Sign In
Create Account
3
This drifts slightly from the topic of monarchism, but I've always favoured the title of Governor General for the head of state when blurring the lines between monarchy and republic. It doesn't quite sound like either, has a vague military feel, and could be associated both with the government of the old British Empire (Canada's traditionalist roots) and the leader under Hamilton's British Plan (America's traditionalist roots).
As for a name for such a union, I've always thought it was too bad that Columbia has already been taken.
83 replies to this topic
#81
Posted 12 August 2012 - 06:29 PM
-
- Members
- 1,232 posts
- Ideology:Mariolatrous Chalcedonian Papism
- Location:Canada
Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness;
put away the gods your fathers served across the River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,
whether the gods your fathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell;
but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
(Joshua 24:14-5)
Back to top
#82
Posted 12 August 2012 - 06:31 PM
-
- Members
- 2,321 posts
- Ideology:*insert edgy ideology name here*
Loved I Not Honour More, on 12 August 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:
This drifts slightly from the topic of monarchism, but I've always favoured the title of Governor General for the head of state when blurring the lines between monarchy and republic. It doesn't quite sound like either, has a vague military feel, and could be associated both with the government of the old British Empire (Canada's traditionalist roots) and the leader under Hamilton's British Plan (America's traditionalist roots).
As for a name for such a union, I've always thought it was too bad that Columbia has already been taken.
As for a name for such a union, I've always thought it was too bad that Columbia has already been taken.
Maybe we should make a thread for American-Canadian Unionism?
"Stupid fucking canadians moose antler up the ass having maple syrup slurpin socialists motherfucker corn boy loving baby seal beating pieces of crap." -BrownFascist
Dear Romania: keep your gipsies. Canada doesn't need them to come here and steal our stuff. Thanks
Dear Romania: keep your gipsies. Canada doesn't need them to come here and steal our stuff. Thanks
#83
Posted 12 August 2012 - 06:45 PM
-
- Members
- 1,232 posts
- Ideology:Mariolatrous Chalcedonian Papism
- Location:Canada
I agree. We're drifting both from monarchism here and separatism in the other thread; it would be nice if the relevant posts from here and there were gathered up into a new thread, although I'm not sure whether it would go under Canada or USA. It's up to the Corps, though.
Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness;
put away the gods your fathers served across the River, and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,
whether the gods your fathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell;
but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
(Joshua 24:14-5)
#84
Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:41 AM
-
- Exiled
-
- 638 posts
authentic aushwitz ash
- Ideology:Fascism
- Location:Die Löwengrube
Figlio di Moros, on 29 July 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:
Bear in mind, Der Lowe, I never said only firstborn sons should rule; I was merely making the claim that on average, firstborns are the most fit.
Yes, average maybe.
Quote
Intellegence itself refers to the ability to process new information, or the capacity to learn, so that "different kinds of IQ" is irrelevent, unless you specifically mean musical or emotional IQ outside of the form generally referenced.
No, there are still multiple intelligences other than musical or emotional.
There is savant intelligence. There are people who know nothing of basic common sense or how to process basic knowledge, but can make mathematical equations for how to make a perfectly aerodynamic airplane or a perfect computing machine.
I do not know if I would want these geniuses in political power, but that isn't because I think they are stupid.
Quote
If you can show statistics to show that firstborns aren't generally the most successful children
I agree that odds are probably in the favor of firstborns.
Although you have not shown real mathematical probabilities for where firstborns are generally more successful than other children due to their genetics--and not due to being given extra privileges for being first born.
Quote
I'd love to see it; as for when a dolt does arise, I agree that there should be mechanisms to deal with it. However, demanding perfection can often have the issue of forgetfullness, so in the prospect of picking a king, it makes sense to address the best average rate, via the firstborn, rather than assuming a political decision is the most effective means.
I still disagree, but I see the logic in your position.
But there is still a problem of having an heir who is always guaranteed the position no matter what.
Quote
Yes, still present an option to decrown a king if the second born is clearly more intelligent, tenacious, and honorable; but that doesn't negate the general principle of a successful firstborn.
Well if you are looking at it from genetics only instead of will and drive.
Even if we agree a firstborn is more intelligent, this does not make him a better ruler, just that his biology is in his favor.
But he can squander it with his weakness and lazy sense of entitlement.
To put it another way... Some of the best fascists were not the firstborns of their family.
Quote
As for Byzantium, I was under the impression that long after the Ottomans conquered Anatolia, the Bynzantines remained in possession of the Balkans.
I think Talleyrand is right.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
