If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


luxfelix last won the day on February 18 2016

luxfelix had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About luxfelix

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Sound Designer / Composer

Recent Profile Visitors

325 profile views
  1. Slightly off-topic: I wonder if history is repeating itself, both in the way that Turkey once again threatens Europe and in the historical alliance between France and the Ottomans (and a would-be alliance between Elizabeth I and Morocco?).
  2. The link is in the alleged role reversal of men and women with regards to relationships (social and personal romantic connections) and whether this would be linked to hormonal changes -- if any -- as a cause or an effect of hypergamous behavior? (Or perhaps this is a non-issue contrary to human biology?) What do we need to offer each other; is it fundamentally different from what needed to be offered in the past?
  3. Less demand for relationships? You mentioned that the roles would be reversed if estrogen provided more libido than testosterone. Is there a shift to female proposals as opposed to traditional male proposals (or proposals at all...) for relationships? In Japan there are "herbivore men", in the West we have MGTOW, and in most of the world we have political correctness. If not indicative of demand in general, do these elements reflect a shift in which half demands more? (If this still doesn't make sense, I'll have to find a better way to ask the question... )
  4. Thank you. Some content creators have their contact info in the about tab on their page. In general, send them a message about your interest and how you can contribute and you might be surprised by how responsive people are. Worst case is they say no or don't get back with you. You can also start your own project if you are so inclined.
  5. With respect to this, does this mean that there is less demand in places like Japan and the West (or perhaps the balance is tipping toward women?) -- perhaps part biology, part epigenetics, part social attitudes (political correct culture included)?
  6. Thank you for the feedback. It's funny you mention that as one idea he had was to make shorter bite-sized videos on single aspects (that could also be viewed in tandem as a playlist if desired) which would allow him to slow down and focus on the details. I didn't catch that at first but you're right, it's prefacing each part with an opinion that could be better reserved for the end (similar to Stef's Truth About series ). I did ask him which aspect was the worst of the worst -- sovereignty was number one.
  7. I sent an e-mail expressing interest, received return interest in working together, and we made this; the internet is our Guttenburg Press. This is both me showing-off and an offer for anyone else whom would like to collaborate in combating political correctness and insanity from this contemporary culture war.
  8. 3. I've come across the argument that the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the end for monarchy. Theologically, it represents the shift to subjective interpretation of the Bible -- where the Bible was arguably not meant to be used in that way -- and where the Church loses power, monarchies derived therefrom begin to lose legitimacy. We then have characters like Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, and later Bolsheviks that have their own justifications for removing crowned heads. WWI lead, more immediately, to the end of many monarchies as well. Maybe this ties into the idea that malevolent rulers have found it easier to run tax farms within Democratic structures? 5. Well, aside from the inbreeding -- which is another big reason for the failure on monarchies at the turn of the last century -- that is a great example of how to expand non-violently. Are you referring to the act of marriage as the origin point for their legitimacy? Is it a matter of only marrying within nobility?
  9. 2. I get where your coming from. I may be taking the metaphor of Elizabeth I being "married to her people" as monarch too literally; that, and trying to find an applicable scale to daily life, such as in Everyday Anarchy. 3. Likewise, I see where you're coming from; however, we've seen a decline in the number and power of monarchies throughout the world. Would this not suggest that they too are vulnerable to human willpower, be it democratic or totalitarian coups? Additionally, this would seem to be the case in both religious and secular societies in opposition to the Will of God. 4. (You'll likely get more value from reading about it from those who've studied it more in depth than me.) As a form of government, I would classify it as a kind of anarcho-monarchy. 5. Using the Habsbugs as a case study, when did they receive legitimacy from God to become monarchs -- was it a matter of destiny, attained through deed, and/or otherwise? (Emphasis on how to replicate and how that fits in with the concept of legitimacy as described here in this thread?)
  10. 1. Ah, and lets not forget the Hohenzollerns whom were at one time "kings in Prussia" as opposed to "kings of Prussia" due to political concerns as an elector in the HRE... 2. I'd be interested to pick this one back up later when you're ready. 3. (This could probably be in a thread on its own.) In relation to this thread's topic on monarchy -- and with regard to legitimacy -- where does willpower come into play? 4. I don't know, but I'd imagine you're right. Borrowing from the Founders' view of America, different societal systems/institutions require a certain type of person with beliefs in common that synchronize with that form of society. I have. The connection between Molyneux's book and medieval Iceland in particular is the idea of DROs (Molyneux) and Chiefs (Iceland), where people choose a court(DROs)/chief(Iceland) and their rules to follow. (Or, at least, that's the nugget here.) Tying it back to the thread here, would/could someone choose which monarch to follow and/or become one themselves if they have the willpower and/or legitimacy?
  11. "Reinventing the wheel" is a saying that refers to the effort it takes/took to be the first one to invent/do something; and so, if someone has already been there/done that, the time and energy it took to attain/accomplish the task the first time can be reproduced without trial and error for everyone trying thereafter. Fortunately for us, it's much easier nowadays to find this information with the help of the internet and the accessibility of reaching people from around the world. Just having heroes isn't enough, you'll still have to find out what they did when they were at where you are now to reproduce their success; or, at least find some commonalities that can help, even if their situation is not completely analogous to your own. For example, if you had, as one of your heroes, a fitness expert, just having them as a hero will not improve your personal fitness; you will need to then learn what they did back when they were where you are now and translate that into short-term/long-term goals for yourself. In this case, there would be various levels of uncontrollable/limiting factors (such as genetics) and controllable ones (such as diet and basic exercise), but given time and commitment you can attain a higher level of health/fitness for yourself aided by the knowledge of your heroes. Who is a hero you have that has been where you are now, and how have they overcome (or handled) hatred of their own race? (Likewise for how they were able to climb out of despair?)
  12. On the clarification, are crowns jurisdictions over realms, or peoples -- "King of France" or "King of the French" -- or both realms and peoples? Does this change with regards to rank and/or personal unions; for example, are ducal crowns less legitimate than kingdom crowns (or baronial, county, imperial, etc.) and/or when crowns merge/split? You hit on a very central theme with family as a form of monarchy. A family is a core relationship between two (and then more with progeny thereafter) followed by concentric circles of extended family members crisscrossing and buttressing one another; the man is traditionally the head of the family largely because of biological relationships between men and women whereby the husband can provide for the family while the wife cares for the children and home. I see the parallel you mention with the approval of the community and god in a ceremony not unlike a coronation where a monarch is wedded to their people/realm(?). By willpower are you referring to one's ability to make decisions for themselves and/or act them out? Two things that I find relevant for this discussion: When talking about anarchy on its own, I'm describing the idea of a blank canvas or a state of nature that individuals then paint with their own preferences; we can have one group of like-minded people forming ancapistan over here, another group installing a commune over there, and others deciding they would rather live as hermits/nomads off in the distance (etc.). Eventually, the strengths/weaknesses and preferences of peoples will be demonstrated beyond the theoretical. The key between all of these flavors would be the ability to choose for oneself which to join (or choose none). This only exists in the free marketplace of ideas within the minds of those people that debate with words (and more than words...) in the world. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head that resembles anarcho-monarchy is the Icelandic system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth] ... and even that is a bit of a stretch. (Though I am interested to what you think of it.)
  13. In part, to avoid having to reinvent the wheel; in the context of this discussion, if you can find a hero you can look up to whom has attained what you wish to attain, it can also help you from despairing in indoctrination camp.
  14. For the sake of your argument, I'll accept that there are nations with monarchies and freer economies than many democracies only claiming free markets. Succession is legitimate because the monarchs -- themselves having legitimacy through a deity/deities -- has made the decision and/or passes on their legitimacy through their genes? I'm curious as to what legitimacy and monarchy means in a community where everyone (able-bodied/of-age/etc.) is a monarch; would this essentially be a different flavor of anarchy?