Why can't we just be conservatives instead of semi-fascist absolute monarchists? Monarchies were great...

Of course. It is much better to be occupied by muslims than to be occupied by leftists. Leftists want to destroy all our values, while muslims cherrypick the values they like in us. Leftist values are therefore the exact opposite of traditional european values, and muslim values are somewhere in between.

They have done so much more than anyone here on this board when it comes to upholding christian values in society. Why do you think leftists spend all their time trying to take down these guys instead of the occasional neo-reactionary nutjob? It's because they know that conservatives pose the biggest threat to their demonic plans.

We should be National Socialists

The kingdom of our Lord is not of this world. We should fight for him by the preaching of the gospel. It's one thing to legislate morals, it's another thing to plant morality in someone's heart, which God alone can do.

Yes, but I'm afraid this may be impossible within worldly parameters.

Attached: Healing_of_a_bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg (2448x3264, 1.13M)

If they are, they're not doing it well. Conservatism is a hapless anchor dragged behind the ship of Progress.

You mean the Masono-Illumist experiment called "America"? Or the banker-owned Westminster?

Pic related.
There is no such thing as a political solution.

Attached: obama aipac.jpg (766x432 66.34 KB, 76.33K)

National Socialists put Nation above God.

Opinion discarded, pagan scum.

*tips tinfoil hat*

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1981-075-01,_"Verein_Lebensborn",_Taufe.jpg (800x777, 69.24K)

No.

Yeah, they do. If you remind NatSocs of Galatians 3:28, then they have apoplectic fits where they're literally shaking with rage because the Bible, the holy word of God, creator of all nations, goes against their personal narrative.

National Socialism is antithetical to Christianity.

Conservatives haven't conserved a single thing in the history of mankind. Conservatism is the political philosophy of either losing "gracefully", or ragequitting and taking your toys home and crying about how uncivil the other kids are. Conservatism is for losers. It is the philosophy of losers.

What do you think Galatians 3:28 means?

Greetings, new friend. I hope you come to enjoy this board. I do want to take some time to inform you that we have a political containment thread here. I would suggest you target posts along these lines in that thread when you next feel the need to post.

In answer to your query, if Western conservatism was in the configuration it was some 40-60 years ago, I rather doubt you'd even need to ask the question, there was more than enough crossover between both traditional Christianity and that outlook at that time. However, since the late 1990s the situation has degraded significantly. For example, Pat Buchanan used to be a massive force in the early 90s, and is now a bit of a fringe figure. Most conservative movements have bowed to left-wing social pressures since then, and as a result the kinds of people you'd see in the 70s or 80s aren't there any more. Really most center-right parties would have been largely considered center-left back during the same period.

This is, to tie it back into the faith, the same problem has happened in Western Christianity in large part as well. You've seen, with the recent excitement over the American Supreme Court, both the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and one or two larger evangelical groups (which in the United States seem to be ecumenical associations of not only the larger Protestant faction, but also the OCA - the Eastern church - participates). In effect the man who was in the running for the court, who seems to be inoffensive overall, was blasted by all three of the main sections of the Trinitarian movement. Since the 1960s western clergy have also become progressively, well, progressive and this is now starting to become more apparent. You've seen similar friction with churches in Europe vs AfD and the new Italian government, so this is hardly localized.

As a result, you can look at the overarching nationalist platform and see that (very oddly) most Christian participation in it is from the laity who have been largely abandoned by their church. Religious officials want nothing to do with it, for whatever reason; I'm sure it varies between organizations. Furthermore, there's a lot more non-theists involved in this most recent re-invigoration of traditionalism in the West, probably in large part due to this conflict. In the side issue with actual fascists, non- and anti-theism/Christianity is even more pronounced. And overall there is still the pressing issue of the divorce between remaining traditional conservative politicians (many of whom have little supernatural moral conviction on top of their scarcity), and faith organizations that promote over leftism despite many clear incompatibilities that liberalism has with just the Bible itself (forget traditions!).

Many anons here say, that voting won't solve the issue. This is overall correct, but not because of their authoritarian impulses. Rather, on the secular end you have weak and unfaithful men, and on the religious end they are in many cases wicked and hypocritical. Imagine the last days of the Roman Empire mixed with the situation in Judea 2000 years ago, and you'll find that both could describe what we are seeing here quite nicely. The moral/spiritual center, and additionally the secular organizational center of Western society are both completely disordered.

What will solve the situation, is probably war of some kind. While I don't want that to occur, pressures are building up that will eventually force that hand. What release bursts first, that remains to be seen. I lean towards some event with China, but there's half a dozen other things that are not unlikely either. Once the smoke clears, we will no longer be in a recognizable landscape, for better or worse.

I don't recall the section of the Bible where it is suggested we either live in a state of anarchy until the last days, nor one where one may only be governed by (effectively) non-Christians. Non-participation in organizational affairs seems ill-advised…

Attached: 6e1fdde644b3cd0766fde0f349b018c02bc62db9b8f24d0110b9dfe10d794639.jpg (750x1039, 879.5K)

Throwing out christian practices and reinstating them with northern European pagan practices is indeed pagan. People caring about multinational corporations have a life outside that as well, national socialists do not, as it is an ideology like objectivism. It touches upon every aspect of human life, therefore it is not just a political ideology, it is a religion as well.

...

It means exactly what it says. It means that poor black man is equal to your pasty whiteness. We are all one in Christ. If any part of you believes that your skin is better than another's, then you are NOT Christian.

Why do you focus on skin? You worship an idol of equality. There are things further down than skin.

Believing all of us having an eternal soul /= not being able to account for physiological differences in different ethnic groups
It has nothing to do with superiority, it has to do with how well different races mix in a single society, and it almost always ends in ruin when they do mix.

You're wrong on all counts. Monarchies can be restored, and neo-cons are not their successors. Francisco Franco did nothing wrong. In general, though, Fascism isn't always Christian.
Franco > Rivera

Conservatives frame their beliefs in respect to their opponent. In the west, conservatives are slightly less extreme liberals. Plus 99% of them are atheists who are paid out by judeo-masonry. They pretend to be in favour of Christian morality because it gets them votes. They pander and lie, it's whay democratic politicians do.

The only hope is complete revolution of the system (towards either monarchy or fascism, both are good tbh). However that's not going to happen so the best thing to do is seclude yourself and as many fellow Christians from the outside world and pray the end times comes soon

If you think some "tigger" is less than you or some "spic" jumping over a wall … that is what NatSocs believe. That their white skin, that their "born in a specific dirt pile" believes. You will never understand what Christ teaches us. It does not matter what dirt you're born in and it does not matter how much melanin your skin has. Christ loves ALL of us.

We ALL have an eternal soul. No matter what skin we're born in. No matter what ethnicity we are saddled with. "tiggers" have the same soul. If you can't handle that, then you're not Christian. There is no superiority. We are ALL ONE IN CHRIST. If you can't handle that, then you are hell bound..

Oh, I am blinded by the great "no u"! I am truly enlightened! I was blind and now I see!
No, tell me what makes "conservatives" and "liberals" that different in their functionality.

Praying to accelerate things to a destructive state because the world is terrible (which has been for the last 2000 years) sounds an awful lot like "putting God to the test" to me, and also a tacit desire to see souls damned out of the Deadly Sin of Wrath.

The end will happen when it happens, and be certain on that alone.

Only if there are proper bloodlines to restore. Furthermore, looking at the state of…say, the still-extant royalty of England and the Netherlands, I wouldn't trust them with a paperclip let alone the power of life and death.

Mate, I regret that I have to repeat this. None of my original statement contradicted what you're saying.
We all have an eternal soul.
We're all different physically.
How do these two statements contradict each other? They don't.
It's clear the human races are distinct and that each have their own unique traits.
This comes in no contradiction to the fact that, although humanity is physically diverse and has significantly distinct groups, we all have eternal souls and are all brothers in Christ.

One mo' 'gain.
Physically, we're different.
Spiritually, we're the same.
You understand Galatians 3:28 signifies that we are all men and, in being so, we all possess eternal souls worthy of judgement, and that we should treat each other as such.
Nobody here is implying racial superiority or hatred to other races.

Natsoc only inherently implies that races are distinct, and that any sovereign government should take that fact into account when allocating resources.
Natsoc doesn't inherently imply hatred on the basis of race.

Attached: spedepasanen.jpg (600x683, 32.3K)

In many cases, there are existing bloodlines.

There might be cases, but even in that case, what would you do with those nations that did not?

I vote traditionalist conservative. I am not giving up, though. I still believe in absolute monarchies and nothing will change that. Based on scripture, you cannot come to any conclusion realistically other than anarchy or monarchy. Every other form of government fails. Liberal democracy is nice, but you need Christian values for it to even exist. And over time it erodes Christian values so that it is self-defeating. Conservatives are believers in liberal democracy as much as any "liberal" and any attempt they make at legislating morality backfires because they don't understand that morality has to come from the people. It can't be legislated.

...

I don't see that word there.
All I see is "one in Jesus Christ".
One, as in UNITED. You can unite unequal parts, you know.
God who is infinite and eternal is seeking union with us mortal men, who are finite. And it's not impossible.
Equality is a false god.

We have a sticky politics thread.

As others rightly have pointed out, you are injecting modernist secular propaganda into the verse, and you're not being very subtle about it.

In the United States, conservative vs liberal is essentially choosing the lesser of both evils. "conservativism" tends to be pretty inconsistent and wishy washy, but I'll work with anyone towards the goal of fighting abortion, gay marriage rights, and cultural decadence. A lot of conservatives are good people, but conservatism is pretty empty ideologically especially when it's end goal is freedom instead of the rightful kingship of the lord Jesus Christ and natural law

Did i say neocons? Reagan and Thatcher Are the antitheses of neocons. Not to mention William Buckley, who was a big proponent of true American conservatism, regulary attended latin masses.

Read 1 Samuel 8. God’s ideal state is a theocracy run by God Himself through priests. That won’t happen until the Second Coming, concidering how 1.Protestants follow whatever paradigm is going on 2.Catholics just wanna be (((accepted))), and 3. Orthodox are duty bound to follow whatever the state decrees as long as it doesn’t technically go against church doctrine, which is apolitical. Until then, deal with what you have.

I would rather not want some LARPagans with a fetish for Hugo Boss clothing to be running our country, thank you. Fascism might seem good on paper, but eventually the church does something the state poopoos and they get driven underground (Juche is basically a Korean version of Hitlerism, and we all know how the Church is faring there)

Attached: 8665E1F1-DEB9-4100-B1A2-FB91DB07CECA.jpeg (338x900, 140.16K)

You are quite right now that I think about it, but I still think that Christians going even further to the right than the mainstream conservatives is a bad thing, as the only way conservatism can uphold Christian values is that Christians hold high positions within mainstream conservatism.

Even Reagan and thatcher are looked upon as too right-wing when it comes to these so-called Christian Democrats in Europe. The only way we can reverse this, is to assert ourselves as the only conservatives with integrity.