Right Wing Discussion Thread X: Pol's closed

[Kubumba Tribe]

Seriously, I wonder why atheism tends to be more heard about and popular than deism or even misotheism. I consider myself "between" those two. If God exists and he gave us a theoretical "free will", why do we have to worship or respect him? Free will can't practically exist, and the Kingdom of Heaven he created sounds just communist and anti-individualist as Orwell's 1984 or New World Order.

And then, there is a guy I know who is a real douche, but no way that I ever doubted or questioned that he really exists.

We have the free will to reject Him, as you evidently do. Free will has never meant freedom from consequences. If you choose to reject God, you will be separated from Him. If you accept God, you will return to Him. I have no idea why you think the Kingdom of Heaven is communist or Orwellian. We know very little about Heaven, and it is likely it is beyond our present comprehension.

Yeah, I was weirded out by that, too.

[Questers]

The civil war is not that controversial, purely because it's politically about slavery and not a whole lot else. Many Southerners had other personal political reasons, but the body political was aligned around slavery being the primary issue. You can't really enthusiastically want the South to win if it's a straight up fight about slavery, even though you could attribute the CS to having many more superior values than the US and having a superior society in general. The Lost Cause was able to rally well because it was simply so easy to shift the discourse from being about either slavery or states rights to simply - the old society was better, more christian, more honourable, more martial.

[The Parkus Empire]

The civil war is not that controversial, purely because it's politically about slavery and not a whole lot else. Many Southerners had other personal political reasons, but the body political was aligned around slavery being the primary issue. You can't really enthusiastically want the South to win if it's a straight up fight about slavery, even though you could attribute the CS to having many more superior values than the US and having a superior society in general. The Lost Cause was able to rally well because it was simply so easy to shift the discourse from being about either slavery or states rights to simply - the old society was better, more christian, more honourable, more martial.

I don't think anyone can argue it wasn't about slavery, but slavery at that time was supported by the Constitution, which said free states had to return fugitive slaves. Free states were often completely ignoring this, and there can be no doubt Lincoln's "house divided" speech was intended to threaten the South

[Hakons]

We have the free will to reject Him, as you evidently do. Free will has never meant freedom from consequences. If you choose to reject God, you will be separated from Him. If you accept God, you will return to Him. I have no idea why you think the Kingdom of Heaven is communist or Orwellian. We know very little about Heaven, and it is likely it is beyond our present comprehension.

By 'reject God' do you mean that they are rejecting Christianity, or rejecting the existence of a deity? Because if you mean the later you are wrong. No matter how wrong I hold both positions - misotheism, in particular, which strikes me as supremely immature at the least - they both require the existence of deity.

Reject God as in ignoring or actively fighting against His moral law. For example, Wedonland calling God a "douche." Insulting/mocking God is rejecting Him in Christiantity, and I'm guessing in most other religions too.

[Mujahidah]

By 'reject God' do you mean that they are rejecting Christianity, or rejecting the existence of a deity? Because if you mean the later you are wrong. No matter how wrong I hold both positions - misotheism, in particular, which strikes me as supremely immature at the least - they both require the existence of deity.

Reject God as in ignoring or actively fighting against His moral law. For example, Wedonland calling God a "douche." Insulting/mocking God is rejecting Him in Christiantity, and I'm guessing in most other religions too.

Ok. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just didn't quite understand which statement you were making. I really ought to try to get a little more sleep.

[Kubumba Tribe]

By 'reject God' do you mean that they are rejecting Christianity, or rejecting the existence of a deity? Because if you mean the later you are wrong. No matter how wrong I hold both positions - misotheism, in particular, which strikes me as supremely immature at the least - they both require the existence of deity.

Reject God as in ignoring or actively fighting against His moral law. For example, Wedonland calling God a "douche." Insulting/mocking God is rejecting Him in Christiantity, and I'm guessing in most other religions too.

Yeah, that's wrong in Al-Islam: http://legacy.quran.com/9/62-68

[The Parkus Empire]

I also think a poll about the place religion has in politics would be interesting. T.S. Eliot's "Christianity and Culture" is a good source on this.

I personally am very adverse to appeals of a "Christian politics" in any context where Christians aren't a politically homogeneous group (they were with Kuyper, but that is unusual). The issue is that when a person defines his politics primarily as "Christian," it suggests any opposition is therefore "not Christian". It's a very questionable ploy. I am a Christian first, a conservative second, but by that I mean my faith comes before my politics.

[Herskerstad]

I've made a poll on immigration. Does these options look licit?

What stance do you take on immigration?

1 - Full open borders. Sweden's Feminist Initiative model. Which involves doing all one can to prevent deportation of even alien criminal elements as they remain the responsibility of the country they find themselves in.
2 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Multicultural model.
3 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Melting-pot model.
4 - Limited open borders that sets priories solely on the nations labour requirements.
5 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Multicultural model.
6 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Melting-pot model.
7 - Closed borders. Only grants temporary green-cards, tourism and visas. Not citizenship.
8 - Fully closed borders.
9 - Fully closed borders. No legal emigration.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I've made a poll on immigration. Does these options look licit?

What stance do you take on immigration?

1 - Full open borders. Sweden's Feminist Initiative model. Which involves doing all one can to prevent deportation of even alien criminal elements as they remain the responsibility of the country they find themselves in.
2 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Multicultural model.
3 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Melting-pot model.
4 - Limited open borders that sets priories solely on the nations labour requirements.
5 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Multicultural model.
6 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Melting-pot model.
7 - Closed borders. Only grants temporary green-cards, tourism and visas. Not citizenship.
8 - Fully closed borders.
9 - Fully closed borders. No legal emigration.

Option 6 is the most desirable imo.

[Herskerstad]

I've made a poll on immigration. Does these options look licit?

What stance do you take on immigration?

1 - Full open borders. Sweden's Feminist Initiative model. Which involves doing all one can to prevent deportation of even alien criminal elements as they remain the responsibility of the country they find themselves in.
2 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Multicultural model.
3 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Melting-pot model.
4 - Limited open borders that sets priories solely on the nations labour requirements.
5 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Multicultural model.
6 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Melting-pot model.
7 - Closed borders. Only grants temporary green-cards, tourism and visas. Not citizenship.
8 - Fully closed borders.
9 - Fully closed borders. No legal emigration.

Option 6 is the most desirable imo.

How incredibly bigoted. I am reporting everyone who does not vote 1 to the SPLC.

[Luminesa]

Option 6 is the most desirable imo.

How incredibly bigoted. I am reporting everyone who does not vote 1 to the SPLC.

YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO SON.

4 or 5 seems more like my thoughts, but they’re too close together in my opinion. Multiculturalism ideally should result in a melting pot. Doesn’t always do so, but it should.

[Salus Maior]

When it comes to immigrants, I prefer the melting pot.

MAKE THE BARBARIANS ROMAN.

[The Parkus Empire]

How incredibly bigoted. I am reporting everyone who does not vote 1 to the SPLC.

YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO SON.

4 or 5 seems more like my thoughts, but they’re too close together in my opinion. Multiculturalism ideally should result in a melting pot. Doesn’t always do so, but it should.

Melting pot means destroying multiculturalism

[Herskerstad]

Yes, the distinction is generally between having an immigration that will encourage normative traits to the nationstate or one that will be idle or even discourage such a regard.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes, the distinction is generally between having an immigration that will encourage normative traits to the nationstate or one that will be idle or even discourage such a regard.

I am personally against both and would like a complete ban on immigration for a while. Refugees maybe, but not in unlimited numbers

[Northern Davincia]

Yes, the distinction is generally between having an immigration that will encourage normative traits to the nationstate or one that will be idle or even discourage such a regard.

I am personally against both and would like a complete ban on immigration for a while. Refugees maybe, but not in unlimited numbers

That's a wee bit harsh.

[Herskerstad]

I am personally against both and would like a complete ban on immigration for a while. Refugees maybe, but not in unlimited numbers

That's a wee bit harsh.

I am fine with refugee rights myself, though, it should be far more regional than what is being indirectly enforced.

[Hakons]

Option 3, because of demographics (aging population) and I was a bleeding heart liberal in my early youth

[Herskerstad]

Option 3, because of demographics (aging population) and I was a bleeding heart liberal in my early youth

I got nothing really against that either if it is strongly enforced tbh.

[The East Marches II]

When it comes to immigrants, I prefer the melting pot.

MAKE THE BARBARIANS ROMAN.

>He thinks G*rmans can be made into good Romans

It's like you've learned nothing

[Herskerstad]

When it comes to immigrants, I prefer the melting pot.

MAKE THE BARBARIANS ROMAN.

>He thinks G*rmans can be made into good Romans

It's like you've learned nothing

Don't worry, we make the best guides through the large forests. :' )

[The East Marches II]

I've made a poll on immigration. Does these options look licit?

What stance do you take on immigration?

1 - Full open borders. Sweden's Feminist Initiative model. Which involves doing all one can to prevent deportation of even alien criminal elements as they remain the responsibility of the country they find themselves in.
2 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Multicultural model.
3 - Full open borders with border security, checks and potential for deportation of harsher criminal immigrant elements. Melting-pot model.
4 - Limited open borders that sets priories solely on the nations labour requirements.
5 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Multicultural model.
6 - Limited open borders that prioritises only high skilled labour. Melting-pot model.
7 - Closed borders. Only grants temporary green-cards, tourism and visas. Not citizenship.
8 - Fully closed borders.
9 - Fully closed borders. No legal emigration.

Those are not bad options

[Hakons]

When it comes to immigrants, I prefer the melting pot.

MAKE THE BARBARIANS ROMAN.

>He thinks G*rmans can be made into good Romans

It's like you've learned nothing

B-but we can use them as mercenaries

[Sanctissima]

I am personally against both and would like a complete ban on immigration for a while. Refugees maybe, but not in unlimited numbers

That's a wee bit harsh.

Eh, it's just self-preservation on a national scale.

A country, particularly a developed Western one, should only accept high-skill, desirable immigrants who are willing to fully assimilate. The rest are simply a charity case, and represent a net loss to the country. What little they offer is a population surplus, which frankly should be sought through tax credits and other incentives for having children, rather than importing one's surplus population from abroad.

[Northern Davincia]

When it comes to immigrants, I prefer the melting pot.

MAKE THE BARBARIANS ROMAN.

>He thinks G*rmans can be made into good Romans

It's like you've learned nothing

C'mon, we know it was you who opened the gates for the barbarians, kraut.