall of western states will be mostly urban and short-lived, the matter will settle when fatigued masses of urban refugees strike deals with land owners in the countryside (former middle-class farmers) to basically become a modern equivalent to serfs.

So shall the order of things go.

I also foresee a realignment of western Christian back into broad tradition, not unlike the early church or the medieval church right before the reformation. It will be a system that is recalled to help people in their misery, viciously anti-sectarian (post-denominational), and supportive of the new order while stressing historic catholicity and orthodox theology.
#14935320
@Victoribus Spolia

Islamo-Mexican Horde


There are too little Muslims in the US to sack Washington DC and all of them have better things to do than get their hands dirty. Muslims are the most richest religious group in the US so I doubt that they would bother destroying the structure which gives them that wealth in the first place (although they may prefer your ancap society over the existing structure since it makes mass accumulation of wealth easier). Mexicans don't have a reason to sack Washington DC either. There is a higher chance of there being a coup or a military takeover than an Islamo-Mexican horde. Hell, there's a higher chance of an alt-right conservative horde sacking DC than an Islamo-Mexican one.

Also why do you want this? A fragmented America is Russia's wetdream which is a sure sign of extensive Russian influence and if America falls, all the other major powers of the world will carve it up like they did with the Ottoman Empire. America, like the Middle East, is too valuable and too potentially powerful to be left alone. Canada will also love this since it will become the sole organized military power in the region and it exploit the hell out of that position.
#14935325
Oxymandias wrote:There are too little Muslims in the US to sack Washington DC and all of them have better things to do than get their hands dirty.


I wouldn't say they are going to come from any current north american populations. :lol:

but the "barbarians at the gates" analogy may likely come from a future where mass refugees entering canada become a powerful political force along with some sort of hispanic southern force bent on reconquista of the American south west coalescing to give the finishing blow to a former imperial power that has become worn-out, insolvent, degenerate, and militarily disorganized.

Don't take my scenario too literally. :lol:

Also, the end of America for me will not be isolated, it will mark the end of the west in its entirety and the start of global dark age.

It will be analogous to Rome's fall when it happens in my opinion.

It won't be anybody's wet-dream, all the world will suffer, i even think such a collapse may come after a disastrous global war and/or economic/oil crisis.
#14935369
@Victoribus Spolia

I highly doubt the entire world will suffer in such a scenario. I don't see how the US falling will lead to Europe falling as well. Even if the world was dependent upon the West, there is no reason for them not to exploit it and take the resources it contains a la the Middle East. Russia would benefit the most from this given how it can easily project power into the North American continent and take whatever it wants. Speaking of the Middle East, it is possible it will become a much better place after America or the West falls. Israel's economy is entirely dependent upon foreign aid by the US and Europe and a large part of it's military might comes from that foreign patronage. Once that flow of money ceases, Israel will probably collapse upon itself and no amount of reforms could help it because of the amount of pressures upon it. These pressures will increase after many Middle Eastern powers realize that the US is gone and that Israel has no one to back them.

The US military bases in the Middle East will also be abandoned for home. Soldiers would prefer to check up on their families and make sure their safe in the event of a collapse rather than stay in the front lines. You may have some particularly patriotic soldiers stay in their bases out of loyalty to their (now defunct) country, but such situations will be few and far between. This means that the US has no influence over Middle Eastern politics anymore and if the West falls entirely, than Russia will no longer influence the Middle East either. Therefore, the Middle East is now independent of any Western power. This is very fucking good for the Middle East.

In regards to China, I'm not sure as I am not that well versed in Chinese politics. This goes for the rest of South East Asia.
#14935372
Well, like I said, I think the U.S. collapse would likely be grounded in a global war and economic crisis, so perhaps the falling of America itself is not the cause of the world's dark age, but merely a condition of broader collapse.
#14935421
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, like I said, I think the U.S. collapse would likely be grounded in a global war and economic crisis, so perhaps the falling of America itself is not the cause of the world's dark age, but merely a condition of broader collapse.


I predict only the collapse of democracy. Crises will certainly happen but they shouldn't wreck civilization, just the obsolete system that can't cope.
#14935424
starman2003 wrote:I predict only the collapse of democracy. Crises will certainly happen but they shouldn't wreck civilization, just the obsolete system that can't cope.


But isn't the west, on the whole, democratic?
#14935427
Victoribus Spolia wrote:But isn't the west, on the whole, democratic?


Of course. But it's my belief that, in extremis, even a long anti-despotic tradition can be overcome. That of ancient Rome persisted five centuries, prior to Caesarism. Even now, in fact for quite some time, authors have predicted the fall of democracy or at least considered it vulnerable. The Twilight of Democracy (which predicts the end of the system c 2050) is pretty old by now. Albright's Fascism a Warning is recent as is the title by Runciman--How Democracy Ends.

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[…]