>tfw political views are based entirely on my mood and can

Accept that being a monarchist is the superior and only correct and God given form of government.

>>38969233
The only escape is to kill your Nazi roommates for not accepting your faith in Allah, then yourself.

>>38969281
I've never converted religion though, I'm agnostic.

>>38969295
I'm referencing a recent case where someone like you who changes their views a lot moved in with some NeoNazis because he was one, then converted to Islam and killed them when they made fun of him.

>>38969233
I was a white nationalist 2 weeks ago, now I'm a libertarian. I know the feel all too well.

File: 1501291305726.jpg (174KB, 756x771px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 756x771px

>>38969339
ah didn't like the guilt of fapping to cuck porn i bet

>>38969233
By reading a book you dumb mother fuck

Might I suggest Capital

>>38969233
lol educate yourself dude

>>38969233

>tfw change regulary from Marxist-Leninist, Nazbol, Strasserite and then nazi

I think economically centrist National Socialist is my true form desu

>>38970292
I watch house of commons debates usually

I usually end up hating whoever is in power

File: 1314219533618.gif (13KB, 631x757px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 631x757px

>tfw political views are based entirely depending on who i'm talking to

File: 97e.png (203KB, 830x844px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 830x844px

>>38969233
iktf

weeks ago i was a socialist

now i'm a self determninist anarchist hellbent on reducing government

>>38969233
>have gone from being ancap to a social democrat to a right wing populist to a national bolshevik within a month
No you didn't. You are not of x political ideology unless you understand it, and your retarded underage self certainly did not understand them. So fuck off.

File: ZomboMeme 17012017195543.jpg (379KB, 1599x1184px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1599x1184px

>>38969233
It stops at one point when you get to the radical traditionalist pill and come to realise that julius Evola was right and the west is doomed and we need to go back, and sit back until civilisation collapses so a new on can rise from the ashes.
Shame it took me all these stages over nearly 8 years to get to that though.
>conservative
>national conservative
>nationalist
>libertarian
>ancap
>hoppean libertarian
>national libertarian
>Monarchist
>Fascist
>National socalist
>neo-reactionary
>Traditionalist
>Radical traditionalist

>>38969233
No I don't don't, I'm always pretty much left wing.Varies from SocDem to Stalinist.
I used to be a fascist when I was 14 though, but then I grew up.

>>38971397
14 to 16 isn't growing up.

File: protofascist charlatans.jpg (67KB, 622x431px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 622x431px

>>38971381
>implying I'm not in my post-traditionalist phase
"Traditionalism" is just a modified version of Hinduism that charlatans used to sell books in 20th century.

>>38971381
Hey Varg, how's the family?

>>38969233
it means you're trying so hard to be a radical, so you end up communist. most people do when they dabble deeper into politics for the first time. at least you're not a nazi, right?

Mine are kinda consistent but also all over. I hate hearing anyone in real life say their political opinions and always feel like challenging them but don't. Also I just want certain outcomes for the world and my country that vary from extreme left to extreme white. For example ideally all brown skins would be exterminated but there would also be global techno socialism with strong social conservatism but not on gay stuff only on the aesthetic level.

>>38971420
The problem with internet fascists is that they find themselves to be very special, like they'll be in the privileged class in a fascist society rather than the absolute dregs. Its hilarious to always see that kind of self-aggrandizement. At least leftists admit they're just common people.

>>38971212
Shh. Let the children feel grown up, and the idiots intelligent for holding political opinions. Useful idiots are always needed.

File: download (94).jpg (7KB, 310x163px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 310x163px

>>38971397
thats exaxtly what ex commies say when they were 12 learning about communism in school who throught it was great, only to then realise its a pipe dream that dosent work due to people being selfish and the fact that its never true "equality" as the (((commisars and party chairmen))) drive around in luxury western cars and drink fine champange whilst the masses wait in bread lines and have to sign up on a 10 year waiting list just to get a shitty lada that will most likely fall to bits in the first week.

>>38971427
>>38971381

>"God does not exist. The Ego must create him by making itself divine."

It does seem that Evola was heavily influenced by Eastern mysticism and metaphysics. Pretty interesting actually.

I'm familiar with Spengler so "the west is doomed and we need to go back, and sit back until civilisation collapses" I can understand.

>>38969233
Yes, I do. Sometimes I feel more right-wing, at times more liberal, what have you. It always stays within a range of possible values though, nothing too extreme, I think. I'm pretty much just a liberal if anyone were to ask. I LARP and bait on occasion too.

If I had power, I'd probably be more liberal and authoritarian though. Kek. I trust myself with power and the intention to do good for others, but I don't necessarily trust other people in positions of power who conceal things from me "for my own good." I don't want to be infantilized when I'm already world-weary.

>>38971427
Radical Traditionalism I use as an umbrella term for the non initaited who wouldnt understand that it confides within many diffrent sets of ideas such as.
>tribalism
>survivalism
>social darwinism aka eugenics
>civilisation being seasonal
>Ludditeism in regards to having a hatred for high technolgy.
>aristocracy of the soul in regards to how one should judge others.
Etc

File: rtp.jpg (71KB, 848x480px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 848x480px

>>38969262
>being a monarchist is the superior and only correct and God given form of government.
God supported government by priests until the Jews loudly and constantly demanded that he give them a King. Then he begrudgingly gave them a king, saying essentially "You'll regret this, you could've had divinely-inspired holy men leading you but instead you choose this random chump. Sucks to be you faggots."

Then proceeded many books of Jewish suffering that probably gave Hitler an erection reading it in Das Church.

File: yukino08.jpg (115KB, 1260x1008px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1260x1008px

There are few things as pitiful as a foolish existence consumed by ideology.

>>38971754
though kings are also to be divinely inspired. where else would they get their authority to rule?

File: download (30).jpg (14KB, 308x164px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 308x164px

>>38971754
Indeed just look at how monarchies have been infultrated by jews throughout the centuries there are plenty of examples where they have been surounded by hook nosed court advisors and subverted into carrying out the chosen peoples will, not to mention taking out massive intrest loans from various jewish familes the rothschilds espically to fund wars, empires and colonialism that eventually all lead to human suffering, bankrupted monarchies and laughing jews counting out their intrest capital which they then used to buy up the media and use it as a control device to puppeter the masses into carrying out their will.
>Kaiser Wilhelm II
>The British monarchy
>The Hapsburg monarchy

File: doom paul too late GIF.gif (390KB, 510x382px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 510x382px

>>38971865
>where else would they get their authority to rule?

>people demand king
>the Lord says that's dumb and ur gay
>people say they want it anyway
>God regretfully gives them a King after assuring them that it will bring them pain and suffering
Your words were "only correct and God given," when a more 'God-given' government would be rule by priests. It was technically *a* God-given government, at the time when God personally selected the King at least, but it's certainly not the only one or even the most 'God-given.'

In a manner of speaking, it's not even a God-given form of government, as it's really a man-created form of government that God allowed His people to use against His warnings.

File: IMG_9094.jpg (26KB, 552x414px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 552x414px

>>38971860
Ah, the anti-ideology *sniff* ideologue.

You're like those rabid atheists who don't realize atheism is a religion itself.

>>38972028
In an ideal traditionalist world, priests would not even consider themselves for political positions because they're above that temporal shit. Also, I would bet that God trusts his own creations. At least that's the assumption of choice and free-will.

so they have a king that does it for them instead. why else would they put a cross on top of their crowns, then?

File: yukino09.jpg (521KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1000x1250px

>>38972067
Not at all. I am specifically referring to the foolish ideologues, the sort that haven't rationally justified their positions. Though I suppose this isn't so bad.

The world needs useful idiots, after all.

I went from communist to socialist to National Socialism

File: svalbard.jpg (870KB, 1800x720px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 1800x720px

>>38972195
>In an ideal traditionalist world, priests would not even consider themselves for political positions because they're above that temporal shit.
>Also, I would bet that God trusts his own creations.
Not trying to bully, but have you read the Bible? Your first point is easily supported, even though priests did once effectively hold governing (I might concur it's hard to call it political, as it was much more of a strong-advisory position) power they certainly weren't anything we'd call politicians.
"God trusts in His own creations" is a question of definitions. He knows the future as has been shown time and again in prophecies, but giving humans free will is largely seen as a divine equivalent of a parent telling their 16yo to fill the car with gas before they bring it home knowing that their kid will come up with some excuse anyway. He knows our futures, or some might say that He can know if he chooses as there are many times where He appears unhappily surprised by His peoples' choices as though He did not foresee it.
Anyway, point being, the "gas up my car, son" analogy was saying that just because God knows we will sin, perhaps even greatly so, He has still given us the freedom to do so as His children. When He gave us Divinely-inspired priests to lead His people, it was known that if the priests conveyed a command directly from Him it was true. This was in the days when priests spoke directly to Him. A king does not speak directly to God, and can only do what feels right in his heart, or he can choose not to do so with very little personal repurcussions for the most part. Interestingly enough, God tends to punish the citizens before the kings, perhaps symbolic of old patriarchal customs where an injury to a patriarch's family was often seen as a greater wound than an injury to the man himself.

Tl;dr God shows very little concern for kings, which started as a practice of pagans anyway.

My family was part of a weird cult which forbid voting. So I was raised knowing nothing about politics or government. Now, as an adult, I don't really have any political belief or stance. I just can't get myself to care. I don't vote or keep up with current events. I live in a small town, always have, always will, and it feels like it doesn't affect me.

I'm the same, but not with political ideologies. Whatever form of media I consume I want to change my life career path to be; i.e. I watch Pirates of the Caribbean and want to become a pirate, or I watch a gundam anime and want to pilot giant robots. So then ill spend hours online looking for historically accurate pirate cosplay or some shit until I realize ill never be one.

>>38971860
Stop roleplaying as my wife, faggot.

>>38969233
I've stuck to National Socialism for about a year

File: 1476666463532.jpg (143KB, 450x445px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 450x445px

>>38972619
Don't be surprised if after a while you find yourself to be a alex jones-style liberal.

It will happen, with more knowledge, especially once you find out the true nature of the semitic and the region of the time.

>>38972495
I don't have a problem when clergy rules a nation, it's just that I think it's not what will happen in reality. Especially in the Christian world. Not to mention that a king having priests or seers as part of his advisers are pretty much commonplace back then.
So whether directly or indirectly, religion plays a part in the politics of that particular nation or how the king shall govern his kingdom.
That thought still holds today, even if the different governments always try to paint themselves as "secular" when their constitutions are rooted with the particular culture of their state.

>God shows very little concern for kings
But how come Europe was led by kings and not by priests when there is practically no separation between church and state in a certain period of time? Surely there has got to be a reason for that and some influence in Christian dogma.

>>38969233
You know how pretentious pseudointellectuals like to call regular people "sheeple"? You are an actual example of an individuality and personality lacking sheep.

It means you don't have any real core beliefs and are just an easily influenced prole.

File: ik.png (37KB, 662x424px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 662x424px

>>38972804
I appreciate that we're tackling real issues and not just memeing, anon. I agree with you, rule by clergy only worked when "rule by clergy" really meant "proxy rule by God," in the days when He literally spoke to His prophets. The Israelites' relationship with the Lord was very different in these times.
The government of the United States of America is a secular government. It neither claims nor makes any real religious proclamations, past echoing near-universal sentiment in nearly every Christian church (other religions, I can't speak for) that that for better or for worse God has allowed [Trump/Obama/Bush/etc.] to be President and so it must be for His greater glory.
>how come Europe was led by kings and not by priests when there is practically no separation between church and state in a certain period of time?
It's important to remember the distinction in the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Christ's sacrifice changed the relationship, every man has now been forgiven and can have a personal relationship with God without need for any priests - this is among the greatest open blasphemies of the Catholic church, that only arose because Christianity's spread meant that the common Christian could no longer read the Bible in its native tongue and essentially had to revert to a pre-Christ reliance on priesthood, whcih is as I said a clear act against God's will.
Europe was led by kings and not by priests, despite God's open warnings against it in the days of Saul (note: not commands against it, merely warnings), both as seen in Scripture and also because Christ's new salvation allowed every man a personal relationship with the Lord and thus rendered priest-rule largely obsolete.
>note: I'm sorry, I meant to post this image in my first reply, it may clear up some things I didn't realize I'd left kind of vague.

File: 1500953314835.png (80KB, 1982x1133px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1982x1133px

Libertarian or death

>>38973212
If you want a real redpill on the heresy of the Catholic Church, and its continuation to this day, read up on the concept of Papal Infallibility. Essentially, the Pope can arbitrarily come out and make a statement that becomes Holy Truth. In other words, the Pope is seen by devout Catholics as having the power to write new words with the same weight as any command in the Bible. It's absolutely heresy by any definition, as Jesus said that there would be no prophets after Him.

Only the blind or conscientiously blind would agree that the US is secular. Or any other state for that matter. Secularism is an illusion, or rather vanity for intellectuals in think-tanks or academic circles to feel like they're above the filthy rabble.

The image you posted reminds me of some ethnic group that's still waiting for their King to lead them to world domination... I think I have already heard of their kind somewhere; and somebody famous also said that they're prophet-killers and a den of vipers or something like that...

But that aside, I understood the verse as pertaining to a worldly king, a warlord, which is very different from an ideal Christian monarch that's supposedly hail their authority from the supreme sovereign itself, God. But at the end of the day of course, politics does not care about your titles (king, priest, etc.) but rather your cunning and intelligence.

Sorry but I think your explanation for my question is a bit reaching. I get that you want to quote scriptures, but how about political dynamics and the concept of power and influence?

File: 1483121010205.png (32KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 429x410px

>>38973527
You Protestants hail your legitimacy by the amount of accusations of illegitimacy you throw at the Church. Remember that always.

>>38973639
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do feel as though you and I have a different interpretation of the original King of Israel and his meaning both to the people and to the Lord. The King, as I read it, was never intended as an ideal Christian monarch but almost as a lesson to the Israelites to follow His rule and not the rule of man.

And in those days, priests were not soccer dads who talked about the Bible on Sunday mornings, they were not only dedicated holy men but literally spoke to God (presumably) verbally in a 2-way conversation. God very rarely spoke to the common Israelite, and so the priest's job was largely to convey messages directly from the Lord. Priests in the days of the Old Testament have not existed for thousands of years. Ssince the Covenant of Christ, priests in the Old Testament sense will presumably never again exist, as the Lord now resides in the hearts of all who accept Him. So, too, will never again exist a King chosen directly and verbally by the Lord's vocal command to His priest. That is not to say the Lord has no power.

As a side note, it used to bug me that so few would be saved from the Twelve Tribes of Israel in the final times, but I see now as I study the world more that the vast majority of every church consists of those who go to church and sing hymns for 90 minutes every Sunday, then proceed to consciously sin without remorse the rest of the week. The Lord Jesus remarks again and again that to receive salvation you must repent not with your words but in your heart. As an adult, I can link so many of the ills of the Western/'Christian' world to those who sing hymns every Sunday, and pray for forgiveness for last week's sins with full intent to go out and commit them again this coming week.

File: ggg.jpg (73KB, 375x479px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 375x479px

>>38973750
>You Protestants hail your legitimacy by the amount of accusations of illegitimacy you throw at the Church
Does a juror claim innocence by voting another man guilty? My legitimacy does not come from the sins of others, but the faith in my heart and the sacrifice of the Sinless.
>You Protestants
>You
I'm non-denominational, although I recognize that Jesus made many mentions Himself of His "Church," the more I ponder it the more I feel that he refers to His church as those who follow Him in their hearts rather than any formal body.

Remember that half the 'sacred' documents and beliefs of your sect were literally made up by a long council of church bodies with heavy political ambitions against which Christ specifically warned. Remember that nearly every Catholic-specific document and practice is specifically and unquestionably labelled heresy and pagan by Christ Himself.

>>38974031
>My legitimacy does not come from the sins of others
Your legitimacy is from a rebel who decided to just build his own church than help fix the one built by Christ himself.

>literally made up by a long council of church
Well, I'll have me guide myself through the works of theologians and monks who devoted their lives to living and interpreting the gospel than the ramblings of some ape who can't see the symbolism of snakes and the number 3 and actually believes there is a literal Garden of Eden thousands of years ago.

>with heavy political ambitions
this does not say anything at all. politics is everywhere.