Total posts: 502
Posted in:
lol.
Honestly I didn't expect anything different. Zarroette's an angry and mentally unstable lunatic that always tries to project a self-righteous "I'm so much smarter than you idiots" attitude. Quite a waste of time for you guys to be putting up with her lmao.
Just look at her record on Debate.org lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Didn't you literally have an AMA just a week ago? Seems strangely like you crave a stream of attention...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Racial identity, of any kind, has roots in evolutionary tribalism. "White identity" is a manifestation of that. Beyond that, there really isn't a worthwhile distinction to be made.
Not true, the idea of a "white identity" comes from Protestant European planters in the New World using race as a diving line between black slaves and white indentures to prevent them from cooperating and overthrowing them, as they were initially trying to. In reality, "whites" would encompass a loosely defined people of a great multitude of cultures, languages, religion, etc, that could never unite simply based on skin color.
The tactics/facets that empires used to become successful, and the tactics/facets that empires used once they became successful, are crucially important to recognise. Every single major empire, that decided to employ assimilation/integrated models, planted the seeds for it to become divided -- to have its multi-racial/multicultural people apathetic, lazy, uncharitable and distrusting of their fellow neighbours.
And empires divided over a multitude of causes... To attribute this entirely, or even significantly to the lack of racialism, is quite absurd. Moreover, "multicultural" and "multiracial" are different terms.
Homogeneity is the cornerstone of a flourishing society -- you care much more about those similar to you, than those whom are not.
You're assuming ingrouping/outgrouping, homogenity, and tribalism are all entirely based on race. This is false, considering the fact that multiple cultures have existed between what would appear to be the same race. Such factors may range from culture, language, religion, customs, politics, etc. For instance, there was no concept of race in Medieval Europe. Rather, the source of cohesion and ingrouping/outgrouping would be more based on stuff such as religion (the main one back then) or regional identities.
Why necessarily, then, is race a superior construct to base an ingroup on? And from what you've been stating, it seems that "sola race" is your ideal. Yet in reality, identity is often based on a multitude of factors. There are racial minorities integrated within the society of a racial majority simply by adopting aspects such as behavior, culture, religion, language, etc.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
You can go back to praying to Ala, Alan, and Allah
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Shut up liberal
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm pretty sure the religion of atheism worships gods. How come atheismists ask their 3 Gods: Ala, Allah, and Alan why their 100 year old great grandma died of lung cancer?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm pretty sure that worshipping the Islamic Gods and reading the Korean is part of the Atheismist religion.
Created:
It doesn't make sense to me that the religion of atheism requires atheismists to worship them.
Also, why do atheismists have to pray 7 times a day to Allah specifically and build statues dedicated to the Profits of Muhammed?
Soon they start slaughting the infidels for Allan through the blessing of Saint Richard Dawkins and the Archcardinal Carl Sagan.
Created:
Posted in:
Unironically, it is a problem that the Jews control the media, banks, corporations, etc, and use their influence to push for socially liberal agendas throughout the world. Anti-semitism on racial grounds is bad, but anti-semitism on religious and cultural grounds is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Albeit, this is not going to happen. Countries with stronger cultural and racial identity will covertly invade countries silly enough to adopt multi-racial and multi-cultural policies, the invasion will continue until the invaders are dominant, and then the invaders, we have now become the dominant culture/race, will slowly begin to fall for the same traps that tricked the ones they conquered. That cycle has happened all throughout history, and will continue to happen.
I'm a bit busy to address your other statements, but regarding race... The idea of a racial identity has been occasional, though throughout history it's largely been more ethnic or culturally based.
The idea of racial identity, especially a white identity, is almost entirely tracable to Protestant-European colonists that saught to justify slavery. In other cases, there was more fluidity. The most successful empires typically imposed cultural hegemony and assimilated/integrated conquered peoples. Ethnic based ones such as the Mongols usually failed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
One question:
How do you propose dealing with differences in IQ of races? Would you support establishing a hierarchy that places whites over blacks and other nonwhite races? Or would you prefer to let these differences show naturally without any discriminatory law?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
I very much dislike a republican system of governance. I'd advocate for the extension of monarchy to most countries - the United States included.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I can hear a high frequency ringing with every post you make. This is obviously not tinnitus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
In relativity, we have had good Presidents in spite of having a poor governmental system and structure.
Created:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Sounds accurate.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Analgesic is Zarroette? That does explain why she's so b*tchy all the time lol.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you capable of reasonable discussion, or are you going to resort to petty outrages?
I believe my system would be much more moral and stable than a secular system. If you want to reassonbly discuss things, so be it. If you're going to resort to sperging lile this, I think we're done here.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Last time I checked, I have nothing against pork, music, men and women talking to each other, movie theatres, etc. Nor did I ever say women should be denied any rights.
You'd be deluded to confuse a Catholic social order with a Wahhabi Islamic social order.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why would I want to live in an Islamic society?
Created:
-->
@Castin
Interesting. For me the prohibition of free speech would have been the first and last nail in the coffin.
I don't really care for free speech under an ideal order. I would not mind liberal viewpoints and degeneracy being outlawed.
Created:
Posted in:
Protestantism is an umorganized religion that has easily been able to devolve and distort itself under modernism.
Catholicism has stayed true to doctrine and century old teachings. It's resisted modernism to a greater extent.
What makes you follow the former?
Created:
Huh. Wow. Do you support trade protectionism and are you anti-immigration? If yes to those, I would call you a nationalist.
Trade protectionism? Yes.
Anti-immigration? It seems any immigration restrictions are anti-immigrant nowadays, so your call.
Nationalism is a Classical Liberal idea initiated by the French revolution. I prefer the order before nationalism, more loyalties to the local community and to God. Extreme nationalism is artificial.
Created:
-->
@Username
I actually used to debate fascists on reddit lol. It would usually dissolve into yelling and flaming. I know you're technically not a fascist, but... Anti-democratic, corporatist, nationalist... You're in the general category.
I'm not a nationalist at all, and I'd really not like to have toxic discussion either.
Would you consider yourself an anti-semite or a racialist in any other way?
I suppose I'm something of an anti-semite. I generally dislike Judaism and the Jews as a collective group (but not necessarily as individual people). But I'd base this off of culture and theological reasons. Ethnic/racial Jews who can denounce their culture and convert to Christianity are perfectly acceptable in my view.
I acknowledge there's racial differences that might go beyond being skin-deep, but I'm not a "racialist." Racial or ethno-nationalism is pretty stupid.
Thoughts on the alt-right?
Hmm, it seemed like some broad outrage against social liberalism, without any sort of central basis other than shilling for Trump and posting Pepe memes. It's now seemingly devolved and separated, as expected from a loosely connected group.
My views are mixed. It was necessary in a sense to detract from conventional neoconservatism... The main divide between it was a sort of Richard Spencer white nationalist faction, and the "alt light." The former of which, I wouldn't support.
Would you call yourself right-wing or Third-Positionist?
Probably both to some extent. Third position seems to be used in related to economics. I would consider myself third positionist to an extent in that regard, as I acknowledge the flaws of unrestrained Capitalism. As a replacement, I'm deciding between Corporatism and regulated Capitalism where the markets are generally free, but the state has the absolute power to intervene when necessary and charter state-controlled monopolies for control. I'd probably have to finish reading a book on Corporatism.
What is the main threat to society right now?
Secularism.
What are your thoughts on free expression?
It was a mistake.
Thoughts on Israel and Syria?
I abhor Israel. The Jews, an extremely small minority, have no rights to claim a land that's holy to another 2-3 billion people and persecute them. I'd ideally prefer a neutral secular state that allows all religions, but I am not sure about its practicality.
My main concern is Christian control and Christian interests in the holy land. I suppose the pragmatic solution would be to abandon Israel and support Christian interests. A state ran cooperatively by Muslims and Christians would be ideal. If the Jews are willing to abandon Zionism, they may be welcome if conflicts don't arise.
However, currently Christian interests are greatly underrepresented. Palestinian Christians feel abandoned by the US and west, and their numbers are diminishing. Before cooperating with Muslims or Jews of any sort, establishing a Christian presence would be the necessary first step.
In Syria, the only solution is Assad's regime.
I have a lot more, that's just off of the top of my head.
Go ahead lol.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Yup. I eventually abandoned it due to some major flaws: an unrestricted state that calls for no limits, the exact combination of a state and its nation, and nationalism that can be taken to extreme extents (I'd prefer nationalism to the present idea of globalism, but it too is essentially flawed).
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Who are the three people you admire most, living or dead? What three world leaders, living or dead, have done the best jobs leading their countries?
Hmm, not sure if I can select a top three people throughout all of history (though Justinian does come to mind)... However if we're talking about world leaders currently alive today, I could do that. In that case, I'd probably have to go with Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, and Bolsonaro.
If we're talking about the 20th century, I'd have to go with Antonio Salazar, Francisco Franco, and Chiang Kai Shek.
Why Monarchism?
There's an endless amount of reasons I can name with democracy and the superiority of a despotic system.
To start, Democracy relies on a pacified form of mob rule. It involves many uninformed masses, many of whom can not name the three branches of government, to decide the fate of a country. I do not have faith in the masses to preserve an effective democratic system. They can me easily misled, may often vote on emotion, and so forth. I recall that Plato's talked quite a bit about this, and all of it seems to hold true today. The Founding Fathers recognized the flaws of a Republic where the people are misinformed, and have talked quite a bit about preserving the Republic through educating the masses to uphold morality and be informed about the process. However, this is a difficult task in the long run and its benefits are unnecessary - if existent at all.
Moreover, the entire system in general is a mess. It leads to an unnecessary amount of time in the decision making process, leading to a great deal of inefficiency. Monarchies are far more stable and efficient. One may cite the flaw of monarchies as being more prone to authoritative rule, but I'd see this more as a benefit.
Additionally, the general form of Monarchy is a conservative institution that can keep a country morally sound, and uphold religion. Democracies are much more prone to liberalism, due to the nature of radical new ideas making their way to the masses and then to the leaders. This traces far back to the social revolutions of the 1960s, all the way back to the early Enlightenment. For a reactionary or traditionalist, the monarchy is a preferred system to Republics.
Also, there certainly is something to be said about the fact that monarchies have been the default system for millennia. Democratic systems have been tried and have ultimately failed.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Off with your head
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't want any modern corporate or banking elite to rule as a dictator, I want a man of the people to rule as a dictator or Monarch.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't really consider myself to be a Fascist anymore, so nothing.
Created:
Following the trend because why the heck not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Yeah man, it surely was better for the Africans to be degenerates practicing rape and FGM rather than Christians teaching them modesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Both, but ideally after reform occurs towards rooting out corruption, and removing its elements of modernism.
Created:
I long wish for the days when "sticks and stones could break my bones but words can never hurt me" will be chanted in elementary school classes again.
Created:
Posted in:
- The gradual dissolution of republican governments in favor of near-absolute monarchies
- An increase in the Catholic Church's power over western nations, as well as internal changes to the Church itself
- An increased use of the death penalty and law enforcement
- Strict enforcement of anti-trust laws
- Subjugating big corporations to carry less power and influence over the economy and society
- A reversal of LGBT rights, pornography/obscenity consumption, feminist advancements, etc.
- A general doing away of progressivism, hedonism, and social liberalism in favor of traditional values
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
As a socially conservative Catholic, I don't think adapting to technology is a bad thing if done right. But I see where you're coming from.
Created:
Posted in:
Describe your ideal society or state in depth. Its politics, governance, culture, language, religion, etc. What would it look like? Whatever it is could tell is a lot about your political views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Kind of busy right now, maybe later after December when I have time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That and, what are your general views on extremely conservative views pertaining to society and social issues?
Sorry if I'm bugging you with the questions (this is probably the last lol), I'm just curious to hear your general statements/points of view. You seem to be not only firm in your beliefs, but great at defending them in debate, and somewhat intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Not libertarianism or fascism, more so reactionary views. I.e. monarchism, clericalism, authoritarian governance, religious fundamentalism and its beliefs, generally conservative social views, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
More general question: What is your general (not specific issue-based) criticism of religious fundamentalism and reactionary/ultraconservative social views?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Depends on which passages you're reading. If you believe that, ultimately, all persons ought to be respected as God's creations, then it is hard, given the evidence that homosexuality is involuntary, to be opposed to homosexuality.
Well that's a misinterpretation, Christians believe they shouldn't act on their gay desires - not that they're wrong for having them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Is there any level of immodesty or general "disgust" in LGBT rallies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Do you see LGBT rights and Christianity (specifically Catholicism) as incompatible in any sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am using a slightly definition of liberal but whatever.
Remove the world liberal with regular Democracy.
Would Bolsonaro keep Brazil as a regular democracy after being an apologist for the Brazillian dictatorship for decades?
Anyways, his dent on Brazil will be larger if he turns it into a Dictatorship. Brazil was a first world country under the dictatorship, and now it's become a sh*thole.
Created: