/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

Christ is King. The monarch is a temporal authority, anointed by God as David was; he rules by divine right in the fallen world in lieu of God's Heavenly Kingdom. But the true authority always and forever is God and His Church.

>>1116

Religuous, but with no pretensions about being a member of the clergy.

Per me, reges regnant

>>1116

Monarchy is indefensible without religion. The whole point of monarchy is that political authority is entrusted by a higher power, so if you don't even believe in a higher power, there's no reason to support monarchy.

>>1117

>tfw the leftists would change God's Heavenly Kingdom into People's Democratic Republic of Sky if they could.

Theoretically I'd like a Christian one

>>1277

I don't believe in a divine right of kings, as a general thing. That a ruler has power does not prove that God wanted him to have power. This is obvious in the cases of rulers who got into their position by breaking the natural law, and the theory is downright confused whenever it comes to usurpation.

I'm an anarchist first, monarchist second, and don't think that a society needs a monarch to be a good society. However, having a monarch will often make it better. The dignity that is due to him is because of the important role he plays in keeping the peace and protecting the natural law.

>>1277

You would be better to qualify, "All legitimate authority is instituted by God." We know that our democratic "authorities" are not divinely appointed (or at least, they do not derive their "authority" from divine sanction) because they do not even recognize that divine sanction exists. For a king to exercise divine right, he must first acknowledge that he has it. (Now, a king claiming to have divine right may in fact not have it, but a leader not claiming to have it definitely doesn't have it.)

Now, our democratic authorities (or bad kings, or dictators, or any leadership) certainly govern because God lets them, perhaps because we are being tested (who can really say). But God allowing you to rule and God sanctioning your rule as divinely-backed are two very different things.

>>1280

>natural law

XD

>>1306

>not believing in natural law

You anarchists make me sick.

>>1307

Don't listen to this imbecile. Most ancaps believe in natural law.

>>1307

it is almost like believing in god

>>1307

What is natural law?

If I was king, I'd ban Abrahamic religions and allow all other religions. No religion would be promoted to the people, but Buddhism would be tolerated in public even though it would not have officially special status.

For this board to be truly open for discussion of monarchy and not a circlejerk of Christian /pol/acks, it has to be promoted on other boards as well, not so much /pol/ and /christian/ as those lowlives are already ruining this board before it has even gotten anywhere.

>>1116

I don't really care too much about a monarch's religion, provided that it is a religion that fits to his people. Personally, I'm a pagan. I don't want a state implemented religion even if it's mine, because the average Christian believes in more european things than semitic.

>>1356

Fuck me, how many people are actually part anarchist here?

>>1372

Me and Poland, I'm not aware of anyone else.

>>1116

It must never be secular. Only a pious (and zealous) Catholic monarch will be able to rule in a stable and prolonged manner, and whose reign will be satifsactory and constructive, both for the people and the country.

mine is a minarchy, so it would not make madates based on its religion and would ACT as secular

it would be incompatible with certain religions though

Monarchy without the religion is useless. All of us need the purpose to live our life. I would like my country to be absolute Christian monarchy.

>>1474

>not Jewish

>>1476

I think many of us would rather be dogs in China than goyim under the Antichrist.

>>1533

>not converting to Judaism

>>1541

Jesus was a Jew, the Bible is not the least bit ambiguous about that. He even taught in a synagogue.

>They will try to achieve this under a leader that they call the Messiah, who is known to Christians as the antichrist.

Mind giving a citation from the Bible for that? Because last I checked, the Bible said that the prophecy of the Messiah was fulfilled through the coming of Jesus Christ. Sounds to me like you're a filthy little blasphemer.

>>1542

Man that is rather painful.

>Jesus was a Jew, the Bible is not the least bit ambiguous about that. He even taught in a synagogue.

This doesn't mean as much as you think. It certainly didn't stop Christians such as John Chrysostom, Pope Pius XII, or even Martin Luther form writing "On the Jews and Their Lies".

>Mind giving a citation from the Bible for that? Because last I checked, the Bible said that the prophecy of the Messiah was fulfilled through the coming of Jesus Christ. Sounds to me like you're a filthy little blasphemer.

He's talking about the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse. Either you go read up about that one or keep quiet on people talking about the Antichrist.

>>1545

That was a very interesting post, thanks. Seems that I misjudged you.

There's just this, however:

>because jewish women are prostitutes so the father is always uncertain

That still sounds like polemics to me. Or were you serious? In that case, what exactly did you mean? Was there a true Jewish tradition of prostitution, or were they reknown for sexual immorality once?

>>1546

So you know where I'm coming from: There's a lot of racialist antisemites who don't actually care about the Bible at all, or who mangle it so badly they are simply heretics. Case in point: The Nazis, and many who admire them. To them, Jesus was either a stronk nordic aryan, or a feeble Jew whose teachings drove out stronk Wotanism from Germany. And sadly, most people who start railing against Jews fall under this category.

>This doesn't mean as much as you think.

Actually, it means exactly what I think: That the antisemitism of guys like the Nazis (or /pol/) is fucking stupid and heretical. Not more, but also not less.

>He's talking about the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse. Either you go read up about that one or keep quiet on people talking about the Antichrist.

That wasn't clear in his first post. Here's his original wording:

>They will try to achieve this under a leader that they call the Messiah, who is known to Christians as the antichrist.

He cleared that up very well in his followup post, but I can still see where that misunderstanding came from.

>>1549

>Actually, it means exactly what I think: That the antisemitism of guys like the Nazis (or /pol/) is fucking stupid and heretical

John Chrysostom is canonized on the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Venerable Pope Pius XII was, well, a Catholic Pope. Martin Luther is the founder of Lutheranism and the protestant reformation.

"Decanonize" any of them at your own risk. Except Martin Luther, I feel like any protestant with the backbone to defend him would just begome apostolic.

>>1553

The German anniversary of the 'reformation' was dedicated to this actually. The national protestant union was very keen on atoning for Luther's 'sin' of anti-semitism and how we can learn to 'never again' by commemorating Luther. There were church sponsored talks on topics such as 'how can we be protestant when leading figures of the reformation were anti semitic'. Just leaving that out there. Off topic sage

>>1553

Nigger. Just, nigger. It can't be that hard to read. Let's try again:

>>1549

>So you know where I'm coming from: There's a lot of racialist antisemites who don't actually care about the Bible at all, or who mangle it so badly they are simply heretics. Case in point: The Nazis, and many who admire them.

The racial antisemitism of the Nazis is not that of John Chrysostom, not that of Pius XII, and not that of Martin Luther. None of these people ever cared about the Jews as a racial group, but as heathens who rejected the true Messiah. I explicitly contrasted religious and racial antisemitism.

>>1557

Jews see themselves as a racial group, they are a racial group. If you want to become an Israeli they perform a DNA test on you to see wether you're a jew or not. Since you cannot be a jew religiously unless you're one racially the distinction is pretty pointless.

>>1558

The distinction is pointless for them. For us, it’s not, since professing the true religion can redeem even the basest of Jews. This is why we pray for them on Good Friday. A Jew unwilling to recant the “blood curse” of deicide (by willingly leaving the Jewish religion) is an abomination; one who does so and is baptized is as good as a brother.

>>1558

>If you want to become an Israeli they perform a DNA test on you to see wether you're a jew or not

hahah where did you take this from?

>>1559

>true religion

for you

>>1570

For man

>>1570

>Relativism

>Ever

>>1570

t. Pagan

Monarchies must be Pagan or Zoroastrian. Everything else is shit.

I believe that a monarchy should be religious, as seen throughout Medieval Europe, or philosophical, as described by Plato and seen in ye old Sage Kings of China and Marcus Aurelius in Rome.

The official religion should not be an Abrahamic religion; Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all equally bad, for different reasons. Judaism and Islam, for reasons that should be quite obvious, and Christianity for its promotion of a slave morality and subservience towards Jews everywhere. Christianity should become Positive once more, and Islam should be neutered completely. The Jews have done nothing but cause misery and suffering to all men, and they should not exist at all.

>>1576

>Christianity should become Positive once more

Meaning what, exactly?

>>1577

Meaning it should become Positive Christianity.

>>1579

Figured he wanted to use it that way, but still felt like asking just in case, and in the hope that he'd give me a definition to work with. Alas, he repeated himself like some damn fool.

Nazis are a lot like Marxists. I'm not saying that to meme, but because - like Marxists - they can barely deal with opposition. It's like they lack all empathy, as well as any understanding of theories not their own.

>>1576

> Christianity for its promotion of a slave morality and subservience towards Jews everywhere.

>American Protestantism Zionism

>Anything post vatican II

>not fake church

Come on lad.

>>1579

>I swear if Nietzsche were able to he'd rise from his grave and beat everyone up who keeps using this term in that way.

Are you arguing that Christianity is not the very poster child of 'slave morality'? The meek, the poor of spirit, and the weak are the shining exemplars of Christianity, instead of the proud, the noble and strong. Christianity is exactly what Nietzsche meant by slave morality. As for your rebuttal, the Catholic Church protected Jews who had been the targets of rightful retaliation against them, from medieval Italy to World War II.

>>1580

>Figured he wanted to use it that way, but still felt like asking just in case, and in the hope that he'd give me a definition to work with. Alas, he repeated himself like some damn fool.

Because I know you have the ability to use Google or some other search engine to figure out for yourself. I have no reason to spoonfeed you at all.

>Nazis are a lot like Marxists. I'm not saying that to meme, but because - like Marxists - they can barely deal with opposition. It's like they lack all empathy, as well as any understanding of theories not their own.

Resorting to ad-hominem is not going to win you an argument, friend. I could say, "Christians can barely deal with opposition," but that brings me no closer to the resolution of a disagreement.

>>1583

The Church is just like communism in that there is 'no true Church.' Which Church would you say is the 'true Church', then?

>>1584

>Are you arguing that Christianity is not the very poster child of 'slave morality'? The meek, the poor of spirit, and the weak are the shining exemplars of Christianity,

You need to argue why "slave morality" is a bad thing. You haven't done so.

>instead of the proud, the noble and strong.

You need to argue why "master morality" is a good thing. You haven't done so.

You also don't seem to realise that Nietzsche himself considered Christ His saints to be examples of "Master Morality" since it's not actually some kind of pagan notion of Vertu, but is in fact a bucking of the expectations and trends of the world, and setting your face against them. This is precisely what Our Lord and all His Saints did in achieving sanctity. It's placing yourself in the service of something greater than yourself, at the expense of something less valuable.

>Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

Mt 16:24,25

>Christianity is exactly what Nietzsche meant by slave morality.

Nietzsche also believed he was Dionysios and suffered from brain rot. I don't particularly care what some syphillitic loon has to say, especially when his whole philosophy was a big hissy-fit based on the fact that his dad, a Lutheran pastor, died when he was a child.

>As for your rebuttal, the Catholic Church protected Jews who had been the targets of rightful retaliation against them, from medieval Italy to World War II.

I know those awful ecclesiastics that wanted the rule of civil law to prevail rather than disorganised violent orgies. That's what real "Master Moralists" do!

I also find it hilarious that you seem to have no idea that all throughout Europe until the Reformation Jews were forced to live in enclosed, highly-regulated spaces, and if they wanted to leave, they had to ask the civil and ecclesiastical authorities for permission to do so, and while outside the ghetto, they had to wear a big yellow hat, and a big yellow star on their robes. This latter-day ass-kissing of Jews is a protestant heresy. Catholics and Orthodox just viewed them as stubborn curiosities.

>Because I know you have the ability to use Google or some other search engine to figure out for yourself. I have no reason to spoonfeed you at all.

<I'm not going to provide evidence, look it up yourself! t. literally no skilled debater ever

>The Church is just like communism in that there is 'no true Church.'

Literally no Christian says this. If anything you might have some people say that certain sinners "Weren't real Christians" (although this is a kind of logic which misses the point about sin and our fallen nature, but whatever). In fact they are often clamouring to proclaim the opposite. The trouble is, only one sect is right.

>Which Church would you say is the 'true Church', then?

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which has it's Holy See in Rome, founded by our Lord Himself.

>>1117

I thought God said Kings were a bad idea, and prefers prophets. He only let them have kings because they begged for one.

>>1584

>Are you arguing that Christianity is not the very poster child of 'slave morality'?

I am arguing that anyone who uses the term ' slave morality' as an insult has either never read Nietzsche and is therefore a poser, or he has read him and it was all for naught because he has not understood a thing.

>As for your rebuttal, the Catholic Church protected Jews who had been the targets of rightful retaliation against them, from medieval Italy to World War II.

The Church strived to seperate them from society or convert them. I guess they have opposed lynch mobs against them once in a while although I have to admitt I don't know of an example here. Leaving aside the point that some of her most ardent followers like Isabella from Spain just flat out stated 'being a jew? no can do'

>Resorting to ad-hominem is not going to win you an argument, friend.

I understood it like that he used you as an example about a theory about national socialists he has, but I could be wrong.

>Which Church would you say is the 'true Church', then?

The Catholic one

>>1584

>Because I know you have the ability to use Google or some other search engine to figure out for yourself. I have no reason to spoonfeed you at all.

I can google what is properly meant by that term, not what meaning you personally attribute to it.

>Resorting to ad-hominem is not going to win you an argument, friend. I could say, "Christians can barely deal with opposition," but that brings me no closer to the resolution of a disagreement.

It wasn't an ad hominem, because my point was that Nazis are autistis, not that they're wrong. Attacking your character is not an ad hominem fallacy if the topic is your character.

>The Church is just like communism in that there is 'no true Church.' Which Church would you say is the 'true Church', then?

Do you even know why "not true communism" is a stupid response? First of all, because there's no reason to it. All regimes are true communism when they work well, then they become state capitalist once the shortages become too obvious to ignore. Second, all the differences between true and false communism that are pointed out are irrelevant.

Now, I highly doubt you ever made a serious effort figuring out which church is the true Church. You don't know if the arguments of Orthodoxy against Roman Catholicism, for example, make sense. Or at least I assume that, because someone who takes Positive Christianity serious probably isn't a proper theologian.

>>1588

The Church was against racial antisemitism and genocide, but it never would've given Jerusalem to the Jews or declared it unimportant whether a head of state is a Jew or a practicing catholic.

>>1585

>>1588

And I don't think I have to say more for now, you already refuted his points. Good job!

>>1586

Technically that’s true, but we did beg for a king and He did give us one. He still prefers religious authorities (hence the Church is ascendant over the State), but it’s undoubted that He has bestowed kings with divinely sanctioned authority.

>>1591

the church was friend with iii reich

>>1608

citation needed. In fact Hitler broke the concordat, imprisoned different bishops and priests and killed them, and restricted public worship severely. He also invaded clerical fascist Austria. Meme.

>>1608

Read the post below yours, and then read Mit Brennender Sorge.

>>1610

so why did catholic organizations help nazis run away to southern america?

>>1611

Why did the allied forces torture witnesses to force fake confessions in Nuremberg? Why did the USA support a bolshevist government to persecute its own people? Why did 15mio Germans get driven from their land after the war? Why did the UK not declare war on the Soviet Union if they declared war to protect Poland's sovereignty? Why are the jews allowed to entertain a secret service that openly assassinates people without trial? Why are there so many survivors of 'death camps'?

Just wanted to drop a couple of questions that are way more interesting in relation to the second world war.

>>1612

>Why did the allied forces torture witnesses to force fake confessions in Nuremberg?

that's a great question, considering article 19 of the London Charter says that evidence is a spook.

>>1611

>catholic organizations

Be more specific. I have no idea if you mean organizations led by non-practicing Roman Catholics or organizations wiht the Pope himself as their head, or anything in between.

>>1613

Proof is anti semitic. Are you an anti semite or what?

>>1619

It's not me who decides on my antisemitism, it's the Jews.

Like article 54 of Soviet Constitution, or modern British Hate Crime & sexual harassment laws

>>1614

caritas, vatican, red cross, carmelites

>>1621

And what did they do? How do you stand on the issue of canimephates btw?

>>1623

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents

>>1631

>the guardian

You surely jest, good Sir?

>>1635

better http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8539981/Red-Cross-and-the-Vatican-helped-thousands-of-Nazis-escape.html

>>1636

>helped people not to face the death penalty and other political persecution

>bad

Are you a jew?

>>1638

are you sjw?

>tfw no zoroastrian theocratic monarchy

>>1621

>>1631

>>1636

So the Vatican, according to some historian, gave "considerate" help to Nazis escaping a trial in which some ruling judges were selected by an atheist regime that has, among other things, beheaded the Polish government and dumped their bodies into the woods, then tried to blame it on the Nazis.

Meanwhile, the frigging Pope insulted the Nazis in an encyclical written in German, one that was banned by the Nazis. It was a German bishop and personal friend of Pius XI who almost singlehandedly stopped a wave of murdering "undesirables". The same bishop, von Galen, made a series of sermons aimed at strengthening the resolve of the Christian resistance against the Nazis in the face of the destruction of several monasteries. I heard of one Cardinal who put the armbind with the star of David on statues of Mother Mary and Jesus Christ. Most of the plotters of the 20th July were practicing Catholics. Friends of the Nazis? Shut your mouth, heathen.

>>1642

I respect Zoroastrians a lot more than state worshippers and neo-pagans, for the record.

>>1644

Thinking about it, I respect almost all pagans more than Nazi spitlickers who pretend to be best friends with me. They're best friends with me because I'm a libertarian, because I'm a conservative, and because I'm a Christian. Yet they have a piss poor record of protecting any freedom at all, economic or otherwise. They are progressives who got most of their ideas from enlightened Englishmen and Frenchies. And, they are some of the worst heretics around. I have infinitely more respect for an atheist or a heathen who says that Mother Mary tried to hide an illegitimate pregnancy than for anyone who talks about reforming Christianity to be "positive". The heathens deny that Jesus was God. The Nazis try to make Jesus their servant. Which of these two is the greater affront to God?

>>1644

Paganism is pretty cool, jesus is just a kike on a stick. It would be hard to worship something that gay.

>>1646

Great kike d&C meme.

Cross is too scary for you so you call it a stick?

+

+

>paganism

>"cuckold is a compliment" the religion

>too primitive to have their own name.

>>1643

>beheaded the Polish government and dumped their bodies into the woods then tried to blame it on The Nazis

They failed, so (((Jakub Berman))) called in a false-flag pogrom in Kielce 4th of July 1946 where savage jew-eating poles were murdering a dozen chosen people from dawn to dusk with Milicja and Army being too scared to intervene. Then the media did absolutely everything to paint Poles as horribly as possible, so Soviet Union seems as the force of good removing uncivilized antisemites.

>>1647

A cross is just two sticks bundled together, does it really matter? Kike on a cross, are you now statisfied christcuck?

Also, if you consider your own religion to be true you wouldn't need a name for it because it's just the truth.

>>1648

>M-muh kike on a stick!

Mind talking like a grownup?

>Also, if you consider your own religion to be true you wouldn't need a name for it because it's just the truth.

So if something is true, it doesn't need a name? Do I have to give you a quick rundown of why this is fucking retarded?

>>1641

I do not talk to kikes

>>1652

you're being baited friendo, if anyone says kike on a stick on a post they're just shitposting uncontrollably

>>1116

>>1116

>Is your monarchy religious or secular?

If you get truly enlightened, you will realize that this question doesn't make sesnse.

>>1645

>The Nazis try to make Jesus their servant.

Jesus made Himself our servant.

>>1740

But where did all these/pol/fags come from? We were doing so well for the longest.

Secular. There is the Constitution who regulates things, an elected body to represent the people, a monarch to represent the state and contain the populist tendencies. One kept the other in check, throne and legislative.

The monarch should follow the religion of the majority and that's it. The church takes care of church matters and the state of state matters. The monarch is a public servant so he stick to state matters.

>>1990

It’s basically Westminster monarchism, really.

>>1991

I just do not see how this would be fundamentally better than what we have now over most of the occident. Or rather, if someone describes this system is the ideal(!) then I doubt that he understands the current circumstances as intrinsically flawed; the difference to now seems to be a matter of style rather than substance.

>>1990

>CNN Monarchism

Come up with a good image to represent this, and I think this post is banner material.

>>1989

Any half decent monarch can trample any constitution.

>>1992

Oh, I’d agree wholeheartedly. I want nothing to do with Westminster monarchism.

>>1989

And the kang wears a mass produced chain store suit, absolutely no regalia, maybe burger king™'s paper crown is allowed on secular holidays like the anniversary of that lefty fag with depression who set himself in fire in from of Joseph Stalin's Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, but not before handing out leaflets with his manifesto which read like the local equivalent of CNN

>>2025

I like that idea. I think the king should also engage in product placement for his sponsors. Maybe at an official speech after the parade of the 1st Nestlè Battalion he could take a sip of Coke, light a Marlboro and tell his subjects about the pleasures of working out at Anytime Fitness Gyms (tm). Now that's what I'd call freedom.

>>1208

Relevant commie joke:

>Lenin headed directly to Paradise after he died. He thought he had done a lot of good for the oppressed, so he deserved retirement in Paradise. He knocked on Heaven's door: "Knock, knock!" God shouted from his cosmically gigantic and perfectly spherical office: "Who's there?" "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin." "Okay, okay! The last one in be sure to close the door. It's kind of cold in here…" God studied carefully Lenin's dossier and decided to send him to the most suitable place: Hell.

>A short time passed after Lenin's resettlement to Hell. Satan stormed into God's office one day. "Almighty, pray hear my complaint! Hell is no longer functional. Lenin and his party nationalized the boilers, the furnaces… the whole of Hell. Sinners and devils spend time in interminable Party meetings. In whatever time is left, they all gather in a huge choir. Women are always in front, men in the back rows. Everything must be absolutely politically correct. They rehearse The Internationale and other revolutionary songs, every day and every night. The electricity bill alone, Almighty God, will bankrupt You. Right now, Your Law is not observed: Nobody suffers, nobody is tortured. Pray, Almighty God, take Lenin back to Paradise!"

>Lenin was sent back to Paradise.

>A short time passed after Lenin's transfer to Paradise. Satan stormed into God's office one day. "God Almighty, pray hear my complaint! Hell is no longer functional. The sinners and devils want Lenin back. The sinners and devils together declared a general strike. They threaten to have a Revolution. Pray, God, deport Lenin to Hell!"

>"Listen up, Comrade Satan! First of all, God does not exist…"

>>1542

imagine being this retarded. Jesus would have brunt the Talmud in front of everyone

>>1545

Muslim here, we dont deny that Jesus was the Messiah, we deny that he is God. That is all not trying to spark a debate, just wanted to clear up that common misconception. SAGE for off topic

>>3933

Thanks for the information.

>>4189

>>4190

http://christianthinktank.com/elwho.html

When I have more time I'll try to find other stuff, but hopefully in the mean time this could help.

Reminder that Christians don't see any problem with having a half-Nigger grandson. Go figure since they have no basis in Biblical Canon to oppose one.

https://www.alexlinder.com/gabs.html

> In the christian simp's Heaven and Hell you get more than a whiff of the bush nigger's belief that raping babies cures AIDS.

> Christianity is the reason the white race can't defend itself from jews - and doesn't even want to. #TeamWhite

> Christians believe – their policy – jews can change. Just like they believe Jebus is coming back. Embrace the faith / destroy the race. #TeamWhite

> Why am I not a christian? Because I'm not weak. And I think a religion that celebrates, promotes and fetishizes weakness is sick. And that is exactly what christ-insanity does, and you see its sick effects in its people. Christianity is an unhealthy, destructive lie. It's bad for our people, and we should leave it behind, move on to something that fits us.

>Jesus loves third-world vermin. After all, he's one of them.

> Nature knows no right to exist. People on our side who use that idea are foolish. Christianity say we are all one - in being created by God. Good luck fighting to combine that oil with racialist water. Christianity is liberalism because competing subspecies fight to the death over space, they don't acknowledge they are both God-created.

>Denying men are animals and denying that nature's laws apply to men - christianity does both of these. That's what makes it liberalism. Those poisoned by it will lose to competing species whose views are in line with reality. Jews, for instance.

> Why do jews defeat whites? They value themselves more, not just formally in words, but in actuality: in behavior; in proven-over-time in-group behavioral loyalty. They also pay more attention to the truth, and value it more, than whites do. They know the truth, the better to lie about it. But among themselves, they dont fool around. Goyim prefer fantasy.

> If we can't face the truth about our race, than we are no better than niggers. Perpetual children, who refuse to take any responsibility for our outcomes, blaming them all on imaginary racism. It is a fact, not an opinion, that racial loyalty among whites is scarce, while it is common among jews.

https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/darkening-age-book/

>Libanius spoke elegiacally of a huge temple on the frontier with Persia, a magnificent building with a beautiful ceiling, in whose cool shadows had stood numerous statues. Now, he said, ‘it is vanished and gone, to the grief of those who had seen it’—and the grief of those who now never would. This temple had been so striking, he said, that there were even those who argued that it was as great as the temple of Serapis—which, he added with an irony not lost on later historians, ‘I pray may never suffer the same fate.’

>Not only were the monks vulgar, stinking, ill-educated and violent they were also, said their critics, phoneys. They pretended to adopt lives of austere self-denial but actually they were no better than drunken thugs, a black-robed tribe ‘who eat more than elephants and, by the quantities of drink they consume, weary those that accompany their drinking with the singing of hymns’…

>Then, in 399, a new and more terrible law came. It was announced that ‘if there should be any temples in the country districts, they shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult. For when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed.’

What are they, Muslims?

>>1307

>natural law

It exists in nature, but we are humanity. There are no such things as laws at all. You are the Rule.

>>4585

arent humans part of nature?

>>4585

You can deny science and causality all you want.

Just means you make poorly informed choices.

>>4586

lol. This is the thing, humans are part of nature.

>>4550

race-mixing has been opposed only until the end of ww2. When the Jews occupied.

Christians will not accept something only because there was no explicit mention.

Humans are part of the natural world, but to reduce humanity to the animal kingdom is dangerous. I don't think it should be done. If you want a civilization that holds human life to high regard, you best shouldn't embrace that attitude. Humans need dominion over the animal world.

>>4773

b-but i value wildlife more than human lives

we have too many humans

>>4190

Why is Yahweh and Baal in the same picture?

>>4773

>muh humanism

Next you'll be saying racemixing with Kunta Kinte and Squanto is good.

>>5696

Nothing he said was humanism, you dipshit.

Far leftists love to winge on and on about how the humanity is no better than animals and how everyone should just indulge themselves in whatever perverse pleasures they want because God don't real and basically I'm monky. If anybody is advocating race mixing, it's you because you are trying to reduce the struggle between the cultures to the passing on of genes which would actually justify race-mixing because it is a means of passing on one's genes thereby fullfilling your biological programming.

>>5790

>Nothing he said was humanism, you dipshit.

>muh humans are not bound by the same law as a rabbit or jackal

Denying that man is bound by the rules that bound a wolf builds up to humanism.

>Far leftists love to winge on and on about how the humanity is no better than animals and how everyone should just indulge themselves in whatever perverse pleasures they want because God don't real and basically I'm monky.

They're Last Men who have nothing to aspire to than addictions and living like Niggers. Plenty of proper religions/philosophies in the Orient don't advocate such degeneracy without fixating too much on specialness.

>If anybody is advocating race mixing, it's you because you are trying to reduce the struggle between the cultures to the passing on of genes which would actually justify race-mixing because it is a means of passing on one's genes thereby fullfilling your biological programming.

Except racemixing is overall dysgenic since the mixed offspring are dysfunctional:

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/10/15/race-mixing/

Just letting you know, societies that aren't Nigger-tier oppose miscegenation or at least don't treat the mutts as proper members of said society.

>>5800

>Denying that man is bound by the rules that bound a wolf builds up to humanism.

Nobody said man isn't bound by natural laws. But putting humans on the same level as animals means that killing and eating a chicken is no different from killing and eating a person.

>Except racemixing is overall dysgenic since the mixed offspring are dysfunctional:

A lot of the most successful races in the world were composite races for instance the Romans were a composite between trojans and sabines. Also commoners tend not to care and what is there to deter them? The fear of detrimenting a race that rejects them for their impure genes?

>>5816

>No it doesn't since there's plenty of evidence that cannibalism is detrimental.

The point is that if humans and animals are the same, then it's okay to treat people like animals and it's okay for people to behave like animals, e.i. eating their own shit, fucking everyone who will sleep with them, homosexuality, incest, general degeneracy as all of these and more are practiced by animals.

>You mean the Beaners? Or Achmeds? Both live in shitholes when not propped up by Whitey?

The arabs aren't even a composite race. In fact they're probably more racially pure than anybody else because of all the incest. And most of the reason they live in shitholes is because of Israel and infighting among themselves. The Ottoman empire was wildly successful for a very long time and contributed significantly to science and technology.

>Romans were hardly different from modern Central Italians (who are safely Western European).

Doesn't matter. The Romans were a composite between Trojans and Sabines. Unless you're going to claim that Titus Livy was an anti-white zog bot, in which case, you're just mentally retarded.

>Tell us more on how the dastardly royals force the commoners to favor those they are genetically closer to over the way less.

Nobody is denying that people tend to cling to their own. But if the purpose of human existence is reduced to passing on your genes, there is a higher incentive to race mix especially for people who are low in the social pecking order since they wont be the ones to deal with the consequences.

>>5818

>The point is that if humans and animals are the same, then it's okay to treat people like animals and it's okay for people to behave like animals, e.i. eating their own shit, fucking everyone who will sleep with them, homosexuality, incest, general degeneracy as all of these and more are practiced by animals.

>falling for muh ghey animals meme

>missing the point anyway

Animals like chimps or dolphins don't do cannibalism when they aren't disorded. Homosexuality is also either not at all prominent in the wild or not what cucks like you say it is.

The arabs aren't even a composite race. In fact they're probably more racially pure than anybody else because of all the incest.

>he believes this

Arabs have Nigger blood from mingling with slaves. The Far East Asians are more homogenous. They also have less garbage societies overall.

>And most of the reason they live in shitholes is because of Israel and infighting among themselves.

Arabs are low-trust. Look it up.

>The Ottoman empire was wildly successful for a very long time and contributed significantly to science and technology.

>WE WUZ KANGZ

The Ottomans achieved little or none not derived from outside or their subordinate populations like Jews. They also largely won wars against backwaters. Sick man of Europe.

>Doesn't matter. The Romans were a composite between Trojans and Sabines. Unless you're going to claim that Titus Livy was an anti-white zog bot, in which case, you're just mentally retarded.

>trying this hard to shill racemixing

The Romans didn't accept unconditionally mingling with non-Romans. Caesarion was distrusted for his ancestry.

>Nobody is denying that people tend to cling to their own. But if the purpose of human existence is reduced to passing on your genes, there is a higher incentive to race mix especially for people who are low in the social pecking order since they wont be the ones to deal with the consequences

How do you think men became hostile to racemixing if it's not from nature's law

>>5817

it is because they dont marry each other right?

>>5834

Yes. The absolute lack of any virtue-signaling on the part of the yellow people is the funny part.

>>5823

>Animals like chimps or dolphins don't do cannibalism when they aren't disorded. Homosexuality is also either not at all prominent in the wild or not what cucks like you say it is

Wrong again. Chimpanzees regularly practice cannibalism when fighting with other tribes of chimps. Dogs commit homosexual acts all the time and it doesn't matter what reason it's for.

>Arabs have Nigger blood from mingling with slaves. The Far East Asians are more homogenous. They also have less garbage societies overall.

The Arabs sterilized their black slaves and that's why there isn't a populace of distinctly blacks Arabs in the middle east the same way there is in America. And besides that, racemixing is against nature's law, remember? And look at all the studies you yourself provided proving that that people of different races tend not to mix well.

Japan has plenty of it's own problems, particularly involving suicide and infertile men and don't even try to make China look good, you double nigger.

>The Romans didn't accept unconditionally mingling with non-Romans. Caesarion was distrusted for his ancestry.

Has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

>How do you think men became hostile to racemixing if it's not from nature's law

Because it's immoral to mix together what God/the gods created to be separated. If there is no God, there is no natural law, only chaos and whoever can immortalize themselves through reproduction is in the right.

Let me repeat myself one last time. If the struggle between the cultures is reduced to the struggle between genes to replicate themselves, racemixing will be not only be incentivized but justified for the less attractive members of any given race. Since man is just an animal, the only reason for his existence is to pass on his genetic legacy, racemixing is a means to accomplish this therefore racemixing is justified and the one committing the deed cannot be faulted because he is only an animal carrying out his biological programming. And before you winge like an edgy faggot about how the less desirable members of society don't deserve to reproduce, note that many of the smartest and more influential inventors, philosophers, and scientists were quite unattractive. Isaac Newton, for instance, never had any children.

In conclusion the divine origin and dignity of man is required to aim for a higher ideal.

Pantheist. No atheists allowed.

>>5975

not an argument

>>1576

>Christians are subservient to jews

>who are Marcion Of Sinope, St. Paul, and Russian Orthodoxy.

>>1309

My ass

>>1572

Seems like an ancap thing, sure

>>1541

I admire that in spite of mostly despising them. That's why best thing is to turn your beliefs into a religion, therefore you get tax exempt status

>>6009

Marcion was based

>>8677

Marcion was a heretic

>>1116

To the secularists I would appeal: every in history society needed a strict moral-religious code to function. Very few can operate without religion. Most go completely nihilist-materialist.

>>8684

Dualism is the truth. Stop listening to church councils and start gaining direct spiritual insight through gnosis, it will open your eyes.

>>1204

Merely because religion has had a monopoly on the concept of god doesn't mean they are the defacto controllers of it.

>>8687

Are you an unironic gnostic monarchist? Or is this ironyfaggotry?

If you do Christianity, do it right people.

>Stop listening to church councils.

>Jesus taught gnosticism

Nice try, kook.

>>8685

Society should be distinct from the state, even though the two are related. Secular does not mean atheist, and I would actually argue that an atheist state is NOT secular.

>>8689

>For God is infinite and your brain is finite.

If God is not knowable, He is not divine. An omnipotent God certainly allows His devotees to understand Him, for it is within His power.

>>8691

>Jesus taught gnosticism

Early Christians weren't deluded by the Jews and believed in all sorts of things that have been forgotten such as reincarnation, vegetarianism and meditation.

>>8687

>>8696

looks like someone is still thinking like a republican

>Early Christians believed in Vegetarianism

Romans 14:2

>>8698

Someone hasn't read the Gospel of the Ebionites, I see. Jesus spoke the truth (Numbers 11:32-34):

<I am come to end the sacrifices and feasts of blood ; and if ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you; even as it came to your fathers in the wilderness, who lusted for flesh, and did sat to their content, and were filled with rottenness, and the plague consumed them

>>8701

I pity you for having this bad of reading comprehension. If an all-powerful God is unknowable, He is certainly not God.

>>8705

>talks about lacking reading comprehension

>can't even comprehend the Bible or the word of God

1 Corinthians 2:11

For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.

Isaiah 55:9. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts

If you can put God in a box, He ceases to be God for He is no longer infinite. You Gnostics come from a long line of (((Kabbalists))) that desecrate the word of God and twist it for your own pleasure. You cannot command God or know Him completely, for the infinite is exactly that, INFINITE

>>8705

You esoteric niggers couldn't stay over at /christ/ or /x/ or /pol/ you have to spread your mind cancer here now?

>is unironically a dualist

Why even bother being a monarchist if you hate the world?

>>8713

The material world will always be transient, only your soul is truly eternal. In this mode of existence, monarchy is the superior form of state.

>is unironically a dualist

The Demiurge is very real, but I don’t know if it is properly dualist. God is the only omnipotent being in existence, the Demiurge is not omnipotent. There cannot be two omnipotent beings, their wills would conflict and logical impossibilities would result if they contradicted one another, thus negating the omnipotence of both.

>>8712

>If you can put God in a box

Says the one who puts God in a book. There is nothing more liberating than direct perception of the divine and realizing that one’s soul is part and parcel of God. It must be sad being so illusioned and stuck within the eternal cycle of death and rebirth. Book-idolators like you will never find self-realization followed by God-consciousnes. Jesus was an avatar of God who came to restore the Natural Order, which evidently has been lost again. Jesus will return soon though, it’s due.

>>1576

You: slave morality

Byzantine Empire: shut the fuck up faggot

>>8705

>Gospel of the Ebionites

what

next you will cite the gospel of judas

that's not the bible, not authentic scripture

>>8730

>that's not the bible, not authentic scripture

Imagine being bound by what humans deem to be legitimate

>>8733

Imagine being a slave to a manmade fanfiction. You might as well take the Quran or the Edda seriously. I bet you think the Talmud has merit as well.

>>8737

I only function off direct spiritual insight. Try destroying your false ego and letting your devotion to God fill the void and become enlightened. This is how you see Truth.

Perennialist preferably, minus the jews.

>>8751

>If you were devoted to God you would not only listen to His rules and abandon your occult practices but you would also respect his decision to leave the keys to his earthly steward here on earth.

You seek divine knowledge from other unenlightened human beings and man-made books. You do not know God. Knowledge of God can only come from within one’s own self. Deceivers like these “earthly stewards” tell you all sorts of lies to increase their powers on this prison-plane instead of helping souls to true self-realization and God-consciousness, leading to final liberation from the endless cycle of death and rebirth.

>You want to talk about ego?

You do not understand the notion of ego. There is no ego for the enlightened. God-consciousness is the realization that you are a divine spark, endlessly burdened by the karmic debt until you free yourself from the bondage of materiality and once again realize your soul’s true constitutional position to the Supersoul. Only then the spark returns to the divine fire, the droplet merges with the infinite ocean of bliss. Enosis and theosis are the final states – such is nirvana.

>Abandon yours and humble yourself to God's authority and not your man-made philosophy.

By engaging in yogic and meditative practices I am slowly nearing true self-realization, the first step to liberation. God’s will will become my own will.

>A man made philosophy that only came to be because of an arrogant man who wished to republicanise God's Kingdom.

The kingdom of God is within us all, I spit on your church.

>>8744

>Monarchy doesn't require religion to exist, but monarchy and religion-like values tend to go hand in hand.

I am having a hard time thinking of a Monarchist nation that was also secular, where 'secular' is defined by not having >50% of their population under the exact same religion.

>>8780

I struggle to find a nation with the kind of religious pluralism you're asking for anyway. I define 'secular' as the government having no official position on religion or religious rites.

>>8776

>I spit on your church

Spoken like a perfectly worldly individual who thinks he's of God, but is merely cowardly. If by your definition of theosis, you even so much as hate the Islamic State, then you have not attained it.

On this basis then I call you a left-liberal coward, and curse your virtue signalling about hating Rome. Fuck off and go con the beggars outside of your local Starbucks into thinking you are "enlightened," you pretentious faggot.

>>8782

>Spoken like a perfectly worldly individual who thinks he's of God, but is merely cowardly.

We are all of God, anon. When Jesus said that he and Father are one, he meant that he had emptied himself of illusory ego and realized his constitutional position in relation to the Supersoul. This is the goal of all life. There's no cowardice, only gnosis learned through intense spiritual discipline. You are full of much negative karma, rage and spitefulness, slowing down your progress towards final henosis, just as if you were trying to run a marathon with a chain and ball around each of your ankles. Seek gnosis and ataraxia, not rage in the decontexualized realm of Internet communication.

>On this basis then I call you a left-liberal coward

I am an eternal spark of the Divine, your labels, even if accurate, do not characterize me as much as I am neither human, an animal, male or female. Pure eternal consciousness, just like the Absolute. Rome liberates no souls and obfuscates Truth. Just as when one looks out a window they do not perceive the window, but what lies outside, this is the state of the Enlightened as the window into the Divine Truth. Rome keeps the blinds closed tight and lets no light in.

> Fuck off and go con the beggars outside of your local Starbucks into thinking you are "enlightened," you pretentious faggot.

I already preach to people in real life, many more than one may think express interest, seeing the suffering of materiality and the falseness of the establishment. The accusation of pretentiousness is understandable, for you are thoroughly agnostic at this moment. Not all can receive liberation in this lifetime, but if you begin now, you may be able to enter the Elect.

>>8785

>Not all can receive liberation in this lifetime, but if you begin now, you may be able to enter the Elect.

I have no interest in whatever you call religion. I have heard more wisdom from Catholic priests in my time than I have managed to get out of your self-interested monologue.

>Agnostic

I'm actually an orthodox Christian.

>>8693

A confessional state is traditional way of governing human society and we believe that fundamental human tendencies don’t change. A completely secular power will immediately begin constructing a puppet religion for itself (for example American exceptionalism). Or even worse atheism will become the socially-enforced stance. It will be atheist with religious fervor.

We could get into what is society and what is the state, but philosophers have disagreed about that and it’s a complex discussion. My point is that while an official religion may infringe your personal intellectual freedom, it’s for the greater good. Human society needs this to operate because there are so many bad replacements people make for religion. They go from religion to the most decadent behavior, the seven deadly sins on steroids.

I hope we can have at least some kind of traditionalist royal authority, whether it be Christian or not. However it must be based on anti-pluralism and anti-secularism, that’s a must. Pluralism leads to the worst liberal hedonists taking over your society.

>>1116

The heretics fear the truth, but the truth will set you free. God's church is a kingdom with a literal monarch. The proof is in the scripture.

>>8800

You're suggesting that because confessional states were the norm, there couldn't have been anything better, even in theory, which I reject. Also, as I said, state atheism is NOT secular.

There is no such thing as the greater good. Only the common good. The Bible firmly rejects the idea of doing evil for the sake of some greater good.

A secular state does not automatically mean a society without values, and such issues are generally better solved without the state.

>>8805

Go away liberals.

>>8805

>greater good

It depends. Sometimes we have to submit ourselves to personal suffering for the sake of others; that is the greater good in my opinion. Or when Christ told his apostles to not put up a fight when the Jews had him arrested, he probably saved their lives.

>the state is above/apart from those issues

The state wants power, it will NEVER be apart from social issues. Look at Roe v Wade. We have a society where half of us think it’s murder and half think it’s a human right that others have to pay for. And the government has sided with the human right half. That’s insanity, that’s pluralism and secularism on drugs. The idea that we could build a functional society with a Muslim and a Protestant and a Orthodox Christian and a Jew is all under this banner of pluralism is madness. You cannot have secular pluralism and also argue for “rights” “truths” or anything. Secularism is the state blatantly abandoning any religious principles that may constrain it. It’s the creation of arbitrary modern power centers.

Religion traditionally played a role in governing most pre-modern societies.

>>8819

No.

>>the state is above/apart from those issues

Not what I said. The state is a poor tool to use for solving those issues. The state deals primarily with power and force, but you cannot forcibly change someone's mind.

>That’s insanity, that’s pluralism and secularism on drugs.

You don't need to be religious to believe an unborn human should be considered human and have human rights, including the right to life.

>The idea that we could build a functional society with a Muslim and a Protestant and a Orthodox Christian and a Jew is all under this banner of pluralism is madness.

I didn't say otherwise. A state must be built on values, and values are primarily derived from religion. I am not saying people with radically different values can peacefully coexist in a single society, and I'm not saying the state shouldn't take measures to protect itself from hostile value systems. There is, however, a line between that and literal religious endorsement. The SOCIETY should be religious, and the state should be built around the values of that society, which will inevitably mean the values of that religion. Issues of values, however, are usually better handled by means other than state power.

I can't see how a monarchy can function for an extended period of time without it being strictly religious.

>>1474

Religion would be preferable for a monarchy, yes. But you can't force a majoritarily atheist people to adhere to your religion, and it can be replaced by other things. For example, the Bonapartes put sovereignty and the will of the people above all and it worked pretty well for them. Hell, the Napoleon III's 1870 referundum had a vast majority of approvals.

monarchy is the symbol of absolute religious power