is it like the uk where they are the head of the party?

so the pm is basically the head of parliament

Not always.

well not in a minority government, right?

As a Minority government can subvert his agenda and call non-confidence to give him the boot.

the pm represents the crown to the people generally speaking

The other parties can form a coalition and then call an election.

But yeah, the PM is the head of the party with the most seats.

And he can appoint people to offices.

so it is practically the same as the uk

As a majority he is defacto leader.

Our system is based on British Parliament.

Yes.

But the Queen holds more power here than there.

We have the Commons and the Senate.

The Senate is full of people appointed by PMs.

From the Commons.

And they never change until one resigns or dies.

gay

Hah.

so my point is that the pm represents the crown in the lives of the citizens. but the pm is chosen through the democratic process. so the authority of the crown is democratically governed

Yes.

That's about right.

that is a problem

BUT

The Governor General is chosen by the Queen.

And has all the authority of the Queen in their country.

who is the governor general?

The Queen when the Queen isn't there.

They are the "Crown" chosen by the crown.

K, that is good

PM is the people's representative of the crown, Governor General is the Queen's.

reduce the power of governance of the pm and give it to the governor general

The Governor General is generally bribed into complacency, and rarely ever exercises power.

So long as they keep quiet they get a lot of benefits.

A fully staffed house, 7 acres of gardens

The RCMP at their Beck and call.

Armed guards at all your doors.

PM should operate like the us house majority leader

If you go against the PM the PM will try to limit the powers by calling a referendum.

So you can have a comfy job where you just sign whatever they bring you, or exercise your power once, maybe twice and cause outrage.

I don't think we should have limited the power of the crown back in the eighties...

It's come to bite us in the ass.

who is the brown?

:U

lol

limit the power of the brown, no more third world immigration

<@&479643036951904267> generic question (and a bit of old news) but what are your thoughts on the Ukriane crisis a few years back?

I think Russia is pretty based

How so?

@Euro-American Bandit They are willingly supporting Assad, who has a non Rothschild central bank. In Ukraine, they are propping up ultranationalists. Finally, a separatist group thats fighting with Russia did this

"Alleged members of the Donetsk Republic carrying the flag of the Russian Federation,[228] passed out a leaflet to Jews that informed all Jews over the age of 16 that they would have to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register their property and religion."

For me, it's mostly down to: if a people, who are in some capacity different from their country, want to secede, then they should and it's for the best. But what 2100AD said is good stuff too

An interesting take on the situation. However it infringes on Ukrainian sovereignty (a treaty was signed between Russia and Ukraine that essentially said they would respect each others borders).
Plus not all of the fighters in Donbass are nationalistic (as seen here)
http://alt-right.com/2018/05/25/novorossiya-antifa-enclave/
At best your getting National Bolsheviks, Russian Patriots, and Duginists aka Neo Eurasianists (which I suppose is better than nothing) but a good portion of fighters are still Socialists, Communists, etc.

The site itself has bias i will admit that.
But i think it will shed some light on the whole situation (also this isn't the Alt Right website Spencer uses. It's a different one)

But overall the situation is muddled and such. As with life, there is no clear "good and bad guy" in this conflict

Yeah, I've seen some Communist flags waving in some pictures from Luhansk, I believe.

The Azov Battalion makes me want to root for Ukraine :P

Russia was in the right

I'll leave it at that

I'm ukrianian-russsian but I think Russia should just annex Ukrainian all together

So you don't think treaties mean anything?

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 Pan Slavism

^

Its important to note that in Ukraine the conflict has bled both sides extremely, however Kiev is on the genocide path bombing and regularly killing civilians as was the govorments supporters goal from day one (Odessa massacre) and the war started not with a declaration of war, but with strafing runs on civilians of which there are videos which I recommend anyone watch.

The war however has attracted a lot of mercanaries, the US is arming Kiev ad it is reasonable to assume that it is supplying them with a steady stream of mercanaries. Donbas in need of well armed fighting men will accept anyone it can get, Kiev being national socialist, or rather supporting Banderism, has attracted such forces as the Azov battalion, and this has motivated legitimate antifa, or other communist militias and mercanaries to fight for free really. Giving Donbass much needed help. As such I support Donbass and the history of Ukraine puts it in a position that much of its modern land was not ethnically ukranian nor originally settled by ukrainians. As such I also support DOnbass in its right to secede and for Kiev to respect this right as they have a legitimate claim to this and I condemn their genocidal war. @Euro-American Bandit

I dont thin pan slavism is a good idea @Doctor Anon Its.... well.... a one way street to eradication of all slavic cultures and merging them into what would be russia. I like the idea of a Slavic brotherhood, or slavic Sojusz, based on militayr cooperation first and foremost and beyond that very broad and basic and clear rules. A list of 10 comandments so to speak (polish here 😄 ). I would recommend bringign back ancient slavonic or at least glagolictic as a formal second language and slavic dialogue which would be used in all buerocratic or international matters (also making trade simply easier). As well as elected representatives by the nation which can be removed at any moment should the vote reach a certain threshhold.

(why the fuck do i always write such massive walls of text, i need to learn to be conciese,)

@Bogatyr Bogumir Pan Slavism wouldn't be Russia, it would work as a U.S would work, 2 senators from each country, and a main body proportioned to each population

@Doctor Anon I thought pan slavism mandated that essentially a slavic culture emerge or allowed for simply one sided domination, a guy did an interesting video on pan slavism and something else. However the system you speak of is something I agree with, beig that there must be equal and equally weighed representation as we are brother and sister nations and this makes us prone to bickering. However I would not support uniting it into a union or single political entity

(the guy is called slavic affairs and hes Serbian I think, and has some cool vids, music and all)

@Doctor Anon wherever have we seen a republic/federation containing russia and its surrounding nations...

*cough cough* ***Union of Soviet Socialist Republics***

Also Tsarist Russia

*are you retarded*

well, sans republic

Creating ethnic-based states is a garbage idea either way, though

Not really

eh

yeah really

especially in terms of broader ethnicities

like "Germanic" or "Slavic"

@SilverLining so your telling me states that have majority people of theyre states ethnicity are bad?

not bad, but I'm saying it's pointless to seek organization strictly upon ethnic lines

especially if it's non-existent right now

ehh i can kinda agree with that

I'd argue organization should be even more regional

but why shouldnt a state mantain its culture

For example, while the south may be "ethnically American", just like the north

I don't see why the north needs to remain tethered to the south

@SilverLining so almost like the uk

yeah... the UK needs to split up imo

theres different ethnicities within different sections

don't make "pan-[whatever]" empires

just divide as much as possible

and still even within england theirs massive accent differences

I mean, ideally, I'd want a system wherein each county/region/town has a large degree of autonomy

preferably completely democratic

problem with that

is laws would differ wildly

In a confederation, ofc

I think a constitution should be in place

as well

and it would be easy for a large group of people with a specific idealogy to all move to a specific town

to secure basic rights, at least within decent regions

eh, maybe town is too small

what about legalization of items

County, or even province/state based

i think the us is good how it is

confederacy has too many problems

and is really easy to fall apart

eh

not in modern days

@SilverLining heres a question

is the un a confederacy or federation

is the eu a confederacy or federation

confederacy I'd say

what about the eu?

@SilverLining

confederacy

@SilverLining not really

universal currency

universal laws

universal trade

there's still such a massive degree of autonomy within each state that it'd be unreasonable to call it a federation

universal currency lmao

there's the pound, the krona/krone, the zloty, the forint

the currency is far from universal

GB got to keep the pound, even

also

the laws aren't really

entirely universal

and is there a federation between Canada, the US, and Mexico because NAFTA is a thing?

yeah saying the laws of different countries in the eu are universal by any measure is just completely ignorant

I mean you can form a state based o ethnic lines, for example Poland is majority, and I mean 80% + lechite tribe descendants, with Kaszubians and potentially sillesians thrown into the mix. Other than that we are one tribe one ethnicity and generaly when speaking of values and culture, they have to be tied to a forefather myth or legend, something to tie them down and make them real, otherwise they will change literally every generation. People need a sense that they are incarnation of a set of values and culture of their forefathers (which they are) than simply a set of esoteric values that have well, nowhere to be pinned down to.

I do agree in the autonomy part inso much that related, however not necessarily closely related, ethnicities should have some proper representation such that they simply dont feel isolated or dwarfed or suffocated adn as such want to participate in the commonwealth.

"People need a sense that they are incarnation of a set of values and culture of their forefathers (which they are) than simply a set of esoteric values that have well, nowhere to be pinned down to. "

Why?

Nobody actually follows the values of their forefathers at this point

The alternative is the Cosmopolitan worldview. And well that hasn't treated European nations too well

And plus it seems to be those of European descent (whether as a side product or malicious intent) have abandoned their values.
Those of African, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Latin American descent hold on to their values

What even are European values?

Do you mean catholic feudal values?

Or the pagan tribal values?

perhaps even the reformation - that value which encouraged change and reform in society

or maybe the enlightenment, how Europeans criticized authority and the current societal order

Maybe even the libertarian values, the liberal values which espoused absolute freedom in all regards

but then again, there's always the chance you mean the totalist values, which placed the state above all, discouraging dissent

Or maybe... Communism, which had its roots in Europe - do you think those values should be held to?

ah, but then again, neo-liberal values exist, too...

and how has the cosmopolitan not treated european states too well?

The standard of living has only boomed...

^^^

if we're being honest then 'european values' are whatever the person using the term wants them to be

Values is the incorrect term

The correct wording should be self pride

@SilverLining Define cosmopolitan

The real problem with Europe is the feeling of self hatred over the sins of the past, even though none of those were exclusive to Europe, Europe was simply the region of the world that was able to carry them out ona global scale

essentially, a set of believes defining all humans as equal

hmm

"none of those were exclusive to Europe"

>muh holocaust

can you tell me which non-european nation

I'm going to wait for it

well, sure, genocide too, go for that

Here it comes

it's coming

>muh colonialism

is next

... can you maybe not?

Well you're about to say something retarded, I'm only helping you in avoiding the embarrassment @SilverLining

You should be thanking me

anyhow, I was going to discuss the brutality of imperialism

I was right

and that proves?

I could point out you saying "But ottomans, moth!"

and that'd mean nothing

Nothing, it just paints a picture of what kind of person you are in my head

(even though the ottomans actually were pretty benevolent under the millet system)

okay, so your point against that is?

also, it's not really anti-european to point that out

it's just pointing out a historical truth

@SilverLining Japan for one

if any other ethnicity were in europe, then yes, they'd do the same thing

China

Vietnam

Japan modeled its government off of European states

Vietnam to this day oppresses ethnic minorities

As do most countries, actually

and I'm not justifying that?

>can you tell me which non-european nation

>Wow dude, you're such an idiot for proving me wrong

On the same extent and scale, razor.

which non-european nation invaded four other continents and suppressed the natives

That's a bit of a cop-out. Vietnam was not as advanced as Europe technologically speaking.

But they did the same thing you're mentioning now

dwindling their numbers down severely, or simply committing atrocities against them in order to advance their own wealth

They did oppress people in the regions they conquered

Not on the same scale

and like

I'm not saying there should be 'self-hatred' in europe or anything

"Not on the same scale" is the biggest fucking co-out ever and you know it

*cop out

if I have a bow and arrows or swords instead of rifles

just merely that europeans should own up to what they did, and why the economic/political imbalance exists presently

I'm going to be able to kill more people

do you get what I'm saying?

Do you get what I'm saying?

Essentially, I'm trying to say that Europe's current position of power was built on a fuck ton of corpses, and that it's not really something to be proud of

just like

be a person, y'know

The first thing that needs to be established before this conversation is to continue is why you'

you're crafting a cop-out

You're not powerful because you belong to a particular race

except I'm not?

"Europe's current position of power was built on a fuck ton of corpses"

Do you think China's position of power isn't built on a fuckton of corpses?

Yes you are

I mean, China's growing in power, sure, yeah

They're mostly domestic corpses, even

>domestic corpses

Values is the incorrect term
The correct wording should be self pride

- you

anywho

What I'm trying to point out

is that you shouldn't be proud your nation killed a fuck ton of people

They put Muslims in concentration camps, but it's okay because they're within their borders @SilverLining

Right?

in fact, you shouldn't be proud

No, ofc not

I'm not defending these corpses at all

You implied that it wasn't as bad

Not really

Do you think that?

no

Alright, well you did, but I think after I pointed out what you said, you realize how fucking retarded it was.

Moving on

Anyway

brb for a sec

and no, I didn't

"What I'm trying to point out
is that you shouldn't be proud your nation killed a fuck ton of people"

You shouldn't , correct, but you shouldn't hate yourself for something your ancestors did when tons of other nations tried the same thing @SilverLining

I referred to domestic corpses to point out how it's not on the same scope

not on the same scale

This whole side-argument is pointless

It's a whataboutism

It's not

You also, again

said

"Values is the incorrect term
The correct wording should be self pride"

implying nations should have pride in their ancestors

You're simply trying to get out of defending your cognitive dissonance

which raped, pillaged, and murdered plenty of others

And what did I just say in response?

""What I'm trying to point out
is that you shouldn't be proud your nation killed a fuck ton of people"

You shouldn't , correct, but you shouldn't hate yourself for something your ancestors did when tons of other nations tried the same thing"

That is why other nations were brought in