>tfw I realized I'm so philosophically opposed to so many of America's ideological beliefs I'd not only be okay with but in support of destroying Mount Rushmore
Has anyone else hit this point yet? Where you've abandoned America as a whole and wish to start an entirely new nation in it's place?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
>Where you've abandoned America as a whole and wish to start an entirely new nation in it's place?
There are many nations on planet Earth. Find one that suits you and move there.
I've thought of slowly taking over Madagascar after marrying some rich billionaire divorcee and genetically engineering its nigger population to be genius egg-laying Aryan androgynes with dicks and asspussies. I'd rename it "Lemuria," after the fabled lost island of Indo-European mythology.
But this land is my home. My ancestors have lived here for generations. Anywhere else wouldn't be home.
Lemuria was all gay and hippy tho. Atlantis was based and redpilled.
Also, you have some issues, m8, but I do like the way you think. It feels dirty being run out of our homelands to the island Hitler wanted to dump the Jews after the war, tho.
Lemuria is merely a starting point. We'll take over the entirety of Africa and use agroforestry to feed our burgeoning population of Aryan dickgirls, who naturally require very little sustenance to maintain their voluptuous frames.
>>tfw I realized I'm so philosophically opposed to so many of America's ideological beliefs I'd not only be okay with but in support of destroying Mount Rushmore
>My ancestors have lived here for generations
Congratulations. You've shamed every single one of your ancestors.
>Aryan dickgirls
Jesus lmao Godspeed, user. Godspeed.
what the people wanted and what the elite controlled government gave them are two very different things.
Also, a nation is not it's government. The French or Germans under an autocrat were still French and German. Their promoted values changed, but the people did not.
for once OP is not a faggot
I know how you feel, but for me it’s not so much an active support as it is just an uncaring attitude. I don’t feel connected to the cult of the founding fathers or to how this country was envisioned. Maybe it’s just a matter of how they’ve been portrayed, I respect the foresight or the constitution and the bill of rights, but I don’t value as much the aspects of freedom or egalitarianism in this new america. I think the problem for us user is just that what America is isn’t what it was meant to be, and therefore to conserve it based on the founding of America makes it perverse. Just my two cents.
>constitution
I don't think you actually care for that, but the Bill of Rights you probably do, as do I. I think revisions could even be made to those, but I'd be okay just copypasta it.
But the concepts of "equality" and voting and shit like that just need to go. the way I see it, only a singular absolutist autocrat should have control over a nation, and it needs to be hereditary rule. They can be selfish or incompetent, but they can never be corrupt because to cheat the people would only be to cheat themselves.
Even before I listened to these podcast, which show you just how badly the Founders fucked over the common American, and how it's always been Jewed since day one, I came to these conclusions. They simple cemented my positions.
>what the people wanted and what the elite controlled government gave them are two very different things.
This is what happens when "the people" pay moar attention to hollywood celebrities than their elected representatives. We the people have nobody to blame but ourselves.
I'm going all the way back to the founding, friend. Shay's rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion was because the Founders were fucking us over from day one.
The framers were deists, freemasons and probably many of them satanists. Sadly, I think it may have been necessary to overthrow monarchy to institute a culture of learning and science. Occupation with matters of royalty and myopic agrarianism inevitably leads to stagnation, which is why Amish people will never achieve anything great, as most of them are literally just waiting to die in a way most pleasing to their foreskin-demanding deity.
Are you a PNW boi or something? Not saying I disagree.
NO
POLÎTICAL
SOLUTION
>overthrow monarchy to institute a culture of learning and science
Because Isaac Newton didn't live with a monarch...
I'm actually aiming larger. Instead of just a corner, I aim to start with the PNW and then sweep down and forge a kingdom over all of North American named Arcadia.
A great deal of our current understanding of the world was achieved over 500 years ago—it's true. But it's only after the industrial revolution that we've gained a deep understanding of the most fundamental aspects of our universe. That's due in part to the industrialization of education, allowing for a larger number of people to participate in scientific research.
It’s simply a jewish corruption of monarchy’s natural evolution to a military dictatorship, hence fascism. America was founded off of racial division due to petty religious differences of Christendom and its baggage. A form of original Liberalism modeling itself at the time in Europe in a much more brutal way of the original communist upheaval of their monarchy through Jewish manipulation through globalism (at the time, and still today, expansionism in the Americas, Africa, and Asia) - this policy helped set up some of the original international banking systems that we oppose so vehemently today, and lead to the troublesome age of “enlightenment” that brought about cultural rejection of adherence, determination to state/king, just in time for the industrial revolution to come about to exploit these new free-willed attitudes of the west.
So no OP you’re not wrong to have a gut feeling that something about Americanism is inherently false and damaging.
(By Europe’s communist upheaval I’m referring to the French Revolution at the time)
And none of that could have been done under a monarchy? A monarch wouldn't stop that. If anything, he'd promote such things
>monarchy’s natural evolution to a military dictatorship
I mean, as long as the dictator is the monarch and it's hereditary, that's fine. Anything else opens the doors up to plotting and scheming from less honorable individuals who would only seek power for it's own sake and not feel a responsibility to the land, nation, or it's people.
Can we truly say a deeper understanding of the stars is worth the damning of the human race as a whole? Industrialization should’ve taken a much more tamed and reasonable step into western economies - I’d say the same for the agricultural revolution as well. In exchange for studying the world outside of our own, we have weakened our own genetic predispositions and capabilities, and possibly future possibilities for a healthy genetic stock to inherit the earth after us.
>It’s simply a jewish corruption of monarchy’s natural evolution to a military dictatorship, hence fascism
The very concept of cycles or linear evolution as they pertain to political systems is stupid and bizarre; monarchy evolved out of republicanism, and fascism evolved out of monarchism, and republicanism evolved out of monarchism—there is no clear progression "upward," merely restructuring.
But very few did. Monarchy could work in a post-enlightenment age, and it would be unlikely to result in scientific stagnation, but the point I was trying to make is that it operated as an impediment, particularly in its dying years when monarchs were largely unintelligent and dysgenic.
With it being hereditary leadership, who is to say that a monarch doesn’t become sterile? Or senile? What do you do when there are primal loyalties to other members of the royal family? There is no guarantee the son of a king will inherit his ideals, yet a military dictator, a leader, a commander - who appoints his successor through military tribunal, can then secure that which comes after him without the worries of false loyalties, as loyalty would only diverge from the commander if he were to lead his people to ruin.
>post-enlightenment age
I ache for a day when we no longer refer to it as the "enlightenment"
The monarchies are also deist. Some of them were Satanist.
>I'm going all the way back to the founding, friend.
I'm going to their sources. The books from which they obtained their ideas. The further back you go, the more advanced the idea seemed _for its' time_.
>because the Founders were fucking us over from day one.
Ok. We also got free public libraries and a free press out of the deal. &&teh.(interwebz)
The principles, but not the philosophies the Founders encoded into law are all common, natural principles in nature.
Philosophies change the more one is learned.
I'm ready and able to kill commies any time. I wish my local police or militia were will to march, I'd join them right now.
I understand anxiety in regards to advancement that is too quick, as it could create incongruity with our nature. But if we can improve our nature, we should do so, and we should exploit every scientific advancement possible.
The most highly advanced being is a God. It's actually possible to store consciousness atomically. It sounds utterly implausible and ascientific—not to mention insane—but if we could fuse our minds together to form one being, we could not only end our suffering, but achieve complete control over the universe, allowing for insane amounts of happiness and pleasure that could be kept in perpetuity, halting entropy itself.
Must sleep now. Good night.
Agree. The real enlightenment was the rediscovery of ancient Greek knowledge and the overthrow of theocracy.
I have never heard of satanist monarchies. Good night.
You sound pretty gay, OP, I suggest you go take a few dicks and get it out of your system.
>sterile?
There's other members of a royal family
>ideals
Who says ideals need to stay stagnant? Some eras call for different ideals. There's also nothing stopping a monarch from appoint who his heir will be within the family.
>linear evolution of governments/politics is stupid
Epigenetic projection would say otherwise, a people’s organically formed government is a depiction of the masse’s inner genetic predispositions, making race its primal factor in degree of leadership and its qualities.
And, saying monarchy came from republicanism is just saying republicanism didn’t work as well so they decided to narrow commandership/loyalties to the governing state/kingdom. I would wager that that same sense of evolution would be found in monarchy evolving to a post industrial world to that of furherdom, military dictatorship.