Qaddafi Killed

[Hauldren Collider]

So let's see:

Monarchist --> Supports autocracy
Reactionary --> speaks for itself
Espouses eugenic politics and moderate patriarchy -> RACIST AND SEXIST

He's a nazi.

[giblets]

He reads blogs and then parrots whatever they say. He could have easily been a nazi depending on teh context.

[Heraclitus]

Monarchist --> Supports autocracy

No, I believe in incentives. I believe in heredity. I believe in virtue and do not hold equality except as shared human dignity as a value. It is natural that I'm a monarchist.

I also am firmly convinced democratic politics combined with mass media result in horrible totalitarianism, we are very fortunate the the soft Totalitarianism of post-Bourgeois Managerial state won the conflagrations of the first half of the 20th century. Both Communism and Nazism where quite a bit worse.

But this does not mean Liberal Democracy was a good guy. It dosen't mean our history is the best of all possible worlds. It is my contention that from the standpoint of sustainable human welfare and economic efficiency Monarchy reliably outperforms Liberal democracy.

He's a nazi.

Not at all I'm not a National Socialist because I don't believe in the fuhrerprinzip. There are various other reasons, including them being murders bastards. And while Jews are troublesome because of their high IQ and ethnocentrism I don't believe they are a major factor in Western decline over the past 100 years. In fact I am fairly certain that future historians will date the end of Western civilization to 1914 much as today 476 is sometimes used as a demarcation line for the fall of Rome despite there still being a "Roman civilization" of sorts for decades and centuries past this point.

Reactionary --> speaks for itse

Calling oneself a reactionary In the 1920s and 1930s you would get few friends in the NSDAP. In the 1940s it might even cost you your job or your freedom. Also as to sexism and racism, its cute how you pretend like those are real words with coherent meaning behind them. They don't deserve to be used unironically.

As I wrote earlier one important divergence between me and the Nazis is our explanation for Western decline and disintegration. Jews while occasionally troublesome for other European ethnicities with their high intelligence and "Is it good for the Jews?" attitude are not the cause of Western decline. While they have had a great mark on 20th century science, overall their historical importance is vastly overestimated by both Philosemites and Anti-Semites.

The real source of the accelerating cancer tearing apart European mankind was the elite that was descendant from the same people who dressed in black and hit children for being happy. Puritans, Quakers and various other assorted nuts that settled the American continent with their convenient package of a protestant Capitalist compatible work ethic and culture together with weaponized morality. In the 19th century you already had among those mad Yankees what where basically hippie communes, free love, egalitarianism and all sorts of other experiments that resurged with great strength later. These people with their smug demeanour, and self-righteous ideas of brotherly love and universal peace enforced and presided over them naturally, have in the past 200 years upset so many delicate social, economical and biological balances that I am not so sure mankind will survive this folly.

The West may still go down with a bang. A nuclear one.

Also stop and think:

Monarchist --> Supports autocracy
Reactionary --> speaks for itself
Espouses eugenic politics and moderate patriarchy -> RACIST AND SEXIST

He's a nazi.

For how many of these views did Winston Churchill feel affinity to and even espouse openly? A definition that captures me, Himmler and Churchill is useless, except if you want to say all Europeans before a certain date where outright as evil as the Nazis

[Heraclitus]

He reads blogs and then parrots whatever they say. He could have easily been a nazi depending on teh context.

Not true at all. If often parrot obscure books as well.

[DaShi]

Yes, you're completely useless. We know this. You've demonstrated it enough here.

[giblets]

I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the totalitarian librul media, Dashi.

[Heraclitus]

I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the totalitarian librul media, Dashi.

Not that conservative media is any better.

[Kidlicious]

No, I believe in incentives. I believe in heredity. I believe in virtue and do not hold equality except as shared human dignity as a value. It is natural that I'm a monarchist.

I also am firmly convinced democratic politics combined with mass media result in horrible totalitarianism, we are very fortunate the the soft Totalitarianism of post-Bourgeois Managerial state won the conflagrations of the first half of the 20th century. Both Communism and Nazism where quite a bit worse.

But this does not mean Liberal Democracy was a good guy. It dosen't mean our history is the best of all possible worlds. It is my contention that from the standpoint of sustainable human welfare and economic efficiency Monarchy reliably outperforms Liberal democracy.



Not at all I'm not a National Socialist because I don't believe in the fuhrerprinzip. There are various other reasons, including them being murders bastards. And while Jews are troublesome because of their high IQ and ethnocentrism I don't believe they are a major factor in Western decline over the past 100 years. In fact I am fairly certain that future historians will date the end of Western civilization to 1914 much as today 476 is sometimes used as a demarcation line for the fall of Rome despite there still being a "Roman civilization" of sorts for decades and centuries past this point.



Calling oneself a reactionary In the 1920s and 1930s you would get few friends in the NSDAP. In the 1940s it might even cost you your job or your freedom. Also as to sexism and racism, its cute how you pretend like those are real words with coherent meaning behind them. They don't deserve to be used unironically.

As I wrote earlier one important divergence between me and the Nazis is our explanation for Western decline and disintegration. Jews while occasionally troublesome for other European ethnicities with their high intelligence and "Is it good for the Jews?" attitude are not the cause of Western decline. While they have had a great mark on 20th century science, overall their historical importance is vastly overestimated by both Philosemites and Anti-Semites.

The real source of the accelerating cancer tearing apart European mankind was the elite that was descendant from the same people who dressed in black and hit children for being happy. Puritans, Quakers and various other assorted nuts that settled the American continent with their convenient package of a protestant Capitalist compatible work ethic and culture together with weaponized morality. In the 19th century you already had among those mad Yankees what where basically hippie communes, free love, egalitarianism and all sorts of other experiments that resurged with great strength later. These people with their smug demeanour, and self-righteous ideas of brotherly love and universal peace enforced and presided over them naturally, have in the past 200 years upset so many delicate social, economical and biological balances that I am not so sure mankind will survive this folly.

The West may still go down with a bang. A nuclear one.

Also stop and think:



For how many of these views did Winston Churchill feel affinity to and even espouse openly? A definition that captures me, Himmler and Churchill is useless, except if you want to say all Europeans before a certain date where outright as evil as the Nazis

THAT'S RACIST!

[DaShi]

How's that manifesto going, Hera?

[Barnabas]

Heraclitus, why would you prefer a Monarchy and not an authoritarian conservative technocratic meritocracy like those which are common in east asian countries of confucian tradition.
Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination , brought to the modern world , the legitimacy of the rulers comes from the difficulty of the exams.

[Heraclitus]

Heraclitus, why would you prefer a Monarchy and not an authoritarian conservative technocratic meritocracy like those which are common in east asian countries of confucian tradition.
Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination , brought to the modern world , the legitimacy of the rulers comes from the difficulty of the exams.

This is clearly a form of monarchy.

[Sava]

is there a pool on whether heraclitus is gonna be a mass shooter person?
can i put down 5 bucsk?

[Af Ra Kam]

Obama has out Reaganed Reagan by overthrowing Gaddafi and, along with his NATO partners, waging a war against a civilian population to place a puppet government in charge in Tripoli. Obama is the self-appointed Great Executioner, who in a period of just five months, has assassinated Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki without charge or trial while staging an 'assassination' of Gaddafi by proxy.