Migrant invasion of Europe

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
'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.
I agree with that entirely, but I would qualify it by adding that warfare/defense/attack are not anti-Christian per se.

On the contrary, in the Christian Middle Ages (and in any traditional society) the warrior class is second only to the priestly class in honor and dignity.

"Might makes right" is mostly seen as a cynical statement today, and with some justification, but that's because in the modern world the use of might is always combined with deception.

In a Christian world, "might makes right" is one of the fundamentals of just warfare, because might comes from God. The conqueror is only expected to be humane and fair with the conquered.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
I agree with that entirely, but I would qualify it by adding that warfare/defense/attack are not anti-Christian per se.

On the contrary, in the Christian Middle Ages (and in any traditional society) the warrior class is second only to the priestly class in honor and dignity.

"Might makes right" is mostly seen as a cynical statement today, and with some justification, but that's because in the modern world the use of might is always combined with deception.

In a Christian world, "might makes right" is one of the fundamentals of just warfare, because might comes from God. The conqueror is only expected to be humane and fair with the conquered.
The question is not about capital as 911 stated, but rather that there is an insurmountable difference between a sword and a gun, and between a gun and a nuke. The very definition of might, of attack and defense, changes because of the technical means available. There is no longer any connection between our humanity and the tools, when anyone, without any discipline or intimate knowledge of its use, can make equal use of a weapon. That's why they call guns the great equalizers. I thought we were against equality, but I find that many of the basic premises of the current system remain unexamined.

With nukes and other such methods of destruction the argument goes a hundred fold. It is like someone having the ring of power, driving himself to madness, and yet our only solution is to share that power and that madness with everyone. Because that way everyone is safe - as safe as a Mexican standoff.

Safety. There's another meaning completely distorted.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
With nukes and other such methods of destruction the argument goes a hundred fold. It is like someone having the ring of power, driving himself to madness, and yet our only solution is to share that power and that madness with everyone. Because that way everyone is safe - as safe as a Mexican standoff.

Safety. There's another meaning completely distorted.
Mexican standoff is another term for "check and balance". Even Satan doesn't see any value in ruling over a world turned to glass. The threat is effective.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
There is no longer any connection between our humanity and the tools
This argument can be made for any kind of overly technological tools, not just weapons.

With nukes and other such methods of destruction the argument goes a hundred fold.
I think nukes and other "weapons of mass destruction" are another category entirely compared to guns because they are never used by individuals as such (except in sci-fi movies), but can only be used by "big enough" entities - states or at least small organized groups with a definite ideology.

Guns are weapons that individual men use to fight one another.
Nukes are weapons that nations/religions/ideologies use to fight one another.

Perhaps it is not correct to say that "modern nation-states shouldn't use the evil nuclear weapons". Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the evil nuclear weapons are an unescapable consequence of the evil of modern nations-states.

It makes sense, after all, for nation-states to fight with weapons suited to their size.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
This argument can be made for any kind of overly technological tools, not just weapons.



I think nukes and other "weapons of mass destruction" are another category entirely compared to guns because they are never used by individuals as such (except in sci-fi movies), but can only be used by "big enough" entities - states or at least small organized groups with a definite ideology.

Guns are weapons that individual men use to fight one another.
Nukes are weapons that nations/religions/ideologies use to fight one another.

Perhaps it is not correct to say that "modern nation-states shouldn't use the evil nuclear weapons". Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the evil nuclear weapons are an unescapable consequence of the evil of modern nations-states.

It makes sense, after all, for nation-states to fight with weapons suited to their size.
I agree with everything, including that the argument can be made for all modern technology. And not only can it be made, but it should be made.
 

STG

Robin
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.
The ancient Arabs are not the same as the Arabs of today.

From The Conquest of a Continent by Madison Grant:

The Arabs who conquered Spain, and the Islamized Persians and Moors, had a wonderful period of intellectual expansion during the seventh and following centuries. This amazing outburst of genius, which preserved for us much of the science and learning of the Greeks, came to an end when the Mediterranean Mohammedans began mixing their blood with that of their Negro slaves. Mohammedanism has always appealed to the lower races, especially the Negro, because when they became followers of the Prophet they were admitted to social and racial equality with the superior race. This and the lure of the Negro women ruined the Arab race. Today, all through Africa and Egypt and in parts of Arabia, the so-called Arabs are often Negroid in appearance. In this case polygamy was a racial curse because the richer and abler men had the most slave women and left a larger progeny of half-breed children than did their poorer countrymen.
 

Enea

Newbie
The Sub-Saharan component is rather significant in North African ‘Arabs’. On the Peninsula, SSA or Negroid, peaks among the Yemenis and is found in the low single-digits in percentage points elsewhere.
 

LeoniusD

Kingfisher

So true. The submission of the other tribes is the key here. Qatar or Dubai has a tiny minority of locals reign supreme. Not anyone - not even one living for generations in Dubai - would dare to do a BLM-Antifa march through Dubai calling the local Muslim tribe racist and evil. They would be put in prison and then be kicked out the entire gulf for life. Iran or Persia also has such a country where Persians are barely the dominant ethnicity but all other groups accept the dominance of Persians - and they are citizens there.

I find it comical that some say that this statement by Roosh is unchristian. Christians back in the day were strictly authoritarian and would never ever accept large tribes of other religious and tribal groups into their midst unless those groups were relatively small or those groups blended well into theirs accepting their faith fully and following the leadership of the dominant tribe.

I doubt that the few orthodox christians in the US had any issues with the dominant protestant churches that most people in the US followed. You had to accept their rules which were not that different in daily morals except individually different services and lore.
 

Serie A1

Robin

So true. The submission of the other tribes is the key here. Qatar or Dubai has a tiny minority of locals reign supreme. Not anyone - not even one living for generations in Dubai - would dare to do a BLM-Antifa march through Dubai calling the local Muslim tribe racist and evil. They would be put in prison and then be kicked out the entire gulf for life. Iran or Persia also has such a country where Persians are barely the dominant ethnicity but all other groups accept the dominance of Persians - and they are citizens there.

I find it comical that some say that this statement by Roosh is unchristian. Christians back in the day were strictly authoritarian and would never ever accept large tribes of other religious and tribal groups into their midst unless those groups were relatively small or those groups blended well into theirs accepting their faith fully and following the leadership of the dominant tribe.

I doubt that the few orthodox christians in the US had any issues with the dominant protestant churches that most people in the US followed. You had to accept their rules which were not that different in daily morals except individually different services and lore.
Copying or looking up to Qatar, the UAE or even Iran in the context of politics is a frankly weird notion. Even in the developing world, none of these states are looked at as great political models – they don't do well on political freedoms and basic transparency – and in fact, both Qatar and the UAE have liberalised their citizenship rules in recent years.

Plus, the smaller Gulf countries are totally dominated by foreigners: typically 80-90% of their populations are non-nationals, whereas in the US the proportions are reversed. Even if you wanted to replicate this fairly unique state of affairs, it would be difficult.

Authoritarianism is a total dead end.
 

Amwolf

Robin
Plus, the smaller Gulf countries are totally dominated by foreigners: typically 80-90% of their populations are non-nationals, whereas in the US the proportions are reversed. Even if you wanted to replicate this fairly unique state of affairs, it would be difficult.
Yes, this is true in regards to countries such as Qatar. They're nothing more than an artificial abstract and a corporate entity. Unfortunately, the United States has been moving in this direction for years as unchecked capitalism, often influenced by foreign interests, is exacerbating societal decay.
 

Amwolf

Robin
"Authoritarianism is a total dead end," says a guy supporting globalists' authoritarian methods of demographic replacement, censorship, regime change, etc.
I disagree that authoritarianism is a dead end. In fact, I believe that it's the solution to rid a nation of degenerative cancers. Let's look at a couple of nations who have authoritative leaders: Russia, Singapore, and North Korea.

Russia's large cities are among the safest in the world, has banned LGBT, protects Christianity, has one of the top five lowest GDP to debt ratios in the world (the United States is among the top five worst), and takes a keen interest in the health of her population (banning GMOs for example). Singapore has an incredibly high quality of life, low crime, and is consistently ranked among the top nations in the world for K-12 education. North Korea boasts a 99% literacy rate -- significantly higher than the United States. Speaking of literacy, isn't Saint Petersburg, Russia the most well-read city in the world? Book stores in Saint Petersburg are not only abundant, but packed. In the West, most people are glued to their phones and immersed in the frivolous rather than the philosophical.

Of course, these countries are far from perfect, but it's difficult to argue against authoritarianism as it enables and supports a disciplined populace (IE. Nazi Germany -- a country the size of Montana that led the world in engineering feats and quality of life).
 

hedonist

Woodpecker
I disagree that authoritarianism is a dead end. In fact, I believe that it's the solution to rid a nation of degenerative cancers. Let's look at a couple of nations who have authoritative leaders: Russia, Singapore, and North Korea.

Russia's large cities are among the safest in the world, has banned LGBT, protects Christianity, has one of the top five lowest GDP to debt ratios in the world (the United States is among the top five worst), and takes a keen interest in the health of her population (banning GMOs for example). Singapore has an incredibly high quality of life, low crime, and is consistently ranked among the top nations in the world for K-12 education. North Korea boasts a 99% literacy rate -- significantly higher than the United States. Speaking of literacy, isn't Saint Petersburg, Russia the most well-read city in the world? Book stores in Saint Petersburg are not only abundant, but packed. In the West, most people are glued to their phones and immersed in the frivolous rather than the philosophical.

Of course, these countries are far from perfect, but it's difficult to argue against authoritarianism as it enables and supports a disciplined populace (IE. Nazi Germany -- a country the size of Montana that led the world in engineering feats and quality of life).
I hate to say it but I don't think every person out there is fit to be truly free....too much freedom creates a lot of the current cultural rot.
Quite apparent when most of the time a dictator is removed things decent into chaos pretty quickly.
I think as long as you have a work ethic some of these countries aren't as bad as they sound.
 
Top