Am I the only one who thinks we were extremely ripped off by our historical nobles not becoming god-kings through...

I guarantee you she was one of those cute latina girls that's small and loli as shit up until her 20s, but like all latina women, she hits a wall and turns into a goblin who gets pregnant from a light breeze.

Yeah. Jeb even has the child-molester mustache to go with his loli.

I had this idea for a campaign where a human king marries an Orc chieftain's daughter in order to breed a royal lineage of half Orcs(which are pretty much nonexistent in the setting).

Anyway kid turns out alright, pretty smart and well adjusted due to his education, a good fighter thanks to his Orc genes and extensive training, he's is even pretty good looking thanks to a little cosmetic magic.

The kid's basically a big green Jamie Lannister. However it turns out he's infertile since irl crossbreeds usually are. The king only has one child and is too old to produce any more sons.

>1789 + 227
>Still allowing monarchists to live

Noble are just a shitty as everyone else, with the added shittiness of having the power to back it up. Some of them were good, because some people are good, but as a whole no, the institution was never going to create what you desire.

> normal kings
>or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
I don't get it, what's the difference

Do you people really believe that the upper class is genetically superior, or that everyone in charge is intelligent and just?

>That music video

Jesus christ, I have never seen a more ham-fisted propaganda video for feminism. Not even the Budwiser-Superbowl-Add was this cringy.

Education is accessible to literally everyone willing to take out a loan and the elites are not the most educated in the slightest.

I'm not seeing it, unless "don't immediately respond to first-contact scenarios with violence" suddenly became feminist propaganda recently.

What are you talking about?

Delta by C2C yo

Well, if Crusader Kings has taught me anything, 25% of the family will be godlike, and the other 75% will all be incapable of doing anything.

Ripped off as in people in positions of great power usually don't end up being that great? Or even that the position is much more important than the specific individual that fills it for a short time?

The fuck's a normal king? I don't even that concept. Has crown, does war, doesn't tank country, has son?

He's probably talking about an interpretation of the video.
Since you don't see any women during the video you could conclude that they are all gone. And the piramid is bringing them back now.

>babbies first symbolism
>some people still managed to miss it

Jesus christ, let me spell it out for you

>Planet full of males
>Alien Object has an Inverted Triangle shape
>males try to fight but get wrecked
>Manliest of Males bows down to triangle shape

Also, the pyramid is inverted and upside down triangles are sometimes used to represent femininity.

Nah, the society is without women. At all.
You could also interpret the heavy use of red tones for the planet as it being Mars.

>Education is accessible to literally everyone willing to take out a loan
Yeah, about that...

... you're not getting into the club with a loan and some scholarships, mate, I don't care how smart you or your kids are.

Come to think. Why is that? Males usually have broad shoulders and women wider hips. I think a normal pyramid would fit better, since it would represent women getting wider at a lower point and a upside down pyramid would represent males being wider at the top.

The place doesn't at all look despotic or unpleasant to live in, though. The worst you could maybe say about it is that it has inept generals.

Delta is a mathematical symbol that can represent change. It takes the form of a triangle.
>city encounters change
>tries to blow it up
>the homeless guy realizes that you can't stop change and by accepting it is able to approach it
>everyone gathers around change and is awed by its beauty
EVEN THE YOUTUBE COMMENTS FIGURED THIS OUT EVENTUALLY

I think you're seeing things, my man.

You might want to stop drinking the /pol/ kool-aid.

It's taught me that if you want divine blood you should marry your sister but take a couple concubines to deal with inbreeding.

>absolute kings

Republic with appointed dictators a best, every other system can go and stay gone

>Even people in the Youtube-Comments saw this at first glance
>This user is literally dumber than the fucking Youtube-Comments

Like everything in life, it all comes down to genitals. The curve of the thighs leads down towards the pubic area, evoking a triangular shape. Just look at bikini bottoms or panties. Mothafuckin' triangles.

I'm actually doing a Zoroastrianism playthough right now. Those first few wars are rough.

>his first thought was MUH FEMINISM BOOGEYMAN.

Oh, yeah. That makes sense.

I see what he's talking about in terms of there being a theme relating to the feminine. Calling it "ham fisted feministed propaganda" is being a dweeb, there's nothing wrong with it. But the video is about a city with no visible women, and the inverted triangle is a classic symbol of femininity. It's not even a subtle or obscure one, it's mainstream. The Da Vinci Code goes on about how the "grail" is hidden under the Louvre, because of the symbolically inverted pyramid.

Anyways, you have this video of a city full of men freaking out about an inverted Pyramid. Then the Pyramid opens up with an almost literal vagina and all men, King and subject alike, fall to their knees. King's like "aw fuck I forgot how great pussy was I can't keep this stoic image anymore".
This isn't feminist, it's a pretty timeless theme. No matter what goes down humans will always be vulnerable to the power of the opposite sex and in a male dominated world the discussion defaults to the power of the vajayjay.

I would say the feminine imagery is ham-fisted but it's still a pretty cool video.

>Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?

The entire thing about political and legal equality was that "no man is made of a finer clay than another"

If some men were literally made of a finer clay than the plebes, then I would have no problem with it.

While the upper class may not be intelligent and just, they are certainly moreso than the plebes.
Look at it this way; if the people currently in charge are who the people thought would be good leaders, then that is only a argument as to why the people ought not be in charge of ANY decisions whatsoever.

>his first thought was MUH /pol/-BOOGEYMAN

>Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
Redundant, cross-authority republic with segregated polities is the best.
3+ parallel executors, 3+ parallel executors, 3+ parallel judicators, etc.
Make like the USSR and have multiple, parallel state agencies watching everyone else, themselves, and each other.

Monarchy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

It randomly selects people by genetic origin. This is better than e.g. democracies, which choose rulers based on their facility for manipulating mass opinion.

Monarchy further expands its superiority by educating likely rulers especially for their job, from an early age.

>men like women
>must be feminist propaganda

ffs get your symbolism straight

...

Open any history text then tell me you were just pretending to be retarded.

Hey man, the kid is struggling with his sexuality. Let him be. He'll calm down once he realizes he's gay.

The French Revolution was the moment where everything went wrong.

>This is better than e.g. democracies, which choose rulers based on their facility for manipulating mass opinion.
This; If you can't trust the people to rule, why would you trust the people to choose who gets to rule?

However, raw genetics isn't necessarily the best way to go either. Rather, a superior method would be an aristocratic republic. Take, for example, the upper third of the population in wealth, education, and service to the nation. Give only them the vote, and only for their state or province. Of that 1/3, the highest 1/3 (1/9 of the entire population) are given national rights, while the remaining 2/3's of the population are relegated only to local government.

Democracy and republicanism have their perks, but they are ruined by universal suffrage.

>Open any history text then tell me you were just pretending to be retarded.
What are you talking about? Monarchy was the superior form of government for thousands upon thousands of years. The only exceptions were isolated experiments, and liberal/republican thought only came into being when a bunch of uppity peasants brutally murdered their betters, as well as when a ragtag bunch of colonials were suddenly given free access to a huge, resource rich continent sparsely-populated by technologically inferior savages.

>upside-down triangle is the symbol for change called delta
>the name of the video is called delta
> a society meets an unexpected change and tried to fight against it
>it fails
>Only one man knew you cant fight change, only accept
What the fuck are you talking about

>upside-down triangle is the symbol for change called delta
Delta is a right-side-up triangle you fucking idiot.

>Only one man knew you cant fight change, only accept
But that's fucking wrong, and cowardly to boot.

Then The élite starts breeding internally and you're back to feudalism.
Accept it user. Feudalism is the most natural form of government, everyone used it and it came out indipendently everywhere, and any society forced to simplify itself naturally goes there sooner or later. Going full Heinlein slows the problem down,but can't stop it.
Arguably our modern crony "capitalist", "democratic" system is feudal too.
So let's embarace this. Let us create REAL "nobles" with genetic engeneering to rule us! Certanly you will accept that someone with 500 IQ who can run faster than a horse, pick it up and THROW IT AT YOU if you revolt, has a divine right to rule you.

I was more specifically referring to the last line of your post.

Everything else you've said is mostly wrong too, of course, but the claim that nobility was, as a rule, prepared to rule is laughable.

Becoming an Empire killed Rome.

Cincinnatus was a fucking amazing man who knew how to handle the burden of power.

>So let's embarace this. Let us create REAL "nobles" with genetic engeneering to rule us! Certanly you will accept that someone with 500 IQ who can run faster than a horse, pick it up and THROW IT AT YOU if you revolt, has a divine right to rule you.
But of course, and I don't disagree with you. Naturally, the top 3rd of the population will be superior to the bottom 3rd; it just has the benefit of also catching the few plebes who really make something great of themselves as well.

>your
Not him, but someone else.

>Delta is a right-side-up triangle
my mistake, but that doesn't mean the video is feminist propaganda and the overall meaning is still there
>But that's fucking wrong, and cowardly to boot
you opinion has been noted and that doesn't change the message the video is trying to show .

>my mistake
Well, to be fair, upside-down delta (nabla) is used to denote gradients, so it's kind of right.

There is a trend in my generation, those aged 18-30 that seem to be very much against the notion of being a free person being able to act, do and say as they please. Intentional or not they gravitate towards having authority over them to keep their behavior in line with what is acceptable. Is it so they can absolve themselves of blame if they do anything or is it something more/less? Or do we now need rules and boundries to live our lives? For somebody to tell us what we should and should not do?

>The kid's basically a big green Jamie Lannister. However it turns out he's infertile since irl crossbreeds usually are. The king only has one child and is too old to produce any more sons.
Better get that kid studying magic, then.

Lichdom > succession crisis.

There are way to become seriously educated without going to a state univercity, there are hundreds of local colleges that can provide what the majority of people go to study for, that is social sciences, english courses and political sciences. For those wanting to study things like STEM, yes, that will require more, but there are more than enough ways to migitgate cost.

My point is this, we are aware we are ruled by more dynastic families than ever before, a powerful elite that is very hard to break in to, impossible for most. Yet why do we keep handing more power and authority to them?

It is the biggest double-think in history.

Nice meme, Randlet.
But no, to be entirely honest, freedom should be nothing more or less than a privilege. Freedom is not "you can do what you want", freedom is "you can do what you ought to do without oversight". There are those above to be obeyed, there are those below to be ordered, everyone has a place and everyone has a duty.
Whether these places and duties are vaguely defined and minimal, or exacting and crystal clear, is dependent on the society itself.

>Or do we now need rules and boundries to live our lives?
What makes you think you know how to live your life? Mother doesn't always know best.

>Mother doesn't always know best.
Neither does government

>Neither does government
Neither do you.

It is the sign of utmost arrogance and hubris to think that you, personally, are the most qualified to lead your life in the best way possible. It is selfish and sociopathic.
It is a sign of humility and maturity to subordinate yourself to your betters, and to live your life to better serve your fellows, your superiors, your inferiors, and society in its entirety.

Our definitions of what a free man is are very different user. A man is free to do what he wishes provided it does not impact upon the lives and abilities of another is all of it. It is a priviledge, I agree, one that our ancestors fought for, from General Washington to Doctor King.

>What makes you think you know how to live your life? Mother doesn't always know best.
Your question is offensive in many ways, user. It reduces us all to infants unable to take care of ourselves, the eternal child that will enver grow or experience a life without the aid of Daddy Government telling us what we can and can not do.

I ask you what makes you think you can not live your life? As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.

Part of the issue is that upward social mobility appears to be on the decline in this generation compared with the last century, so freedom is more of a source of uncertainty and insecurity than it is an opportunity to improve your circumstances. The idea of a feudal society where your future is pretty much set for you from birth and you just take up your father's trade when he retires has a certain appeal to it when the alternative is struggling under student debt and a highly competitive job market.

Plus, in a free society, you all imagine you have a shot at becoming a CEO or the President or whatever, but almost nobody actually manages it. So you've got all these frustrated people who had ambitions of greatness but are kept in lowly places under leaders that are no "better" than they are. But in a caste based society, the only real ambition most people have is to excel within the sphere of their own social class, which is much more readily achieved. Someone whose father was a farmer can be happy if he finds success in farming, because that's all he ever could have hoped to achieve.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

>A man is free to do what he wishes provided it does not impact upon the lives and abilities of another is all of it.
Then your definition is false by its own nature; all actions of all men impact all other men. A man living alone in the forest is one less man contributing to the nation. No man is an atom.

>Your question is offensive in many ways, user. It reduces us all to infants unable to take care of ourselves, the eternal child that will enver grow or experience a life without the aid of Daddy Government telling us what we can and can not do.
>I ask you what makes you think you can not live your life? As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.
There is a lot of implications here, and I will respond very succintly. Men CAN live their lives perfectly satisfactorily by themselves, without authority. It is, however, a non-optimal state of affairs.
A group of soldiers can fight perfectly well without a leader, but the presence or absence of a general is what separates a mob from an army.

>As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.
Is the ability to be authoritarian an argument to be authoritarian? Are you oppressed if the state has the power to violate every aspect of your privacy, and yet do not?
People may not be atoms, but they are certainly not ants either. Divorce your mind from extremes.

Am I supposed to be impressed by the words of one man?
A thousand strong and free men are nothing more than a thousand strong and free men, in a constant volatile mire of alliance and war with each other.
A thousand strong men united are a god.

I am the most qualified to lead my life because its my life. Only one person has a full understanding of my life,me.
Only one person knows all the troubles and hardships i go through everyday, me.
Only one person knows my want, needs, and desires, me.
No one on this earth has a better understanding of my life than me. For better or worse i am objectively the most qualified person to lead my life.

>A thousand strong men united are a god
In that both only exist in imagination?

>For better or worse i am objectively the most qualified person to lead my life.
In regards only to your own personal wants and desires, this is true. You are the most qualified on to how best lead your life how you wish.
Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.

>In that both only exist in imagination?
>states/governments/groups don't exist
I'm actually laughing right now; nice meme user.

>I am the most qualified to lead my life
Free will is a wonderful thing, shame that on most people it is wasted.

holyshit you're both so spooked it hurts to laugh but also to live knowing you also live

You are a textbook example of why I said double-think. Please do not take this the wrong way, I mean nothing but honest intentions.

>Part of the issue is that upward social mobility appears to be on the decline in this generation compared with the last century, so freedom is more of a source of uncertainty and insecurity than it is an opportunity to improve your circumstance.

Here you say you know there is a decrease in upward mobility in the system. You then say that being apart of from it is uncertain and insecure. So your choice is to stay within the system and hope that you are one of the few rather than striking out and living by your own merits?

>The idea of a feudal society where your future is pretty much set for you from birth and you just take up your father's trade when he retires has a certain appeal to it when the alternative is struggling under student debt and a highly competitive job market.

You mistake what I mean by a free man, a free man is obligated to work and earn his wages or generate his income. I mean free of goverment intrusion for most of my life, I dislike that government tells me what I am able to do, say or believe. Or that my tax money goes to unelected officials that are unknowable and unimpeachable. That those representing me are utterly removed from my way of life.

Fuck off Stirner, you're the only spook here.

>Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.
If i desire to use my time for a greater idea or state of governance than i shall, however i am under no obligation to do so and that goes for everyone else.

Can't we all just agree that everything is terrible?

Because governments are known for their lack of internal politics?

>Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.
There are no better uses than satisfying my own wants and desires. I'm not sure the rest of you are even real.

>Then your definition is false by its own nature; all actions of all men impact all other men. A man living alone in the forest is one less man contributing to the nation. No man is an atom.
You extend it to extremes to devalue my argument. Your comment means nothing.

>A group of soldiers can fight perfectly well without a leader, but the presence or absence of a general is what separates a mob from an army.
A group of tax payers can elect a local leader to head the council, but when they elect a general whom then elect a general who then elect a general all sense of democrazy and representation is lost. Armies do not enter in to it as of course a national figure head is wanted for defense and many other things.

>Is the ability to be authoritarian an argument to be authoritarian? Are you oppressed if the state has the power to violate every aspect of your privacy, and yet do not?
All governments are responsible to their people, or they were once upon a time. Your argument is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I dislike the state having the ability to prevent my movements, deny me rights, deny me the power of spech for no other reason than exposing truth. The government grows more and more with each passing year.

>Am I supposed to be impressed by the words of one man
I don't care what impresses you, such is the beauty of living free. Where we part of another system, one that ended in the 20th century you would be required, enforced to be impressed and jubulant. A thousand strong men united by anything but personal choice are slaves.

>If i desire to use my time for a greater idea or state of governance than i shall, however i am under no obligation to do so and that goes for everyone else.
Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.

Regardless, they exist all the same. The state is the state is the state, regardless of how its public officials interact with each other.

But the state is not united men. It's loosely allied men at best.

>Free will is a wonderful thing, shame that on most people it is wasted.
True, i however blame the state of the current world more than the individual person. We been raised to fall in line and follow orders for literally all of our lives that it an instinct now, very few people can break that kind of conditioning, and i am unfortunately not one of them, at least yet anyways but im trying.

>Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.
Yes they do, that is all that matters. Obligations are all that matter, when I joined the army my obligations changed, when I left they did again.

We can force all men to march to one tune and do amazing things, yes, but that is neither just nor moral because the needs of the many are directed by the will of the few.

>Regardless, they exist all the same. The state is the state is the state, regardless of how its public officials interact with each other.
And should be resisted and made smaller and limited in power at all cost. There is not a single mention in the West (Or any modern country) giving up power, giving up authority once it has been aquired. Only recently have people begun to reject the onimpetent government.

The upper class generally isn't genetically superior.
Mostly because nobility is inbreed, and merchants has only been around for 150-200 years as current families.

The genetically superior would be some isolated village, which didn't get industrialized until the 50s, but with a large enough population to avoid inbreeding.
The region would also need to import education for at the least 200 years(priest, central reforms), just to get better stock and avoid the worst inbreeding.
The problem is that even if those things happened, there is no guarantees. A lot of "superior stock" has a bunch of slow creeping genetic issues, instead of just some rare defects.

>or that everyone in charge is intelligent and just?
By doing a job, you learn that job. By being in charge, you learn how to be in charge, not how to do the job you manage. The end result is often long term disaster(bureaucracy, Nobility inbreeding, the permanent feudal war)

>Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.
Then why should I or any individual should waste his time for anything outside of himself.

>i am unfortunately not one of them, at least yet anyways but im trying.

I believe in you user, read some old literature. I find that a source of great morality and inspiration. By virtue of you not wanting to be a followerer you are free.

>Your argument is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Except it's not; If the state has the authority to spy on you, and yet does not nor has a method by which to do so, are you oppressed?

>I dislike the state having the ability to prevent my movements, deny me rights, deny me the power of spech for no other reason than exposing truth
What movements? Movements upon land controlled and guaranteed by states?
What rights? Rights granted to you, and guranteed by, the state?
Is truth an absolute good? Is it worth the dissolution and collapse of authority and the nation, for the sake of truth? It it worth it to compromise during Armageddon, if doing so would prevent Armageddon?

>A thousand strong men united by anything but personal choice are slaves.
A thousand strong men united by free will are volatile and transient, as prone to collapse as they are to infighting.
Ask yourself, is there truly anything wrong with being a citizen, rather than a sovereign?

>Every elevation of the type "man" has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society — and so it will always be: a society which believes in a long scale of orders of rank and differences of worth between man and man and needs slavery in some sense or other. Without the pathos of distance such as develops from the incarnate differences of classes, from the ruling caste's constant looking out and looking down on subjects and instruments and from its equally constant exercise of obedience and command, its holding down and holding at a distance, that other, more mysterious pathos could not have developed either, that longing for an ever-increasing widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, more remote, tenser, more comprehensive states, in short precisely the elevation of the type "man", the continual "self-overcoming of man", to take a moral formula in a supra-moral sense. As to how an aristocratic society (that is to say, the precondition for this elevation of the type "man") originates, one ought not to yield to any humanitarian illusions: truth is hard. Let us admit to ourselves unflinchingly how every higher culture on earth has hitherto begun! Men of a still natural nature, barbarians in every fearful sense of the word, men of prey still in possession of an unbroken strength of will and lust for power, threw themselves upon old mellow cultures, the last vital forces in which were even then flickering out in a glittering firework display of spirit and corruption. The noble caste was in the beginning always the barbarian caste: their superiority lay, not in their physical strength, but primarily in their psychical — they were more complete human beings (which, on every level, also means as much as "more complete beasts" —).

>Give only them the vote, and only for their state or province. Of that 1/3, the highest 1/3 (1/9 of the entire population) are given national rights, while the remaining 2/3's of the population are relegated only to local government.
This ends with a "congress" where "voting blocks" are formed, in 1-2 sessions.
And once the blocks are formed, there will be made delegation systems, binding the vote to a political platform.

You are better off with Election via Lethal Combat for fucks sake.

Why should we tell you? Find out for yourself why, explore a life and make the reasons for you to care for a family. I can not, nor would I ever wish to, tell you how to live your life. It devalues the short time we have here. Find out.

>But the state is not united men. It's loosely allied men at best.
Anyone who betrays the state, even those that comprise it, are often persecuted. They are united by coercion, and not by will.

>And should be resisted and made smaller and limited in power at all cost.
Why? The only problem with a large government is that it is inefficient; if that inefficiency could be eliminated, there is no reason to not expand the hierarchy of authority.

Because selfishness is not necessarily good.

>this entire thread
Fucking anarchists.

If I am free why are there laws

>Democracies
>Monarchies
>Aristocracies

>Not having an ascetic monastic order of political elites based on utilitarian policies
>Not having your leader being a cold, unfeeling savant who's been brainwashed from childhood into believing their only purpose is to maximize humanity's happiness
>Do you even Utopia?

>Except it's not; If the state has the authority to spy on you, and yet does not nor has a method by which to do so, are you oppressed?
Becase it assumes I am a criminal mearly waiting for the chance to get away with a crime. I am already guilty of something, the question is what?

>A thousand strong men united by free will are volatile and transient, as prone to collapse as they are to infighting. Ask yourself, is there truly anything wrong with being a citizen, rather than a sovereign?
You are wrong, all evidence suggests that when people are brought together by free association they work together for the betterment of the whole, it becomes a problem when one man with authority from outside the group is then placed in to the system.

>Why? The only problem with a large government is that it is inefficient; if that inefficiency could be eliminated, there is no reason to not expand the hierarchy of authority.
Yes one of the problems with large government is indeed that it is inefficient, but others are it is unaccountable and unrepresented of society entirely, instead of asking what do you want it says I shall tell you what you want.

This is soft facism. If people gathered together to say we're going to form a local bank, they would be presented with some many rules and regulations to make the task of doing so utterly impossible.

To prevent a tradgedy of the commons, originally. Not they are made to prevent everything from competition to direct inquirey to free association and many more things.

>mfw when the Anarchists in the UK voted to stay in the EU.