I think its a mix of both kvetching and goals

ORDODOGGS

good effortpost

Thanks! I worked really hard on it

"Then during my civic nationalist phase when I was becoming interested in Governance structures I recognized there was something that the American constitution was lacking, that being there is no head and thus no assurance of the veracity of your legal system. The united states legislative system lacked something identified by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI when he established a modern state in Sicily with a normative and legislative body, which relied upon Roman law, as opposed to canon law which presented him with a problem, who governs the magistrates? Since in the US and eventually all democratically governed judiciaries Judges, rather than obeying and upholding precedent and taking a traditional interpretation of the law they will eventually be vulnerable to corruption and selective interpretation of legislation to the point where the legislative branch might as well not exist at all as the judicial branch is effectively and functionally sovereign. The only way of avoiding this is to have the hereditary element at the head of your state for their anti corruption element, managing the veracity of the judiciary is a traditional responsibility and seems to be the only method geared towards the judiciary performing the function they are ...

intended to perform. Sicily had a loose legal precedence of primarily byzantine origin with some Norman centralization and Henry created a legal system of weights and balances like the american system. However in order to maintain the traditional interpretation of the constitution he made the Judicial branch of government subservient to the crown, thereby maintaining the veracity of the judicial system as the monarch had no incentive to corrupt his own legal system and remove his subjects access to justice and he could even be trusted to appoint a deputy to ensure the validity of the judiciary and his deputy would be subservient to the monarch in much the same way a chairman owner can appoint a CEO to run day to day affairs with minimal oversight, the point is the competent and meritocratically appointed position of CEO can never do the same job as the owner, the owner must ensure the work of the CEO, who’s descendants will never inherit their position, is being done; the CEO can’t do this themselves, and has no natural incentive to do so. A CEO has the incentive to go to board meetings due to his salary but the owner/shareholders must keep him in line and ensure his work is done; this is because they either nominally or substantively believe the business to be theirs because they own it and any vicissitudes of the business are felt by them personally. Weather or not the monarchy is limited, civil or absolute a monarch is either nominally or substantively the owner of the country, weather or not you wish to denote them with that honour in name or a first among equals policy to the monarch the principle is the same." - Ælle Sussex, Forum anlgorum media

BEGOME CADOLICC:DDDD @Nikephoros

@Koba BEGOME MARYLUND xDDD

Have you read "The Nigger Question"? It's a great essay by Thomas Carlyle

what server is this in?

Common Filth

skeletonkang is obnoxious

how can you save the white race if you accelerate white genocide?

@Campin' Carl I think the CF critique raises a few fundamental questions to consider.

The first one that comes to mind is rooted in the Collectivist ethos vs. Individualist ethos.

If we accept CF's observations as valid and agree that these are, in fact, negative traits, then it becomes very difficult to reconcile the bad apples within a Collectivist framework.

Assuming that our ideology is rooted in a Collectivist ethos, the only way to maintain ideological "purity" when addressing the "bad apples" is to establish a narrower definition of our collective and who its constituents include.

I think that most people who try to address this issue typically opt for this "maintain ideological purity" approach. As of now, the debate over what definition is best is still on-going; in the meantime, everyone usually sticks with broad default of "White Gentiles".

https://radio.therightstuff.biz/2017/03/28/exodus-americanus-59-fair-use-tactical-assault-doge/
This seemed like an appropriate place for this.

@Roscoe Living in 2017 and not listening to ExAmericanus the day it comes out=SMDHFAMYBITO

Shiggity, fam.

Assault Doge lol

@YUGE save me from brad plz

What is a good policy on the WQ?
I was in the gym and I saw an attractive girl, and later I saw her with a nu-male looking guy.
I personally think that it is objectionable to try and get into a relationship with a girl who is already spoken for.
This is because I've been cheated on in the past.
However, I know for a fact that I am now a better person after having been cheated on, and I know for a fact that I would be a better influence on the attractive girl than the nu-male guy is.

Doctor Mayhem need not respond.

Unless you talk to her you don't even know if random guy is actually her bf

no he was
i simplified the story

but I'm talking about in general here

White Shariah is a meme but MGTOW is a joke

there has to be a reasonable middleground

My middle ground would be still talking to her and waiting until she inevitably leaves metroboy and then you can hook up

>hook up
>not hold hands

wwe tlc is the only acceptable punishment for thottism

/effortpost

**SERIOUS QUESTION: HOW SAFE IS VAPING?**

I swear its worse for you than smoking

I picked up a vape for a bit to replace my 1 pack every 2 mo habit of smoking camel wides and it tastes like utter shit

its like inhaling car exhaust

i thought its plus side was the lack of nicotine and all the chemicals in cigarettes but the downside is looking like a fag and occasional explosions

>lack of nicotine
no that would be pointless that's the drug