That's because Christianity changed and stopped enforcing blasphamy laws, something that Muslims did not stop doing. I think the answer is obvious these people want us to lose our rights to speech, so we should stop them and their allies from exercising theirs.
That's because both had plenty enough wars about what exactly is blasphemy. And Muslims still do. Coincidence? I think not.
Want to have some sort of intra-civilizational peace, blasphemy laws are about the worst way to get it. We need to focus more on external enemies, and part of the problem with cultural marxists is that they would rather invite the colonists of these external enemies and shower them with money and privileges than focus against them.
I'm saying once you are in position to do that THEN DO IT! You seem to follow the American conservative model where you won't ever win, you will just push back, and then stand their, and then they will come back against you. Your ideas won't ever end the communist threat.
By the time one will be in a position to do that, then one way or another that will mean the power of commies has been already broken, and other concerns will be at the forefront.
Once commie ideas become as popular as monarchism or whatever you are pushing here, it will be time to declare victory over them.
The 1800's was the last time it could have been saved. But ideally you'd want to stop the Protestant reformation. But like I said earlier the way to avoid losing in the first place is to be brutal when you are in power, and have the security services arrest secularists, communists, and those who advocate for their rights.
You think they didn't try?
Again, your "noble theocrat" theory is showing. If they were half as great as you paint them as, they would have won.
No it does not. Nationalism is good yes, I don't look at religion alone. I'm eastern orthodox if that was the end of it I'd support Russia to conquer all of Eastern Europe,
So you would rather live in delusions and obey a FSB asset as a religious authority, then again your other writing proves that living under a monumental amount of delusions is something you are fine with as long as you like these delusions.
It better be out of raw ignorance, because if not, it does however make you a shitty Christian. Your local bum would probably make a better Christian religious authority than the FSB.
but I'm also a nationalist and I don't want my ethnic group my race to be occupied thus I oppose Russia, all of Eastern Europe is the same. You need both religion AND nationalism. Your reliance on just nationalism is a weakness. Let's say your ideas win then all foreigners are kicked out of Poland the Arabs and Muslims are deported or removed some other way etc. But the weakness of nationalists is that they are weak to being backstabbed because you will tolerate the ethnic Pole who is disloyal to his people.
So your "weakness" of nationalism is that nationalists may not be extreme and intolerant enough? While the fall of your preferred Christian government was that... they weren't extreme and intolerant enough?
That's pretty ridiculous. Find me one nationalist who is a huge fan of ethnically same cultural marxists. Calling them traitors of the nation is not exactly a sign of tolerance i think.
Those who look only to their race will support those who share their race even when those people hate their guts. They'll fight hard against foreign invaders, but the internal threat they will balk and the measures neccesary to stop them, they will say that there should be mercy and avoid harsh punishments towards traitors.
By that logic, Christians will invite half of Africa as refugees, as long as it's the Christian half.
Yes it's a balancing act, this applies to all states even ethnically homogenous nations. Also Lebanon is the way it is because it did not follow what I said earlier making sure that the Christians were in control and made that their top priority. Also if you are an ethnic nationalist what should they have done? After all Lebanon used to be Arab Christian, now it's Arab Muslim. It's the same ethnicity/race under your logic above they shouldn't have done anything as they were one people.
You are mistaking nationalists for internet race obsessed WNs. People of the same race, even ethnicity, can form multiple nations, who may even despise each other, and there is no reason to pretend this isn't the case.
The problem in any case is that even you don't talk about Lebanese nationality, only about their religion or ethnicity, and rightfully so, that place has little in terms of nationalism and national identity. The Shia see themselves closer to Shia Iranians than to their Christian or Sunni neighbors.
Meanwhile in Poland, at least among the nationalists, you have all sorts of religious groups and subgroups, from more secular people to ones about as religiously leaning as you.
This is the benefit of having a homogeneous, cohesive nation.
What exactly do you think theocracy is? Like what specific objection do you have against Christianity having the state enforce laws? Do you support people insulting Mary, and Jesus? Are you a free speech absolutist? You know almost no secular state allows free speech they ALL have their own types of blasphemy laws.
And they should go too. Otherwise the logical conclusion will be constant tension between which version of Christianity is blasphemy, including what exactly insults this or that, who to tolerate outside of it, who not, and so on.
Most people, for one reason or another, want to settle these questions on other arguments than religious authority, and i see no reason why they would take your extreme position as the compromise.
Yes they were 2nd class citizens, and one of the ways they were was that the 1st class citizen's could proselyte while the 2nd class could not.
Also lol no modern states pretend not to care, yet watch them arrest pgeople for calling sodomy an abomination, or other things that are God's word that have become unpopular.
Correction, some modern states don't or didn't care. Those states who do the above are not secular, they are ideological states, adherent to a non-theistic religion of sorts - a lot like Soviet Union or North Korea. And i don't see how your option out of all the alternatives could become more popular than theirs, western world currently has a lot of more and less niche alternatives to choose from.
I have a BROAD definition of liberalism, the French revolution and human rights and secularism are all liberal.
Broad view has the problem of giving you low resolution data, which results in poor quality of information. Exercising your version of the commie's "i'm so extremely leftist that everyone who isn't at minimum an average leftist is so far away from me that they may aswell be a KKK nazi racist, and even that average leftist is a suspicious character on the verge of becoming a fascist" is not going to serve you well when it comes to political maneuvering and making allies.
I'm sorry this is just a bad argument, you are being unfair here your argument can also be applied to Rome which was the pinnacle of civilization. Nations rise and fall, the Ottomans of the 15th and 16th century were not the Ottomans of the 18th and 19th and 20th centuries. They lasted for hundreds of years that's a pretty good run for an empire.
No, that's an average run, thousands of years is a good run - see: Egypt, Rome.
The fact is that the Ottoman model, as many other, have failed the test of time, and specifically the industrial revolution and its fallout.
Backwards holdouts like the Taliban are pitiful and lucky that the western civilization, Christian and liberal alike, is too soft hearted to deal with them like Rome of its golden age would.
I mean I would be ok with that, except that you will never be able to run your deportation scheme of those who are ethnic minorities. The secular liberal world you champion would stop you.
And you think they would tolerate your medieval theocracy even a bit more?
Somehow half of EU, Japan, and few others less than enthusiastic about mass migration and the diversity doctrine are dealing with the diplomatic relations with the shitlibs ok enough.
Secondly, even with all the issues deportations have, there is a little trick to get around that - if they are made to want to leave by themselves out of their outrage or discomfort, there is no need for deportations
.
That's still better than what we have now, sure people can leave the conservative religious millet to go live under the liberal laws but if it's one way they'd be giving up their family, friends, and support.
Running on the assumption that said friends and family are precisely cult level of religious hardliners. If they aren't, your whole system collapses. Hell, that's exactly how small cults work today, in the progressive-liberal world at that.
If they aren't, they don't care much either way, you can even have each member of a family have somewhat different view on religion just as much as they have a different favorite music genre. Modern westerners just don't care about religion that much, even most of the believers, and you don't have a silver bullet (or even a good argument) to change that.
Liberalism leads to low birth rates they won't grow naturally they need to parasite off others, and while there are some perks, there are quite a few downsides.
Nah, Bismarckian state economics combined with industrial+ economic conditions do that.
You might want to check on the fertility rates of Iran and Russia before you say something stupid again.
The solution to that needs to be invented yet, nothing old will work really, as anything before 1800's was working either in agricultural or hunter-gatherer socioeconomic paradigm, which is very irrelevant now.
Here is one liberalism is highly individualistic it has it's perks but what if you come in hard times? Well then there will be far fewer people to help you with charity since the Christians would take care of their own, Muslims take care of their own, Jews take care of their own. I doubt the liberals will take care of their own as much.
"Shitlibs" are too charitable for their own good if anything, the problem with them is that they are more interested in being charitable to various special peoples here and far away there, while looking with disgust upon their compatriots (even calling them various mean names), doubly so those poorer and/or struck by nastier social problems.
Compare with kinda liberal but also nationalistic Japan. For one their handling of natural disasters, social dysfunction and poverty is most definitely better than that of highly religious third world countries, Muslim and Christian alike, and even diverse shitlib first world, as the memes made about post-disaster situations in New Orleans vs Japan have pointed at many times.