Migrant invasion of Europe

La Águila Negra

Kingfisher
With great pleasure.

'The system of numbering in use all round the world is probably Indian in origin but the style of the numerals is Arabic and first appears in print in the work of the Muslim mathematicians al-Khwarizmi and al-Kindi around 825. Algebra was named after al-Khwarizmi's book, Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah, much of whose contents are still in use.

'The work of Muslim maths scholars was imported into Europe 300 years later by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci. Algorithms and much of the theory of trigonometry came from the Muslim world. And Al-Kindi's discovery of frequency analysis rendered all the codes of the ancient world soluble and created the basis of modern cryptology.'


FYI, Fibonacci studied at Bugia (Béjaïa in modern Algeria), which is where he came into contact with what we now term Western Arabic numerals (0-9).

If you're interested in the intersection of mathematics and design, do check out the following chart; the East Asian numerals are aesthetically wonderful:

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. Apology accepted!

Unfortunately it seems your old habits really die hard. Muddying the water by throwing in tons of irrelevant facts to create an aura of authority around yourself, come on my bro.

I'll repeat it here just so you don't bury it again with your deflective antics. The numerical system originates in India and was plagiarised by the Arabs whose contemporary religious decendants and their leftist bootlickers try to use it as some sort of proof of religious supremacy.

My bro, I chuckled at that globohomo article you posted. Goat herder in Ethiopia throws some random ingredients in a pot and now we have to be eternally thankful to the muslim world for widespread caffeine addiction. Mentally ill man jumps of a muslim Church with some blankets tied to his body and he *poof* invents the' flying machine'. Some folk in Persia play an (from India imported) board game vaguely similar to chess so hey, let's just put that on the list anyway

I am also quite sure that globohomo journalist doesn't really understand the science behind photography. The inventor of the first camera is of course Johann Zahn but hey if you can turn Beethoven into a Black dude you can also tell the masses that the roots of European culture lays in mosques and madrassas

My bro, these people are desperate for the narrative to hold. At this point they are just throwing everything against the wall in the hope something sticks!

In all seriousness though, your posts are a perfect example of the inverted Clownworld reality we live in. You say that we should be thankful to Muslims, when instead it's the opposite. You say that Christian culture and sciences are heavily influenced by Islam and Arabic thinkers, when in reality its the opposite. You say that islam wants to coexist, when in reality its the opposite

Etc.

The icing on the clownworldcake is, to me, the near (on purpose?) forgotten reality of Nestorian and Assyrian dhimmi scientists populating the kingly courts, the centers of learning and the administrational centers in nearly all muslim empires from the 8th till the 12th century. They were the ones continuing at least some of the scientific legacy. They were the ones translating the texts from Syriac/Greek/Latin to Arabic. Famous centers of Christian learning in the muslim world were Nisibis, Edessa, Alexandria and Gudeshanpur.
 

LeoniusD

Kingfisher
The problem is that while we are here debunking those trivial lies we are not investing our time and energy in something more productive.

I've seen this discussion (with politicians usually) a hundred times, you notice something bad (so many law-breaking muslims suddenly !?) and here is how it goes :
1. It's not true. You must had bad luck/live in a bad neighborhood, we have statistics, don't trust your eyes trust us instead.
2. Ok we lied, of course it was true. But it was always like that ! This is where A1 is, "islam was always in europe", right.
3. Ok we lied, it wasn't like that before. But it's good for them, and for you, and society, and us. What are you, a nazi ?
4. Ok we lied, it wasn't good for anybody except a small elite, but it's there now, what were you gonna do anyway ?
5. Ok we lied, many things could have been done, the most you wait the more extreme they will have to be and unfortunately the wait was long enough that no more solution is possible within the realm of legality and peace. Oh by the way, we discussed this among ourselves and had a law made, if you continue discussing this you go to jail.

Good luck !

PS I'm sure somebody formalized this more seriously, some revolutionary maybe ? If somebody has a link it's always interesting imho.

This list is so funny and true.

 

ilostabet

Pelican
I actually think that, while it is probably exaggerated nowadays, the Islamic invasion, conquest and temporary domination of Iberia brought many technical advances and, while it was not earth shattering, it's not insignificant. There will always be disputes about specifics and magnitude, but being Portuguese and knowing enough Spanish, and enough about both cultures, especially in the south it is clear that there was a massive influence on technology, simply by the names that were given and that, to this day, bear a muslim mark - anything, really, with a name started with Al and some other prefixes or suffixes. Many, if not the majority of these, are attached to productive activities - that is, innovations in technique. Agricultural, astronomical, medical, or commercial. Not only in tools, but techniques.

I disagree, however, with most everybody that this is a good thing. In fact, it's a bad thing for two reasons: innovation is not good in itself. More often than not, it is bad. It serves man's worst instincts. And in this particular case it was brought about by a violent, foreign army - which changed the customs and ethics of the people of those regions, if not genetically (which seem to be very minor) in its culture, which to this day still survives in the people of the regions, if only slightly and rapidly disappearing because of globalization. The combination of these two things made it much worse, because Islam's god is ultimately Satan, and its influence on a culture is Satanic - and that's why it decays so fast (similar to ours). But while we still believe in the western narrative of innovation, we, like the muslims, view our own decadence symbiotic with technical innovation, as a greatness and don't understand how the two are related.

The Middle Ages were not dark, but they weren't bright because of technical innovation. They were bright because of the virtue of stability, not the revolution of expansion. The Church's most important job was to keep knowledge, not share it. It was to evaluate morally the pros and cons and impose that evaluation on the wider Christendom. When they stopped doing that - in part to compete with Jewish and Islamic technical thought - we advanced greatly, and vastly more than the others, because our people had souls which were in the right place. For a while. Until they started to be corrupted by this race to the bottom of technological escape.

I think Serie A is a plant, and classic muslim infiltrator. It is the same in our countries as in this forum. Double talk all the way. But he is not wrong about the general outlook. When Christians converted pagan Europe, from its most primitive to its most developed, they approached neither inferior and it wasn't their intention to advance them technologically. When Christians converted pagan south america, their outlook had changed dramatically, and 'civilizing' the primitives was one of the primary concerns. The spirit of revolution and exploitation, inherent in Talmudism and Islamism, replaced traditional Christian morality - both from the inside and directly, and form the outside and indirectly (ambitious Christians wanting to compete).
 

ilostabet

Pelican
+ any society that becomes obsessed with innovation, exploration and conquest, like the ancient Hebrews, and the later Talmudists and Muslims who continued in that tradition, or the Romans, or the Chinese, or the Aztecs, always end up enslaved to a tyrannical system and become a degenerated people, one thing feeding off each other. And our present day society is showing all the signs that the same cycle is happening again - although worryingly, and for the first time, the myth of progress envelops pretty much the whole globe, in the same exact parameters.
 

Serie A1

Robin
I actually think that, while it is probably exaggerated nowadays, the Islamic invasion, conquest and temporary domination of Iberia brought many technical advances and, while it was not earth shattering, it's not insignificant. There will always be disputes about specifics and magnitude, but being Portuguese and knowing enough Spanish, and enough about both cultures, especially in the south it is clear that there was a massive influence on technology, simply by the names that were given and that, to this day, bear a muslim mark - anything, really, with a name started with Al and some other prefixes or suffixes. Many, if not the majority of these, are attached to productive activities - that is, innovations in technique. Agricultural, astronomical, medical, or commercial. Not only in tools, but techniques.

I disagree, however, with most everybody that this is a good thing. In fact, it's a bad thing for two reasons: innovation is not good in itself. More often than not, it is bad. It serves man's worst instincts. And in this particular case it was brought about by a violent, foreign army - which changed the customs and ethics of the people of those regions, if not genetically (which seem to be very minor) in its culture, which to this day still survives in the people of the regions, if only slightly and rapidly disappearing because of globalization. The combination of these two things made it much worse, because Islam's god is ultimately Satan, and its influence on a culture is Satanic - and that's why it decays so fast (similar to ours). But while we still believe in the western narrative of innovation, we, like the muslims, view our own decadence symbiotic with technical innovation, as a greatness and don't understand how the two are related.

The Middle Ages were not dark, but they weren't bright because of technical innovation. They were bright because of the virtue of stability, not the revolution of expansion. The Church's most important job was to keep knowledge, not share it. It was to evaluate morally the pros and cons and impose that evaluation on the wider Christendom. When they stopped doing that - in part to compete with Jewish and Islamic technical thought - we advanced greatly, and vastly more than the others, because our people had souls which were in the right place. For a while. Until they started to be corrupted by this race to the bottom of technological escape.

I think Serie A is a plant, and classic muslim infiltrator. It is the same in our countries as in this forum. Double talk all the way. But he is not wrong about the general outlook. When Christians converted pagan Europe, from its most primitive to its most developed, they approached neither inferior and it wasn't their intention to advance them technologically. When Christians converted pagan south america, their outlook had changed dramatically, and 'civilizing' the primitives was one of the primary concerns. The spirit of revolution and exploitation, inherent in Talmudism and Islamism, replaced traditional Christian morality - both from the inside and directly, and form the outside and indirectly (ambitious Christians wanting to compete).
1. Christians in the Middle East also refer to 'God' as 'Allah':

'According to Kenneth Thomas, “Arabs used the word Allah for the supreme being before the time of Muhammad.” That means that Christians and Jews living in Arabia used the word before Islam came into being. Though their biblical texts were composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac, the faith was communicated to the masses orally, in Arabic. Since the eighth century, when the text of Bible was first translated into Arabic, Allah has been the term of choice to translate elohim or theos, the Hebrew and Greek terms for “God.”'

2. My religion is football. In the spirit of Slaven Bilić on marginal VAR decisions, I am not particularly animated by the differences between Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. There is much to learn from all of these traditions.


If you are not moved by going to Lourdes, or Angkor Wat, or seeing the Taj Mahal or old Kyoto, then to be honest, I find that quite sad. And telling, ultimately.
 

Serie A1

Robin
Yay! You found a quote by someone important in the past which is the same as you have now on the particular subject.

Here, have one by Churchill :D

Churchill is a really unfortunate choice on your part. He fantasised so much about being an Ottoman nobleman that his family was concerned that he would actually convert to Islam:

'Churchill’s fascination led him and his close friend Wilfrid S. Blunt, the poet and radical supporter of Muslim causes, to dressing in Arab clothes in private while in each other’s company....Not only did Churchill appear to regard Islam and Christianity as equals – a surprisingly progressive notion for the time – but he also admired the military prowess and history of expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

'In October 1940, as Britain faced its darkest hour against Nazi Germany, Churchill approved plans to build a mosque in central London and set aside pounds 100,000 for the project. He continued to back the building of what became the London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park – which he hoped would win support for Britain in the Muslim world at a crucial moment – even in the face of public criticism.'


Btw, £100,000 was an absolutely enormous sum of money in 1940 – easily worth £5m in today's money, and with much more purchasing power than that implies.
 
Last edited:

wannable alpha

Woodpecker
Churchill is a really unfortunate choice on your part. He fantasised so much about being an Ottoman nobleman that his family was concerned that he would actually convert to Islam:
Hitler was also fascinated with Islam for a while. What's your point? Bringing up early 20th century imperialists with genocidal tendencies as testimonials for Islam's greatness doesn't really prove your point of Islam being a religion of peace. ;) Please also dig up quotes on what Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot thought about the religion. :squintlol:

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. There is much to learn from all of these traditions.
If you are not moved by going to Lourdes, or Angkor Wat, or seeing the Taj Mahal or old Kyoto, then to be honest, I find that quite sad. And telling, ultimately.
It is quite telling about your mindset that you don't mention Hinduism and Judaism. BTW, Angkor Wat was built as a Hindu temple complex originally.
 

SvenTuga

Sparrow
Gold Member
It misses the point I was making. You posted an image of a former president saying positive things about islam, in a "Ha! Take that!" kind of fashion, and I did the same. In this case of a prime minister, saying negative things about islam. As you point out, it may have being contextual as he had other opinions, nevertheless he still said the following:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” - The River War

So despite of his admiration for islam, according to you, he still thought that "Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live", that "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world", and that apparently they couldn't, and still can't, grasp science, as per the sentence, "the science against which it had vainly struggled". Weren't these mohammedans incredibly technologically advanced and masters of science? Weren't they also the masters of coin? And masters of agriculture? He must have truly admired them.

As for his, again supposed, support for islam and wanting to be a Ottoman. Before being prime minister, he was a drunk broke gambler. I'm sure he would have loved to live with the opulence and luxury of an Ottoman pasha. Well... He ended being a pasha of sorts for jewish bankers.

As for his mosque, just like you quoted "he hoped would win support for Britain in the Muslim world at a crucial moment". So one could argue, that it was merely politics, and given that he was on the jew's payroll, he might be doing their bidding.

Last but not least, you are referencing an article from The National Post. A newspaper who's CEO, Paul Godfrey, is part of the tribe. Can we really take the info in the article at face value? Don't you think there may be an agenda to try and get people to think that Churchill loved islam so that we accept this multiculturalism? Big hm... :hmm:
 

LeoniusD

Kingfisher

Something I noticed about the women in the nationalist activist circles is that they actually do attempt and manage to get married in their 20s. This here again one of them who even quit her well-paying corporate job and decide on what she believes is necessary to save Britain for her future children and grandchildren. And it's only 'extremist' in the west - any other country in the world would at best be silently called racist like Korea or Japan, but they still are allowed to enact everything they want, even actively plan for ethnic majority of their old historical majority.

But hey - white marriage and stable families is being called an alt-right activity, so no surprise.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...The Church's most important job was to keep knowledge, not share it. It was to evaluate morally the pros and cons and impose that evaluation on the wider Christendom. When they stopped doing that - in part to compete with Jewish and Islamic technical thought - we advanced greatly...
I know I've asked you similar things before, but what was Christian Europe supposed to do? Allow itself to be conquered by Muslims and their superior technology (including weaponry)? After all, they had already taken over Spain. What was stopping them from continuing to advance their technology and taking over the rest of Europe?

I agree with you on virtually everything regarding the industrialism/technology question. I just don't know what the ideal solution would be when foreign armies acquire advanced weaponry and threaten to invade, and I do not believe "Let them invade and conquer us. Christ will save us." is the right answer.

If I ran my own kingdom during modern times, I would be OK with eliminating virtually all forms of industrialism (albeit slowly, to prevent mass deaths of people who depend on the technological system), but the one thing I would not do is get rid of advanced weaponry. I might as well put up a sign that says "Open for invasion."
 

ilostabet

Pelican
I know I've asked you similar things before, but what was Christian Europe supposed to do? Allow itself to be conquered by Muslims and their superior technology (including weaponry)? After all, they had already taken over Spain. What was stopping them from continuing to advance their technology and taking over the rest of Europe?

I agree with you on virtually everything regarding the industrialism/technology question. I just don't know what the ideal solution would be when foreign armies acquire advanced weaponry and threaten to invade, and I do not believe "Let them invade and conquer us. Christ will save us." is the right answer.

If I ran my own kingdom during modern times, I would be OK with eliminating virtually all forms of industrialism (albeit slowly, to prevent mass deaths of people who depend on the technological system), but the one thing I would not do is get rid of advanced weaponry. I might as well put up a sign that says "Open for invasion."
Just accept that there are no solutions, and that looking for them incessantly is part of this sickness brought about by the modern world, and it prevents people from just living life and doing what is right.

«[26] Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? [27] And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? [28] And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. [29] But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. [30] And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith?

[31] Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? [32] For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. [33] Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. [34] Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.»

Matthew 6
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
m
Just accept that there are no solutions, and that looking for them incessantly is part of this sickness brought about by the modern world, and it prevents people from just living life and doing what is right.

«[26] Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? [27] And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? [28] And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. [29] But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. [30] And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe: how much more you, O ye of little faith?

[31] Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed? [32] For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things. [33] Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. [34] Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.»

Matthew 6
I guess what I am specifically asking is, in a world where all your enemies possess modern weaponry (including nukes), in your opinion, is it wrong or un-Christian for one, as a world leader, to also keep these weapons strictly for national defense purposes (i.e. only for defense, not for attacking or conquering)?
 

ilostabet

Pelican
m

I guess what I am specifically asking is, in a world where all your enemies possess modern weaponry (including nukes), in your opinion, is it wrong or un-Christian for one, as a world leader, to also keep these weapons strictly for national defense purposes (i.e. only for defense, not for attacking or conquering)?
'world leadership', modern warfare and the modern meaning of defense and attack, are fundamentally anti-Christian. Therefore, it's hard for someone to engage in any of it and still be a Christian, let alone a Christian leader.

It's hard to imagine a sane, righteous leader, in charge of a modern nation capable of sustaining the level of weaponry required for supposed independence from the world system, keeping that sanity and righteousness and the demands of the system come knocking. But even if you can imagine it, I don't think it's ever going to happen.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
It's hard to imagine a sane, righteous leader, in charge of a modern nation capable of sustaining the level of weaponry required for supposed independence from the world system, keeping that sanity and righteousness and the demands of the system come knocking. But even if you can imagine it, I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Having the ability to nuke Globohomo 110 times over if it tries to take over your country is anti-Christian?
 
Top