Sure, pick the easy tiny details. Where does obvious end? Some now rare branches branches of Christianity are iconoclastic, think portraying any of these is blasphemy. Some think worshipping Mary is blasphemy, of course a position unacceptable to those who do worship her.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.
Who draws the line and why do you think you will get to be the one?
This is basically begging for a constant civil war, and that's without even getting into the secular politics who would interact with them, always more than eager to hide their agendas under religion if it is to benefit them.
You can't focus on internal enemies when external enemies need you to be ready for them at all time, otherwise you end up like many countries in recent history that focused on crushing internal dissent - with a foreign army supported rebellion or regime change. There needs to be pragmatic and responsive tactical balancing of attention between them.Also the enemy within is far more dangerous than the enemy without you can't properly deal with foreign enemies if you have internal enemies sabatoging you.
So now you know why are you in fantasy territory? Would you even be able to find enough fit, military age Christians who agree with this vision of your country to form merely a couple divisions?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.
If you say it's the most important, you see how someone may take such conclusions from what you said?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.
Well duh, weakness is always a prelude to revolutions. Revolutions generally don't succeed against strong and popular governments.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.
Again, take off the rose tinted glasses. He was not particularly brutal by Russian standards. By European standards Russia was a brutal, backwards mess at the time though.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 it's the likes of Ivan the Terrible why Nicky had such a shitty hand of cards to play with.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.
Good statecraft is also part of being "being strong" in the long term, otherwise you end up with something like Syria. Sure, such a rule with iron fist can crush any internal rebellion, but then you end up dealing with crashing economy and all the consequences and weaknesses that come with it.
Called it. So you don't care about your nation, hence you are a theocrat, not nationalist. You will betray your nation for foreign theocrats of the same stripe. Welcome to the Islamic State. Oh, wait, wrong religion. I for one don't want my country to end up colonized by some exotic foreign peoples as long as they practice a particular religion.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?
As for shitlibs, either they learn what's good for them or get told to fuck off to their fellow internationalist friends somewhere else, like Cuba or Venezuela.
It's about both.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.
Absolutely not, they have a state ideology that they quite openly peddle and enforce upon their citizens. Just because said ideology is non-theistic besides performing many other historical functions of religion doesn't make them properly secular, otherwise you're going to end up with a conclusion that Buddhism is not a religion.Norway and the UK are not secular nations?Christina Ellingsen is facing prison time for saying that men can't be women
In this episode, Meghan Murphy speaks with Norwegian feminist Christina Ellingsen, who is being investigated under hate crime charges for saying that men can't be lesbians or mothers.www.feministcurrent.com
Not as bad, closer to Vietnam or Venezuela, but yes, and with different ideology.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.
And them being some of the worst SJW infested states in the West currently doesn't exactly help the argument of there *never* being pure free speech.
Low resolution view is fucking useless and can do your cause more damage than no view at all.I'm sorry I'm having trouble reading this could you rephrase it?
You can granularize statehoods by changes in governance all you want, doesn't mean anything. You may aswell stretch the USA into several nations divided by major changes in the constitution.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.
Turks no longer practice this supposedly successful Ottoman system so it's moot.
For starters stop giving them free shit and legal privileges. Harden up on dealing with criminals following that. Chuck ideological troublemakes who don't like it int odungeons. Even if few stay, doesn't matter, it's a numbers game.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.
It is the very definition of cultlike. Ironically, we have seen plenty of stories of leftist families doing exactly that, and it's usually them cutting off the non-leftist part rather than the other way around.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.
That's how it is for most westerners, like it or not, even if you don't consider yourself part of this majority.Also it's funny you are saying your religion is like the type of music you listen too, so shallow lol.
By some odd coincidence my secular ass also wants these people away from children, separated by prison bars if need be, so there's no need for you to tell me what do i need to know it.It's such a secular thing to say, yes the thing that informs what is right and wrong, the thing that tells us that drag queen story hour and letting them corrupt children is wrong is just like if you prefer classical music or jazz lol.
No, that's not how it works. Poor countries, preferably pre-industrial ones, not Muslim, go check on super-islamic Iran's fertility if you don't believe me.Muslim nations have higher fertility because women don't work and they get married young.
Even the oil money flooded Gulf States with the insane welfare they can afford due to it with are wavering on fertility now, despite a lot of their population being culturally not far from their pre-industrial times.
Wow, wonder how individualist societies still can have nationalism, and had it, until commies got into positions of power and told them that's fascist.Libs are charitable with OTHERS money. Individualism does not help other people you need some form of kinship to tie you too strangers.
Look at NGO and political donations, that puts a breach in this theory... Also, when taking about practical effects of donations rather than the judgement of the virtue of people donating, why use personal funds when they can use the funds of other people? In the end, funds are given, doesn't matter where did which dollar come from. Political power is a kind of currency too, and as any politician knows, it is exchangeable to money, and vice versa."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.
Yup. And the knowing part does point at the core of the problem - information and its availability.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.
Last edited: