Explaining communism, capitalism, anarchism, and nationalism.

919

• (edited )

In one case ("Capitalism"), you have exclusive ownership of your body and belongings, and other people have exclusive owner their bodies and belongings, "ownership" means "control", which means that any interaction with your person or property requires your permission, or it is illegal.

In the other ("Communism"), you have exclusive ownership of nothing, everything (and everyone) is instead owned communally by all people, everything is decided by the majority, and any interaction with anyone or anything must be based on what is most commonly agreed upon in order to be is legal.

Socialism is the stage in between, which most communist-aspirant countries never seem to get out of, und socialism, everything (and everyone) is owned by some central governing authority (they hate calling it "government), which represents the most common will of the people, but in actually just wields absolute authority with no interest in ever running out of excuses to give it up.

If Communism is direct democracy, then socialism is the representative variant of it, tyranny with the very transparently false image of "governance by the governed", much like our own government, to be frank.

Night-Watchman State Minarchism is the absolute extreme of capitalist government, you can't go further beyond this without going into anarchist territory, people who support it feel like the name should just be "Capitalism" since everything else falls short of their ideology, and NWS Minarchism is simply a label adopted for ease of communication, speaking of which...

Anarcho Capitalism is to capitalism what communism is to socialism, there is where ownership , instead of a representative body being charged to guarantee and enforce the principles of ownership and consent, these principles completely replace government, and instead everyone just agrees to only interact with the person or property of the others, or the interaction is illegal. AnCaps tend to think that this is a hard reset on civilization back to the first way people governed their interactions, like the Minarchists, these guys have a word they prefer, "Voluntaryism", but use the name they are known by here for communication-clarity purposes. They also tend to respond to the idea of feudal states eventually emerging from the implementation of their ideology as something they have little problem with.

Which leads to the concept of Neo-Monarchism, the idea that a return to monarchy is a good idea because when the government and it's people are someone's personal property, inherited from their ancestors and to be passed onto their descendants, then the leader would have more interest in maintaining it in good condition, many AnCaps who think about their ideology and where it might lead can just make the leap to this concept, and many did, even creating their own board for it, they also tend to cross-pollinate with the other ideologies mentioned here. Like the Christians below, These guys have an explanation for the decline and fall we've been born into, but their differs in that instead of the loss of the influence of religion, the source of the issues came far earlier, with the fall of the rule of Kings and Queens, and the rise of Republics. In their eyes, Democracy is fundamentally flawed because it makes a severe misconception of the nature of man, in that Democracy relies on it's civilians to be informed and vigilant, but even though this is not unexpected in times of recent political strife and revolution. But down the line when things get comfortable, people start to soften up, they lose interest in important topics, which become controversial and taboo to discuss in public due to the unpleasantness it brings in a time of peace, and they start slacking in terms of knowing the things they need to know in order to make informed decisions. Restricting this to a specific class of people doesn't work either, as the class will expand itself to more people due to ruthless people within it needing to bring in votes from the outside to support their case (votes often from people whose support can easily be bought off with handouts from the governance), and any restricting laws can simply be gotten rid of with enough (easily purchased) public support (with the laws against using the government for ballot bribery often being among the first to go, there is a reason why "rights movements" always come AFTER welfare policies are instituted). On the other hand, the rule of a single family, whose entire existence is predicated on being good at statecraft, would work because there's less people to influence, and less who can do the influencing, that is why Monarchies are stable. Neo-Monarchism differs from Monarchism in that there is no special appeal to some other force the "right to rule" for the governing family, old Monarchies usually had loyalties to the state church, as the family were supposed to be the representatives of the will of the God that appointed them, under Neo-Monarchism, the Royals rule simply because everything belong directly to them, and so they aren't beholden to what some Pope says in Vatican City. Neo-Monarchism differs from Dictatorships in that they are honest about what they are, Dictatorships never present themselves honestly, they often use some smokescreen of a political or ideological force that the dictator merely represents for his people, Neo-Monarchism makes no excuses, it presents itself as being the way it is because "everything belongs to the Royal family, including your ass, and you will love it because it beats the hell out of the alternatives".

Egoism (or AWA - "anarchism without adjectives") is anarcho capitalism and communism without regard for consent (communal or individual), allowing all interactions based solely on their physical capability, and equates ownership solely to possession, basically, everything is a free for all, associations can be voluntary (as in the most nationalist/isolationist forms of capitalism) or coerced (as in the more globalist/expansionist forms of communism), it's just straight up "no rules but the rules of nature/reality". These guys disagree with the AnCaps and think they TRULY represent the primal order, as an irony, they tend to be simultaneously the most anti-government (even looking down on moral restrictions in addition to laws) and the most pro-government (since they tend to believe that their ideology is always in play, it is what TRULY governs everything already, and what we see is the end result)

National Socialism and National Capitalism are variants where the rules they follow only apply to a specific people:

National Socialism is socialism where the communal will that is represented by the government is only concerned with a specific group (White or German-Gentile Men, etc.), this can mean in the most extreme forms that only one group are considered persons, which is "being more Hitlerian than literally Hitler was", or you can go Adolf Hitler's route, which was the surprisingly tame one of the National Socialist distinction of "citizen" and "civilian", with associated differences in rights, privileges, and protections, A German Jew was still a German, and was still offered protections and rights, even when interned in a concentration camp (which protected them from being killed without charge, hence why the holocaust as a genocide never happened, however they would lack specific things given to the Aryans of Germany, most notably the ability to participate in the political processes, or being given government loans for reproduction, and other such things (read up on the list, and you will see that I mean). National Socialism was originally a lot more tame than what the media Jews of Hollywood would have you believe, however, the media portrayals gave a lot of /pol/acks ideas, and the community now rejects the historically accurate picture of the ideology with regards to how it treated it's Non-Aryan Germans, the Ideology started out relatively tame, got demonized, then that produces effects on imageboard which evolved the ideology into the WigNat-isms it is now associated with on most /pol/ boards, even Hitler thought there were good Jews and didn't want to gas any of the Kikes, he had nothing against Blacks and would oppose the idea of a "Day of the Rope", and for him EthnoNationalism was about German Aryans having political sovereignty, not about kicking out everyone who wasn't Aryan out of the country, if he started posting on /pol/, the mods and anons would crucify the guy as a fed or shill. However, this is changing, as a lot of the NatCaps grew older and became more restrained and closer to the historically accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a Females and Non-Whites (especially those who aren't Asian, either) who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea, or they actually buckled down and read the words of their ideologies primary historical representative, and realized that Adolf Hitler was nothing like the way he looked on (((TV))), and the thing about him that made people object to him was not related to his attitudes on race or ethnicity, but on his perspectives relating to money, banking, business, and finance. Despite the claims of Adolf Hitler being a devout Catholic his whole life, and being inspired by the German tradition of Catholic and Protestant Christianity (apparently moreso than the actual leaders of those religions), in reality, he had the view of religion in a similar fashion to the early USSR, as something to be co-opted and then eased out, a dangerous distraction from what the government's leaders saw as being most vital and essential, which they aimed to make the prime focus of their people, his "Positive Christianity" was similar to the "Christian Communism" in that it usurped the church from it's authorities and gradually replaced elements of the religion with elements of their own state ideology. He had to present himself and his ideology as Christian for the sake of power, but it was his beliefs regarding the German "volk" that truly occupied a strong place within his heart, and he ultimately saw Christianity as being incompatible, Islam would have been more in line with his ideas than the religion of the majority of Germans, in this way, he was "strongly, devoutly religious, but also thoroughly anti-Christian, and hostile to the church and it's teachings", which he saw as being a "Jewish" source of "weakness" that cost his people so much in the previous war, If his regime had lasted longer, he would have continued to increase the Anti-Christian angle and his ideology would have become known for being State Atheist, like Socialism/Communism is today, the fact that he lost the war is the reason his Christian following has not left him - "The Man in the High Tower" was based on Heinlein trying his best to portray the ideology of National socialism as accurately as he could, he did extensive research on the subject, and that included predicting where it would have gone if given the chance (by looking at the evolution of similar regimes), for example, In the book, the Axis powers win the Second World War, but they don't invade the rest of Europe or America, instead, the Axis countries become so successful in the Post-War era, that they inspire these places to adopt similar forms of government, which talk about Germany as an inspiration similar to how the Americans used to talk about France and vice versa, it's a cultural conquest, not militaristic, and the economic conflict between Germany and Japan was due to how they would both have been having golden ages (Japan for the same reasons as in our timeline, as they were looking for modernization even before the war had ended, and Germany due to the fact that Hitler's "Blitz economy" would have never been ended prematurely), and their markets would be in conflict for their hold in the economies of other countries.

Fascism is where the state is put before the specific group of people, but the group of people is still put before other groups, the idea being that the government is essential to protecting the interests of the people. This means they introduce the element of class and power into the equation as an additional hierarchy. Despite being the poster boy for this ideology in most people's minds, Hitler actually was personally disgusted by fascism, which was more accurately represented in Italy, Mussolini is less popular in our culture, however, and few people realize that there even was a distinction from his ideology and NatSoc.

Similarly to National Socialism, National Capitalism is where the private ownership of person or property that is represented by the government is only recognized as valid for a specific group of people (meaning those who aren't White cannot truly own anything, even themselves, which essentially means that those who aren't White have no legal protections and are defacto slaves to those who are White), essentially "NAP for me and those like me, but not for anyone else". As with National Socialism, there are also more "tame" or "reasonable" versions of this ideology, where instead of total dispensation with the personhood of those outside the group, there is merely a caste system or hierarchy that exists, such as with Hitler, where he simply created a caste or hierarchy where his people were simply given specific forms of preference to the other peoples living in his lands. National Capitalism took an opposite evolution on the internet from National Socialism, first of all the environment of NatSoc was WigNat, to the point that even Literally Hitler would find it too unreasonably extreme for his tastes, add to that the constant bashing of all forms of "Capitalism" and "Libertarians" by the /pol/acks, which gives anyone with a taste for minimalistic laws and economic regulations the feeling of a need to prove themselves as being just as edgy and extreme as the NatSocs, and the result was the infamous NatCap "SlaveState EthnoNationalism", which, when it includes "Females" and "Non-Whites" in the category of the "slaves", produced a very kinky ideology that endorses the keeping of one's own daughters as loli sex slaves, the hilarious fact that it was a pedophile's paradise was the true reason a lot of the NatCaps became more restrained and closer to the more accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of them, like a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a lot of Females and Non-Whites who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea.
This ideology is a new one, and the product of the meeting of the old "libertarian" /pol/ and the new "nazi" /pol/, the anons realizing they have common ground on a lot of their beliefs, and with a few changes to make the two compatible (prioritizing "nationalism" over "capitalism" by only applying the rights of ownership of self and property to specific groups of people they deemed to be worthy) a new ideology was synthesized from combining the two. As this is a brand new ideology which the marxists and feds are unfamiliar with, and thus lacking in ability to respond to with shilling, they have instead tried to make it synonymous with mainstream ""civic nationalist" libertarianism, and produced quote a few memes in order to get this result, however, National Capitalists tend to know what they believe in and what makes it unique and new, and they also know that "Civic Nationalism" is an ultimately meaningless concept promoted by COINTELPRO gatekeepers and people getting paid off by Jews to shit up imageboards (or doing it for free).

Whenever you hear the word "Capitalism" replace it with "the private individual ownership of person and property", whenever you hear the word "Communism" replace it with "the public universal ownership of person and property". In one case ("Capitalism"), you have exclusive ownership of your body and belongings, and other people have exclusive owner their bodies and belongings, "ownership" means "control", which means that any interaction with your person or property requires your permission, or it is illegal. In the other ("Communism"), you have exclusive ownership of nothing, everything (and everyone) is instead owned communally by all people, everything is decided by the majority, and any interaction with anyone or anything must be based on what is most commonly agreed upon in order to be is legal. Socialism is the stage in between, which most communist-aspirant countries never seem to get out of, und socialism, everything (and everyone) is owned by some central governing authority (they hate calling it "government), which represents the most common will of the people, but in actually just wields absolute authority with no interest in ever running out of excuses to give it up. If Communism is direct democracy, then socialism is the representative variant of it, tyranny with the very transparently false image of "governance by the governed", much like our own government, to be frank. Night-Watchman State Minarchism is the absolute extreme of capitalist government, you can't go further beyond this without going into anarchist territory, people who support it feel like the name should just be "Capitalism" since everything else falls short of their ideology, and NWS Minarchism is simply a label adopted for ease of communication, speaking of which... Anarcho Capitalism is to capitalism what communism is to socialism, there is where ownership , instead of a representative body being charged to guarantee and enforce the principles of ownership and consent, these principles completely replace government, and instead everyone just agrees to only interact with the person or property of the others, or the interaction is illegal. AnCaps tend to think that this is a hard reset on civilization back to the first way people governed their interactions, like the Minarchists, these guys have a word they prefer, "Voluntaryism", but use the name they are known by here for communication-clarity purposes. They also tend to respond to the idea of feudal states eventually emerging from the implementation of their ideology as something they have little problem with. Which leads to the concept of Neo-Monarchism, the idea that a return to monarchy is a good idea because when the government and it's people are someone's personal property, inherited from their ancestors and to be passed onto their descendants, then the leader would have more interest in maintaining it in good condition, many AnCaps who think about their ideology and where it might lead can just make the leap to this concept, and many did, even creating their own board for it, they also tend to cross-pollinate with the other ideologies mentioned here. Like the Christians below, These guys have an explanation for the decline and fall we've been born into, but their differs in that instead of the loss of the influence of religion, the source of the issues came far earlier, with the fall of the rule of Kings and Queens, and the rise of Republics. In their eyes, Democracy is fundamentally flawed because it makes a severe misconception of the nature of man, in that Democracy relies on it's civilians to be informed and vigilant, but even though this is not unexpected in times of recent political strife and revolution. But down the line when things get comfortable, people start to soften up, they lose interest in important topics, which become controversial and taboo to discuss in public due to the unpleasantness it brings in a time of peace, and they start slacking in terms of knowing the things they need to know in order to make informed decisions. Restricting this to a specific class of people doesn't work either, as the class will expand itself to more people due to ruthless people within it needing to bring in votes from the outside to support their case (votes often from people whose support can easily be bought off with handouts from the governance), and any restricting laws can simply be gotten rid of with enough (easily purchased) public support (with the laws against using the government for ballot bribery often being among the first to go, there is a reason why "rights movements" always come AFTER welfare policies are instituted). On the other hand, the rule of a single family, whose entire existence is predicated on being good at statecraft, would work because there's less people to influence, and less who can do the influencing, that is why Monarchies are stable. Neo-Monarchism differs from Monarchism in that there is no special appeal to some other force the "right to rule" for the governing family, old Monarchies usually had loyalties to the state church, as the family were supposed to be the representatives of the will of the God that appointed them, under Neo-Monarchism, the Royals rule simply because everything belong directly to them, and so they aren't beholden to what some Pope says in Vatican City. Neo-Monarchism differs from Dictatorships in that they are honest about what they are, Dictatorships never present themselves honestly, they often use some smokescreen of a political or ideological force that the dictator merely represents for his people, Neo-Monarchism makes no excuses, it presents itself as being the way it is because "everything belongs to the Royal family, including your ass, and you will love it because it beats the hell out of the alternatives". Egoism (or AWA - "anarchism without adjectives") is anarcho capitalism and communism without regard for consent (communal or individual), allowing all interactions based solely on their physical capability, and equates ownership solely to possession, basically, everything is a free for all, associations can be voluntary (as in the most nationalist/isolationist forms of capitalism) or coerced (as in the more globalist/expansionist forms of communism), it's just straight up "no rules but the rules of nature/reality". These guys disagree with the AnCaps and think they TRULY represent the primal order, as an irony, they tend to be simultaneously the most anti-government (even looking down on moral restrictions in addition to laws) and the most pro-government (since they tend to believe that their ideology is always in play, it is what TRULY governs everything already, and what we see is the end result) National Socialism and National Capitalism are variants where the rules they follow only apply to a specific people: National Socialism is socialism where the communal will that is represented by the government is only concerned with a specific group (White or German-Gentile Men, etc.), this can mean in the most extreme forms that only one group are considered persons, which is "being more Hitlerian than literally Hitler was", or you can go Adolf Hitler's route, which was the surprisingly tame one of the National Socialist distinction of "citizen" and "civilian", with associated differences in rights, privileges, and protections, A German Jew was still a German, and was still offered protections and rights, even when interned in a concentration camp (which protected them from being killed without charge, hence why the holocaust as a genocide never happened, however they would lack specific things given to the Aryans of Germany, most notably the ability to participate in the political processes, or being given government loans for reproduction, and other such things (read up on the list, and you will see that I mean). National Socialism was originally a lot more tame than what the media Jews of Hollywood would have you believe, however, the media portrayals gave a lot of /pol/acks ideas, and the community now rejects the historically accurate picture of the ideology with regards to how it treated it's Non-Aryan Germans, the Ideology started out relatively tame, got demonized, then that produces effects on imageboard which evolved the ideology into the WigNat-isms it is now associated with on most /pol/ boards, even Hitler thought there were good Jews and didn't want to gas any of the Kikes, he had nothing against Blacks and would oppose the idea of a "Day of the Rope", and for him EthnoNationalism was about German Aryans having political sovereignty, not about kicking out everyone who wasn't Aryan out of the country, if he started posting on /pol/, the mods and anons would crucify the guy as a fed or shill. However, this is changing, as a lot of the NatCaps grew older and became more restrained and closer to the historically accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a Females and Non-Whites (especially those who aren't Asian, either) who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea, or they actually buckled down and read the words of their ideologies primary historical representative, and realized that Adolf Hitler was nothing like the way he looked on (((TV))), and the thing about him that made people object to him was not related to his attitudes on race or ethnicity, but on his perspectives relating to money, banking, business, and finance. Despite the claims of Adolf Hitler being a devout Catholic his whole life, and being inspired by the German tradition of Catholic and Protestant Christianity (apparently moreso than the actual leaders of those religions), in reality, he had the view of religion in a similar fashion to the early USSR, as something to be co-opted and then eased out, a dangerous distraction from what the government's leaders saw as being most vital and essential, which they aimed to make the prime focus of their people, his "Positive Christianity" was similar to the "Christian Communism" in that it usurped the church from it's authorities and gradually replaced elements of the religion with elements of their own state ideology. He had to present himself and his ideology as Christian for the sake of power, but it was his beliefs regarding the German "volk" that truly occupied a strong place within his heart, and he ultimately saw Christianity as being incompatible, Islam would have been more in line with his ideas than the religion of the majority of Germans, in this way, he was "strongly, devoutly religious, but also thoroughly anti-Christian, and hostile to the church and it's teachings", which he saw as being a "Jewish" source of "weakness" that cost his people so much in the previous war, If his regime had lasted longer, he would have continued to increase the Anti-Christian angle and his ideology would have become known for being State Atheist, like Socialism/Communism is today, the fact that he lost the war is the reason his Christian following has not left him - "The Man in the High Tower" was based on Heinlein trying his best to portray the ideology of National socialism as accurately as he could, he did extensive research on the subject, and that included predicting where it would have gone if given the chance (by looking at the evolution of similar regimes), for example, In the book, the Axis powers win the Second World War, but they don't invade the rest of Europe or America, instead, the Axis countries become so successful in the Post-War era, that they inspire these places to adopt similar forms of government, which talk about Germany as an inspiration similar to how the Americans used to talk about France and vice versa, it's a cultural conquest, not militaristic, and the economic conflict between Germany and Japan was due to how they would both have been having golden ages (Japan for the same reasons as in our timeline, as they were looking for modernization even before the war had ended, and Germany due to the fact that Hitler's "Blitz economy" would have never been ended prematurely), and their markets would be in conflict for their hold in the economies of other countries. Fascism is where the state is put before the specific group of people, but the group of people is still put before other groups, the idea being that the government is essential to protecting the interests of the people. This means they introduce the element of class and power into the equation as an additional hierarchy. Despite being the poster boy for this ideology in most people's minds, Hitler actually was personally disgusted by fascism, which was more accurately represented in Italy, Mussolini is less popular in our culture, however, and few people realize that there even was a distinction from his ideology and NatSoc. Similarly to National Socialism, National Capitalism is where the private ownership of person or property that is represented by the government is only recognized as valid for a specific group of people (meaning those who aren't White cannot truly own anything, even themselves, which essentially means that those who aren't White have no legal protections and are defacto slaves to those who are White), essentially "NAP for me and those like me, but not for anyone else". As with National Socialism, there are also more "tame" or "reasonable" versions of this ideology, where instead of total dispensation with the personhood of those outside the group, there is merely a caste system or hierarchy that exists, such as with Hitler, where he simply created a caste or hierarchy where his people were simply given specific forms of preference to the other peoples living in his lands. National Capitalism took an opposite evolution on the internet from National Socialism, first of all the environment of NatSoc was WigNat, to the point that even Literally Hitler would find it too unreasonably extreme for his tastes, add to that the constant bashing of all forms of "Capitalism" and "Libertarians" by the /pol/acks, which gives anyone with a taste for minimalistic laws and economic regulations the feeling of a need to prove themselves as being just as edgy and extreme as the NatSocs, and the result was the infamous NatCap "SlaveState EthnoNationalism", which, when it includes "Females" and "Non-Whites" in the category of the "slaves", produced a very kinky ideology that endorses the keeping of one's own daughters as loli sex slaves, the hilarious fact that it was a pedophile's paradise was the true reason a lot of the NatCaps became more restrained and closer to the more accurate characterization of Adolf Hitler's concept of what "EthnoNationalism" implies, that and a lot of them, like a lot of NatSocs, ended up meeting a lot of Females and Non-Whites who they genuinely liked and didn't want to see come to harm, or they just thought about things in more philosophical or compassionate terms, and decided that hurting innocent people wasn't a good idea. This ideology is a new one, and the product of the meeting of the old "libertarian" /pol/ and the new "nazi" /pol/, the anons realizing they have common ground on a lot of their beliefs, and with a few changes to make the two compatible (prioritizing "nationalism" over "capitalism" by only applying the rights of ownership of self and property to specific groups of people they deemed to be worthy) a new ideology was synthesized from combining the two. As this is a brand new ideology which the marxists and feds are unfamiliar with, and thus lacking in ability to respond to with shilling, they have instead tried to make it synonymous with mainstream ""civic nationalist" libertarianism, and produced quote a few memes in order to get this result, however, National Capitalists tend to know what they believe in and what makes it unique and new, and they also know that "Civic Nationalism" is an ultimately meaningless concept promoted by COINTELPRO gatekeepers and people getting paid off by Jews to shit up imageboards (or doing it for free).

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

National Communism ("NazBol") is the variety of National Socialism where the anarchism of communism is introduced to replace the government of socialism, it sought the gradual erosion of the state, but Hitler wisely saw the room for subversion in this, and gutted his movement of such beliefs and their adherents during his internal ideological purge on the "night of long knives", good thing too, a lot of these guys were actively working with Communist Jews and other soviet sympathizers to try and clip the claws of the rising Reich as a prominent competitive force to the USSR, many were also betraying the movement in more obvious ways as well, giving it's supporters up to the Marxist terrorists that were behind so many attacks that when the time came to stand up to the Soviets, the NatSocs decided to move the entirety of groups most likely to produce such domestic terrorists and traitors to internment camps, far away from what they would consider to be their most vital targets to attack in order to sabotage the Reich from within.

Christian Nationalism, is an old ideology that was revived recently, the idea is to build a theocracy based on the Biblical text as it's constitution, and make the Christian identity it's core group, rather than a whole race, the main bulk of them reject EthnoNationalism, and rather than an "EthnoState", they seek out to establish "Christendom", or the "Earthly Kingdom of Christ", and a ton of them idolize the 1950's style of living, even though the government they want is one that is way older than the one in 1950, and doesn't resemble it at all (more like 1450, but with modern technology and a lot of past cultural changes to account for). However, some of them started getting influenced by various /pol/acks, and this subfaction of ChristNats made changes to things and made it a specifically WHITE Christian identity instead. Either way, expect the result of these guys taking over to result in something like a "Christian Sharia" (do NOT ever call it that in front of them unless you want to piss them off), where God (according to Jesus Christ and not Muhammed) is considered to be the true leader of the country, and a holy book (the Bible and not the Qu'ran) is used as the basis for forming the government and making it's laws. Often they promote their ideology by claiming that Christianity, regardless of it's factuality, was with White people for the best parts of their history, and indeed most of it, that it had a significant impact on shaping their culture and politics, and that it's decline correlates with the decline of the countries in which this had occurred. Not only do I question these claims, but I also tend to take their logic to it's conclusion, that if the Bible is useful for social engineering, and if this is the true reason why we should be at at least cultural Christians, then we could improve out society by improving the Bible, and thus the proposal has been made by me and echoed by other anons that we could rewrite the good book in order to make it more compatible with the society we want. This was the essential core of the "Positive Christianity" of National Socialism, and it's not even the first time the book would be given a major overhauling, as we can see that this had indeed been done to it over and over again by people who wanted to make it more useful for them in promoting their political ideology, some Christian Nationalists have unironically adopted this ideology, most ChristNats hate them with a passion, because their book's current rules forbid doing such a thing (even though it was done in the past), being trolls, these "Positive Christians" tend to point out how that rules should be left in, because it would make it easier to claim that they hadn't made the changes they intend to make after they had made them, the other opposition to PosChrists is that people already know what's in it, and can read the older versions of the Bible, the answers to this issue are the same as the ones used by other countries in the past and present, and basically say that it includes a well-known mix of cultural and legal techniques to address satisfactorily, also they say that most Christians aren't anywhere near as informed on their holy book as these critics claim they are.

That was a lot on the newest ideology in our community, so here are two dead old ideologies that have been getting revived in recent times, with significant gains in traction, at least in terms of becoming known: National Communism ("NazBol") is the variety of National Socialism where the anarchism of communism is introduced to replace the government of socialism, it sought the gradual erosion of the state, but Hitler wisely saw the room for subversion in this, and gutted his movement of such beliefs and their adherents during his internal ideological purge on the "night of long knives", good thing too, a lot of these guys were actively working with Communist Jews and other soviet sympathizers to try and clip the claws of the rising Reich as a prominent competitive force to the USSR, many were also betraying the movement in more obvious ways as well, giving it's supporters up to the Marxist terrorists that were behind so many attacks that when the time came to stand up to the Soviets, the NatSocs decided to move the entirety of groups most likely to produce such domestic terrorists and traitors to internment camps, far away from what they would consider to be their most vital targets to attack in order to sabotage the Reich from within. Christian Nationalism, is an old ideology that was revived recently, the idea is to build a theocracy based on the Biblical text as it's constitution, and make the Christian identity it's core group, rather than a whole race, the main bulk of them reject EthnoNationalism, and rather than an "EthnoState", they seek out to establish "Christendom", or the "Earthly Kingdom of Christ", and a ton of them idolize the 1950's style of living, even though the government they want is one that is way older than the one in 1950, and doesn't resemble it at all (more like 1450, but with modern technology and a lot of past cultural changes to account for). However, some of them started getting influenced by various /pol/acks, and this subfaction of ChristNats made changes to things and made it a specifically WHITE Christian identity instead. Either way, expect the result of these guys taking over to result in something like a "Christian Sharia" (do NOT ever call it that in front of them unless you want to piss them off), where God (according to Jesus Christ and not Muhammed) is considered to be the true leader of the country, and a holy book (the Bible and not the Qu'ran) is used as the basis for forming the government and making it's laws. Often they promote their ideology by claiming that Christianity, regardless of it's factuality, was with White people for the best parts of their history, and indeed most of it, that it had a significant impact on shaping their culture and politics, and that it's decline correlates with the decline of the countries in which this had occurred. Not only do I question these claims, but I also tend to take their logic to it's conclusion, that if the Bible is useful for social engineering, and if this is the true reason why we should be at at least cultural Christians, then we could improve out society by improving the Bible, and thus the proposal has been made by me and echoed by other anons that we could rewrite the good book in order to make it more compatible with the society we want. This was the essential core of the "Positive Christianity" of National Socialism, and it's not even the first time the book would be given a major overhauling, as we can see that this had indeed been done to it over and over again by people who wanted to make it more useful for them in promoting their political ideology, some Christian Nationalists have unironically adopted this ideology, most ChristNats hate them with a passion, because their book's current rules forbid doing such a thing (even though it was done in the past), being trolls, these "Positive Christians" tend to point out how that rules should be left in, because it would make it easier to claim that they hadn't made the changes they intend to make after they had made them, the other opposition to PosChrists is that people already know what's in it, and can read the older versions of the Bible, the answers to this issue are the same as the ones used by other countries in the past and present, and basically say that it includes a well-known mix of cultural and legal techniques to address satisfactorily, also they say that most Christians aren't anywhere near as informed on their holy book as these critics claim they are.

(post is archived)