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


Mishi2 last won the day on May 1

Mishi2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 Good

1 Follower

About Mishi2

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    History, Philosophy, Languages, Geography, Geopolitics, Religion, Cultures, Psychology, Economics
  • Occupation
    Employee and Volunteer for Jesuit Order

Recent Profile Visitors

317 profile views
  1. You are from the UK, correct? Have you been on the call-in show recently? I know someone brought this topic up. There is a lot of room for speculation there. I have been to the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, but I haven't seen the signs of outright partitioning as of yet. You use the word "forcing" a lot. In the FDR community, we put much emphasis on the respecting of human free will and peaceful dialogue. This does not mean we shy away from physical conflict when it presents itself, but still, it would be better if nobody got hurt. That being said, I understand you don't think a peaceful resolution is likely at this point. Right? So let me ask you a few things. If it comes to outright civil war, the like of which occurred in Yugoslavia, would you be willing to grab a weapon, take a bullet, and personally kill unarmed women and children? That is what you are suggesting, as I'm sure you understand. And if you would, what exactly would you do it for? The west? What does that mean to you? I wish I had more hope, but I also think ethnic cleansing, at least to some extent, will come to pass. I think it has already started in some areas. No, it is not ignorance that feeds Islam. "If only they could see it our way" is a very misguided attitude. When missionaries go to the middle-east, books are only a small utility. Their primary weapon they bring with them is willpower and sacrifice. Knowledge is only the seed, but blood is water to it. Unless Westerners are willing to show at least as much sacrifice as the Muslims are, they will lose. When Asians visit Europe, they don't say "Wow, look at all their good arguments - I may have to join the winning side.", but rather "Wow, those are some huge cathedrals that they had to build for 300 years with blood, sweat and tears - these guys sure love their god." What draws me to FDR is the commitment that Mr.Molyneux has for truth and values. Even though I don't agree with him on everything, I am confident that he would be more than willing to shed his blood for roughly the same values that I hold, if it comes down to it.
  2. Damn right it wasn't an argument. What does "mostly" mean? What does "above the law" mean? What does "law" mean? Do you think the monarchs just did whatever they felt like doing? Which century are you talking about? Which culture? Which country? What legal code? The Queen of England is a terrible example. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means the authority of the Queen is restricted by the constitution. That was the point of the Magna Carta. If you want to bring up Saudi Arabia, as an absolute monarchy, that is another bad examle, since Saudi Arabia is governed by strict Wahhaabist Sharia law which applies to the royal family as well. Even if you bring up the most absolute of monarchies, the Holy See, even there the Pope abides by canon law. So I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, even it is not strictly called "law", there is always some form of restriction that applies to monarchs, usually set up by the religious class, the ruling class, or a previous monarch. As examples provided above. Ostracism was definitely applied, even as far as WW1. You made a bad move, you had made enemies among the populous, the ruling class, the religious class, and even other monarchs. I think what Gavitor is complaining about is that Civil Law or Common Law does not apply to rulers, or at least not in the same manner as it applies to us common folk. I'll try to clear it up with a present day example... Suppose there is a politician in a foreign country with diplomatic immunity. That does not mean that the politician can do whatever he wants. In fact, even the slightest of blunders can get him recalled to the home country and court-martialled. Same with a monarch. He is not tried under the same laws that a commoner is, but he does not escape justice.
  3. Hi, Crusader! Thanks, I'll check out the book. Russia has always been a multiethnic empire. Only 77% are Russian. It is concerning, not only to us, but to the Russian leadership as well. However... the minister of defence in Russia is a Tuvan guy (Sergey Shoygu). I don't think he is muslim, but this is a testament to the fact that it is possible to be an oppressed minority, and still be a loyal soldier of Russia. The Russians have always employed their minorities in the military (see Kosacks), and they have been the right arm of the Russian Military since Peter the Great, through the Russian Civil War, and up to this day. It is also a recurring trend in Russian history that they utilise one minority to oppress another. Russians are smart. Personally, I don't fret about it so much. Notice I said "islam" and not "muslims". In my opinion, it is mathematically impossible to expell all muslims from Europe. Muslims populations have always existed in Europe to some degree. For instance in Tatarstan, Bosnia, Albania, Thracia. I have a very strong suspicion that it will eventually come to a bit of ethnic cleansing. But it will not settle the matter forever. Ethnic cleansing has been successful only in a minority of cases in history. My hope is the same as that of Mr.Molyneux. That an absolutist ideology is the only thing that can stop an absolutist ideology. Although Mr.Molyneux has been drawing closer to Christianity recently, he still thinks that a new value system has to be created. Even if I agreed with him on that, I doubt there is actually enough time to do so. Notice that at the edges of Europe, Christianity is extremely strong. Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Sicily, Malta, Spain are all at the top of the list when ranked by faith. This is the only way a society can possibly survive when pressed up against a robust ideology like Islam. If we manage to return to an absolutist ideology, then there is hope for bringing over the Muslims to our side. That is our only way of doing things peacefully. As anecdotal evidence, I have spoken with many migrants coming to Europe, and it is really not that hard to impress them with Christianity. The only problem is that they are going to countries where the natives are not Christian themselves. What are they supposed to integrate into when there is nothing to integrate into?
  4. Well, I wouldn't say they are restricted to India, but they are probably all genetically Subcontinental. I wonder why Hinduism never made it into high IQ countries, whereas Buddhism did. I mean they started in the same place at roughly the same time, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_by_country#/media/File:Hinduism_percent_population_in_each_nation_World_Map_Hindu_data_by_Pew_Research.svg Does Tatarstan count as northern Europe? It is longitudinally above Germany. Also, Christianity and Judaism started ther too. How does that defeat my argument? China is not the only country above 105. South Korea is majority christian, and they score at 106. Ironically? Marginal doctrine? I give up. I think you have only met protestants. If a Chinese catholic and a Subsaharan catholic met, you can be sure that they will use the same terminology and same concepts that are used in Rome when they discuss religion. We even have a universal language, Latin, in case there are language complications. The beauty of the Universal Church is such. This is an interesting subject you bring up, and I think it is very relevant to the topic of the thread. See of this makes sense to you. You are right, I don't feel loyalty to a "race". When I watch a movie about Mongols warring against Poles, When I watch a movie about Hungarians warring against Germans, I root for the Germans. When I watch a movie about Germans besieging the Vatican, I root for the Vatican. I think you get the picture. My values are not rooted in race, but in ideology. Quite frankly, I think Europe should die if they surrender their faith, but as you see, they don't need my encouragements. It's quite possible. Take the example of the World Catholic Youth Day, when over 2 million youths gather in one place from all over the world every few years. From there comes no scandal, no reports of rape, no molestation. Simply because we catholics have managed to adhere to the UPB of our own, all while the clever atheists are still figuring out whether they want communism or nazism. I don't understand the question. I am usually ready to murder everyone I meet before they prove their morality. Let me try to answer anyway... If I had to pick, I would rather leave my toys with a random arab christian person than a random aryan atheist person. Supposing that religion is NOT a factor, then I would without question want to belong to the Jews. I mean, how is this even a competition? The Jews are going to have all the Aryans wiped out anyway, and it is only a matter of time before they destroy Islam as well. You should join us, meet a nice jewish girl, put on the funny cap, move to Israel. After all, you are a racial relativist, right? Plus, your offspring would be most grateful.
  5. Islam is a predominant religion only in areas where the average IQ is 80-85. Same goes for Hinduism. Atheism is only prevailing in a few countries where the IQ is above 98. Christianity just as prevalent in countries where the IQ is above 105 and where it is below 65. Sorry, for some reason I can't post a second peicture no matter what I do. I trust you know where to find your religions.
  6. I can get behind that. Although some monarchs are in fact considered deities, like the Emperor of Japan. Asians are normally more prudent folk when it comes to speech directed at somebody of higher status. To them, a given person is surely of higher status because they know better, so "why would a lowlife like my criticise the King" is the attitude. It's as if I started railing against Mr.Molyneux for being a terrible presenter, all without having done anything myself. In other cases, which is not limited to Asia. heads of state are regarded as representatives of the nation, therefore any word against them is a word against the nation itself. In Poland, for instance, it is illegal to criticise foreign heads of state because a wrong word against say... Putin could lead to a diplomatic incident, and nobody wants that. That is the saddest argument against monarchy I have ever come across on the internet.
  7. Right. I followed your link, and I think I get your definition now. So if I understand correctly, the more Aryan there is in a person, the better. Aryans definitely spoke Proto-Indo-European, so I don't see how that is a misnomer. Is it fair to say that you think UPB can only be achieved by the Aryans? Or do you think that there is no UPB? According to you, it was the Jews who convinced the Aryans to start surrendering their identity, correct? Do you think if Germany had not completely lost the war, and had maybe created a sizeable Aryan state, then the world would be a much better place today? Maybe even the Muslim problem would have been solved? This is not a bait question. I personally would have preferred that Germany won the war. I have a great-grandfather who died at the Battle of Stalingrad, and another who died during the Siege of Budapest, both against the Soviets. Sorry to say that I do live among "your people", and they seem to like me quite a bit. I don't really have a "folk" or a "kind" nor a "people", but I agree that without shared universal values, races are incompatible. There is however an ideological frame within which everyone has a place. That is the Universal Church. Christianity has been the single successful ideology that has incorporated all races from all over the globe. You can be Japanese, Chinese, Philipino, Aryan, Semitic, Subsaharan, Mestizo, low IQ, high IQ, and you can feel at home, provided that you leave your racial... baggage at the door. Maybe my grandfather counts as Aryan, because he was German Hungarian. But there is a grandmother of mine who has some Jewish heritage. I'm pretty sure we can't be friends. So by the way... How are you contributing in our struggle against Islam?
  8. 5. I added the official standard as well. Just copied a few definitions from wikipedia. The Aryan race was a racial grouping commonly used in the period of the late 19th century to the mid-20th century to describe peoples of European and Western Asian heritage.[1] It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the putative Caucasian race.[2] The Aryan race is an idea that was formed in the 19th and early 20th century. The term "Aryan" comes from the name of a supposed group of people in ancient Persia and India, who spoke an Indo-European language. It has been used to describe people of Iranian, Indian and European decent, but later it was used more for Germanic peoples because of new ideas about the Aryans. 1. I usually don't look Aryan. Especially when I'm tired. 2. I guess I act Aryan. At least I seem to be able to share a living space with them. 3. I identify with Aryans, except when I'm railing against them. 4. I don't know what that means. Supposing that fighting Islam counts, then I have probably done more than anyone on the forums. 5. By this definition, I am at the most 10% Aryan. Well, at least now we know we can't be friends.
  9. I was bringing up examples of voluntary slavery. China, if you want an east asian example, still has slavery. Christians, Buddhists, FalunGong practicioners are interned, sent to labour camps and harvested for their organs. Also, North Koreans are regularly "loaned" to Russia and China for slave work, which is a great opportunity for the Koreans, because they get more bread there, so they go willingly, even though their freedoms are much more restricted there. If slavery is really so economically inefficient, then why do we have laws against it? You westerners automatically assume than anyone in the bondage of slavery was put there against their will. That is because you have gotten unfamiliar with the practice. More often than not, people willingly surrender their will to others. This is why I brought up the welfare state and the voting away of rights as an example. We are en-route to slavery ourselves. The first Pope got his authority from Christ himself, and everyone else got their authority from the clergy. Who were presumably appointed by the Pope, therefore having the authority. I wonder why this misconception is so widespread that cloisters were places where monks conspired to feed the masses with pre-digested information. I think the lie has been spread by people who have never been to a mass before, because every day on multiple occasions, we literally open the Bible and read from it, then explain the official doctrine. "But nobody spoke Latin" bullcrap. Everyone always understood latin, because latin was the official language of the Roman empire, and it was the Lingua Franka for many more centuries. Even I understand Latin, despite not having studied it. The people are made up of individuals. It takes millions of individual decisions to move the masses. And yes, "meh" is also a decision and an action. When we catholics enter a confessional, we don't only confess the actions, but the inactions. According to our tradition, the promise of Jesus Christ is a differentiating factor. But if you don't believe in that stuff, there is an argument that the Church, despite being under siege since its founding, has survived to this day against all odds, triumphing against the greatest of empires. I will argue on Papa Francesco when you bring me specific quotes along with the context. I also would like if you opened a separate thread, because its a bit off-topic. No offence; I think your knowledge on historical countries and economies is too limited for a deep-diving discussion. Anyway, we already have a thread fo "best country in world", so feel free to take the conversation there. I didn't know monarchs were allowed to murder and steal. The terms "murder" and "steal" have a connotation to them that they go against some sort of legal or moral standard. I suppose you mean to claim that monarchs are legally allowed to traverse moral rules. In that case, I would have to ask you for specific examples. Quite frankly, I don't think that should be the case, and it is beyond me why you believe I do. What's wrong with that?
  10. You haven't really specified those standards. What is your duck like? I am also of the opinion that the government is here to stay for a while. Do I understand correctly that the greatest existential threat to the West is Islam? Or is it the Jews? Genetically, Jews are pretty much Europeans. And the Portuguese and the Maltese are pretty much genetically Arabic. So I see a few problems with your thinking. But now I'm a bit confused. Do you think it is ideology that is the problem, or is it genes? Or is it all correlated? I know that Soros is a Jew, even though his genes are more Hungarian, German and probably Slavic than Jew by now, but is Ben Shapiro in the same camp as he is? I think that Jews have had a hard time assimilating into Europe because of their absolutist ideology, not because of their genetics. And I also think so about Muslims. Egyptian Copts have become completely arabised by now, yet you don't see their incompatibilty when they move to the west. On the other side, there are the Bosnians and the Albanians who are absolutely European, yet simply cannot go a decade without a good old ethnic cleansing. Depends which side of the bed I wake up on. What are your criteria? 1. I completely agree, but there is a reason they got here in the first place, and that was not weak border security. 2. Governments grow because people surrender their freedoms. A tragedy for sure, yet still not the root cause. 3. Maybe not christianity necessarily, but an absolutist ideology is deffinitely what we are missing. The few times the West could actually give the Muslims a good whooping was under the symbol of the cross. But again, christianity is dwindling for a reason, and I wonder why. 4. Socialism is an idea that every healthy 13 year old dreams of creating. Then of course they grow up and get a job, and they realise that socialism would be the worst thing ever. What was the reason for some of these people not getting to grow up, and not having the idea beaten out of them?
  11. I think even if we wiped out Islam to the last man, our problems would not end. The welfare state is only a symptom, the Islamic invasion is only a symptom, the cultural masochism is also just a symptom. What would you say the root cause is? i How "pure", for lack of a better word, does the West have to be to make you feel comfortable? What level IQ would be the minimum in your ideal world? What percentage of the population has to be white? What religions, or lack thereof, does your ideal society adhere to? What are other requirements for building your ideal society of freedom? When exactly was the NAP first broken by, according to you, the enemies of the West? What needs to change so that we can be ready the next time they return? Because obviously they have been catching us off-guard lately. On a bit more personal note... Do halfies get to stay?
  12. Why should a person do what is wrong, immoral or anlawful? Are you referring to the monarch? I don't believe a monarch is allowed to do wrong. If so, please point out where exactly that is the case. I see. Well, when I say "monarch", I usually mean the office of monarch, not the person. Sure, the person of the monarch is important too, but if that becomes too important, then we traverse into the territory of cult of personality. A good system, be it democracy or autocracy, should theoretically be functional regardless of the personality of the ruler. It is not theoretical at all, but very real and current. There are still millions of slaves all over the world. Most choose slavery because the alternative would be starvation. As an example, there are hundreds of thousands of slaves in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE right now, who have willingly rooted themselves up from their homes, usually India, Bangladesh or Indonesia, just to get to work as slaves in the Middle-East. As an example closer to home, Europeans are systematically voting away their freedoms willingly. In my home country, it is illegal not to send your child to kindergarten, it is illegal not to have social security, and it is illegal not to work (something, anything). This is already very much like slavery to me, and we voted for it. People have sold their souls on the not-so-free market. Imagine what they would do on the ultimate free market. Sure. Every royal crown, except the Napoleonic crowns, of Europe can be traced back to either the Holy Roman Crown, or some other crown that was granted by the Pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. Therefore, he has the authority to bestow authority. Legitimacy requires 3 things: The will of God, the will of the People, and the will of other monarchs, who were presumably crowned legitimately. If either one of these is failing, then, the legitimacy can be called into question. It does not automatically render a monarch illegitimate, but it is henceforth questionable. There is an argument to be made that government is in fact consensual. "We" voted for everything that we now call government. The "russian people" overthrew their Tsar, and they set up the soviet union. Without their consent, Lenin could have done nothing. I understand your stance, but how are your standards the "good" standards. When I ask you "what is good", you reply "consent, conditions, size...", and when I ask you why they are good, you say "I like it more". Do you have a standard of UPB, accoring to which your opinion is correct. Its fine if you don't, its just that it is hard to talk about good and bad when I don't know your grounds. This has been a point of conflict for hundreds of years, so I don't think we are going to resolve this here and now. We believe that no, the Church doesn't get things wrong. There are very very tight checks and balances in place in order to prevent doctrinal corruption. So is your statement that monarchies before the enlightenment were much less economically free than countries generally are today? I'm going to have to dig into some data before I can argue any further. I hope you will do the same. Right. I can run with that definition for now. Name me the country that has been the most just in history. Then name me one that has been most stable, one that has most prospered, and one that has been a champion of progress. Do you think the will of an absolute ruler is more dangerous, or do you think the will of a mob is? I would ask you how stable the free market is, but since we haven't really had a good example of a market-run society, I'll not.
  13. I don't like the enlightenment, but in my sentence you responded to, I was talking about the enlightenment only as a reference point for cumpolsory military service. A good monarchy requires 3 things. A legitimate crown (can be an empty crown), an absolutist value system (christianity would be swell), and the consent of the people (counsel or parliament). This is actually my biggest problem with the ultimate free market. In a completely free market, humans would have a price tag on them as well. A completely free market should not have any limits, not even moral ones. If I want to sell myself into slavery, who has the right to stop me? This is how the mafia operates. To them, "coercion" is just a matter of negotiation. Yes they do promise many things in exchange for their theft (taxes). They offer security and order. Believe it or not, they actually deliver. At least the Mafia have been fighting the Migrant Wave, unlike their govenment. Yeah, I thought you haven't gone down that rabbit hole either. Thats ok, many people don't. Here is an exercise for you. I want you to answer the following question: "Be moral", by asking only the question "why?". Keep repeating it until you get a real answer, or hit a brick wall. I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, so if you are as wll, contact me via priate message. The definition was in the article: “Can two people give a person a right that they themselves do not possess?”. The obvious answer is always no. I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. The fact of life is that you will obey someone. Somebody will exercise their will over you. Unless they act against God, your parents are your best bet. My issue is that you have only stated opinions. They think you are inferior, and you think they are inferior. Only one of you can be right. Do you think there is a way to know who is right? Chile is the only sizeable country in the world where abortion is completely illegal. I think thats a good case for their attitude towards child abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile Their government is in essence constitutionally banned from interfering in the economy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile I guess you are right about socialism in Chile. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html "Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own wellbeing, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. August, De Civ. Dei, xii)." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZpjdHTWsfM Looks like you haven't been watching all of FDR lately. Let's get back to this after you have done your homework. My vision of God is subjective, true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a definition of Him. Spanking is not forbidden by the Church. That means that any priest you ask will only have an opinion. I personally, see violence as a form of communication. Not nice communication, but sometimes very necessary. Children can be pretty evil sometimes. And sometimes, they don't understand language. But again, I promised we would return to this one once I have done my homework... The Church is my moral dictator. I cannot argue without bringing it up. I think it was the Church that totally nailed UPB. That is why it is the most widespread faith in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "easily reached". Everything the Church ever taught is on the internet, unchanged for centuries, whereas he has been shifting around a lot, especially lately. "Very economically unfree" is the most subjective thing I ever read from you. Well, duh. But compared to what? Also, I don't agree that they were more unfree in comparison to modern monarchies. Do you think the Spain of 1400 was more unfree than the one of today? Or which specific country are you referring to? I don't agree with your quote. You are going to have to define "good" for me in this context. I noticed that links automatically condemn the posts to purgatory. So this will be as well for sure.
  14. I got an idea. Here is how you do it in 10 easy steps: 1. Put on a shirt. (A coat too if its cold or raining) 2. Put on pants. 3. Put on shoes. 4. Grab a flashlight. 5. Go out for a 1 hour walk at 10pm. 6. Take a friend with you if you have one. 7. Ask him to bring a friend too. 8. Take turns going out at different hours. 9. If you see anything out of place, point your flashlight at it. 10. See what happens. I made a habit of doing this during the 2015 migrant crisis. I even upgraded my flashlight. Kind of hilarious to see people get so nervous when you cast blinding rays of light at them. Reminds me of cockroaches to be honest.
  15. 1. Why not just abolish government benefits altogether? 2. https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F930 "Vous ne devez pas être déjà marié, que ce soit au regard de la loi française ou d'une loi étrangère." As you see, no, officially, polygamy is not recognised. Nor are sharia courts by the way. But also, unofficial polygamy is not punishable by law. 3. http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_4.html The french government only supports families with children, and does not support someone for merely having a wife. Don't you think you are far too focused on the symptoms, and not the underlying problem?