Warlord Ripskar

No, Naturalist is another word for environmentalists, Naturists is another word for nudists!

Naturists? :O Naturalists surely ;)

All hail Navaros to whom alone has been revealed the truth...

Doesn't really sound like it. This seems more along the lines of "Thou shalt not have chemotherapy for God meant you to die of cancer".

You are wrong because: 1. Amazingly Bad Analogy: Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick, therefore you can train a potato to dance 2. Faulty Cause and Effect: Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat. 3. I Am the World: Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music isn't popular. 4. Ignoring Everything Science Knows About the Brain: Example: People choose to be obese/gay/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle. 5. The Few Are The Same As The Whole: Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites. 6. Generalizing From Self: Example: I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying. 7. Argument By Bizarre Definition: Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law. 8. Total Logical Disconnect: Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made out of bricks. 9. Judging Things Without Comparison To Alternatives: Example: I don't invest in U.S. Treasury Bills. There's too much risk. 10. Anything You Don't Understand Is Easy To Do: Example: If you have the right tools, how hard can it be to generate nuclear fission at home? 11. Ignorance Of All Statistics: Example: I'm putting all my money in the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big. 12. Ignoring the Downside Risk: Example: I know that bungee jumping could kill me, but it's three seconds of great fun! 13. Substituting Famous Quotes For Common Sense: Example: Remember, "All things come to those who wait." So don't bother looking for a job. 14. Irrelevant Comparisons: Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari. 15. Circular Reasoning: Example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct. 16. Incompleteness As Proof Of Defect: Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't explain why there are no unicorns, therefore it must be wrong. 17. Ignoring the Advice of Experts Without a Good Reason: Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn't ride your bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory. 18. Following the Advice of Known Idiots: Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me. 19. Reaching Bizarre Conclusions Without Any Information: Example: The car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns. 20. Faulty Pattern Recognition: Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven. 21. Failure to Recognize What's Important: Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail! 22. Unclear on the Concept of Sunk Costs: Example: We've spent millions in developing a water-powered pogo-stick. We can't stop investing now, or it will all be wasted! 23. Overapplication of Occam's Razor(which states that the simplest explanation is usually right): Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes. 24. Ignoring All Anecdotal Evidence: Example: I always get hives after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it's not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries everyday, since I can't tell that they cause hives. 25. Inability to Understand that Some Things Have Multiple Causes: Example: The Beatles were popular for only one reason: They were good singers.

That doesn't work. In feudal Europe we saw that when the nobility wanted to carry out some project they were habitually unable to pay for it, their serfs usually paid their dues in labour or produce, coinage was almost unheard of. In other words a barter system opperated. Added to this was the fact that money lending was prohibited by the church on grounds of morality. So the nobility and everyone else for that matter was unable to buy items from outside their own domain. However the Jewish community unhindered by the Pope's edict were able to lend money and became the main conduit for conducting transactions. In the Communistic system where banking is prohibited a replacement will develop in the form of Loan Sharks who will become excessively powerful. Communist theory will drive a subculture of criminality. This coupled with the bureucratic nature of the system will reduce the workers to slave status just as surely as pure capitalism. There is no impetous for development in the Communist system, either personal or technological.

You neglect the requirement for start up capital. Once running a business can largely look after itself given a competant manager and workforce. When a business is starting it swallows large ammounts of money buying premises, machinery, tools, materials etc. Without either a bank or share holders to invest the intial capital nothing happens.

"Don't worry, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Last words of an American General.

Absolute monarchy? No as I stated and you blatantly ignored I argued for Constiutional Monarchy, but I wouldn't expect you to know the difference. The principle difference between monarchies and republics as I have stated time and taime and time again is IDEOLOGY. The IDEOLOGY of revolution is corrupt, the IDEOLOGY of governmental systems is corrupt, it is the IDEOLOGY that causes the genocide. It was not any form of repression or autocracy that causes rebellion, we have a thousand examples of republican dictatorships involving repression and autocracy to show that. What causes rebellion is neglect, dereliction of duty. The aristocracy of France left their estates in the reign of Louis XIV thus neglecting the neccessities of the population. itwas not repression but lack of visible leadership that allowed the uprising to begin and exactly the same thing happened in Russia and all the other banana republics.

But why resort to some comet delivering the stuff when the material is already available here? My preferred theory is a volcanic crater which has a lake at the bottom with a chemical siganture similar to our cellular contents, not too far from the situation in the rift valley of Africa. Small DNA chains are formed, perhaps only 2 or 3 base pairs long and these begin replicating. After a period of time these have gained complexity and effectively developed into a primative cell. At this point the crater wall collapses releasing the cells into the sea where they continue the process.

I told you you had an incorrect preconcieved cartoon like notion of what a Monarchy was and here you quote it exactly. Monarchy is not corrupt from the beginning. Every republic bar one to my knowledge has either fallen to genocidal dictatorship or avoided that fate by the assassination of the revolutionary leader. That one repulic is the US, somehow they deposed Washington, though they failed to remove the charateristic marks of republicanism, ie the personality cult of the revolutionary leader. The fact that the US alone avoided the common fate of republics should tell you something about the nature of republics. You yourself are marked by the persoanlity cult as evidenced by your reaction to the inclusion of Lenin and Ho Chih Minh on the list I made earlier. On the subject of Ho Chih Minh, I was not refering to events in Cambodia, or even South Vietnam. Ho Chih Minh seized power in North Vietnam without resort to any election, and without any opposition of note. What happened to the North Vietnamese opposition? Did they just, disappear? Doesn't it even cross your mind to question the fact that North Vietnamese opposition to Ho Chih Minh was as quiet as the grave? An individual royal is as susceptible to ideology as the next man, but there is no requirement for a royal to subscribe to any ideology as there is with any republican leader. It is the Tyranny of Ideology that creates the conditions for dictatorship and its attendant genocide. The monarch's role is not to impose an ideology on the subects as does a republican, but to serve the intrests of the kingdom. One quality is required of a monarch, DEVOTION TO DUTY. That is why the House of Windsor still exists, dereliction of duty condemned the French royalty. Another aspect of republicanism is Total War. Britain and France fought each other for centuries under their respective monarchies, but the republican leaders were the ones that turned those glorified skirmishes into the march to conquer all Europe. It was a republican that began WW1, that slaughtered thousands across the planet.

Isn't it odd how rebels all too soon fall into old patterns if they are victorous? It's not so much a trap in course of revolutionary political systems as it is a delusion waiting for for anyone who seizes power. Republican leaders are defined by their ideology, monarchs being born to rule have no such definition. That is your primary misconception and reason that monarchies are closer to the people than revolutionary governmental forms. Ambition is irrelavent in the context of a Prince as opposed to the Revolutionary leader who aquires his position as a result of corruptible ambition. Furthermore as the successful revolutionary leader is defined by his ideology he susequently becomes the embodiement of the revolution in the eyes of the people. To oppose the leader is to oppose the revolution thus opposition groups become enemies of the revolution. All too often they are executed thus begining the cycle of genocide that characterises the republican states. As the embodiement of the revolutionary ideology the leader becomes the only person capable of leading the republic and as all opposition becomes counter-revolutionary there can be afforded no room for effective opposition thus the government becomes a dictatorship.

It is the fate of the White Russians which is most disturbing about the USSR.

I dislike the extra terrestrial theory as it falls into the same trap as creationist theory. It assumes that life could not have come into existance on this planet spontaneously, that the DNA could not possibly have arrisen on Earth in the Primordial soup. Instead it fumbles vaguely to outer space or some other entity without the vaguest theory as to how DNA arrose out there.

Never said it was pure meritocracy. The fact remains that money attracts money, but you still have to make the best of the opportunities presented to you. You can do much more good with money than you can without it. eg. Foreign investments; This is the root of imperialism so I don't expect a dyed in the wool commie like Edric to like this... The developing world is in dire need of foreign investment. If you only have a small amount of money the best you can do is to give to charity who then set up projects in the developing world. But this does not provide a long term solution to the problems opf the developing world. If you have a substantial ammount of money you can invest it in companies in the developing world which then employ people boosting the country's economic outlook. These people no longer have to rely on handouts and charity, they can decide for themselves what to spend their money on rather than have some beuraucrat decide for them. The cash flow invigorates the entire area around the company improving the standard of living for these people. This also generates profit for the company which translates into larger dividends for the shareholders, ie, you. The dividends can then be reinvested in more companies in other parts of the developing world repeating the cycle and the effect snowballs.