Jesus didn't invent those techniques

but the NT was formed around the OT

within the context of Second Temple Judaism

and also after it for the later Gospels

and Jesus Himself took part in the temple religion and taught within it

and gave authority to the Apostles who came after Him to teach

depends on which sect you're talking about

Jesus's beliefs had a lot more in common with Pharisees than with Sadducees who denied the resurrection of the dead

you're projecting your opinions onto the Scripture

yes you are those are entirely subjective views that none of the Gospel authors or Jesus Himself or any of the early Church would've held

because you're approaching this with the persepctive of a race idolator

the blood that produced the entire early Church

the blood that produced that innocent man and all His followers

and His mother

modern Christianity is built on a Jewish foundation you can't separate the two

fuck off

Is this really in <#486385308951379968> ?

you claim to follow Jesus's moral teachings and call Him divine but reject everything He said that disagrees with you

Jew shitposting doesn’t belong here

I defend the people that created the Church

“yOu aRe A jEw”

St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James brother of Christ, Virgin Mary, all the disciples

Jesus Himself

“Of course you will defend your blood”

They’re not Jewish

@Thule-Gesellschaft [☩] yes they did lol

Romans 11:1

**Romans 11:1 - New King James Version (NKJV)**

```Dust
Israel’s Rejection Not Total

<1> I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ```

you said they didn't call themself Jews

they were absorbed by the Southern Kingdom after the Northern one ceased to exist

Israel is the perfect ethnostate

25% arent even jews so not really

japan is probably the perfect ethnostate

(thought they are dying more than reproducing)

Vril just wants to find a reason to hate and discredit Jews more than he does now

yo

@Lee Oy Vey

Saw someone post this in Chat earlier but it had no responses, curious what y'all think about it https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

You can skip their fluff and just read the transcripts

@Xenoframe It's the transcripts I'm more talking about, so the source shouldn't really matter unless they doctored it or some shit

Is saying "I dont remember" not dodging a question

<:GWfroggyPepoThink:400751114221256705>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HdO5cO7dPw

Ban Usury

@agag Saying the Paul's received tradition is revelation is indeed speculative but so is speculating that he got it from people. Both are possible. All we really know of Paul's source of knowledge is claimed revelation and secret messages in the scripture.

Believing in Jesus is indeed necessary for eternal life and I dont really see a problem with how it describes the eucharist. It's important what it doesnt mention. It doesnt mention the deity of Christ, worship of Christ, the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the trinity in other words it doesnt mention the most important doctrinal points of christianity.

Obviously here our knowledge is limited. Sadly we do not have the writings of sects that died off, we have what their opponents said about them. Early christianity was messy with loads of different sects and trends. Ebionites who were jewish Christians thought of Paul as a manifest heretic and apostate which is pretty interesting. They revered James the brother of jesus.

I think that's the main problem with arguing about early christianity. We are just left in the dark about so much of it. It comes down to faith then.

@John 313 It's a little bit speculative but significantly less so than saying it was revelation. It lines up perfectly with the fact that Paul visited St. Peter in Jerusalem and stayed with him. As well, note that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed specifically mentions Peter and James, but doesn't name any other Apostles. These are the same two, and the only two, Apostles that St. Paul met with while in Jerusalem.

That the Didache mentions the Eucharist is important. There is no Eucharist without the passion. And the Didache uses the same baptismal formula as the Gospel of Matthew; "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

@oh, your with her now? I was being rhetorical with the question

What was its purpose

Are you trying to say democracy is more collective than fascism?

No im demonstrating a very prominent example of state interest being congruent with national interest being negative

Which seems to be the goal of the fascist conception of the state

Well it is and if you also deduced from Gentile that there can't be any divergency. So simply put the people who are not with the organic unit need to be cast aside.

It sounds horrible but frankly if there are people out there who want to shut me down or want to put this nation in danger, I want them out of here. Pack your crap and go!

However what I think Fascism shouldn't be quite that black and white about it.

Yeah but nations often dont agree with the path that should be taken, the states entire function is to adjudicate.

I think it should be more pragmatic.

Internally agree, to clarify

Democracy or any form of represenative governance is very ineffective.

Gridlock, corruption, special interests....trivial concerns

But fascism is an exponent of representative government, at least thats what i gather from its intellectuals

They would tell you fascism is more "democratic" than democracy itself

Which in theory they're correct

However....

In practice history will dictate this isn't the case

I don't really subscribe to the aristotelian classifications of governmental structures so when I say representative I mean it literally, not necessitating democracy or republicanism, but the state making its interests congruent with the interests of the people.

Like I can get where they are coming from. Like Hitler and his idea of the Volkish state, but again, the national interests are often not `good`.

And I'll also acknowledge that qualifying `good` is a separate problem

It is

`It sounds horrible but frankly if there are people out there who want to shut me down or want to put this nation in danger, I want them out of here. Pack your crap and go!`
Also a side note on this, its not horrible, I tend to agree with Schmitt on the function of politics, put simply `us and them`

However if you notice the fascist states that existed then were bound a strong cult of personality

While Fascism emphasizes strong leadership, having a cult of personality is fundamentally flawed or be it rather it is a crap shoot

Hitler and Mussolini were too eager to get their countries into wars that they were ill-prepared for

I'd argue that it was the best time to go considering Hitler's goals. Commonwealth was at its weakest point, Germany at its strongest. If anything Hitler wasn't ruthless enough.

He avoided totally mobilizing the economy for far too long, he avoided saturation bombings on urban centers for too long as well.

I read somewhere it was because he was hoping for the UK to sign a peace with them but I cant substantiate that.

I'm not fond of Hitler or his ideas of National Socialism

So I have to disagree

What are some of your contentions with Hitler and National Socialism?

I agree with Devi's assertion that he was an avatar for the volk

Hitler was an idiot when he picked a fight with the Soviet Union while fighting on two fronts against the UK and in Africa. Not very smart that.

Hitler is the reason why Fascism has such a bad name and sitgmatized as it is.

I wouldn't blame Hitler for the stigma lol, blame your guy's enemies lol

But as for the campaign in the USSR

The campaign in geographic Russia was very strong, I personally attribute the failure of Fall Blau to their defeat in the war(ironically it failed because the general staff betrayed hitlers orders and tried to brute force moscow instead of achieve the actual strategic goal)

Also National Socialism as German-centric as it is would not work in a place like the US. The US is not monolithic.

Well National Socialism in its essence was Racialist Fascism(or even Dharmic Fasicsm), it could be used as a framework for anybody.

And for the US part, I'd say thats evident of the accelerating societal decline Western countries are facing

As Spengler puts it, the `civilization phase`

It's not practical

How is it not practical? I'm not even an exponent of it but I think the world saw its practicality manifest during its armed struggle against the world.

Where it fought extraordinarily well

Unless you can somehow breed the leftism out, the establishment of any ethnostate here in the US would be very costly

Are you a civnat?

or cultural nat however you want to call it

No

I mean, I think fascists primary goal should be eliminating the influence of the current hegemony

I'm saying there will be no peaceful way to establish any system

Well thats not necessarily a bad thing

There is no non violence in modernity, there is only cowardly violence, and open unashamed violence for a worthy cause

Also the concept is not inherently universal, although it can be

But in practice every nation has its own issues

Which is why I aim to "Americanize" the European model to some degree that is congruent with the culture of a more pragmatic America before it became a bastardized poster modernist fantasy

The variant of Fascism I subscribe to is Integralism

National Integralism

America before it became bastardized was a white state by white people for white people

More or less although I believe there are groups of non-whites that pretty much earned their right to be here

So are you saying that you can take someone who has merit and is an asset to society (being an engineer or a doctor) and just shove them aside because they're a different skin color? That's not very pragmatic and you're throwing away talent.

As few as they are.

Race mixing unironically hurts everybody

So any financial benefit you get from having other people is automatically negated in the long run

This is supported by regression toward the mean, for example

I don't quite agree but I can see where people come from

A person of a characteristically tall race mixes with a person of the opposite, the offspring will not be as short as the shorter but not as tall as the taller

I mean its not really a debated phenomena its pretty well recorded

My problem with white nationalism is where do they draw the line? First it'll be race mixing, next it'll be eugenics.

I mean its not really about white nationalism, i think thats a redundancy that resulted from the perversion of what constitutes a nation by the enlightenment

To me a nation is a group of people who are ancestrally related

And I dont really see an issue with eugenics

I abhor it

Why

It leads to dangerous paths

and mindsets

If your goal is the faustian ideal(which presumably it is as a fascist) it is the natural conclusion

Or at least ending the propping up of bad genes as we see today

Propping up of bad genes?

Yeah

Retards living for 30+ years for example

Braindead people living for more than a day

and by that i mean people who are born braindead

Allowing intermixing between races

So you mean to say because of some minor genetic defects, I would not be worthy of getting treatment or let alone be living?

You can draw a line, right. If you're goal is to achieve the overman than the natural conclusion is to stop the proliferation of bad genes by preventing undesirables from breeding

I mean thats really the only conclusion if thats your goal

It's not and this a common misconception

Most Fascists I know (and not the larpers) are Nietzchian

It's not about the "superman" in the form of making a super species through biology, it's more or less spiritual supremacy

Its transcending the human condition, im familiar with nietzsche

It's also about conquering the ego as well

Even still your conclusions are wrong. Not sure what NatSoc brainlet you've been talking to but that isn't the Fascist end goal by killing off everyone who so much starts balding at the age of 24....

Interesting extrapolation

Order, Unity and Freedom from materialism.

But I never mentioned killing off everybody lol

Well....

Just having this conversation is a slippery slope

Propping up bad genes is not the road to the faustian ideal by any means

My approach to it is pragmatic. Not idealistic fantasies....

Neither is it the road to order unity and freedom from materialism

These idealistic fantasies are only idealistic fantasies because of the current liberal hegemony

These things were reality pre reformation

One thing you must understand it took a long time to build this hegemony, it is going to take a long time to tear it down

Brick by brick

To have Fascism as a flash in the pan movement is the short road to failure

No its not, its already coming down lol

I wouldn't say it's coming down but the foundations have been shattered

A few more pivotal events must occur for the masonry to start crackling and tumbling down

Again, it will not happen overnight

And to be fair I'm not an absolutist

Ok, how would you prevent Corporations from donating to candidates and congressman directly? Under our current system of course

Under our current system, it’s currently legal to donate to candidates as a corporation indirectly under Super PACs

So rid it?

What instead

The thing is, it’s hard to trust public opinion as doing a good job as it can drastically change over a week

Let’s say majority public opinion wants to go to War with Russia

Hypothetical

If the congressman realizes this is a shit idea and doesn’t support war with Russia

He is seen as unpopular and doesn’t get enough donations

This starved and dies

I agree they should be paid less but not cut off salary

Not 100% ppl have to disagree

A majority can disagree to the same effect

I can agree with that

Yes, a small subsidiary from the government of about 10-50k should be enough

10 is a little low

As who knows how public opinion might switch

Also @Fsypro, what limit from individuals do you propose should be for donations

The reason why I ask is wealthy individuals still exist and should they be limited

Or not

Not bad idea

One thing I have a small problem though

Actually a big problem

Is where the candidate is

An example is a conservative in a liberal district

Under your system, the politician has to appeal to the populous more

What if the values of the politician are against the people’s?

Do they get screwed

Due to lack of donations

So let’s establish common ground

The donation system should be a limit from 1000$ per individual

Base salary of congressman should not exceed twice that of state’s minimum wage

Any corporate donation is illegal and heavily punished

Agreed?

@Fsypro

Good

Maybe for a good time it’ll be a good solution

But I doubt this would pass right now nationally

As we already have the 27th amendment and campaign finance laws that both sides have their likes enough to not give it up

Maybe one day

National Socialism is literal poison and anyone who thinks it will work in the modern world is genuinely delusional

Those who also view the West or America as a failing state who’s about to fail in 5 or so years is also genuinely delusional

People who are called @Outboarduniform are also genuinely delusional, as well as quite retarded, might I add.

People like @Kwasy have no defense against my claim so instead they revert to ad hom without posting a sane rebuttal

True, you are right.
National Socialism is poison towards those who rule the world, because National Socialism is a worldview of truth; something that conflicts with the lying Jews that rule over us today.

Again he is unable to post a sane rebuttal and instead tries to redirect the argument to a false statement

This was a sane rebuttal, based on facts

That was an opinion

Do you not know the difference ?

Also I do know the difference between a fact and an opinion

Based on your previous statement you do not

That’s like saying that progressivism is a more advanced version of classical liberalism

Completely different in nature

^

They are

They are not similar in nature

No

remove popular election of senators

reform done

all hail cultural mark

Carl Mark

Could somebody catch me up on why <#496515828372602890> was locked? Did somebody make a threat of some sort?

No

King just needed to say something important

Too many eyes on our server

If we get one bad look

Bye bye TRS

Damn leftists

Enforce cuck martial law

Continue

A few invidivuals CAN'T fight off a conglomerate (or even a regular corporation), especially if that conglomerate/company works hand-in-hand with the state (which is why fascism is an efficient form of government).

Hmm

We still got the Supreme Court

Small chance

But still

If Kavanaugh gets in

Big chance we could finally take this giant of Big Tech head on

End politically/governmental incentivized censorship

In private companies

That's another thing, Brett is literally a strategically-important piece in all of this.

If he gets in, we win.

If he's denied, they trample our crotches with their soy boots.

Idk if he would overturn Roe V Wade in the very beginning but after all this bullshit

No way he’s gonna pass that offer up

I personally hope he's turned into an extremist at this point.

📔*discord admins*

Kek

Extremist is their trigger word

Anyways

Maybe