Umm global white unity. What? I don't support white nationalism.
"Government Christianity" is the enemy of woke commie's dreams.
Such a thing cannot work because it is a contradiction. There is no European nation or "white nation", hence there cannot be a nationalism tied to it either, at least one that makes sense. There is an European civilization, and nations that are part of it. But they still are clearly separate nations with own culture, historical experience, and often also language and interests.
Why does Iran and Saudi Arabia not have this problem? Why did the medieval Europeans not have this problem? When I say government Christianity I don't mean the way the British or the Nords have it where they have a state church but it's just a relic. I mean the Church replaces the Judicial branch of government they interpret and make a few laws. Maybe they even have their own sub military branch or inquisition. What I'm proposing would more likely lead to the Inquisition publicly torturing and burning those types of heretics you bring up, as well as those who would argue to strip the Church of it's powers.
They aren't Christian and killed what little commies they had before they had a chance to get their teeth in properly.
Because they weren't having time travelers from 600 years into the future.
What Church? Does this Church exist? Or is it as fictional as the Imperial Cult? Because it sounds like it is, and the Imperial Cult at least has this whole stuff sorted out already.
I think the way Muslims are doing it is lucky that the West is lacking the will to make them regret it, despite not lacking the ability due to not copying it.
Congratulations on reinventing the 30 year war, i think i'll pass though.
So why the hell would the state outsource that incredibly powerful position to some religious figure who for mysterious reasons would be a fairly extreme yet unpopular one of your particular preference, when they could just as well cut the middleman and let the head spook make these decisions, aka how it works in Russia and China?
How can you embrace something that doesn't exist? For that, even the EU alone would need to undergo a nation-forming process on a grand scale. We're talking at least several generations of hyper-competent effort. More likely several centuries. Even the biggest European empires couldn't pull that off despite having centuries to work with, turns out that people of such geographically and culturally divergent experience just tend to drift apart faster than you can pull them together. Hell, the British Empire has lost their friggin settler colonies due to that effect, and those were their compatriots to begin with.
Why does them not being Christian affect anything? Is christianity uniquely weak against atheists and satanists? And the way to end communism is to kill them all along with every single person who objects to stripping communists of their rights. If those people were removed then society would be purified and we would be free of it and wouldn't have to worry about it for centuries.
I mean that if Christian states in the 1800's just killed anyone who espoused communistic/secularistic ideas then those ideas would have never spread, if the universities were purged early enough then higher learning would not have been infected like it has.
Well ideally it would be an eastern orthodox church as that is the true faith. But you are a Pole and I'm assuming nominally Catholic, the Catholic church used to do everything I just said in the past. And yes it would be unpopular because you and many other neocon conservatives have changed your religion from Christianity to secularist liberalism some time after the French and American revolutions.
Umm the Muslims don't do that NOW, I'm saying that historically that is how diverse societies were run peacefully each group just stuck to their own and had their own rules.
Again it's because the authorities were not brutal enough to put down sympathizers early enough. Also 30 years war might be bad, but remember where liberal secularists have taken us, your children will be turned into trannies and raped. A theocratic state is a million times better.
The reason for the outsourcing is because the main religion does not care what the minority religions do as long as they pay their taxes, don't perform insurrections, and don't try to undermine the main faith then they can do whatever. That's the way the Muslims did it as long as Christians and Jews paid taxes, did not revolt, and did not try to convert the Muslims then they could do whatever.
en.wikipedia.org
Who do you think they have most experience pushing against? Buddhists? Hindus? Maybe Rastafarians? As far as "cultural compatibility" goes, the secular movements you complain so much about are historically shaped by their rise to influence in the western world, at the expense of influence of Christianity, and they were shaped to be good at that of course.
Congratulations King Obvious. The problem is that if you are in a position to do that, you have already won a total victory for the control of the society. That's the harder part i think.
And yet they didn't, despite the Christianity of 1800's being still much more powerful and less subverted than today's. If anything, Christianity was rapidly losing said power then.
Yes, used to, and as you notice, me, most of the right, and let's not even get into the rest of our compatriots, don't share your vision of religion and its place in society, and if you bear arms in the name of enforcing it upon them, they will respond in kind.
>peacefully
Theocratic revolutionaries can burn in the same nuclear fire as the commie and islamist ones far as my preferences for the rule of western world is concerned.
And let's forget the second rate citizen status, occasional crackdown and constant efforts to convert the other way. So no, they very much cared.
If only it was liberalism. Being ignorant of your enemy is not something to take pride in.
And as i said, see how well it works. Those aren't examples of places famous for working well at all. If you think Ottoman Empire are an example of well functioning society to take example from, i would much rather have you as an enemy than an ally.
That question is answered very clearly in the original, nationalist secular view of the world.
If Christians need such a safe space status, then the whole system is already dead on arrival.
That's because Christianity changed and stopped enforcing blasphamy laws, something that Muslims did not stop doing. I think the answer is obvious these people want us to lose our rights to speech, so we should stop them and their allies from exercising theirs.
I'm saying once you are in position to do that THEN DO IT! You seem to follow the American conservative model where you won't ever win, you will just push back, and then stand their, and then they will come back against you. Your ideas won't ever end the communist threat.
The 1800's was the last time it could have been saved. But ideally you'd want to stop the Protestant reformation. But like I said earlier the way to avoid losing in the first place is to be brutal when you are in power, and have the security services arrest secularists, communists, and those who advocate for their rights.
No it does not. Nationalism is good yes, I don't look at religion alone. I'm eastern orthodox if that was the end of it I'd support Russia to conquer all of Eastern Europe, but I'm also a nationalist and I don't want my ethnic group my race to be occupied thus I oppose Russia, all of Eastern Europe is the same. You need both religion AND nationalism. Your reliance on just nationalism is a weakness. Let's say your ideas win then all foreigners are kicked out of Poland the Arabs and Muslims are deported or removed some other way etc. But the weakness of nationalists is that they are weak to being backstabbed because you will tolerate the ethnic Pole who is disloyal to his people. Those who look only to their race will support those who share their race even when those people hate their guts. They'll fight hard against foreign invaders, but the internal threat they will balk and the measures neccesary to stop them, they will say that there should be mercy and avoid harsh punishments towards traitors.
Yes it's a balancing act, this applies to all states even ethnically homogenous nations. Also Lebanon is the way it is because it did not follow what I said earlier making sure that the Christians were in control and made that their top priority. Also if you are an ethnic nationalist what should they have done? After all Lebanon used to be Arab Christian, now it's Arab Muslim. It's the same ethnicity/race under your logic above they shouldn't have done anything as they were one people.
What exactly do you think theocracy is? Like what specific objection do you have against Christianity having the state enforce laws? Do you support people insulting Mary, and Jesus? Are you a free speech absolutist? You know almost no secular state allows free speech they ALL have their own types of blasphemy laws.
Yes they were 2nd class citizens, and one of the ways they were was that the 1st class citizen's could proselyte while the 2nd class could not.
I have a BROAD definition of liberalism, the French revolution and human rights and secularism are all liberal.
I'm sorry this is just a bad argument, you are being unfair here your argument can also be applied to Rome which was the pinnacle of civilization. Nations rise and fall, the Ottomans of the 15th and 16th century were not the Ottomans of the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries. They lasted for hundreds of years that's a pretty good run for an empire.
I mean I would be ok with that, except that you will never be able to run your deportation scheme of those who are ethnic minorities. The secular liberal world you champion would stop you.
That's still better than what we have now, sure people can leave the conservative religious millet to go live under the liberal laws but if it's one way they'd be giving up their family, friends, and support. Liberalism leads to low birth rates they won't grow naturally they need to parasite off others, and while there are some perks, there are quite a few downsides. Here is one liberalism is highly individualistic it has it's perks but what if you come in hard times? Well then there will be far fewer people to help you with charity since the Christians would take care of their own, Muslims take care of their own, Jews take care of their own. I doubt the liberals will take care of their own as much.
That's because both had plenty enough wars about what exactly is blasphemy. And Muslims still do. Coincidence? I think not.
By the time one will be in a position to do that, then one way or another that will mean the power of commies has been already broken, and other concerns will be at the forefront.
You think they didn't try?
So you would rather live in delusions and obey a FSB asset as a religious authority, then again your other writing proves that living under a monumental amount of delusions is something you are fine with as long as you like these delusions.
So your "weakness" of nationalism is that nationalists may not be extreme and intolerant enough? While the fall of your preferred Christian government was that... they weren't extreme and intolerant enough?
By that logic, Christians will invite half of Africa as refugees, as long as it's the Christian half.
You are mistaking nationalists for internet race obsessed WNs. People of the same race, even ethnicity, can form multiple nations, who may even despise each other, and there is no reason to pretend this isn't the case.
And they should go too. Otherwise the logical conclusion will be constant tension between which version of Christianity is blasphemy, including what exactly insults this or that, who to tolerate outside of it, who not, and so on.
Correction, some modern states don't or didn't care. Those states who do the above are not secular, they are ideological states, adherent to a non-theistic religion of sorts - a lot like Soviet Union or North Korea. And i don't see how your option out of all the alternatives could become more popular than theirs, western world currently has a lot of more and less niche alternatives to choose from.
Broad view has the problem of giving you low resolution data, which results in poor quality of information. Exercising your version of the commie's "i'm so extremely leftist that everyone who isn't at minimum an average leftist is so far away from me that they may aswell be a KKK nazi racist, and even that average leftist is a suspicious character on the verge of becoming a fascist" is not going to serve you well when it comes to political maneuvering and making allies.
No, that's an average run, thousands of years is a good run - see: Egypt, Rome.
And you think they would tolerate your medieval theocracy even a bit more?
.Running on the assumption that said friends and family are precisely cult level of religious hardliners. If they aren't, your whole system collapses. Hell, that's exactly how small cults work today, in the progressive-liberal world at that.
Nah, Bismarckian state economics combined with industrial+ economic conditions do that.
"Shitlibs" are too charitable for their own good if anything, the problem with them is that they are more interested in being charitable to various special peoples here and far away there, while looking with disgust upon their compatriots (even calling them various mean names), doubly so those poorer and/or struck by nastier social problems.
While going for all complainants of suppressing Communism is advocating for jumping down the slope, the fact remains that this is an obscenely powerful counter-culture that's gotten ahold of so many levers of power as to make itself appear like the mainstream, intensely interested in the destruction of said mainstream.
I’m sorry what you said is incredibly stupid Christianity has allowed for violence. And you are extremely ignorant if you think real kings have not been extremely violent people who have not violated the “natural rights” of many people. Read a book on the medieval period. It’s only during the early modern period where the nobility started becoming genteel that their power started to wane.
There is a wide gap between what you're proposing and "allowing for violence".
Eastern Europe purging the crap out of the remaining "True Believers" on several occasions seems to have inoculated them quite well, for all most of those rounds have been at the hands of the dishonest strongmen beaten only by Mao for their contribution to the death toll of the system of government.
On what basis? What's the tell that they were disastrous Utopian extremists sensible to suppress with the force of the law in 1900? We're talking the days of the original Technocrats suggesting permanent central planning by academics having noteworthy support, because nobody understood how absurd the scale of the equations actually are.
I also disagree with this, the issue is that it's a blank check on contents and funded by school instead of by student, making it set up in a way reliably used for cultural warfare and indoctrination. A narrow mandate of permissible topics with the money following the students it's for would meet the actually rather critical need of a consistent baseline independent of parental ability and prioritization, else you end up with Israel's problems with strictly-religiously-intellectual ultraconservatives who's children are completely unemployable outside the religious bureaucracy.
I haven't heard of outright extermination campaigns, or even bloody purges in eastern Europe. That may just be my knowledge of that chunk of history being lacking; would you care to share a link or two regarding what you're talking about?
I'm not arguing for making people agree on if Christ has two natures or one, or if the holy spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son or other complex things of that nature. I just want to stop people from calling Mary a whore, or saying Christ is burning in hell, or saying God is evil. You know basic things.
I'm not pro monarchy, I support meritocracy. In fact conservative worship of bloodlines caused Spain to go from being friendly to Christianity under Franco to letting a liberal king do bring in liberalism because "he is da king" Ironically I like the way they did things in starship troopers a militarist republic, with Christian characteristics. The Army and Security services in charge yet they only allow Christians to join national service.
What? Why are you seperating what I said, as I said later you don't look at one thing you take everything as a whole religion is important but so is ethnicity and nationalism. Religion is the most important thing but it's not all thats why when you look at everything how Russia will invade all of eastern europe, and oppress the people, and they also aren't very devout in the first place that means that even if they believe in the right religion they still should be opposed.
Yes it is always weakness that led to liberals getting power. Two examples the French revolution Louis was a bad king but a good man he was Christian, he cared for his family, he was personally generous. If the economy was not fucked then he would have been a decent king. Later on with the Soviets Nicky the 2nd same story was a good man decent father and husband, was not brutal to his people he was pretty lenient. Yet he was a failure of a king who lost two wars in world war 1 and against Japan. If the Czar at the time was someone like Ivan the Terrible who would burn cities and torture thousands of people then the Russian Empire would not have fallen and the communist leaders and their family members would have been tortured to death. Also a third example was Franco he was too weak to just depose the monarchy and make a new dynasty that way he could have his own son who he would raise to have his beliefs become the new king after his death.
To be quite honest African Christian refugees are better than European pagans and shitlibs so yes I would support importing black Christians to combat white liberals. We should be loyal to those who would be loyal to us, those who would believe the same as us, religion is one of the most intimate things it is what gives people their morality and their outlook on the world why should I have more in common with a white that looks like me but their opinions are the opposite of mine instead of a black man who is in complete agreement with me?
Ok, here is something I can agree with you about. It's not about pure ethnicity or blood and ancestry but about common shared ideas, belief, and ideology.
www.feministcurrent.com
Sorry refer above, Norway and the UK are like the Soviet Union or North Korea? That's what I mean there has never been pure free speech. Even here there are limits like no slurs for example.
I'm sorry I'm having trouble reading this could you rephrase it?
Umm not really 300 years is the average run of a nation before it has a change in government or dynasty. Egypt for example had over 20 dynasties. Rome for example did not stay under one form of government. It started as a kingdom, became a Republic, then came the empire, then the empire itself reorganized itself a few times, until it ended in the 1400's. I mean you can make the argument that the Ottoman "civilization" still exists under the Turks. The Ottoman period was like Rome under the monarchy, now the Republic of Turkey is like Rome under the Republic. They are diffrent but they are the same people.
How are you going to make things miserable enough to leave? I mean historically people have stayed in places where they were unpopular and even where they had pogroms or lynching against.And you think they would tolerate your medieval theocracy even a bit more?
Somehow half of EU, Japan, and few others less than enthusiastic about mass migration and the diversity doctrine are dealing with the diplomatic relations with the shitlibs ok enough.
Secondly, even with all the issues deportations have, there is a little trick to get around that - if they are made to want to leave by themselves out of their outrage or discomfort, there is no need for deportations
It's not cultlike, if your family sold out to a group that are foreigners to you would you still be friendly to them? They are the ones who abandoned you.
Muslim nations have higher fertility because women don't work and they get married young.
Libs are charitable with OTHERS money. Individualism does not help other people you need some form of kinship to tie you too strangers. "Oh we are countrymen, Oh we are fellow Christians, etc." Liberals are less likely to use their PERSONAL funds to help strangers than conservatives who are more likely to support collective societies. People in the village helping each other because everyone in small towns know each other. When you get to cities you lose that so you need something else to help others beyond family that's where ethnic ties or religion comes in.
Not anyone who disagrees just those who are actual threats to societies. Those who are allies and enemies of communists would be ok, as well as those who are truly neutral. It's only communists and the allies of communists who deserve to suffer.
Sure Franco until after he died and he trusted the king to continue what he did, also Pinochet until the British and other foreign nations stuck their nose where it does not belong.