Let’s be perfectly clear: “Christian Nationalism” – a term being tossed around carelessly by far-right politicians and pundits – is not new and it’s not OK. It's an un-American ideology that ignores religious pluralism, a hallmark of our democracy, and encourages #hate.
@ADL was at the forefront of pushing back against this ever-evolving movement 70 years ago and will continue to do so in 2022 and beyond
It sounds like this guy is vehemently opposed to identity-based nationalism and is very proud of his organizations long history of fighting such ideas and movements. I bet his point of view is well-grounded in univerally applied standards....
In any case, nobody should take the leader of an organization founded to protect a child rapist & murderer, Leo Frank - a man so obviously guilty that not even the Deep South circa 1913 bought their attempts to frame a black guy for his crimes - seriously in the slightest.
Let’s be perfectly clear: “Christian Nationalism” – a term being tossed around carelessly by far-right politicians and pundits – is not new and it’s not OK.
Who is this little man who speaks as though he is the one who authoritatively determines what is OK?
I never said I was a Christian or Christian Nationalist.
You're like Zionists.
It sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of Zionists. Feel free to take up the mantle in opposing them. They're giving a metric fuckton of ammo to your ideological enemies.
I actually oppose both Zionism and Palestinianism because both are basically National Socialist movements, with a specialty in their own particular religion.
Zionism basically wore religious Judaism as a skinsuit in order to gain the allegiance of religious jews, but always intended to form a Socialist state, using jews as a political collective to justify it. Considering the number of jews involved in finance, law, trade, and diplomacy, it was a good plan. Jewish european intellectuals had appreciation for Socialism, Communism, Left-wing Nationalism, and even Fascism. Fascism's particularly appeal laid in the idea of a the state being the arbiter for an entire nation, and it seemed like the perfect fit; but Mussolini and Gentile emphasized that the state could construct the nation. It was National Socialism that offered the idea of a specific ethnic group being focused on. National Socialism is the optimal form of Zionism, the problem is Hitler's narrative about the formations of nations and all the explicit antisemitism. But, National Socialism outside of Germanism/Aryanism does actually fit. The Germanism is simply the needed metanarrative to apply Socialism to the nation. National Socialism was pushed outside of Germany without a Germanism meta-narrative and it did seem to work to some degree. Zionism isn't compatible with antisemitism, but the Zionists already have their own meta-narrative, including a Jewish diaspora and a "stab-in-the-back" victimhood narrative.
National Socialism without Germanism does tend to people who would otherwise be disinterested in Socialism. This is normally how many Left-wing Nationalist operations work, even when acting as Communists. Many of the Nationalist movements of the 20th century espoused some form of Socialism within their Nationalist framework. Even today, the SNP and Shin Fein are excellent examples of National Socialism without the Germanism metanarrative. Probably the most horrific examples are in Africa, where Pan Africanism was a cute diplomatic stunt, but most of the African nations, tribes, and ethnic groups were persuaded by Left-wing Nationalist rhetoric as "anti-Colonialism" and "anti-Imperialism", and used Socialism to advance their ethnic position against other groups and tribes. This lead to one of the bloodiest conflicts in all of human history, and in African history in particular: The 2nd Congolese War which killed over a million people.
Perhaps one thing that Israel did right in defeating Leftist subversion was to allow for the Socialists to form Kibbutzes. This allows Leftism in small and containable doses, where they mostly tend to fail, or dishearten their Useful Idiots. IIRC Bernie Sanders was basically ordered out of one because he was too useless. It's a kind of ideological defense-in-depth which allows pinkos to form their own private little CHAZ's which immediately collapse.
Anyways, what I'm saying is, Zionists are Nazis. Fuck 'em.
Too bad all that space luxury communism doesn't work. Turns out someone's bitch-ass needs to haul concrete in the communist utopia.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
In theory, Ethno-Nationalism could work (in other countries), like Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Portugal, Ethiopia. However, I tend to find that the Ethno-Nationalists, particularly of any modern stripe, are just Leftist Nationalists. Even when they do argue for Nationalism (like Shin Fein) they end up being Socialist anyway, because it was a skinsuit.
It isn't impossible for some kind of Ethno-Nationalism to work outside of Socialism, but it would require a very different kind of political structure. Something like the Swiss Confederation, or the Sikh Empire. Religion could work as part of that, even monarchy, but not an absolute monarchy or religion. It would have to be a kind of stratified series of lesser monarchs, or religious principalities. It's not a surprise that both states preserved themselves with mass armamentation of the general public, and expansive military training.
The thing is, when you do that, your Ethno-Nationalism would recede into Religious Nationalism, or it would be stratified into a kind of Localized Ethno-Nationalism (like the German Confederation). Ethno-Nationalism could work, but only in geographically similar and contiguous areas where the environment didn't create separate cultures, and then separate ethnic groups. Even a country as large as France couldn't maintain Ethno-Nationalism. A country like Portugal, sure, but it's not ethnically homogeneous. When do the portuguese begin and the spanish end? The populations are already intermixed. Even the portuguese would need some kind of Civic Nationalism to unify Portugal.
On the other hand, "white" as an ethnicity is a fucking joke. You'll never have a successful "White" Ethno-Nationalist country. White's not an ethnicity. It doesn't even share a language. It's a race. It's more abstract than a religion, and less value consistent.
In a lot of cases, you actually still create a Civic Nationalism when you start trying to combine multiple ethnic groups into a "new" ethnic group. The "British" are not an ethnic group, but an imperial one. A civic nation created by political fiat. Now, it's possible to argue that the British are a kind of Supra-Ethnicity. It's not the first time that's happened even on the British Isles. The "English" are a supra-ethnicity of many smaller ethnic groups that inhabited the island. But they became one by having a unified culture, language, history, and geographic continuity. The English became a nation, from civic to ethnic. It took a few hundred years, but it did happen. Mercians are now more of an ethnic sub group, rather than a properly separate ethnicity.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
Are you unfamiliar with America's pre-1965 immigration laws?
I'm well aware of it, but also remember that White isn't an ethnicity.
The Americans themselves at the time of the Revolution saw themselves as entirely different states, and entirely different peoples.
"White" is still a broad abstract category. The country is founded not on Racialism, but Liberalism. The question that besieged the Founding Fathers was "could anyone but the English Protestants be Liberal". It turns out yes. And thank god, since there were tens of thousands of abandoned Germans that suddenly became American. Even Catholics can be Liberal.
It turns out that although the Universal Man is a flawed concept, people who embrace American values, can become American, because those values are what make us American.
Creating a socialist state while wearing Christianity as a skin-suit. A state claiming the championing identity of Christianity as a balkanizing point in the population, while being run by Socialist atheists, and claiming Christians that oppose the Christianity of the state, are opposing Christianity itself.
Christian Nationalism is state tradcuckery and that's the last thing anyone needs.
Oh right, you thought that Christianity invented marriage.
Even Hitler thought these people were fucking pathetic and he was the arch-tradcuck.
Oh right, you think he was a 'tradcuck' because he imposed bachelor taxes, which you claim were the cause of the collapse of the Third Reich... and that of Rome. I did ask you for where you got the idea about Rome. Could you tell us uneducated ones what great source you have for your claim that it was bachelor taxes in Roman men refusing to serve in the legions? Thanks.
How precisely? Christian Nationalism is actually good, and that goes against what the Stormfags support - they hate Christianity, like their one-balled god. And Greenblatt is a joke. He creates more anti-semitism than any Nazi.
But I am looking forward to the source for your claims about Rome. TIA.
Nothing would be worse than a neo-Puritan hellscape. It'd be the worst of both feminism and tradcon beliefs, a world where women's value is both massively inflated and necessary to meet.
Why do you even hang around right-wing people? I really don't get it. You loathe any sort of tradition or familial commitments which are both historical pillars of the right. This isn't even some sort of passive-aggressive way of telling you to fuck off, either. I sincerely don't get it.
Because the goal of eradicating feminism and holding women accountable for the harm it caused is more likely to be achieved by the right than the left.
Would I jump ship if that changed? Maybe. I don't think I'd trust them even if they started talking about sending feminists to Guantanamo Bay.
Or you could just give me the source for your claims and be done with it.
Nothing would be worse than a neo-Puritan hellscape. It'd be the worst of both feminism and tradcon beliefs, a world where women's value is both massively inflated and necessary to meet.
Low crime, intact and happy families. Well, well, what a hellscape.
The two genders are not supposed to be at each other's throats, you know. Count me in as an atheist Christian nationalist.
Are there any right-wing politicians talking about Christian Nationalism? The only time I hear the term is left-wing nutters talking about how people want to turn the US into a Christian theocracy.
I looked into this Cyprus thing. It seems that she lied about being raped because they were filming her (a minor) during sex. Frankly, all the parties there deserve to be pushed into a volcano.
It's still going on too. Just last month, they appealed to the European Court for Human Rights to force Cyprus to 'investigate' the claim. And a lot of feminists were supporting her. They want your life to be at their mercy and for there to be no repercussions for maliciously trying to destroy others with lies. Frankly, I would not have been as kind if I were falsely accused, but you already know my prescription.
You should not be surprised though. No woke organization advocates for the interests of its supposed beneficiaries. They're all in it for the grifting and the politics.
They were from Israel, so they expected the Jewish advocacy groups to back them.
Not fucking one did. They are all too eager to point at glowfuck Nazi cults, but not to take on people with actual power.
The only time these organisations have power is when the decision was already made and they just take credit for it. They're the definition of a paper tiger, crumbling at any real opposition.
People here think the ADL rules the world, they can't even take on Women's Aid.
Correct. All these organisations are actually just ways to launder money towards the Democratic Party or regional equivalents. They project power to make donations to them appear to buy influence, but in reality, the decisions they credit themselves with were already made and they just took credit.
Wow, you admit I'm right. The people who supposedly rule the world can't take on a women's organization with £3.5m in the bank.
It was less than two weeks after the accuser filed a police report that all the accusers were set free, and she was charged with public mischief for filing a false report. She was initially convicted and her conviction overturned earlier this year. Somehow this means she has power over the ADL,
It sounds like this guy is vehemently opposed to identity-based nationalism and is very proud of his organizations long history of fighting such ideas and movements. I bet his point of view is well-grounded in univerally applied standards....
....Oh
In any case, nobody should take the leader of an organization founded to protect a child rapist & murderer, Leo Frank - a man so obviously guilty that not even the Deep South circa 1913 bought their attempts to frame a black guy for his crimes - seriously in the slightest.
Who is this little man who speaks as though he is the one who authoritatively determines what is OK?
He's one of God's Chosen and wants you to know it
I believe the term is no bad tatics only bad targets
Are you surprised, "Christian Nationalists" aren't people who want a Christian America, you want a theocracy and ethnic cleansing.
You're like Zionists.
I never said I was a Christian or Christian Nationalist.
It sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of Zionists. Feel free to take up the mantle in opposing them. They're giving a metric fuckton of ammo to your ideological enemies.
I have no problem opposing Zionism.
I actually oppose both Zionism and Palestinianism because both are basically National Socialist movements, with a specialty in their own particular religion.
Zionism basically wore religious Judaism as a skinsuit in order to gain the allegiance of religious jews, but always intended to form a Socialist state, using jews as a political collective to justify it. Considering the number of jews involved in finance, law, trade, and diplomacy, it was a good plan. Jewish european intellectuals had appreciation for Socialism, Communism, Left-wing Nationalism, and even Fascism. Fascism's particularly appeal laid in the idea of a the state being the arbiter for an entire nation, and it seemed like the perfect fit; but Mussolini and Gentile emphasized that the state could construct the nation. It was National Socialism that offered the idea of a specific ethnic group being focused on. National Socialism is the optimal form of Zionism, the problem is Hitler's narrative about the formations of nations and all the explicit antisemitism. But, National Socialism outside of Germanism/Aryanism does actually fit. The Germanism is simply the needed metanarrative to apply Socialism to the nation. National Socialism was pushed outside of Germany without a Germanism meta-narrative and it did seem to work to some degree. Zionism isn't compatible with antisemitism, but the Zionists already have their own meta-narrative, including a Jewish diaspora and a "stab-in-the-back" victimhood narrative.
National Socialism without Germanism does tend to people who would otherwise be disinterested in Socialism. This is normally how many Left-wing Nationalist operations work, even when acting as Communists. Many of the Nationalist movements of the 20th century espoused some form of Socialism within their Nationalist framework. Even today, the SNP and Shin Fein are excellent examples of National Socialism without the Germanism metanarrative. Probably the most horrific examples are in Africa, where Pan Africanism was a cute diplomatic stunt, but most of the African nations, tribes, and ethnic groups were persuaded by Left-wing Nationalist rhetoric as "anti-Colonialism" and "anti-Imperialism", and used Socialism to advance their ethnic position against other groups and tribes. This lead to one of the bloodiest conflicts in all of human history, and in African history in particular: The 2nd Congolese War which killed over a million people.
Perhaps one thing that Israel did right in defeating Leftist subversion was to allow for the Socialists to form Kibbutzes. This allows Leftism in small and containable doses, where they mostly tend to fail, or dishearten their Useful Idiots. IIRC Bernie Sanders was basically ordered out of one because he was too useless. It's a kind of ideological defense-in-depth which allows pinkos to form their own private little CHAZ's which immediately collapse.
Anyways, what I'm saying is, Zionists are Nazis. Fuck 'em.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that story about Sanders being so lazy even Communists threw him out of the commune. LMAO
I can't remember if you identified yourself as any sort of nationalist or not.
Too bad all that space luxury communism doesn't work. Turns out someone's bitch-ass needs to haul concrete in the communist utopia.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
In theory, Ethno-Nationalism could work (in other countries), like Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Portugal, Ethiopia. However, I tend to find that the Ethno-Nationalists, particularly of any modern stripe, are just Leftist Nationalists. Even when they do argue for Nationalism (like Shin Fein) they end up being Socialist anyway, because it was a skinsuit.
It isn't impossible for some kind of Ethno-Nationalism to work outside of Socialism, but it would require a very different kind of political structure. Something like the Swiss Confederation, or the Sikh Empire. Religion could work as part of that, even monarchy, but not an absolute monarchy or religion. It would have to be a kind of stratified series of lesser monarchs, or religious principalities. It's not a surprise that both states preserved themselves with mass armamentation of the general public, and expansive military training.
The thing is, when you do that, your Ethno-Nationalism would recede into Religious Nationalism, or it would be stratified into a kind of Localized Ethno-Nationalism (like the German Confederation). Ethno-Nationalism could work, but only in geographically similar and contiguous areas where the environment didn't create separate cultures, and then separate ethnic groups. Even a country as large as France couldn't maintain Ethno-Nationalism. A country like Portugal, sure, but it's not ethnically homogeneous. When do the portuguese begin and the spanish end? The populations are already intermixed. Even the portuguese would need some kind of Civic Nationalism to unify Portugal.
On the other hand, "white" as an ethnicity is a fucking joke. You'll never have a successful "White" Ethno-Nationalist country. White's not an ethnicity. It doesn't even share a language. It's a race. It's more abstract than a religion, and less value consistent.
In a lot of cases, you actually still create a Civic Nationalism when you start trying to combine multiple ethnic groups into a "new" ethnic group. The "British" are not an ethnic group, but an imperial one. A civic nation created by political fiat. Now, it's possible to argue that the British are a kind of Supra-Ethnicity. It's not the first time that's happened even on the British Isles. The "English" are a supra-ethnicity of many smaller ethnic groups that inhabited the island. But they became one by having a unified culture, language, history, and geographic continuity. The English became a nation, from civic to ethnic. It took a few hundred years, but it did happen. Mercians are now more of an ethnic sub group, rather than a properly separate ethnicity.
Are you unfamiliar with America's pre-1965 immigration laws?
I'm well aware of it, but also remember that White isn't an ethnicity.
The Americans themselves at the time of the Revolution saw themselves as entirely different states, and entirely different peoples.
"White" is still a broad abstract category. The country is founded not on Racialism, but Liberalism. The question that besieged the Founding Fathers was "could anyone but the English Protestants be Liberal". It turns out yes. And thank god, since there were tens of thousands of abandoned Germans that suddenly became American. Even Catholics can be Liberal.
It turns out that although the Universal Man is a flawed concept, people who embrace American values, can become American, because those values are what make us American.
What's the Christian nationalist version of zionism?
Based
Creating a socialist state while wearing Christianity as a skin-suit. A state claiming the championing identity of Christianity as a balkanizing point in the population, while being run by Socialist atheists, and claiming Christians that oppose the Christianity of the state, are opposing Christianity itself.
Christian Nationalism is state tradcuckery and that's the last thing anyone needs.
Even Hitler thought these people were fucking pathetic and he was the arch-tradcuck.
self: Oh hey, here's a thread with some engagement. Might be interesting discussion.
... nope, just Imp1 sperging out about "tradcucks" and "stormfags".
It's so much nicer here when he's banned.
Like it was nicer on this site before you people decided one cesspit of Jew rants wasn't enough?
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Threaten harass, bully, defame
Comment Approved: This doesn't meet that criteria.
Oh right, you thought that Christianity invented marriage.
Oh right, you think he was a 'tradcuck' because he imposed bachelor taxes, which you claim were the cause of the collapse of the Third Reich... and that of Rome. I did ask you for where you got the idea about Rome. Could you tell us uneducated ones what great source you have for your claim that it was bachelor taxes in Roman men refusing to serve in the legions? Thanks.
You're defending the stormcucks now?
How precisely? Christian Nationalism is actually good, and that goes against what the Stormfags support - they hate Christianity, like their one-balled god. And Greenblatt is a joke. He creates more anti-semitism than any Nazi.
But I am looking forward to the source for your claims about Rome. TIA.
By going on odd tangents.
Nothing would be worse than a neo-Puritan hellscape. It'd be the worst of both feminism and tradcon beliefs, a world where women's value is both massively inflated and necessary to meet.
Why do you even hang around right-wing people? I really don't get it. You loathe any sort of tradition or familial commitments which are both historical pillars of the right. This isn't even some sort of passive-aggressive way of telling you to fuck off, either. I sincerely don't get it.
Because the goal of eradicating feminism and holding women accountable for the harm it caused is more likely to be achieved by the right than the left.
Would I jump ship if that changed? Maybe. I don't think I'd trust them even if they started talking about sending feminists to Guantanamo Bay.
Or you could just give me the source for your claims and be done with it.
Low crime, intact and happy families. Well, well, what a hellscape.
The two genders are not supposed to be at each other's throats, you know. Count me in as an atheist Christian nationalist.
No, we're just supposed to turn the other cheek until we have no face left. I'm aware.
Wow, the fuck did I wake up to.
Are there any right-wing politicians talking about Christian Nationalism? The only time I hear the term is left-wing nutters talking about how people want to turn the US into a Christian theocracy.
MTG recently called herself a Christian Nationalist.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is basically just a walking list of left wing talking points anyway.
Of course the Synagogue of Satan can't stand their most hated enemy so much as thinking about re-asserting power and retaking even one country from the claws of their cabal. Saint Louis was right about this piece of shit's ancestors.
Torba has been enjoying this.
Of course he is. If there's anything feminist shills love, it's distractions to turn everyone towards.
Never forget that the worthless piece of shit blamed the feminization of society on "too much sportsball."
I wonder where he gets his funding from.
"our democracy"
Ah, the ADL flexing power.
It's hilarious when you remember they were sent home with their tails between their legs by feminism in the ridiculous Cyprus gang rape case.
Actually, all the Jewish advocacy groups were.
She was 100% lying, but they wouldn't dare stand against their true masters.
I looked into this Cyprus thing. It seems that she lied about being raped because they were filming her (a minor) during sex. Frankly, all the parties there deserve to be pushed into a volcano.
It's still going on too. Just last month, they appealed to the European Court for Human Rights to force Cyprus to 'investigate' the claim. And a lot of feminists were supporting her. They want your life to be at their mercy and for there to be no repercussions for maliciously trying to destroy others with lies. Frankly, I would not have been as kind if I were falsely accused, but you already know my prescription.
You should not be surprised though. No woke organization advocates for the interests of its supposed beneficiaries. They're all in it for the grifting and the politics.
Impy mentioned it before. I can't recall what the ADL's role was supposed to be. I can't find anything on that.
Defending child rapist Leo Frank
They were from Israel, so they expected the Jewish advocacy groups to back them.
Not fucking one did. They are all too eager to point at glowfuck Nazi cults, but not to take on people with actual power.
The only time these organisations have power is when the decision was already made and they just take credit for it. They're the definition of a paper tiger, crumbling at any real opposition.
People here think the ADL rules the world, they can't even take on Women's Aid.
Then those dumdums didn't realize why "Jewish" advocacy groups exist: to back the Democratic Party and to raise money from credulous fools.
You accidentally got something right. Yes, this is true, and not in the way you mean it.
It is beside the point if they can or not. They wouldn't regardless, because it's not their purpose.
Correct. All these organisations are actually just ways to launder money towards the Democratic Party or regional equivalents. They project power to make donations to them appear to buy influence, but in reality, the decisions they credit themselves with were already made and they just took credit.
Wow, you admit I'm right. The people who supposedly rule the world can't take on a women's organization with £3.5m in the bank.
You think they "can't". I don't think they rule the world. I also think they simply don't care. It's about politics and grifting, nothing more.
The ADL's main purpose is selling Zionism to liberals hence why they bundle it with the generic grab-bag of woke shit.
It was less than two weeks after the accuser filed a police report that all the accusers were set free, and she was charged with public mischief for filing a false report. She was initially convicted and her conviction overturned earlier this year. Somehow this means she has power over the ADL,