But why are these schools legit then? Just because they were around for long?
LifeFuel UFC fighter Khabib Nurmagomedov publicly humiliates a feminist provoker
But why are these schools legit then? Just because they were around for long?
On what exactly? Salafis, Modernity, Islamic Legal Theory, Theology? A lot of what I said is underpinned by a sprinkling of history as well.
In any case, I would recommend Misquoting Muhammed by Johnathan Brown. It's a good summary of how modern debates are framed in light of historical understandings of the Quran and Hadiths.
The SAME PROBLEM on how to interpret Islam after the prophet died is well summarised. But the DIFFERENT ISSUES Muslims are presented with in the modern age and how to deal with them while being faithful to the Quran/Sunna and the scholastic tradition is what is at stake. In the end he gives no answer how to resolve the impasse, but articulates the crisis that has been happening for the last 200 years perfectly.
I'd say it's intermediate reading. Unless you have basic knowledge of Islam, I wouldn't bother with it.
Yes.
T
muslimity is weird
The history of these various sects and how they came about.
In that sense, I'd read upon light history first, but in regards to a good understanding of early sects, The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology by Timothy Winter is a great introduction. I haven't read the works of al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, al-Razi or Ibn Taymiyyah directly, only here and there, but they're worth reading upon.
When it comes to understanding the legal tradition, I'd still recommend Misquoting Muhammed by Johnathan Brown. Also, Sharia: Theory, Practice, Transformations by Wael Hallq is also good, but he lost me various times...
I've got a pdf of Misquoting Muhammed and I may have Tim Winter's book also, if you want it.
While his fighting style might not be the most entertaining, he is based as a person,
Low IQ, not being a tall and genetically strong Chad makes you a degenerate now? So if athletic performance is your measure of basedness i guess generic leftist feminist NPC jock Chad is more based than every member of this forum combined?
First, I did not understand your definition of "degeneracy". To me, degeneracy is a set of activities that encourages sexually immoral behaviors, such as nudity, promiscuity (pre and extra marital sex), decadence, homosexuality, bestiality, incest etc. For example, sex between a married couple is not degeneracy, but if they post their sexual acts on the internet, that's degeneracy.
If you have a different notion of degeneracy, you have to tell me first.
First, what "banning of art and music" has to do with "degeneracy" and/or "decadence"? I don't understand.
Anyway, the banning of art and music still under debate. But yes, Salafist scholars think like that. There are different schools of thoughts regarding this. According to some of them, if the art and music does not contain nudity and sexual decadence, it's allowed.
Just to add, art, music and other forms of creativity thrived in medieval Islamic times.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Not only that, many artistic styles from the Islamic regime influenced pre-renaissance western European art in many different ways.
en.wikipedia.org
Can you see the Arabic writing in the halo of the virgin Mary in Adoration of the Magi?
In terms of music, many basic treaties in musicology and related technical ideas were thrived among the Arabs.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
So, banning of art and music is not completely true.
Not being athletic and beautiful is degenerate? I don't understand. As I said, clearly we have a completely different understanding of degeneracy. Physical attributes are determined by race, not by religion. Btw, "Muslim" is not race, it's a religion. Lmao, wtf.
There are white muslims:
Black muslims:
Brown muslims:
Asian muslims:
I thought after 30 millions of years, we have surpassed the cavemen requirement of looks, warrior skulls, wide frame etc. I think human mating requirement should be completely determined by his intellect, not how he looks.
Ideology aside, why do we need to be in shape? Numerous kings and rulers around the world were fat and they had harems of concubines and queens, they were patriarchal. I don't see any problem with that.
I am confused, one time you want men to be monks, another time you are telling men to do looksmax, to hit gym. What is the purpose of doing all these if someone wants to become a monk? He's not going to get married or have sex with anyone right? I don't understand your definition of monasticism.
Btw, monasticism is a very unfair, impractical and abusive system. A human male can't go beyond his biology, unless he conditions himself through extreme level of discipline. What is the purpose of it? Moreover, if all men become monks and stop having sex, the entire human race will go extinct. May be that's possible for certain kind of men, but that's impractical for all. Also monasticism can bring different strange kind of degenerate behaviors. Like pedophilia and masochism.
In the context of Islam. Monasticism is neither encouraged nor prohibited. If a man can live his life like a monk with saving himself from sexual urge, he is allowed to do that. There are many Islamic preachers and saints who lived monastic life.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The entire Indian subcontinent was under British rule as late as 1945, my grandfather was born in "British India". Does that mean he was a European? What an utter nonsense. Same applies to almost half of the world.
Jesus was born in Palestine which was under the rule of Roman empire, but Jesus was a not from a Roman ethnic origin. First bible was compiled in Hebrew, not Greek. Btw, Jesus and all people in his locality used to speak in Aramaic, not Hebrew even. That Hebrew bible was compiled 900 years after Jesus's death.
en.wikipedia.org
If you have a different notion of degeneracy, you have to tell me first.
First, what "banning of art and music" has to do with "degeneracy" and/or "decadence"? I don't understand.
Anyway, the banning of art and music still under debate. But yes, Salafist scholars think like that. There are different schools of thoughts regarding this. According to some of them, if the art and music does not contain nudity and sexual decadence, it's allowed.
Just to add, art, music and other forms of creativity thrived in medieval Islamic times.
Islamic art - Wikipedia
Islamic geometric patterns - Wikipedia
Not only that, many artistic styles from the Islamic regime influenced pre-renaissance western European art in many different ways.
Islamic influences on Western art - Wikipedia
Can you see the Arabic writing in the halo of the virgin Mary in Adoration of the Magi?
In terms of music, many basic treaties in musicology and related technical ideas were thrived among the Arabs.
Safi al-Din al-Urmawi - Wikipedia
Kitab al-Musiqa al-Kabir - Wikipedia
Andalusi classical music - Wikipedia
al-Kindi - Wikipedia
So, banning of art and music is not completely true.
Not being athletic and beautiful is degenerate? I don't understand. As I said, clearly we have a completely different understanding of degeneracy. Physical attributes are determined by race, not by religion. Btw, "Muslim" is not race, it's a religion. Lmao, wtf.
There are white muslims:
Black muslims:
Brown muslims:
Asian muslims:
I thought after 30 millions of years, we have surpassed the cavemen requirement of looks, warrior skulls, wide frame etc. I think human mating requirement should be completely determined by his intellect, not how he looks.
Ideology aside, why do we need to be in shape? Numerous kings and rulers around the world were fat and they had harems of concubines and queens, they were patriarchal. I don't see any problem with that.
I am confused, one time you want men to be monks, another time you are telling men to do looksmax, to hit gym. What is the purpose of doing all these if someone wants to become a monk? He's not going to get married or have sex with anyone right? I don't understand your definition of monasticism.
Btw, monasticism is a very unfair, impractical and abusive system. A human male can't go beyond his biology, unless he conditions himself through extreme level of discipline. What is the purpose of it? Moreover, if all men become monks and stop having sex, the entire human race will go extinct. May be that's possible for certain kind of men, but that's impractical for all. Also monasticism can bring different strange kind of degenerate behaviors. Like pedophilia and masochism.
In the context of Islam. Monasticism is neither encouraged nor prohibited. If a man can live his life like a monk with saving himself from sexual urge, he is allowed to do that. There are many Islamic preachers and saints who lived monastic life.
Mu'in al-Din Chishti - Wikipedia
Rabia Basri - Wikipedia
The entire Indian subcontinent was under British rule as late as 1945, my grandfather was born in "British India". Does that mean he was a European? What an utter nonsense. Same applies to almost half of the world.
Jesus was born in Palestine which was under the rule of Roman empire, but Jesus was a not from a Roman ethnic origin. First bible was compiled in Hebrew, not Greek. Btw, Jesus and all people in his locality used to speak in Aramaic, not Hebrew even. That Hebrew bible was compiled 900 years after Jesus's death.
Bible - Wikipedia
Will check it out, I'm sure the epubs are on libgen. Religious history fascinates me for some reason.
B
McGregor is a cocky little faggot.
I'm so fucking happy he got cucked by Khabib in that fight.
I am thinking about taking up the Muslim faith for a while now as the west is fucked.
Degeneracy of culture is present in all kinds of ways, it's not just sexual. I don't really know why people focus just on the sexual aspect. Besides, what religion says and what actually goes on in the current religious community are totally different things. Christianity is more strict than Islam on sexual things yet it's not really respected. The same goes for Islam where people don't really follow that (although they follow these things more than modern Christians, I give you that).
If Islam is "based" because of what it teaches on sexuality (in theory), then Chrisitanity is too. You said something like Islam being the only based ideological system in the world right now which is not really true - it is definitely not true in theory and it is only somewhat true in practice.
I don't think it's that much relevant right now what they were doing in their "golden age" because it doesn't have much meaning today. The current state of the Islamic world is that of cultural impotence and copying of the modern West (which is much worse). It has been like this for quite some time. The Muslims who oppose this tend to be some salafist types and similar people who go to the other extreme and want to ban everything. Remember, you talked about current Islam. I have respect for rare pockets of some sort of 'traditionalist' Islam like in Northern Caucasus and Afghanistan, but that's really a minor part of the Islamic world.
Muslims supposedly live under this strict disciplined religious rules yet so many of them are fat and out of shape. Why are they eating so much and not exercising? Again, Christians are no better today, but I'm not saying that they are more based than Muslims right now. I just don't think that Muslims are that much more disciplined than Christians.
As for beauty, yeah it's a bit irrelevant but it's still interesting how Christians completely mog Muslims on average. If Islam was true, why would God make the followers of the "true religion" less attractive than followers of "false religion"? It doesn't make much sense.
What are you talking about? You know very well how looks matter the most.
It depends what you mean by intelligence. A lot of these "intelligent" men are boring nice guys who like atheism or liberalism for example. I prefer that women like good looking athletic Chads instead who are actually very often religious. Like for example that athletic NFL Chad who remained virgin until marriage or the 6'9'' mogger Tyson Fury. I respect such Chads and moggers more than some intelligent secular humanists who live some boring sheltered life.
Because Muslims like to claim they're alpha and more based than Christians yet then you see these Muslim preachers and they're some short fat guys. It's easy for them to say these things about women and all that when they live in a society which allows them that. They wouldn't last long talking like that if they were looking like this and were born and living in the West as while Christian males. They would get ridiculed and no one would take them seriously.
People say how West is degenerate and soy and it's true for most of society, but the top tier men here are very "alpha". If you want to be taken seriously as a man in the West you have to look a certain way. It's very tough and demanding.
Not necessary monk but I do think that men should strive towards becoming volcel, especially now when the dating/marriage options are so limited or even non-existent.
But for the men who do get married, they should have some manly qualities besides being able to betabuxx.
The purpose is freedom, freedom from desires, freedom for women etc. If you can go without sex you achieve a form of freedom, especially in the modern world.
Many men should go volcel/monk, but those who do get married should have a lot of children.
I think the marriage patterns of European Christian civilization proved to be very good because it ultimately created a lot of moggers and pushed men to do things. Europe practiced free love the most and I read that it lead to for example men getting taller and so on. Obviously the situation which is right now is NOT good and I don't agree with it, but I think that full on "arranged marriage for everyone" betabuxxing like in Islam isn't ideal either. I think there should be some sort of balance between those two extremes.
The territory of Palestine was under huge Greco-Roman cultural influence and is also geographically close to historic European centers of culture. It's different from India which was far away and had a distinct local culture.
Also the climate in the territories where Jesus lived is very similar to climate in many parts of Europe (Mediterranean), the people probably looked somewhat similar to Europeans (at least back then) etc.
I wouldn't even care if Jesus and Christianity were completely foreign in origin, because it's literally irrelevant, but I don't know why people like to say that Christianity is some sort of middle eastern religion from the "desert" when it's not really entirely true.
But like I said, Christianity allows local ethnic cultures to develop and thrive in isolation much more. Europe completely preserved its ethnic differences, we speak different languages, have different cultures etc. in Europe. Islamic world is much more monolitic in that regards, the Arabic language is very important for them and it leads to some sort of Arabization.
While Latin is/was important in Catholicism, it's a bit different because it doesn't have a status of some sort of "holy" language per se. Right now it's not really important at all, masses are in vernacular languages and so on (although I don't agree with that, but still).
Anyway thanks for the Wiki links I'll take a look later on
Last edited:
Understood and agreed.
Agreed.
Don't agree. There are many leeways to (sexual) degeneracy in Christianity. In Christianity, everything is allowed as long as no one is harmed and (((muh love))) is involved. Jesus was not a law giver. He died before he could start speaking anything about the law. The only law that Christians are left with is (Jewish) old testament and that creates lots of problems. Christians don't unanimously agree which part of the old testament they are going to take or not. Therefore, Christianity comes with numerous holes through which different form of (sexual) degeneracy can creep in. Look how homosexuality is legalized by the Vatican.
But In Islam, every law is very specific and precise. Because Muhammad was a law giver and he assumed position of power. Initially Islam was very similar to Christianity in terms of people's conduct and law but later Muhammed came up with more strict rules. For example, initially women were not required to wear veils, but later Muhammed came up with the law of veils (because women with scantily clothes caused problem in the society). Another example is ban on alcohol. Initially it was allowed to drink alcohol, but later Muhammed outlawed it.
Agreed. But that might be true for western Muslims. But Muslims in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, majority follow the Sharia law.
Don't agree. See my 3rd comment.
Not 100% true. But there are real examples where you will find many countries/societies that follow the Sharia law.
Agreed. I just gave an example of "golden age" to show that art or music is not prohibited in a sense that Salafist think.
That's how average human males look like. You can't expect everyone with 6 packs. Which is unnecessary and pointless. My point was even during as late as in the 50s, average western men could get married and have a family without being a 6pack supermodel or crazy rich. A middle class white collar worker with an average looks/physique could get an above average virgin wife and a happy normal family. But we don't have that situation anymore.
Lmao. You know that there was no Christianity before 1st century right? So do you mean before converting into Christianity, all indigenous white Europeans were ugly? Still a large part of Scandinavia is not Christianized, they still follow their indigenous folk religion. You mean they are ugly? Religion can't change how a person looks. Lmao wtf.
I am not a muslim and I don't believe Islam is a true religion. I like the concept of Sharia law and its practical application. Also read my previous comment. You are talking like foids. You decide everything on how people look. This is weird.
Religion does not make a person attractive (or vice versa). White Europeans converted to Christianity from indigenous paganism. 700 years after that Islam came but did not spread through entire European continent because the Islamic conquerors did not have much interest in northern part of Europe. There was nothing there. They were more interested in Asia and Africa, because of economic reasons. It has nothing to do with how people look, lmao. I still don't understand your argument of "if a certain religion is followed by a group of attractive people means that religion is good".
Yes, looks matter the most to "foids".
How many Nobel laureate are chads? How many philosophers/polymaths are chads? Humans are supposed to thrive in those faculties. Not some six packs and jaw line bullshit. Go to any university, any STEM department, you will see 80% of men are ugly and they are the ones who are advancing the human civilization/technology. You will find many chads in psychology, sociology, history and gender studies, but they are only good for making foids pussy wet, that's what they are for.
Damn, you are talking like foids. Foids are attracted to interesting chads, they are never attracted to boring ugly STEMcels.
I still don't understand your obsession with chads. Seriously, your arguments are like those made by women. Everything is based on looks. WTF.
For getting pussy in 2019, yes, you need to look in a certain way. How many US presidents were Chads? Was Hitler a chad? No. Was Chenghis Khan a chad? No. Was Saladdin a chad? No. How many world leaders are chads? Were they betas?
I don't understand. By "volcel", you mean a guy can get pussy but he won't fuck right? He can get laid anyway, so by the definition of "volcel", his dating option is not limited. Your statement does not make any sense.
What do you mean by "manly" quality? Six pack, chiseled jaw, being tall? As I have said, I thought we have left that cavemen phase a long time ago.
"Want to have sex" is not a choice, it's a biological need. Like breathing, hunger, shitting and pissing. These "freedom from desire" is BS. Yes, if you are talking about desire to have 10-some with 9 women then it makes sense. In that case, that's a choice and you can control yourself from becoming a sexually degenerate animal who lives on his libido.
Does not make sense. Read my above comments.
That was mostly arranged marriage even as late as in the 40s. Sexual (((revolution))) started during the 60s-70s. It's a post-modernist concept.
Men did not get taller because of free love. WTF. It mostly depends on economic development.
Why a country's average height is a good way of measuring its development
Nations that are taller tend to be wealthier and in better health. Find out why else the OECD use it as an indicator of a country’s well-being
"Free love" is sexual degeneracy. Situation will get worse in the future and your entire western civilization will collapse because of it. Also it will drag the entire human civilization into ashtray, as this degeneracy is now spreading across the world like wild fire.
There was no similarity in indigenous Palestinian culture and Greco-roman culture. You have no freaking idea what you are talking about. Language, music, art, religion, food, clothing, everything was completely different. Wtf.
No. The weather is/was similar to, may be Southern Italy, Greece, Sicily and northern Africa.
No, middle-easterners looked completely different from the people of Scandinavia and Germanic people. You are completely crazy.
I would strongly suggest you to see the world map. See where is Palestine and where is Europe. Also look at the corresponding geography and landscape. I have nothing to say here.
Not true at all. Christianity completely obliterated the local ethnic culture in pre-christian Europe. The effect was so severe that even people don't remember the name of their folk religion, they call it "heathenism" or "paganism". White people completely forgot their pre-christian language, writing systems etc. The effacement was so severe that still archeologists can't figure out the purpose of many ancient relics, for example "Stone Henge", "Menhir", "Crom Crauch" etc.
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia
Christianity and paganism - Wikipedia
Christianisation of the Germanic peoples - Wikipedia
10 Christian Holidays and Beliefs Steeped in Pagan Traditions - History Collection
Pagan traditions and celebrations preceded the onset of Christianity. Arising spontaneously in the ancient world, holidays and feasts developed in Syria and Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia, in Gaul and the dark woods of present-day Germany, and in the Roman Empire. The Norse of Scandinavia, the...
historycollection.co
How Christianity came to Medieval Europe - Medievalists.net
Nearly all the lands of Europe converted to Christianity during the Middle Ages. In this short guide, we take a look at how various lands adopted Christianity, including by means of missionary efforts, politics and warfare.
www.medievalists.net
But indigenous Europeans managed to retain some pagan practices into European christianity, for example "Christmas Tree", "Fish symbol" and many many more.
Christian Fish. Why?
The Christian Fish symbol. (Huh? Can fish be Christian?) An ancient symbol that has seen a revival in Christian circles, although not universally.
www.seiyaku.com
The modern European Christianity is a strange mish-mash of middle-eastern Abrahamic monotheism and pre-christian European paganism. The only branch of Christianity that is more close to the original one is Coptic Church/Eastern orthodox church.
True. All middle eastern religions are like that. They completely destroy the local culture.
When I talk about Christianity I mean Catholicism. You confuse/associate Christianity with Protestantism which is vastly different from Catholicism. Most people aren't really familiar with the Catholic Christian doctrine today because the dominant Anglo civilization is Protestant and thus people associate Christianity with their cultural "Christian" (Judeo-Protestant) views.
In Catholicism, there is law (Cannon law), there are cathecism, everything is clearly defined. Even in these modern liberal times the Catholic Church didn't change the view on sexuality, it's just that people don't follow it that much and priests don't stress it. But it's still there. For example you're not supposed to masturbate, not supposed to have premarital sex etc. It's all still there and this will never change.
Christianity has a Catholic Church which has tradition from the first apostles and there is a clearly defined doctrine about everything. In fact things are much more open to interpretation in Islam because Islam doesn't have a pope, doesn't have a church. Islam and Protestantism are similar in the sense that they both rely on the holy book so much (Quran/Bible) which leaves them open for interpretation while in Catholicism the Church is supposed to give you interpretation. For example a Catholic can't just say "oh I think this is actually allowed because I feel like it after reading the Bible" if the Church explicitely bans it.
Most of modern Christian degeneracy comes from Protestantism which first translated the Bible into vernacular languages (while the Church insisted on a specific translation into Latin) which could lead to a lot of misunderstandings and wrong translations, and by basically allowing anyone to interprete the Bible how he wants, destroying the tradition. Catholicism also became heavily protestantized, especially after Second Vatican Council. This is where most of modern degeneracy among Catholics started too. But even now, the doctrine still stands, things can't be changed that easily.
Research what Catholic teachings say on sexuality, it's all very clear and it still stands. Even liberal popes like John Paul II were saying things like "only chaste people are capable of love" etc. implying that if you live a promiscious life you will not be able to have a good marital relationship.
What are you talking about?
The problem with that situation was that it allowed men who were liberal-minded and degenerate in every way to marry young women and live in their little bubble. This is what created the situation we have today.
I don't think that solely looks should matter, but I do think that men should prove themselves in some sort of manly courageous endeavor to "win" women.
Unfortunately, the modern Western society almost completely eradicated the chances for men to prove their manliness, so it all comes down to looks alone pretty much. The rare exceptions are statusmaxxing and athletemaxxing, but this is very hard to achieve. However the opposite extreme of that where everyone could marry and betabuxx makes men lazy.
But why wouldn't God make Muslims better looking after they converted?
Islamic conquerors were beaten otherwise they would try to conquer because literally their religion tells them that they need to conquer the entire world. They would never be able to conquer Europe, they didn't have the tools for it. Their armies were not suited to fight in European cold forested terrain.
Also I think northern Europe was a rich with materials like iron ore and other things. They would definitely benefit if they could expand but that would never be possible.
Well ultimately it's part of some God's wisdom why women don't prefer guys like that. I think these intelligent guys should become volcels and have more time for their studies like Tesla. I don't really give much damn about progress anyway, I would prefer a religious society of pious men over progressive society that worships science for the sake of it. Altough Catholic Church was pro-science too, Western civilization was basically (re)build by monks.
In a religious society where sex isn't promoted anywhere and such people aren't bullied for lack of it, I think many people would happily be volcels or find someone to marry if monogamy is enforced.
In a society with manly patriarchal religious values, a lot of men could get women by being masculine and displaying some sort of courage, becoming warriors etc. Hitler was ultimately very attractive to women because of his status despite not being extremely good looking.
The reason why looks only matter today is because 1) lack of monogamy 2) men have very little other options to show their manliness other by superficial manly masculine looks.
Also most modern world leaders today are simply soy politicians, they're not warriors.
Back in history a lot of warrior leaders were Chads like the first crusade informal leader Bohemund of Tarento.
[Historypill] Daughter of Byzantine emperor describes Crusader GIGA-Chad Bohemund of Taranto
Crusaders were moggers. If you read the accounts of Anna Komnene, daughter of Byzantine emperor Alexios I., and her physical descriptions of the crusaders, you can clearly see that the crusaders mogged the Byzantines from Adrianople to Antioch. She was definitely attracted to them even though...
incels.is
I think most men could get sex with prostitutes. If they're not going to prostitutes they're some sort of volcel.
Traditional religious masculinity like being pious, warrior, disciplined. But obviously looks play a certain part too, they always did. Even in the middle ages people always praised good looking men in historic accounts, they stressed if a certain man was handsome and so on.
People can go without sex their entire lives, a lot of volcels through history who were perfectly satisfied with such lives. If some man can do it you can do it too because it's a matter of will.
Also if you bring biology as an argument then you also need to accept biology when it comes to women preferring looks over whatever else.
Christian European society didn't have such strict adherence to arranged marriages. I think women had a certain say even in the middle ages, the Church actually pushed for this. Like for example women could reject a certain guy, marriage wasn't valid if both people didn't agree to it. I think among common people marriages out of love happened.
Also you have the entire courtship culture and knights fighting each other on tournaments to win women by proving that they were manlier than their opponents and showing off their masculinity.
I heard that in reconquista Spain Chads could kidnap brides and it was somewhat accepted because those Chads could then settle on a warzone and people like warlike daring men like them because of times of war.
I read that Europeans are some of the least inbred people. Extreme arranged marriages like in parts of Muslim world or in India can lead to things like cousins marrying or a father selling of his daughter to some incel rich guy.
I never said that the current situation is good anyway. It's only good in the sense that it introduces some chaos in society and pushes for changes. I think the situation now is better than let's say in 1970s.
Here’s Why the Dutch Are So Tall
A new study shows natural selection is alive and well in the Netherlands
I read this study. Not sure if I agree with it, just pointing out what I read. Make of that what you will.
Also in certain economically developed countries men are still short (Japan, South Korea) while Balkans are a shithole yet has the tallest men in the world in some parts (Dinaric Alps).
I'm not saying there is similarity but Europeans conquered Palestine long time ago and introduced their culture. Christianity was born in post-hellenistic Roman world. All I'm saying is it wasn't completely foreign.
For example Palestine at that time was as much European as Latin America was in say 19th century.
But look at Jesus, he is portrayed as a Nordic man. People are going to say "that's just art" but I believe there is some truth to that, I don't know why Jesus would have us having this wrong picture of him.
But you said yourself that Christianity retained remains of paganism so could it have obliterated the pre-Christian Europe?
Catholicism retained some pagan things because it's a vastly different religion in that regard as Islam and Protestantism. Islam and Protestantism tried to eradicate everything that existed before their religions but in Catholic interpretation a lot of things were allowed or were interpretated in some sort of Christian way.
A lot of things you talk about dissappeared also regardless of Christianity, certain cultures were simply forgotten or conquered by other people.
When it comes to non-religious things, European cultures are very diverse. For examples us Slavs retained a lot of distinct characteristics and a lot of them probably go to the times before Christianity.
I'm not very familiar with differences between Catholics and Protestants. But a quick google search reveals Catholics are as sexually degenerates as any other groups of Christians. The amount of gymnastics to normalize faggotry by Cathlic church is astounding.
Catholic Church and homosexuality - Wikipedia
There are full blown "Gay Catholic Priests".
Pastoral care for LGBT Catholics - Wikipedia
Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
The above wiki links say the opposite.
In other matters, may be true, Quran leaves leeways for interpretations. But in terms of sexual conduct and sexual norms, Quran is extremely clear. Moreover, Islam has a thing called "Hadeeths", which is basically interpretation and application of Quaranic verses by Muhammed. No muslim is allowed to go past Hadeeths. Sharia law is in fact, 90% based on Hadeeths. They are very precise, clear and specific regarding homosexuality and other kind of sexual degeneracies/misconduct/abnormalities.
I was talking about this:
Pope Francis and LGBT topics - Wikipedia
No. The situation of today was caused by feminism and so called "women empowerment" bs. Obviously women will choose men according to how they look. This is how they are hardwired. Therefore feminists are vehemently against the concept of arranged marriage and pushing degenerate ideas like "autonomy of uterus" and "my body my choice" etc.
To "win" women in 2019, you need to be tall and have a chiseled face. You can't change or control how you look. But you can control how you can be successful in other aspects of your life through hard work and dedication. Being a chad does not require any hard work, you just need to be born as a chad. Mate selection based on looks is completely unfair and extremely detriment to human advancement as a whole. It's primitive.
No, being a top-tier high-end betabuxx requires enormous amount of hard work and perseverance. Try being a top level white collar employee in any big corporation, you will understand what I mean. Lazy people can't achieve that. You are seriously wrong regarding this.
Seriously I don't understand this statement. Religion does not change your genetics. I completely failed to grasp your idea.
Lmao, even Byzantine empire didn't bother go north above Spain and Italy. There was nothing of value there. Even if you assume there was no Byzantine empire, no one would bother to spend money and resources to organize an army, risking their lives to venture into some cold, agriculturally barren land full of mountains and non-edible vegetations where in return you get nothing. Romans did, but all of their capitals were located in South or East. They had least amount of taxes from places like Britannia (UK) and Gallia/Aquitania (Germany/France). There was literally nothing of value there. Romans tried to expand into east and southern part of Africa but failed.
We were talking about time around 500-700 AD. Iron ore became valuable after industrial revolution, you are talking about stuffs that happened 1000 years after that. Medieval rulers used to rule over lands that expanded over multiple continents, they were not stupid. Euphrates delta or Silk road is more economically viable and strategically important than some fjord in Norway. Simple common sense.
No, that's not God's will. That't a result of crippling shallowness in women's mental faculty. Women are governed by visual aesthetics. This is exactly why women should not be allowed to make any kind of important decisions. They don't follow logic, they make their decisions based on "feels" and "tingles". Please read why there are so many single mothers in the west.
No, western civilization was built on money and resources plundered from gullible people and traitors all over the world. European colonialism has an extremely dark and bloody past.
That's just one example. I don't want to get into this matter.
That was my point, you can achieve status by using your other qualities, or at least you can try or work on it. But you can't change how you look or how tall you are.
No. Looks matter the most today because of the "sexual freedom/revolution" and "feminism". When you give power to women, this is what you get.
I think, they were not mentally sound, suffered from some sort of low libido problems.
I simply don't understand why would someone will strive for greatness through gymmaxxing, looksmaxxing, careermaxxing, statusmaxxing and moneymaxxing just to stay a volcel. I don't understand this mindset. This sounds stupid.
That's exactly why women shouldn't have much say about whom they are going to get married. You can see the end result of western women in 2019. The west gave them rights and "freedom of vagina", thought it will do some good. But didn't work. Now it's a complete shit-show.
Clearly you are unfamiliar about the concept of "arranged marriage". I am not talking about "forced marriage" or "marriage by kidnapping". In an arranged marriage, bride and groom have their say, along with the decisions from senior members from both families. See this video, you will understand what I mean (although I despise TRP, but this guy is right on some points):
Current western marriage is mostly "hormonal marriage" or "marriage out of feels and tingles", most of the time they are not a well-thought, conscious decision. Most importantly, the marriage is now between "two people", but in the past, it used to be between "two families". Arranged marriage still maintain this societal value. When more than two people engage in making a life long decision, it adds more value to it. Therefore, couple tend to stay and compromise each other to keep a family intact. But when a marriage happens out of "dates" and "sex", it becomes "over" as soon as the flow of hormone subsides.
I don't understand how this "inbred people" meme came from. No, cousin marriage is not common in India (Cousin marriage is not allowed in Hinduism). It's not common in most of the Islamic world either. In one or two countries, yes. I guess inbreeding is more common in Alabama than in Pakistan.
Also cousin marriage is allowed in Islam, but that does not mean it's some kind of degenerate sexual practices like brother-sister, mom-son, father-daughter incest. The later kind is more common in the west than in the Islamic world.
I read this study. Not sure if I agree with it, just pointing out what I read. Make of that what you will.Here’s Why the Dutch Are So Tall
A new study shows natural selection is alive and well in the Netherlandswww.smithsonianmag.com
Well, your study says,
Betabuxxing? So, in an arranged marriage scenario, they will be chosen anyway. Btw, Dutch people are already tall (before sexual revolution), if two tall human breed, their offspring will be tall anyway. Also their economy drastically improved after the colonial era, so that might also contributed. Interestingly the author is an SJW feminist (see her web page), obviously she will explain everything from her point of view i.e. "free sex is good".
Btw, I don't understand what is the purpose of being tall? How does it help to human kind as a whole?
There you go. You just proved my point. Japan and south Korea don't have arranged marriage anymore, but still they are short.
What do you mean by "much European"? I don't understand. Palestine was Roman colony, but a Palestinian is still a Palestinian, not a Roman.
When Christian missionaries went to Africa, African followers drew Jesus as a black man. When they went to China, Chinese people drew him as a Chinese man. This is how human minds work. Common sense. Jesus would look like his own people, he was never described to be looked like a Roman.
What I tried to mean, the persecution was so severe, people had to resort to Christianize their local customs, or they were only allowed to keep some customs that don't directly contradict with the theology, like decorating with Wreaths, Christmas Tree etc. Now people do PhDs on finding the roots of these customs.
Well, if you look closely, Islam also allows to keep the local customs if it does not interfere with the doctrine. Every country has their own representation of Islam, from clothings, language to the way of celebrating principal religious days.
But anyway, both religions destroys local indigenous customs.
These are the only two photos of Khabib's wife on the internet:
Dagestan is one of the rare places on the planet which isn't cucked. A fortress of dignity and culture of proud mountain warrior men.
That would be based as fuck, ngl
Would probably turn out to be a pretty badass country if the main focus was resisting the worldwide cuck order.
I'm not very familiar with differences between Catholics and Protestants. But a quick google search reveals Catholics are as sexually degenerates as any other groups of Christians. The amount of gymnastics to normalize faggotry by Cathlic church is astounding.
Catholic Church and homosexuality - Wikipedia
There are full blown "Gay Catholic Priests".
Pastoral care for LGBT Catholics - Wikipedia
Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
I don't know where you see anything sexually degenerate in these links. Catholicism is explicitely against sodomy and always has been. Homosexuality is a modern concept, the term never existed before 19th century. What the is a "homosexual" anyway? Unless you're performing sodomy you're not doing anything immoral from any sexual perspective.
By the standards of modern Western liberal ideology (which I don't agree with), pretty much anything is "homosexual", for example people think that me posting pictures of male boxers who wear only shorts is "homosexual". A lot of Muslims like Khabib would be described as "homosexual" by these retards because they hang out with other males mostly or exclusively. It doesn't mean anything. It's some weird notion where you're supposedly defined by some supposed sexual preference (that people can't even prove) and it defines your life. The post-Vatican 2. council Church unfortunately adopted this Western concept of homosexuality in a certain way, but it never accepted sodomy or any types of sexual acts associated with it. Therefore the modern Catholic position is that if someone is "homosexual" in such way as understood by modern society (is attracted to other men) he needs to remain celibate and not act on those desires, basically become volcel. This is why priests now define themselves as "gay" (which is stupid, but it doesn't mean they're gay in the sense that they're actually having sex with other men, they're simply volcels).
If you agree with this modern concept of homosexuality (apparently you do, since you keep using that term) where you're supposedly born with it, then what do you expect the Church or society to do about it? By your interpretation then homosexuality is something you were born with and you can't change so the Church would have to include these people in Christianity somehow as well. The Church can't reject ANY human being. Everything else would be some sort of Protestant Judaic-like predetermination theory where God supposedly already doomed some people and predestined them to hell, which I think Muslims also believe in. This is not a Christian belief and it never was.
Back in the pre-modern era, the concept of homosexuality didn't exist and it was all about being against sodomy (sex without intention to reproduce, which includes any type of "gay" sex by default). I have this medieval conception as well, I view any type of sodomy as equally bad (doesn't matter if it's between man and woman or man and man). I don't know why "homosexuality" should be held to different standard than "straight" people having sex and using contraceptives or even worse abortion. The only valid way to have sex in Christian (Catholic) view is in marriage and to have children. This is more strict then in Islam where I think people are allowed to have sex for pleasure. In Catholicism any type of sex that is purely for pleasure is wrong. Catholicism is much more against sexual degeneracy than Islam can ever be.
The situation today was caused by liberalism and secularism producing weak men. Feminism was simply a way for women to rebel against these weak men and expressing their desires for masculine dark triad Chads. We now see the conclusion of this.
I'm talking about how it should be in some "perfect" society. I think in ideal society with monogamy and premarital sex being banned, things would still work out well like they did in the past.
Boring nice guy "intelligent" men should never be rewarded. Women should be primarily married to athletic masculine warrior men who show courage in battles or other manly activities.
I respect athletes much more than any white collar worker. A Chad athlete > fat "high end" betabuxxer.
But Byzantines and Muslims tried to conquer Western Europe and failed. Muslims got humiliated at Poitiers and completely crushed in Italy, destroyed at Sicily. Even during the "golden age" of Islam a handful of Normans easily conquered parts of North Africa. Small crusader armies conquered huge cities in the most advanced part of Muslim world and held them for 200 years. Muslims ultimately got completely defeated at Spain and were losing decisively and in humiliating fashion for centuries.
Also if European territories were so worthless then it just speaks more about how great European Christendom was that it managed to transform Europe into what eventually conquered the entire world.
Looks also cause other things in life. Men who are good looking are generally going to be more confident, have more positive outlook on life (because of validation), they're more high energy etc. In the modern soy society, good looking Chads are the closest to resembling some masculine traits.
A lot of blackpillers also point this out how looks govern a lot of things in your life. A good looking Chad is generally going to be more fun to hang around with than a depressive unattractive sub8 man. You fail to accept the fact that most average men are simply very boring.
No, western civilization was built on money and resources plundered from gullible people and traitors all over the world. European colonialism has an extremely dark and bloody past.
That's just one example. I don't want to get into this matter.
Europeans deserved these resources because they conquered those lands through war and domination and they rightfully belonged to them since then. The Indians got crushed and humiliated, they proved too weak to defend their resources, they were not strong enough to prevent that. You're just repeating some SJW mantra that is ironically pushed also by modern feminists where colonization is somehow "unfair". I think it's only just that cultures with better warriors and military can conquer weaker culture because ultimately God decides who wins battles. If you lost battles that ultimately means you angered God with something. I think Indians were punished because of their paganism. They were worshipping idols and false gods. I feel like this was God's punishment for them.
Orthodox Christians were also conquered and colonized in the past (by the Ottomans and the Mongols), and they don't whine about it.
Because you don't do these things just for women.
But why is it a bad thing if women's preferences are destroying a secular liberal society that I never liked in the first place? It is God's punishment for abandoning Christianity.
Last edited:
Even though they are trying to be "inclusive" to faggots. I don't understand this stance.
Not at all. It's a very ancient degenerate activity (like incest). You need to read about Prophet Lot.
I don't understand this Catholic attempt to differentiate "homosexuality" and "sodomy" as two different things. "Homosexuality" is a "tendency/mental-state", it's a state of the human mind resulted from recurrent and continuous degenerate thoughts of having sex with other men. "Sodomy" is an action, it happens when a human mind becomes so rotten with thoughts of having sex with another men that they can't control themselves and start sticking his dick into another man's ass. "Homosexuality" is nothing but a mental state that prepares a man to engage in "Sodomy".
If Catholic church are okay with men with "homosexual tendency", then why they are not okay with men with "incest tendency"? The moral discourse to condone homosexual tendency can be applied to condone incest as well.
I don't agree with the modern concept of homosexuality. No one is born homosexual. It was not my interpretation of homosexuality. Not even interpreted by modern science. This interpretation is pushed by "psychologists" backed by the Christian west.
As I have said, homosexuality is a very ancient sexual degeneracy. Read about prophet Lot.
Because it's unnatural, disgusting, one of the most abnormal forms to fulfill one's lust and sexual need. What is the problem with incest? Assuming a mother and her adult son want to have "just sex"? The moral discourse to condone homosexuality can be applied to normalize incest. That's why homosexuality is different from straight people having sex.
Be realistic. We don't live in medieval times any more.
Everyone has their places, an athlete can't run a huge corporation, where a CEO can't become an athlete. What about plumbers? What about street-cleaners? What about garbage collectors? How does your "ideal society" deal with them?
No. Read the history. Byzantine empire was attacked by north-western Europeans multiple times (mostly by Vikings and Goths), all the wars they fought were "defensive", not "offensive". Byzantines never bothered to venture into northern lands, because the net outcome is zero. Vikings and Goths never manage to form any government or empires or civilization in that sense. They were called "Barbarians".
You are talking about things when the Umayyad Caliphate was already in decline. They even couldn't defeat the smallest rulers in India, although those rulers were completely disintegrated and ruled over small provinces.
That was shear luck, there were numerous empires and civilization before that, that ruled over thousands of years and also forgotten. European christendom is nothing different than those.
There is a difference. Europeans did not conquer large empires through active wars. In most cases, those empires were already in decline or they conquered places where people were already scattered without any strong leadership. Read the history, how Europeans seeped into already existing monarchies through backstabbing, bribery and corruption.
Again, read the history. There was never a full fledge war in India to be conquered by the Europeans. Europeans creeped into the existing monarchy through their cunningness, shrewdness, backstabbing and introduction of corruption. Read how East India Company took over India and many parts of Asia and Africa. Through manipulation of already weaken and corrupted regime and bribery.
Because you don't need to. Because it's your time, so enjoy it. Many empires existed for thousands of years, ruled over multiple continents and went extinct. The reign of the Western Europe started like 700 years ago, your people have just started. Kek, even there was a time when sun never set in the British empire, look at them now, they are now just a vassal state of the US. Empires come and go, that's what history is.
You will whine when you will be taken over by some other nation (may be by china? I don't know what it will be, but it will happen) and become a forgotten history. You are already in decline, btw.
I'm not saying it's bad. Just saying this is what it supposed to be and that's exactly what's happening.
Last edited:
These are the only two photos of Khabib's wife on the internet:
Dagestan is one of the rare places on the planet which isn't cucked. A fortress of dignity and culture of proud mountain warrior men.
D
Based. It's a shame that the west is so cucked tbh
The term homosexuality never existed before the 19th century. The concept of homosexuality is that there exist something separate from sodomy and it makes no sense. The Church always condemned sodomy.
There is no other concept of homosexuality than modern concept because homosexuality is a modern term that is barely around 150 years old.
The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation").
Do you understand that the Church can't reject any person in the world from becoming a Christian? I don't know why some people think that the Church should be like some elitist Nazi party and banning "degenerates" and "subhumans" from its ranks. The Church was always universal, but it also has very clearly defined what the sins are. It never condoned men having sex with other men and never will. But if a man who did such things wants to convert to Christianity then the Church can't stop him.
You tried to make it look like Catholic Church allows men having sex with other men just like certain Protestant and Muslim groups (yes, there are pro-"LGBT" Muslim groups in the West too).
The modern Catholic position is simply that men who are in the confusion of our times identified as "homosexuals" without actually performing sodomy are ok as long as they remain celibate and don't participate in it. And this modern liberal it's not even a position many Catholics have anyway. Like I said, I don't fully agree with it myself as I don't give any meaning whatsoever to this term homosexual and I don't think it should be used because it just creates further confusion and yeah I'm also in agreement with you that desires shouldn't be justified like that either. However even that liberal modern Catholic position is far from advocating homosexual sexuality. It's not some dogma either and it could be changed quickly by a potentially more traditional pope, someone like cardinal Sarah who already spoke a lot against LGBT ideology and said that it is one of the biggest dangers or something like that. He also repeatedly spoke against all types of feminism.
Cardinal Sarah: 'Contraceptive mentality’ led to LGBT takeover of children’s schools - LifeSite
The Cardinal also blamed the 'contraceptive mentality' for the widespread acceptance of homosexuality.
www.lifesitenews.com
The current Western countries are secular and anti-Christian.
It looks to me like you just want to lump the entire Western society together (with all its degeneracy) and declare it "Christian" as opposed to some supposedly less degenerate Muslim society.
Any type of sex that is not meant for procreation is equally unnatural. This is for example where only Catholicism is really coherent to me (out of Abrahamic religions at least, I'm not familiar enough with others) because in Islam they allow sex for pleasure. I could argue in your style that once you allow that, then you open the doors to "homosexuality" as well. I don't necessary agree to that but using your logic I could easily make that argument.
People who oppose this imaginary "homosexuality" but promote other forms of sodomy are just hypocrites to. It's literally the cause of why for example conservatives are fine with some white Chad fucking all the women in the town but complain that someone "acts gay". Catholicism is literally the only ideology (in the West) that is consistent on sexuality.
What is realistic anyway? Banning homosexuality in the West or whatever you would like to do isn't either.
Why do you keep talking about Northern Europe when we're talking about Europe in general? Both Muslims and Byzantines tried to attack Europe multiple times and got defeated (although Muslims did have success in Spain initially). They both got beaten out of Italy, are you saying that Italy somehow wasn't interesting to them? Po Valley was one of the richest regions in the middle ages. Byzantines got beaten in Italy by Lombards, Normans, lost countless battles to Venice etc. Just look up on the wars that Byzantines fought against those people. Muslims got beaten by Normans who took over Sicily and then even took a lot of territories in North Africa.
This isn't such a shame for Muslims and Byzantines because they were deep in the "enemy territory" and it doesn't prove that Western Europe was stronger per se, but it does show that Western Europe was more than strong enough to defend itself at that time. No one would be able to conquer it no matter how much they tried.
Europeans had naval superiority and Italian merchant republics like Venice were dominating the Mediterranean. The Muslims or Byzantines could not run them out. This is why the crusader states remained for so long because Europeans were superior on the sea and could deploy troups in outremer. Venice and Genoa also established colonies as far away as Black Sea. Crusaders sacked Constantinople before Muslims did etc.
Also even if you want to talk about Northern Europe specifically, those lands were very important, which is why the powerful and rich Hanseatic league of merchant guilds developed there.
Hanseatic League - Wikipedia
You don't dominate the entire world by sheer luck. European Christendom simply established a civilization that had the right mixture of civilized technology and old warrior barbaric mentality.
I think you put too much emphasis on people being civilized alone. For sure, India, China etc. were civilized, probably even more than Europeans, but they failed to have that conqueror and explorer mentality. For some reason the Chinese simply didn't decide to venture out.
I think the Christian element in European civilization where you need to spread religion globally made Europeans more aggressive in expanding. Muslims had that too but they hit the wall eventually.
IMO Christianity is what ultimately made Europe great, I don't believe in some racial superiority or whatever just to make that clear. The current West is still white but it's just total degeneracy now after Chrisitanity was removed.
Those empires and civilizations were definitely strong but they never came even close to being relevant in the entire world. European civilization conquered the entire world and Christianity is relevant and exists in every part of the globe right now.
Christian civilization in Europe (that unfortunately degenerated into what we have now, ie. The West) managed to impose itself on the entire world which is why the entire world is westernized right now at least to some extent. The West right now is degenerate and I don't defend it and I'd actually rather see some non-Western cultures thriving as an alternative, but this simply isn't happening other than some isolated pockets somewhere. Even in Dagestan and North Caucasus they're worshipping Khabib who in the end is nothing but a prizefighter for Western entertainment purposes. Muslims are massive West-worshippers in their own way and get more and more westernized every day. India, China, same thing.
The reason why the West is so degenerate right now has a lot to do with the fact that there is simply no one left to fight anymore so the society turned to decadence, feeling too secure. The right wingers want to desperately create this imaginary Muslim "enemy" to wake people up but it's not working because Islam simply (unfortunately) isn't an obstacle for the West. It took me a while to realize this.
I would be the first person to encourage non-Westerners to stand up against the West but frankly it's not going to happen unless the West degenerates to the point where it's just going to be a rotten corpse. But even in that case I think the likes of China would just start to act like they're more western than the Westerners just like Byzantines called themselves Roman and so on. I don't think we'll ever go into some non-Western world against so to speak. It's either going back to some Western type of patriarchy and stability or just full on Western-style degeneracy.
But these diplomatic victories are almost always a result of some actually military threat behind it. For example Ottomans also conquered the Balkans by using skilled diplomacy and exploiting the weak existing monarchies. However the reason why they could do that was because they also had a large and capable military that could invade and enforce things.
Like I said, complaining about Europeans conquering and colonizing would be like me complaining about Ottomans doing the same to the south-eastern Europeans. I rather simply accept the fact that they were a strong empire that did what every empire would and tried to expand as far as possible. Their expansion was definitely "deserved" and justified, but so was the rebelion against it. The same goes for Britain and India.
The rise of Europe started with Greece and it was never really completely broken since then, you can always trace some clear continuity. There were brief darker ages here and there but even in those ages certain European people were still strong and carried the torch. For example even after Roman empire collapsed pockets of civilization remained everywhere. Certain states like republic of Venice emerged soon after. In fact it's difficult to even pin-point when Roman empire ceased to exist anyway for that reason.
Western Europe was already dominant from around 1000 on, certainly since 1100 on (read about the renaissance of the 12th century). Again, crusades prove this because such operation would not be possible without being at least on an equal level as the Muslim lands at the time.
I would say that in certain points, certain non-European empires were the strongest in the world individually. For example Mongols at their peak, Ottoman empire etc. You can't really pick a single European state at that time that would compare to those superpowers.
However these other empires never came close to being truly global, the new world (Americas) was only discovered (by Europeans) roughly 500 years ago and remained largely untouched by other people from the old world, only Europeans really expanded there. Nothing equaivalent to the modern West ever existed - which I don't support anyway. But it is a result of Christian European civilization and its dominance. I'm not enjoying what is going on now in the least, but I guess this is just a case of good times create bad men create bad times scenario.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
