men are the builders and maintainers of civilization, and that they can be induced to both fight and die for some big idea that actually may very well never benefit them directly ever, at any point in their lives. >it is amazing to me that no one is on this. Even more if it's a goal they DO benefit ! Imagine the motivation and evergy !
For example abolishing all female rights and make women freely tradeable propperty !!
Imagine saving up for a woman - instead of a PC - that you fully OWN !
I'm pretty sure that is how all great civilisations came into existence ... A goal worth striving for
*Women are the builders and maintainers of civilization
Daniel Wright
yeah but modern men are pathetic simps who will sooner denounce anything beneficial to themselves for a scrap of roastie attention.
Jace Hall
>*Women are the builders and maintainers of civilization you retarded ?! ( rethorical question, don't bother answering )
>simps who will sooner denounce anything beneficial to themselves for a scrap of roastie attention not if they own one. They then will soon realize women are mostly a big pain in the ass. They only simp if they DON'T have enough vagina.
Mind you : The social construct called 'rape' doesn't exist in such society.
Kevin Rodriguez
on land, you need the legitimacy of a sizeable native population, and arms to defend the land from the country you're taking it from, for sufficient enough time period, to get international recognition as a separate political entity more realistically, what you need is instead to accrue a large enough amount of capital to build something large enough to be recognised as a settlement, deep under the sea, in international waters, and have this entity be relevant enough on the global stage—i.e. through industrial production, commercial exchange, or tourism—to be able to declare nationhood and gain recognition from other countries as an independent country
Jaxson Robinson
>what you need is instead to accrue a large enough amount of capital to build something large enough to be recognised as a settlement, yes and no. what you need is the men. There are wayyyy enough men who'd be in on the deal, if they'd actually think about it.
whether tey then buy a land, take a land or simply all move to the same spot (recomended) is of secondary thought.
there are hundrets of million men out there, who'd love the deal. Just they first must be made aware, they are not alone, and how many they are. That's basically all.
No leaters, but one common goal, that which leads ...
aquiring the land is a secondary question.
Angel Johnson
i don't want to go into detail but this whole idea is very dumb
Jeremiah Peterson
a nation will sell you land, but that deal does not ultimately remove that land from the state, hence why international waters is your best bet; all the land is taken aside from the land, you can't gather enough men, period 100,000 - 200,000 men does not a new country make you'd need men in the millions to even be considered internationally based on men alone and even if you could gather the requisite number, whatever that might be, you can't just move them all to some Godforsaken island somewhere without serious infrastructural investment
so again, it's not your idealised and somewhat homoerotic-sounding fantasy of large numbers of men gathered on a tropical isle; it's back to needing large enough amounts of capital as ever, in the real world, the money is the primary question
you need many billions of dollars, and an undersea city already built, before you could move your men in it's a novel enough idea that international laws would have to be drafted specifically for what you were doing you can't build a country on bought land; even bought islands are still part of their original nation
Easton Martin
cheap try. give some argument, roastie ! >inb4 : there are none. You will never have a family.
Jeremiah Stewart
>you'd need men in the millions to even be considered internationally there are wayyy enought wifeless men, no worries, lol.
nation will sell you land, but that deal does not ultimately remove that land from the state, hence why international waters is your best bet;
Not necessary. You just move to one spot, baam : you're the democracy there now. You make then your laws. problem solved. the surrounding country is already recognized, no problem there.
Isaac Ross
>fantasy of large numbers of men gathered on a tropical isle I'm more thinking about central or east europe, maybe even murica
Asher Collins
>100,000 - 200,000 men does not a new country make i was talking about tens of millions. learn to read. there are hundrets of millions of men who cannot get a female in western basedsciety and would LOVE to buy one as personal property, no lack of men there, madude.
Owen Bell
>Not necessary. >You just move to one spot, baam : you're the democracy there now. >You make then your laws. >problem solved. you're a moron, and I don't say that meaning to insult you; you're actually not all there if you want to take over an island and /pretend/ to be a nation, then you're free to do that, and that's a far more realistic idea but what you actually asked is how to create a new country that means international recognition whether you like it or not
what you want is to create a jonestown cult in the middle of a rainforest, not create a new nation
>the surrounding country is already recognized, no problem there the "surrounding country" IS the country you'd be in, how are you not understanding this? you buying land doesn't make it a separate country, even if you declare it to be a separate country, and make legally non-binding laws governing your land
I hope to God you're a young man, because you're naïve, idealistic, and profoundly ignorant
Kevin Roberts
Weapons
Wyatt Phillips
>but what you actually asked is how to create a new country You seem to not comprehend, at all. A nation is NOT the land, but the people ( and their mindset ). There is no need at all for new stone to dwell on. Meditate about that until you get it!
Would America still be the same country, if you replaced everybody with - let's say - somalis ?! No, of course not ! It would be a new country, but still already internationally recognized, with borders and all.
you said "country" don't now pivot to defining "nation" to support your idea, it's sophistry you're not even intelligent enough to realise you're using a country requires international recognition to BE a country the Principality of Sealand is not a country
Juan Anderson
>country" don't now pivot to defining "nation" You are right, i should have used the word "nation". i recon that, but realized that too late. But in the grand sheme of the idea, that doesn't matter, at all, because if you get the idea, your autostic pouncing on words is completely irrelevant. Nobody cares, i layed down the idea, therefore the words are secondary and selfcorrecting out of context.
Your strange 'international waters underwater colony' idea is wayyyyyyy to impractical btw. And you call me a moron hahaha
Gavin Davis
>your autostic pouncing on words is literally what this post is: you're projecting
Bentley Roberts
Lmao
Owen Edwards
get a loan from mr kikenburg to buy some land and don't pay it back
Zachary Thomas
nice pilpul you're trying to pilpull of here. Yout now projecting your projecting, avter having suggested deep sea underwater colonies in international waters as solution AND called ME a moron... whahahaha, very ingenious , Xir, pulled that right out of your nose i guess... Highly amusing, however. I applaud your effort, i pitty your outcome. You can do better, Xir.
