/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

A book dump would probably be a good start so I eventually have something to talk about for this subject, as I only recently discovered for myself the bible is a load of bollocks.

>>49
What exactly are you looking for?
And for norse stuff start with this the Bellows translation of the Eddas, it's a bit difficult to read but better than nearly every translation today or since, Still git some probable corruption from Snorri but it is a surviving source.

>>50
That should work, thank you. I'm so new I've just been reading whatever books I have collected over a long time out of curiosity in my "paganism" folder(s). These are the only four I have in said folder, and the last two could be the same, haven't gotten to them yet.

>>56
Your first file, I know nothing about.
The Second file isn't a bad book but isn't exactly "pagan", and it preaches a non-violent isolationist path, which will not work, but it's more pantheist, and anti-abrahamic for certain.
the third file is a shorter version of the Translation of the Poetic Edda I provided, the 4th, is the Prose Edda, the difference is explained in the translators notes in both texts from what I recall, but I may be wrong.

>>49
These are related to Anti-Abrahamism and christianity and some of our religions in general, as well as our mythology, If nothing else read Devi, and for a thorough examining of the Christian Question I recommend this book: https://westsdarkesthour.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Fair-Race_-18-aug-22.pdf
I will post Julians Against the Galilaeans

As it turns out my copy is too large a file to upload gonna look for a smaller one tomorrow or leave it up to you to find.

>>60
Want to upload it to workupload or something similar? That's what I use to share PDF's I have that are either too large to post regularly or in places that don't allow you to upload stuff.

>>75
Nah, found a smaller one

>>84
Thanks much, will add it to the reading list.

266cb6e9e71d486be5a51a3e3ef20eb85eaae7cf739f73f409bcd5eed8adba6a.jpeg
[Hide] (417.3KB, 750x406) Reverse

< "Content with whatever gain comes to him, transcending the dualities (of pleasure and pain), free from jealousy, and steady-minded in success and failure, even though engaging in action, he is not bound."

Thus Krishna said. Many, upon first reading this quote, may take issue with it. Much of the doctrine of later Buddhism, after all, is a result of racial and caste mixing, especially the doctrine of self-obliteration, but this quote actually represents a common thread found within all Aryan religions and cultures. The concept I speak of is that of detached violence. 

The Vedics
The Vedics, being, for a time, of a functional Aryan society, understood the concept of detached violence. They expressed it, as evidenced in the Bhagavad Gita, through the following of one's dharma and the submission of oneself to Brahman.  For the fully developed Aryan man, action in the physical world means nothing. He has made himself an agent of Fate, and recognizes the supreme power of the mind over the material plain. In this way, the Vedic makes himself capable of detached violence. 

The Germanics
The German, being of a younger nation, expresses detached violence through different means. He trains his children to laugh in the face of death through sport, engaging in all sorts of deadly sports like jousting and dueling. One sees this reflected in Sagas like that of Gunnlaug Wormtongue, where competitions centered around poetry and dueling eventually wager the participant's life. The honorable challenge teaches the German to value things like life and freedom, but to laugh in the faces of challenges to them. Through this, he is liberated and able to follow the doctrine of detached violence.

6a7420f290ccd20aa2acf16769bac9fa12b45531f4937634f807dd9edd4c28d5.png
[Hide] (531.1KB, 1100x1100) Reverse

dcc106977836d522f825e3b0999263acdae4ff3fd5aa5ef959a0160e579b89e7.png
[Hide] (765.5KB, 1125x1250) Reverse

I'm surprised these weren't posted earlier. Books on Nordic and Celtic culture and Religion. No Slavic list was made unfortunately.

>>50
>Still git some probable corruption from Snorri but it is a surviving source.
Are we sure of that? Where is the corruption?

>>58
>The Second file isn't a bad book but isn't exactly "pagan", and it preaches a non-violent isolationist path, which will not work,
Not sure of that. What he lays down is a long term plan, but during his own time the USA were already severely full of petulant negroes (see Rockwell's White Power). His solution obviously implied retaking control of our own lands by making them White, and only then stopping fathering the other races.
The real issue with Klassen is his atheism, which he defended himself against but is plain to see for anyone who reads his books.

>>426
It is beyond certain, he wasn't interviewing and writing down our stories as they were known to the original practitioners of our religion, he was certainly a christian, is it mostly good yes but there are many elements that were obviously changed for snyncretic purposes to make it easier to convert the icelanders to christniggery.

>>465
>the only way to solve the woman question is to personally absolve women of agency/guilt like the government already does; that will certainly not inflate their ego even further!
The absolute state of tradcucks.
>>505
<Dharmists and Abrahamics are all the same and both have a universalist perspective on how everything is ultimately equal
>this poor of an exegesis
You guys might as well be atheists; soon enough you'll find that even your "pagan" heroes were ""universalists"" (i.e. the Greeks and Romans were notorious for their religious syncretism, and some gods in the Norse pantheon were originally confined to certain regions in Scandinavia only); actually, many members of the NSDAP were atheists (even if covertly so) and scientificists, and only adopted religion for the symbolism (kind of like Varg's quasi-Epicurean understanding of "paganism"), so I think you'll fit right in.

>>515
>The absolute state of tradcucks
The current state of women is a reflection of the current state of men. Most of our women are whores and mentally ill because men of the past and of present day have submitted to a system that is not heathy for the minds or souls of white people. Women did not choose this, because women cannot choose. They lack agency, and most of their non-essential desires are reflections of what they perceive society to want. They are whores because you have allowed your society to be dominated by Jewish ethics and structures. Take some responsibility and be a man, its your problem, not their's. 

> You guys might as well be atheists
No, we just aren't people who value the things the dominant religions of the modern world value. Modern buddhism and abrahamism in all of it's forms value pleasure of the self above all, which leads to societal collapse, and eventually the collapse of the universe itself if left unchecked. In the same way that buddhism rejects life by focusing on the obliteration of the self, abrahamism focuses on the "reforming of the vessels of light", which is essentially eternal void. The ancient Greeks and Romans saw their gods in other people's gods because the gods are human perceptions of the traits of higher archetypes. They exist, sure, but not in the same sense we do.

 You need to lurk moar.

>>516
>The current state of women is a reflection of the current state of men
Whatever cause you wish to ascribe to the degeneration of women, the fact is pampering them like children won't mend their condition. It's part of the human condition that most people are wretched, whether in a traditional society or a "modern" one (traditions only serve to curb their inevitable collapse into concupiscence), and when you give them leeway to carry out unscrupulous acts, like in the allegory of Gyges, that's just what they will do; it's no different with either men or women, and women do plenty of it these days because both the law and our gynocentric culture enable their licentiousness; "taking personal responsibility" for the misdeeds of women is just that, enabling them, and inflating their ego even further. Saying that women "did not choose this" is just disingenuous; all of us are and have been influenced by peer pressure or consensus at some point of our lives, but that does not annul our individual rationale nor responsibility in each case (save for when we are cognitively incapable of doing so, which is certainly not the case with women). To ask men to collectively become busy bodies of whores is just unreasonable; if their fathers and male relatives generally couldn't do it, I can hardly see random fellows succeeding in it.
>gods are limited by material conditions, like race, as much as human beings are
>religions are not expressions of truth, but made up narratives of national or political interest
<we totally aren't atheists by the way!
If you think I'm bluffing, then you haven't read on what NSDAP officials themselves thought of religion or "superstitions"; if they had any faith at all, it was usually some kind of clumsy, materialistic pantheism.
>we just aren't people who value the things the dominant religions of the modern world value
What is it that they value? What religions do you speak of?
>Modern buddhism and abrahamism in all of it's forms value pleasure of the self above all
I thought "modern buddhism" promoted asceticism? It's funny you say that because I could swear fascists/NSDAP people generally complain about Christians for being "life denying", along with being sympathetic towards a quasi-Nietzschean scientificist view; also, how exactly does "pleasure of the self" align with """"universalist"""" beliefs you describe?
> In the same way that buddhism rejects life by focusing on the obliteration of the self
You don't know what "buddhism" is; western "buddhism" is just the import of a particular strain of Indian materialism that westerners unwittingly brought over to Germany, England and USA, and became the paradigm of "buddhist" practices in the west ever since. Genuine "buddhism", as it's practiced in Asian countries, is radically distinct from anything you might label "buddhist"; it has gods, shrines, priests, sacrifices, and festivals like any proper religion ought to.
>The ancient Greeks and Romans saw their gods in other people's gods
Not just that, but they worshiped foreign gods as well, like Isis, Harpocrates, Cybele, and even SEMITIC deities like Sol Invictus/Elagabal; the same is true of the Norse (because I know the next thing you will tell me is the meds weren't white so it doesn't count), and really of any "pagan" peoples. "Universalism" does not entail the renunciation of any meaningful differences; in fact, "universalists", like the traditionalist school, not only acknowledge hierarchy by nature, but they go so far as to frame the reality of hierarchy ontologically, a concept commonly known as the Great Chain of Being, which is why most traditionalists, like Evola, had an allure towards monarchic/aristocratic forms of government as an exemplification of the world's order in political form. By contrast, fascists/NSDAP people have a very democratic view on hierarchy, insofar it concerns their race/nation only; because certainly a hierarchy based on race is untenable, as that would involve foreigners and barbarians into citizenship as much as the nationals themselves, blurring the line between foreigners/barbarians and citizens proper.

>>515
>You guys might as well be atheists; soon enough you'll find that even your "pagan" heroes were ""universalists"" 
Please show me where the pantheon and heroes of Norse and Greece were universalist. Because no one other than Platonic and nu-Vedic declare that everyone equally matters, and that everything is united by one, despite it being illogical and nothing more, but an assumption based on one-sided perspectives. Calling us atheists, because we refuse to believe we are the same as shit-skins is low-IQ.

>Greeks and Romans were notorious for their religious syncretism
And that's why all their states failed. They attempted to integrate people and ideas that were incompatible with their own culture and got cucked out in the process. If you think we should do the same with National Socialism, then you're retarded. Plus, the Greeks and Romans did not always syncretized, they also practiced segregation and established autonomous states to separate themselves from others.

>many members of the NSDAP were atheists
There's no evidence of this, and no they were not. Most members of the NSDAP were Christians or Positive Christians, while the leaders of the NSDAP were pagans or deists. Cuckservatives like you always latch around on making up fairytales, because we refuse to be racially blind.

>>518
>you think I'm bluffing, then you haven't read on what NSDAP officials 
You fail to bring any evidence to the table, so you are indeed bluffing.

>What is it that they value? 
Race and spirit.

> I could swear fascists/NSDAP people generally complain about Christians for being "life denying", along with being sympathetic towards a quasi-Nietzschean scientificist view
Quasi? "Scientificist"? We value science (knowledge) as much as we value life and spirituality for it is the key to progression. Hitler didn't see it any other way. Nothing says more about you than how you get so triggered that we can enjoy works of another even if we ultimately disagree with them, via Nietzsche. Guys like you assert that every man must all be monolithic or controlled in thought which is something all modern religions encourage. If you have problem with fascism, then why even be here? 

>You don't know what "buddhism" 
Buddhism even with out Western pozzery, is still pozzed for its denial of the self and nihilism. Buddhism suffers from its heretical doctrines who all spew different interpretations that have lead the original teachings to muddy and forgotten. None of them practiced what Gautama actually had in mind and none of them have spiraled their nations forward.

>Genuine "buddhism
>it's practiced in Asian countries, is radically distinct 
Lol 10/10 troll.

>Not just that, but they worshiped foreign gods as well, like Isis, Harpocrates, Cybele, 
Some of the many Egyptian gods were Aryan.

>SEMITIC deities like Sol Invictus/Elagabal; 
They did, and this literally to Rome's DOWNFALL. Did you forget this part in history? The semites were trying to introduce sodomy in Roman families by corrupt their pantheon. And the foreigners Rome had conquered continuously lead to numerously lead to civil wars that nearly destroyed the empire. All of this was done in an attempt to eradicate the Roman race. Hmm, so sounds like what long noses are doing now with a particular kike on a cross. Do you think just because an pellicular event occurred, then it must mean it is totally normally and applicable or there was no oppositions to idea? The flamens most certainly did not like enjoy having their faith destroyed by foreign influences.

>the same is true of the Norse 
Examples?

> "Universalism" does not entail the renunciation of any meaningful differences;
Yes it does, universalism as an ideology and psuedo-philosophy is the unification of all things no matter their differences or oppositions, so they can be united as ((( One ))) concept to eradicate all others. The birth of cosmopolitism and egalitarianism in themselves were born due to universalism that persists in both Abrahamic and Dharmic faiths, whether the cosmopolitans believe every man as equal or not exactly. The problem with treating every man as the same is that it always down spirals into an inevitable fate that both India died to, and now the United States is now facing. I see every universalist say what you said, and yet none of them are remotely serious about acknowledging that a White man is literally different from a negro. They continue to insist that as long as both can shill religious dogmas, then they are equal in SPIRIT/SOUL, but not in material matters, while simunatenously denying the importance of the very soil they feel and touch daily, and air they breathe in. This is completely asinine and anyone with a Brain can tell that the problem with niggers is that they are both racially and spirituality opposite from the man of reason (Aryan). 

>By contrast, fascists/NSDAP people have a very democratic view on hierarchy
Is this supposed to be a bad thing? National Socialist and fascists have the same traditional view on hierarchy as trads do. The problem here is that aristocratic/monarchists types are retarded in their beliefs that the "few" they call noble will just magically do "good" even if there is a high chance that their are not on priorities on kinship, but centered on dogmatic, institutional matters. These are the types who always cuck out and court the jews. An aristocracy that cares only about the benefits of its elites is nothing, but an oligarchy, and surprise surprise, every monarchy has ended up in this fashion just like the Jacobins' Republic. Our views and values emphasis that every White man should be an Aryan (truly aristocratic), one who is of self-mastery and capable of being sufficient on their own, while abiding by the natural order. This is far more realistic than Evola's wet dream of a empire that will only doom itself. By the way, Evola wasn't even a fascist nor National Socialist for be was a conservative and medievalist, so his opinion on the matters means nothing.

>that would involve foreigners and barbarians into citizenship as much as the nationals themselves, blurring the line between foreigners/barbarians and citizens proper
>Muh barbarians
>As long as its done legally
Foreigners should stay in their own country. And you should fuck off back to /the_donald with this illusion that foreigners can ever assimilated.

>>526
>Please show me where the pantheon and heroes of Norse and Greece were universalist
Loki was not (originally) a god of all Scandinavia and Adonis (Phoenician hero) was Aphrodite's lover; in fact, even the fusion between Christmas and Yule can be an example of syncretism. If you knew anything about "paganism" other than as State propaganda and shallow aesthetics, you'd know this.
>no one other than Platonic and nu-Vedic declare that everyone equally matters
Correction: your misinterpretation of Platonic philosophy and the Vedas declares that everyone equally matters; clearly you haven't read the Republic if you think Plato thought of everyone, even Barbarians, as equals.
>Calling us atheists, because we refuse to believe we are the same as shit-skins
No, I call you atheists because you think religion is just aesthetics and State propaganda.
>that's why all their states failed
Save for the post-Alexandrian period, Greece was not an empire, and even then it collapsed before different groups were even assimilated in any significant way, making your point moot. You don't really know history if you think you can attribute the fall of a State that historically outlasted others to something as simplistic as "integrating people and ideas that were incompatible"; also, religious syncretism has been a thing for as long as religion itself has existed.
>There's no evidence of this
Except there is: it's called Martin Bormann
>while the leaders of the NSDAP were pagans or deists
Aka symbolic atheism and clumsy materialistic pantheism.
>Race and spirit
I asked for modern religions; what presumably do they value? Do you think the world's religions are just Christianity, Islam, and "Buddhism"?
>Quasi?
Populist thought would certainly not appeal to Nietzsche's elitist sensibilities; when he said "will to power", he meant it.
>"Scientificist"?
Read the private pronouncements of NSDAP officials and you'll see they envisaged a replacement of religion with science (religion making concessions as science advances, as they would remark).
>every man must all be monolithic or controlled in thought
Never said nor implied by me.
>something all modern religions encourage
So you do think modern religions are just Christianity and Islam.
>still pozzed for its denial of the self and nihilism
You are again treating western "buddhism" as though it represented the whole of "buddhism". Western buddhism is simply a strain of Indian materialism, which westerners imported either out of ignorance for Indian philosophy or sympathy for their materialistic tenets (which wouldn't be surprising given the background of the enlightenment). The doctrine of anatta does not entail the "denial of the self" nor nihilism; it's an apophatic approach to the self, similar to negative theology, and surmised by the "buddhist" adage "na me so âttâ" ("this is not the self").
>Some of the many Egyptian gods were Aryan
t. voices in my head.
>Do you think just because an pellicular event occurred, then it must mean it is totally normally and applicable or there was no oppositions to idea?
Except syncretism has been part of Rome since the beginning; Cybele was already regarded as part of the pantheon in the Aeneid, for instance.
>flamens most certainly did not like enjoy having their faith destroyed by foreign influences
Never happened. Each god had their own cult, including the foreign ones.
>universalism as an ideology and psuedo-philosophy is the unification of all things no matter their differences or oppositions
Not what universalism actually is; I've already explained why.
>they can be united as (((  One  ))) concept to eradicate all others
Again, not true.
>cosmopolitism and egalitarianism
These aren't even synonyms or imply one another; you yourself are an egalitarian (and yes, there's no such thing as racial hierarchy) without being a cosmopolitanist.
>The problem with treating every man as the same is that it always down spirals into an inevitable fate that both India died to, and now the United States is now facing
Destabilization of national borders and deracination (racial or otherwise) are only symptoms of the last stage of decay. The fact is the average white is little more than nigger cattle, and even without race mixing (and yes, most in-groups don't racemix, even white liberals) they are desolated; without an aristocracy to temper the herd's base pleasures, so content they are with inane gratification like netflix, video-games and porn that they are incapable of even the most rudimentary (not even most important) of things like preserving their material boundaries (i.e. heritage). If whites go extinct it's not even due to miscegenation, but so deep a nihilistic slumber that literal spics are more committed to white nationalism than them.
>they are equal in SPIRIT/SOUL
Your mistake is identifying the Soul as yet another accident like race or whatever appendage of the body; it's not that niggers and whites, being both accidents, are equal, but that the Soul transcends it's temporary conjunction with the body; nor again is every citizen of the commonweal equal on account of being ensouled, but their rank is determined by that activity of the Soul predominating in them.
>Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
You were the one calling me an egalitarian; if you admit my charge, and yet you decry egalitarianism as a bad thing (which it is), then yes, it is a bad thing and you are sympathetic to it.
>National Socialist and fascists have the same traditional view on hierarchy as trads do
No, you don't. Read the Mein Kampf; Hitler despised the aristocracy.
>The problem here is that aristocratic/monarchists types are retarded in their beliefs that the "few" they call noble will just magically do "good"
And that is solved by democracy exactly how? All that checks and balances ever accomplish is obstructing due persecution. Now I'm sure you are going to recommend me some form of iconoclastic totalitarianism, but that's even worse; for every bad despot you murder/assassinate, the office of despot will only lose it's currency and soon the people lose all their reverence for their rulers; why should they revere the despot after all, when the despot himself has such a self-reproaching and iconoclastic view of rulership? I'm not so much concerned with the "king bad scenario" (really democracy is only postponing the inevitable corruption anyway), but whether the one/few to rule are disposed to, or have the nature of kingship/nobility; besides, the historical amount of bad or insane kings is pitiful, though exaggerated by liberal/enlightenment figures to make a point.
>An aristocracy that cares only about the benefits of its elites is nothing
So? I could say the same thing about pretty much any form of government. I will reiterate again that I'm not at all concerned about the "king bad scenario" like you and other liberals/populists are; democracy and similarly iconoclastic systems do nothing but postpone the inevitable corruption, and are made worse by their lack of discrimination upon who should lay claim to authority.
>White man should be an Aryan (truly aristocratic)
Except that's never happened; men of every race have been mostly hylics and hoi polloi, notwithstanding whether hylics of one race were superior or inferior to another. National identity is necessary but class identity is paramount.
>Evola wasn't even a fascist nor National Socialist
Of course he wasn't; Evola was not a populist (aka flatterer/darling of democracy), like them.
>As long as its done legally
I'm only drawing the conclusions of your own beliefs; how could there ever be a racial hierarchy if you don't turn non-whites into European citizens for them to be compared against? If you reject both racial (since it's patently absurd) and class hierarchy, then you are an egalitarian; it's that simple.

>>532
Fuck off blackpill jew

>>532
>Loki was not (originally) a god of all Scandinavia 
Loki was always a god of Norse mythology, but he lacks any mentions prior to the viking age. But this implication that this syncretism makes no sense, because no one knows where Loki where he originates from and it's impossible for the Norsemen to have either discovered or invented him on purpose. This is not a case of universalism.

>Adonis (Phoenician hero) was Aphrodite's lover
Adonis was considered to be her lover by Eastern Greeks and West-Asians who were influenced by Hellenism. The true Greeks had disdain for Eastern Greeks and considered them be fakes who only spoke parts of their language, but were not truly Hellenic by blood. 

>Christmas and Yule 
Christmas exists to gloss over that Yule was a festival dedicated to Odin. The purpose of this "syncretism" was for Norse and Anglo converts who threaten to leave Catholicism if they could not continue to practice their traditions. For the next several hundred years, the Christian interpretation of Yule, Christmas has muddied itas something entirely different.

>clearly you haven't read the Republic
You keep insisting that I haven't read something, but then go about making vague claims and assertions. Neo-Platonists are completely for immigration as long as it done under process of assimilation. By the way, you can stop the LARP on "barbarians", because it's just another way of describing a culture  the Greeks did not understand. 

>call you atheists because you think religion is just aesthetics and State propaganda.
You called us atheist for rejecting the notion that religion must also be tied to blood, while crying muh materialism. By the way, can you name a time that religion hasn't been this case?

>Save for the post-Alexandrian period, Greece was not an empire
Apparently you can't read either. My implication wasn't that Greece was one state and I'm clearly aware that they consisted of many city-states and kingdoms that were all across Italy, North Africa, the Levant and Anatolia, so nice pilpul. No where did I imply they were, if anything you could berate me for not being more specific, but you need your "gotcha". 

>were even assimilated in any significant
Look at result of Rome, the Selecuids and Ptolemaic dynasties and try saying this again. Hell, look at American and try saying this again. Assimilation was and is always a failure, the Romans spent half their budget on the military just to keep order installed. And the Egyptian Greeks ruined ancient Egyptian culture due to said syncretism, which pissed its residents off. While the Selecuids couldn't go a year without a revolt and were forced to establish autonomous straps in return of obligations, which also shows that they failed in assimilating the locals as well. These are hardly "assimilation"s or one that is mutually beneficial.

>Except there is: it's called Martin Bormann
>One person
>but he is called an atheist because of his persecution of Catholic churches and in favour of science.
Lol.

>Aka symbolic atheism and clumsy materialistic pantheism
>Muh materialism
>Paganism is atheism
>Thinks Hitler's deism is the same as everyone's else
>All deism are the same


> asked for modern religions; what presumably do they value? 
Nothing.

>Do you think the world's religions are just Christianity, Islam, and "Buddhism"?
Anon, these are literally one of the most popular religions in the world along with Hinduism. Were making trying to make a point here? Are you trying insinuate that Buddhism is nowhere near in the same position and attitudes as Christianity? Which is laughable.

>Populist thought would certainly not appeal to Nietzsche's elitist sensibilities; when he said "will to power", he meant it.
Who said National Socialists and fascists were only populists in thought and mind? Everyone has a will to power where they pretend to or not. Hitler's will was one of power and to erdicate jews, just like Burmese Buddhists who are fighting the Muslims to continue their existence.

>Read the private pronouncements of NSDAP official
Being vague again. 

>you'll see they envisaged a replacement of religion with science 
>Wanting to use science in order to discover greater understanding of the universe and all it posits is wanting replace religion. 
If they wanted to replace religion then they would not have tolerated Christianity. No one in the NSDAP has had plans to replace religion. Christianity? Sure. But religion as whole? No. The problem here is that you think science and religion are mutually exclusive or that an emphasis on science is atheism even though the NSDAP were encouraging traditional values. 

>Never said nor implied by me
Yes, you did. Your entire logic is that, because we fascists enjoy the works of Nietzsche or agree with his philosophical ideas such as will to power, we are therefore fully agreeing with everything he has said and done. 

>So you do think modern religions are just Christianity and Islam
No, I know that all modern religions all act the same way as Christianity and Islam does. 

>You are again treating western "buddhism
I'm going to stop reading right here. You're full of it and need to stop crying about muh Western Buddhism. Theravada, Mahayana, Nāgārjuna, and Vajrayāna all interpret anattā as a form of either ridding away the self or "emptiness" of the vessel. Yes, original Buddhism did not believe in this as it was very self-affirming, but today whether Eastern or Western, it is still garbage. 

>t. voices in my head.
t.moron who knows nothing about the connection between the ceremonial beads of Northern Europe and Egypt.

>Except syncretism has been part of Rome since the beginning; 
>continue to miss my point again
Come anon, I know you have the ability to read. Now try to comprehend the meaning behind words and understand that Rome did not rise due to syncretism.

>Never happened. Each god had their own cult, including the foreign ones
Now you're just outright lying. Did you forget that the flamens also had their own college and institutions in which many were strongly traditional about preserving Rome's oldest gods prior to integration of the Greeks' gods. The syncretism brought frustration and complications whenever the Romans conquered a new population as they soon enough had to syncretized the main gods of different cultures with their own in order to subdue the Carthaginians and the Gauls. 

>These aren't even synonyms
Nigger what? Cosmopolitism and egalitarianism are strongly related to each other. I never said they were synonymous, but they two different ideas that are very similar in mind. Cosmopolitism indeed does slope towards egalitarianism, which is how we got to modernity in the first place. The cosmopolitism of European empires and liberalism brought about the first baby steps towards egalitarian values.

>Destabilization of national borders and deracination (racial or otherwise) are only symptoms of the last stage of decay
No, they are the signs of THE DECAY you have to be extremely retarded thinking that miscegenation is merely a downfall, especially when those of two different cultures would of most likely been against it.

>The fact is the average white is little more than nigger cattle, and even without race mixing (and yes, most in-groups don't racemix, even white liberals) they are desolated;
Jew detected. Hello mossad we can end this argument here. And I thought you were a genuine poster.

>>537
>it's impossible
It is not impossible.

>>532
>These aren't even synonyms or imply one another
Said no one ever. Cosmopolitism and egalitarianism are one of the same position. Saying they aren't related is like saying liberalism and marxism aren't related, because they have different end goals.

>The fact is the average white is little more than nigger cattle
That's wishful thinking. Because it's not Whites who are indulging in the consumerism of modern America like niggers and spics are. Actual niggercattle are perfectly fine with everything the way things are or are simply content with the state of politics and the world as long as they are behind walls and get free gimmies. You can just say you hate White people and fuck off kike.

>without an aristocracy
Whites have lived with and without an aristocracy and all we've gotten are Rothschilds agents and the same elites who have now, but they wear dress pretty clothes, flaunt about the greatness of conservatism, and act more as celebrities than leaders. No matter what government you establish, if it is not centered on race and ridding of the jew, then it will inevitable fail.

>literal spics are more committed to white nationalism than them.
Lol what? Spics are gayer and are only more committed to their own heritage. Your assertion here is retarded, because it's always White nationalists Whites who get arrested whether they engage in self-defense or peaceful protesting, not Latinos. The tides are turning as racial tensions increase. If anything, now more than ever has Whites become more proud of themselves, but cannot go in public saying this otherwise it's either arrest or death. 

> I will reiterate again that I'm not at all concerned about the "king bad scenario"
Of course you aren't kike. A good goy with a crown on his head is all your concern. As long as we have a moron who repeats history and you feel good, because you're under the delusion that there is some form of hierarchy, then nothing else matters to you. This is exactly what lead to the rise of the jews in the medieval Europe. 

>but postpone the inevitable corruption, and are made worse by their lack of discrimination upon who should lay claim to authority.
I find it hilarious of lack of self-awareness in this comment. You act as if the entire history of modern Europe where we had kings and rulers alike were no where near the same. Muh aristocracy LARP isn't a political nor sociable solution faggot. Your kin getting the best of themselves is, I have yet to see anyone refute this other than what ifs and crying about what a political is and not what consists. Your line of thinking is how the revolutionaries were able to easily btfo Louis XIV and the Carlists, because they actually showed that they were far competent.

1602696205971.jpg
[Hide] (885.4KB, 1748x1597) Reverse

>>539
>Cosmopolitism and egalitarianism are one of the same position
That can't be true, for as we've already established, you yourself are an egalitarian despite repudiating cosmopolitanism.
>wishful thinking
Not wishful thinking; it's an observable fact, and indeed it's been true for ages, save for the fact that whites in the past were more religious and their religion preserved them against vice (and then again, the hylic whites only did well because they had strong figureheads, not for being noble themselves).
>it's not Whites who are indulging in the consumerism of modern America like niggers and spics are
Explain to me then why is Europe, and the West generally, in decadence? It cannot be kikes alone, for if whites were not in such a state as you describe, I can hardly see why they haven't dealt with the JQ already; certainly it wouldn't be a problem if they possess the kind of aptitude you ascribe to them.
>Actual niggercattle are perfectly fine with everything the way things are
So, the average white?
>You can just say you hate White people
I don't think being realistic is the same as being spiteful.
>Whites have lived with and without an aristocracy
So have niggers; your point being?
>all we've gotten are Rothschilds agents and the same elites who have now
So kikes have always ruled the whites? What then is that "aristocratic race" you spoke of that has always been ruled, and does not even boast subjects? You see how contradictory your statements are?
>Lol what?
The majority of white nationalists are spics (and even some jews); I'm not even making this up. The average white is too complacent to care, and even the ones who do are rarely competent; the spics understand their predicament as mongrels and that's why some of them have this allure towards racialism.
>As long as we have a moron who repeats history and you feel good
A proper aristocracy would prevent history from being repeated (Plato refers to this as "the cycle"); of course, an aristocracy in general would be better than other forms of government, it's deterioration merely resulting in the inferior ones.
>This is exactly what lead to the rise of the jews in the medieval Europe
Aristocracies/monarchies have existed long before the middle ages though?
>Your line of thinking is how the revolutionaries were able to easily btfo Louis XIV and the Carlists
Only for the revolutionaries to descend into bloodshed immediately after establishing a republic. You could argue all day what kind of government is the most expedient, but expedience does not translate into stability, and expedient governments don't necessarily last long nor are they not decadent (this is true of totalitarian regimes and democracies).

>>540
>That can't be true, for as we've already established, you yourself are an egalitarian despite repudiating cosmopolitanism.
You don't know what egalitarianism is retard. Democracy is not inherently egalitarian. You're describing liberal democracy. You're entire assumption of democracy being a rejection hierarchy is based off of trads psuedo-intellectuals who never read a book in their life and only know to reject anything that isn't medieval. 

>Not wishful thinking; it's an observable fact
Which part of is it an obserable fact. Because seeing all the trends of the world it clearly isn't.

>save for the fact that whites in the past were more religious and their religion preserved them against vice
Whites are still religious and, religion is what got us into this present in the first place. Let's say you're hypotheically correct. If shitty religions such as Christianity are so great, then it wouldn't failed to fight against modern degeneracy as it does today. We see in Africa that religion fails to keep any man civilized and we even go into the most Catholic and Christian places in the world such as South America and the situtation is the same. The issue at hand is not the lack of religion, it is the Jew race and faith that poisons the minds of the White man.

>Explain to me then why is Europe, and the West generally, in decadence?
Because of the Jew, next stupid question.

>It cannot be kikes alone
You're right, Christians also lead that hand when they open their doors to Jews in handling their finances and needing assistance in religious mysticism. We go back in time we only see that it was the fault of the Christian man who refused to see the Jew as an eternal and racial enemy over a religious one.

>So, the average white
Lol what? Confirmed not to be White. I've seen no White man whether liberal or cuckservative as being totally fine with the way things are and I live in a somewhat liberal town that has fully disapproved of the George Floyd riots and are bewildered on what's going on the anti-Whiteness in modern America. 

>I don't think being realistic is the same as being spiteful.
<Hey guys if we just worship this dead Jew 24/7 and re-establish an oligarchy, then we're totally going to be fine! 
You're just delusional.

>So have niggers
Niggers never had successful civilization ran by their own kin.

>So kikes have always ruled the whites?
Christianity proves it so.

>What then is that "aristocratic race" you spoke of that has always been ruled, and does not even boast subjects?
I never said anything about an aristocratic race....

>The majority of white nationalists are spics
There is no proof of this, for no one knows the demographics of White nationalists. And it's likely bullshit that persist as a meme on the internet, because of the spics who toured around /pol/ on 4chan.

>The average white is too complacent to care
Says the guy who isn't even White nor has any idea what the average White guys thinks outside of the television or internet videos. I don't see a non-White or Christian being less "complacent" against Jewry. As matter of fact, it can be officially seen that they are compliant.

>A proper aristocracy would prevent history from being repeated
>throughout history every aristocracy has either transition or always been an oligarchy or tyranny. 
You bring nothing to support aristocracy as a solution and that any of its promises won't end up becoming a typical royalist monarchy. You offer an idea that you believe to work, but not something decisive other than. This is no different than what Marxist do, who also insist that communism will simply work due to all its empty promises, despite the fact that all past occurrences debunk them. All of what you said other than the could be said the same about democracy.

>understand their predicament as mongrels and that's why some of them have this allure towards racialism.
And, they're retarded and have nothing to do with National Socialism or fascism. If they want to contribute, then they can shut up and stay in their own country and focus on their own problems. So you aren't going anywhere with this argument.

>Aristocracies/monarchies have existed long before the middle ages though?
And all of them failed too right? What happened to every single one of them. Bureaucratism, liberalism, technology and the Jews cucked them out. Sorry anon, but we don't want a inbred utopia with a king as our head and face representing us any longer. Aristocrats did this to themselves. 

>Only for the revolutionaries to descend into bloodshed immediately after establishing a republic
Doesn't matter. Power wins in the end and aristocratic-tards don't have any. They most certainly won't have any if they continue to refuse to be appealing to Whites.

>but expedience does not translate into stability
The NSDAP proves you wrong.

>and expedient governments don't necessarily last long nor are they not decadent (this is true of totalitarian regimes and democracies).
Philosophy should come from someone who actually speaks in experience and understands the trends of history. I can also say this to you. LARPing and expecting a form of government to automatically work, will lead to neither stability nor transgression, nor an ounce of consideration amongst the common man at all.

Queer_Priest.jpg
[Hide] (29.7KB, 270x480) Reverse

>Aristocracy
National Socialism and fascism are inherently aristocratic. National Socialism is the type of aristocracy that sees that both tradition and race are upmost important for a nation to thrive. As true aristocrats we value merit over prestige, wealth and unearned privileges. National Socialism is not a form of democracy, but of a mixed government that will use all that is necessary and is consistent with the natural order to secure the future of the Aryan race. Also, Democracy is not opposed nor against an aristocracy is commonly wrong. If you want a medieval state, then go to /monarchy/ and cry about how you don't have celebrities playing dress-up in royal clothes there.

>>542
>Democracy is not inherently egalitarian
Why would that be so? Do not the opinions of all citizens in a democratic State have as much worth? Do they not boast the same rights? And I'm talking about the citizens, and not anyone else; even if the democracy in question were Athenian democracy, women, children, and slaves are not citizens and wouldn't be accounted into that.
>Which part of is it an obserable fact
I think you haven't been paying attention if don't see it as such; either that, or you are just delusional.
>Whites are still religious
Doesn't seem like you aware of the situation in Scandinavia then, where the majority is de facto atheist; then again Germany, where there's a significant atheist population, as well as in the rest of Europe.
>religion is what got us into this present in the first place
So you were an atheist after all? Glad we agree :^)
>If shitty religions such as Christianity are so great
Any religion is better than none, yes, even Christianity; replacing it with soyence or quasi-Nietzschean nihilism is not a solution.
>it wouldn't failed to fight against modern degeneracy as it does today
Was it religion that failed or something concomitant to that? By the enlightenment period religion became something completely personal and individual, without much influence in the public sphere, and certainly the enlightenment period wasn't so grim that I would say Europe had wholly decayed by then; the total degeneracy came much later than where religion could be pointed at as the culprit. 
>Because of the Jew
Jews have been at it for at least one thousand years. It does not seem sensible to me that, if they are the sole cause of Europe's decadence, that it would strike now rather than earlier, moreso accepting what you said that jews have apparently been ruling Europe for as much as it has existed.
>Christians also lead that hand
Can't be that either when most Europeans today aren't even Christian (or only nominally so).
>fully disapproved of the George Floyd riots
They do get a bit alarmed sometimes; then they go back to not caring, and the status quo is the same as it ever was, as is clearly evidenced.
>worship this dead Jew 24/7 and re-establish an oligarchy
Never said nor implied; these are the voices in your head.
>Christianity proves it so
But I thought whites were the mightiest and most aristocratic race? Why then have they been ruled for so long, with no subjects to boast either?
>I never said anything about an aristocratic race
<White man should be an Aryan (truly aristocratic)
Wew, whatever happened to that :^)
>You bring nothing to support aristocracy as a solution
You have brought objections and I have refuted them, and I returned the same objections in kind, and you have yet to address; it seems whether I have a workable solution or not, my argument fares better.
>despite the fact that all past occurrences debunk them
You have yet to debunk me :^)
>they're retarded and have nothing to do with National Socialism or fascism
Yet they seem to constitute the majority of it; why is that?
>all of them failed too right?
What government has not failed in the long run? Yet it is nevertheless the empires, monarchies, and aristocracies of the world that have lasted the longest.
>Power wins in the end
I'm not sure if that's right; suppose for instance there's one thing that is most deleterious to the State, and the ruler of that State wants to act upon it but can't: that would certainly be a win, yet you said that power wins in the end, so it doesn't seem to hold.
>they continue to refuse to be appealing to Whites
Why would they suddenly gain power from "appealing to the whites" if the whites, either individually or collectively (as you've admitted countless times), are powerless?
>The NSDAP proves you wrong
<something that lasted a measly decades proves you wrong
Try again.
>>543
>National Socialism and fascism are inherently aristocratic
No, it isn't; Hitler himself was openly against the aristocracy.
>National Socialism is not a form of democracy
I never said it was; only that it had a democratic spirit, in being a kind of iconoclastic despotism.
>rule of the best
>rule of the many
<totally not opposed by the way

>>537
>Loki was always a god of Norse mythology
Always not really; he was originally only a god in some parts of Scandinavia, not all.
>Adonis was considered to be her lover by Eastern Greeks and West-Asians who were influenced by Hellenism
What? The Athenians literally had festivals dedicated to Adonis.
>Christmas exists to gloss over that Yule was a festival dedicated to Odin
Christmas existed separately from Yule; it was not used to "gloss over that Yule was festival dedicated to Odin" anymore than it was used to gloss over that Saturnalia was a commemoration of the golden age of Rome.
>The purpose of this "syncretism" was for Norse and Anglo converts who threaten to leave Catholicism if they could not continue to practice their traditions
Or, more likely, Norse and Anglo converts simply picked those parts of Christmas that seemed familiar to Yule to make sense of the custom as a whole; that happened in Egypt too when the Coptic converts would liken the cross to the ankha, even though the symbolism connoted by each was not related.
>vague claims and assertions
If you want me to quote directly from the Republic, you should just ask; for the sake of brevity I only said that you don't know what you are talking about.
>Neo-Platonists are completely for immigration
Certainly not the opinion of Porphyry, who was rather contemptuous of the tradition of Barbarians. Again, you don't know what you speak of.
>it's just another way of describing a culture  the Greeks did not understand
It doesn't matter what term I use, whether it be "barbarian", "foreigner", or whatever else you fancy; the point is that there's no such thing as a non-citizen who is a citizen, and a non-European who is a European, and therefore no racial hierarchy either.
>You called us atheist for rejecting the notion that religion must also be tied to blood
Well, you'd be foolish to say that, lest you affirm that the gods are limited by material conditions such as race, in which case I'd be right to say that you are an atheist.
>can you name a time that religion hasn't been this case?
The burden is yours, not mine.
>Look at result of Rome
It still lasted more than any other empire (or nation for that matter).
>the Selecuids and Ptolemaic dynasties
They covered nowhere near as much territory as Alexander's (short-lived) empire, and they were relatively much less culturally diverse.
>Romans spent half their budget on the military just to keep order installed
This proves your point exactly how? Rome in the early days was almost destroyed by the Italic tribes that it allied itself with; now you could say that this is an example of "assimilationism" failing, but then you'd have to effectively concede that not even race guarantees cooperation amongst people; unless you are to argue the absurd that Romans were a totally distinct race from the Latins. You are correct in that the large military budget points to something, but not what you think it is.
>One person
Missed the point. Read on his correspondences, not his person.
>Paganism is atheism
If one understands and practices "paganism" as no more than symbols and aesthetics, then yes, that person might as well be called an atheist.
>If they wanted to replace religion then they would not have tolerated Christianity
No? Do you not know what pragmatism is?
>No one in the NSDAP has had plans to replace religion
Except they did.
>The problem here is that you think science and religion are mutually exclusive
Neither said nor implied by me.
>the NSDAP were encouraging traditional values
Newageism and revisionism are not traditional values. Next you are going to tell me that Guido von List was trad.
>we are therefore fully agreeing with everything he has said and done
Not at all; otherwise I wouldn't have qualified you as quasi-Nietzschean.
>I know that all modern religions all act the same way as Christianity and Islam does
Delusional.
>Theravada, Mahayana, Nāgārjuna, and Vajrayāna all interpret anattā as a form of either ridding away the self or "emptiness" of the vessel
Not all of these interpret anatta the same; Theravada, for instance, understands that there's no self in the five skandhas, not that there's altogether no self.
>t.moron who knows nothing about the connection between the ceremonial beads of Northern Europe and Egypt
I thought only niggers were we wuzzers :^)
>Rome did not rise due to syncretism
That was not the point of the argument though; you said it was a "peculiar event", and that is my rebuttal.
>Now you're just outright lying
That is something you can attest yourself; there were cults and priesthoods dedicated to all gods like Mars, Jupiter, and even foreign ones like Cybele (who, again, is attested in the Aeneid).
>preserving Rome's oldest gods prior to integration of the Greeks' gods
Even some of the earliest gods were taken from the Etruscans.
>Cosmopolitism and egalitarianism are strongly related to each other
Yet you are an egalitarian without being sympathetic to cosmopolitanism yourself :^)
>they are the signs of THE DECAY
The west was already decaying prior even to race mixing entering in anyone's imagination.
>especially when those of two different cultures would of most likely been against it
Exactly, they have to be in a very advanced stage of decay to even entertain that.

>>544
>No, it isn't; Hitler himself was openly against the aristocracy.
Hitler was openly against the monarchists who had betrayed Europe for the Jewish cartels. You just here to act like a woman. No where did Hitler imply or said he was strongly against an aristocracy. I can see that you're the same Christ-tard from the last board.

>I never said it was
<fascists/NSDAP people have a very democratic view on hierarchy
To have a democractic view on hierarchy means to be democratic. Which is still wrong by the way, because your logic, every aristocracy throughout the centuries (Novgorod, England, the Italian Republics, Ancient Greece, Rome) had a similar system. What Hitler implemented was no different from theirs.

>only that it had a democratic spirit
This makes no sense. Either it is democratic or it isn't. You still have not explained why this is a bad thing. You're just seething at the mouth over democracy and then concluding that NSDAP is a form of it in a way. According to you and many tradfags, salvation is a hereditary tenet system that wasn't exactly trad (as if this has any meaning any longer).

>in being a kind of iconoclastic despotism
You literally don't know what you're talking about. 

>totally not opposed by the way
And still as you were in the last board, you remain to be extremely illiterate and uneducated. Rule of the best and many are a false dichotomy. They can go hand in hand, especially when the state prioritizes in turning every man into a gentleman. Rule of the few comes with of those who suited for state affairs, while the common man is suited is ruler of his own home and has the ability to vote and assist the future of this country. All your petty arguments and pilpuls only apply to liberal democracy.

>>548
>Hitler was openly against the monarchists who had betrayed Europe for the Jewish cartels
So Hitler was a regicide? Same thing really; he doesn't believe that the king should or has the right to rule, only that he should do so when it benefits him.
>I can see that you're the same Christ-tard from the last board
I don't know who you are talking about, but who I am is of little account; only women focus on people over ideas.
>To have a democractic view on hierarchy means to be democratic
Not necessarily; even the republicans in Rome allowed consuls to be dictators under the idea that they were replaceable. Without preeminence, aristocracy is void.
>every aristocracy throughout the centuries
<England
That's very vague; England now certainly isn't aristocratic.
<the Italian Republics
Republics are not aristocratic, by definition.
<Ancient Greece
You realize there were various city states, right? Some with their own form of government, correct? So which one are you referring to?
<Rome
Again, what period of Roman history/government?
>You still have not explained why this is a bad thing
I explained it in my previous post, when the other anon asked about the "king bad" scenario.
>You literally don't know what you're talking about
<if king bad he is not a king
<if a father is bad he is not a father
Totally not iconoclastic.
>Rule of the best and many are a false dichotomy
Not at all, for nature by design distributes the base natures among the majority, as being the most base they have the most wants, and the noble natures among the elite, as being the most noble they have fewer wants; so too, by way of analogy, the intelligent are more efficient and frugal, whilst the stupid are not, and there are less of the former than there are of the latter. There are as many opinions are there are men, but knowledge is one of a kind; no wonder then only a few seek it, whilst the multitude is content with varied illusions, those whom I term hylics.
>when the state prioritizes in turning every man into a gentleman
The State cannot do the impossible, no more than a father can turn his newborn into an adult.
>Rule of the few comes with of those who suited for state affairs
Democracy does not choose those "suited for state affairs"; remember, democracy is the rule of the people, and the people choose their leader whether they have the ability to discern what's best or not.
>the common man is suited is ruler of his own home
That right is not infringed in an aristocracy; in essence it's the same thing to be the ruler of a nation as it is to be the master of a household, one being public and the other private.

>>549
>So Hitler was a regicide?
Is this supposed to be a bad thing. This has been done numerously in the past.

>he doesn't believe that the king should or has the right to rule
Correct, because the king was an idiot and an agent of the Jew.

>only that he should do so when it benefits him
No, and you sounding like a cuckservative. A really dumb one. He did what was best for the Germans to get them out of the influence of the Jew.

>I don't know who you are talking about,
Oh no, you don't have to pretend. You did similar things back in the old board, where you insisted that Hitler was evil and went on about some nonsense on how we don't have a moral system like Christianity, then everything would fall apart. You type the same way too and especially at how you love using this emojicon :^) .

>only women focus on people over ideas
The irony of this statement. Aristocracy is also an idea, whether you find it natural or not. 

>Not necessarily; even the republicans in Rome allowed consuls to be dictators.
 And this was only if it was necessary and if a consul proved himself to be worthy of becoming dictator. Meaning a king had to be handed his crown by his own folk. A form of legitimacy was needed in order to be recognized as king.

>That's very vague; England now certainly isn't aristocratic.
>The Kingdom Of England did not exist.

>Republics are not aristocratic
>The Roman Republic did not exist, Greek city-states did not exist
Republics can be aristocratic. Aristocracy is the rule of the best and few, not of one. 

>You realize there were various city states, right?
Yes I do. And you know you're pilpuling right? You know this doesn't refute any of what I said, correct? 

>Again, what period of Roman history/government?
All throughout Roman history. Did you fail all of your history classes? Or is this more petty pilpul, because I'm most certainly am not referring to the Papal States.

>I explained it in my previous post
No you didn't. You just simply asserted that killing or removing a king is bad, but not where its consequence will lie. If anything you can say that assuming a king will be automatically bad is illogical, but simultaneously you are only bringing a possibility that king killers are bad, not something of certainty in all cases, especially when most king killers were aristocrats themselves. The "king bad" scenario can also be applied to those who constantly whine about dictators or democracy. 

>if king bad he is not a king
Correct. Anything else?

>if a father is bad he is not a father
Correct. And he should be strip of his status of as a father. Unless you want to say that you're pro-parental abuse. If a king is shit, he should be striped of his status, and this should apply to anyone of the status as a figure. Of course, fathers should be given second chances like kings, but there are also times were the best solution is to take away their possessions and status.

>Totally not iconoclastic
It isn't. It's called MERIT. Even Plato ushers that it is important for leaders to be competent. Do you think he would perfectly fine with a leader who has no loyalty to his own nation and all he does is in benefit of himself? That's what we call tyranny. And I thought you would be against that. I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

>Not at all, for nature by design distributes the base natures among the majority, as being the most base they have the most wants, and the noble natures among the elite, as being the most noble they have fewer wants
This doesn't apply to all social hierarchies anon. Your assertion applies maybe to shit-skins and animals, but as shown, democracy and aristocracy works best with White people and if they are put in charge. Not everyone is the same as nature, and you just proved anon correct that you are the kind to view every man as the same, which is an unorthodox view amongst nature itself. National Socialism prioritizes what is best for the best man and common equally. The common man who has no particular qualities is still to be taken care of and the state will serve him in an effort to make him the best he can be. The NSDAP was quite successful in this, unlike anyone else. To just have an aristocracy and no priority of you own tribe will inevitable lead to tyranny and elitism. This is what modern America and every monarchy has become. Either make a point on how National Socialism failed and your fantasy aristocracy will work, or go back to /monarchy/ with your fellow diaper fetishes who clearly aren't the best to justify the rule of a crown.

>The State cannot do the impossible
Who says this is impossible? The National Socialists proved that what was thought to be impossible or what the Jew declares as a myth was in fact very possible. Impossibility and the requirements for long gradual change or not the same.

>no more than a father can turn his newborn into an adult.
Terrible allegory. 

>Democracy does not choose those "suited for state affairs
Again, your assumption is that every democracy is liberal. Democracy works best when the very few are the race itself. Only through the standards being high and the best race and men ruling their own nations will a nation prosper and progress. Seeing that you cannot prove that White people fault of modern Europe, you cannot say that this will fall apart. Even though the rise of the enlightenment period was Christian philosophy, ideals, and the Catholic Church increasingly becoming communist. 

>That right is not infringed in an aristocracy
I never said it was nor implied that it was. But it will be in an aristocracy that has no regard for its folk. Instead it naturally becomes an oligarchy like Plato said it would and thus history repeats where kings are overthrown and republics are established. 

Take your monarcho-nihilism somewhere else.

>>551
>This has been done numerously in the past
But how does that legitimize it? Would you tell me stealing is right because men have done it so frequently that it sometimes goes unpunished?
>Correct
Why, then Hitler should not expect loyalty of his own citizens if any one of them personally finds him disagreeable; he would depose a king by the same rationale.
>A really dumb one
It's not that I'm dumb, but that you are an emotional and reactive person; so reactive in fact that you find it prudent to demolish the State as soon it does any injury to you, like the impudent anarchist you are. You who harp on about blood and soil, and yet how could you be loyal to any of those things when you have no compunction to betray the State? The difference between you and I is while I have a rational and principled approach to my judgement, you have an emotional and utilitarian one.
>Kingdom Of England
What period then? Don't be vague
>Aristocracy is the rule of the best and few
Republics are neither of these.
>You know this doesn't refute any of what I said
How can I refute anything if you are being so vague as to which Ancient Greek city state you are referring to? The forms of government are not the same among them, nor can I judge them as though they were.
>All throughout Roman history
So you don't think the Etruscan kings were deposed? Or the Republic itself usurped by Caesar? It's all the same?
>simultaneously you are only bringing a possibility that king killers are bad
That was not my point; my point was that regicides undermine the legitimacy of the State, ergo they not only do harm to the king himself but the whole body politic (i.e. unwarranted/undue retribution).
>The "king bad" scenario can also be applied to those who constantly whine about dictators or democracy
Except democratic figures, and dictators to some extent, open themselves up to that kind of criticism.
>Do you think he would perfectly fine with a leader who has no loyalty to his own nation and all he does is in benefit of himself?
He criticizes tyrants, yes, but haven't you read the Crito? He does not, at any rate, endorse political iconoclasm, even in a "ruler bad" scenario; he certainly wouldn't invite irreverence against his own philosopher kings.
>This doesn't apply to all social hierarchies anon
It applies equally as well to social hierarchies as it applies when comparing an English genius, like Newton, to the average English in regards to intelligence.
>works best with White people and if they are put in charge
What is this competence based upon? Surely you don't think every white person has as much competence to work as a doctor or speak of medical things; for then the State would be relieved of providing medical services altogether, as the next citizen would be as good as any other to provide such services; similarly, there would be no need of Statesmanship or government either, as the next citizen would be as a good as any other to perform it. You of speak of white people being in charge, but in charge of whom? If not of themselves, as by that point they'd have no rulers, then the other races? Are you saying whites should provide for non-whites?
>you are the kind to view every man as the same
You do, not I. You keep bringing up niggers and non-whites to conceal your disapproval of hierarchy, but why should a white State concern itself with non-whites other than as possible enemies? Why would a white State even consider such matters save for when it's attempting to integrate non-whites? There just is no such thing as racial hierarchy; you are either a citizen or you are not.
>it will be in an aristocracy that has no regard for its folk
That is a ruin to the king himself; that is no excuse to be iconoclastic.

>>551
>you want to say that you're pro-parental abuse
And how could anyone ever revoke a guardian's custody if not through the State? You don't mean to say that vigilantes should have a final word on the matter, right? That would imply just about anyone could revoke a guardian's custody, whether justly or unjustly. Besides, if we were to apply that same principle to the State, then the principle quickly descends in infinite regression; for once the king is unlawfully deposed, or outright murdered, who should restrain the mob when it commits senseless killings? And who should restrain him who restrains the mob if he's likewise frenzied? And so on.

Non-whites following Christianity is just pure COPE. They're desperately trying to show White people how civilized they are. Pathetic, if you ask me. But you know what really annoys me? 

The Hinduism that indian shitskins are subscribed to is fake and a corrupted version of what we preach. I am filled with anger seeing these wretched creatures think Hinduism came from them. THEM. Entry level wignats think Hindupoos are based on that alone. Imagine being that blind. 

I am of the belief that all the good religions are for us Whites only while the negative/Satanic beliefs are for the subhuman hordes. Even the Buddhism followed by Napali niggers aren't from them. Buddha was White after all. /rant over

>>552
>But how does that legitimize it?
You're asking stupid questions and are trying to establish a Fabian tactic that "legitimacy" cannot be asserted by power. Hitler had the approval of the German folk. He already approved of as a leader.

>Why, then Hitler should not expect loyalty of his own citizens if any one of them personally finds him disagreeable
Again, you ask many stupid questions that takes our conversation nowhere. Hitler had the loyalty of citizens and secured that, what he did not secure was the reactionary-tards who did not approve of Hitler not selling his nation out to the Jew owed Catholics. By the way, it wasn't Hitler who killed monarchism, it was already falling apart due to its lack of support and WW1. 

>It's not that I'm dumb, but that you are an emotional and reactive person
Don't know what you're talking about, you are simply disingenuous and are wasting my time. I expected a intelligent discussion between the both of us and you're giving me the opposite. You constantly like to point out what you think of others, despite it being the contrary. When you do this, it is very Freudian. 

>so reactive in fact that you find it prudent to demolish the State as soon it does any injury to you
It is natural to erdicate any poisons that harms its folk, just as it is the duty of White blood-cells to fight off diseases to protect its host. You've still not established where I'm illogical in this line of thinking, but I see now that you brought your reason below.

>he difference between you and I is while I have a rational and principled approach to my judgement
Says the guy who has not brought a single justification nor logical reason for his ideal aristocracy other than "republic bad".

>What period then? Don't be vague
I don't need to state a period. If you understand history, which I'm giving you the respect of the assumption that you do, you would know I'm talking about 13-14th century England. 

>Republics are neither of these.
No argument.

>How can I refute anything if you are being so vague
I'm not being vague. It's obvious that Ancient Greece was not unitary, but my point is not refuted, because my statement remains factual. Stop deflecting my arguments.

>he forms of government are not the same among them
I literally stated this in previous post, you are a man of pilpul. So much for logic and reason.

>So you don't think the Etruscan kings were deposed? So you don't think the Etruscan kings were deposed? Or the Republic itself usurped by Caesar? It's all the same?
Now you're moving the goal-post and strawmanned what I said. From Rome's birth it had a senate and assemblies selected and balanced their kings.

>That was not my point; my point was that regicides undermine the legitimacy of the State
<r-regicides is just simply bad
No one other than trad-tards and their attempts to establish an inevitable rule back to monarchy, believe regicide automatically undermines legitimacy. It is either legit, because it has a reason, or it is not.

>ergo they not only do harm to the king himself but the whole body politic
That's literally your opinion that has no merit nor meaning as the man with the most power will always come out on top. The fact that the liberal Russians could overthrow the monarchy and Soviets participate in its complete destruction already debunks your assertion that everything will fall apart is a Fabian lie.

>Except democratic figures, and dictators to some extent, open themselves up to that kind of criticism
Again, I can say the same about kings becoming tyrants or just outright betraying their folk. Hitler's cause was just, I've found no reasonable criticism, other than "muh monarchy!!".

>He criticizes tyrants, yes, but haven't you read the Crito? He does not, at any rate, endorse political iconoclasm
The thing here is that you still have not established that all forms of usurpations are iconoclasm or that it is always unjust. Especially at how you fail to connect Hitler as his cause being one of them, even though he had no hatred of the monarchy. So I have no idea what your point is supposed to be here, but it's not like you had one.

>It applies equally as well to social hierarchies as it applies when comparing an English genius
Lol, nice evidence for your claims.
>It is just because
I can simply bring up examples of the wolf and tiger packs or other forms of social animals, or just simply refer to the Greeks again who believe that there must be a balance of power that works in Equilibrium and a state that isn't about governing man, but rising them to their peak for better survival. Kings only exist to unify people of a common culture and works best to control foreign cultures. Leaders don't need a crown, they need merit and a form of legitimacy. The Wolf knows this, which is why whenever the Alpha forgets his role, he is to be removed.

>What is this competence based upon?
The fact that Whites are smarter and work better as a collective and other group when they have solidarity for each other. History proves that this has been done before and is a possibility.

>Surely you don't think every white person has as much competence to work as a doctor or speak of medical things
This isn't what I said nor implied, you're grasping for straws here. White people are far more competent in the skills and subjects that they specialize and they have the tendency to just simply do things better than all races. Which this both demonstrates that Whites are more likely to be multi-talented and it is a fact that the race with the most well-rounded individuals also happen to be Wypipos. What the NSDAP wanted was to accelerate this by expanding our capabilities at all cost. Whites are smarter and simply better and by extending this to every White guy being capable of self-mastery and guidance, this will accelerate to a higher state where we no longer need to be told how to do things, because we already know how to strive towards the correct path on our own. No other race has come close to the accomplishment of the White, which is an OBJECTIVE FACT. 

> similarly, there would be no need of Statesmanship or government either, as the next citizen would be as a good as any other to perform it
Yes, and that means a community is well-developed that it can run itself. HOW IS THIS A BAD THING ANON? A good home-owner doesn't need the state trivializing into his privacy, especially when he is a remarkable citizen. This is what Hitler had in mind when he said "master" (gentlemen).

 >You of speak of white people being in charge, but in charge of whom? If not of themselves
I literally implied that they should be in charge of themselves. You're just going off on ignorant conclusions. This is psuedo-intellectualism at its best.

>Are you saying whites should provide for non-whites
Again, ignorance.

>You do, not I.
I don't. And you provide no reason on how I do. I acknowledge every man as different. The issue here is that you think that every man being capable of his own worth means everyone will be the same, which isn't what Hitler had envision neither do I for it is unrealistic will never be achieved. The ultimate goal of National Socialism was to eliminate degeneracy by making White people immune to it. This something every man can share in common.

>u keep bringing up niggers and non-whites to conceal your disapproval of hierarchy
I did not. You're just making stuff-up now. I have not mention niggers once in my previous posts.

>but why should a white State concern itself with non-whites other than as possible enemies?
Because Whites and all other races are simply incompatible with each other, dumb dumb. Aka, the survival of the fittest, or racial struggle. No one is going to be racially blind to another man's phenotype and bloodline, because of religious practices or institutions. Those who try to do so are lying to themselves and to others (liberals and cuckservatives).  We cannot share a state with other races, it is has failed in the past, and only those who want to repeat past mistakes desires this. Negroes, and red-skins will forever blame the White man for their demise, and the White man will never found common ground with them either. Your ideas that there exist no racial struggle is egalitarian, via defeating any notion that you ever believed in differences. What you believe is that idea of difference is secondary when it is inconvenient to the stability of a larger state.

>There just is no such thing as racial hierarchy
That's because race is the hierarchy. Race is the body and represent of everything that exists within a nation. To say that race has no relation to hierarchy is like saying that our bodies have no organism. 

> you are either a citizen
Liberal statement here. All past states, Aristotle and even Plato made it clear that citizenry must be tied to blood. It must be a birth-right, not something handed to anyone, simply because they are useful to the state's needs and goals. This is what killed the Roman Empire in the first place.

>That is a ruin to the king himself; that is no excuse to be iconoclastic
Says who? A LARPer from the r/the_donald who cannot bring evidence or any form of subsistence to his claims?

>And how could anyone ever revoke a guardian's custody if not through the State
The citizens of a nation can also take away a guardian's custody, whether it be by force or coaxing them. Your idea that the state rules and only rules everything is slave-minded. The state does not always handle means the best, as matter of fact, often it fails, because the men within it are illogical and no different from the common man. You're proving an illusion, the only reason why we have state handle these affairs is, because they do it more coordinately and faster, but it is often inefficient and not done justly fully.

Egyptians_beads_in_Denmark.png
[Hide] (132.3KB, 1386x706) Reverse

>>545
Not that anon.
>Always not really; he was originally only a god in some parts of Scandinavia, not all.
This is vague. Norse mythology originated and always been apart of Scandinavia. Plus he was never a god, he's a frost giant.

>They did
Proof? Positive Christianity and other sects of Christianity were tolerated as long as they did not cause any obstructions. You're deliberately lying, because the NSDAP were only against the influences of Catholicism and Protestantism reaching interfering with state affairs, but they did not have long-term plans to replace religion. They were totally against division and replacement of any kind.

>I thought only niggers were we wuzzers :^)
How is it we wuzzing, when it's literally true?

https://sciencenordic.com/archeology-bronze-age-denmark/danish-bronze-age-glass-beads-traced-to-egypt/1411142

>>559
>Fabian tactic that "legitimacy" cannot be asserted by power
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that; are you saying the rule of the jews is legitimate because they have power? So you don't actually oppose the jews then?
>Hitler had the loyalty of citizens and secured that
That was not the point of the argument; the point of the argument was that by undermining (or at least intending to) the legitimacy of the royalty, he opened up himself to the same kind of undermining. If Weimar had not deposed the king, he would've done it himself, and in fact he praised Weimar for doing so.
>just as it is the duty of White blood-cells to fight off diseases
The appropriate analogy would be to destroy the whole body to get rid off diseases; that's what undermining the legitimacy of the State is.
>I don't need to state a period
Of course you do, or are you implying that the government in England today is the same as it was in the 13th-14th century? Now I'm glad you gave me a period to work with; anyway, other than the Magna Carta (which was annulled later anyway) I don't see anything that might have threatened the preeminence of the king, so what's your point?
>No argument
You are the one who has given no arguments; how can a republic be aristocratic if it's definition precludes it from ever being so? Popular involvement = not aristocratic, no matter how much you may want to stretch the scope of 'best'.
>It's obvious that Ancient Greece was not unitary
Then why are you making such an unqualified assertion about it?
>my point is not refuted
Well, there never was one to begin with. I will ask again that you specify what city state you are referring to when you say "Ancient Greece"; very simple request.
>I literally stated this in previous post
Then I find it strange that you aren't compelled to specify one city state if you agree with me; for surely you are not implying that the government in Sparta and government in Athens are interchangeable, right?
>Now you're moving the goal-post
Not at all, you said "all throughout Roman history", and I proved you that it is not so.
>Rome's birth it had a senate and assemblies selected and balanced their kings
Not at all, the Senate was created by the king himself; while the Senate was responsible for anointing the new king, it was not it's role to "balance" the king, and indeed the king could even execute and debar senators as he pleased. The king could choose and remove senators, but senators did not have the right to depose the king; they could only elect the new one.
>I can say the same about kings becoming tyrants or just outright betraying their folk
The king's authority does not stem from his people, as he's the bread-giver (literally what 'lord', or loaf-ward, means) upon whom they depend; he only opens himself up to that kind of criticism if he doubts his own preeminence.
>you still have not established that all forms of usurpations are iconoclasm or that it is always unjust
If you are alive today, it's due to the State; the State, with it's laws and institutions, is the one who consecrated your parents' marriage, and the one who protected your parents' ownership of the land where they would subsequently raise you, whereupon you are not in equal terms with the State to dispute it's authority as a child is not in equal terms to dispute the decisions of their parents; moreover, by your continual abiding in the State's territory and enjoying of it's rights and sustenance, you assent to all it's laws and punishments whether justly or unjustly ministered, convenient or inconvenient to you, since this is the condition, and the only one, upon which the State confers those to you, as it does indiscriminately to all it's citizens, it being a matter of duty and right, not reward; so that if you were to recant and defy judgement, whether done justly or unjustly to you, you'd not only be injuring those men who ministered it, but the whole State and, in undermining the legitimacy of it's laws and jury, the people who depend on it.
>the Greeks again who believe that there must be a balance of power
Which Greeks? :^)
>rising them to their peak for better survival
That's true, but that does not mean the king is to be elected by the people, as he only is the bread-giver upon whom the masses depend, and whose superiority is such that he is not beholden to the people.
>The fact that Whites are smarter and work better as a collective
Not what I asked for.
>This isn't what I said nor implied
So you admit that not every white person has as much competence as the next one in a particular field; why then should we assume that every white person has as much competence to be a Statesman?
>White people are far more competent in the skills and subjects that they specialize
Anon, I don't know why you keep contrasting white people with non-whites; would an all-white State provide for whites or non-whites? If only whites, then why would whiteness be a criterion for evaluating Statesmanship if an all-white State, by definition, would have no non-white citizens for it to exclude? The only other alternative is for there to be no government, as, according to you, every white person has as much competence as the next one to be Statesmen, as much as they have in any other field; however, you previously admitted that not every white person is equally as competent in one particular field (e.g. medicine), so we have no good reason to assume it will be so in Statesmanship, and so no reason to advocate for anarchy (since it's basically what a nation of all "gentlemen" would devolve into, unrealistic as it may be).
>community is well-developed that it can run itself
The problem is that there is no such thing, no more than a household without a master or a family without a father or action without reason; you can never sever the State, no matter what form it takes.
>A good home-owner doesn't need the state trivializing into his privacy
A "good home-owner" is still not a Statesman. Don't mix private and public affairs.
>I literally implied that they should be in charge of themselves
So you admit to being an anarchist? You ultimately want no government?
>you provide no reason on how I do
Well, from your previous Statements I may surmise that you are an anarchist, so you are anti-hierarchy and thus an egalitarian.
>I acknowledge every man as different
Clearly you don't, as you don't recognize the superiority of a ruler over his subjects, nor indeed between each member of the masses of white people, unlike your own ancestors who recognized distinctively patricians and plebeians in their nation; so you don't acknowledge every man as different.
>Whites and all other races are simply incompatible with each other
I'm not sure you understood my sentence. I ask again why should an all-white State care about non-whites if non-whites, by definition, are not their citizens nor subjects? What comparison is to be made between whites and non-whites if, again, non-whites would not be citizens of an all-white State? You realize that the only way for there to be a racial hierarchy is if you incorporate members of another race into citizenship, like a colony or such? If the other races have their own nations with their own hierarchies, then there's no conceivable way in which they'd be subjected to another nation with it's own hierarchy.
>That's because race is the hierarchy
So you accept that non-whites have as much claim to European citizenship as the whites themselves, only that they should be regarded as inferior citizens?
>Liberal statement here
Are you saying it's liberal to say that non-whites are not European? A peculiar notion, to be sure :^)
>The citizens of a nation can also take away a guardian's custody
To be sure, they "can", but if you  are to be consistent with your own argument, you are allowing yourself to have your children taken away from you by anyone whosoever and any reason whatsoever; you must comply with anyone's plea, lest you fall into contradiction.
>Your idea that the state rules and only rules everything is slave-minded
Says the one who just a few sentences prior wanted to be ruled, and have his children taken from him by anyone :^)
>The state does not always handle means the best
I never once said that; it's not crucial to my argument.

>>560
>Proof?
See correspondences with Martin Bormann, and other opinions NSDAP officials held about religion in private. The plan was never to outright outlaw religion, as that would be absurd, but to gradually supplant it with soyence, to the point where religion would no longer be needed.
>it's literally true?
I've read your article, and it says nothing about Egyptians worshiping Nordic gods, only the Egyptians influenced the Nordic sun cult through established trade routes (and that does not even imply the converse happened); similar things happened in Greece, but surely you wouldn't claim that due to that some of Egypt's gods were Greek (prior to Hellenization, that is).

>>588
>I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that; are you saying the rule of the jews is legitimate because they have power?
Legitimacy doesn't matter when you have power.

>So you don't actually oppose the jews then?
Anon was right. You are retarded.

>That was not the point of the argument; the point of the argument was that by undermining (or at least intending to) the legitimacy of the royalty
Who gives a shit about the traitors known as the royals? Hitler wanted something realistic and to get the Germans out of the Jews influence, which is the point you're missing. The monarchist were never usupered by Hitler, but by liberals, Jews, and their own hands themselves. Because they couldn't keep up with the trends and were degenerates themselves. Plus many of them were Rotschild's puppets. Your point here is that "republic bad, because royalty dead" which means you have nothing concrete to say here.

>The appropriate analogy would be to destroy the whole body to get rid off diseases
Except they didn't destroy the whole body. They change it, so it would be healthier and better. Only a delusional fool thinks you're destroying the entire system for not putting rich who claim themselves to be aristocratic as destruction. Your whole analogy doesn't work, because Hitler's government was still working.

>Of course you do, or are you implying that the government in England today is the same as it was in the 13th-14th century?
Or maybe, you're pipuling and playing stupid and cannot establish a counter-argument? Maybe you should learn to read?

>anyway, other than the Magna Carta (which was annulled later anyway) I don't see anything that might have threatened the preeminence of the king, so what's your point?
Baron's War, the fact that kings could be dethroned, the fact the Kings of England had to give approval from their advisors before making any decisions. 

>No You!
>how can a republic be aristocratic if it's definition precludes it from ever being so?
Because you don't understand the meaning of Republic. A Republic is a collective form of government ruled by a CITIZENS body. Aristocrats are citizens of the nation are they not? If you want to say or imply they shouldn't be, then your idea of an aristocracy is not only kiked, but doomed to fail. Its own definition does not omit nor exclude the existence an aristocracy. The problem here is that you're one of those tards who fell for the meme established by trad-caths who sperg out on how Republics are demonic and think every aristocracy must include a king, even though the Papal States were fine with Italian republics and seen them as aristocratic as the HRE and France.

>Popular involvement = not aristocratic
Popular involvement  ≠ Republic
Popular involvement does not exclude aristocracy. You are a psuedo-intellectual, anon. 

>Then why are you making such an unqualified assertion about it?
I did not. You have an obessesion with gaslighting people and pilpuling your opponents.  None of my post ever implied it was unitary.

>Well, there never was one to begin with
No there was one, you're just refusing to acknowledge it, because it goes against your one-sided and low-IQ vision of the world. You simply cannot refute that Ancient Greece was indeed a culture filled with city-states that were simunanteously democratic, republician, and aristocratic all at once.

>I will ask again that you specify what city state you are referring to when you say "Ancient Greece"; very simple request
This won't matter. Since you butchered the history of England, you're likely to make shit-up about the next city-states, but its not like it matters, because you bring up your own interpretation and go in circles and refuse to acknowledge the facts at hand, and bring a conclusive point into your argumentation.

>Not at all, you said "all throughout Roman history" and I proved you that it is not so.
You seem to not realize that the discussion was about what period of Rome had institutions and entities of democracy and republicanism and then you tried to deflect with Caesar and the case of the Estrucan kings. What you said wasn't even true, especially at how you imply that Caesar was form of king which is a hereditary title of royalty. He was merely dictator for life and all the aspects of the Republic were never abolished nor plan to be by Caesar. Throughout Caesar entire life he needed approval of the Republic and its order to achieved what he did. But Caesar honestly was overrated anyway, as he showed to be far more incompetent than the Optimates. His entire legitimacy was entirely relied on the the approval of the senate and plebs, not some magic system you're trying to validify as something above any form of government. Sounds to me you do not what an aristocracy, but a despotic ruler. And the Etruscan king, Lucius Superbus, was overthrown as response to his tyranny and being foreign. And Lucius Priscus had to lobby his way to throne meaning the crown had to handed by the citizens of Rome. 

>Not at all, the Senate was created by the king himself
That's according to tradition, which it has never been proven that Romulus even existed and wasn't an Italian construct. The much more likely case is that the tribes of the early Romans first had established a board of elders that existed in all Indo-European cultures, which they also had the earliest ideas of citizenry as well. Arguably the senate (board of old men) had existed prior to any the first king of Rome as most if not all, Indo-European tribes had them no matter where they went. But let's say he was a real character, Romulus likely established the senate during his first reign not after.

>it was not it's role to "balance" the king
>but senators did not have the right to depose the king; they could only elect the new one.
Except it was indeed about balancing the king and it was about the ruler of Rome desperately needing advisory. The senate still had enormous amounts of executive power even if the king could mix and match around with the senate. The unrealistic factor here is expecting that the system is perfectly working and there were not cases to where the senate could force the king abide its current status. Prisus especially showed that King was weak without their approval of him. The fact that Roman kings did not automatically pass their power onto their heirs and it was reverted back to the Senate upon death, showcases that senate were carefully in choosing who they wanted to rule and had almost as much power. Also, by the way, there's nothing in their constitution that says they could not overthrow a king. The idea that a king should stay ruler, despite all scandals is illogical and leads to instability. Most republics that have disbanded their king and monarchy as a whole did not collapse, aka the NSDAP. If anything it makes more sense to say overthrowing a king and the entire monarchy is poorly constructed, although it would still be partially wrong, because the poorer Romans were having their property taken by rich landowners. 

>If you are alive today, it's due to the State. 
1. Note you're saying "state". A king/queen is a piece of the state, not the state itself. A state will continue to exist even without the monarch.
2. Monarchies are more of institutions than legitimate forms of government, which is not to say they cannot work well, but they're not that different from dictatorships or elected presidents. 
3. What I asked for is for you to prove that killing a monarch is illegitimate when proven to have failed they consist of any form of legitimacy. 
4. No it isn't. The state provides protection. It does not determine your life-style nor outcomes of your life. It can influence it, and we can clearly see that this has mostly been ineffective and negative. 
5. If a state proves itself to fail to provide all things said, does this mean it is still legitimate. If you really believe it should be, your argument validates the United States as legitimate, despite all its done in the past that been the exact opposite of what you defined.
6. Your whole argument falls apart, because of 1.

>That's true, but that does not mean the king is to be elected by the people,
No, but it means they should be to avoid tyranny. Just as a ruler exist to balance other bodies of a government and its citizens. The king himself, unless proven to be extraordinary in rule, should not be given more power, as it always slopes towards tyranny. The idea that there should exist a balance in any form body is retarded. It's like saying we don't need a heart, because a brain. The brain is very limited in its capacity of the body.

>Not what I asked for.
I gave what you asked for, prove me wrong. The issue is or of your concern to refute it as a factual state or something that isn't too far-fetch from the truth. Oh wait you can't.

>So you admit that not every white person has as much competence as the next one in a particular field
I specifically stated that White people are more competent than most. What you could berate me on is not saying "individually". I clearly meant that a White people are generally far more competent said than other races in a field or subject (farming, teachers, trading, leaders, etc). If they weren't you have to explain why the rise of world dominance always come from Europe.

>Anon, I don't know why you keep contrasting white people with non-whites;
I contrast with non-Whites, because what concern of incompetence or degeneracy is only dominant amongst them. If you're looking for your average village idiot as a race you will find that amongst other races.

> would an all-white State provide for whites or non-whites? 
This another issue you have. You come to ignorant conclusions that make no sense. Your entire world-view is illogical and dare I insult, downright moronic. And you wonder why I excuse you of establishing Fabian tactics.

>? If only whites, then why would whiteness be a criterion for evaluating Statesmanship if an all-white State
Because the past-events have know broaden our knowledge of the existence that other races exist, that non-White immigrants can become citizens and cuckservatives like (You), always foolishly forget what is upmost important. We wouldn't have to include race, if monarchist, liberals, marxists, and cuckservatives alike did not repeatedly cuck out and make compromises with the Jew's terms and lies that there can exceptions to immigration and to what the meaning of "White" means. I wish racialism was regarded as common sense in protection and what must represent the means of a state, but apparently times have changed and idiots have mistakenly or purposely forgotten.

>The only other alternative is for there to be no government,
Again, more Fabian tactics and bad logic. The conclusion is what the NSDAP wanted. A mixed government centered on preserving race and culture. None of what I said implied this. What I stated was that the government should turn man into the master race (gentlemen, self-sufficient, self-control), so states don't have to do unnecessary work, cause division, and lead everyone astray. To be above time. The alternative of anarchy is what you see, but that's because you are blinded by trad lies , despite their forms of governments numerously failing due to racial blindness and being spiritually Jewish. Besides nothing you say matters, because your ideal governments either never existed or has failed.

> so we have no good reason to assume it will be so in Statesmanship, and so no reason to advocate for anarchy
No we don't. You have no good reason to assume so, other than that it should be so, and the expect desire and outcome you want, because no one wants to LARP and be good goys and expect the best things to come, because there's a king on the throne.

>The problem is that there is no such thing
>The Roman Republic did not exist
>Federal America does not exist
>Greenland does not exist
>Plato did not advocate self-mastery, which will inevitable lead to self-governance
These things cannot exist, even Plato implies that they can exist as long as self-mastery is instilled, although Plato comes off as too idealistic in wanting every man to surrender his property and have total obedience of the state (communism) for his betterment. Saying something does not exist, does not mean it never existed or cannot, anon. The most basic of logic and you fail at it.

>no more than a household without a master or a family without a father or action without reason
Doesn't make any sense. A household is not the same as a state. As matter of fact, the allowance of a patriarch having control of his household and participating in self-governance is upmost workable. You are once again trying to contrast concept from each other that have no opposites, and establish more false dichotomies and oxymorons.

>you can never sever the State
Who said I wanted to sever the state again? I want my folk to run the state and land. The state should spend all of its resources in creating the new and better man out of everyone.

>A "good home-owner" is still not a Statesman.
A statesman is not needed to know what is best for a community. Your assumption is that every man is on his own, when I and many NatSoc advocated a socially collective society. As a matter of fact, with the current ties of things, we clearly see that statesmen are tend to be bad home-owners and cannot manage the land we live on for anything. 

>So you admit to being an anarchist? You ultimately want no government?
If an anarchist is good conduct and has accomplished self-mastery, where is the fault in an anarchist-like system? This part you fail continue to fail to explain. As if you could ever explain anything coherency.

>More ignorant conclusions
>By the logical of my mental retardation you are therefore this
Anon, just give it up. You are psuedo-intellectual. You have no broad understanding of the world, and refuse to come to understand why I believe in. You clearly half-ass books you read and hate the idea of every man being his own aristocrat, because it leads to true freedom. That makes you a good tool for the Jew. Because the incompetent statesmen in our very own governments think the same way you do.

>Clearly you don't, as you don't recognize the superiority of a ruler over his subjects,
Man do you sound like a FAG. By the way, never have I implied or stated this, "Mr. I only straw man, because I can't argue". I acknowledge that Hitler is superior to me, I acknowledge that many NSDAP leaders could do what I could not do, and I accept this. Just as I accept if there are men who can do better than I, than it is the way of the world. What I do not accept, are traitors, (((Oneness), tyranny, and race-blindess, and self-hatred. Again, you provide no subistience for this accusations. And what's furthermore is that you are a imbecile thinking that a ruler is automatically superior, because he has a crown on his hand, or that aristocracy should be associated with some form wealth. 

>m not sure you understood my sentence. I ask again why should an all-white State care about non-whites if non-whites
Refer to my post above. And you're basically using the cuckold liberal argument here. "Why should you care about your race, your country, your demographics! You suffer from White fragility!". 

>are not their citizens nor subjects? 
Correct.

>What comparison is to be made between whites and non-whites
I've already established this and you indeed have confirmed you are a liberal. 

>non-whites would not be citizens of an all-white State
Because they're not WHITE. They're not natives, they have no right to live somewhere they have no business being in. Every creature with a hierarchy know this and yet only idiots who we call "humans" think otherwise. This argument is very #welcomerapefugees. You are questioning the very existence of nature itself, because you have only hypothetical and think there is some potential that a non-White can serve in a White man's world. This explains why you are lying about White people not being aware of what is going on. You're a kike who wants us have the same goals as Kabbalah Jews. 

>So you accept that non-whites have as much claim to European citizenship as the whites themselves, 
That's not White this implies. Anon, you're retarded.

>Are you saying it's liberal to say that non-whites are not European?
Anon, again, learn to read, and stop coming to stupid conclusions. As I said citizenship is tied to blood. Not just anyone should be a citizen, which is what you're arguing for, because you think that those who are impossible to assimilate could ever be intergrated into a society that consists of an entirely different spirit and culture. The denial of this is actually liberal, and you're once again deflecting words and twisting what was said.

>To be sure, they "can", but if you  are to be consistent with your own argument, you are allowing yourself to have your children taken away from you by anyone whosoever and any reason whatsoever
Your assumptions is basically "people generally bad" (funny, because you accuse of this line of thinking). You have a very asocial and negative for thinking and this shows that you don't get out much at all, because you assume the worst is to happen when a community has power of its own land. The thing here is that the general man is likely to take away a guardian's custody than the state for its own reasons whether it being justified or not. My argument is very consistent here, because the folk will usually and most often be reasonable in determining whether a child should in the hands of their parents or not.

>Says the one who just a few sentences prior wanted to be ruled
Learn to how articulate yourself. I don't know what you're saying here.

>nd have his children taken from him by anyone :^)
Says the cuckold who thinks it's okay for the state to determine every aspect of his livelihood, because if you question their power and legitimacy, then you're the "wrong".

>I never once said that; it's not crucial to my argument.
<If you are alive today, it's due to the State; the State, with it's laws and institutions
This implication implies the state is better or generally good. This is very crucial argument, because your idea only works if the government is of that promotes health and competency. Which you have not advocated at all other than lies and jaded claims.

>>591
>See correspondences with Martin Bormann, and other opinions NSDAP officials held about religion in private. 
This isn't proof. He asked to provide evidence the entire NSDAP were to replace "religion". You're talking about Christianity, not religion. And stop asking someone to "look up", it proves that you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about.

>I've read your article, and it says nothing about Egyptians worshiping Nordic gods
That wasn't what he's referring to (lol more baseless conclusions). Here is the article that refers to religious connections between Egypt and Denmark. 

<A Danish eighteenth-century find of some bronze figurines tells the story of the practising of similar ritual performances across Bronze Age Europe from Egypt to Scandinavia. The Danish figurines, as well as Swedish rock carvings, show backwards-bending female acrobats doing backward handsprings. The exact same appearance is found on Egyptian depictions related to ceremonies and festivals.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.2014.886526

>>628
>Legitimacy doesn't matter when you have power
That is not withstanding; the fact is you concede the righteousness, or however you want to put it, of the jews because they have power and you don't, that is, if you wish to be consistent with your own claims.
>You are retarded
I'm only drawing the consequences of your own beliefs; take of that what you will :^)
>The monarchist were never usurped by Hitler
He ignored the king's plea to be reinstated, and he said himself he would have ousted the royalty even if the liberals hadn't beat him to it.
>Except they didn't destroy the whole body
You don't think iconoclasm is destruction? Well, that is a peculiar notion, for sure :^)
>Plus many of them were Rotschild's puppets
To be sure, I'm not absolving the royalty from errors; I'm saying being an anarchist, and returning evil for evil, only worsens matters, as is patent from the aftermath of WWII (i.e. the founding of the state of Israel).

>Baron's War
Which resulted in surrender, so what's your point?
>kings could be dethroned
>Kings of England had to give approval from their advisors before making any decisions
These stemmed from clauses in the Magna Carta, which was repealed later.
>Republic is a collective form of government ruled by a CITIZENS body
The key word there is collective; I've never seen a republic that doesn't have an electoral body and other democratic practices. It's only distinguished from democracy proper because democracies in antiquity, beyond just the restriction of women and metics from voting, were different from modern ones.
>Aristocrats are citizens of the nation are they not?
Yes, and? Aristocrats being superiors over others does not preclude them from being citizens; I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about that.
>Popular involvement does not exclude aristocracy
By definition, it does.
>You simply cannot refute that Ancient Greece was indeed a culture filled with city-states that were simunanteously democratic, republician, and aristocratic all at once
Which city states? How can I apprise your claim if you don't corroborate it? That's what I ask, but instead you give me an ambiguous, unqualified statement about Ancient Greece, as though the city states all had the same kind of government; also, there's no such thing as a mixed State, as Herodotus himself says.
>This won't matter
Of course it does. You claim there were city states with mixed forms of government; you have to cite examples.
>you imply that Caesar was form of king which is a hereditary title of royalty
I'm not a nominalist like you; to me it doesn't matter if a king is not fancied as such.
>Throughout Caesar entire life he needed approval of the Republic and its order to achieved what he did
He overrode the republic's authority nonetheless, and his successors consummated his rule with what can practically be described as a hereditary monarchy (he was even deified afterwards).
>Caesar honestly was overrated anyway
That is not to dispute; my point was solely that the Caesar was effectively a king, whether he was recognized or not as such.
>Lucius Priscus had to lobby his way to throne
No, he was appointed by Ancus Marcius himself.
>That's according to tradition
<Let me tell you what I think happened instead
Wew lad, tough for you; I have tradition and you have conjecture.
>Except it was indeed about balancing the king
It wasn't.
>it was about the ruler of Rome desperately needing advisory
That does not annul the king's preeminence.
>The idea that a king should stay ruler, despite all scandals is illogical and leads to instability
Ah, yes, let us instead partition power among innumerable officials and hope they don't all simultaneously become corrupt, with no chance of holding them accountable afterwards since no one has primacy over them; that surely won't lead to instability :^)
>A king/queen is a piece of the state
The king is not just another piece of the State, or another official; the king is the State, or should I say, he's the "soul", the cause of unity in the State.
>A state will continue to exist even without the monarch
In a more pitiful, fragmented way however, with petty squabbles and corrupt officials colluding to hide each other's skin from the morose and neutered justice of democracy.
>What I asked for is for you to prove that killing a monarch is illegitimate
This wasn't so much an argument against regicide as it was against political iconoclasm generally; it applies equally as well to aristocracy as it does to degenerate forms of government, which nevertheless comprise a State.
>The state provides protection
Much more than protection, it provides the common legal framework whereby to carry any civil transaction, which affects all aspects in one's life whether public or private. Your parents would just be paramours if there were no State to consecrate their union; your house would just be a scrap of land if there were no State to proclaim your ownership thereof; see how much you'd be relinquishing by becoming a renegade, that is less than a citizen.
>If a state proves itself to fail to provide all things said
So long as a State has laws, it will provide to you those things which you enjoy as their provenance ultimately stems from the binding force of the law, and even the worst State has laws. To undermine the laws and defy the State's judgement, whether justly or unjustly ministered, is to hinder the State from providing not only to you, but to all citizens.
>it means they should be to avoid tyranny
True, but for a king to be a tyrant is for the king's own detriment; injustice should not be met with more injustice.
>It's like saying we don't need a heart, because a brain
The king is not just a "part of the body"; he's the cause of it's unity, making the parts cohere in one frame, as the soul is understood to be in relation to the body.
>I specifically stated that White people are more competent than most
Again, are we speaking of an all-white State or a State that admits foreigners into the citizenry? If the former, then "whiteness" is too vague a criterion for any field, let alone Statesmanship; if you think everyone should rule, so long as that everyone entails whites only, then you are an anarchist/egalitarian beyond dispute.
>what concern of incompetence or degeneracy is only dominant amongst them
That certainly can't be, for otherwise anyone in an all-white State would be as equally capable of being a doctor as they would of being a Statesman. Whites may have a higher IQ than niggers and third world mongrels (though their IQ is lower than East Asian giants like China, Singapore, Korea, etc), but intelligence alone does not a proper Statesman make. I suppose the aristocrats in any nation are probably going to have a higher IQ than average, but even so intelligence is not what chiefly characterizes the aristocrats as such, for even intelligent persons may have a  hylic/shudra nature (as do many so called scientists, no matter how brilliant).
>that non-White immigrants can become citizens
But in our discussions I'm considering only a well ordered State, and not one that lets itself be overrun by foreigners; still, even in such a State, you have to admit that whiteness is too vague a criterion for any field, let alone Statesmanship.
>Again, more Fabian tactics and bad logic
If, as you say, everyone is as equally capable of Statesmanship as everyone else (ignoring whether such an assessment has ever materialized, which it certainly hasn't), so long as that everyone entails only whites, then there's no need for anyone to depend on a governmental body, and anarchism should be preferred by default; if not, whites should provide for non-whites, seeing as there's no need for them to rule themselves; I'm only drawing the logical conclusions of your own arguments.
>your ideal governments either never existed or has failed
Ah, the irony :^)
>even Plato implies that they can exist as long as self-mastery is instilled
Doesn't seem like you've read Plato's Republic, for Plato explicitly divides his State in three classes according to the trichotomy of the Soul, the lowest, and most populous one, being the artisan class (i.e. hylics, shudra) whose chief interest are the pleasures and, just like the black horse in the Phaedrus, unruly and rowdy in the absence of a ruler; also, Plato's rule of the philosopher kings is not a multiracial/multiethnic empire where barbarians are designated as the artisans and Greeks as the philosopher kings, given he forbids non-Greeks from ever being citizens in book V; finally, Plato never advocated for a mixed government, and he's quite clear about aristocracy being the purest form of government.
>total obedience of the state (communism)
That's not what communism is; in fact, Plato's totalitarianism is, ironically, much more consistent with fascism than your tacit allegiance to anarchism (and communism is only a kind of anarchism).
>Doesn't make any sense
Of course it does; in traditional political theory, politics is understood to begin in the household (oikos, hence oiko-nomia/economy), and Plato himself says in the Statesman that the master of a household is akin to the king of a State, in that not only do they manage the affairs of their domain, but hold sole sovereignty over it; there's no justification to accept one and reject the other when in both the same principle abides.
>the allowance of a patriarch having control of his household and participating in self-governance is upmost workable
So, if you want to be consistent with your admission, you must also admit the other instance of governance.
>Who said I wanted to sever the state again?
What else do you expect me to say when you practically admit to being an anarchist? I'm not the one advocating for a community that can "run itself" apart from the State (basically the definition of anarchy), you are.
>if an anarchist is good conduct and has accomplished self-mastery
People are barely self-sustainable, and you expect them to attain "self-mastery" apart from their community and educators? That's laughable.
>where is the fault in an anarchist-like system?
That such a "system" (which is not really a system anyway) could never feasibly exist? That it is contrary to the nature of man, which is political? Even in individuals themselves the higher principles, those of reason, have primacy over the lower ones, those of the impulses, so why shouldn't we expect that in the State? That those of a noble disposition rule over those of a base one? At any rate, at least you are being honest with me; so you've come to terms with your anarchism/egalitarianism?
>You are psuedo-intellectual
Says the one full of conceit who harps on about "self-mastery", kek.
>You clearly half-ass books
Says the one who didn't know a moment ago that Plato's State was hierarchical.
>I accept if there are men who can do better than I
And yet you keep insisting that everyone is as equally competent for the job; how do you reconcile these two positions?
>cuckold liberal argument
You are the one insisting in accommodating non-whites as citizens, not I.
>They're not natives, they have no right to live somewhere they have no business being in
You said it, and I agree; so, how could there possibly be a racial hierarchy if non-whites aren't citizens?
>Not just anyone should be a citizen
Correct, but you have yet to explain to me how can there be a racial hierarchy if non-whites aren't citizens; who exactly are the whites to rule in an all-white State if they have no hierarchy of their own?
>Your assumptions is basically "people generally bad"
That's not my assumption; my assumption is that they can take away custody of your own children for whatever reason (which is self evident if there be no laws/government), whether with bad or good intent; even with the best of intents, they could still take away custody from you based on slander, false rumors, or otherwise mistakenly for any number of reasons; so long as there's no legal infrastructure to coordinate the process in an orderly fashion, that's just the kind of thing you'll be liable to.
> You have a very asocial and negative for thinking
Funny how you accused me of being Freudian a few posts ago :^)
> if you question their power and legitimacy, then you're the "wrong"
I've never said one is wrong for questioning authority; I've only said injustice doesn't warrant more injustice. If the rulers judge us unjustly, that's a detriment to them more than it's a detriment to us.
>This implication implies the state is better or generally good
No, it doesn't; I'm merely asserting that no one can live apart from the State and that one owes one's livelihood to the State, whether the State be managed well or badly.
>>629
>This isn't proof
Well, here's what Hitler himself (allegedly) said in a private correspondence recorded by Bormann
<In the long run National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion has to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.
It's a replacement of religion whether coercive or not.
>That wasn't what he's referring to
Perhaps, but the other anon before him used the beads to corroborate his claim that the Egyptians worshiped Nordic gods.
>Here is the article that refers to religious connections between Egypt and Denmark
You conveniently leave out that the same connections were found in Crete:
<On Minoan Crete backwards-bent acrobats are related to bull leaping and bull ceremonies.
Nevertheless, this does nothing to bolster the claim that Egyptians worshiped Nordic gods; this does, however, prove that not even the Norse were immune to syncretism.

>>632
>That is not withstanding; 
Because you said so?

>the fact is you concede the righteousness
Nigger, none of this matters. All this LARP about what legitimacy is all nullified when a state fails to prove it is absolute or contains a sense of righteousness of its own. Your Catholic dreams of monarchism wasn't this at all, which is why they were all usupered. You expect human nature to be unchanging and dumbfounded of its surroundings which will never happen. Again you're coming to faulty conclusions and your argument doesn't refute anything I've said other than ignorant and Fabian tactics as a form of interpretation.

>I'm only drawing the consequences of your own beliefs;
By strawmanning and failing to understand them? You done no such good job, especially when you don't even understand your own beliefs and their outcomes.

>He ignored the king's plea to be reinstated
And he was justified in doing so. He knew that his state would resulted in a similar fashion to Mussolini's. Plus you're wrong, as the king made a plea, Hitler still knew this would put the royals who caused WW1, back in the influence of state again, and that they would never come to accept him and what he has created. The royals would of done nothing, but attempt to stop him as they saw him as "too radical" or disliked that he did not act as a slave to the Catholic Church. 

>and he said himself he would have ousted the royalty even if the liberals hadn't beat him to it.
Doesn't' refute my point and the facts here. Just more pilpul and ignore what the other things I've stated. The royals brought this upon themselves for their foolish actions.

>You don't think iconoclasm is destruction? 
This is not a refutation. Asking a question is not an argument anon. 

>To be sure, I'm not absolving the royalty from errors; I'm saying being an anarchist, and returning evil for evil, only worsens matters,
>The British Empire was anarchist
>20th Century America was anarchist
>Austria-hungary was anarchist
<It's worse to be an anarchist than owned by the Jew
<"Our government may be controlled, but at-least we have a king!"
>as is patent from the aftermath of WWII (i.e. the founding of the state of Israel). The founding state of Israel 
The founding state of Israel was not a result of anarchism, it was a result of Zionism and its branches (freemasonry) who demanded their puppets to defeat Hitler in order to establish Israel as a state. Very blue-pilled statement here. Aspects of Zionism have also existed since the 13th century and evolved as time progresses due to Christianity's tolerance and protection of Jews and their institution, and your "royals" were usually the ones protecting them for economic purposes and ways to obtain more influence. The state of Israel was established as a result to the Anglo-sphere and their worship of Jews and wanting to be like them (Anglo-Israelism). Neither the United States nor the British Empire were ever anarchist, especially during the 19th and 20th century where both nations increased the power of their central governments respectively.

>Which resulted in surrender
Did you also forget that was only for the First Baron's War, which the crown was forced to comprise with the rebel barons? The other two wars ended in victory for the barons and further increasing the legislative power of the Parliament. This was caused, because the royals were being ILLEGITIMATE themselves. 

>These stemmed from clauses in the Magna Carta
The clauses justify the dethroning of an incompetent ruler when he failed to rule fairly, it was also still enacted against bad kings as well.

>The key word there is collective; 
No it is collective.
>I've never seen a republic that doesn't have an electoral body and other democratic practices
This is the problem. Your world view is biased, unintelligble, and (despite being against it) reactionary in itself. 

>It's only distinguished from democracy proper because democracies in antiquity, beyond just the restriction of women and metics from voting, were different from modern ones.
If you acknowledge that Athens was a democracy did not abide by egalitarian values, then you contradict yourself in the notion that it was and that democracy as a whole can only be against hierarchy.

>Yes, and? Aristocrats being superiors over others does not preclude them from being citizens
>Deflecting the point this bad
You're are once again moving the goal-post. The argument was whether a republic could ever be aristocratic. Republics are not inherently democratic, they are merely a form of government that is ruled by a collective board. Nothing stops a republic from instituting itself to be ruled by the best as nothing stops a monarchy from becoming a oligarchy or having characteristics of it as all medieval states did. 

>How can I apprise your claim if you don't corroborate it?
But what is the point in doing if I have to correct you in the end and we continue to go in circles.  When I give an example. You botcher all historical facts. If I say something a 2 + 2 = 4, you say "askually it's 5". Whether I bring up Ancient Athens, Sparta, or even Macedonia, which was clearly not an autocracy, you pilpul time-lines and what has occurred. 

>Of course it does.
Look above.

>I'm not a nominalist like you; to me it doesn't matter if a king is not fancied as such.
I'm not, but you are an idiot thinking that Caesar ruled like a king, was one, or ever wanted to abolish the republic, lol. Most monarchies didn't even have the power as he had.

>He overrode the republic's authority nonetheless
He also incompetenly directly and indirectly gave power to Rome's enemies and proved he was incompetent and that his reforms were stupid. You are just sucking his dick here, because your point is meaningless.

> and his successors consummated his rule
No that was Augutus who thought he wanted to rule it like an empire. 

>with what can practically be described as a hereditary monarchy
Which was overrated and fell to degeneracy. So much for muh monarch as the sole solution huh? Diaper-fetishism is acceptable as long as it is done in royal clothes?

>; my point was solely that the Caesar was effectively a king
He was not. This is your interpretation.

>No, he was appointed by Ancus Marcius himself.
Either you're pilpuling or proved that you have no knowledge of history once again.
<wherefore Tarquinius pressed on all the more hastily the Comitia for electing a king. 
<Tarquinius  is  said  to  have  been the  first  who  canvassed  for  the  crown,  and  to  have  made the following speech for he purpose of gaining the favour of the plebeians.  -The History of the Kings of Rome. Section VIII. pp. 230–270.
Emphasis on "appointed". He still had to appeal (buying the throne) to the "Comitia Curiata" in order to BECOME king. He even needed the approval by the Roman folk to be seen as Patrician for being a foreigner. Once again, I have to correct you.

>Let me tell you what I think happened instead
>Unironically believing in the mythology
This is autistic and sad anon, not only does the same source assert that Romulus was not a real person, but other scholars downright declare that it is possible he never existed at all, and was never acknowledge as a king amongst Romans. It is possible he originated as fictional character of an Italian Renaissance writer.

>It wasn't.
Not an argument. I see you're coping through posting.

>That does not annul the king's preeminence
It does. On paper it's not supposed to, but in reality it will and clearly has had. This is why it is desperately needed for the king to win the power of his folk and those in high-positions. His position can still be taken away from him if he does not put Romans first and act in his own gains and benefit. As with all states that contain both an assembly and monarchy.

>Ah, yes, let us instead partition power among innumerable officials and hope they don't all simultaneously become corrupt
>people bad
>thinks oligarchs in robes are any better
>Not denying I'm wrong or implying that what you claim is any better than your own solutions
I never implied this. Again you don't know what my beliefs are. Your assumption that allowing any dude of a different race from our own tribe will also not become inevitable become corrupt or have ill intentions king and goals against the ethos of the folk is moronic and dismisses human nature in itself. Rome fell because of this, and your ideas will fail again.

>The king is not just another piece of the State, or another official; the king is the State
A delusional declaration with no subsistence is not an argument. This is your belief and not every man will be so daft to think it must be true. I know you're that same absolutionist who got butt-hurt that /monarchy/ did not share the same values. Fun fact, we don't either, so find another board. I can see why they're correct in dismissing you, because nothing you say realistic. 

>In a more pitiful, fragmented way however,
Examples of these pitful, fragemented states? Ancient Athens, Rome, and Hitler's Germany were quite stable and Grew in size and power. Along with Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, and France. If you want to bring-up the Latins, then I can inform you the racial composition and the fact that Brazil and Mexico were always shit-holes anyway.  You can argue they are degenerate, but to imply the reason is without a old man with a crown on his head is obvious BS and deflects the Jew's hand in poisoning the well.

>This wasn't so much an argument against regicide as it was against political iconoclasm generally
You didn't have an argument. You just asserted the outcome and refused to answer my question. Prove that iconoclasm always leads to a fragmented state or gtfo. You don't even believe in an aristocracy, you believe in  despotism which nullifies aristocracy in the first place.

>hide each other's skin from the morose and neutered justice of democracy.
The barons and their dealings with England would like a word with you.

>Much more than protection, it provides the common legal framework
It provides a framework that the state interprets as best for its citizens and subjects. As matter of fact, the common legal framework of all states are often one of submission and unquestionable loyalty at all costs to maintain stability. Which is not totally bad, if it weren't for the fact that most of these states have no agendas of benefiting those who did most of the labor. Especially when it consists of arbitrary men who care little for the commonwealth of the White man and desire only prosperation, prestige, and renown of only themselves (imperials).

>Your parents would just be paramours if there were no State
And there's nothing wrong with this. As matter of fact, marriage was only applicable to those of high status. Either way I will be born if my mother and father were engaged, and this was likely the case with my most of my past descendants as well. If you're going to argue that they would of cheated on each other without a  MERE institution, then you're retarded.

>if there were no State to proclaim your ownership thereof; see how much you'd be relinquishing by becoming a renegade
<You will own nothing truly goy
<You cannot defend for yourself nor stand for yourself, we will hand you everything
You would get along with Zionists.

>True
If you agree, then your solution would not to destroy the aristocracy in the first place. 

>but for a king to be a tyrant is for the king's own detriment
No isn't. A king does not lose anything nor have to sacrifice his own health, wealth,  nor prestige in order to become a tyrant. He gains all of these things for doing so. It's the same case for Stalin, who you probably also detest, but don't realize he also acted as much as king. This is another delusional perspective you have likely formulated by authors who called everyone political animals for not upholding their values, while hypocritical being ones in themselves.

>The king is not just a "part of the body"; he's the cause of it's unity
Republics and democracy are quite unified. A king will only be the sole cause of unity, only if a state ignorantly believes itself in needing a king. 

>Again, are we speaking of an all-white State or a State that admits foreigners into the citizenry? 
I think I've made this already clear and you're just going off on the stupid questions again, thinking they're legitimate answers.

> If the former, then "whiteness" is too vague a criterion for any field
No it isn't. A genetic test, background checks, and appearances are enough to conclude who is White and isn't. As matter of fact, you can even sense the spirit of someone to tell that they're White. For example, I sense the love of the orient out of you.

> let alone Statesmanship; if you think everyone should rule So long as that everyone entails whites only, then you are an anarchist/egalitarian beyond dispute
<What the NSDAP wanted was to accelerate this by expanding our capabilities at all cost. Whites are smarter and simply better and by extending this to every White guy being capable of self-mastery and guidance,
< good home-owner doesn't need the state trivializing into his privacy, especially when he is a remarkable citizen. This is what Hitler had in mind when he said "master" (gentlemen).
< As matter of fact, the allowance of a patriarch having control of his household and participating in self-governance is upmost workable. 
I've only used male pronouns to refer to who owns what and rules. The original meaning of "people" and "folk" always meant a crowd or gathering of men. Egalitarianism is the philosophy of just allowing anyone should have equal rights, regardless of race, spirit, and nature and to disbanded hierarchy, which I clearly do not, because I clearly support a patriarchical society and acknowledge that every man can never be equal. Your monarchy somewhat appeals to this idea for you believe that just anyone can be worthy of enough to rule a nation that consists of a different race as long as they are king and advocate your standards even if they are on display, and it will totally eliminate degeneracy. "Cosmopolitanism is fine as long as it is hierarchical". Classical Liberals even sympathy with this mindset. What I stated clearly was that White men has a better nature and those with the best of it should be allowed to self-govern. You thought you said something smart, but only sounded really dumb.

>That certainly can't be, for otherwise anyone in an all-white State would be as equally capable of being a doctor as they would of being a Statesman
I see you're deflecting my argument again. This means you have no argument to what I said on how a White man is far more versatile than anyone else. Especially when a doctor is not a hierarchical role, and your assumption is that one is to only know the ways of being a doctor, even though in the past many men of citizenry were said to have taken many professions. Every citizen of nation has a duty to know their politics, to understand life around them as they know their professions. Genetics and IQ are key.

>(though their IQ is lower than East Asian giants like China, Singapore, Korea, etc), 
This is a myth. The IQ of East-Asians are lower than that of the average White man. Their numbers on high-IQ individuals represent a small minority not general population or even those in academics. 

>I suppose the aristocrats in any nation are probably going to have a higher IQ than average,
Then why are implying that what I said is not possible and your solution to everything should be that no one, but what your idea of "aristocrat" should be high-IQ? 

>ut even so intelligence is not what chiefly characterizes the aristocrat
It is what gives the aristocrat merit and the capability to manage. Without intelligence then the government leads nowhere. Without wisdom, nothing progresses. This is such a stupid argument and it seems you're totally fine with browns becoming kangz.

>If, as you say, everyone is as equally capable of Statesmanship
The problem here is that you're under the delusional that the average White man cannot be as worthy of being a statesmen, because of this delusion and wall you've brought up that believes it separating men with good character and the ability to adapt and learn as they fill into a position they've never handled will fall apart. Even though, your favorite Emperor, Augustus, had no experience in ruling a nation, wasn't much different from your average plebian, and yet was successful in managing Rome, as it was with Caligula and even Nero.

>Ah, the irony :^)
Umm, what? So you acknowledge what I said is true? Also I gave examples of ones that did exist in my previous post. There is no irony.

>Doesn't seem like you've read Plato's Republic, 
>This big fat pipul
Again, you're retarded and love to pilpul. Plato still states that self-mastery is the key to a nation proseperity. I've read Plato's Republic, you're trying to imply that he was saying some totally different, when he was only providing what he thought was best for a nation and could lead to that state. I know what he said, I know he's against multi-ethnic/racial, which you are for. This glosses over the fact that I said EVEN PLATO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SELF-MASTERY IS KEY TO A NATION'S NIRVANA.  Plato is a old man who cute ideas that never worked, smart, but overly idealistic. Plus philosopher nation was more of a allegory than some literal. I read his books, you clearly did not comprehend them.

>That's not what communism is;
That's literally what communism is, read the Manifesto, Marx asserts that all property must be confiscated by the state in order to seize the means of production for the state to obtain complete control. Plato's totalitarianism (which fascism is not) is for the ruling elite to not own anything and all members of society must blindly follow the state and its agendas. The guy believed women should have education. Not exactly the same, but something very similar. The Republic is not a literal treatise on civil politics. Nor will your childish government lead to what he ultimately expected.

>Plato never advocated for a mixed government, 
Strawman.

> Plato himself says in the Statesman that the master of a household is akin to the king of a State
I know and I don't care. There's nothing that prevents a man of own household, of being incapable of self-governance.

>So, if you want to be consistent with your admission,
I literally said nothing contradictory. Learn to read.

>People are barely self-sustainable, 
Again, people bad, cuckold mentality.

>I'm not the one advocating for a community that can "run itself"
You aren't proving that I'm wrong. Just being a brainless faggot who some inbred royal will make things better, which is very feminine behavior.

>>642
>That such a "system" (which is not really a system anyway) could never feasibly exist? 
Says the guy who wants a system that has never truly existed, and only in name. One that has failed numerously and highly advocated by those who are effeminate as Aristotle stated.

>Says the one full of conceit who harps on about "self-mastery", kek.
You have not proven me wrong.

>Says the one who didn't know a moment ago that Plato's State was hierarchical
I never said this, nor did I imply that Plato had the same beliefs as I do.

>And yet you keep insisting that everyone is as equally competent for the job
I insisted that White man are for more competent for the job and you only see them in being competent in self-mastery and governance. Those who strawmann the most show that they are spiritually feminine.

>You are the one insisting in accommodating non-whites as citizens
No I did not. Funny you never proved where I've said or implied this. 

>You said it, and I agree;
No you did not. You agree that natives are owners of their homes, but the state should not be so native. This is where you we do not agree which you insist that there must be cosmopolitanism just to cull degeneracy, even though this is the start of it.

>Correct, but you have yet to explain to me how can there be a racial hierarchy if non-whites aren't citizens;
Very easy, Non-Whites are foreigners, have no rights, no power, nothing and are merely visitors. The are on the bottom of the caste, just like they were in the past. Another stupid question.

>That's not my assumption; my assumption is that they can take away custody of your own children for whatever reason
No, your assumption is merely a retarded assumption that is appliable as far as concerns to every form of government and society. An absolutist can also take away the custody of your children for no reason, whether it be to sodomize them or slavery, which is what (You) are okay with, because "durr king is legitimate and the state itself!". Your argument makes no sense and you're just creating, oh look! Another Fabian tactic in form of a hypothesis. You are more concerned in the "what ifs" and think it does not apply to your own delusional system that has no merit, nor any capacity of working.

>Funny how you accused me of being Freudian 
Anon, you think that everything fine will come from an absolutist. Marxist are the most asocial of ideologist and think agree with this form of thinking as well. That most responsibilities and decision making should be in the hands of one, is asocial.

>  :^)
This is a sign of butt-hurt.

>I've never said one is wrong for questioning authority; 
No but, you implied that it is wrong for RIDDING OF A CORRUPT AUTHORITY. 

> I've only said injustice doesn't warrant more injustice.
Proved my point.

> If the rulers judge us unjustly, that's a detriment to them more than it's a detriment to us.
No it isn't, you've established why and how. Again, cuck mentality. You make a fine American congressmen. 

>No, it doesn't; 
Yes it does. Your entire philosophy is that "No one should bring justice to what a state unjustly does to its kin, for the better "good". A nation that harms its own is no better than any form of detriment, also I don't own my state my livelihood, that goes to my parents and those before them. I never asked for their protection and don't need it. If anything I'm better of being beaten to death, if they're going to have rapefugees and poison me with the garbage they sell at markets. This applies to empires too for they have done something similar with Rome. 

Your mindset is reddit and you should consider going back to /diaper-fetisharchy/. 

>In the long run National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. 
This is what it actually said specifically in his personal monologues. 
<"In the long run National Socialism and the church cannot continue to exist together." 
You lie no heavier than the Jew.

>It's a replacement of religion whether coercive or not.
It was on Christian churches who betrayed and refused to collaborate with the NSDAP.

>Perhaps, but the other anon before him used the beads to corroborate his claim that the Egyptians worshiped Nordic gods.
Anon, never said anything of the case. Maybe you should learn to read.

>You conveniently leave out that the same connections were found in Crete:
I did not. It has no importance and also concludes that Crete, Egypt and Denmark. It doesn't state that what is older or younger. Why do brain-lets like you fail to comprehend mere words given to you? You only work to make yourself look more of an idiot in desperate need to reply as if anyone is going to think you're correct.

>>642
>All this LARP about what legitimacy is all nullified when a state fails to prove it is absolute or contains a sense of righteousness of its own
Asking for legitimacy of the State, when it's precisely that which confers legitimacy, quickly descends into infinite regress; for then you'd have to ask about the legitimacy of those who legitimize the State, and the legitimacy of those who legitimize those who legitimize the State, and so on.
>Your Catholic dreams of monarchism
I'm not catholic.
>You expect human nature to be unchanging
Where did I say that? What relevance does it have to my argument?
>By strawmanning and failing to understand them?
Anon, just because you don't like the consequences of your own beliefs, doesn't mean they are a strawman :^) you aren't mad because of the jew's stratagems and deception, which is in itself a kind of power, since you yourself proclaim that power is the only thing that matters (and the jews certainly have more of it), you are only mad because you are powerless; you have no objective standard whereby to condemn the jews.
>he was justified in doing so
The just decision would have been for him to right the wrongs of the illegitimate government of Weimar by giving back power to those who had wielded it before; whether it was the most expedient or convenient choice is not to dispute.
>The royals brought this upon themselves for their foolish actions
In a sense, I agree; not, however, that the unjust actions of rulers somehow justifies the unjust actions of their subjects; for, being that in any action there's a patient, the effects thereof have a corresponding effect in that which receives it, so that, say, when one strikes, the other is stricken; so likewise when one commits injustice, the other is injured, and no one is rectified and mended for it, insofar as that which is unjust cannot effect that which is just.
>Asking a question is not an argument anon
I ask you that question for I'm astonished that you claim that something which, by definition, is a kind of destruction is somehow not destruction.
>it was a result of Zionism and its branches (freemasonry) who demanded their puppets to defeat Hitler in order to establish Israel as a state
I'd say rather that it was orchestrated by the zionists; the State of Israel was a result of Hitler's failure.
>The other two wars ended in victory
To the contrary, the barons only held advantage in the beginning of the second war, but once betrayed by their own supporters, they had to settle for a compromise; the king only agreed to pardoning them and restoring their lands, and nothing else.
>The clauses justify the dethroning of an incompetent ruler when he failed to rule fairly
And it was repealed, so England remained absolutist despite you affirming the opposite.
>If you acknowledge that Athens was a democracy did not abide by egalitarian values
But I acknowledged no such thing. Women and slaves aren't (relative to Athens at least) citizens; how could they even be factored into a hierarchy?
>You're are once again moving the goal-post
You asked me if I thought aristocrats were not citizens, the implication being that the aristocrats being superior to others somehow makes them not citizens; I'm not moving the goalposts.
>they are merely a form of government that is ruled by a collective board
That makes them democratic, by definition.
>Nothing stops a republic from instituting itself to be ruled by the best
If you stretch the scope of 'best', that is.
>When I give an example. You botcher all historical facts
So when I contest your retelling of history, I'm "botchering the facts", but when do you likewise it is not? You even had the gall of telling me your conjecture of how the Senate of Rome was formed is somehow more historical than what the Romans themselves reported it, but you don't think you are "botchering the facts".
>you are an idiot thinking that Caesar ruled like a king
But he did; you are just focusing too much on titles and less on substance.
>He also incompetenly directly and indirectly gave power to Rome's enemies
I won't dispute whether this is accurate or not, but what relevance does it have to my argument?
>No that was Augutus who thought he wanted to rule it like an empire
And Augustus was his successor. Sorry, was that supposed to be a rejoinder?
>Which was overrated and fell to degeneracy
It lasted a thousand years; more than you can say for the failed NSDAP :^)
>He still had to appeal (buying the throne) to the "Comitia Curiata" in order to BECOME king
It was the Senate's duty to elect a new king after all. Your own citation makes no mention of him beseeching the Senate to empower him; he only demanded that they hasten the process.
>He even needed the approval by the Roman folk
This has always been a ceremonial aspect of the election, only the Senate had the authority to elect new kings; that said, the king enjoyed imperium exclusively, so he couldn't be deposed (legitimately at least) by the Senate afterwards, and could in fact appoint and remove senators as he pleased.
>believing in the mythology
I don't, but regardless of the mythical elements, the historical fact, that the Senate was primarily an advisory body to the king and did not exceed him in power, remains; all you have against that is conjecture.
>It is possible he originated as fictional character of an Italian Renaissance writer
That is simply impossible; the myth originated with primary sources.
>His position can still be taken away
That is not what I meant by preeminence. Sure, I don't dispute the possibility of the king being deposed by disgruntled officials, but the officials themselves are asunder in their motivations even if they momentarily cooperate as conspirators (if they don't outright betray each other, like in the Baron wars); once they oust the king, they will be simply unable to replace the king with someone else due to their own disagreements, so they will just partition power amongst themselves and engage in petty squabbles, hence no preeminence amongst them either individually or collectively. The king does not partake in similar disputes, for he is not the equal of anyone else, and it's solely on this account that he is preeminent.
>act in his own gains and benefit
No ruler acts on his own benefit insofar as he is a ruler; the perfection of the ruler's art consists on him providing to his subjects, just like the perfection of the doctor's art consists on him healing his patients, and if he does anything adjacent to that, whether good or bad, it is not conducive to his art but something else, just like the doctor receiving payment for his services does not in the least change the nature of his art. To rule is never to the ruler's benefit, and it's a detriment to him if he rules badly, for that depreciates him as a ruler, insofar he's unable to attain his perfection and thus to properly rule.
>states that contain both an assembly and monarchy
The assembly is merely an advisory body to the king.
>people bad
No, my assumption is that people have different perspectives and ambitions which, like the many themselves, are varied and can be either true or false (that is, probable), and if you leave governance to the whim of the many, either they will refuse to cooperate (leading to fragmentation) or fight amongst themselves; besides, even if people have good intentions, they can still commit bad deeds out of ignorance (i.e. for not knowing that it is bad), and there's no shortage of ignorance within the masses.
>different race from our own tribe
I sincerely cannot make out what you meant by this; this seems like an oxymoron.
>Ancient Athens
Ah yes, that great State always manipulated by sly orators into waging hopeless wars and betrayed by those same orators whenever push came to shove.
>Rome
Weren't you just saying that Rome was overrated and degenerate?
>Hitler's Germany were quite stable
Why did it last a measly decades then?
>Along with Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, and France
You are not serious, are you?
>You just asserted the outcome
I did not assert any outcome, and my point was not to argue from an outcome that something is bad; re-read my arguments.
>the common legal framework of all states are often one of submission and unquestionable loyalty at all costs to maintain stability
The demand for loyalty stems from you enjoying the rights conferred to you, which are conferred insofar as you abide by the State's laws, as the laws themselves prescribe those rights to you; only if you lived apart from the State would you be justified in not upholding such loyalty.
>it consists of arbitrary men who care little for the commonwealth
The State is not reducible to the men that wield power in it; if they do wrong that is their own injustice, and you are not justified in injuring the State for it.
>you're going to argue that they would of cheated on
No, not necessarily, but in the first place there would be no consistent distribution of duties among husband and wife, and even if you argue that such would be defined by force, then you'd be liable to admit that if a stronger man comes and snatches the wife away from the husband, then he is right in doing so; next, if the husband and wife ever reach the point of irreconciliable conflict, there would be no consistent way of either forbidding the separation or, worst case scenario, deciding whom guardianship should rest upon.
>You cannot defend for yourself nor stand for yourself
Are you saying that theft is right, so long as the thieve is stronger than the one he is thieving? Or that swindling is right, so long as the swindler is cleverer than the one being swindled? And that the victim of any crime is guilty, insofar as your premise dictates that he wouldn't have suffered if he had been capable of defending himself? Well, I can hardly see why you despise the jews then, given your arguments imply that it's the whites who are in the wrong for being defenseless :^)
>Republics and democracy are quite unified
If that were true, voting would be meaningless, as well as the so called "checks and balances" (don't you see that the very concept entails disagreement and distrust?) that republicans fancy to harp on; in fact, having a government itself would be meaningless, since everyone would already be in agreement with each other. That's clearly not the reality we live in, nor will it ever be, for opinions are as varied as the masses are.
>you're just going off on the stupid questions again
They are entirely pertinent though; if we are dealing with an all-white State, whiteness is too a vague a criterion for any field, lest you affirm the absurd that anyone, in such a State, qualifies as a doctor.
>A genetic test, background checks, and appearances
But that is precisely what I included in my definition of whiteness; you are just postponing my inference.
>Egalitarianism is the philosophy of just allowing anyone should have equal rights
Which is precisely what you are advocating for.
>I clearly support a patriarchical society
Yet you find the notion of there being a patriarch for the State appalling.
>every man can never be equal
Yet you think everyone in a State (disregarding foreigners) can be nobility.
>you believe that just anyone can be worthy of enough to rule a nation
I've repeatedly stated that only a slim minority is actually capable of ruling a nation; you are the one who wants to broaden that possibility.
>a doctor is not a hierarchical role
It is a hierarchical role in it's own specified domain, whereas Statesmanship concerns the whole commonweal. I mention the example of a doctor to make my point clearer; for when it comes to a established vocation people are less willing to dispute that the most competent should have the final word, but when it comes to politics people (like you) are strangely relativistic.
>Every citizen of nation has a duty to know their politics
In a sense, I agree, following Plato's definition of justice, but what is implied by that is a commoner should mind his own duties insofar he is a commoner, and a guardian should mind his own duties insofar he is a guardian; mixing those classes would lead to one performing the role of the other below the excellence that is expected of it.
>Their numbers on high-IQ individuals represent a small minority
I'm not comparing a few East Asians from academic circles against the average white; the highest average IQ in the EU is Italy's, and it's the highest in the world only below that of East Asian countries.
>It is what gives the aristocrat merit and the capability to manage
It really isn't, or at the very least not the only one. Ashkenazi jews have an IQ equal to that of the average white and they are no better for it; plenty of people have been degenerates in spite of their high IQ, like Schrödinger. Wisdom is not the same thing as intelligence; intelligence merely gauges the level of nuance whereby one conceives information, but not what to conclude and do with it.
>you're under the delusional that the average White man cannot be as worthy of being a statesmen
I'm under no illusion, it only is manifestly so; at least, it has happened neither historically nor actually.
>separating men with good character
I'm not separating them, I'm bringing them together as the highest class; where we disagree is that everyone is equally good, and that being good is the same as having good intent.
>your favorite Emperor Augustus, had no experience in ruling a nation
Experience does not make a good ruler, knowledge does.
>wasn't much different from your average plebian
For clarification, in what regard?
>Plato still states that self-mastery is the key to a nation proseperity
I don't think he expected everyone in his nation to have "self-mastery"; in book II he "tries" to work out an anarchistic pipe dream, but quickly determined in dialectical fashion that such a State would not accommodate expanding borders and the ever increasing needs of the multitude; he also advocated for propaganda and myth to assuage the commoners to the rule of the guardians, so clearly he did not expect everyone to understand philosophical subtleties.
>which you are for
Where have I said that? You keep insisting that I do, but you never demonstrate it.
>philosopher nation was more of a allegory
Why then does Plato speak of the five regimes in book VIII and compares to the inner conditions of the Soul? If it's just an allegory, why did Plato unambiguously declare this:
<"Unless either the philosophers become kings in the cities or those who are nowadays called kings and rulers get to philosophizing truly and adequately, and this falls together upon the same person, political power and philosophy, while the many natures of those who are driven toward the one apart from the other are forcibly set aside, there will be no cessation of evils, my dear
Glaucon, for cities, nor, methinks, for the human race.”
It is clear from the outset that Plato's philosophy has always had a political goal, and his concerns on epistemology and metaphysics only followed from political ones (i.e. from "if a ruler is an expert, and expertise presumes knowledge, what ought a ruler to know?" to "what can be known? What is there to know?"); the point of the Academy has always been to train skillful politicians/rulers and not mere flatterers like the orators and democrats of his day, and for that reason the Academy was a school as well as a community. You did not understand the Republic if you don't even realize this much.
>That's literally what communism is
No, it isn't, communism is a moneyless, stateless, and classless society, with perhaps only the first one applying to Plato's construction.
>Marx asserts that all property must be confiscated by the state in order to seize the means of production for the state to obtain complete control
That is socialism, not communism. Socialism was a preliminary stage where the means of production, developed to the greatest capacity by the capitalist system, would be confiscated by a centralized apparatus for distribution, and even then this same apparatus is envisioned as an instrument of popular participation ("dictatorship of the proletariat"), which Plato's isn't. Communism's goal is for everyone to have ample access to wealth, whilst Plato's goal (at least within the dialectical exercise of the Republic) is to lessen the need for wealth; communism's goal is to abolish the classes (which Marx believed to originate with surplus value), whilst Plato's goal was to instill harmony in the classes, a corollary of his definition of justice; communism's goal is to efface the State, whilst Plato's goal is to heal the State; communism is materialistic and base, Platonism is logical and divine.
>There's nothing that prevents a man of own household
Sure enough, but man cannot manage public affairs as well as he can private ones; for that he needs a statesman and a ruler.
>I literally said nothing contradictory
You don't oppose that a patriarch should be sovereign of his own household and not equal to others in it, yet you are very obstinate about the prospect of a patriarch being the sovereign of his nation, and not equal to others in it; you are indeed being inconsistent, and not only you, but others are peculiarly relativistic when it comes to politics and not anything else.
>people bad
Well, I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't call an infant bad for starving in the absence of anyone to procure food for himself. It is just a self-evident fact of life that no one is self-sustainable; this is one of the reasons why States are formed (the other being humans' faculty of reason, planning, long-term memory, and contemplation), and only you are delusional enough to deny it.
>which is very feminine behavior
This is less about me being feminine and more about me being reasonable enough to acknowledge that humans cannot live alone, and that some may be better than I for certain tasks, whereas as you have a puerile and conceited view both of what you are capable of and of politics :^)
>>643
>I insisted that White man are for more competent 
If that were true then white man's natural state should be that of anarchy, seeing as none of them are in need of being ruled, and not only that but every white person would be as qualified for any field as the next one; neither condition has ever happened nor will.
>Funny you never proved where I've said or implied this
That only follows from your claims; how could there be a racial hierarchy if non-whites are not citizens of white states? Surely you don't think I can simply declare myself to be the king of Atlantis when I'm not even part of it?
>the state should not be so native
Never did, I only maintain that something else besides nativity is required for one to be a ruler.
>Non-Whites are merely visitors
Then they are not part of an hierarchy, seeing as they are not even subject to the law as the natives are; besides, are you implying that non-whites should be living where they don't belong? That's what I take you to mean when you say "visitors", which is rather unusual for someone who longs for an ethnostate :^)
>The are on the bottom of the caste
They are not at the bottom of the caste; they are casteless. Metics in Greece were entirely private residents.
>An absolutist can also take away the custody of your children for no reason
I will not go over that as this juncture, for I was discussing states in the abstract and not any specific form of state; the fact remains that, if not for the State, anyone can take custody away from you for any motive, whether reasonable or unreasonable, with good or bad intent...

>>643
... it's precisely because the State provides a common legal framework whereby to operate that such things can be done in a clean, orderly fashion, and if law enforcers commit injury in some way that is not the fault of the laws, but of men, thus serving as no justification to undermine the laws; for it's irrational to assume that because someone used the law for injury that the law itself is the cause of injury. Now, what I find deeply ironic is that, despite continuously accusing me of being a misanthrope, your sole assumption for why a monarchy/aristocracy would be bad is that the king/kings are bad, and the people you claim to be good are not so good after all, for, in your eyes, they become corrupt as soon they gain any semblance of power (a euphemism for "revealing themselves"), and are only good without power (hence the need for checks and balances) and cannot be entrusted to have power; so in our discussions thus far, we've found you to be biggest misanthrope of all :^)
>Marxist are the most asocial of ideologist and think agree with this form of thinking as well
I don't think you have heard of the "dictatorship of proletariat" if you believe that.
>most responsibilities and decision making should be in the hands of one
I've never said that. Everyone in the State has duties and responsibilities, and they also have responsibilities towards their own affairs; all I maintain is that this is no reason to affirm equality.
>you implied that it is wrong for RIDDING OF A CORRUPT AUTHORITY
Yes, for it is not your duty to get rid of them, but the judges'; even a democracy would be unmanageable if leaders were impeached at anyone's whim.
>Your entire philosophy is that "No one should bring justice to what a state unjustly does to its kin..."
No, my entire philosophy is "no one should bring injustice to what a state unjustly does to its kin"; it's unjust to undermine the laws, and by extension the State, when they are not the cause of injury, but men. To do is worse than suffering injustice.
>It was on Christian churches
He only addressed Christianity as Christianity was the only religion that mattered (or had any significant presence); his goal was still an irreligious, quasi-Nietzschean society, and in practical terms this meant gradually replacing Christianity.
>never said anything of the case
You didn't, but ID a9f8b4 before you did:
<Some of the many Egyptian gods were Aryan
If you don't assent to such drivel, I have nothing to discuss with you about this particular matter.

>>650
>besides, are you implying that non-whites should be living where they don't belong? That's what I take you to mean when you say "visitors", which is rather unusual for someone who longs for an ethnostate

Troll. Non-whites shouldn't even be on the planet. Fucking parasites leeching off the White race. This board is pro-Ethnoplanet and I wouldn't have 4d-chess agents try to sway us to a lesser cucked position. Even the BO agrees with the pro-Whiteplanet future. Die shitskin scum, your time is up.

>>650
>>651
>Asking for legitimacy of the State, when it's precisely that which confers legitimacy, quickly descends into infinite regress; 
Legitimacy is determined by approval by its citizens as they are the ones who built their nation and determine its fate. The king is nothing more, but a guider and mediator. Either prove otherwise, or you're just coping that no one will takes this perspective seriously. And no, nonsense about muh absolute ruler is not an argument. You're detaching yourself from reality every time you mention it and I debunk it.

>I'm not catholic
You're a Christcuck regardless. 

>Where did I say that?
I see that you enjoy deflecting the argument instead of addressing it and playing stupid. Your idea that legitimacy  entails stability is ultimately dependant on whether the citizens of a state will accept the king. 

>No relevancy
It is relevant.

>Anon, just because you don't like the consequences of your own beliefs
The thing here is that you did not accurately describe my beliefs. These are your interpretations. It's even funnier, because you constantly go off on moronic conclusions and whine about Nietzsche, but have the mind of Freud, but are a monarchist. You miss what is being said, because everything is described to how you want to see it. If 2 + 2 = 4, then to you it must be 3, because 4 does not accept your reality that everything must revolve around 3. 
TLDR: You are mentally retarded.

>n, which is in itself a kind of power
I didn't deny this, but just because there is power does not mean it is legitimate or acceptable. Just as Germans did not accept the royals after they've ruined Germany.

>power is the only thing that matters
Correct. What I said isn't contradictory nor wrong. Is the driving force that is enacted must all states. The one with the most power will be not be legitimate for having so, but because he can enforce it. What only can prevent this is a system that curtails those who have too much power and, especially if it is in the wrong hands. Which you are fine with.

>you are only mad because you are powerless
No, I'm mad, because the Jews use their power use it exploit and destroy the White race. Foreigners proclaim themselves as rightful rulers, while simultaneously destroying our culture and people, because we are spiritual enemies. I literally made this clear within my previous comments, and here you are coming to far-fetch conclusions, because you are a Freudian.

>you have no objective standard whereby to condemn 
the jews
Also you
<and the jews certainly have more of it
The entire JQ and all the Jews have done before and today debunks you. You acknowledge the power of the Jew and hypocritically try to downplay that it wasn't their fault, even though modern society has only revolved around Abrahamicism. I'm not demanding power, I'm demanding my race and nation's soil being secured controlled by its own blood. It's not up to me to determine this, but the White race and "man to come" to secure this future.

>In a sense, I agree; 
Then all your arguments are invalid. But I know what you're going to say next, because you are predictable.

>unjust, unjust, unjust
I'm still waiting for you to prove it is unjust by nature. Either something is unjust within a valid reason that correspond to the natural order (but you failed to establish how your LARParchy is natural in any way or form) or don't and admit you are a political animal yourself.

>I ask you that question for I'm astonished that you claim that something which
You asked a stupid questions to deflect my responses. I asked you to explain and prove it regresses the state as a whole. 

>by definition, is a kind of destruction is somehow not destruction.
And like I said in my previous post
<a king is merely a piece of the state
<your entire concept is institutional
<asked for you to prove it is illegitimate when a king is illegitimate
<how iconoclasm in concept itself is destruction of a state or entirely a negative thing. 
As matter of fact, every state including LARParchy has been iconoclastic, and so will the next one.

>I'd say rather that it was orchestrated by the zionists
I said it was. 

>the State of Israel was a result of Hitler's failure
No it wasn't. The Jews were migrating to Palestine since the early 19th century. The formation of Israel is the result of the Imperial and allied powers allowing Jews to migrate and formulated communities within Jerusalem. After the defeat of the Germany, this lead allowed the Jews to establish the state of Israel and firstly getting recognized by them. Again, you suck at history.

>To the contrary, the barons only held advantage in the beginning of the second war, but once betrayed by their own supporters they had to settle for a compromise
This entire sentence is just one fat pipul, and you're purposely leaving out a vital detail here. The royals won only, because of the betrayal. And after Simon de Montfort was killed, Gilbert de Clare (who caused his downfall) formed a revolt and occupied London for about two months, which forced another comprise. I'm glad that you accept that England was such a case by attempting to circle-jerk the royals.

>And it was repealed
No it wasn't. Statute of Marlborough was only repealed about 600 years later.

>England remained absolutist despite you affirming the opposite.
Um, no? England was never had a ruler who was absolute. As matter of fact, Absolutionism has never existed in England and most certainly did not exist anywhere in Europe before the 17th century. The closet to to an absolute monarchy in England was under Charles I who failed as he got btfo'd by the Parliamentarians due to his unpopularity and incompetence.

>But I acknowledged no such thing
You just did.

>Women and slaves aren't (relative to Athens at least) citizens
That's means there is a hierarchy.

>how could they even be factored into a hierarchy
LOL, you're arguing against yourself here.
<No ruler acts on his own benefit insofar as he is a ruler; the perfection of the ruler's art consists on him providing to his subjects
<the superiority of a ruler over his subjects
Anything with regards to a superior ruling over subordinates means there exist a hierarchy. If democracy, or Athenian democracy is anti-hierarchical, then the Athenians would not have distinct classes that served different roles and purposes throughout society, and that only Athenian men are allowed to participate in public affairs and have influence and control of the state. Everyone would truly be equal and none of the Athenians believed in this, what they wanted was fairness and equity. The evolution of a state being based in merit and serving their own, not its higher-ups only. The mistake of their democracy was Solon making it out to be one based on property and is the real reason why it failed, but this applies to all governments generally. Nice cope here.

>You asked me if I thought aristocrats were not citizens
No, I gave a rhetorical question, dimwit. It's obvious they are and I know you know they are as well.

>the implication being that the aristocrats being superior to others somehow makes them not citizens
And you missed my point and confirm that the goal-post was indeed moved. The point is that republics are not democratic for they are a generally universal collective board. Aristocrats make up that board and a gathering of them is in it case, collective. The issue here is that you do not understand words at things for what they truly are. The idea that aristocracy are something else is moronic, as whether aristocrats are a privilege class or unit they are collective their own and the nation itself. We are literally going nowhere, because you are too stupid in arguing. I might as well stop here, because you cannot grasp what is being said, due to being a shit-skin. Again, this is a fascist board. 

>Hitler's government didn't last long
It didn't last long due to betrayal and the allied powers. You seem to not acknowledge that the elites wanted Germany totally destroyed for their attacks on international finance.

>I don't think you have heard of the "dictatorship of proletariat" 
This is more proof that you understand nothing. Marx and "ists" are  individualists who deluded themselves that abolishment of family is not reinforcement of it. While simultaneously believing that everything including your decisions and livelihood should be decided by the state. Marx's entire philosophy is inconsistent as he defines the proletariat as wage workers, and that wage workers are comprised of a wage worker and nothing else.

>I've never said that. Everyone in the State has duties and responsibilities, and they also have responsibilities towards their own affairs
You literally support ((( absolutionism ))) or something of a leader who is supreme in all power and rule, retard. Everyone has in the state has duty to serve who you believe to be the state itself (the monarch) and those below him are to do the same and that is it. How is this not anything you assert. You literally are arguing for it.

>Yes, for it is not your duty to get rid of them
By whose accounts, the fool who thinks all is justified as long as there is a crown? Get real anon. You are in not position to tell a man with power with cannot do. You either fight back or get cucked like the nobles did. The French revolutionaries this weakness of the clergy and royals fixation on institutional legitimacy and they were killed and dethroned.

>but the judges'; even a democracy would be unmanageable if leaders were impeached at anyone's whim.
No they wouldn't and they haven't. You're just denying that no democracy had a merit of its own and hasn't lasted very long which is unrealistic and wrong. 

>No, my entire philosophy is "no one should bring injustice to what a state unjustly does to its kin"
No your philosophy is shit, and merely telling a man that a grown man cannot eat a steak, because you told him so. You simply believe there is only injustice when it is against the state, but not against its folk. Furthermore you cannot even justify or explain how to this would injure men or removing the problem will lead to inevitable destruction.

>He only addressed Christianity as Christianity 
He only addressed Christianity and I provided the text where he did. Table-talks also makes it clear that he was a pagan in the end. Your quote does not exist. 

>his goal was still an irreligious
Literally makes no sense, and you sound like a q-tard. His goal was a pagan society that position science and tradition as upmost important. Your hatred of science and concluding that it is only liberal by nature is utter prove you are shit-skin. 

>quasi-Nietzschean 
This literally has no meaning. And you cannot shit on Nietzsche when you are a Freudian.

>Some of the many Egyptian gods were Aryan
Where does this say they were Nordic, retard? He said ARYAN. Not Northern European. 

> I have nothing to discuss with you about this particular matter.
You never had anything intelligent to say in the first place. Again, go back to /diaper-fetish archy/ you can cope and seethe there about how the royals dindu nuffin.

>>689
>Legitimacy is determined by approval by its citizens
This is impossible; for not only is the multitude not in agreement with one another ever, but even if they had agreed upon something in the distant past, they no longer agree with it in the present, ergo they cannot be the source of legitimacy either in the past, nor present, nor future. The rabble discerns nothing; they only believe in probabilities and illusions, for they have no regard for the noble and eternal.
>Christcuck
Neither :^)
>deflecting the argument
I can only address your argument if the condition from which it follows holds, but you have yet not demonstrated that I "expect human nature to be unchanging".
> just because there is power does not mean it is legitimate or acceptable
Anon, if power is all that matters, it precedes anything that might validate it, ergo it's inconsequential whether it be legitimate or acceptable. If the jews abuse power, that's only your subjective impression of it; indeed they are justified by the mere fact of having more power than anyone else, and you only denounce them for being less powerful than them, and envying the power they have; there's no objective basis to criticize the jews. All I've done thus far is argue on your own terms, and I've found the consequences thereof to be inconsistent with your own beliefs.
>he can enforce it
Power is nonetheless a power to something; if the one with most power enforces something, not withstanding the value that may be ascribed to whatever he enforces, it's for having the power to enforce it; since the power to enforce is prior to the validity of what is enforced, then the one with most power can enforce anything, including that which neuters his power; however, he can't enforce that for it neuters his power to enforce it, which is a contradiction; ergo it is not true that the one with most power is made legitimate for having the power to enforce. Now, you could argue that no one would willingly do something that is detrimental to oneself, and illegitimacy is clearly detrimental, yet power is not discerning of what is beneficial or detrimental, but bare ability; if the one with most power wishes to enforce that which benefits him, then he must have something in addition to the power to enforce, that being knowledge of what is beneficial; once again, it's proven that the power to enforce does not legitimize him who has it.
>Jews use their power use it exploit and destroy the White race
You have no objective basis to criticize them, if power is all that matters :^)
>You acknowledge the power of the Jew and hypocritically try to downplay that it wasn't their fault
No, I claim that, if your premises are true, then the inference is that every injury the jews have caused hereto is justified. It seems, at the end of the day, no one truly believes "might is right", not even you, as it always leads to contradiction due to the relativism it entails.
>It's not up to me to determine this, but the White race and "man to come" to secure this future
What, so you suffer from the same feminine behavior that early on you accused me of having, and you were not at all serious when you spoke of self-mastery?
>every state including LARParchy has been iconoclastic
No State would promote it's own destruction, even you admit as much when you say that the State expects loyalty and submission; how can it be then that every State is iconoclastic?
>The Jews were migrating to Palestine since the early 19th century
I didn't deny this; what I said concerned the State of Israel only. Why are you deflecting from the argument? :^)
>After the defeat of the Germany, this lead allowed the Jews to establish the state of Israel
So you concede the argument after all, despite the earlier attempt to deflect from it.
>The royals won only, because of the betrayal
And? What bearing does this have on the argument?
>Gilbert de Clare formed a revolt and occupied London for about two months
>forced another comprise
Yes, but that only eased the terms of the dictum (that is, those I mentioned previously); it did not grant any other concessions.
>England never had a ruler who was absolute
>absolutism has never existed in England or Europe
So you draw upon the barons' war as evidence that England was not absolutist in a distant period in time, and now you are categorically denying that it's ever been absolutist despite the barons' war being a dispute concerning absolutism; which is it?
>That's means there is a hierarchy
Yet is that a public or private hierarchy? It certainly isn't a public one, since women and slaves aren't citizens; neither were children for that matter, and even today not even an egalitarian society would deny that a child is inferior to the parent. It still remains that there was no hierarchy among the citizens, and so, broadly speaking, Athens was not a hierarchical State.
>aristocrats are a privilege class or unit they are collective their own and the nation itself
So what? If they are a privileged class then there's no longer a universal collective board, ergo an aristocracy is not a republic.
>shit-skin
It's ironic given how many grammatical and spelling mistakes you've committed :^)
>It didn't last long due to betrayal
The same could be said for Rome, even in the early days of the empire, and yet it stood for thousand years.
>Marx and "ists" are  individualists
You haven't read Marx's pronouncements on the French declaration of human rights then; Marx literally decried the right to own property as egoism.
>believing that everything including your decisions and livelihood should be decided by the state
That is socialism though, not communism.
>the fool who thinks all is justified as long as there is a crown?
I've never said that.
>You simply believe there is only injustice when it is against the state, but not against its folk
Not true; I believe that injustice does not warrant more injustice.
>you cannot even justify or explain how to this would injure men
I did, and you've decided to ignore my justification.
>Your quote does not exist
The quote comes from Martin Bormann's correspondences with NSDAP officials, including Hitler.
>you are a Freudian
Based on what?
>He said ARYAN
If we are to use 'aryan' as synonyms with either Europeans or originating from Europeans, then you cannot fault me for assuming he meant the Norse in particular, since he used the beads as evidence of Egyptians worshiping 'aryan' gods (which it isn't).

Natural Philosophy > folk religion

You can draw morals and values from the land without a deity, and have cultural practice which isn't religious. 
I looked for a long time for the "folk God/s" and realized there needn't be any. 

In unrelated news i just made a five meter high wicker monster, it's not an idol it's just to scare the jewish victimhood cult at the local church. 
You'll probably see it on the news in a week.

>>709
Didn't see shit.
And you didn't look hard enough or you would have realized that the gods and natural philosophy are intertwined intimately, and would have found them both within and around you.

After long consideration, I have come to a conclusion that dharmic worldview is ultimately a poisoned apple, despite having a lot of merit and being based on some truths, or rather, half-truths. While the world does operate according to certain immanent principles, reducing oneself to a mere impersonal function is much closer to Talmudic worldview than Aryan worldview, which has always valued freedom and individuality, albeit tempered by higher wisdom and enabled through a collective effort where freedoms were always balanced with duties and where hierarchies were organic and self-emergent.

>>830
Indeed, I have a similar perception of Dharmic belief systems. My favorite is Buddhism, with its philosophical outlook and similarity to Stoicism, but... something's not quite right, and I can't fully commit to it.

>>839
Well, Buddha was an Aryan prince so he was aware of certain knowledge, even if marginally, but he either failed to interpret it properly or it got completely twisted past his death

Philosophy of Schopenhauer is similar to Buddhism, but Germanic through and through, and is not hinged upon Abrahamic, Dharmic, or any other kind of religious dogma.

1aef757fc135842ce016aaf6a6096bb75ad64181f80cd3c43ab32b7c3d708d24.png
[Hide] (994.7KB, 620x620) Reverse

>>839
I'd like to explore a somewhat related topic and gather some insights from fellow anons. Has anyone here had any experiences with the ISDS (International Society for Dharmic Studies) and Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya? I've been an avid follower of his videos for several years now and have contemplated visiting him and seeking initiation. However, I've come across a few concerns that have raised red flags.

Back in the day, I stumbled upon some discussions about him on 16chan and even in the earlier days of /pol/. They raised some peculiar points, particularly regarding his interactions with women. I initially brushed them off as mere attempts by certain individuals to create drama, as tends to happen. Another issue that surfaced was his sudden exiling of people he had initiated in the mid 2010s, citing vague reasons and displaying a sense of paranoia. Additionally, I've noticed some individuals who are currently associated with him being rather unpleasant. While I haven't personally encountered such behavior, I've engaged with a few of his followers who exhibit an excessive hero worship towards the Acharya. Some have shared rather unconventional life stories that lean toward stereotypical stoner narratives, or they present themselves in an off-putting, new-age manner. It's not the kind of seriousness I would expect from those pursuing genuine spirituality, especially when some of them hold positions as moderators or are well-known within the community.
However, the most troubling aspect for me is when Alex Jones made an appearance at the ISDS conference last year, and it seems that Acharya believes in the validity of QAnon. Personally, I view Alex Jones with skepticism, and this connection raises some doubts in my mind. I firmly believe in the importance of embracing a Dharmic worldview and practice, and having authentic and authoritative Gurus is crucial. Yet, my prevailing concern now is whether the ISDS might be a limited hangout. I admit I don't know these individuals well, and the information I've gathered about some of them isn't very reassuring.

Where should I start with the Upanishads? What is the best translation and commentary? Books that can be found on zlibrary or library genesis are preferred.

kosher_hinduism.png
[Hide] (685.7KB, 2040x1073) Reverse

>>2164
https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/Noahide-Nations:4
Pretty interesting and disturbing talk about the "nohahide" agenda. Something I personally have never heard of.
The most disturbing thing thing I took from it was how apparently the choseintes completely got hinduism under their banner to the point where most hindus will deny their polytheistic faith. Starting at about 1hr 10
I'm starting to get disillusioned with all organized religion.

>>2164
>seeking initiation from some exotic e-celeb
Just don't.
>Jonestein and QAnal
I've read people who definitely were initiates but still said erronous things, sometimes plain stupid. There are way too many groups of people who pretend being qualified to provide an initiation. Even in Freemasonry, all sorts of retards started their own mini lodges and asserted being legitimate in providing the adequate environment for a true initiation. Laughable. To say nothing of the super jewed pozz center that Freemasonry is anyway.
>>2298
India has been infiltrated a long time ago but there's a cultural inertia that will simply be very hard to overcome regarding pantheons and beliefs, regardless of the One True Religion the Jews try to prop. All these fuckers are shilling for 'Unity' and have lately had many companies update their logos into any variant of the Cube to reflect that. It has become their new rallying call.
They're all commercially engaged with Israel, even the supposedly opposed nations and groups... NATO, Russia, China, India, etc.
But Hinduism is garbage anyway, no matter the form. Whites were digested by this larger population, now nothing of their greatness remains outside of early Vedic works and whatever racial status caste system they put into place millennia ago.
As a White person, you cannot and must NOT share your religion with any other people.

>>2164
Apparently Frank Morales is popular in the Hindu community for being a fake. No matter the sect, they all give him the sideeye for his teachings. It's likely the case that he's not even actually initiated himself.

>>2621
he made a video recently addressing Neo-hinduism and showed how many hindus in the 19th century and 20th century were covert Christian missionaries.

I think he may be a good resource and person, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has bad opinions unrelated to scripture. I do think he has made some errors like associating with Alex Jones, and believes he is real, or he may be peerage himself part of misdirecting people further, but the latter remains unproven so far.

Mercator_Septentrionalium_Terrarum_descriptio.jpg
[Hide] (3MB, 3261x3025) Reverse

Here's a few interesting sources on revival attempts of the Proto-Indo-European Religion:
https://sindhueuropayom.fandom.com/wiki/Swedhuism_(Indo-Europeanism)
(reconstruction of the ancient aryan religion, WARNING: this page was written by a Liberal Plebbitor, most of the basic information is true  but other parts are literally made up, remain skeptical)
This https://ceisiwrserith.com/pier/index.htm , Crecganford and especially Survive The Jive have great information about the Aryan religion.
In general, I think it's best to practice Norse or Hellenic heathenry if you want a more solid tradition. I worship our sacred sky father (Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) and the Fuhrer the most.  I made an  idol inspired by an ancient yamnayan stelae of him found in one of the many great Kurgan across the steppes. There's something liberating about using the language, idols, methods and exact gods that the ancient Aryans (or 'h2ryos' as they called themselves) used! 
A massive issue I see with these 'revivalist' religions cropping up is the Post-Modern lens being used here, this Idea that you can just pray to any god regardless of heritage, that you can ignore the cultural context and lifestyles of these ancient peoples and still gain somehow. It misses massive important aspects of the Aryan tradition, Namely that the Aryans (specifically the Yamnayans) Were a warrior culture, they maintained a nationalistic, militant patriarchal society. The Views of the Ancient Aryans are certainly incompatible with this Marxist/ Semitic worldview pushed by the Cathedral. Clearly their soft doughy bodies and servile minds will never be able to cope with what the gods require of us, the pious, the fascistic or even of any righteous man, Even if we ignore their degenerate beliefs and lifestyles. Another big issue is the atheist metaphysical views they hold, which again deprives them of any deeper spiritual significance.

Scientology is based