ChaosWight2 Thought

ChaosWight2 Thought is an ideology. Now actually read it.

The state will be divided into several different sectors based on certain goals such as naval defense and land defense. These sectors will hold different counties aka minor sectors which are governed by the larger sector itself.

The state itself is authoritarian in nature mainly to keep out conservatives and communists. Individual Liberty is a must for its citizens.

Citizens are allowed to own guns or military equipment of any kind (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons) once passing a class in firearms or once they have served in the military (which is required) for one year which is the maximum for the average citizen.

The Police Force of the state will be less equipped and trained than the actual military and since most everyone will own a firearm crime will be decreased anyway to manageable levels.

Enlightened Autocracy
WIP

The Ministries

The Ministry Of War And Defense
The ministry in charge of well war and defense. Wars are primarily to be defensive however offensive wars will be planned for. This ministry works with the Ministry Of Intelligence.

The Monarchy And Its Powers
The Monarchy is absolute in its power. The Monarch has the priority of being a diplomatic force and being the commander in chief of the military. The Monarchy of course will choose an heir based on a few limitations. The heir has to be of sound physical and mental health (things like autism are fine) and the heir cannot be a blood relative. The royal family will also serve in the military directly.

[[File:Arist.png]]The Aristocracy And Noble Council [[File:Arist.png]]
The aristocracy itself will be made up of the leaders of the different sectors. Whether or not you are nobility is decided by skill and intelligence Noble Houses may adopt people into their houses if they wish. The Noble Council is made up of the wisest and most skilled House leaders who will be akin to an advisory board making suggestions and helping the monarch find an heir when the time comes. The aristocracy as well will only be made up of property owners in this case land.

[[File:Fascism Without A Hat.png]]Dissociation With Fascism [[File:Fascism Without A Hat.png]]
Fascism is collectivist, anti-intellectual, and supports the suppression of individual interests for the good of the nation is in favor of a one-party totalitarian state, and supports the economic idea of Dirigisme. ChaosWight2 Thought supports none of these and as such is not associated with fascism with the exception of Libertarian Fascism which ChaosWight2 Thought has a tiny bit of influence.

Myths About Monarchy
Since there are many myths about monarchy now is a good time to clear the air. A good amount of this information comes "TheMadMonarchist" blog which is no longer being updated. Despite information coming from a reactionary Christian Monarchist the information on Monarchy and the sections on communism are quite well-written and researched and I recommend checking it out. I especially recommend the article on Libertarian Monarchism. Anyway here comes the myths and their debunking.

Monarchies are un-democratic! Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world. Further, in most republics (even the United States) the President is not directly elected by the people anyway. However, being democratic is not necessarily a good thing. Benevolent leaders and bloodthirsty dictators have both come to power through democracy.

Monarchies are too expensive! Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.

Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair! Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.

'''Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?''' The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.

'''Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date!''' Certainly, monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?

'''What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that!''' Actually, far more people have been butchered in wars or massacred by those in power since the start of the revolutionary period than in all history previously. Nero or Attila the Hun were unsavory characters but nowhere near as bad as republican monsters like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. It has only been in the post-revolutionary era of mass politics and political ideologies that governments have taken to killing their own people in huge numbers. Nero was cruel to his own family and later persecuted Christians who were still a tiny minority and Attila the Hun, as ruthless as he was toward his enemies, ruled his own people well from what we know and with justice. No monarch ever wiped out as many of their own people as the communist dictators of the Twentieth Century, all of whom did so in the name of “the people” and “fairness”.

'''Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live.''' Some people believe this, but it simply isn’t true. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic and truck driver during World War II, the King of Thailand is a renowned jazz musician and composer, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has painted illustrations for several books, including the Danish edition of “The Lord of the Rings”. The Emperor of Japan grows his own rice, the King of Cambodia was a practically anonymous dance instructor before coming to the throne and many royal heirs take ordinary jobs, often in obscure places where they are unknown, after finishing school. Despite what people think, royal life is not all champagne and caviar. Compare this to many presidents who have often never worked outside the public sector in their entire lives, never served in the military (as most royals do) or ever known any other life besides making speeches and casting votes.

'''At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job.''' Not true at all. Some republics have ceremonial presidents that are supposed to be non-political but they still invariably have a political background and are beholden to the party that appoints them. A monarch, on the other hand, is above all political divisions and has a blood connection to the history of the country, its traditions, and most deeply held beliefs. No politician could ever represent a people in the way a monarch can whose family history has been the history of the country itself.

Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them! That argument could only begin to make sense if most monarchies had fallen because of a conscious decision by the whole people to see them end. This has certainly not been the case. Most monarchies have fallen because of brute force exerted by a powerful, motivated minority or because their country was defeated in war and their state collapsed. How about looking at how people live? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. The year 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?

Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people. Actually, that is precisely why they can represent everyone in a way no politician ever could. President Hollande of France is an agnostic socialist, so how can he truly represent those French who are Catholic or capitalists? President Napolitano of Italy was a long-time communist, which is certainly not representative of most Italians. President Obama of the US, a liberal from Hawaii, cannot have much in common with a conservative from South Carolina. Yet, a monarch, because they are set apart, can represent everyone because they are not from any particular group.

Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppressed. Historical fact says otherwise. Time and time again history has shown that the end of monarchy makes things worse for a country, not better. In France, it resulted in the “Reign of Terror” which saw tens of thousands of people get their heads chopped off. In Russia, the loss of the monarchy allowed the Bolsheviks to take power which then created the Soviet Union which spread oppression around the world and murdered millions of people. In China, the result was a chaotic period of warlord rule followed by the bloodiest civil war in human history and then a communist dictatorship that took the lives of 60 million people. The end of monarchy in Germany and Austria resulted in divided republics that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, devastate the continent, and butcher 9 million people. The fall of the Shah of Iran allowed a radical theocracy to take power that has spread terrorism around the world and brutally oppressed its own people. These are only a few of the examples that could be cited and the facts are inarguable.

The Nordic Model And Its Influence
The Nordic model is underpinned by a mixed-market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership, with the exception of Norway which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.

The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector, which amounts to roughly 30% of the workforce, in areas such as healthcare and higher education. In Norway, Finland, and Sweden, many companies and/or industries are state-run or state-owned like utilities, mail, rail transport, airlines, electrical power industry, fossil fuels, chemical industry, steel mill, electronics industry, machine industry, aerospace manufacturer, shipbuilding, and the arms industry. ChaosWight2 Thought supports the state owning things like the mail and chemical industry but wants arms manufacturing, the electronics industry, and the shipbuilding industry to be privately owned by private civilians. In addition, foreign corporations are not allowed to set up any factories or warehouses outside of an amount of a few acres of land. This is to prevent the corporate monopoly that the United States is currently experiencing.

State Owned Enterprises And Freedom From Taxes
A State Owned Enterprise (SOE) is an entity formed by the government to engage in commercial activities. The profits gained from SOE would allow the government to fund its ministries, welfare programs, and even the military. This is a viable way of funding a ChaosWight2 Thought based nation because according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the current value of SOEs worldwide is around 45 trillion which is more than enough to fund the government.

[[File:GoldStandard.png]]The Gold Standard[[File:GoldStandard.png]]
ChaosWight2 Thought does support backing the economy with not only gold but silver and other precious metals. The Gold Standard will lead to economic growth and prevent inflation.

The Legal System
The court system of the nation will be the Adversary system. The Adversary System is a Contest between opposing sides (adversaries). The trier of fact will be a judge or jury that will determine the truth. Opposing sides present their best arguments and show weaknesses in the other side's case. It is the system used in the United States and the English courts. The judge's job is to make sure both sides are playing fairly. However, there will be some aspects carried over from the Inquisitorial System which is used in most of Europe. Unlike the Adversary System, the Judge will be allowed to question witnesses and gather any evidence should they feel the need to. The Judge is also allowed to veto the jury should they themselves have reasonable doubt about the conclusion the jury reached.

There will also be a form of Bounty Hunting in the country. In the U.S., bounty hunters are mostly hired by a bail-bond company (bail bondsman) to track down a criminal defendant who has failed to appear in court in breach of the bail-bond agreement. Historically, courts have given bounty hunters numerous powers for bringing fugitives to justice which will also be applied in the legal system of the state. A judge or private citizen (in a civil case) can hire someone who is either a fugitive at the outset or if the defendant fails to appear in court at the agreed-upon date they can hire one to detain the defendant and bring them to court. While not as free to act as Bounty-Frontierism They are relatively free to act as necessary such as killing or injuring the fugitive in cases of self-defense. Historically, courts have given bounty hunters numerous powers for bringing fugitives to justice. These powers range from going after a fugitive in another state, arresting a fugitive at any time, to entering a fugitive’s house to capture him or her without a warrant. At the same time, they don’t have immunities given to state agents like police officers in the exercise of their powers because bounty hunters are more like independent contractors and are not agents of the state. Oh, also dueling is legal.

[[File:Civlibert.png]]Civil Libertarian Influence[[File:Civlibert.png]]
Basically, civil libertarianism is more focused on privacy and other civil liberties than the actual economics of typical American Libertarianism. Since ChaosWight2 Thought supports a variety of civil liberties it certainly has some influence from it.

[[File:Ultranat.png]]Ultranationalism Influence
WIP

The Culture War 

The culture war has been nothing but a huge waste of time for everyone involved. Too much of it is psyops and other bullshit for it to be taken seriously. Either side winning is a bad thing despite the fact I am technically part of the ALT-Right due to my ethnonationalism.

[[File:Technocracy.png]]Technoimperialism[[File:Imp.png]]
We will keep advancing our technology to a point where we are looked upon favorable. Through this, we will keep poaching citizens and land from other lesser states. If anyone objects there is always war if necessary.

[[File:Ingsocf.png]]The Propaganda Machine[[File:Mediastocracy flair.png]]
Very simply in order to gain citizenry and support from outside our borders we will make sure the good parts of our great nation are seen first before the bad. The bad might still be there but it won't be seen until after the good has.

Good Fences
Basically, a ChaosWight2 Thought state could exist next to a Borker Anarchist society or a Social Democracy, or an Absolute Monarchy so long as they leave each other alone. You leave us alone we leave you alone. This is based on the idea of good fences making good neighbors.

Environmentalism
Cities would be limited in size and forests would be regrown. Alternatives to fossil fuels would be used heavily.

Les.png]] [[File:Gay.png]]{{Bold [[File:Trans.png]]
Comparatively progressive for the most part with the exception of xenogenders and neopronouns which are not considered valid legally however individuals may still use them. Transgender individuals are covered by the healthcare system and are recognized by the state. The medical transition of minors however is illegal while the social transition is not.

Feminism And Men's Liberation.
Gender roles and toxic masculinity (and femininity) are generally discouraged, encouraging people to present themselves as they will and live as they wish. Rights for women exist and take some aspects from the third wave of feminism (transfeminism, sexual liberation, reproductive rights). However, it has been noticed that many modern feminists have taken up the cause of misandry (Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men. Men's rights activists and other masculinist groups have criticized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision, and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry) and Female Supremacy which is just as bad as misogyny in the eyes of the state and as such is heavily discouraged instead people are taught that while they are human they aren’t equal in intelligence or skill/talent or even physical ability and that they must work hard and learn in order to be better and self improve.

Gun Rights

It is the right of a citizen to own a weapon or multiple of them for whatever they wish so long as they do not use it in a criminal act (IE first degree murder). The obvious exception is nuclear weapons. Now let's debunk some gun control arguments.

One of the main talking points of the gun control argument is that “assault weapons '' (whatever those are) need to be banned. These same people have also called for banning magazines that hold more than ten rounds most of which are designed for self-defense handguns such as the glock 17 which has seventeen rounds. Of course these proposals are ridiculous because these people are talking about semi-automatic firearms. Gun control supporters say that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are "military-style assault weapons  designed for "war" on "the battlefield." To the shock of any gun control supporter reading this the military uses fully automatic firearms which are classified as “machine guns' ' by the National Firearms act of 1934. The difference is that a fully-automatic firearm can fire repeatedly and quickly as long as you hold down the trigger, but a semi-automatic, like any firearm other than a fully-automatic, fires only once when you pull the trigger. Furthermore “assault weapons  are accused of being more powerful than others which gun control supporters call “high powered”. This is patently false as a firearm’s power is decided by the caliber or gauge of its ammo. In fact many hunting rifles have more power than the so-called “assault weapons '' . On a side note many different weapons use the same type of ammunition. Most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced and many of these non-traced weapons are given to criminals by the state (state as in government).

A major lie used by gun control supporters is that “assault weapons' ' have been used in violent crime and increase crime. First with the rise of people purchasing “assault weapons' ' and “large magazines' ' violent crime has been cut in half. The nation's total violent crime rate peaked in 1991. Since then, through 2012, it has decreased 49%, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation's murder rate, to a 49-year low—perhaps the lowest point in American history. Meanwhile, the number of the most popular firearm that gun control supporters call an "assault weapon"—the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle has risen by several million and the ownership of semi-automatic weapons has risen over 50 million and the private ownership of firearms has risen by over 130 million. The number of new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds has risen by many tens of millions. Let that sink in for you, especially the numbers and dates. “Assault weapons” have only been reported in a small percent of crime (1-2 percent in fact) and the usage of objects such as knives and hammers are actually used nine times more than rifles. Will you let the state take away our hammers and have the ATF come into your home to chop your vegetables? The banning of “assault weapons” has not reduced crime in the slightest. After its 1989 ban, California's murder rate increased every year for five years, 26% overall. California banned more guns in January 2000 (and thereafter imposed a variety of other gun control restrictions) and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate. The official report on the worst mass shooting in American history concluded that a limit on magazine capacity would not have changed the outcome of that crime. A criminal could also carry multiple guns (a method historically used by pirates back when most firearms were one-shot only).. A criminal could also resort to a method other than a firearm. Gun control supporters had argued that the Founding Fathers (the guys who founded us) could not have envisioned semi-automatic firearms, and thus the Second Amendment protected the right to own only 17/18th century firearms such as muskets. However this argument is invalid as experimentation in multi shot firearms has historically been done at that time (see the “puckle gun”). Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communication and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends to modern firearms. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense. There is a slippery slope. Gun control supporters have attempted to apply the "assault weapon" label to more and more semi-automatic firearms and, in some instances, even to pump-action firearms which is absolute nonsense.

The best way to solve the issue of mass shootings is to have no laws prohibiting the manufacturing and selling of firearms. Second, we have a mandatory marksmanship class in public schools where students are taught basic marksmanship and gun safety in order to prevent further misuse. Third, we must focus on combatting the mental illness of the many people who misuse firearms not the symptoms, by encouraging the citizens to seek out private therapists and doctors to keep their mental healthy well healthy. Fourth we must stop associating firearms with mad zealots of Abrahamic Religion.

Sources: A Ban on Assault Weapons Would Not Reduce Crime

and more to come :3

All Abrahamic religions are outlawed entirely with them only being taught briefly in history classes. Paganism and Atheism are encouraged heavily.

[[File:New Atheism1.png]]Why Does ChaosWight2 Thought Support Both Atheism and Paganism?[[File:PagTheo.png]]
(Note: This is from a year old google document and will need to be cleaned up and edited but for now this is the current version)

Part One: The Interpretation Argument
The interpretation argument is essentially christians disagree with each other thus god doesn’t exist. Of course there is more to it. The argument is for a deity that is both omnipotent and omniscient. If the deity does not have these traits then the argument fails so we are only talking about the Abrahamic faiths at the moment. According to most Christians for any message god communicates, he knows how to communicate it so that it will be interpreted correctly. Therefore if god chooses to communicate a message it must be interpreted correctly. According to this argument, someone reading the bible would be interpreting the bible and interpreting gods communications. So according to this argument, people who read the bible are unable to misinterpret the bible. We already know that two pastors (or one pastor, one Christian guy) had an argument based upon the word IS. It is safe to say that these individuals read the same passage and came to two very different conclusions. Based on these arguments contradictory expressions of the bible should not exist, but they do. As such god does not exist at least in the way Christians describe him (I’m of the latter opinion). God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, or neither but he’s not both. This would be something more akin to a pagan view of god, maybe he’s just one among many. Maybe this is why we have many texts of this kind and many religions around the world. Let’s look at something here. Premise one: It is logically impossible for god’s communications to be misinterpreted, Premise two: If god is all-knowing, a communication of a false proposition must be a lie. Premise three: if there are conflicting interpretations at least one must be false. Premise four: there are multiple instances of contradicting interpretations of god’s communications. Conclusion: Therefore God is a pathological liar.

Part Two: Pascal’s Wager defeated
Pascal’s wager is a bet that heaven is a place of infinite bliss. However, it is too simple. If you're going to be gambling for heaven you should wager on a pair of dice. Pascal’s wager works like this: if god does not exist but you still believed then you spent a little bit of your time and effort. If you did not believe that god does exist then maybe you spent some of your time usefully. However, if god does exist and you did believe then you receive eternal salvation. If you did not believe then you are damned. We see that on the board with the possibilities of infinite reward and infinite damnation a rational person would make the bet of infinite reward. There are two major points against the wager. One is that the wager doesn’t really raise the likelihood of god so it’s no good for attempting to convert people. The other is that a god who is offering eternal reward might see through the belief that is based on accessing said reward.

Part Three: The Problem Of Evil
Is he god willing to prevent evil but unable? Then he is impotent. He is able but unwilling. Then he is malevolent. Is he able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Some would say that evil allows for more kinds of goodness. For example, farts are evil for they bring about significant suffering, and a world without farts would be less evil than a world with farts. However “god” allows farts because it allows mercy by not pointing it out when someone lets it rip at the dinner table. Thus the existence of the evil of farts is justified even though it brings about suffering. If the universe we live in is the product of a perfect then the evil present in that universe should only be sufficient to meet the requirements of the theodicy. There are times when we can put forward examples of unnecessary evils. Evils that are only experienced but never overcome and which never receive a response. There are also natural evils that would be seen as unnecessary, diseases that cause people to die in extreme pain, especially silence pain. These become difficult to explain as a result. An especially compelling example would be the unnecessary suffering in the case of animals which don’t go under soul development according to Christian theology so the presence of any suffering at all would be unnecessary. Take for example, a fawn dying alone in a forest fire it is a natural event, witnessed by no human being experienced by a conscious being that will not go to an afterlife according to most monotheists. Yet incredible, unnecessary suffering accords. This example does not mean that god does not exist but it certainly undermines the theodicies designed to defend the existence of evil. So the likelihood of the defendant existing (god in this case) goes down significantly. Now atheists must say this increases the likelihood of atheism but I disagree with that conclusion. Perhaps it makes atheism more likely than this particular expression of monotheism but polytheism expresses the strength of the various theistic arguments and yet does not fall prey to the problem of evil and therefore does not need theodicies even if they might apply. The polytheist can take on all of the theodicies when discussing humanity's relationships with the gods but also undermine the argument entirely. It is entirely reasonable for the polytheist to say that we overcome obstacles as part of our relationships with the gods. Odin and Thor (of Norse fame) are known among their adherents for forging strength as part of reciprocity. This ties in with the existence of various evils justifying that development because of the opportunity for honorable and good actions. Traditional pagans also hold that gods are not the only powerful agents (nor omi-powerful and the like) but there are also malicious forces within the universe. In heathenry (modern worship of one or more Norse/Germanic deities) there are stories of jotun, trolls, and other beings that bring great harm to the gods and to humans. There are stories of gods engaging with each other and different kinds of gods engaging in destructive wars against each other such as the Aesir-Vanir war. So the problem of unnecessary evil (suffering) is easily explained by stating that the gods while powerful do not govern every event in the universe and may not always be in agreement (take Set and Horus, Thor and Loki, etc) therefore unnecessary suffering while frustratingly unnecessary takes place. This interpretation also raises the stakes of the actions you're contributing to the world and to which end they are tipping the scales with their actions. Religions that rely on the tri-omni god often put one in a place of complacency that all things will work out in the end and in the case of many polytheist traditions that’s not necessarily true. Humanity can lose we could, through our actions, squander our environment and destroy all living things, reducing our existence here to nothingness and it’s our responsibility to make sure that this does not happen. The gods won’t simply stop it from taking place if we seem intent on bringing it about. We have responsibility.

Part Four: Hell
Something that encouraged me to stay in Christianity for a long time (besides family pressure) was a fear of hell because of course no reasonable person wants to be tortured for all eternity. Plenty of people who have left Christianity and plenty of people who remained Christian have a fear of hell. This fear of hell hangs over people's heads for a long time and is most likely one of the reasons Christianity has stuck around for so long. Turns out that if you tell children that there’s an unimaginable everlasting torture waiting for them after their death if they change their minds as an adult they hesitate on changing their minds (which is f#cked up). When you think about it, God's plan for salvation is rather cumbersome. So God creates humanity, he puts a tree in the garden and humanity has no concept of sin and doesn’t know what the difference is between good and evil. Yet they are punished for disobeying God which apparently is what evil is. Strangely enough, the tree of knowledge is the forbidden one suggesting that seeking knowledge is a sin. The weird part of that whole exchange is that God created a perfect world and yet somehow sin breaks out into that world because of Eve’s action as a free agent. In a world that God created from scratch knowing the future which is even further strange if you hold a metaphorical image of the creation story Adam and Eve never existed nor did the garden nor the tree of knowledge yet somehow sin still breaks out into a perfect world that a perfect God created. You result in this weird understanding of original sin that doesn’t have a whole lot of precedent but for whatever reason we still need to atone for because of this arbitrary idea that we fall short of perfection, whatever that is and this means we need Jesus. It’s not the most intuitive thing but this is a taste of trying to make sense of the foundation of the reason for needing salvation in the first place. I’m trying to justify why we (humanity) are responsible for Eve’s actions (which is something that would never hold up in court). How Adam and Eve for held responsible for something they were completely unaware of or why understanding the difference between good and evil is something worthy of punishment or how sin affects us living today or why we seem to have trouble figuring out the difference between good and evil when we try and articulate exactly what we mean by it even though having this understanding is what we’re being punished for…  *deep sigh*. All of these questions are ones I found christianity inadequate at answering. I noticed that many of them stem from these base ideas that the story of the garden. You knock that out and suddenly the whole conversation seems a little absurd. But even taking into consideration that somehow all of this happened, that something happened that makes a sin a thing we have to deal with, and even being tainted by it a little bit puts us into this position of needing eternal damnation, the solution seems equally absurd. So Christianity puts us into a position of being guaranteed hell even if we have a moment of dishonesty in our minds or if we disobey commands from God that we may or may not even be aware of. Furthermore, it seems to render any thoughts of sexuality as sinful but in order to deal with this we have to become aware of a particular figure in history and believe that his execution was actually self-sacrifice and fulfillment of prophecies. This particular figure that never wrote anything and everything we have about his life is second hand and in addition to a ton of writings about him that we’re supposed to ignore, and this is supposed to be sufficient. Furthermore, acceptance and belief of this particular historical fact, assuming it’s truth is what’s supposed to be the thing that absolves us of this whole issue of sin even though functionally it doesn’t change a whole lot about who we are. Maybe we act in accordance with teachings afterward but we still get sexual urges, and we still have angry thoughts. This doesn’t seem to have a whole lot to do with absolving this issue except we’re told that it does which and I’m sorry to say this but it seems like you're trying to sell me something that doesn’t work. Why would a perfect deity with the perfect plan have such a flawed system in place? You know one that’s far more intuitive and doesn’t require all this setup. Furthermore, a seeming proclivity among his followers to disagree over the issue of salvation. Are we saved permanently? Are we just saved once? Does it include if we leave the faith behind? Do we have to speak about our sins or do we just accept the sacrifice? If we leave later we’re we ever saved at all? Christians seem to disagree massively on ALL of these factors and there aren’t clear answers to these questions as evidenced by the wide variety of interpretations held by Christians which forces me to hold that God is a bad communicator which means he’s not perfect because a perfect God would not be this bad at communication! If heaven and hell are real and it depends on the belief of Christ to get there then we should expect visions of the Christian hell across civilizations when they describe the afterlife but they don’t. I mean we can take some legends as an example. There’s the story of a man named Hattingh who meets a woman bearing herbs out of season. He asks her where she got them and she shows him, she takes him through dark clouds, down a winding road to a land lush with green leading him to the walls of Helheim (very nice afterlife 10/10) the land of the dead. She finds a rooster and wrings off its head killing it and then she throws the rooster over the walls of Helheim and it’s heard crowing on the other side brought back to life. Another story is that of Thorstein, a man who is lost at sea and is later seen approaching a mountain deemed sacred by Thorstein’s father. The mountain opens up to reveal warm fires and sounds of celebration within and the shepherd struggles to get closer so he might hear the words that are being said and sees Thorstein enter hearing shouts of welcome to him by his ancestors bidding him take the high seat by his father. For now, we can see that the stories regarding the afterlife are distinct from Christianity in that they don’t describe hell and this rings true across multiple civilizations. This leads us to conclude one of a few choices. One: that there is no afterlife whatsoever and all of these visions do not reflect any kind of reality and this is certainly a possibility, that instead of an afterlife there’s nothing at all, it’s certainly a reasonable position and there’s justification for explaining these stories in that fashion. Let us assume for a second that there is an afterlife, why are there so many different stories? And why do non-Christian civilizations describe something other than hell? According to the Christian view, these stories should not exist and the only way for them to be explained by the Christian is to be accused of falsehood which would undermine their own ability to discuss the afterlife in the first place. If we can just dismiss other stories of the afterlife what stops us from dismissing the Christian stories of the afterlife? And if the Christians' stories of the afterlife are to be considered true then aren’t we back in the same place of wondering why we don’t find consistency elsewhere in other discussions of the afterlife? We should not have pleasant stories describing afterlives that are something other than what Christians describe and any justifications that the Christian gives to dismiss this and be turned right back onto themselves. So the hypothesis of what consequences of what we should expect to find among nonchristian civilizations if hell exists has been rendered false. This means hell probably doesn’t exist causing dominos to fall across the rest of Christian theology regarding sin which renders Jesus’s sacrifice irrelevant and unnecessary which means that Christianity is essentially one option among many for people to follow that assuming the afterlife is the Christian heaven and hell is but one afterlife among many though, to be honest, if the Christian heaven is that which is granted to people that do not go to hell then it probably doesn’t exist either through descriptions of hell aren’t very common in the Bible and it could be that followers of christ do have heaven just as others have a different afterlife. A coherent view of the afterlife would be that it’s just one of many rather than a single one or two of ultimate reward and punishment. Maybe there is one of punishment but I don’t know what it would look like and I don’t know what it would take to get there but it’s probably not based on something as ridiculous and arbitrary as whether or not you believed the right thing about a person who lived a couple of thousand years ago. If the afterlife doesn’t exist it affords some interesting prospects. Do we experience something within our brain as it’s overloaded with chemicals? Do our beliefs affect that moment and how it plays out? Whatever the case, we're gone. There is a haunting concept that in not existing we’ll have to undergo some void of darkness and experience nonexistence but that shouldn’t be the case, I’ve no experience of what it was like before I was born death with no afterlife would likely be very much the same. So upon examination, I have left hell behind me. Either the afterlife exists or it doesn’t and if it exists I will likely be pleasantly surprised, if not well I won’t be upset mainly because I can’t be, I’ll be gone.

Morality
All morality is relative there is no such thing as an "objective" morality. If ten or one hundred people witness something then there will be ten or one hundred different interpretations of said event. The same logic applies to morality. Morality can only be enforced through power which is something many governments and religions do today.

Theory Of History
Hegel was wrong. History does not make any kind of ideological progress or progress at all. Our ideas are based on a random chaotic power struggle and are largely manufactured by the dominant classes in society. Nothing necessarily progresses toward the truth or the good. This effectively means there is no point in society at all. Why would we bother with science, politics, or philosophy if ideas don't take hold based on how true they are?

[[File:Libertarian.png]]Libertarianism[[File:Libertarian.png]] VS [[File:Lib.png]]Liberalism[[File:Lib.png]] And Why It's Relevant
WIP

[[File:Commie.png]]The Tyranny Of Communism And Other Forms Of Leftist Economics[[File: Soc-h.png]]
"The tyranny of the meanest and the dumbest" - Friedreich Nietzsche "residue of Christianity and of Rousseau in the de-Christianised world" - Friedreich Nietzsche

Let's get one thing straight (heh straight) socialism and communism are bad economics that has to be implemented by force. When we interact with the outside world humans typically expect the highest possible pay for the work we do and the lowest price for high-quality goods. Economics adds up those personal tendencies over millions of people in large, complex societies and comes up with a few simple rules that describe economic behavior. Supply and demand, marginal revenue and marginal cost, the theory of money, and specialization and exchange are really just simple rules that take all people’s actions and abilities into account and arrive at a solution that balances the overall societal equation. Communists and their ilk decided that this doesn't work (hint: it does) and have decided to come up with their own with the simple phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. However human needs are generally unlimited and which conflicts with human nature. When you try to fight human nature you need to use force. Let's find an example of socialist economics, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s drastic intervention in the electronics businesses of Venezuela in 2013. The government of Venezuela basically arrested the managers of one electronics store chain and forced the company to sell its products at lower prices. A few people got a cheap television on a one-time basis thanks to coercive government intervention, but you can bet that any ability to buy quality electronics at a good price in Venezuela is now gone. A serious one is communist economics is the Soviet farm collectivization of the 1930s. All the private, family-owned farms of the Soviet Union were converted to large collectivized farms. Stalin privately admitted to Churchill that 10 million people died, either from starvation or resistance to the forced farm collectivization. With a communist dictatorship, when a leader goes off the rails, there are no moderating forces that bring compromise or allow negotiation for alternative paths to lead society toward its goals. Every person who works in a communist society is paid by the government and knows they will be paid whether the organization they are working for provides goods or services to customers or not. This is very different than a society where most companies are private and employees know that if the company or the part of the company they work for doesn’t sell products that pay the company's expenses, they won’t be employed anymore. A communist society also has no private company competition to provide improved, cheaper, and higher quality goods and services.

A communist society’s productivity is a mere fraction of the productivity of an economy based on capitalism and free enterprise. The work ethic deteriorated so severely in the Soviet Union that a saying began circulating among the workers: “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.” For a society to operate at an economic level much lower than its potential for generations is a loss that can never be regained. Socialism is communism-lite. They believe in nationalizing some industries and or important societal functions but not all. Socialists will usually nationalize utilities, transportation, and large industries that tend to have labor problems. Here, the personalities involved matter a lot. Socialist governments either respect the prior governmental rules of free elections, separation of powers, and individual choice, or they push for complete government control of everything by their political party and end up allowing no dissenting political parties or individuals.

To understand whether socialism leads to communism, we will study two cases. The first case is Britain after WWII when socialist parties were elected to national political office. The second case is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1999 on a socialist platform. These post-war British socialists took it pretty seriously. They nationalized coal, electricity, steel, and the railways and set up the National Health Service to provide government-run health care. Farms and grocery stores were allowed to be private, and the British electoral system was left to allow free and fair elections. After a number of years, the British economy performed poorly under socialism, and the British people elected politicians who believed in free enterprise and turned things around. Socialism doesn’t always lead to communism, and Britain pulled back from the brink when they saw that the socialist promise led to everyone being worse off.

In Venezuela, the democratically elected Chavistas pushed for governmental control and brought in Cuban intelligence agents to assist them in quashing dissent and controlling the population. Venezuela had a special problem in that the government tried to force businesses into selling goods and services at a loss, implemented draconian currency controls, and were then surprised when the businesses stopped operating. The result in Venezuela was that stores had no goods on their shelves, hospitals had no medicines or machines that worked, and ordinary people took to looking through trash for food. Various political maneuvers were implemented by the Chavistas, the legislature was restructured, the judiciary was stacked, and the electoral system was compromised.

Now, any political avenue for changing the government in Venezuela is gone, and they have the very dictatorship that characterizes communist societies, along with a broken economy that works very poorly, even by communist standards. If you want to implement communism, you start up mass production of staples, implement rationing, and wink at the black markets that spring up. In Venezuela, the socialists pushed their way through to dictatorship and tyranny, and a complete economic breakdown was the result.

Generally the same as a modern-day location of the state with the exception of anything that was already mentioned. Adults will work, children will go to school, etc.

[[File:Nazi.png]]The Final Solution To The Abrahamic Question[[File:Nazi.png]]

 * Christianity: All Conservative Christians are to be executed in the streets their belongings confiscated and sold at auction. Progressive Christians are given ONE month to leave before they are subjugated to the same treatment as the Conservative Christians. Churchs, Religious schools (seminaries, catholic schools, etc) are to be either burnt down or turned into something more useful like a library. All priests and nuns of the Catholic denomination are to be sent to trial however for various acts and publicly executed. All money and other valuables are to be given to the government treasury. A majority of Bibles and all other Christian novels are to be burnt as well with some to be sent to universities and libraries for education purposes (human history). All crosses and angels are to be removed from graveyards and buildings and replaced with secular symbols.


 * Islam: All Muslims and their supporters are executed in the streets regardless of whether or not they are progressive. All buildings dedicated to Islam and burnt down and other buildings built in their place. Bodies of dead Muslims will be cut into and limbs hacked off which apparently will prevent them from going to their afterlife in some Islamic traditions. After 30 days (to mock Ramadan) these bodies will be burnt. All symbols of Islam are to be torn down and removed from gravesites. A majority of Muslim literature and holy texts will be burned with the rest going to universities and libraries for educational purposes (human history).


 * Baháʼí Faith: WIP


 * Druze Faith: WIP


 * Rastafari: WIP


 * Samaritanism: WIP

Views On Anarchism
Ultimately it is the view of ChaosWight2 Thought that Anarchism while it sounds good will not work. Some forms of anarchism however might work under specific circumstances like Anarcho-Frontierism, Avaritionism, and possibly Anarcho-Capitalism. If part of the human race decides to try these forms of Anarchism out ChaosWight2 Thought will not object. Essentially ChaosWight2 Thought respects anarchism and partially hopes it will succeed at creating a better world.

[[File:Strato.png]]Military Organization And Principles[[File:Strato.png]]
WIP

Einherjar Korps
WIP

[[File:Landian_Accelerationism.png]] Landian Accelerationism [[File:Landian_Accelerationism.png]]
WIP

MISC
Israel and Palestine - Neither Israel nor Palestine is a legitimate state and both need to die. Abortion - Legal up to the second trimester and afterward legal in cases of rape and incest for white people. Euthanasia - If people want to die if they are suffering from cancer or are in a coma then let them.

Personality and Behaviour
Often depressed and tired due to staying up all night. Can be found in the corner avoiding other balls. Give an offering of black coffee and estrogen if you wish to discuss anything with her.

Creator Political Journey
Birth-2016

2016-2017 -

2017-2019 -

2020-2021 -

2021-2022 -

2022-2022 -

2022-Present - WIP

Misc Creator Political Beliefs
Bleeding Heart Libertarianism - The more pragmatic beliefs of Aryan Monarchism's creator (literally owns a rainbow gadsden flag)

Mercenary System - The creator is a known supporter of PMCs and Mercenary work.

Aesthetics
A bit larpy but also kinda fun to do (more to be added)


 * 1) 2020 Alt - Most likely popular among the younger generations of an Aryan Monarchist society
 * 2) Adventure Pulp - Most certainly among historians, scientists, intelligence agencies etc
 * 3) Celtic - Probably popular among the few Celtic pagans in an CW2 Thought society

Videos, Reading List, And Youtubers
CallMeEzekiel - History, literature, philosophy and also politics. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged By Ayn Rand For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard Anatomy Of The State By Murray Rothbard Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedreich Nietzsche Hiking with Nietzsche: On Becoming Who You Are By John Kaag Arguing with Socialists by Glenn Beck The Ego And His Own By Max Stirner The Art Of War By Sun Tzu The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli The Mad Monarchist Blog - while a Christian reactionary he provides good information about monarchy and the evil that is communism.

WIP

Q&A
Ask me questions and I will answer to the best of my ability. ↓ (down below)
 * - Why are you no longer a white nationalist?

Ideologies=

[[File:Yes.png]]
Authoritarian Progressivism - A major inspiration

- Another inspiration but you are more free-market inclined than I am.

- A mix of capitalism and nationalism which is very based. You are usually more conservative unfortunately but it is very good you are culturally variable in theory!

- The main economic inspiration for me. It is the ultimate compromise between the worker and the employer.

Post-Libertarianism - There isn't a whole lot of information on your page but I do like the idea of using the state to enforce libertarian values which is what I have a bunch of!

- Only as a means to an end and only for very specific things and circumstances.

- We must protect our people from Foreign corporations.

All rightwing LGBT ideologies - Comrades in arms we shall make this world better.

[[File:Meh.png]]
- I do like egoism but anarchism isn't for me personally.

- Basically we share the same belief in civil liberties but we have different views on race although we do have different views on economics from traditional Libertarianism.

- You are very based in some ways but your anti-capitalism is foolish.

- In theory, you had the right ideas. People who are going to be born with a physical or mental condition that will cause them suffering should not be allowed to be born as sad as it is. However, people with autism and the like should be allowed to be born. Then again that is debatable considering how I wish I didn't exist (I sympathize with Schoenbauer very much on that).

Rational-Nationalism - Not bad but the democracy is cringe.

[[File:No.png]]
- All of you back up against the wall, now face the wall.

Black Lives Matter - Exterminate.

SJW - YOU FUCKING RUINED THE PRIDE FLAG YOU DUMBASS!!! YOU ALSO SHAME PEOPLE FOR BEING WHITE!!! Utterly disgusting you have ruined the causes of LGBT people everywhere and major corporations pander to you which causes there to be poor representation in movies and TV shows.

Lipostocracy - I am proudly fatphobic. I work out in order to improve myself instead of looking like Jabba the Hutt. The only cool fat person is Garfield the cat and he's fictional. Grow the fuck up and eat a salad and walk a few miles.

Feelism - With all due respect to Nietzsche who disagrees but Reason and rationality is the best trait all humans have.

- One of the few things I and Borker Thought agree with is that you should be eliminated.

- Rule of the people but the people are retarded.

- A democratic Christian degenerate.

- Both Islam and Democracy are cringe.

- You filthy Muslim degenerates will be put down with ten times the amount of force you attempt to use against freedom.

- Too far man. Way too far.

Self-Inserts=

[[File:Yes.png]]
Tiberius_Thought - Probably one of the more based people on this sub. Apparently, we are similar in our beliefs with a few exceptions such as gun control, and his fondness for imperialism, All in all, Tiberius Thought is based for the most part.
 * [[File:Vamp.png]]


 * [[File:Fargothism-icon.png]]National Wodenism - You are one of the people on here I would call a comrade in arms. While I disagree with some beliefs of yours you are ultimately based. I do disagree with gender essentialism and some of your views on LGBT pride and Queer Nationalism but ultimately these are tolerable. I can also tell you that transgenderism isn't a new thing and has proven effective in treating gender dysphoria and is most certainly not unique to the West.

[[File:Meh.png]]

 * [[File:Iconfloofel.png]] Floofel's Thought - There isn't a whole lot of information on your specific beliefs but we both like guns and nihilism and appear to be anti-communist which is based. I don't mind the anarchism either.


 * [[File:Omega1065.png]]Omegaism - You have some based ideas and I do also agree with not transitioning minors. You are a democracy which is unfortunate but whatever works for your people I guess. All in all pretty chill.


 * [[File:neocalcicon.png]] Neo-Calculustism - I have no clue what the hell you are to be blunt. At least you like noocracy and are relatively progressive.


 * BERNHEism.png BERNHEism - I agree with you on somethings and disagree with you on a lot but I am mainly putting you here because I would most certainly prefer you as a government than Neo-Lukkoism


 * [[File:Erissky.png]]Erissianism - I put you here in neutral because you and your ideologies are interesting. I do find your section on gender to be fascinating and well thought out. However, I will point out that it isn't just the patriarchy enforcing the gender binary and that the matriarchy must go as well. Your economics are being rewritten so I will skip that for now. I like the stance you have on technology and find it interesting especially since you view the "meatspace" as anti-individual. I find your stance on environmentalism absolutely horrifying. All in all, I will keep updating my stance on you as you (and me too) have multiple WIP areas.


 * [[File:JapCom.png]] Socialism With Japanese Characteristics - Ultimately you are a communist who thinks America is bad. However, you hate China just as much as I do and you support a monarchy of sorts (not sure how a communist society would have a monarch but whatever). As such you are tolerable, welcome to the monarchy fan club.


 * [[File:Borker thought pixels 4.png]] Borker Thought - The only good left anarchist and fellow Marx hater.


 * [[File:NeoGlencoe.png]] Neo-Glencoeism - I disagree with you on a lot however you oppose Christianity and that is enough for you to be in the neutral section of relations.

[[File:No.png]]

 * [[File:DubiousPlot.png]] Atronism - You are progressive which is good. Transhumanism is also based. I don't really care about the furry stuff. However, your belief in leftist economics is cringe. Also, your desire to overthrow humanity is worrying.


 * [[File:Pixil-frame-0(38).png]] Neo-Majapahitism - Nuke
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - A statist believer in leftist economics, very cringe. At least you have a monarch. I also respect your drive to reach the stars but your belief that will end conflict on Earth is naive. Humans will bring conflict with them no matter what. While all of Earth being one government is an interesting idea (especially if it is under my beliefs) it will have no choice to be done but through conquest and warfare.


 * - Absolute Christian degeneracy. The only good thing about you is that want to take care of the environment. You also keep calling me an SJW despite my very much obvious dislike of them.


 * [[File:PosadasComrade.png]] PosadasComrade - There isn't a whole lot of information on your page but you appear to be fond of Posadism and Anarcho-Communism which is cringe. However, your views on religion and traditionalism are based.

Altemism - The leftist economics is cringe. You also appear to be a Christian which is also cringe. You dislike individualism which is not cool. I don't mind traditions if they adapt to fit modern times which clearly will not happen in your ideology. 0/10 would not recommend it.
 * [[File:Altem.png]]

The anti-capitalism is cringe and I will point out that I severely limit corporations which are the enemy of the market. You do however like HP. Lovecraft and Nature which is based. 4/10.
 * [[File:Guard-Occo.png]] National Fracturism - I never claimed to be German.


 * [[File: ComradePhil.png]]Comrade Phil Thought - Utter cringe and not worthy of respect.


 * [[File:Davidism-icon.png]]|Davidism - Pure evil you are too disgusting to even describe. You also bring up god a lot, well the gods are dead and dead tongues do not speak.

MugiKotobuki8814ism - Worships a jew on a sitck. An utter hypocrite as well. It's stuff like this that makes me want to adopt imperialism I swear.
 * [[File:Tsumugikotobuki8814ism.png]]

Southern Integralism - Christian Conservative
 * [[File:SouthIntegral.png]]

2x2Masterism - Despite our apparent differences I actually do like a few things about you. You support a monarchy, are civically liberal to libertarian, are economically right, and support free speech. However, you appear to be conservative and you have a form of democracy that is cringe.
 * [[File:2x2Master.png]]


 * [[File:Poraj.png]]  Porajism  - Eh honestly your not bad. You are a transhumanist and a Libertarian and I understand the progressive conservatism but you also support liberal democracy and are anti-anarchist while I am neutral on the matter. Theoretically, you are fine with queers due to you having libertarian in your social views but it's not confirmed yet so for now you get a rating of 4 out of ten.


 * [[File:LeninisBasedsmall.png]] CanadianCommunist - Progressive Red Fash. Not much else to say.


 * [[File:NeoLukko.png]] Neo-Lukkoism - I will admit a lot of things scream "yikes" to me mostly your economics with the image you have at the top of your page being unsettling to me personally as no ones tears should be drunk as they are salty. The ultra-progressivism is good as always however race does exist.


 * [[File:Cantonjack.png]] Cantonese Montagnardism - The Cult Of Reason was better than the Cult Of The Supreme Being plus your anti-monarchy.


 * [[File:MurbHat.png]]Neo-Murba - Indonesian Commie. Not sure what else to say here.


 * [[File:HitlerRouge.png]]Hitler Rouge - A majority of your ideas are retarded I do repeat a MAJORITY not all but 99.9 percent are absolute stupidity.


 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - Well what I can tell you is that you are too authoritarian for my tastes though your views on how prison should work are based. You support democracy yet suppress people who are against your brand of communism which is extremely cringe and goes against my views on freedom of speech. You are anti-conservative and anti-social democracy which is good. Progressivism is good as always of course. All in all, I would not like to live in your regime.


 * [[File:bakbax1.png]] Baixian Federalism - Just another Communist tyrant. At least you are progressive.


 * [[File:ChipBowPixels.png]] Chipscreamism - To the wall.


 * [[File:RedTsarina.png]] Red Tsarism - The Tsars are rolling in their grave as we speak. I also do not pretend to be a NS so I have no clue where you got that from. Get to the wall so a proper monarchy can be restored to the land of Russia.


 * - Marxist-Leninism with a dash of Engels. Off to the wall you go commie.


 * [[File:Levathon.png]] Levathonism - Conservative totalitarian retard. Off to the wall!


 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism - Left Anarchist. To the wall!


 * [[File:CheeseCom.png]] Cheese Communism - You disgrace the name of cheese.

WIP