Can one be Christian and far-right? Is it possible? Is it necessary?

I don't envy you explaining your support of infanticide before the Living God.

lol

Love God above all.
Love also your country and make sure it stays Christian.

Why are these 2 hard to understand?

But Codreanu and the legionaries.
While some see the main purpose in life the perpetuation of their race, others (like us) want the well being of their faith no matter the race or sex.

>b-ut they killed innocent (((jews))) and (((masons)))
Ever wondered why?

To all the leftists: Why should a nation defend itself when attacked with guns & swords and not do anything when attacked spiritually?

this guy sums it up

Attached: 3fede89e313f66490f5d92b8617a6e51ec776ecbbadec215c3644dd0c499a789.png (955x1065, 65.95K)

According to the authorities in the media and academia, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is "far right" which means that the vast majority of normal everyday people are "far right" so I guess I'm far right, too.

That's weird.
Ive seen way more threads going "guys, how do i reconcile *insert Zig Forums type belief here* with my christianity?" and the entire thread trying to reconcile that cognitive dissonance, than, i dont know, "is progressive taxation christian?" or whatever other random mainstream right-center/center/center-left subject gets debated nowadays.
Dont subordinate your faith to politics or economics.
The more you do that, the more youll find yourself surrounded by atheists, pagans and psychos that make their ideology their idol, and end up discarding their faith because it aint X enough("i hate christianity because it has semitic roots" "Jesus was wrong about donating to charity or helping others")
Yes, yes, you might show them the light, but the reverse is more likely.
As my people say, "dont swin in the bran, for the pigs will eat you"

You are christian before you are anything else.

How can you be Christian and not far right?

Attached: fagslose.png (617x366, 386.1K)

Being pro-life, pro-monogamy, pro-marriage, anti-faggotry, anti-atheist, creationist, believing in two genders: all considered "far right". Yes, it is a natural and necessay consequence of living a Christian life. The guy talking about immigration has his head up his arse, because the bible just says be kind to foreigners.

Maybe you should see it as a consequence of being "not of this world", and not lumping yourself with the Aryan Nation and the Nation of Islam.

Please don't use the terms far-right, left or center.
They were determined by the ungodly and have little to no actual meaning other than controlling discourse.

Time to study the bible and join a real church, instead of studying Marxist propaganda and posting on Zig Forums all day. You can change for the better…

Attached: 48096.jpg (1250x745, 97.96K)

Unironically this

The whole left vs right is a meme started by the (((French Revolution))) used to divide people.
aka democracy is a lie

Seriously guys.

Attached: b2689294c297b897d0e1fdba673259f740b86b7064c747a56db10b9d2bcfec46.jpg (415x454, 17.83K)

These anons have a point. The left and right are both sides to the same anti-authoritarian. If we lived back then, we should have supported no one in the French National Assembly, we should have supported the Monarchy. We are above left-right hogwash

Attached: bc3d94fca15eac6431e738938e3c49928abe3e346e6e638f4b57b2143c69a4ae.jpg (827x1138, 178.78K)

This reall belongs to the designated Zig Forums thread.
What do you mean with far right? to fascism?monarchy?

You should already know that the right-left paradigm is a meme, at least to us christians, the battle that we now face is bewteen nationalism and globalism. For example I support Assad despite him being a leftist and muslim because he was the only hope that syrians christians had.

If by far right do you mean fascism, then you should know that every fascism movement is different since most of them adapt organically to the conditions of their country and most of them didn't give a shit if they were right or left, they alwasy fought for what they believe was right.
I'm gonna give you an example, in my country (Chile) we had a national socialist movement during the thirties and they were very different from the german one since they put a lot of emphasis on catholic values, alhtough they saw race as important they didn't think it should be the priority of the country, another difference is that their economic views were very lefty also they were hugely anti-american since they saw the US as the perfect jewish puppet state and the eternal enemy of all southamerica. I can't really say they were right or left but they fought for what they believed was true.

Attached: Jorge_González_Von_Marées_color.jpg (1280x1168 88.78 KB, 520.26K)

What's wrong with Nationalism?

Nothing

Until recently I also thought xenophobia was just a meme used against people who care about their homeland, but the fact is it actually does exist. The neopagans are a good example, it's not hard to find many who intensely hate anything that is deemed 'foreign'. Aside from ignoring the European elements in Christianity, they also we-wuz the whole of human history into a battle of Whites vs non-Whites, which is not unlike what the Marxists did with class. They've even made posts against the evils of tropical fruit (because they don't grow natively in White countries). Try telling them about what Aquinas said concerning nation and family..
And they'll reply absurdly "noo!! but race is more important than God". If that's not xenophobia I don't know what is

Attached: 1404942394230.jpg (460x645, 44.14K)

As far as know the definition of xenophobia "is the fear of the other/the foreign" etymonline.com/word/xenophobia
What you just described sounds more like typical Zig Forums paranoia and extremism. Look i'm all for race realism and ethnonationalism but for me white supremacism was always a retarded idea if it was true then the european empires would have never died.

This guy obviously didn't grow up in Sweden. Not all countries are created equal, and not all deserve worship, not even by their native sons.

Ironically, monarchies back then were way less authoritarian than the modern republic. An absolute monarchy meant the king was absolutely responsible as well.
The more power we delegate to the leader, the less leaders we need and therefore, less corruptable and imposing the government shall be.

We either have one ruler who didn't choose to be there, a monarch, or many rules who want to be there for their own profit (not only monetary, kikes for example), which is oligarchy.
As Christians, who inherently oppose will to power and power for power's sake, we must be monarchists.
In the Bible, Goliath's only quality is that he has power to influence others through force and use it for his own gain. That story is also a representative of an atheist will to power mindset (oligarchic republic) vs a Christian one (sacred monarchy).
The current republic is completely analogous to Goliath. It's laws are not based in the Logos, they are based in its ability to coerce others through the use of force. It's titanic in the true sense of the word.

Attached: Modern_Byzantine_Sketch_-_Double_Headed_Eagle.jpg (476x543, 53.55K)

The way I see it, if what you're doing is good in God's eyes than it isn't a problem to hold your country in some esteem, but i wouldn't let it take priority over faith, since we're all Adams children at the end of the day, and only god can tell if an individual needs to be treated with hospitality or arms.

It's likely that he was just thinking of Catholic countries governed by monarchs. Heathen or secular countries wouldn't have the same Divine Right

Attached: 1416535646634.jpg (614x901, 519.63K)

Islam isn't pro-monogamy

I suppose the universe isn't going to tear itself apart, but remember we are loyal to God before anything else

Islam rips off a lot of Christian teaching so there's bound to be some similarities. Also the source of taking the positions listed is of no consequence to the resulting political alignment. Whether you believe a soul is imbued at conception or just don't want to kill white babies, both views are "anti-abortion" and therefore "right-wing".

Also I sincerely recommend you take a logic class to avoid

I agree with you. As a Christian in this rotten world you can only be far right. Tolerating evil is evil itself.

No it doesn't, it only implies loving your people first. That's what loving your neighbor means.

Attached: 1476228807974.png (480x335 430.64 KB, 98.5K)

...

Samaritans are Israelites.

How does that make any sense?

Attached: Horus_vs_The_Emperor.jpg (1600x1169, 504.33K)

Yes, who can forget the famous parable of the virtuous Samaritan man who left his family to starve in order to debase himself for foreigners?

Oh wait, the Samaritan literally did the bare minimum of decency and helped a man while not damaging his family or nation in any way.

The message of that parable is against indifference to suffering or needless cruelty, not in favor of indifference to the plight of your brother. I've never understood this insane and genocidal interpretation that it's good to literally sell out your children's future to benefit foreign ingrates, then again i'm not retarded or part of the satanic cult of human sacrifice to the god of progressivism.

I used to call myself 'alt right' before I fully understood their hypocrisies and the kind of alienated liberals that they were. You shouldn't associate yourself with any political group, but when asked; simply say that you're a conservative. Always put Christ first above all teachings of men.

I said the NATION OF ISLAM, not Islam.
You know, the insane black separatists, with Yakub, and all that?

Attached: Screenshot_4.png (714x373, 79.83K)

It doesn't.
It also doesn't make sense that democracies would be more corruptible even though the people are the ones that choose the leaders.
We should dump the evidence and go solo logos.

Attached: EKSDEE.png (658x415, 448.88K)

Congrats, your idea can either go spectacularly well, or turn into a complete dumpster fire.
Or both, given enough time.

Psalm 1:1
Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or set foot on the path of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers.

Psalm 31:6
I hate those who cling to worthless idols, but in the LORD I trust.

Psalm 139:21
Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD, and detest those who rise against You?

Are you then more righteous than King David? What of Jesus Christ who lashed out at the merchants in the Temple or who constantly rebuked and insulted the pharisees? Indeed we are to love but we are not to be complicit with sin and sinful men.

I support that statement so much as we hold back the wars initiated by the Jews. Though I hope you're not advocating we surrender our sovereignty to foreigners in order to avoid conflict.

Attached: You serious?.gif (255x234, 910.34K)

Fascism is built upon the truth, The truth of Natural law. Hail Christ! Hail the Kingdom! Hail the National leader!

Attached: 1493410238475.jpg (800x692, 139.23K)

Or maybe we should stop with our weird personal interpretations of the Bible and history, and actually look at how christians dealt with this stuff in the lives of the saints, instead of basing it off whatever unified conspiracy theory we pieced together?

Well all christians were far right until like maybe 150 years ago. Both racially and socially speaking.

Rule #1 do not let leftists define what 'hateful' is. Enough of this niceness and tolerance of evil is the same thing as being a good christian. It's never been that way it will never be.

Just so you know: you may disavow 'far' xenophobes. But oppose leftists on anything - migration, fags, abortion and you will be called far right anyway because leftists do not believe in big brained centrism. That's one thing they're right about. You either oppose them or you're one of them.

It makes basic sense.
The very structure of an oligarchy means swaying favors of your political comrades through corruption. When an oligarchy "chooses" a leader, he naturally will have to appease his funders and political friends.

Not only that, the more leaders we have the more faceless they become, which implies impunity.
Who is to blame for passing sodomite marriage in the US? Who is to blame for the thousands of delayed projects in US infrastructure?Absolutely no one, republics are faceless entities created so those who wish to corrupt themselves can hide behind it.
Even if created by good intentions, the corruptable who drool for power will naturally infiltrate it.

Impunity is impossible with an absolute ruler, because his absolute responsibility precedes his absolute power.
Furthermore, autocratic governments will focus more on core issues like taxes and military in the provinces rather than bickering with minor politicking like if the local university professor was racist. Naturally, he'd leave these minor matters to the local folk, such autocratic leader wouldn't be able to police minor speech laws even if he wanted to. That is simply administratively impossible.
That is only possible if we have a multiple layered government like the modern republics have.

Autocracy does not mean bigger government, as the (((school system))) parrots, it means fewer leaders, which means less politicking.

Your autocracy will inevitably devolve into a oligarchy in 2 weeks, given no one can rule alone, since they aren't the frikkin Minds from the Culture.

That's because people are retarded, and don't know what a civic culture is.

Yeah. Read that again. Slowly.

Because?

>Autocracy does not mean bigger government, as the (((school system))) parrots, it means fewer leaders, which means less politicking.
Then where are your super-efficient govs that cut through red-tape like a knife through butter, and shame our silly, inefficient memes about "checks and balances" and "not giving all the power to some random faggot, and hoping for the best" on this planet?

Christ's parable about "who is my neighbor" uses a winnie the pooh Samaritan as an example of who your neighbor is. Are you not reading your Bible on purpose?

Its funny because if you were looking at the world with less bias you'd notice that democracy is bringing none of the goods it tells us that it would be bringing and that's somehow twisted into "this means democracy is good because its everywhere"

Also just to make sure, you know what I mean by "Solo Logos", right?

And they never will that says more of human nature than any other thing, almost every democratic country has been subverted or infiltrated and those countries that had not usually have very authoritarian parties like Japan for example despite being a """democracy""" there's has been one party rule since the end of ww2 and they still maintain very feudalistic norms (most asian despite being politically modern they still maintain the costums and norms of their feudalistic days)

And you are missing my point.
Checks and balances aren't there to make it super efficient if it all works wonderfully together, it's to limit damage if it doesn't.
That's the reason i put that pic from 40k there.
For those that know warhammer lore, the imperium is a fractured byzantine mess that kept marines, army and navy divided in small numbers so there won't be another Horus Heresy.
I'm no "spreading freedom and democracy" fag, but if it's so wonderful and efficient, but you can't give any example of it's success in 21th century Earth, it's the fascist equivalent of the "communism has never been tried" meme.

Not really.
Humans just mask their apathetism with "i can't change shit, so ill be lazy", despite the fact that all the problems that we have now have been fought against before(see the Church Committee stopping the secret services from being a monitoring police state, just like we bitch about the NSA being today)
And yet Switzerland hasn't had an abrupt regime change or gov shutdown in over 200 years.
Yes, yes, they are mountain jew, but still.
A healthy democracy is stable.

That's entirely arbitrary and untrue, and you know why but you are merely pretending. Monarchy literally has been tried before and it didn't come crashing down.
To add to the insult of this post,
This is far closer to to "communism has never been tried", it contains a blatant disregard of reality and comes out of nowhere. A big meme created by a isolated mind on some ivory tower, it can't be a actual reflection of reality and doesn't bother asking reality for its opinion.

Also, allow me to assume for a bit, If I'm right you're someone form earlier on:
If you don't want Christians to identify as "right wing" or "authoritarian" you should say your honest reasons as to why you think that instead of having the argument we're having now.

Democracy is making idols out of the enlightenment thinkrs tbh

Not the same, I'm afraid. Good try though user

Attached: true fax.png (500x300, 49.01K)

Christianity is a religion of objective truth. Objectivity leads to far right ideas. True far rightism springs forth from Christianity. Cucked "Christians" are just people who haven't looked very deep into their faith. How many people who love repeating Mark 12:31 and twisting it to justify tolerating an invasion are even aware of 1 Timothy 5:8?

Samaritans were Israelites, just like Slavs are to whites. He didn't put himself or his fellow men in danger by doing what he did.

I'm gonna go with no. Being far right actively discourages compassion and charity towards those who are not "your own" just because they're at the expense of "your own".

Why are you shoehorning modern racialist memes into 1st century Holy Land?
Second temple judaism and samaritans hated each other viscerally.
Each considered each other massive heretics, that mutilated the faith to their own ends(remember when Jesus got slandered as a samaritan in John 8:48?), formed a illegitimate hierarchy, had corrupt traditions of men, and were constantly trying to screw the other group.
They were at each other's throats.

Ironically, the closest analogue for us would be a jew.
THAT'S THE POINT OF THE PARABLE!

see

Possible? Yes, but not easy without falling into some sins of pride and wrath, from what I lived through and from what I've seen.
Necessary? no, you can be a moderate in politics yet be an "extremist" in the faith given to you by God. Too often the far-right ends up upholding some form of eugenics or complete disdain for all migrants…again, not always, but I saw many who called themselves "Christians" holding far right views who slowly ended up approving of abortion for minorities "control" and such things. If you are able to subdue and bend that political stand to uphold good Christian values and the traditions of the Church, yes, nothing wrong there; but too often those ideologies start to poison the well of the faith…so I'd keep Matthew 10:16 in mind at all times, for we are fighting in this world but not for this world in the first place.
On the so called "far right" ideologies themselves (which are still a spawn of Hegel and rebel children of Socialism in too many cases): nazism is a big no no, due to its push for eugenics; fascism, and especially falangism and the iron guard visions are maybe easier to mold to adhere to the fullest of the true faith, in my humble opinion.

Often that…this is why I started with Evola, then found God and slowly moved away from my mystic fascist positions. I mean…I do believe it is possible to be a true traditionalist right-wing person who places God above everything and then takes what he knows is acceptable for God from such worldly currents and political views, but it's a difficult and perilous journey and most of us would fall into justifying anti-Christian values for a man-made ideology.

In the kingdom of heaven, we don't have much say in how God conducts his affairs, we can influence him through petitions and prayers, but the truth is ultimately him. He is the KING, our head – what he determines is best for us, that is the truth that is best for us, therefor he corresponds more to the far right than center or left.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, therefor, why should we not be monarchists? If we want the monarchy of heaven, then we should give a monarchy on earth to God. Therefor we should have kings that are held hostage to God, kings that are TERRIFIED of his power whom give their hearts and minds in total submission to him.

Most monarchists I known tend to be hardcore traditionalists and conservatives and I see these ones as the most ideal Christians as they are very hard to dislodge in their fanatical beliefs to the almighty. So Yes, IMO the far-right has a better idea of Christianity, at the very least the center-right, but the center? No, the left? LOL.

Perhaps when Ecclesiastes says the heart of the fool inclines to the left, and the heart of the wise to the right perhaps that was a prophecy of a political pendulum? Who knows.

How do you manage to both support monarchy, and the political alignment that resulted from openly rejecting it is beyond me.
I don't think Solomon was foretelling the placement of chairs in some meme republic in Gaul with that.
It's just how middle-easteners described importance.
Unless Jesus ascended to Heaven at the right side of God to become the senator of planet Earth.

Attached: wwjd-what-would-republican-jesus-do-what-would-communist-jesus-22138333.png (500x408, 88K)

It might be a hard pill to swallow but Christianity is a complete, but different, right wing ideology and religion, the rules are clear. Do not yoke with people different than you including other Christians who aren't the same race or denomination, only socialists and liberals would be against this. Opposites do not attract and it's not what God intended, period.

I would argue that leftism encourages 'charity and compassion' towards anyone but your own. Take a look at Western Europe. Where's the love for their own people? Where's the compassion? That's the plague of our time…leftists destroying the language.
I'll put it this way. just because lefties and based centrists claim something is 'hate' that does not make it so. If you're far right you support every nation's right to preserve their culture - in their own country. Multiculturalism always leads to conflict. Like it or not it simply does not work. It has never worked, it never will - refer to tower of Babel. Being a nationalist does not make one hate others. It just means you want to preserve what's yours. Explain how that is hateful towards others. They're welcome to do the same on their own soil. Is it not what God wants? Each nation pursuing its goal - salvation of its people, living in peace.
Everything the left comes up with:
I'll point out the last thing: Christ is the Logos, the natural order. Nations were created by God, we're not the same. Therefore nationalism is not a social construct as leftists claim. Instead the whole leftism is a garbage built upon social construct and since it opposes the Logos, that is the natural order - it will eventually fail because the whole worldview is built upon lies.
If we presented leftist ideas of what christianity is(muh live and let live) to monarchs from middle ages, saints they would laugh at us.
Did they know something we don't??

Bolshevism is one of the most anti-christian ideology this world has ever seen.
Go shill somewhere else with your bs 'memes'

...

Of course.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (533x794 26.35 KB, 58.16K)

It depends on what you mean by "far-right" OP, do you want to play the game of left right dichotomies? Christ isn't "far right" because he doesn't play the games meant to control people. Christ is sovereign. If you adhere to the false paradigms of left and right, you've already lost the game. And to take away any potential confusion in my meaning, I'm a fascist.

So why would you want to be far right? Is it an identity thing? If you're identifying with an ideology, and I assume you're looking for an appeal as to why you should be able to while at the same time being a Christian, then you have it backwards. There is no left or right. There's only superior or inferior. Ideology is only a tool in which ones ends are met. A leftist can be a "fascist" for example because fascism isn't an ideology. Fascism is truth. I don't mean that in a "My belief system is truth because it's my belief system." Kind of way, because I don't use ideology to assign value or purpose to myself. I only know the truth, and the truth is found in Christ, and truth is found in nature. If you assign yourself to the paradigms of left or right, then you are risking "untruth". When you decide to identify with a "side", it means that you are willing to compromise one idea for the sake of maintaining your own narrative, whether it's truth or not.

Truth is entirely sovereign. You can't change the position of the stars or the direction of the tides, or what a bear eats for dinner just because you would like to believe it to be so. Maybe you would like the universe to function a different way, maybe your vision of how nature should behave is more ideal to you , but if you believe anything outside of the natural order, you are in fact, lying. So the question "Can one be Christian and far right" is actually the wrong question. The question should be "What is the truth so I can believe in it?"

Would it then be unjust for the lion to feed on the gazelle? Or should the gazelle feed on the lion so it can be fair? Perhaps one would like to believe that the gazelle should feast on the lion every now and then, but this is not the truth of nature. Even if you don't like the idea of the lion always feeding on the gazelle, it will always be so, and you should embrace that, because the laws that apply to the lion and the gazelle also apply to you, your people and Christ. Ideology is what happens when man decides it's okay for the lion to feed on the gazelle because it's a simple truth of the universe out of your control, yet make up your own "truths" of what should apply to you instead. Everyone plays by the rules of fascism at one point or another. It is inevitable. The US election was not a battle of the greater good because good doesn't always win. The person who employed the superior strategy won in the end, despite what was right or wrong. I'm not implying that there is no right or wrong, but if your methods of enforcing goodness are inferior, then your good will lose. Your good will be dominated by the superior methods employed against you. In a low stakes interaction, we might refrain from employing these tactics. In a regular social situation, this might be unnecessary, but when your race, your nation, your tribe, your people, the future for your children, your culture, your religion is at stake– what you do not do, your enemy will, and you will lose.

If evolution is true and God is true (for example) do they contradict each other? Or do they actually compliment each other in a way that you didn't previously recognize?

God is truth, nature is truth, fascism is applied truth. When truth is applied, wherein lies the struggle of falsehood? There cannot be such a struggle if everyone follows truth. What is more noble? Fighting for an idea? Or fighting for your people?

Hateful against what? People? Or evil? You can hate evil. Wrath is sometimes valid when it's directed at injustice. This is what justice is. A cancer that's allowed to fester requires more and more drastic measures to remove it.

I'm tired of this lie that you have to put God first. You have it backwards. It's not a list. God doesn't lie outside of your priorities. It's God in nation. God in family, God in your life. Not before it.

If someone were threatening your family's life and you had a gun, what would you do? If someone were threatening your people and you had a gun, what would you do?

This

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 163.76K)

God is capital t Truth, therefore His Church conserves Truth in everything She does. As pointed out in other writings as such, men corrupt the truth and make it their ideology. Same goes for you. Fascism is not Truth, it's "truth". It's your particular ideology that you're trying to disguise as something else than ideology - in the best case. In the worst case it's just some kind of politically influenced gnosticism, condemned for a good reason.
The noblest thing is to do God's will, not yours.

Yeah, maybe "Gulag the Kulak" and "bash the fash" should have tipped you about how retarded it is.
Or the entire pic should have hinted that identifying Jesus with an ideology is mutilating and degrading Him.

So, in conclusion, die-hard fascism and social liberalism are 2 sides of the same shit-covered coin, that distort human brotherhood into abominations.
Screw them both, and let them rot.

So the left didn't get feel any compassion or outrage when that tower in london burned up because it was white people? Or when the terrorist attacks took place in France and Germany? I'll say this as someone who's on the left and with family all across the planet, maybe some insane pseudo-left whackjobs who spent a little too much time with a hair buzzer didn't but I know for a fact I did, as did most of the people on the left that I knew. And this was before I became a christian. Just because it's not exclusive to "your own" doesn't mean it's not there. If anything it's expanding the idea of "your own", which by the way makes absolutely no sense for someone like me, who has ancestry all over the world, to the rest of mankind.
And what happens when someone else actively destabilises and almost completely destroys their country, like the west has since WW1.
Really? Worked in Istanbul just fine for most its history. I saw it first hand at Gezi Park. Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Italians, Brits, Germans, Russians, Muslims, Christians, what few Jews live in the city, Atheists, Communists, liberals, Socialists, Centrists, Republicans, everyone was sitting behind the barricade and being shelled with tear gas. Something tells me the issue is not multiculturalism.
Western Nationalism has shown time and again it's not willing to allow that to happen. Pursuing your own nations interests almost inevitably leads to the expense of another's. Which usually leads to war.
I'm not interested in what the ancient monarchs had to say. They don't live in our world nor we theirs. These were the same people who were overjoyed to commit acts of genocide against other nations, for their own nationalist interests. The idea behind studying history is to learn from it, not copy it wholesale.

TL;DR

Nope, you just dont understand because you dont want to understand.

You cant corrupt truth. You agree with me, you just think I'm hiding something, which I'm not

Literally what? It's the exact opposite of gnosticism, it's literally embracing what's in front of you how God created it instead of adding some mystic flare to natural phenomena like the moon. Did my usage of the word "nature" and my talk about the alignment of the stars give off some astrological dancing-naked-around-a-campfire vibe to you or something youd conjure up as a knee jerk reaction to perfectly normal language? You agree with me, you just think I'm trying to mislead you or are somehow decieved. Get off your throne.

Yes. I couldn't have spelled this out for you better but since you want to be obtuse I'll do it again.
If everyone embraces truth there cannot be falsehood. Instead of truth being made up (which you're accusing me of and which I'm not doing because you cant make up reality, which I thoroughly explained) it becomes organic.

I never disputed that, you wish I did though. You'd hate for me to be on your side. Gods will is that all men receive salvation through Christ Jesus, it's also his will for his people not to suffer, it's also his will that his people prosper. You can deduce this by his nature of goodness alone.

Which throne ? I know very well where your line of argumentation will end and I wholly reject it - as does the Gospel and naturally the Church.

Look at the lives of the saints.
It's what the romans accused us of, and what we did when we had to choose.

“For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life…” “…They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.” “…To sum up all in one word–what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world.

Not necessarily.
Though realpolitik usually means it's advantageous to be a dick, you can have a international policy that strikes a balance between the 2.

Attached: Screenshot_9.png (904x95, 13.51K)

Yeah, no.
The ancients didnt believe in this bullshit.

Your throne that excuses you from having to make an argument other than "I'm right because I am and if you disagree it doesn't matter to me because I'm inherently correct by default anyway."
You have no basis for rejecting any of my statements

Prove it. You haven't proven anything thus far.

I never said one man can. I'm not an autist who thinks if 2 people rule together it is no longer an autocracy. Don't think in black and white. The difference is in the number of members and in an autocracy there is an over arching non chosen force that rules all. The autocrat. Much like the Logos. No one chose Him nor did any man chose what is morally correct, to claim otherwise is literally satanism. (Note, I'm not saying there is no free will, I'm saying no man chose the laws of nature and Logos established by Jesus Christ, God the Word).
I'm making the point that the ruler can not be chosen otherwise it will be chosen by kikes, satanists and nepotists. But I repeat myself.

And you don't know what blame is. You can't punish a culture, that is why, as I said, oligarchies are blameless and unpunishable.
This also adresses
Because the autocrat, an actual being with a face and a neck that bleeds can be punished instead of a "culture". Many kings and dictators have been deposed by the people various times in history and the folk survived, albeit they suffered, they survived and another autocrat took reign from there. When an oligarchy (mainly plutocrats) collapsed, it was a total economic and/or military meltdown that was devastating for the common folk. Since the oligarchy is the rule of money, its fall can not go otherwise. Much like the fall of carthage, the merchant republic of venice and novgorod, the late western roman empire and even the future US, I speculate.
An autocrat actually has responsibility unlike oligarchs since oligarchs are devoided from punishment. Much like you said, in an oligarchy the punishment is passed to an invisible and unpunishable idea that is civic culture.
Cultures can not be punished.

No need to be smug about it, write directly at me. I know autocracies are subjected to infiltration. I'm simply saying they are less so than oligarchies.
Again, I'm not autistic so I don't think there is such thing as an incorruptable government. That doesn't mean advocating stronger government types is not valid.

The government I'm defending is not effective at all. It works with the unffectiveness of the autocrat, leaving it with no choice of either creating an oligarchy to manage things (western roman empire) or delegating more power to local folk and authority (themas in the eastern roman empire and I'd say to some extent, in the pre-Soviet Russian Empire).
Again, the autocrat is only there to collect the military and taxes. Nothing else. He can't do anything else due to administrative impossibility, which leaves public life like home defense (ownership of arms, the mark of a free man in the ancient and medieval world), speech laws, marriage laws and I would go so far as to say education (home schooling) and religion to the folk and to the church in complete Symphonia according to the Orthodox view.
That symphonia is what ultimately must happen to not spiral into secular oligarchy and so what I'm advocating on can resurge. That is what most kingdoms, to varying degrees, had before the enlightenment.
And it is not technology the main difference between us, as some people like Kaczynski claim, but religiosity.

If you want a modern example, I think the Orthodox Kikes in the US and Israel are what I defend. They themselves care for schooling, religion and farming. Therefore forming autarkic pockets in the greater government that is the Talmudic state of the West Bank (usurper of the term Israel). Much like a terrorist cell, if one of those pockets dies out, the others still survive.
The only difference is that I want a simpler government on top that is not nepotistic and that is accountable for its mistakes.

Attached: democracy revolutionaries.jpg (790x800, 127.09K)

And the guy that got on top was usually some invading warlord that settled in.
Not exactly Plato's philosopher-king.

Of course you can.
It's usually self-punishment until they learn, though(asian countries generating societal tensions due to selective abortion, for example).

You went from autocrat to a fisher-king, or some sumerian monarch that gets murdered for suffering shitty crops.

Which usually were decent, but pretty corrupt and got overtaken long-term(Russia losing to Japan, byzantine corruption, "the sick man of Europe", etc.)

So, his hands are tied, he can't do shit, he is forced to give away all his power to local administration one way or another, but if something goes bad, he's 100% guilty for everything.

Attached: 636494670473301841-20-puppies-in-car-1-.png (1080x565, 841.88K)

wrong pic

Attached: 0 vECOtFflJ4mX_r_C.jpeg (800x600, 85.92K)

He was a Catholic who sided with the kikes and committed some petty war crimes against muslims thus earning himself the hatred of the entire country. At the first sign of trouble he was dropped like a hot potato by both the kikes and the Catholic West.
The same happened to Syrian Christians in the current Syrian civil war, they were being killed by Western-armed Al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda branches, while at the same being denied any help from their "Christian brothers" in the West. The Syrian Orthodox Patriarch went on a diplomatic mission to the EU and he was told he won't get any support until he distances himself from Assad, to which he replied "But he's the only one protecting Syrian Christians, everyone else wants to kill us". Suffice to say, Western politicians weren't interested in that.

I have a message for all Middle-Eastern Christians: You will only ever find friends in Russia. Become Orthodox.

Attached: 00-1c-trip-to-syria-11-11-kirill1-868x622.jpg (868x622, 85.05K)

Well, if settling in means protecting the folk from invading forces and making his will by the use of his army, that is the definition of every government ever.

Still, you're punishing the folk and not the culture. Yes, the folk is somewhat responsible for having bad leaders but the leader ought to be punished severely.
Not as a scapegoat because the rain season was a bit too long that year, but because he started a war he couldn't win or acted in malicious intent.
That's a very just alternative, much more than letting the people suffer because some kike lied about the holocaust to them and now they import their ethnic replacement under prelest.

No, the military and taxation is subordinate to the king, as they have been in every single Monarchy until the enlightenment. The only power that is given to the peasants is that which doesn't go against the collection of money and manpower. As every Monarchy prior to the enlightenment has ever done. And the pockets of autoomy are loyal to the king who guarantees such freedom under his army.
Such autonomy is mainly of schooling, baking a cake for the local degenerate or not and if you wish to tell a joke the government dislikes. That is certainly illegal in the average modern and "democratic" state.

At least they got long term. Again, good governments don't mean perfect.
The Russian Empire got hijacked by kikes and atheists (but I repeat myself).

Those examples are all of economic crisis. But some instead of being replaced by similar forms of government, as it happened many times prior to the "death of God", it was replaced by those who disconnected from God. For such was the ambient at the time, as the replacing government is always a product of the era.
That is why religiosity is key, when that is high, the system fell unto pockets of autarky under a despot with most of the taxes and army.
I'm not saying that is by default, but that is what history shows.

I have read a theory it's because Christ has two wills under harmony. With the transcendental will being the King and the wordly one being the folk. But I think that's an argument for it and not a justification as to why it is so.

Yes.

Attached: IMG_4166.PNG (1280x853, 78.35K)

Hoothoothoot

Attached: download (6).jpeg (225x225, 8.93K)

Given that being far-right these days just means supporting things like:

Gender realism

Sexual morality/opposing sexual immorality

Opposing drug abuse

Opposing abortion

Supporting law and order

extending basic human dignity to White people

and believing that non-white people have moral agency.

I would say that to truly be a Christian today you would have to be "far-right".

Attached: DNKgbLdV4AAMXOS.jpg large.jpg (1025x1186, 180.45K)

ALL CHRISTIANS ARE FAR RIGHT

Attached: 2616ae96ff58e6ab8b92467dcf54a040297ba1bb1da53adc4cb27fa5d3259aad.jpg (850x400, 55.91K)

You say that like it’s a daunting task. David was an overall good man. But he had a lot of faults (adultery, murder, warmongering to the point where God forbade him to build the 1st temple). David is not the standard; Jesus is.

Rebuking and chastising people is not the same thing as hatred. Please repent of the hatred in your heart.

For almost 2000 years Christians were racist and antisemitic until the jews recently infiltrated the churches. So I would say Christianity in its pure natural form is far right.

That's not true.
In the almighty Byzantine Empire and the to be retaken Constantinople jews had more rights than pagans/heretics even in about 300ad.
Theodosius loved them so much they let them be excempt from circumcision bans and co, and even a few hundred years later when it became a tad more antisemitic they were still allowed to keep synagogues and co, just not make any new ones.

The jew has been walking alongside Christianity since day one, I'm afraid.
There was never a golden age of antisemitic Christianity and they were only ever "evicted" because the Christian leaders and monarchs let them stay for so long in the first place that they ruined too much for the common plebs to even take anymore, and the common pleb was the one who converted to Christianity and co in the first place because they were subject to the rulers.
That's how awful things were.

For most of the old world, he WAS the invading force!
Eventually, the germanic/steppe chieftain starts two-way cultural osmosis with his subjects, and becomes somewhat similar to the conquered people, after hundreds of years.

Because God forbid the people suffer for their own winnie the pooh-ups.
That's complicated.
Someone we can wash our hands of, and then stab in anger is much better.

Modern democracies have been doing stuff roughly uninterrupted for hundreds of years now.

Ah, yes, and that truly was a golden age, not a winnie the poohed up warlord era that popular history is always glad is over.

Attached: 1510664631610.jpg (997x685, 101.15K)

Whatever happened to just being a good person?

Attached: c85d697099f907a65484be97be213af47434d20e6801305400f2c3d27a667ae0.gif (255x173, 2.39M)