Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[Geilinor]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

If you're a libertarian, how are you a reactionary? How can you be a European nationalist but want Celtic people to separate?

[Chinese Peoples]

Because that's the deeper meaning of pederasty in those ages. It means (amongst others) that a married man is depriving his wife of the pleasures of his company, and a chance at free love, towards either sex, for the youngster, and I am sure that such an institution that grants sexual monopoly for the older man over the youngster will still not be acceptable today.

Then please say why they suddenly and randomly, without any internal dialogue or dispute, came to a new meaning without any clear evolution on it.

The entire Old Testament is but an illusion, since it is only "a shadow of the good things to come".

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

Huh, low blowing someone based on their beliefs... That is pretty low, regardless of how dumb you think it is... But we all got to make ourselves feel better somehow, right?

Wait, hold up - so, pointing out blatant hypocrisy is the dishonorable, below-the-belt, self-aggrandizing act now?

What major ethical and cultural shift did I fucking miss?

[United Marxist Nations]

Then please say why they suddenly and randomly, without any internal dialogue or dispute, came to a new meaning without any clear evolution on it.

The entire Old Testament is but an illusion, since it is only "a shadow of the good things to come".

U wot m8? Are you seriously implying that the OT has no meaning whatsoever.

[Chinese Peoples]

The entire Old Testament is but an illusion, since it is only "a shadow of the good things to come".

U wot m8? Are you seriously implying that the OT has no meaning whatsoever.

To us, it serves as a historical record of how people perceived their relationship with their God.

[Germanic Templars]

Huh, low blowing someone based on their beliefs... That is pretty low, regardless of how dumb you think it is... But we all got to make ourselves feel better somehow, right?

Wait, hold up - so, pointing out blatant hypocrisy is the dishonorable, below-the-belt, self-aggrandizing act now?

What major ethical and cultural shift did I fucking miss?

Regardless, chap, of whether if it is hypocrisy, calling it out like that is just down right wrong. There are better ways of going about it.

[The Grey Wolf]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

Except there is. Which is why theocracies are confined to poor and corrupt regions, while more educated countries tend to be secular.

[United Marxist Nations]

U wot m8? Are you seriously implying that the OT has no meaning whatsoever.

To us, it serves as a historical record of how people perceived their relationship with their God.

Yes, but the words it contains still have meaning, and there are statements of religious fact within, including declarations of what is sinful.

[Liberaxia]

Wait, hold up - so, pointing out blatant hypocrisy is the dishonorable, below-the-belt, self-aggrandizing act now?

What major ethical and cultural shift did I fucking miss?

Regardless, chap, of whether if it is hypocrisy, calling it out like that is just down right wrong. There are better ways of going about it.

What I said was very mild.

[Chinese Peoples]

To us, it serves as a historical record of how people perceived their relationship with their God.

Yes, but the words it contains still have meaning, and there are statements of religious fact within, including declarations of what is sinful.

No. It consists of what was believed to be sinful, by the Jews, at that time. All those parameters have been superseded by the NT.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, but the words it contains still have meaning, and there are statements of religious fact within, including declarations of what is sinful.

No. It consists of what was believed to be sinful at that time. Religion is never fact, it is belief.

It is unchanging. Human beliefs regarding what is and is not sinful have no bearing. That is, and always has been Church teachings, across the board. That is why the Church maintains ancient traditions, because "what was, still is."

[Liberaxia]

No. It consists of what was believed to be sinful at that time. Religion is never fact, it is belief.

It is unchanging. Human beliefs regarding what is and is not sinful have no bearing. That is, and always has been Church teachings, across the board. That is why the Church maintains ancient traditions, because "what was, still is."

What happened to "opiate of the masses"?

[Chinese Peoples]

No. It consists of what was believed to be sinful at that time. Religion is never fact, it is belief.

It is unchanging. Human beliefs regarding what is and is not sinful have no bearing. That is, and always has been Church teachings, across the board. That is why the Church maintains ancient traditions, because "what was, still is."

The OT has no bearing on what is sinful, since the true, deeper meaning of the laws of the OT has been revealed to us; the OT laws themselves were one interpretation, espoused by the ancient Israelites, about what the deeper law demands.

Since we're again veering off the topic of the thread, you may take it to telegrams if you want.

[United Marxist Nations]

It is unchanging. Human beliefs regarding what is and is not sinful have no bearing. That is, and always has been Church teachings, across the board. That is why the Church maintains ancient traditions, because "what was, still is."

The OT has no bearing on what is sinful, since the true, deeper meaning of the laws of the OT has been revealed to us; the OT laws themselves were one interpretation, espoused by the ancient Israelites, about what the deeper law demands.

Since we're again veering off the topic of the thread, you may take it to telegrams if you want.

Nah, I'm watching a show, and that would be rather disruptive.

[Chinese Peoples]

The OT has no bearing on what is sinful, since the true, deeper meaning of the laws of the OT has been revealed to us; the OT laws themselves were one interpretation, espoused by the ancient Israelites, about what the deeper law demands.

Since we're again veering off the topic of the thread, you may take it to telegrams if you want.

Nah, I'm watching a show, and that would be rather disruptive.

Very well then, let's agree to disagree and drop the argument.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

If you're a libertarian, how are you a reactionary? How can you be a European nationalist but want Celtic people to separate?

I'm curious how he thinks libertarianism fits into theocracy. Not to mention the ethnic separatism and pre-enlightenment, fundamentalist Catholic traditionalism. And laissez-faire capitalism, for that matter, but he isn't alone with that stolen label of tragic inaccuracy.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Regardless, chap, of whether if it is hypocrisy, calling it out like that is just down right wrong. There are better ways of going about it.

...

You are fucking with me right now, yeah? Spouting nonsensical shit to see how I react? I'm not even being pissy about it, I'm not sure I believe you're serious.

[The Grey Wolf]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

Huh, low blowing someone based on their beliefs... That is pretty low, regardless of how dumb you think it is... But we all got to make ourselves feel better somehow, right?

.... Excuse me, what?

This is a thread about politics and not personality. Of course people are going to be focusing on a consistent poster's ridiculous beliefs.

[Germanic Templars]

Regardless, chap, of whether if it is hypocrisy, calling it out like that is just down right wrong. There are better ways of going about it.

...

You are fucking with me right now, yeah? Spouting nonsensical shit to see how I react? I'm not even being pissy about it, I'm not sure I believe you're serious.

...You know, you are smart guy, figure it out yourself... I think I am done talking to you.

[The Rich Port]

Because that's the deeper meaning of pederasty in those ages. It means (amongst others) that a married man is depriving his wife of the pleasures of his company, and a chance at free love, towards either sex, for the youngster, and I am sure that such an institution that grants sexual monopoly for the older man over the youngster will still not be acceptable today.

Then please say why they suddenly and randomly, without any internal dialogue or dispute, came to a new meaning without any clear evolution on it.

Nobody is saying that there wasn't internal dialogue... I'm just challenging their conclusion as incorrect.

Outside of the Church, the answers are less clear. Which is why I don't go to the Church, because their biases are... Well, a feature, rather than a fluke.

[Conscentia]

Then don't accept Leviticus.
Leviticus reads that "if a man sleeps with a man as with a woman"; if this means inserting a penis into vagina, then I contend that it couldn't be done with a man, because (most) men don't have vaginas. If at that time they had double beds, then men are not allowed to be on the same bed with each other.

I'm going to go with the rabbinical interpretations, since, again, they are the ones who actually study this and have been for thousands of years.

The rabbinical interpretations of the OT would have you believe that Jesus isn't the Messiah.

[Dinake]

Supporting Trump and calling oneself a Rothbardian takes the cake. I've always regarded those Bircher-esque views as more of oddities than real political ideologies. Like the sovereign citizen movement. Or the idiotic theocrats who rant about the state while looking to implement their own.

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

The two don't mesh with each other, you know.
Of course, you're a neo-"reactionary", so I doubt you care about ideological coherency.

[Conscentia]

Just because they've been held continuously doesn't make them correct. The geocentric model, as entrenched in religion doctrine, as evidenced in so many manuscripts, is still my example.

Again, please find any patristics that espouse the necessity of the geocentric model.
Also, scientific study is quite a bit different than linguistics, the latter being dependent upon social constructs (i.e. meaning that authority on the matter actually is important).

What are you talking about? Linguistics is a scientific field - the scientific study of language.

[Korouse]

No. It consists of what was believed to be sinful at that time. Religion is never fact, it is belief.

It is unchanging. Human beliefs regarding what is and is not sinful have no bearing. That is, and always has been Church teachings, across the board. That is why the Church maintains ancient traditions, because "what was, still is."

From my past readings of the Old Testament, it sounds a lot like something ISIS would use as an easy guide on how to execute someone for a specific crime.

[Great Kauthar]

I'm a Hayekian Capitalist, and there is nothing wrong with Theocracy so quiet.

Theocracy is one of the worst systems, up there with rolling dice, and electing Trump.

oh because socialism has worked so well hasn't it.

If you're a libertarian, how are you a reactionary? How can you be a European nationalist but want Celtic people to separate?

I'm curious how he thinks libertarianism fits into theocracy. Not to mention the ethnic separatism and pre-enlightenment, fundamentalist Catholic traditionalism. And laissez-faire capitalism, for that matter, but he isn't alone with that stolen label of tragic inaccuracy.

Didn't say I was a Theocrat did I. I just said they're good, not practical, but good.