Quote# 142364

(Follow-up on this quote)

@Senior Lexmechanicus:
1. Incorrect. The nations I listed above had continent-spanning trade routes, walled cities, complex legal codes, and diplomatic channels. If Rome was an advanced civilization, so were they.
2. None of these reasons are rational, especially the idea that America is culturally Anglo-Saxon, therefore you must work to enact the rightful king of England and grant him absolute power, but not extend his throne to America despite their cultural linkage. Once again, and I want to stress I'm not meming here, this comes off as an autistic fixation.


Genuine question: do you understand the difference between legal, moral, and socially tolerable?


1. But they did not have a system of writing before the English colonists came. And their system of government was still at the tribal level because they had chiefs instead of kings.
2. It makes sense not to extend his throne to America because America was never territory of England during the time period that the legitimate kings ruled England. The true king therefore only has a claim to the territory that England had back in 1399 when Richard II was overthrown.
3. I understand the different definitions but they often go hand in hand. It is a moral duty to obey the law. And what is socially tolerable changes throughout history. While absolute monarchy is socially intolerable in England today, it was socially tolerable back in medieval England and it will become socially tolerable again, when England enters a golden age of prosperity and the education system will teach children to be loyal to the king.

@Senior Lexmechanicus:
1. Actually, the chiefdom was an electoral position in most of the "civilized" tribes (Algonquin, Iroquois, Cherokee): decisions were made by a council of respected community members, with the "peace chief" (the word used would be better translated as "respected elder") acting as a mediator. In times of war, the "war chief" (once again, the word would better translate as "mighty man" or "great man") would suspend ordinary council operations until the war was over. You may realize this bears a striking resemblance to a republican system: specifically, the senators and dictator of the Roman Republic. Indeed, the "Great Law of Peace" of the Iroquois Nation was used alongside Roman Republican philosophy in inspiring the Constitution. So, in essence, you're saying they were illegitimate because they didn't write things down (because they didn't need to, because they had a deep oral tradition kept by the priesthood, much like the early Angles from whom the entire institution of the "king of England" extends). But not only did the "illegitimate" government of England recognize them as legitimate states, but the "legitimate" governments of France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain as well.
3. And why would this happen? And saying "because the True King will be on the throne" isn't an answer: the belief that a True King can cure dropsy with a touch and will make all right by the mere presence of his arse on the throne is based in Catholic religious beliefs that you no longer hold.


1. Well those tribes were within the established borders of the United States and previously within the established territories of the other colonial powers, so they were nations within a nation. The US later expanded it's territory out west with treaties such the Louisiana Purchase. And when the Anglo Saxons came to England, they already had a writing system called runes which were replaced by the Latin Alphabet by the 9th century.
2. The true king will bring prosperity by implementing a full Brexit, making England fully economically independent and not burdened by European Union regulations. There will also be economic protectionism in foreign trade to protect England's industries. There will be an end to usury since usury was illegal in medieval England. And as I said, there will be an end to open borders to stop Muslims from bringing in terrorism and sharia law, and England's demographic will be saved through traditional family values, and the encouragement of procreation.

Jacob Harrison, Kiwi Farms 10 Comments [2/10/2019 11:26:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

zipperback

*facepalm*

Aztecs and Mayans both had fairly well developed written language by the time explorers arrived.

Mocteczuma II is generally regarded as an EMPEROR, not a chieftain.

2/10/2019 12:17:36 PM

Chloe

Leave your insanity on your side of the pond then.

2/10/2019 12:23:09 PM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

they had chiefs instead of kings.

This has more to do with how titles are translated rather than the actual civilisational level.

2/10/2019 12:29:32 PM

Kanna

Why are people asking this moron serious questions?

2/10/2019 12:33:18 PM

Skide

@Kanna

His responses are as hillarious, as they are insane.

2/10/2019 1:15:09 PM

Anon-e-moose

@zipperback

Aztecs and Mayans both had fairly well developed written language by the time explorers arrived


The latter were the first to invent & use '0' or Zero in their numerical system.

What your computer's CPU works with: Binary.

The Mayans say 'You're Welcome', Jerkob.

Perhaps it's a good thing the Farmers half-broke you: renouncing your Catholicism & becoming an Agnostic: nobody tell Jerko here about the film "Apocalypto": and who made it.

Because like that post-Classic Era Mayan society portrayed in such, that represented by what Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) witnessed at the very end of that film - like that which was in it's twilight he was part of - hasn't collapsed into a shadow of its former religio-political glory, amirite Jerkob...?! [/Ireland post-2015]

2/10/2019 9:24:08 PM

K'Zad Bhat

@zipperback

Incans as well, although all 3 of these groups dealt with Spaniards rather than English. Written systems were being developed or adopted by various other tribes as well, even in North America, they just hadn't come to a point where writing was highly valuable to them, because it was easy to pass on knowledge by demonstration and oral tradition. A lot of what held back the American tribes from advancing as far as Europe, Africa, and Asia had is really that they hadn't learned to mine iron. This discovery is what precipitated the advances that Europeans are so proud of.

@Chloe

As funny as he is, we don't really want his insanity on our side either. Compromise proposal: we'll send him over to you on an automated boat. Anywhere in international waters, the Royal Navy can sink it. We'll absorb the cost of the boat. Deal?

2/10/2019 11:38:25 PM

Swede

There will be an end to open borders? If England had open borders, why would there be a camp on France's side, where people stay for months trying to hang onto a trailer or train to get the English side, or go by small boats over the channel?

Most terrorism happening in the US are done by right-wing extremists.
The religious rightists would just LOVE to implement their own version of "sharia" laws in the US.

Orban in Hungary is going to encourage Hungarian women to procreate. He wants a larger population, but NOT through immigration. We have a couple of Swedish right-wing extremists who have moved to Hungary because they don't accept immigrants. The irony is paramount.

2/11/2019 12:06:57 AM



Monty Python could make a sequel to their King Arthur movie with this material.

2/11/2019 4:51:42 AM

K'Zad Bhat

Holy crap, that last makes me wonder now if this whole thing is just John Cleese using us and Kiwi to help him write his next movie! I hope he is, and he uses some of our names! Good work, Mister Cleese.

2/11/2019 5:36:38 AM

1 | top: comments page