Veeky Forums, post your political views and your religious views

Veeky Forums, post your political views and your religious views.

You don't have to be a strict adherent to an ideology, just state your general disposition (e.g. generally libertarian with exceptions, usually liberal but agree with conservatives on x and y, my own religion based on my spiritual experiences, socially conservative socialist, etc). Be as detailed as you want.

I'm not doing a gay StrawPoll site, so post here.

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/11346073
twitter.com/AnonBabble

redpilled/woke brocialist atheist

Make a poll or GTFO

I'm a devout Catholic who tries to follow the Church's teachings as far as they go. I truly believe in Jesus Christ and the Church he founded, and my political views are shaped accordingly.

To that end, I basically have no home in American politics. The Democrats hate the unborn and the Republicans hate the poor. The Libertarians are too callous and the Greens are too atheist. I'm not sure who I can vote for at this point. What am I to do? I may just not vote. I feel like Chesterton when he critiqued both Labour and the Tories in his day. There's no good fit for Christians in the American political schema, at least, not real Christians.

Generally libertarian

Spiritual agnostic

my nigga

I'm an atheist, but I wish there were religious states (i.e. a Catholic state, an Islamic state, there's already a Jewish state).

That way people could live somewhere with like-minded people and do their thing. Also Muslims will stop killing each other it.

Left Libertarian Anarchist. unsure, but interested in pantheism and russian cosmists like feodorov and andrey platonov

* killing each other over it

I believe in an omnipotent, abstract, and immanent God that isn't benevolent or "loving" but has plans for everything. All politics seems like horseshit to me.

Liberal
Protestant

atheist
center-left

I'm around the same as well. Born into an Orthodox Christian family and began studying it within the last 2 years. I really don't have a definitive political ideology. If someone were to ask me, I would say I am non-affiliated politically. I do have some socialist leanings.

Maybe I would say I am a Platonist or something, but people would think I'm weird for saying that.

I have the exact same political views as Ben Carson while he is sleeping

(these are NOT the same views he has while he's awake)

MGTOW. AnarchoCapitalist. Diversity is a codeword for white genocide. I'm into volkisch paganism

Ghoul?

Spiritual Christian (no church)

meme politics

Oh wait

>Ancap

Disregard. Worse than natsoc 2bh

I'm libertarian agnostic but I've become interested in Christian-Anarchism lately, it's all very fascinating.

Religious Views: Agnostic, can accept a creator or high power given proof beyond faith and feelings, but will not accept the angels and demons hullabaloo or almost any major religious teachings.

Political Views: Anti-political, in the sense that progress towards the betterment of mankind cannot be achieved until we dissolve the petty and tribalistic "parties" and work systematically to truly understand how to effectively and efficiently manage the state, and deploy those strategies.

I was going to post in this thread but then this post reflects my ideas so exactly I'm convinced I wrote it and forgot.

since OP won't make it

strawpoll.me/11346073

>Political Views: Anti-political
> work systematically to truly understand how to effectively and efficiently manage the state, and deploy those strategies.

That sounds political, also extremely vague and meaningless. So yea, political

>religious
panentheist
>political
politics is a fucking joke

>how to effectively and efficiently manage the state
the state is shit. smash the state. smash capitalism

This post is not just a joke making fun of internet buzzwords btw

Liberal/progressive economic views and conservative (generally) social views.

>smash capitalism

>smash the exchange of limited resources

lol wut

>stuck in economic/social dichotomy
>stuck in conservative/liberal dichotomy

lmao at ur life

>defines capitalism as 'the exchange of limited resources'

I want to like anarcho-capitalism, but it kind of seems very sketchy or risky. I guess I need to research more.

Wasn't giving a definition famalam, just highlighting one of your implied premises

Capitalism - An economic system of trading currency, goods or services for goods and services

I was unsure how to succinctly title my views, and to go deeper into them, they are less a polical ideology and more an objection to political ideology in general. In essence, as I understand it, all political ideologies are based on different ideas of what the problems of the state are and how to approach them, the problem I see with this is that it is entirely based on conjecture and opinion, which to a certain degree it must always be. Nevertheless I have concluded that our failing in the discussion and creation of political ideology is that we rely far too much on this need for opinion, to such a degree that we have not only reached (in the US anyway) such a point of contrarianism and tribalism that proper and meaningful discussion is impossible, but also neglected or outright ignored the problems that would collapse the State if left to fester. It would be a great help to first root out those issues that would destroy the state, and then move on to matters of opinion.

Neoliberal globalist and social conservative
>tfw agree with some elements of ancaps and marx but not spooked enough to vote for them

it's utter autism. an arbitrary moral system based on property worship. I get how it may appeal to post-protestant american plebs bred on muh lockean freedom, but in practice, ancap world would be a bureaucratic feudal dystopia. private militias hunting down fugitive debt peons. and you'll probably be one of the peons

I feel much the same way. I'm not a Christian though, I wish I had faith but I just don't.

The world's resources aren't distributed evenly though, one state would feel shortchanged or simply become greedy and then there would be killing all over again. Remember what happened when gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic? Many such cases!

Oh, and practising Catholic

You can't have politics without opinion, unless you were to base it completely on Kantian ethics. You could try, but theres a reason no one has tried before. It's far too systematic complex and system of law for your average retard to understand it, let alone make it work.

Wouldn't that violate the NAP?

it's based on the private ownership of capital and the means of production. modern finantialized rentier capitalism is a pretty recent phenomenon and as far as you can get from the quaint jeffersonian yeoman utopia most libertarians have in mind.

This has nothing to do with books. Anyone who answered OP is an egocentric faggot.

technically, you are violating the NAP. By running away, you are stealing the services owed by right to your creditor. also the NAP allows for physical removal:
>In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

Religious views: Atheist. Was convinced, for a while, that 'cultural Christianity' wasn't so bad (and actually pretty good) due to the writing of Roger Scruton/etc. Nietzsche since talked me out of that, however. Cultural Christianity is pretty much nothing more than a futile and ironic religious rennaissance in the growing face of sincere Islam, coupled with LARP'ing. Disgusting and insincere desu.

Political views: Anti-political. If pressed, I'd profess an admiration for enlightened monarchy/despotism/Machiavellianism à la Napoleon/Caesar/Friedrich der Große. Politics as we generally know it now is a small matter for small people. If someone tells me they're "passionate" about politics, for example, I make justified assumptions about the extent of their intellectual poverty.

Depending on the context, I'm either for a constitutional monarchy or total anarchy

>it's based on the private ownership of capital and the means of production.

You have yet to explain why this is a problem, or why we should even listen to Marx or his cultists post-19th century.

>AMERICAN
>SOLIDARITY
>PARTY

I actually kind of hate giving a label to the way I believe in my faith, but here goes:
Agnostic Pannentheist Exhilist
The only reason I hate naming it is because it makes me come as a a pseudo-intellectual, but I really am just those things, I refuse to identify with anything else.

In more fleshed out terms, I do indeed believe in a God, however I do not believe that God is not as portrayed by existing religions. I don't think of his as a man, or someone who is neither specifically living or hating, but like a computer. A intelligent or atleast somewhat intelligent entity that spun everything into existence and functionality at the beginning of time, something that planned everything out and 'built' everything, but is not a god as a god would be depicted. If there is an afterlife where you see this god, it would not be a man on a throne or a bright faceless figure or something neither angelic-like nor demon-like, but perhaps just a glowing orb or a dimension itself.
I also believe that God is above the universe, but at the same time is within everything in the universe. No, not like the force or bullshit like that, and nothing pagan or tribal polytheist either. Moreso like it determines everything. Like although it may have spun everything into existence in the beginning, it guides everything in the present as well via interactions with other objects and force made in the beginning.
Then there's that "exhilist" word part. That's actually a term I've kind of made up myself. Sort of. It's basically Existential Nihilism, but it isn't at all. Basically, Nihilism is the belief that nothing matters, not morals nor our existence in and of itself. Existentialism is the idea that only what exists matters (in terms of when the word is used as a label instead of a category, and in terms of religion, not human philosophy). Existential Nihilism is the belief that nothing that exists matters, like a, "No one exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everyone is going to die," kind of philosophy. Exhilism, my term, is basically a, "The universe doesn't give a shit about us and can dump on us whenever however it wants to." Humanity has always had this perception of self importance, which can be deconstructed with truths derived from Nihilism. Exhilism basically just uses those truths, without being complete Nihilism. Exhilism says, "Yeah, things do matter; life, morals, whatever may exists outside of reality and the universe; but what does exist physically doesn't matter." It's almost like really passive Nihilism that isn't just Atheism. I believe our world can be ended any second by one of the billions of possible undetectable and instantaneous astronomical cataclysms that occurs trillions of times every second, the universe does not give a shit about us, and what does exist does not matter. Anything can be built, anything can be destroyed.

Anywho, as for politics, I do follow with politics, but I avoid discussing it like the plague.

Also holy hell, posting on a mobile because I'm away from home and don't feel like going on Veeky Forums on a public library, if anyone needs a translation for any of my autocorrect butchered semi-sensical rambling, just ask.

>if anyone needs a translation for any of my autocorrect butchered semi-sensical rambling, just ask.

I, uh, I think we're fine actually...

Don't strain yourself.

Religion:
Atheist. The supernatural is absurd in a modern context. Agnosticism is an epistemic disposition not a statement of belief.

Politics:
Libertarian/ Conservative. The government's only job is to protect Rights and Property of and provide safety to her citizens. The right to bear arms is the only thing truly standing in the way of tyranny.

lds

What's the picture mean?

How the..? I'm 99% sure it's impossible to get high into authoritarian without bullshitting answers, because the test is ridiculous strewed towards the libertarian axis.

This. I always get in the Reagan/Thatcherite section of the blue square, even though I'm much more socially conservative than they ever were.

I've seen a lot higher

it's a problem because a better world is possible. capitalism-- specially modern, spectacle-driven, financial capitalism--is a really wasteful, senseless system.

>The right to bear arms is the only thing truly standing in the way of tyranny.
yet in no way does it do that.

For occupying Miami however, it's pretty stellar

>a better world is possible

First, not really. 'Progress' is one of the most loaded, stupid terms in all of history. Secondly, I'm sure you just happen to think that your 19th century ideology, pertaining specifically to the industrial revolution is what leads to it?

Nah m8. Maybe Communism has never been tried, but every attempt to implement it has been so god-awful that we can safely conclude it isn't worth trying.

Athiest
Socialist libertarian.

Monarchist, Orthodox and practising

Old Left, anti-Modern, investigating the idea of practicing religion, increasingly entertain the idea of God as creator of the world and also of humans who have a meaningful position within the architecture of being.

misanthrope (the non-edgy kind) sunni muslim mystic, western admirer, United States Founding Fathers Fanboy.

i feel kinship to William Blake. my beliefs on God are: 1- there is no natural religion 2-all religions are one 3-every person is a prophet for their souls 3- sola fide is garbage tier theology

I like Christianity very much also of course. Politically other than the founding fathers, my main guides are Jesus, Muhammed, Chesterton, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Marcus Aurelius, Dostoevsky.

I hate communists with a passion. Contemprary US politics is a joke because the GOP and Democratic Parties are private entities that do not have the obligation to be democratic at all.

That seems like such a clumsy and contradictory array of beliefs that I'm inclined to think you're not at all serious about any of them.

I never said the word 'progress'. capitalism as it exists today is obsessed with 'progress' it depends on unsustainable future growth and technological advancement. its ideological buzzwords often riff on the theme of 'progress' think 'innovation', 'disruption' etc. muh enlightened propietarianism isn't an eternal truth, but actually a quite recent innovation

i was very sincere my friend, which parts seem contradictory to you? i wouldn't mind explaining further

capitalism today is obsessed with the creation of wealth, which is effictive like no other economic system in the human history. look at the millions of Chinese peasants moving to low middle class in a single generation. look at the poor classes of US having two televisions per house and iphones

...

...

Center-Right.
Existential Christianity.

I don't really support any party politically. On paper I suppose I may lean a little more to the left towards socialism due to my views regarding wealth, imperialism, resources and things but I dislike identity politics and how the (new neoliberal) left is led by SJW's who scream racism. My university campus is full of these clueless "revolutionaries" who scream about feminism, consent, racism, etc even though they are completely delusional and don't even have any idea of how the world works. I overheard one the other day saying in the US Clinton should be president "because she is a woman." That's it. No analysis of her policies, no concerns about her corruption and lies, just she is a woman therefore make her the president! live in Canada so I am tempted to support the NDP, but I can't agree with all their policies so I just don't vote. Overall though I am getting fed up with living here. Not all, but many Westerners are incredibly entitled, arrogant and completely clueless in regards to their countries overseas activities.

Religiously I struggle between deism and agnosticism.

I probably disagree with whatever general framework you're using to situate them.

For example, you probably consider mysticism to be an essentially universal intersection of human thought which has aspects compatible with (or present within) atheism. I would gather that you extend this to some kind of ethical position about all human action being both evil and good and, in the grand scheme of things, morally equal.

The SJW diatribe seems a bit overdone. If hysterics in politics annoys you, why all the wing-flapping?

What do you mean by wing flapping exactly? I don't really change my political views much if that is what you are insinuating. I am tired of seeing people using supposedly tolerant political positions in order to disguise their authoritarian attitudes and views.

I prefer ethno states, i just want policies in place to deny non-whites from having access to white people, the infrastructure, technology, medicine, welfare and entertainment. Non whites keep hijacking it all and constantly leech off it like parasites. They have their own home and we need ours.

What makes white people so good that they have to take care of non whites?

Fuck off back to . Your entire worldview is biased, skewed and totally moronic.

>Political Views: Anti-political, in the sense that progress towards the betterment of mankind cannot be achieved until we dissolve the petty and tribalistic "parties"

You cannot have that with a people of various (((diversity))) that have different biological behavior patterns and IQ levels. Birds of a feather will always flock together. It will always be undermined in their favour.

>strawpoll.me/11346073
>apolitical

fencesitters? or just just not politically inclined around in public?

sorry

>What do you mean by wing flapping exactly?

histrionics, hysterics, gesturing, making noise etc.

i don't think all human action is both evil and good nor morally equal. all good comes from God who is omnibenevolent, and humans use their free will and moral agency during their life.

i think most atheists are atheists because they are terrified that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God may not share their moral values (which is mostly western secular middle class liberal individualist philosophy that is so easy) exactly so they reduce him to be a magic man who lives in the sky, then dismiss the magic man for not having the qualities of God e.g. if God exists why are there children with cancer haha checkmate believers!.

I don't do any of that.

Like, I'm saying, if someone asks you your general political disposition, and this question entices you into a diatribe about SJWs, then don't you think it might be dominating too large a space in your thinking?

I can imagine quite a few items of greater consequence than a well-meaning but poorly read portion of today's college student population.

>What makes white people so good that they have to take care of non whites?

In ethnically homogenous countries, white people leech off the system. It has nothing to do with race, it just has to do with class. There will always be a relatively poor class with some criminal elements who will use welfare if it is available. Its just that in a lot of multi-ethnic countries, non white people are often shoved into the lower class.

Do you think in countries full of only black people or other "non-whites" that they all just leech off the government? No, it works the same. There are classes who work and accumulate the most wealth, and underclasses.

Often they will split into ethnic groups that you wouldn't even recognise. Someone in Rwanda might ask why tutsis leech off hutus. They might ask why hutu people are so good that they have to take care of tutsis. But they all have dark skin.

>/pol/ boogeyman
sure thing buddy

>Your entire worldview is biased, skewed and totally moronic.

how so?, I work in bio psychology and it pretty made a realist that behavior patterns dictate how successful a nation is from sociology and also on an industrial and economical scale.

If you take a look at the socialistic elements of how the Nordic countries were doing, theyw ere doing quite fine until the homogenous racial element dropped below 97% and began to face problems of supporting the populace.

>Like, I'm saying, if someone asks you your general political disposition, and this question entices you into a diatribe about SJWs, then don't you think it might be dominating too large a space in your thinking?

The problem is that SJWs are dominating too large a space in my university.

agnostic crypto anarchist.

Not trying to be an edgy faggot, honest answer.

Ah. Good question. The answer however is no. The reason I brought up my dislike of SJW's/identity politics is because I wanted to differentiate my views from theirs. You see, whenever I mention I lean to the left on a place like Veeky Forums (especially /pol/) I will be berated and called a cuck because that is pretty much the reputation the new left has created. Plus I've been drinking and decided to go on a pointless rant.

Many are political lobbyists who've managed to put harmful policies in place. There are also those who harass people constantly over trivial things or for disagreeing with them. Calling them "well-meaning" (when virtually everyone is so) is sugarcoating a potentially destructive force in society.

>it just has to do with class

It's funny to see that mental gymnastics that Marxists will go to in order to ensure that class remains the eternal primum mobile. Sorry pal, your 19th century ideology isn't cut out for the modern world.

How can so many people be agnostic in here?

What's your rationale for being agnostic? It's imo the worst opinion to have. Either commit to being an atheist or have some faith.

economics =/= capitalism

>Do you think in countries full of only black people or other "non-whites" that they all just leech off the government?

they leech off international aid, which is primarily funded by whites (which are the most charitable)

When whites where in Africa, Rhodesia was once dubbed the breadbasket of its nation and the surrounding countries

l find it surprising/depressing how a huge percentage of people in here base their whole worldview on ressentiment towards le SJW, even to the point of basically supporting their own enslavement because at least those sjws will be so pissed haha

what does crypto mean?

I don't go that far, but it's retarded to pretend that SJWs aren't a problem in today's political climate.

You totally misunderstood agnosticism. It doesn't need any rationale at all. Read Sextus Empiricus.

>they leech off international aid, which is primarily funded by whites (which are the most charitable)

This is objectively false though. Most countries in Africa don't receive foreign aid.

It's just sociology 101. Most countries have a very sizeable underclass, even homogenous ones.

The poor people who receive welfare in Australia for instance are largely white.

You always know you're swallowing an ideology hard when everything else looks like ideology to you.

Interesting post.


>how so?

You have no evidence to support your claims yet try to pass off your claims as fact.

>If you take a look at the socialistic elements of how the Nordic countries were doing, theyw ere doing quite fine until the homogenous racial element dropped below 97% and began to face problems of supporting the populace.

Correlation does not equal causation friendo. There are various potential variables. If you work as a bio-psychologist you should know these basic scientific principles that are the fabric of any competent scientist. Attributing problems a country may face to the native population dropping below 97% is just stemming from your own racially biased views.

>The poor people who receive welfare in Australia for instance are largely white.

This is what happens when you limit yourself to raw data, at the expense of proportions.

Protip: Aboriginals leech of welfare at a much higher rate, proportionally speaking.

The same is true in other countries. More 'whites' may be on welfare in (some) white countries, but that's because there's way more of them. Proportionally speaking, shitskins/etc leech welfare at a much higher rate.

>Attributing problems a country may face to the native population dropping below 97% is just stemming from your own racially biased views.

Even if he attributes the issues solely to this, you're just as bad for denying that it plays any part at all.

Homogeneity is a key factor in any country, and one that certain sides of the political spectrum are always happy to ignore.

>If you take a look at the socialistic elements of how the Nordic countries were doing, theyw ere doing quite fine until the homogenous racial element dropped below 97% and began to face problems of supporting the populace.

Dane here.

Our welfare state is quite fine.