Why We Should Expect The Rise Of A Caesar This Century

As previously pointed out in this article about Oswald Spengler’s astonishingly accurate predictions for the Western world made a century ago, we are currently in the Winter of a declining Western civilization. Liberalism, enabled by economic interests that have corrupted the political structure, is attempting to destroy the foundations the society was built on in search of the civilization’s ultimate unattainable goal: a socialist Utopia.

Liberal fascism has increasingly dominated the American government; conservatives are marginalized

Liberal fascism has increasingly dominated Western government; the foundations of the society are being torn down

If Western civilization survives the onslaught of the left, there will be an iron-fisted response to suicidal liberalism coming by the end of this century (perhaps sooner) as predicted in Spengler’s book. We are perhaps seeing the first stirrings of this sentiment with the Trump candidacy. Spengler called it Caesarism—the victory of bloody politics of force over a corrupt democracy run by a moneyed elite.

New Vs. Old

Spengler noted that in every past high culture, the new eventually tries to destroy the old. This conflict reaches a crescendo at the end of a civilization. We can see this unfolding in the West with factions trying to destroy the traditions it was founded upon. The goal of a socialist Utopia, to Spengler, is Western civilization’s longing to fulfill its central idea that has motivated it for the last 1,000 years: the quest for infinity. It would represent the ultimate triumph of mankind over nature to achieve this; however nature does not operate in a vacuum. Each victory of man leads to a defeat in some other area in his struggle against nature.

This conflict between new and old, Spengler thought, happens as a key development in the evolution of a high culture, as it moves from the Spring and Summer Culture phases to the Autumn and Winter Civilization phases. A society stops looking for intrinsic fulfillment and increasingly turns to extrinsic fulfillment. Instead of tradition and ideals, the society turns to a life guided by economics and politics.

The Civilization phase represents the victory of extrinsic reason, economics, and urban life over intrinsic tradition and religion. Spengler maintained that a culture like Faustian (Western) culture would become ever more materialistic, over analytical, and irreligious as it moved through the Autumn and Winter of its evolution. It has become obvious that sacrificing one’s entire life to become a machine of economic growth is one of the reasons the West has lost the culture it was founded upon and now worships at the altar of consumerism and materialism. However, the society cannot continue to exist on economic growth, materialism, and consumerism alone. It cannot exist without the simpler, more intuitive (and biologically essential—like reproductive) ways of life represented in the Culture phase.

As seen in the West, as the culture shifts from intrinsic to extrinsic values, people can no longer come up with a reason to have children and the civilization sterilizes itself. Children become part of an economic equation instead of an intuitive part of life. Most, if not all, of the values promoted by the modern left in the United States are representative of this conflict of new vs. old.

Chaos Ensues

As a sort of “immune system” response to the new trying to destroy the old, as in the case with modern liberalism trying to take fascistic control of the West and destroy everything it was built upon, a society will eventually look for a strong man to solve problems that its democracy cannot. As the old ways are threatened, traditionalists and conservatives will become desperate to survive.

The Enlightenment ideals of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” are already beginning to break down as the checks and balances of a democratic system interfere with one another to create political polarization. Also, the ethnic groups that created Western civilization are being demographically replaced by foreign populations who have very different ways of life. The conflict between these ethnic groups—the native Western population and the immigrants who are replacing them—and liberalism destroying the traditions of the society will make compromise increasingly hopeless. The left will try to force its views on the right, and the State will become increasingly tyrannical in order to enforce these laws.

Those on the left are “Philistine World Improvers” in Spengler’s literature. By imposing fascist leftism on everyone, they are suffocating individualism and creativity with the power of the state. This is leading to an increasingly childlike population beholden to the state, and the death of freedom and tradition.

"New" liberalism attempts to extinguish "old" traditions the society needs to survive

“New” liberalism attempts to extinguish “old” traditions the society needs to survive

Spengler’s predictions tell us traditionalists and conservatives will respond with anti-intellectualism which will push back against the academic left, which now dominates Western society’s educational institutions. Traditionalists and conservatives will also begin promoting a second religiousness, and assembling private, mercenary armies.

Multiculturalism and diversity will be discredited as ethnic tensions increase, and whites are increasingly scapegoated for all the ills in society. Tensions between groups supporting the new versus the old (liberalism versus conservatism) will lead to the breakdown of democracy. Each group will begin to look out for its own best interest instead of the good of the society as a whole. As chaos results, people will demand the corrupt, broken democracy be destroyed and replaced by a strongman.

Hail Caesar

Caesarism is a civilization’s way of restoring itself, an immune response to runaway liberalism. As Western civilization is crippled by economic powers ruling the political structure instead of ideals and liberalism debasing the society, the traditional, conservative population which forms the foundation of the West will become increasingly desperate to survive.

Will a Caesar come along and smash the rotten edifice of democracy this century? Spengler thought so

Will a Caesar come along and smash the rotten edifice of democracy this century? Spengler thought so

Indeed, the tendency (especially over the last 50 years) in American politics has been towards increasing power in the hands of one man. This concentration of power in the executive branch is escalating now that squabbling factions within the democracy are rendering Western governments increasingly ineffectual.

As confidence in in the state continues to decline, the final shift to Caesarism will be realized when armies shift their allegiance from the state to a charismatic strongman who promises reform and swift and decisive action. As Spengler put it:

The choice is not between this, or that; but doing the necessary. The alternative is chaos.

Professor Thomas Sunic ties the predicted shift to Caesarism with the deep corruption in democracy as it is hijacked by a moneyed elite:

Spengler contends that the rise of Caesarism must be viewed as a natural fulfillment of the money-dictatorship as well as its dialectical removal.

Another historian who calls himself Galteeman summarizes the shift to Caesarism:

People become increasingly aware that their “democracy” is not that at all and is in fact a sort of plutocracy where the strings are being pulled by the richest behind a facade of cynical self aggrandizing opportunists posing as statesmen, whose real purpose is the accumulation of power for power itself and treating politics as a sort of game to be indulged in for the pleasure of it.

The parties on the ballot paper are mirror images of each other, peopled as they are by cynical game players who can be bought by the money men, be they socialist or conservative their “policy differences” are mere window dressings and the true policies are in essence the same for both sides, the continuation of the status quo and victory for the personal, financial and power gains and “jobs for the boys.”

The masses, aware of their powerlessness resort to a purely passive role as spectators of the suffering of others on TV so long as it doesn’t affect them directly. They are supplied with a reasonable standard of living and shallow entertainments (bread and circuses) in return for keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, and for going along with the status quo at election time or abstaining as more and more do.

In any case the “free media” which goes along with democracy is essentially in the power of money also and increasingly resorts to a sloganeering form of ranting, whether either right leaning or left leaning it is just another form of entertainment to titillate the viewers without any real substance.

Slowly the cynicism builds and builds until one day, sick to the teeth of the corrupt, bogus and empty institutions of state and the utter meaninglessness of a isolated and empty existence, the people cry out for a savior in the form of a great and heroic leader who will smash the rotten edifice of democracy and purify the world.

Hail Caesar!

The Struggle Continues

As Spengler saw it, the idea of a Utopia like the one envisioned by today’s left is ridiculous. To him, life is about struggle and man’s Will to Power: his ability to impose his will creatively or destructively. Civilization only dulls his true nature. He viewed optimism about man’s condition as cowardice.

Lothrop Stoddard, Harvard academic later labeled “racist” had this to say about the optimism of equality:

The idea of “Natural Equality” is one of the most pernicious delusions that has ever afflicted mankind. It is a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no equality. The most cursory examination of natural phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation.

Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-growing inequality. There is, in fact, no such word as “equality” in nature’s lexicon. With an increasingly uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor, intelligence, genius — all the qualities which confer on their possessors superiority over their fellows.

In this view, the arrival of a Caesar as democracy crumbles returns a society to its natural state: Dominance hierarchies.

The Heroic Vitalists [like Nietzsche who influenced Spengler] feared that the recent trends toward democracy would hand over power to the ill-bred, uneducated, and immoral, whereas their belief in a transcendent force in nature directing itself onward and upward gave some hope that this force would overrule in favor of the strong, intelligent, and noble.

It may well be that there is no alternative to a Caesar if the West wishes to survive. Given the choice between Caesarism or chaos and destruction at the hands of the socialist left, people will choose order even if it is given to them by a dictator.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Julius Caesar’s Gallic War

296 thoughts on “Why We Should Expect The Rise Of A Caesar This Century”

  1. The overuse of the word “fascist” is getting very confusing.
    Is every authoritarian system fascist now ?
    Are we going to throw the word to every pretext like the communists do ?
    Good article otherwise.

    1. Communism, Fascism, and Socialism are just words used to describe varying forms of authoritarianism on the tyranny spectrum. In practice, they are virtually identical in tactics and outcomes.

      1. Not quite. For example with the first and the third system, I’m guaranteed to lose at least half of my income through taxes.

        1. You mean first and third.
          Anyways, fascism is right wing and nationalistic with authoritarian elements.
          Socialists and communists are the furthest thing from nationalism and tradition.

        2. Fascism unfortunately is also a child of the Enlightenment. It didn’t exist prior to the Enlightenment.
          National Socialists were contemptuous of the Monarchical system that preceded them.

        3. Fascism is not right wing, at least not if your wings are more government and less government. On the bottom half of “more government is communism, the middle half is socialism, and the top half is fascism. The Right side is less government with the top being a national libertarian government, the middle being an open libertarian government, and the bottom is anarchy. The two tops are usually very nationalistic and will enforce trade tariffs with other countries, but that’s about all they have in common.

        4. That’s on an x-y graph. On the z axis could be either the actual size of the government or whether it is patriarchal on one side or matriarchal on the other side. A matriarchal ‘government’ soon fatigues and then catapults its authority over to the patriarchal side like one of those DDD bra slingshots. ”KA-PEEWOING”.
          On the actual ‘size’ of government, some Oriental guru once proclaimed that the best government is very small but corrupt. They come to your door once a year to collect taxes and then they go away and leave you alone for the remainder of the year.

        5. Not necessarily, unless coupled with ethnic cleansing and extreme intimidation. Like most government types, with the right leaders and a hard working populace, it would work fine.

  2. While I agree with the Author’s, and his quoted sources, diagnosis of modern western society, wishing for a Caesar seems incredibly foolhardy. Perhaps I am misreading the tone, but the piece seems to be putting forth the idea that a Caesar character would be a good thing.
    Caesar rose to prominence on the back of a very violent populist movement where he enacted liberal policies that broke the essence of the Republic by dressing them in traditional conservative values (no wonder everyone associates Trump with Caesar). He was an accused criminal who broke laws and wrote new ones to pardon his crimes. In fairness, the laws he broke were written by his political opponents merely to have legal grounds to stop him. The corruption in the Republic was all encompassing by that point.
    His transition to power literally split the Republic, and even after he put down his opposition those pieces split repeatedly after his death until his successor Augustus ushered in the Pax Romana after several violent wars against fellow Romans.
    Will enough Americans tolerate a totalitarian Empire so long as it isn’t a Marxist State? Personally, I’m hoping for a new wrinkle in history, since history very clearly teaches that those are the options we face.

      1. Is it though? I can agree with the premise that he might be inevitable, since the weight of history points to the political upheaval he ushers in, but why is he necessary?
        The American Revolution was a wrinkle in history that could not be directly pointed to by any previous history. Or at least the rise of the American Republic, even if revolution was easy to see coming.
        The values that lead to the founding of the US were steeped in the ancient values of the Roman Republic, refined by millenia of great advances in thought, whether in religion, philosophy, or science. Throw in a land without the weight of it’s own history (like England) and something never before seen was born.
        Will the values that built that nation allow for a Caesar?

        1. Also what evidence does anyone have that a ceaser would have America’s beast interests at heart? The Elites do not view themselves as patriots of any nation, but as global citizens. Will a Caesar who rules as the elite of the elites have a different disposition?

        2. “Will the values that build that nation allow for a Caesar?”
          Yes, it unfortunately will. It allowed for communist take over, so why not a Caesar.
          “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain-it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”–Lysander Spooner.

        3. America is gone. When a Caesar comes, he will have a different set of priorities for a different culture, because it will be clear to everyone at that point that America is no more. Asking your question is like the Germany people of the 1930s asking “Will our next leader really have the Weimer Republic’s best interest at heart?”
          The Ceasar will take whatever he can salvage from the remnants of America, and forge a new society, bringing along some of the old nation with him.

        4. The people in the 1700s were deep philosophers. Ancient Rome was full of deep philosophers. Today we have sheep/”free shit” people and power hungry top 1% that doesn’t care about the country. The only philosopher influencing politics today is Marx.

        5. The values that inspired the building of this nation are no longer found here. These days, the most important “value” is “gibs me dat.”

        6. If we are to provide you with “evidence”, you must first be able to describe the nature of this “evidence”.

        7. “The US Constitution serves the same function as the British royal family: it offers a comforting symbol of tradition and continuity, thereby masking a radical change in the actual system of power.”
          – Joe Sobran,

    1. Either way, we get authoritarianism. If the Caesar does not arise, One World Communism is the end result of where we are headed. Either way, it’s not a happy ending. I only wish for the cleansing of liberalism and Cultural Marxism from the world. Democracy will not accomplish this, in fact democracy is the road to Communism, as Marx pointed out.
      “Optimism is cowardice.” -Spengler

      1. Correct.
        The reason a Caesar type would come to power is because there is a massive vacuum for the masculine leadership of a Patriarch.
        Having a society where even the lowest common denominator has an equal say as the the biggest producers is one in which Evil triumphs.
        Evil being the suffocating swarms of the weak swallowing the virtue and investment of the few who have the intelligence,ambition and ability to drive us onward.
        This is the sum result of a society that has been thoroughly feminized.
        Whether for better or worse this man WILL come and a great many will die like dogs.

  3. The sword heavy enough to smash the wicked degeneracy will be dangerous to us all, but we’re past the point of such considerations. Bring on Caesar!

      1. However a skilled dictator is only a few generations away from being either a Tyrant or an incompetent.

        1. “However a skilled dictator is only a few generations away from being either a Tyrant or an incompetent.”

          And a new king/emperor arises and founds a new dynasty.

        2. “After much bloodshed and death. No. Do not want.”
          Usually less bloodshed than the typical race riot in the USA. The civil wars of “democratic” countries are the bloodbaths.

        3. You may have a point. But today’s world enables mass warfare unlike medieval times.
          This means instead of specialized military nobility. A big chunk of the population is involved in fighting like WWII.

        4. How much blood shed is their in a typical race riot ??
          – deaths ?? Zero or near 0.

        5. The race riot is now all around us all the time. Whites are the only people to end slavery in the history of the world, and the white guilt never ends.

        6. “And a new king/emperor arises and founds a new dynasty.”
          ^ That would be LORD JESUS CHRIST. Second Coming… AMEN.

      2. “democracy” is not (true) democracy. True democracy implies many things liberal democracy lacks, forbids or simply ignores:
        1. “Citizen” is not “everybody of a certain age”, but someone who stands above the crowd as able to decide the ways of the polis (the city); this implies historical, biological, cultural and religious ties to a specific nation; a “melting pot” has no citizens, and therefore is never a democracy (as we are witnessing now, all over the West);
        2. Any regime where a citizen, for many reasons, is unable to defeat the established groups in control of politics and economy, is not a democracy, but an oligarchy. The USA was never a democracy, but a masonic oligarchy, with (plutocratic) exceptions here and there, as Trump vs Establishment is just plutocracy vs. oligarchy (socialist oligarchy in Sanders’ case);
        3. True democracy implies that popular (“demos”, demotic) opinion is decisive and infallible, and must remain unspoiled, unpolluted by specific interests; we observe the media sell a specific rhetoric, branding as “populism” or “extremism” dissident opinions respectively of a dangerous majority or minority – social exclusion of such groups, combined with ideological, economic and political warfare are then applied to “suppress” them;
        4. The citizen must retain “primacy” within a true democracy. It means the first duty of all politicians should be their fellow citizen’s interests, above all abstract values or interests of different groups (this includes the immigration-derived economic warfare against lower classes the Western establishment should not be conducting);
        5. True democracy values a “demos”, a people, and should do everything to promote its continued existance – as demography is clear, these regimes are not true democracies, either being incompetent or ill-intended against their own nations.

        1. Exactly my point about citizenship…
          And it is also a good metaphor, as when important things are being explained, Mr People is always distracted, thinking of some pretty lady… And even when knowing those things, they are never sure…

        2. Right. We were set up as a Republic, but have functionally been an Oligarchy. It’s only worked this long because people believed they had a voice. The people no longer see that, and now want a guy to come in and clean house, which would be a dictator. We had a de facto coup with Bush Jr., but the system held together and replaced him with Obama. The people really running things just switched the party that they wanted the public to have.

      1. “I’ll be here waiting till it is time.
        “When you’re ready to crusade but the pope cancels so you just stand there like”
        And, that’s why the bishop of Rome, who was formerly the purely honorary head of Christendom (ultimately just another bishop when it came to voting at Church Councils), should never have been allowed to become “the Pope,” infallible despot over the Latin schism and secular governments.
        The Orthodox don’t need a Pope to declare a “crusade,” the locals on the ground will respond as needed.

        1. Orthodox don’t have a unified church. You have state churches working hand in hand with the government. Preach all you want bud

        2. The Russian Orthodox church is the cultural backbone of Putin’s Russia.

      2. Probably the most important crusade now would be against the Pope himself, who is promoting apostasy within the Church at an industrial scale.

        1. A crusade against the papist filth?
          I can get behind this.
          Let not one papist live!
          After that the jews and muslims. Let the god of abraham fade into obscurity to be forgotten. Only remembered when someone feels the urge to laugh at how primitive and barbaric the faiths it spawned were.

    1. “The sword heavy enough to smash the wicked degeneracy will be dangerous to us all, but we’re past the point of such considerations. Bring on Caesar!”
      Here here. Anyone that brings back a constitutional america, patriarchy, and slender feminine women will have me standing beside them.

    2. There is a Nordic world-feeling, reaching from England to Japan, which is full of joy just because of the burden of human destiny. One challenges it for the sake of conquering it, and one goes under proudly should it prove stronger than one’s own will. This was the attribute depicted in the old, genuine parts of the Mahabharata which tell of the fight between the Kurus and Pandus; in Homer,
      Pindar, and Aeschylus; in the Germanic sagas and in Shakespeare; in certain songs of the Chinese Shu king, and in the world of the Samurai. It is the tragic view of life, which is not yet dead, but will blossom anew in the future just as it blossomed in the World War.
      All the very great poets of the Nordic Cultures have been tragedians, and tragedy, from ballad and epic onward, has been the deepest form of this brave pessimism. The man who is incapable of experiencing or enduring tragedy can never be a figure of world significance. He cannot make history unless he experiences it as it really is – tragic, permeated by destiny, and in consequence meaningless, aimless, and unmoral in the eyes of the worshippers of utility. It marks the parting of the ways between the superior and subordinate ethos of human existence. The individual’s life is of importance to none besides himself: the point is whether he wishes
      to escape from history or give his life for it. History recks nothing of human logic. Thunderstorms, earthquakes, lava-streams: these are near relatives of the purposeless, elemental events of world history. Nations may go under, ancient cities of ageing Cultures burn or sink in ruins, but the earth will continue to revolve calmly round the sun, and the stars to run their courses.
      Man is a beast of prey. I shall say it again and again. All the would-be moralists and social-ethics people who claim or hope to be “beyond all that” are only beasts of prey with their teeth broken, who hate others on account of the attacks which they themselves are wise enough to avoid. Only look at them. They are too weak to read a book on war, but they herd together in the street to see an accident, letting the blood and the screams play on their nerves. And if even that is too much for them, they enjoy it on the film and in the illustrated papers. If I call man a beast of prey, which do I insult: man or beast? For remember, the larger beasts of prey are noble creatures, perfect of their kind, and without the hypocrisy
      of human moral due to weakness.
      They shout: “No more war” – but they desire class war. They are indignant when a murderer is executed for a crime of passion, but they feel a secret pleasure in hearing of the murder of a political opponent. What objection have they ever raised to the Bolshevist slaughters? There is no getting away from it: conflict is the original fact of life, is life itself, and not the most pitiful pacifist is able entirely to uproot the pleasure it gives his inmost soul. Theoretically, at least, he would like to fight and destroy all opponents of
      The further we advance into the Caesarism of the Faustian world, the more clearly will it emerge who is destined ethically to be the subject and who the object of historical events. The dreary train of world-improvers has now come to an end of its amble through these centuries, leaving behind it, as sole monument of its existence, mountains of printed paper. The Caesars will now take its place.
      High policy, the art of the possible, will again enter upon its eternal heritage, free from all systems and theories, itself the judge of the facts by which it rules, and gripping the world between its knees like a good horseman.
      — Spengler

    3. Where does this Caesar come from? Masculinity is in ruins. We would expect him to be masculine. Where would he learn to be a man? Who would teach him?

      1. I suppose it depends on who you’re rooting for. We live in a degenerate land filled with lies and theft everywhere, babies cut up in utero and their body parts sold. God may have forgiveness and God Bless that Mighty Longsuffering, but I’ve got neither anymore. Separate the Wheat from the weedy tares, God Bless the former and the God damn the latter. That crooked God of this World has had his run. Burn it with fire.
        BRING ON CAESAR! Let’s get this show on the road. On with the Apocalypse.

        1. “That crooked God of this World has had his run. Burn it with fire.”
          No… That would be the Devil, SATAN and “man” himself who has been the RUIN of this world. Humanity is it’s worst enemy in the natural, no? Besides, Sin and Death, mankind has been it’s worst enemy.
          We have “freewill” hence this discussion.
          Man cannot blame his own failures on God. It’s not God’s Fault the world’s messed up. It’s ours. Amen.
          ~ Bro. Jed

  4. What? Absurd/ Sound like an article from the A-r I suppose Caesar will be the one with the blonde hair
    Of course

    1. The best government is one without humans. I.e. the future government will be government by COMPUTER.

  5. Expect the rise of the Antichrist and the Beast. It’s the End Times. Soon as Israel takes Jerusalem and rebuilds the Temple, it’s time to start shitting pants. Almost all of the prophecies have come to pass except perhaps the Rome 2.0 mentioned in the book of Daniel.

    1. What nonsense. Israeli religious obsessives can build all the temples they want and sacrifice a whole herd of red heifers to their imaginary god, and not make Jesus return.
      Jews just promote this “end times” fantasy to play Christians for suckers.

      1. “What nonsense. Israeli religious obsessives can build all the temples
        they want and sacrifice a whole herd of red heifers to their imaginary
        god, and not make Jesus return.”
        Previous generations of advancedatheists used to laugh about there ever being a modern state of Israel, technology that would enable a Mark of the Beast, etc. Now, you guys are down to:
        “Jews just promote this ‘end times’ fantasy to play Christians for suckers.”
        Yes, Jews have set everything up to make it look like Christianity is the one true religion to play Christians for suckers, somehow, someway. All the evidence points to Jews conspiring to trick Gentiles into Christianity. Jews just never stop using their media connections and political influence to promote us, even I get embarrassed by it sometimes.

    2. Two weeks ago, China announced they would be adopted the UN IMF SDR as their reserve currency. The transition to world government is happening soon. These are indeed the end times. The stage is set for the arrival of the Antichrist.

  6. The arrival of an American Caesar is unlikely. The proponents of this age of degeneracy have been slow and methodical for a reason, they realized long ago that by rotting out a flourishing republic it would naturally lead to a despotic takeover. They have taken all the necessary steps so that when or if it occurs it will be their despot who rules.

    1. You know, that idea would make an interesting article. I actually thought the same thing…maybe they are taking their time so a leftist becomes the despot.

      1. Precisely if you look at our government over the last 100 years power has been concentrated into the executive branch on the federal level. This is not by accident as it is far easier to control one man and his subordinates than to control the myriad of judges and representatives of the people. For those who wish a caeser to come to power: be careful of what you wish for!

      2. What the treacherous elites are waiting for is complete demographic displacement in the West. Dictators in Western countries typically dont end well for them because whites dont buckle under for long. But in the rest of the world, there is a cultural deference to authority and indifference to corruption spanning generations that lets them rule as they please. The cosmopolitan elites will only go for it all when whites are a minority in their own countries.

        1. You couldn’t be more correct. But those you call the “elites” I more accurately call the “tribe.”

        2. The Eskimos could never do it on their own. They have the support of degenerate whites and other minorities helping them.

        3. I was referring in particular to the Anglo-nations, US, UK, Canada, and Australia, as well as France, Germany, and Scandinavia. Southern Europe seems to have their shit together, but even if they oppose the agenda politically, countries like Greece and Italy are having a tough time physically dealing with the rapefugee invasion. Difficult to protect all their islands, and the moment the Muslims touch down on land they start invoking EU refugee laws.

      3. Let me further add that those who wish for one man to come to power and “set everything right” are following the same leftist drivel that inspires the Sanders and Obama supporter of the world. They believe that their candidate will redistribute wealth and put the rich in their place so as to have a more equitable and just society. Don’t people see that this is an identical argument with different terms? Quite frankly it is an abdication if personally responsibly in favor of idol worship and group think. Which is unAmerican.

        1. “Which is un-American”. The old ideals of the founding stock (and the founding stock itself) are being replaced by third world populations. “American” really has no meaning anymore. Group think is what the majority of humanity engages in, and tribalism is replacing civic unity and responsibility.

        2. Exactly, when the first immigration bill allowing lots of these third worlders to come in mass to this country was being considered, it was Ted Kennedy who argued vociferously that this was not going to change the demographics of America. Of all the lies ever sold to the American people this one has perhaps been the most damaging an as such I have always considered that any Ted running for a high office should not be trusted. Lol

  7. The problem with revolution is that it just replaces one format of oppression with another. Replacing a collapsed cancer of a society with a “benevolent” tyrant is only the answer for people who are foolish enough to believe that a politician can fix anything.
    I am hoping that those kind of people die off, and the survivors start shooting the next motherfucker that tries to install a Caesarship and collect his first taxes.
    The future should belong to those that are strong and wise enough to not need a Caesar. Replacing a cancer with another tumor is preposterous.
    I like the Thomas Sowell approach: “When your house is burning down, and you douse the flames, what do you replace the fire with?”

      1. Self-goverance. Free-market providing services that have previously been provided by a monopoly of coercive force.
        There are entire schools of thought that address myriad of “solutions.”
        However, most people loose their minds when I even bring the subject up.

        1. I’ve been a libertarian all my life, and I’m convinced the only way you could get a libertarian society with today’s level of population and resource abundance would be to have a philosopher king impose it on people against their will at the point of a sword.
          But why would this libertarian king bother? To give the people that despise libertarians and want to steal from and hurt their neighbors for kicks… a better life?

        2. I think he could maintain liberties as he did, for example in medieval France, because there was always the risk of having his son getting cast away by an angry mob if he went too heavy on taxes.

        3. Self governance only works with good morality. Anything less, and it all devolves into wicked, yet well deserved, strong man rule.
          A flesh and blood real world consequence of Sin. Man always falls.
          What America once had, a functioning Republic, only worked because of God.
          Lose God, lose the Republic.
          Now we’ll recieve a nasty Caesar. Man craves Order first, then Law.

        4. Basically replace God with a flesh and blood god.
          I think you nailed it. And my disgust for the degeneracy in the masses increases.

        5. This philosopher king would have to adopt the methods of the enemy to enforce his will. That is, using guilt on people. Overweight? You’re slowly killing yourself. Gay? Be like other people: keep it to yourself. Can’t get a job? Check your qualifications (of course, in much more eloquent and flowery language).

        6. The only way I could see a man taking that risk, is if he knew that there was some mechanism in place to guarantee that his efforts would be rewarded, and the new system would continue. This is exactly what monarchy was.

        7. No. However, just because something hasnt been done before, doesn’t mean that it can’t be. This may not be the best analogy, and it may be over simplifying a more complex issue, but not having instant global movie watching abilities on a telephone twenty years ago, didnt stop it from becoming a reality today.
          I think Robert Higgs explained it better though:
          “In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

        8. Why not try this on a scale. Also this nation should be able to head off military invasions from governments that do exist on this world. Otherwise like Somalia. The UN will impose a government by force.

        9. Says who, tinkerbell? The guy who writes 5 words and makes two spelling/punctuation errors???

        10. No sympathy. I have to live like statists want. I’d gladly return the favor and point a gun at statists to make them live like libertarians. Turnabout is fair play.

    1. I think you’re missing the point. No one wants a dictator. But things have gone so far that a dictator appears good in comparison to the status quo. The solution WOULD HAVE BEEN to do something logical and rational to “fix” things 50 years ago. We are past the point where anything can be fixed. I don’t like that, but it is the simple truth.
      Look at all the people rallying behind Trump. If Trump had run for president 50 years ago, he would have been ridiculed. If Hitler had run for Germany’s leadership 50 years earlier, he would have been rejected out of hand. A strongman becomes appealing when only a strongman can do anything with the mess that is left of a once great society.

      1. I see your point. Basically, we are watching the U.S. traveling down the ultimate “Road to Serfdom”.
        It’s like Huxley, Orwell, and Hayek wrote playbooks more influential that Machiavelli.

  8. I believe something like this will happen sooner than we think. The problem is that the “Caesar” will most likely be a bad man like Stalin. The chances of him being a savior are very slim. Hitler is a good example; He rebuilt Germany and restored it to its Imperial glory days, but then ended up destroying it all with his later actions. The trick would be to find a “Caesar” who wouldn’t become power hungry, which is almost impossible.

    1. “The trick would be to find a “Caesar” who wouldn’t become power hungry”
      Putin seems to be doing good in Russia, for now.

      1. I agree completely, but leaders like Putin are one-in-a-million. We have to dig through mountains of “leaders” like Merkel and Obama in order to get a good one.

      2. Even in Rome emperors like Augustus, Claudius, Constantine, and Justinian were the exception, not the rule. Far more common they were petty like Valentinian, apathetic like Tiberius, mentally unstable like Nero, or just plain evil like Caligula.

    2. Hitler didn’t destroy germany. America and Britain even France would not leave them be. He had no interest in war with any of them countries he did not get power hungry.
      Listen to this for example https://youtu.be/niiiHjIQu8s

      1. I should have written that better. When I said power hungry I wasn’t referring to Hitler. I should have written that under Stalin to avoid confusion. I used Hitler as an example of a “Ceasar” style system that failed. Yes the Allies did mess with Germany but Hitler could have forced the them into a stalemate early on. Unfortunately for him, Hitler made a few major mistakes on his own that ended up costing him the war.

        1. Fair enough. Yea he made mistakes but he also made the decisions that got them there in the first place. What they did was and is unsurpassed in history it is not given its proper due because of propaganda and they made it seem so easy so it was accepted.
          The narrative is the allies were brave and fought on regardless. Were brave and fearless in the face of adversity.
          They were the adversity !!!!!!
          The odds couldn’t have been much sharper against Germany and the axis powers.
          He could never have fought them to a stalemate. What do you think conquering France and besieging Britain was ??
          America wouldnt let it stand and started the lend lease scheme to both britain and russia. Seriously watch the video if you have any interest at all.

        2. If Hitler didn’t invade his ally the Soviets (Yes, I know he hated and despised them) I wonder how things would have turned out. If Germany remained allied with the Soviets, they could not have been defeated militarily.

        3. I dont follow, do you have any idea how covaluted and buearacratic the German and soviet economy was? Do you have any idea how indebted Germany was during the 3rd reich. Are secret police, Mass murder, ethnic scapegoating, and constant state of war things you think make for a good society? Do you think we should abandon Christianity and take up paganism or Atheism? Did you know the facists thought that war was to be a purifying force for the population therefore Germany should always be at or building to war?

        4. Of course not, I’m by no means a fan of Hitler. I was just trying to point out that Nazi Germany was a “Caesar” style society that failed, and I was mentioning he was the cause and how he could have potentially avoided the war. While I do believe that Hitler wasn’t as evil as Stalin or Zedong, I do believe he was a bad man and I definitely don’t admire him. He did rebuild Germany but the good stops there. The invasion of Poland and turning against the Soviet Union where the mistakes I was talking about specifically. His hatred for Slavic people eventually resulted in Germany’s downfall. In my original comment I was saying that Hitler was an example of a “Ceasar” that rebuilt his country then destroyed it; and that’s exactly what the West needs to avoid. However finding a good “Ceasar” that wouldn’t pull something like that would be very slim.

        5. I think the narrative that the ‘Allies were brave and fought
          on regardless’ was accurate. There were many points and places in the war where, for the Allies, it was hopeless and seemed pointless to fight on, but they did and bought time for something else to happen that changed the outcome of the war.
          While in a straight all out logical war, the Axis powers should have had no chance, but with the way the Allies mismanaged and allowed Germany to rearm while not mobilizing themselves,
          allowed Germany under Hitler an opportunity to win except for mistakes at several key points.
          After the fall of France in 1940, and into 1941, it did look very well like the Allies were going to lose the war. It was only with the Japan bring America into the war with the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the follow up declaration of war by Germany on the
          United States that the Allies looked like they might win.
          I remember reading one account about two people in the
          Foreign Service office for England talking about the situation in summer 1941, after the invasion of Russia. Things looked bleak, while England did not look like it was in immediate danger of invasion, it did look like Russia was losing badly and might not last. They were talking about and couldn’t understand why the United States didn’t enter the war. Both of them expected that if Russia fell in 1941, that everything would be turned against England in 1942. After that they expected at some point the United States would be in danger of invasion.
          1: Germany follows up its victory in France by invading England.
          In late 1940, if Germany had completed the preinvasion objective of achieving air superiority over southern England, the late summer, early fall invasion of England could have taken place. Once a beachhead was established, there was little the remnants of the English army could do since most of the tanks and heavy equipment had been abandoned at Dunkirk.
          Even what had been evacuated at Dunkirk would not have been around if the panzer divisions had been ordered to continue
          the advance instead of being diverted to other objectives and leaving he Luftwaffe to stop the evacuation. (Dunkirk
          was one of Goering’s many failures during the war.). There was also the chance in going after the RAF to British cities after a lone RAF bomber was off course and dropped its bombs on a German city (I think it was Berlin). A quote, maybe
          Hitler, was something along the lines of “Since they are bombing our cities, we will rub out their cities”. The change in priority allowed the RAF time to recover instead of being totally wiped out.
          2: Germany does not invade Spain, or secure passage through Spain, to take Gibraltar. In 1940 and 1941, if Germany had gotten permission to move troops though Spain they could have
          taken Gibraltar and cut off large part of the Mediterranean
          from British forces. The reason this did not occur is that one of the people handling the German negotiations with Spain did not want Hitler to win the war and actively sabotaged efforts on this front. When he was asked if the roads were suitable for panzers (i.e. if Germany invades Spain can the panzers travel fast on the road network without the roads breaking up), he lied and reported that the roads would not stand up to travel by panzers.
          3: Germany did not invade Malta in 1940 or 1941. With England
          alone, Germany could have made a full effort to invade Malta
          and allow the supply to the German army in North Africa
          to be secure. Instead, since the prior air campaign had seemed to mostly neutralize Malta, the units for the invasion were sent elsewhere. Later when Malta was reinforced and resupplied, it started to interfere with the resupply of forces in North Africa.
          4: Yugoslavia military stages a coup March 27, 1941. Two days after the signing of a pact with Germany, the military
          stages a coup and renounces the pact with Germany. Hitler does not trust that Yugoslavia will stay neutral and decides to invade Yugoslavia and also Greece that spring and early summer. This delays the start of the invasion of Russia by eight weeks. At the time, Yugoslavia and Greece trying to stand up to the Axis may have seemed pointless, but the time they bought Russian may have saved them from total collapse in 1941.
          5: Failure to coordinate strategic strategy with Japan. Germany appears to have not really been clear if Japan intended to attack the United States or not, plus seemed to have no idea what a full mobilization would look like. If Japan, instead of attack the United States, could have done two other options that could have changed the war: 1: Attack Russia in the Soviet Far East. An
          attack by Japan against Russian in 1941 could have prevented the Siberian Army from being redeployed to Moscow in time
          for the winter 1941 counteroffensive. The other option would be that Japan attacks everywhere else in the Pacific, but leaves United States areas and allies, like the Philippines, alone. The result could have been a total Japanese sweep of British/Dutch/French/Australian areas of the Pacific, southeast Asia and continue onto the coast of Africa Instead, Japan blunders into attacking the United States which triggers war time production far beyond what any of them thought the United States was capable of.

        6. He did make a few mistakes, but his strategy for rebuilding Germany was spot-on: absolutely destitute to top of the heap in 3 years…but ditching the central banks and not planning for an attack by the Rothschild’s henchman countries was his big mistake.

        7. Jesus christ man keep it concise.
          Look if you think the allies were the under dog you haven’t a clue about history. Britain alone drew millions of men from her colonies in Africa,Austrailia, New Zealand and India the second largest country in the world and still included Pakistan. They also still had their Asian colonies. Russia also had near limitless man power and vast vast resources and land to retreat too. Not to mention America safe from the conflict and invasion with limitless manpower and the richest nation on earth with vast resources. France too had her colonies and resources. That was what the the whole fucking war was about !!!!!!!
          The stats do not add up. You are talking out of your arse.
          Here i can actually give you an article off this very site about it . http://www.returnofkings.com/51110/the-story-of-the-great-axis-rebellion
          Now i don’t expect you to say I am right because people arent strong enough to do so. But read the article and answer it and the FACTS it and i brought up. Answer them directly and don’t put your own spin on it.Lets talk facts and figures.

        8. Russias intention was to let the European states fight and weaken each other. Then Russia would sweep in and take over all of Europe. It was called “International” communism for a reason. Thats why Stalin had million of men stationed so close to the German/Polish/ Russian border. This guy explains it best.

        9. seems like there’s so many things hitler could have done to win the war against the USSR. properly supply army group center for the push towards moscow, allow the sixth army to break out when surrounded at stalingrad (or maybe just bypass stalingrad alltogether and continue the push to central asia), not withdrawing his elite SS panzer corps at the height of the battle of kursk to redeploy to italy, and so on. he could give a great speech, but he was a terrible commander.

        10. While the Allies did have more resources and men, they were no where near as mobilized as the Germans at the start of the war. While Russia did have a number of men under arms, her military leadership was still rebuilding from the purges that Stalin did in the 1930s. An example of how bad off Russia was at that time was the 1939-1940 winter war. Even right up to the invasion of Poland by Germany, Chamberlain still was trying to negotiate some kind of settlement and thought peace was possible.
          The areas of the world that you site to as being vast resources are still considered underdeveloped today, decades after the war.
          The Allies could have very easily lost the war in 1940 (England surrenders) or 1941 (Russian surrenders). If that had happened, Europe and Asia plus Africa would probably be still under Axis control today. At times it was a very near thing that the Allies were able to turn the tide and win.
          Hitler told everyone what he was planning on doing in Mein Kampf, and then when the world economy crashed in the 1930s, he was able to start putting it into practice.
          Almost account that I have ever come across for any Allied power in 1939, 1940, 1941 and even into most of 1942, talks like they were sure they were going to win the war. England, up to Pearl Harbor, was expecting to do down alone. Many times there were battles being fought that seemed pointless and hopeless at the time, but slowed down the timetable and allowed the Allies to recover and turn the tide.
          If Germany was really some kind of victim of the Allies, how do you explain the programs of systematic extermination of entire areas of local populations? There was no need for them to have done any of that.

        11. Bollix and you know it !! be gone with your stupid arguing for the sake of it.

        12. I have studied WWII extensively. While I could understand why you might disagree with some of my conclusions, I do not think the underlying facts are in dispute.
          Many of the accounts I have read in 1939 to 1942 did have the Allies looking at a ‘bleak’ outcome, and absolutely terrified of what the world wold look like if Hitler won. Hitler did expect, early in the war, that maybe there would be some kind of cease fire with England (remember Rudolph Hess and his solo plane trip to Scotland in an attempt to negotiate an end to the war with England as one example; while it did look like Hess to the trip on his own accord, it looks like he believed that a cease fire with England was possible), and in late 1941 Stalin explore the possibility of a ending the war by offering to give up large areas in the Baltic States and Ukraine to stop the German invasion.

        13. Look ive studied too extensively but when you are reasonable lie that I have no quarrel with you even if i disagree.
          You misunderstood me if you think that I thought it never looked bleak for the allies or that Germany never wanted peace with Britain did you not read what i wrote ?? They always wanted peace with britain. It was the British who wouldn’t be consoled.
          Of course the situation was bleak for the allies but that was more due to the absolute brilliance of the German war machine and some ineptitude on the allies part than any sort of mismatch in Germany’s favor. It just didnt exist. The Germans over came their adversity with such style and absoluteness that people think upon reflection that the odds were in their favor.
          I am going to leave it there nothing more I can add really and no point going in circles.

        14. Hitler’s leadership was deemed to be in the Allies’ favor by the Allies. They had several opportunities to assassinate him, but actively decided he was doing more harm to the German war effort than good. Keeping Hitler alive shortened the war significantly. For example, his meddling in the production of the ME 262. If he had not insisted on making the ME 262 a fighter bomber instead of the fighter it needed to be, the German’s might have been able to prevent the destruction from the air and freed up Luftwaffe resources for the Russian front. As it was it delayed introduction into the skies over Germany by at least a year.

      2. I believe that argument fails when you consider Hitler Invaded poland Britain and France’s ally. DO I need to point out all the other countries that were under German agression too?

        1. hitler invaded poland because the northern part of poland used to be germany until they lost WWI. then the poles started to systematically kill german speaking poles so hitler had no choice as those germans in northern poland were crying for help. in addition, france after WWI kept coming into germany and demanding all the goods the germans were producing as payment for WWI basically making germans slaves. you really need to get your facts straight about who really started WWII. I definitely don’t agree with what hitler did in total but you need to understand why he did it. to protect the german people.

        2. Thanks. 1647 has Cable TV and isn’t too clear on why the Danzig Corridor was important or the reasons Hitler was forced to act after thousands of ethic Germans were slaughtered.

        3. That’s pure Nazi propaganda. Hitler and the Soviet Union already had a pact to invade and divide Poland before Hitler started claiming that Germans were being percecuted. Then afterwards he had his army attack a German radio station in order to claim the Poles had done it.

        4. Honestly take this how you want but i havent the time nor the capabilities to educate you in such a short time about such a vast subject. Go read some books outside the box. I don’t mean that patronizingly if you are interested delve beneath the surface and propaganda.
          Britain gave Poland a blank cheque. Said no matter what she would fight Germany with her. Basically egging her on and making her war like and aggressive. The Poles were not some poor victim and had being starting progroms against Germans in their territory too.Plenty of crazy quotes available form Polish field marshals of the time
          Here is a fact for you. Britain and France declared war on Germany !!!! thats a fact. Stop making up stuff.
          Why did they do it ?? because Germany invaded Poland. Now answer me this. If invading Poland was worthy of war being declared by the just to right a wrong why then didn’t they declare was on Russia 16 days later ?????

        5. The man who fought the banks…and lost. Will be written in history by the victors as the greatest ‘evil’ known to man and used obsessively as leverage for them to freely carry out their heinous deeds against humanity.

        6. You need to understand what Poland was doing to German civilians (trapped in in Poland because of the treaty of Versailles) that precipitated the attack. And the strenuous efforts made by the Reich to prevent a military confrontation. In addition to Polish diplomatic and economic intransigence at the behest of England that year before before you just spout the tired line of German attack on “peaceful” Poland.
          Most everything about the last 100 years that we have been taught has been lies.

        7. No, YOUR position is pure propaganda. And incomplete.
          Radio station…please. Theres no excuse for ignorance with the web at your fingertips. Do some homework before you make a fool out of yourself posting.

        8. very interesting have been wanting to find out more of that aspect of the history. Knew Germany, or Prussia ran accross to modern-day Lithuania but this is an interesting detail of it..

        9. He really hated England. Have been listening to a few speeches trying to understand what it was about.. Criticism of their colonial practices although that was possibly envy as Germany didn’t have many colonies

        10. There were reasons Poland was invaded. I believe Hitler had his back against the wall.

        11. you know you are wrong because you ignore every point people put to you. Answer my question if not my points ???

        12. Did you know that Germany did have colonies? And that they were stripped away by the treaty of Versailles?

        13. No I never studied history formally but have been making up for it with Wikipedia in recent years. Knew about Namibia and possibly somewhere else in Africa on the east side but that is interesting so it was in the ’20s that they lost that while the allies kept theirs. No wonder they got angry..

        14. What the fuck are you talking about? Hitler was a cunt and he invaded Poland. They day he invaded Germany said in their radio stations that Poland attacked them and it was like it because even young german soldiers back then heard it so they had a reason to attack Poland. These soldiers said that in documentaries and interviews. Stop twisting history you moron. The same day Russia attacked Poland from other side. Fucking bullshit, yeah fucking right killing germans in north Poland. Dude Im from Gdynia and I know Sopot and Gdansk. Germans were not killed there before WW2.

        15. In your comments you say you don’t believe in the ‘goodness of people in this world’ and then call someone else a ‘hater’. If only irony knew bounds…

        16. Hitler decided to start WWII before he wrote Mein Kampf. However, it is the brutal Versailles Treaty that plowed the ground and planted the seeds that grew into WWII. Without it Hitler would never have been more than a fringe lunatic.

        17. Not an argument. You still twist history, maybe you will say it was ‘polish camps of death’? Fucking brainwashed propagandist. I wish you could say that in my face so youd probably end up 6 ft underground.

        18. Threatening me on Disqus.
          27 comments in a 2 year history and you think you can come jump in the top comments on this thread?
          Jacob= f*ggot plus cunt

        19. WHAT!? Do you think I really care about being in top comments? Is that how you measure ‘success’? Still no argument. You are a waste of time. No more feeding the troll.

        20. I don’t argue with stupid people, I just point out their hypocrisy and watch them cry about it.

        21. Not an argument. You still cant counter the fact. You take it personal and go on about people. Go back to the topic.

        22. The USSR and Germany invaded Poland at the same time. The dates were switched around in order to make conviction easier at the post war kangaroo schadenfreude fest that was the nuremberg trials. Along with many other lies that were proven to be so, such as the ‘soap’ made from jews which was found to be made from pig fat.
          It is you who is taking this personally. Calm down and go grab a coffee or something. They world is not cheering you on for playing hero on a disqus board.

        23. Are you a banana? I said that polish people didn’t attack germans living in Poland… at least not before WW2 and now you talk about how USSR and Germany invaded Poland at the same time and ‘soap’ from jews which I don’t give a fuck about. I don’t take it personally. I use reason and logic and you don’t apparently because that has nothing to do with the things I said… Ohh and following your path maybe you will try to decriminalize Hitler and germans for going to DEATH CAMPS made by GERMANS AND HITLER and killing innocent people? Lying to them first, grabbing their stuff and provide some horrifying terror before their death. The fucking germans were brainwashed and the SS man with family, kids and german shepherd went to kill a lot of people, break their necks with foot etc then go back home on Christmas and have a good time. Read “Conversations with an Executioner” (“Rozmowy z katem”) by Kazimierz Moczarski about the Jürgen Stroop one of the generals in Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. Don’t be a fucking mug. I don’t defend jews, germans brought a lot of suffering to whole Europe too.

        24. All great emotional arguments to force a conviction. In reality, killing cheap labor during wartime is foolish, which is why the chimney at auschwitz isn’t even attached to the ‘death chamber’ and was built by soviets in 1948 to back up the trials. 300,000+ did die from diseases like Typhus. The reason everyone ‘knows’ about the ‘holocaust’ is because it makes for a good deterrent for rising up against bloated welfare states that are teatering on becoming communist; oppose them and they can label you a nazi to kill any movement you might start.
          When everyone knows about 300,000 dying but no one knows about 66 million in Russia, the Holodomor or the Armenian genocide, it is pretty clear the official knowledge on the subject has been doctored.
          Every country brought suffering to everyone in that war. That is why it is called a ‘World War’. While letting Russia steamroll through Poland while begging them to stop may seem admirable, history would see it as idealistic nonsense for the untold suffering and genocide the Russians would have brought upon the rest of Europe, who attacked Germany for defending them from Russia, who promptly became their enemy a few years after the war.

      3. Anyone having doubts about this, research “operation Unthinkable”. That Churchil bastard wanted to reduce Europe to rubble and corpses…
        But Hitler showed his true colours in the last days of his life, and lost all credit because of that. He died a coward, not a hero, a warrior or even a german. And naz*s had the best and the worst combined in them, they never won my trust…

        1. Well at least you know this. Everyone else here has eaten up the propaganda and asked for seconds.
          What was the worst the nazi’s had in your opinion ???
          Considering everything else i know about WW2 was a lie i will take the story of hitlers death with a large pinch of salt.

        2. The worst was they were too much utopical, they lived in a Wagnerian fantasy from dawn till dusk. That led them to awful misconceptions about themselves and the World. I mean, ok, you want the jews out, it takes time, and it doesn’t mean some of them could not be kept working with you, at least to avoid social disruption (as it happened in the academic field, they let Einstein flee to the USA), provided they were kept out of power.
          You want to conquer all Europe, ok, you can do it, but first decide if you want an aliance against communism and capture their oil fields or an alliance against british imperialism and secure naval supplies and overseas neutrality. Waging war against both at the same time spells suicide from day one.
          And then, the new aryan SuperMan… I like the idea, I’ll not hide it. But I can’t understand why you would kill the slavs, repress the culture and Society that originated Nationalist feelings in the first hand (I mean what they called Reaktion, the traditional german way of living) and then send the best men available to die in the front… Doesn’t make sense.
          Uncle Adolf was sending children to defend Berlin while hiding in his bunker. If he wanted to die, why didn’t he die fighting the occupiers?

        3. The jews were a subversive internal element had had disproportionate power relative to their numbers since WW1 these are facts that can be easily checked and it was to a shocking extent. Even so many did stay on during the war.Why would they suffer them ???? They didn’t assimilate and most thought themselves jews first if German at all.
          They did not at any time want war with Britain. They did not at any time want to conquer all of Europe. These are well know facts. Hitler saw his expansion as eastward. He made numerous and countless overtures to the the British. Do you really think Dunkirk was a mistake ?? that one of the greatest military machines the world has ever seen and who conquered the mainland in record time couldn’t manage to communicate the order to destroy a trapped and retreat defeated army ???? really ? think about it. It was a peace gesture
          Hitler was a student of history and if you read about him and his generals they did absolutely everything not to fight on two fronts but when it was inevitable he decided to be decisive and strike first as their only hope. I think if they hadn’t they wouldn’t even have done as well as they did. Look how close they came.If they gave the soviets and the rest of the allies time to build their defenses and arm that they would have gotten so far ??? NO CHANCE !!!
          Blitzkreig worked because it was fast and gave the enemy no time,They had no hope in a war of attrition and that proved the case. It was going to be either a quick knockout blow or defeat.
          Nice talking to you my friend.

        4. He spoke truth, but he failed to accomplish, as all politicians. He wasn’t wrong in words, but in actions.
          Germany would be better today if the war never happened. Talking about the past is always hurtful. Many relatives of mine died and they had voted von Papen’s Zentrum.

        5. Well, maybe that was right and he couldn’t fight them otherwise. Why fight them at all? I mean the soviets, the british were a difficult case and probably they should have taken it more seriously (he probably should have wanted war against England, after they declared it; but somehow Germany always thinks England is going to quit wars…).
          Anyway, the idea I always keep from these discussions is that he had a difficult path reaching power and wanted to do everything in a blink of an eye, to make things even. Rushing things, he ended up in total catastrophe…

        6. He did take them seriously but like you said they realized the futility of a war on two fronts.
          The soviets had being building up troops and were clearly going to strike it was only a matter of when. It was fortunate they hadn’t struck when Britain and France declared war. That was major diplomatic victory for Germany but only a postponement of the inevitable.
          Russia was going to attack and had being building up troops Like i said repeatedly it was either strike first and decisively or get annihilated slowly. Also they needed the oil fields.
          If a Bigger man is acting aggressively towards you on the street and you know he is too strong. Whats your only hope if you can’t retreat ?? Strike first strike fast and strike hard and try to end it early. Hitler was not a madman. That is a myth. He was bold and decisive and of course made his fair share of mistakes.

        7. Yes, I know it is a myth, but a binary analysis is inevitable:
          1- if Germany could deal with what existed, more diplomacy should have been endeavoured. I understand your argument about Russia, but then it would be fundamental to secure victory against England before the Russian campaign (yes they had troops, but ill equipped and lacking transport vehicles, provided later by the Americans). This means that instead of Barbarossa, they should have conquered London and captured the Queen and Churchil in a decisive move, all or nothing.
          2- If Germany was fighting against enemies it couldn’t handle, retreat should have been negotiated and concessions made while they still could (why not offering parts of France, once English, to Britain? Churchil would lose public support and maybe the Queen’s own endorsement if that happened).
          I know all this is easy to say now, that we know how it all ended up. But even discounting the “a posteriori” effect, thinking clearly is essencial when dealing with millions of lives.

        8. ive enjoyed talking to you and it is nice to find someone with an open mind most people here or otherwise arent capable of rational discussion and usually attack or don’t respond to the actual points but rather just say what they had pre determined no matter what I actually say. You answered the points i raised even if i didn’t agree i appreciate that.
          Im not however going to get into hypothetical’s with you.
          I’m sure we’ll talk again my friend. Take care.

        9. A nice talk is a rare, refreshing commodity these days, I know. Most people are partisans, defending catach frases they were doctrinated to believe in. I like using logic and rarely I “shut the door” on anyone’s face for disagreeing. You’ll always be welcome to share your views with me, even if we disagree in the end.
          Take care and have a nice sunday.

        10. “And naz*s had the best and the worst combined in them, they never won my trust…”
          You must be pretty old, dude.

        11. I am not that old…
          But I lived in many countries around the world (Europe, the Americas and a little Asia), where I kept in touch with local german communities, and I ended up knowing quite a few different kinds of them: the original ones, who ran the party and got away (mostly Strasserians), the ones who never decided a thing and knew next to nothing about the whole “machine”, the children of both these types (who always fall in one of two clichés: the even more extremist nat-soc’s or the rebellious communist/anarchists), the foreign ones (a few belgian Rexists, which I must say, are some of the most loyal, reliable and by all means, true friends I ever had) and the really despicable bunch, the neonazis, who are a bunch of violent, misguided thugs I always wanted far from me. So, I can say how they were and are, but not how their regime was, as I could never have lived in it (not that old, I repeat).
          My experience about these issues is a fruit of chaos, not of commited research. I am not a german, even if I am descendent from germans. And I do not believe that the past can repeat itself. “Es gibt kein Weg zurück…”

        12. He fought the Soviets because they were getting ready to launch an invasion of the whole of Europe and he put it off until the first day after the roads we passable after the spring thaws. They were preparing for invasion. Read or watch Suvarovs who started world war two or Icebreaker.

    3. Something that Hitler and Stalin both did was banish undesirables. In the age of open borders and a tendency to have criminals on the streets rather than in prison, the sense that being part of society is a privilege you should not abuse or else is not there anymore..

  9. I believe that in the West, namely in the United States or Northern Europe, sooner or latter, there will be a major civil war or armed tensions caused by:
    1- ethnic conflicts. This is evident in the USA where racial tensions are in a all time high. If the Democrats win the next elections, be very afraid and very prepared to Hell.
    2- religions tensions. Either we like it or not, Islam is going to be one of the key words of this century. With the power of oil, the salafist states, led by the House of Saud, will continue to sponsor Islamism and its genetic predisposition to totalitarianism. As a Christian, this deeply concerns me because the Muslim expansion was only halted by a strong and hegemonic West. If we loose that power, expect sharia law being imposed, as it is are already in some places in Europe and a weaker Christianity.
    3- economic collapse. By this i mean the destruction of capitalism as it should be, with services and products being offered to society in a free and competitive way, promoting civility, hard work, merit and a rich society that can, in that manner, pay for all the goods that we have, from a strong and just state (do not mistaken it with cheap “welfarism” like in Brazil or Venezuela) to strong military and good infrastructures. These SJW idiots, mostly reds, do not understand that only a rich and powerful economy, based on a free and capitalist market, can pay for their well being.
    4- native populations demographic meltdown. With women not waiting babies and dependent from a nany state, the renewal of native generations will be impossible. Hence, the importation of migrants to do cheap labour and in that way, diminish the salaries of the working population. This is the only goal of the elites we have in the West: to alter the demographics and in that way, control society.
    Now, are we going to have a Caesar, a Louis XIV or a just plain lunatic??? I do not know, but as the reflection of Relampago indicates, Nature has its laws, and one of them is Newton Third law. There will be a reaction and a though one.

    1. Saudi arabia is spent as a force. It’s oil is dwindling and it has more conflict both external and internal than it can deal with.

      1. I pray that will be the future. Its truly one of the most dangerous states on earth and people often do not see it that way. However, even with a eventual decline, Islam will no be stopped so gently.

    2. “If we loose that power, expect sharia law being imposed, as it is are already in some places in Europe and a weaker Christianity”
      Indeed we are already seeing this. Being a christian will be a liability in the coming decades. Do you see any part of the USA maintaining a christian stronghold? Perhaps Texas?

      1. I would say the entire South. The South is to the United States, what the North is to Portugal: traditional, attached to the land and to family and where religion is vital. Christianity is the glue that binds Western Civilization together, if we loose it, we loose everything. Were are you from brother?

        1. I used to live in the midwest, then northeast, I currently am in europe with a front row seat to the events unfolding. I’m a white christian – and fully aware of the significance of that under the current state of affairs today. I presume Texas will be the better christian stronghold in the long run?

        2. “I presume Texas will be the better christian stronghold in the long run?”
          Its a strong candidate.

    3. ‘This is evident in the USA where racial tensions are in a all time high. ‘

      1. Sure it is…Just imagine more 4 or 8 years of Hillary or other like her. Confrontations like the video shows will only grow.

    1. Sulla heralded Caesar. Without Sulla’s power grab, precedent for Caesar would not have existed. Sulla didn’t restore the Republic, he just enabled the birth of the Empire through Caesar.

    2. “We don’t want Caesar. We want Sulla.”
      Sulla could have been Augustus, instead he just postponed the end of the corrupt Republic, inflicting unnecessary ruinous civil wars. If Sulla had fulfilled the role of Augustus, then you’d be saying, “We don’t want Sulla. We want Gaius Marius.”
      Speaking of Gaius Marius:
      I’d recommend the sequel, Grass Crown, as well, but beyond that, the rest of the series, is tarnished by the female author’s infatuation with Julius Caesar.

      1. Meh. There were civil wars after the deaths of later emperors, so replacing the “corrupt Republic” with an empire did not prevent civil war.
        “Postponing the end of the Republic” is not such a bad thing to shoot for at this point – especially if it involves putting lots of Leftard heads on the rostrum.

  10. Order, continuity, stability… A King is what you need. The most natural system for elvolved humans is monarchy. Even these damned communist from North Corea have morphed into one, despite the egalitarian facade.
    We are hierarchical beings : family submit to their fathers, fathers submit to their tribe leaders, tribe leaders submit to the King, King submit to God. Everything goes to shit once you disrupt this traditional hierarchy, as history is teaching us.

      1. “I wonder how future monarchs is going to deal with French Revolution 2.0?”
        The French monarch only had to order this before he became seen as weak:

        But, he was too nice of a guy, so he was replaced by men who were willingly to use force more ruthlessly.

        1. History teaches us that in politic the oak lasts longer than the reed.

      1. Atheism is childish, weak and only paves the way for stronger ideologies (e.g. Islam) to take over. People need God, it’s in our psyche.

        1. “People need God, it’s in our psyche.”
          People and civilizations may need God but it makes it difficult to instill that belief in people in today’s scientific age when it seems clear that all religions are human creations, and that it is very likely there is no benevolent, personal God of the type that the major monotheistic religions believe in.
          It may very well be a noble lie but it’s a lie most people in the Western world are increasingly finding it hard to believe. The churches in Europe are pretty much empty and Christianity is a spent force there.

        2. Western people haven’t rejected religion, they’ve simply rejected the kind of God they wish to worship. When god and religion become irrelevant, new “Gods” and ideologies take their place. The decline of God and religion are rarely a good thing.

        3. “The churches in Europe are pretty much empty” Not true, my traditionalist church is always full and doesn’t have enough sit for everyone.

        4. Religion is essential to a well functioning Society, and faith to a healthy individual. An atheyst misses the point of both, as individualism overcomes the need of the collective (traditional, in the sense of family and nation), and misconceptions about the different natures of Thruth became common (it is almost impossible nowadays to explain that science is as illusive in its universality and intemporality as any faith, and that both scientific knowledge and spirituality are complementary and not mutually exclusive).

        5. God doesn’t work anymore. I couldn’t force myself to believe in something I know doesn’t exist. They just need SOMEthing to believe in, something to strive for. Could be the 4th Reich.

        6. You can’t “know” God does not exist, you can only ‘believe’ God does not exist. The idea that we are an unintended byproduct of chance is certainly as close to impossible, as a divine being. Either way, I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find a positive uniting philosophy, in a worldview holds that life exists for no reason and there are no spiritual consequences for the decisions we make in this life.

        7. “The churches in Europe are pretty much empty and Christianity is a spent force there.”
          In northern Europe, not in the South or in the East.

        8. You can’t make a total invention that is not feasible, and then, treat it as true because its not feasible. I can up the idea of humans connected to a Matrix dominated by lizard-men, who in the same time, these lizards are connected to a Matrix dominated by the Alien-Cats, who are controlled by Donald-McDonald-God who is invisible and controls the universe.
          You can’t deny my religion, therefore it totally exists.

        9. Christian God is just a metaphysical explanation like any other. Like Hinduism or Norse Mythology. It could make sense some time ago, or depending on the perspective. But other metaphysical paradigms are not childish, weak or whatever.
          It is way more childish to believe in a God invented 2500 years ago, with no evidence or sufficient reason.

        10. I stand by what I said. God ≠ Religion. Religions come have come and gone but it’s impossible to “know” God does not exist; You can only “believe” God does not exist. Further, proving an absolute negative is impossible.
          Don’t get bent out of shape about it.
          Just try come to terms with it.

        11. Are you French? How many traditional churches are in France these days? Where are you located (if you don’t mind sharing on a public forum)?
          I will probably be going to France later this year and it would be great to go to one of those services.

        12. To exist is to have an objective reality. God, at least for many observers, does not exist because they cannot perceive this being. Why is this so hard for people to accept. God does not equal religion, because many deist believe in a god, but one that doesn’t intervene and many do not believe in the supernatural

        13. I can certainly know God does not exist just like I know the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. I cannot technically prove there is no tooth fairy, but the likelihood of an orthopedically obsessed flying elf who disperses coins in accordance with US laws is nil.

        14. I disagree entirely. Organized religion is not essential for well functioning society. It stifles the technological advancement of civilization and therefore severely limits the long-term survivability of that civilization from destruction.
          I will say however that Mythology and Storytelling are essential aspects of the human journey, to transmit information, inspiration, hope, courage, identity, meaning and strength from one generation to another.
          You watch movies right? You know its not real, yet they are still incredibly valuable.
          In short, you don’t need to slay millions of people, burn down libraries of millions of manuscripts, suppress other humans, in order to ensure the belief in a imaginary entity. In fact, such behavior is indicative of the insecurity of such a belief (position). Let history tell the rest.

        15. “God doesn’t work anymore.”
          Hmmm… how so? Could you please clarify and elaborate if you want to? Just because God perhaps “doesn’t work” the way you want Him to work doesn’t mean He’s not on His Throne.
          Do you even pray to God Almighty, Lord Jesus Christ directly? Do you know that prayer is communication directly to the Almighty?
          Hmmm… I won’t read much into what you’re saying and “project” what I think you’re meaning but I can already tell you are seriously mistaken about “God” as you don’t know Him. Amen.

        16. I “know” God exists. I’ve seen His Power in my life as a Christian.
          …For what it’s worth I’ll give you an example… it may or may not make sense to you but it sure was a sign to me.
          One day I was backslidden in sin hating and cursing God before I went to bed in rebelliousness.
          The next day I woke up and was walking on my way still cursing and hating God a dog walked up and neatly “bit” me on my pant’s leg but did not bite my skin…
          Later on that day I *repented* to God in heartfelt prayer acknowledging His Goodness and Wisdom and owning my wicked folly and ignorance. I could have called the police on that dog’s owner and sued and all that, but that moment on I knew that was a moment of “chastening” to get me to “snap out of it” and have some “sense in my head”.
          I KNEW that’s what that was about. Amen.

        17. The Evidence is all around you… Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was buried in the Tomb and rose out of it alive three days after…
          Hmmm… yeah, it really seems that all those who “don’t believe” there is a God realize “THEY DON’T WANT ONE”. People want to do “do what they want” and not OBEY some “imaginary” Creator who… made them? Amen.

        18. Wow! Atheism, what a courageous and unique position top take. You must be a real free thinker. #sobrave

        19. No need to be pedantic. I applied rationality to the statement, “You can’t “know” God does not exist”, and showed you that it is completely feasible to know your personal god does not exist. I would be surprised by your childish response, but children believe in fairytales their parent’s tell them.
          Your assumptions are spectacular. Good day.

        20. Ironically, it is you who holds the more common and mindless position of accepting an ideology without applying rationality.
          Nice hashtag bro. I really like it.

        21. “Ironically, it is you who holds the more common and mindless position of accepting an ideology without applying rationality.”
          Asserting a point isn’t making one. Furthermore, the ‘tooth fairy’ is a folklore that dates back to early Europe. If you had a point worth making you would have made it by now. Enjoy your day.

        22. You believe in the physical reality of mythology, like roughly 75-85% of the world, according to statistics from adherents.com, which make this facetious comment:
          “Wow! Atheism, what a courageous and unique position top take. You must be a real free thinker. #sobrave”
          ironic, because you are similar to 75-85% of people in that respect, making what you think or say much less unique, or as Cambridge dictionary says, “​​unusual in some way”, than someone who does not believe myths are real.

        23. 1) You don’t know what I believe.
          2) The overwhelming majority of atheists aren’t very intelligent. Despite this, Atheism has become a badge which allows people, such as yourself, to feign intellectualism (which was my point, which you missed and thus proved).
          3) Did you have a related point that is on topic or was that just a tangent observation, based on your inability to produce anything other than stock atheist arguments (i.e. tooth fairy), that have been debunked repeatedly elsewhere? Don’t waste my time.

        24. Your comentary suits my definition of an atheist perfectly. You are absurdely convinced of the nature of Truth someone told you about and of the individualistic criterion as a good management technique to guide a Society.
          Although I know arguing with an atheist is as pointless as arguing with a ready-to-explode jihadist (since both are absolutely abhorred of logical reasoning and 100% dogmatic in their claims), I’ll humour myself and give you a structured answer, which I hope you have the decency of reading.
          First claim: unproved. You are to give me an example of a well functioning atheist Society (and you are obliged to follow not a “secular” Society criterion, as it allows “freedom”, and not absence of religion).
          Second claim: false. Not only religion does not impair technological and cultural improvements, as it causes them to appear and grow. You can observe the Egyptian pyramids, the babilonian zigurats, the entire developments of the Renaissance (when powerful political families and lobbies “entered” the religious structure, as opposed to the Middle Ages, where Popes had next to inexistant power, and for centuries, even their meek role was contested by Antipopes), the first times of the Islamic Empire, or even the wonderful endeavours the so-called “pilgrims” achieved in launching what would become the mightiest nation of the world, the USA.
          Third claim: the “toothfairy” argument. This is just absurd. The idea of God(s), “divine”, “holy” is not dependant of its image, as “«3» oranges” is not defined by oranges, but by “3”. You can’t show me “3”, which is an abstract concept, without a realistic image following (and here comes the “oranges”, but could also come trees, pencils, fingers, etc.). In the same way, the fact that some see their God as an oldman with long white beards and others see Them as elephants, monkeys, rats, etc, doesn’t mean they are defined by those images (oldman, elephants, etc), but only by the definition of “divine”. So, you can’t disprove the abstract idea of God (which is “faith”), simply dismising the images you were provided. That would be the equivalent of saying there can’t be “«3» oranges” because noone gave you oranges you could taste, feel and smell.
          “imaginary identity”- this would serve, in the same way, to banish science alltogether. Maths is not done with natural numbers (only) for a long, long time, now. If you are telling me we should not do a thing because it relies on imaginary identities (as in “negative numbers”, “complex numbers with imaginary components”, etc.), well, we should go back to the cave we came from. The same thing about all the deductive science, which is based on observation PLUS reasonable doubt (I know I can kill a rat with a pound of poison, because I killed 99 rats using that quantity; does that mean the rat that survived does not exist??? – the fact is I only know 99% of truth; therefore, I cannot use my knowledge about those 99% of the facts to disprove the remaining 1%, as they are NOT THE SAME).
          And then, “oh, I hate religion because people were killed because of God”. lol Humanity is way ahead of you. Since political ideologies like communism, nazism, liberal imperalism and others were invented, each one of them killed hundreds, maybe thousands more people without requiring a divine excuse. It’s human nature, and also, in a way, a logical method of replacing existing structures by new ones, in a finite world.

        25. Your pathetic attempt at using technical and philosophical terms is embarrassing. Your sophist crackpot pseudo-rational ideas are offensive to the scientific method, and civilization (The Egyptians, the Greeks, Arab Empire, Magna Carta Britain, America, etc.) which were all SYNCRETIC and indeed SECULAR. Your obvious ignorance of even the word ‘atheist’ is apparent, and again, quite intellectually embarrassing for you. You would know that “atheists” don’t even agree on the meaning of the word, because the word is based upon a non-premise.
          Maybe fools will hear a string of big words and go “oh wow he must be smart” – but they’re idiots, just like you, and you belong with them in a train with no break heading toward 100 pounds of C4 (but I guess society DOES needs its janitors, cashiers, and mindless drones like yourself). Lastly, your complete lack of literacy, subtle discernment of meaning, and even just the actual diction used in my comment is abhorrent. I don’t know if I pity you or hate you more for being so incorrigibly and irrevocably vapid in perception or depth. I will spell it out clearly to the weak minds of RoK:
          ORGANIZED RELIGION (which is different than spiritual/culturally traditional practices) AKA non secularism is like the chains which bore down on the Promethean mind of man.
          Organized religion (like the catholic church, fundamentalist Islam, some forms of Hinduism, etc.) keeps billions of people crystallized in poverty by outlawing modern medical practices, social equality for women, and a list of other things. All of the things I say are literally verifiable via the internet / a monkey with half a brain (which would be an upgrade from your shit-brain).
          Enjoy being an intellectual cuck with the long dick of falsehood firmly planted *deep* in your nob slobbler, faggot.
          (That felt good!)
          edit1: added *deep* for emphasis in last line.

        26. See? Now read your comment and read my disclaimer up on mine. It’s useless…

        27. Hahaha did that make you feel good? Made me feel better, for sure. The best rebuttal you could engender was a superficial (unrelated) ad hominem, not even very poetic, just childish.
          And then a show of ignorance about the very definition of the words you use. Boy, I am not talking about laicism, agnosticism or anticlericalism. I was referring atheism. Google search, you may find it.
          And congratulations! Go distribute your mental disabilities among those miserable people. You’ll succeed, for sure. Everybody knows, believing in nothing makes money. Oh wait, dollar bills do believe in God. Burn them, you don’t believe in them, anyway. Haha what a moron!
          I want more. Show us how deep the rabbit hole goes!

        28. First truth:
          I said: “Organized religion is not essential for well functioning society.”
          You said: “First claim: unproved. You are to give me an example of a well functioning atheist Society”
          **by the way unproved is not a word you fucking dip shit its UNPROVEN or DISPROVED. Good try though retard.
          False equivalent (logical fallacy). Society without political nepotism (BY ORGANIZED RELIGION) =/= atheist society.
          Second truth:
          I said: “It stifles the technological advancement of civilization and therefore severely limits the long-term survivability of that civilization from destruction.”
          You said: “Not only religion does not impair technological and cultural improvements, as it causes them to appear and grow. You can observe the Egyptian pyramids, the babilonian zigurats, the entire developments of the Renaissance (when powerful political families and lobbies “entered” the religious structure, as opposed to the Middle Ages, where Popes had next to existent power, and for centuries, even their meek role was contested by Antipopes), the first times of the Islamic Empire, or even the wonderful endeavours the so-called “pilgrims” achieved in launching what would become the mightiest nation of the world, the USA.”
          Aside from horrific spelling and grammar,
          This account of history contains a staggeringly idiotic version of several historic developments in human culture.
          Historians disagree with you (people who like, you know, have degrees, work in academia, know their shit, etc.).
          Egypt and Babylon (not spelled babilon you fucking cuck) are not synonymous cultures, which is an assumption you make because you’re so fucking uneducated on history, religion, or science obviously. The construction, design and mathematic formula of the pyramids and the ziggurats are completely different. It’s like comparing the Irish to the Chinese because they both had doors on their house. LOL. Or even more embarrassing: calling the Chinese “Oriental”. Ha!
          The Renaissance was a revival of Greek and therefore Egyptian scholasticism (AKA knowledge gained by using the scientific method, a hard concept for you to grasp). It was characterized by church reform, suppression of intellectuals (such as the young scientist Giordano Bruno, who was burned alive at the stake by the church by proposing a helio-centric model of earth and that stars are actually other suns like our own).
          (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/renaissance) The revival of art and literature under the influence of classical models in the 14th-16th centuries.
          Classical AKA pagan AKA greco-roman and Hellenistic whom were all secular and syncretic historically. Again, you’re a twat.
          Political Powers had already infiltrated ORGANIZED RELIGION by 1300’s (King Phlip IV)
          The Abassad Dynasty who were responsible for the Islamic Golden Age (which rivaled and surpassed the European Renaissance in some cases) were notably syncretic and borrowed from Arabs, Persians, Egyptians and Europeans alike.The priests translated texts from as far as CHINA, INDIA and Ancient GREECE. Fucking misinformed tool bag.
          Lastly, America was notably ANTI-RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR summed up perfectly in these 20 quotes from the Founding Fathers and the final one from the Treaty of Triplo Article 11:
          1. “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”- Thomas
          2. “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.” -Thomas Jefferson
          3. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one- Thomas Jefferson
          4. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”- Thomas Jefferson
          5. “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”- Thomas Jefferson
          6. “Lighthouses are more useful than churches.”- Ben Franklin
          7. “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”- Ben Franklin
          8. “I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”- Ben Franklin
          9. “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”- Ben Franklin
          10. “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
          it”- John Adams
          11. “The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.’- Thomas Paine
          12. “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”- Thomas Paine
          13. “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine
          14. “Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.”- Thomas Paine
          15. “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”- Thomas Paine
          16. “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene.”- Thomas Paine
          17. “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”- George Washington
          18. “The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”- Abraham Lincoln
          19. “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”- James Madison
          20. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”- James Madison
          Treaty of Tripoli Artile 11:
          “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
          Third truth: what the fuck are you even talking about dude? You can’t prove the tooth fairy exists. That does not mean THERE IS AN EQUAL LIKELIHOOD OF THE TOOTH FAIRY BEING REAL AS THERE IS THE TOOTH FAIRY BEING NOT REAL. Same goes for your personal god. You’re a cuck. God the word cuck doesn’t even have the same umph anymore. The tooth fairy is just like zeus, poseidon, odin, horus, hades, the holy spirit or yahweh.
          Go read some Joseph Campbell bitch.
          As far as your disclaimer goes: fuck your disclaimer.
          My disclaimer? You’re a twat. A nasty, yeast-infected blue-waffled AIDS infested, fister-loving twat.
          The rest of your post is honestly just a bunch of incoherent babbling and I didn’t care to respond to it, because it is by and large meaningless. Like your life.
          Please subtract yourself from the population and kiss my peachy ass. Go read a fucking book douche bag.

        29. Oh, you harshly tormented son of Habermas… I don’t know even where to begin with. I exhausted my good will when you thought for some strange reason that I equated Babylon (old English Babilonie; curiously, most of the works I read in English and other languages spell it this way) with Egypt, and pyramids with zigurats (I am glad I did not mention “Capadocian caves”).
          And then… Do you understand why Anglicanism came into existance? The practical reasons, I mean, a “church of the state, a state of a Queen, a Queen by God”. And when did it happen? And then (then again), why they had, in France, a Most Christian Majesty (awarded c. 1380), in England a Defender of the Faith (awarded in 1521), in Portugal a Most Faithful Majesty (awarded in 1748). What was the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation other than putting religion as the most important aspect of people’s lives? This was contemporary with the Renaissance (and early Baroque stages). And in the Middle Ages, on the other hand, most of Europe did not even have a common religious standard, ranging from Arianism in the Iberian Peninsula to Orthodox Christianism in Eastern Europe, or Islamism in several regions of the South, or Paganism in the North. None of those nations (or just a few) made alliances acording to faith (exception made to the Crusades). And then you have the period of the Renaissance, with the marvellous Alhambra Decree, St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, the various pogroms all across Europe (as in Lisbon and Polotsk), the Italian wars of 1500s… The colonisation of the Americas, a work of religious genocide! What were they, medieval people sent in a time machine? Or, on the other hand, Renaissance people doing what they were best at? The trial of Galileo, and of Copernicus!? When!!!!? In the Middle Ages, you oaf? The missionary work of St Francis Xavier? The conversion of Goa, the foundation of Nagasaki? The christianization of Sub-Saharan Africa?
          Perhaps you should empty your highschool
          Frankfurtian newspeak once and for all and know some other professors, like Jacques Heers, instead of just showing how well indoctrinated you have been.
          And Syncretism? Please, you are far, far away from understanding what it is. The Greco Bactrian Kingdom was syncretic.

        1. Why are you fond of illogical thinking?
          You are not the philosopher we are looking for.

        2. Imagine babysitting a dog without control of its bladder and is constantly puking on your couch. Now imagine being surrounded by those dogs. Imagine your boss is that dog, and your coworkers, and the man who is leading your country, and the person who is preventing the poor Filipino or South American from getting condems, birth control, divorce rights, etc.
          Thats why we’re fucking angry.

        3. You just imagine:
          1. You live without life purpose;
          2. You are unable of complex abstract thinking;
          3. You refuse to associate yourself with other people who share a common set of values and a sense of community;
          4. You see youself as an ephemeral biologic machine, without any idea of “spirit”, “soul”, and therefore, perennial existance;
          5. The idea of “family” is just an empty social construct, made for immediate convenience, like “gender” or “nation”.
          And now that you have the common mindset of an atheist, can you tell me how can you not be angry/try to hang yourself 20 times a day?

      2. If not God, then how about eternal, universal, omnipotent, necessary, unchanging laws of ethical behaviour, i.e. the Platonic Form, to which the king must comprehend and adhere towards? I say this because these laws exist, and have power over all whether they are known or not.

      1. Knowledge must, then, be possible. How would one demonstrate such knowledge, if they were to possess it?

  11. “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.” -Tom Wolfe

    1. We’re beyond that. The Dark Knight of globalism, he who has been working towards an end for millenia, is bearing his fruits upon the land in the former republic of America. Truth is inverted, death is glorified, celebration of perversion is mandatory and his visage and image is now everywhere in this culture.
      And yet, people question his very existence. Our enemy is crafty.

  12. Mob rule and hyperinflation usually precede a dictatorship. Does anyone else see the possibility of the union eventually splitting in to regions of power?
    For example: California, Texas, and New York going their separate ways while absorbing weaker border states as satellites?

    1. The south will Rise again…or so goes the southern saying. If there was a split, it may be Liberal cities vs Everyone else, it may not be a North Vs South conflict because many Upstate Northern States outside the Cities are very conservative, a possibility could be Large Liberal cities in California, Illinois, and NY Vs everyone else, if there ever were a Civil war again.

      1. The problem with secession today is the massive federal debt. In the 1860s, the country could have let states secede, and it wouldn’t really have mattered. The USA would continue, slightly smaller, but perhaps sleeker and faster. The northern states were more developed and industrialized and wealthy. If anything it would probably have benefitted them to shed off the south.
        The south could have formed its own nation, and competed with the USA on the basis of a free and fair society in which to live, instead of the current system where the USA tyrannically passes a law and then threatens its will on the rest of the earth.
        But today, if a few states want to leave, well that creates a real problem because according to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ there is $850,000 in liabilities per every taxpayer. If you talk about even the smallest state withdrawing, you are talking about billions of dollars of debt now transferred to the remaining people in the other states. It simply can’t be allowed to happen.

        1. If the states ever seceded I imagine Texas would be the first to go and then take along with it a lot of Southern States with it.

        2. True, but right now, I’d say the south has quite a bit of Industry. Many business’s have left the North and headed south. The south could be self sufficient with all the Industry it now has comeing from Northern States, unlike the Civil War when the North had the Industry and the South Lacked Industry, it seems in 2016 the Industrious Roles are Flipped, whether that would play a Factor or not if the North and South split, who knows.

        3. But the point isn’t the industrial bifurcation; it’s that the USA is the world’s largest debtor nation. For every person that leaves, that’s $850,000 more debt for the rest of us to pick up the tab. How many people do you think they will let get away with that?

        4. When the shit hit’s the Fan, it hit’s the Fan hard, at some point the national Debt Issue is going to be addressed, right now it’s just being racked up and nobody seems to care, it’s a very serious issue, and maybe it could lead to the next great Depression. If the Shit hits the Fan, and some States decide to secede, and the seceded States say ” the hell with the National Debt , it’s not our Problem” and basically hand the Tab to the states left in the original Union…well it won’t be the first time in history where somebody gets screwed, there have been many times in history where things go wrong, and people get shafted big time, if the seceded states decide the Debt’s not their problem, 50 years from then the History books may tell of how the seceded States screwed the Union over by leaving them the National Debt, the history books may also tell of how in the following year after the secession, the Union and the seceded states went to war over the National Debt issue. Honestly I don’t know, but History is full of examples where things go terribly wrong and people get screwed or worse, it could be possible in the future that the rest of us might be picking up an extra $850,000 for everyone who leaves.

        5. You wouldn’t want to look at liabilities, just debt. Any new republic or government would not have to honor social security or medicare and other entitlement liabilities.

        6. My point is that secession will NEVER be allowed to happen. Look at the reasons the fed has gone to war over the past century. It’s over stuff a LOT less important than $850,000 per person. Hell, I don’t know if there’s even that much oil in Iraq.
          Any state leaving would NEVER be allowed to leave. The only way it could happen is if the seceding state(s) was powerful enough to fight off the old nation, which would almost certainly require at least a quarter or more of the nation to secede, and even then it would likely lead to massive bloodshed.

        7. In theory and policy it may never be allowed to happen, but no one knows what the future brings, it could very well happen.

    2. Thats been talked about, but I don’t see the broke, democrat ran states ever going peacefully. Parasites need a host.

  13. Have not even read article but must comment on your title being spot on. People choose order, Iraq was better under Saddam via this, and straight from my Russian friends mouth- “People understand fear.” This is why I constantly meet immigrants who grasp & live core, old school American principles more than any native born American. Met a Peruvian chef/business owner in San Antonio last week who told me, “People move to the USA and become greedy and lose or divorce family. I can tell you on one hand who called me on holidays when I was broke, and my bitch mom in FL isn’t one of them.” Working his restaurant with his wife and full of life.

  14. Ironically that’s a picture of Augustus who finalized the death of the republic and paved the way for new calamities to come resulting from investing unlimited power to one individual. A new “Caesar” could be and likely will be worse than what we have now. It might bring some positive initial change but those in power rarely like to relinquish it no matter how corrupt their government becomes. Just look at Russia under Putin and the rest of the satellite states around the motherland.

      1. I did and your point is? It is ironic because Augustus turned even previously free Roman citizens to HIS slaves. The so-called Pax-Roman was the apex of oppression for all the souls under his state.

        1. You don’t get the point of the article nor have ever read anything about augustus caesar either. Widely considered to be one of if not Romes greatest leaders. It’s retarded to say he made romans slaves. You are an idiot for thinking it was ironic sorry i can’t be more patient or understanding but its late and you are really stupid.

        2. The only idiot here is you my friend who have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point across. Yes Augustus ended the internal strife for power by installing himself Emperor after his victory over Mark Antony but this act finalized the death of the Republic. And yes if you really look at it they were technically his slaves as he could end anyone’s life, even Senators at-will. His absolute grab of power set the stage for later brutal emperors such as Caligula, Nero, Caracalla, Commodus etc… the whole point of my rant was to say that while our system is corrupt and degenerate, we still have rights to fight it if we are smart about it. To think that a strongman dictator is going to come and fix it without some consequences is the epitome of nativete.

        3. Love the way people say ad hominen and simultaneously think it makes them both clever and right.
          It’s not preferable to get your point across by insulting someone but it doesn’t make me wrong.
          You are a fucking idiot and I’m not spending any more time talking to you about stuff you haven’t a notion about. You can’t even use the word ironically right. You can’t even stick to your own logic. You clearly havent read anything other than a childs book on Caesar Augustus.
          Sorry for insulting you but its true and i’m not going reading your reply so knock yourself out.

        4. Lol I am parting ways knowing that most of the replies here do happen to agree with my point more so than yours. Thanks for the warm compliments.

        5. “Yes Augustus ended the internal strife for power by installing himself Emperor after his victory over Mark Antony but this act finalized the death of the Republic. And yes if you really look at it they were technically his slaves as he could end anyone’s life, even Senators at-will”
          Then it really wasn’t that different the last 100 years of the Roman Republic, which may or may not have anything to do these examples from recent American history: Breitbart, Michael Hastings, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Seal Team Six, Benghazi. We know Augustus was the first emperor only because of retrospect, an American Emperor could easily arise and the general public wouldn’t realize it for a generation or two, when the constitutional facade is cast away.

  15. bad or false leadership leads up to a “Caesar”. The west is full of that kind of crap.

  16. The SJWs are going to need some REALLY safe spaces pretty soon.

    1. Do they realize what happens when the SHTF? They are soft faggy wimps….they die first, and easily.

      1. There’s an interesting article, I’ll try to find it, on Argentina and their economic collapse. It wasn’t talked about, but it was known, that women sold their bodies for food. I believe the exact words were “you could get a few hours of pleasure and pay for it with a can of beans.”
        I don’t prefer chaos and collapse, but sometimes, the prepared man can still benefit.

        1. When the USSR collaposed in 91′ it was like that in a lot of cities in the east.

  17. Brilliant article and as a man who is in favor of one leader i love to hear someone else put forth a logical argument for it.
    Democracy does not work. Its an illusion at best. Name me a democracy that works or has worked ???
    Why arent companies or sports teams run by democratic process ?? Because it is not plausible !!!

  18. Whilst modern democracy is a fuck up that achieves fuck all, democracy is still (probably) the best way to run society. The problem with modern democracy is that we allow women to vote. Back in the day before women voted, democracy worked just fine. Most (if not all) of the problems that plague modern society can be traced back to the advent of the vote for women; I am talking about the rise of leftism, unwarranted women’s rights, massive taxation (mainly paid for by men) to pay for increased social welfare (mainly consumed by women), the rising crime rates caused by fatherless children, soft judicial systems that place the rights of criminals above the rights of victims and so on. You get the basic idea – allowing women to vote was (and remains) a bad fucking idea.
    However, the problem with having a dictator in charge of society is that we would all exist at the mercy of the said dictator. No matter how benevolent a dictator may be when they come to power, power tends to corrupt (to borrow from George Orwell). Not only that, but suppose the dictator of society is one with leftist and feminist sympathies (such as Steve Shives – a scary thought). In such a case, feminists would be free to continue to downward spiral of society and we would all be screwed royally. Personally, I have always believed that it is not our system of government that is the problem but rather whom we let participate in our system of government. The sooner society realises that women shouldn’t be voting and we need to restore democracy to being a male-only institution, the sooner we get society heading back in the right direction.

    1. How about the requirement of having signed up for the military qualifies you for citzenship like Starship troopers?
      No spear no vote. One man one spear defending his nation.

        1. Land ownership and some kind of intellect test was and is still a better requirement than either force military service (legalized slavery) or forced income taxes (legalized theft)

        2. I tend to subscribe to this view. Quite frankly, why people who don’t contribute to the running of the country (which is theoretically why we pay taxes) should have a say in how the country is run is beyond me. Chronic welfare consumers are only going to vote for crap politicians who promise them more for contributing nothing. If such people were removed from the voting register until they contribute to the running of society, this would go a long way to curbing the influence of the left.

    2. The issue I have with a benevolent dictator isn’t their leanings as much as the fact that their successors do not tend to be as altruistic.

    3. This is why religion based monarchies (like european monarchies) were less volatile beasts than one man dictatorships. A king was ordained by god and like all of his subjects was also god fearing. This made him think twice before steering away from “righteousness” because he believed he would have to answer for it one day. Unlike military/ideological dictators who have no moral or spiritual obligations. However this was not always the case ofc but in many cases the religious factor did give it more stability.
      For example, someone previously mentioned Putin. Well although he is not of noble birth or a dictator like mainstream media like to think. + he was formed by an atheist/communist system but he is actually a very pious/religious person and is trying to steer Russia back to its Christian Orthodox/Tsarist imperial roots. You can see that clearly in his policies both domestic and foreign:
      – Restricting financial speculation, looking at new gold standard.
      – Restricting homosexual advertising and other neoliberal behaviours
      – Promoting tradition and Orthodox Church
      – Pragmatic diplomatic and economic policies
      – Fighting the eternal turkish/muslim enemy which destroyed the Orthodox faith (Byzantium).

      1. But how smart is Putin really? He recently invited any j** in Europe who felt threatened by the Islamic invasion, to immigrate to Russia.
        Though their tactics are totally different, ultimately j**s are just as destructive to a white, Christian society as the muzzies are.

  19. Despite the democratic era we’ve lived in for about two centuries, our fantasy lives still reflect an aristocratic, hierarchical way of understanding human society, because we know deep down that we really do work that way. You don’t see stories about “The Democratically Elected Office-Holder of the Rings,” “Game of Chairs” or “President Arthur” for a reason.

    1. An ex-gfs dad gave me that film on DVD.. I gotta find it, that was a great film. I particularly liked Merlin in this version. And of course Patrick Stewart was great.

  20. Whenever I’ve discussed politics, religion etc with other people I’ve always put it eloquently enough that they agreed with me, even my Bernie supporting liberal brother. Then in my spare time without meaning to I’ve composing speeches in my head on how I would sway the masses to embrace traditionalism…
    Well… I know what I’ll do when things go to helI in a hand basket: make speeches and become king (lol)!

  21. I firmly believe a Caesar will come to America. America today is in far worse condition than Germany in the 1930s in every sector except financially–the Dollar still holds dominance in the world today, but that is slipping every week. The laws passed since 2001 are far more draconian than anything on the books in Nazi Germany. When our dictator comes, it will be a brutal, horrible time. But it is inevitable, and we both deserve and need it.

    1. True most of the BRICS countries are already setting up a new “dollar” standard that could cause some serious issues with the strength of the US Dollar and its use as the worlds preferred payment.

    2. That would be cool to see but I don’t really believe that is possible in the US unfortunately. Unlike the US which is made up of 50 states and has a population of approx 300m people, Rome was a single city-state(like Athens) and probably had a population of no more than 800k by the time Caesar came to power. + the Roman people were not so culturally and ideologically different from one another like they are in States. Therefore it was easy to federate and if there was a rebellion (if you compare the size of Rome to that of the the US) it was easier to deploy your troops and take action. And you don’t have legions of slaves (well…not anymore lol) to kick start your economy and give you that economic advantage.
      The more probable scenario would be a an economic disaster driven by the collapse of the dollar(its inevitable, its a very very sick and frail currency) followed by a break up of the US into different regional blocks. These blocks of states will form based on a preferred and homogeneous ideology. And maybe then, within these new countries, a Caesar can immerge. But will it be a Caesar or Caligula? God knows.

  22. How could a Caesar even arise. If they gutted the miltiary and filled it with women?
    The progressives probably anticipated this and taken countermeasures.

    1. Well it doesn’t have to be the military. Honestly just anyone who march in and arrest a shitload of people in dc, then put them on a tribunal.

    2. A) Military and power channels are full of people who will follow orders
      B) The police have been militarized
      C) They can always start a new group, like the brownshirts.
      Trust me, they have plenty of power and force to back it up.

    3. That could be true but think about how many have seen military service that don’t agree with their governments policies.

      1. They upper corps probably already got purged of those who disagree. So you have K-selected men without the arms bonanza of the US military.

  23. oh no…there is going to be no caesar but the rise of military dictated countries in the west before that. that’s the first step. as a country becomes more violent, because it’s increasingly populated with people from third worlds who have the IQ of a turnip and are violent and have no clue or want to contribute to the betterment of society as a whole, you will have political correctness taking hold because of that. the civilized races in a country will be subjected to gun control because they cannot discriminate. thereby turning the US and the west into military controlled areas like the areas where all the third worlders came from. there will be no caesar in the west US or europe. only a transition to a militarized third world country. then when everything falls apart 100’s of years from now, you may then have a real leader. it will take the fall of the militarized western nations for that to happen first and that will take awhile.

  24. We only have to look at how many Millionaires are bailing out of Europe due to the leftist Governments with France (10,000) the biggest loser, to see that the socialist government policies are seeing their innovators leaving in droves.

    1. And if the current system is so good why is civilization in decline and the people so unhappy ??? 10,000 millionaires out of 66 million people.

  25. Julius Caesar ruled and then was assassinated. But not forgotten.
    Today’s democratic party will be forgotten .

  26. What happens after a Caesar ascends to power? Now there’s a dictator in place, probably with his own private cadre of military police. No one can keep him accountable for any decision. If he has enough guns, his word is law. The system may have worked well in the 1st century, but I’m not sure I like the idea of a Caesar with access to modern warfighting technology.

    1. It worked well in the 20th century too…in Germany and Italy. Look at the amazing turnaround in Germany during the first 5 years of Hitler’s rule. Foreigners who regularly visited were astonished by the change (including former British P.M. Lloyd George – Google the article he wrote in 1936 praising Hitler after visiting Germany).
      Problem is, men of the quality, courage, and dedication of Adolf Hitler are getting rarer and rarer.

      1. It scared the shit out of the globalist elite that Germany could be so prosperous and free from their deathgrip. If others were to follow it would have been catastrophic to their throne of power.

      2. Exactly. They all spoke so highly of him and Germany in that period. I have numerous quotes from British leaders and even Joe Kennedy was a huge admirer.

        1. Even the King of England was a huge fan! But the “people around Churchill” couldn’t have that – it might stand in the way of their planned war. So they manufactured a reason to force him out (marrying an American divorcée) and replaced him on the throne with his idiot, stammering brother…who they knew they could manipulate. Just like the Jew neocons did with moron Dubya a couple generations later.
          Thank God people are waking up and no longer buying the lies. The Internet has a lot to do with it. I just hope it hasn’t come too late!
          (P.S. If you want to have some fun, find a born againer who is strongly pro-life but has bought the “evil Hitler” propaganda. Then show him the statistics of how Hitler took the sky-high abortion rate that was in place when he took power, and reduced it by 90+ percent in about 3 years. While at the same time shutting down the decadence, filth, pornography, public homosexuality, prostitution, etc that was prevalent in Berlin. And at the same time, encouraging women to focus on family life and raise large, healthy families. After you explain this to him, stand back and watch his head explode!)
          The lies won’t always hide the truth. Death to leftism and feminism!

        2. My man nice to hear from someone who is informed !! couldn’t agree more with you. It seems the red pill doesn’t cover all diseases after reading this forum.

        3. hahahahahha agreed but it its unusual and people wouldnt expect that being the point !

        1. Well, well… seems you have bought into the j**ish propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Good goyim.

  27. This type of articles is the main reason I still keep an daily eye on this site. We as men must either rise ourselves above what we (and society) are and recreate the nobel virtues, or be doomed as a brainless sucker for society and its whims by chasing the PUA philosophy to destruction.
    I rather enjoy the vast tension of ROK.

  28. “Liberal fascists”, ” academic leftists”, “multiculturalists”, “moneyed elites”, ” opportunists posing as statesmen”….we all know (((who))) we’re talking about.

    1. The degeneracy at least in the 1st and 2nd century has been overblown by the writers of history. Octavian actually did a lot to bring back more traditional values.
      However, the creation of an emperor did ultimately bring an end to the Western half of the empire. The emperors gained more and more of their power from the army and the mob by giving out ‘freebies’ from the public treasury: Bonuses paid to the soldiers every time a new emperor, public games, putting much of the Roman citizenry on welfare (the dole),etc. This all came to a head during the Crisis of the Third Century. Emperors tried to service the debt with an ever inflated currency (sound familiar?). At one point, the empire was switching emperors more often than some people change their underwear.
      The crisis period ended with the establishment of the Dominate: Absolute power of the emperor and the abolishing of the last vestiges of liberty for citizens of the Empire. i.e. Diocletian actually banned people from changing jobs and established strict price controls in a failed effort to halt hyper inflation.

  29. Technology is change the way of a new leader …Now is waiting for the rise of I.A.

  30. However, the society cannot continue to exist on economic growth, materialism, and consumerism alone. It cannot exist without the simpler, more intuitive (and biologically essential—like reproductive) ways of life represented in the Culture phase. As seen in the West, as the culture shifts from intrinsic to extrinsic values, people can no longer come up with a reason to have children and the civilization sterilizes itself. Children become part of an economic equation instead of an intuitive part of life.
    This is a fantastic insight about the drive towards reproduction in the West. Can even feel it in myself a kind of “Have children.. what for? You can’t code them, charge them, deposit or withdraw them, hold, buy or sell them, fish with them, go from nought to sixty-two in under four seconds with them..” Of course I know I’ve also been wrongly conditioned by the system and am absorbing red-pill attitudes to breeding into my thinking. But the programming in the West has definitely messed with the fundamental drive to have children and a reasonable proportion of people are too far misprogrammed and “sterile” as you describe it. Not good.

    1. Why have children? So that after you die a part of you will continue to live in this world indefinitely into the future. Also traditionally you had children so that someone who loves you would take care of you in your old age, and also if you had sons they could avenge you, as in that great scene in “The Godfather II ” where Vito Corleone, as a young man, kills the mafia chief who killed his parents many years earlier (one of my favorite movie scenes of all time ).

      1. That’s a popular movie theme, the avenging of the murder of parents, even in the last James Bond, Spectre, there was a bit of that going on with the main female character.. The drive to have children was once more fundamental, and it is better if the wish to do it transcends some kind of logical rationalisation. It’s supposed to happen in another more primal part of the mind, and there’s too much complexity in the modern Western existence, careers, personal fulfilment, hedonism and self-realisation that gets in the way of that..

  31. The current system doesn’t seem to follow any natural order. Anyone with their finger on the pulse of the people can clearly read a quickly growing anxiety of the people to see the enforcers and directors of the theatre of plate spin control who defame and undermine tribe and family rounded up and put in their place. No official authority responds to the will of the people and citizens are cracking their knuckles in anticipation of doing the scrub down themselves, all the while maintaining the hope and virtue they were born with. The will of the people never dies and is energized when their humanity and natural drive to live is under attack.

  32. Be thankful that we are ahead of the curve, guys. There will be blood but it’s men like us that will be spared to rebuild society and repopulate the earth once the missiles stop flying. I’d rather serve a benevolent dictator any day than a corrupt, ineffectual “Elected” representative. No one voted for God, he’s just always been there.

  33. Only rednecks, who’ve only heard of a dictatorship and never lived it will even wish for anything remotely like it. People from all over the world flee to the States, does your simple brain ask why?

    1. Problem is…those fleeing failing states for here are demanding things be like their collapsing homelands.
      Liberals helping the decline along.

    2. Redneck, somebody who does back breaking toil in the heat of the sun in summer, causing a sunburn on his neck.
      Ever notice how Leftist insults are all actually anti-working class?
      Just a note in passing. I’m down with the stronger 2nd Amendment, fwiw.

  34. Ok. Ok. You got me. I am planning to be that leader, Caesarina. Empress Nadia the Great. Ruler of all America…
    I promise Constitution 2.0 gonna allow a lot less sedition & treason. Stronger 2nd Amendment. Other neat stuff.

    1. Fuck off. We are in no mood for your non-sense. If you mock Caesar, you mock God himself.

      1. Of course I mock Caesar. Which one specifically? Many held the title.
        And now…I also mock you.

  35. Here’s the problem: a dictator could be the best thing for our country. But the only person I trust to be dictator is me :/

  36. Please write more Roman history articles ROK………….. I am sort of disappointed in this article because it does not mention the Roman Civil war or anything concerning the precursors to Iulius. The Marian reforms? The ever expanding empire vs the senate hegemony? Crassus? Mos Maiorum? ROK should totally do an 18 part sequence about ancient Rome and all its calamities and victories. Rome became a world power through self defense if you take their word for it. Every American needs to read ancient Roman history or have storytime with it cause it is 100% repeating itself.

      1. I would love to. Don’t have much time at the moment or experience writing articles. Who knows maybe I will give it a go

  37. A Caesar may indeed come to power here in America – or he may arrive from elsewhere as a conquering invader, or liberator, depending on one’s viewpoint.

  38. If Hellary wins, I am seeking exile in the Republic of Turkey. Check out this video taken in Eskishehir, Central Turkey. Amazing place, with not even one fembot in sight, and where men are still appreciated. Don’t believe the Zio-media! But you will have to learn some Turkish.

  39. Vladimir Putin. Faggotry or Ceaserism on display via the aforementioned. Nice read!

  40. Sorry, guys, but a dictator is only useful when the PEOPLE are willing to rise up behind him. If you put all the men in the U.S. together who were actually willing to go to war against the military and the police, the feminists and the the wave upon wave of wetbacks, arabs, muslims and niggers (as distinct from actual black men), we’d probably number, what?, MAYBE 2,000? Twenty? Either way, not enough.
    HItler worked because the PEOPLE wanted to do something but couldn’t figure out what. Same for all the rest. But there has to be a popular uprising already in place for a Caesar of any stripe to be successful. Here, he would just be quietly murdered by some average guy while everyone else read about it online the following day.
    “Oh, no! I bet the liberal media won’t even COVER this! I wonder what’s on Breitbart…”

  41. Not sure if this is the article for this but it came to mind.
    I haven’t read Spengler, but it seems to me, that one of the eventual downfalls of all democracies not commonly talked about is the existence of an imported slave class. In America, this was the Africans, then the poor Europeans, now the Mexicans/Arabs/Somalians/Indians/etc.
    It seems to me, that the existence of the slave class causes laziness and apathy among the native populace, who is content to “outsource” their work rather than improve the lives of their own people. Pre-Civil War plantation owners and modern tech giants content to let H1-B Indians and Chinese replace Americans are not so different imo. Rome during its downfall was similar from my understanding, where eventually the slaves from conquered peoples (e.g. the Germanic tribes) became naturalized, even to the extent of commanding the armies while the Romans sat on their asses; and then the critical moment came where they simply displaced the powerless Romans, and that was the end.
    You don’t see many of the problems plaguing the West today in societies where historically there was no imported slave class (the serfs/slaves/poor were their own people, e.g. Japan or Russia), or where there’s no cultural taboo to treating the imported slaves as second-hand citizens and continuing to oppress them forever (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Caesar continuing the Roman tradition of conquering neighboring lands and using their people as slaves may have set Rome on the track to ruin in the long-term, and we have to make sure our soon-to-be Caesar won’t make the same mistake.

  42. It seems we’re ripe for it. Going by studies done by the ancient Greeks about government and society, the U.S. is poised for a dictator. We went “Mass” back in the 1980’s, and going by the predictable examples of the last 3000 years, we’re right on track. It just takes a demagogue now.

  43. Augustus of Prima Porta. I’ve always enjoyed this representation of Gaius Octavius, founder of the Roman Empire. The Roman system of government never really died; it just changed capitals over the centuries.

  44. Quite possible. It seems a recurring development though I’m not so sure it’s an inevitable one. The US in a way put it off by helping defeat the Nazis. Not all civilizations seem to have gone through this; people who believe in or push the theory of cyclical history distort the history of those that seem not to have. They are in fact a symptom of this very development; Spengler believed Germany would supply it for the West while Toynbee believed it would be Britain or one of its transplants. Thus they made it seem inevitable.
    It could happen. People who aren’t inclined to action need to watch and make careful notes for the benefit of the future.

  45. I think the author doesn’t know what fascism is and just uses it the same context as the modern left.
    That of a nonsense word to describe something they don’t like.
    “Urgh this ice cream tastes horrible, it’s fascist”

Comments are closed.