Quote: (11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:48 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:38 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:26 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 05:09 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

The biggest problem I have with Spencer and his crew is their glorification of Hitler and National Socialism.

Hitler was a massive failure and you can't call yourself "right-wing" if you support socialism. This is what these Hitler-lovers don't get. Hitler was an asshole. Socialism is a recipe for economic failure. They need to do some introspection because denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

My biggest problem with the 1488 crowd is they're a tiny, vocal minority that historically has ridden on the backs on Reactionaries and Conservatives and then stabs them in the back. I don't care if they get thrown under the bus, because Fascists do that as soon as they can to the rest of their so call "allies".

Case in point being Hitler himself. Hitler and the Nazis never had the majority, but they did have a power-base and managed to rope in a bunch of Reactionaries who were pissed off about the Weimar Republic and "Conservatives" scared about Communism. Most "pro-Nazis" weren't really convinced Nazis, but they did think the Weimar state was a massive screw up and wanted to return to the better days of the Zweites Reich. The German officer corps is a major example, these guys wanted a restored Germany, and often being Junkers wanted the Kaiser back. Boulanger is another great example being the Proto-Fascist, his whole rise to power was him promising to return France to the Bourbon monarchy but in the end really only cared about his own dictatorial power (which he failed to achieve).

So the Nazis then push a lot of stuff that nobody wanted, like the Holocaust. The Holocaust was completely unnecessary and doomed the invasion of the Soviet Union from the start. If Hitler was really the "Anti-communist warlord" the 1488 crowd likes to pretend and revise to make themselves palatable, then he wouldn't have been interested in genocide for millions of Slavs that would have risen up and helped them topple Stalin. There was simply no reason, other than a bunch of sociopaths didn't like them. Germany could have simply made Eastern Europe a bunch of client-states (like they planned at Brest-Litovsk) and nobody would have probably cared now that Communism was dead.

In the end anything remotely resembling them was tarred for almost a century. Hitler is the go-to for "Far-right", not Bismarck, Metternich or any sane reputable figure. I don't have anything to do with them for the same reason the CIA stopped trying to take on Fascists as assets during the Cold War, they have their own agenda and will screw you over the very first moment they can.

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

The holocaust doomed Barbarossa?

Yes, Hitler was anti-Communist, most historians agree that there was an ideological battle taking place between Fascism and Communism in the inter-war period and during WW2.

The German officers/generals were mutinous at 2 significant junctures, after the Battle of Britain, and after Barbarossa. I think we can deduce why, it's because they were both costly military ventures.

The Holocaust is wider than people make it out to be because it has become obsessive over the Jews, and minimal attention on the genocidal policy in general towards Slavs and other groups.

Barbarossa failed in part because of the genocidal mentality the Nazis had. If Hitler was this Anticommunist generic reactionary warlord revisionists say, then an invasion of the Soviet Union could have gone a lot better. If say, the Imperial German government was in control, then it'd be highly likely that the average Soviet would be inclined to see this as a genuine chance to topple Stalin who had been oppressing them. Some did historically, there was the Russian Liberation army and other collaborators. However, this failed for that exact reason, most people aren't going to collaborate with an occupying power whose clear intentions is the extermination of your people.

That's not emotional, that's hard facts. The people playing fast and loose with them are the 1488 crowd who want to whitewash themselves.

LOL! Barbarossa failed because it was an enormous front, and because Hitler made stupid decisions and wouldn't let a single German retreat. And because America was giving the Soviet Union a colossal amount of assistance, but lets not tarnish a good holocaust myth with facts.

"Genocidal mentality", what have you been reading? Can you dial up the "Evil Nazi" narrative a bit more.

All this WW2 debate is unrelated to Israel having a racially pure ethno-state while Europe is flooded with Third World people. When are you going to address that hypocrisy?

OK, you clearly aren't familiar with Generalplan Ost. I hate to break it to you, but the Nazis policy was to exterminate primarily, and expel/assimilate secondarily all Slavic peoples from Poland to the Urals. This is what the whole Lebensraum concept was about. This isn't revisionism, it was a core Nazi policy which is why they're called genocidal maniacs, because they were. Which is why the hardcore 1488 crowd still likes to say Slavic people aren't White, even though they have some of the fairest features out of all Europeans.

Compare Generalplan Ost to the Kaiserreich's "Mitteleuropa" plan with Brest-Litovsk. They planned on having the Baltic states, Finland, Ukraine all become independent states, but economically linked to Germany and with German nobles as monarchs primarily. It's something actually sane, and a normal German nationalist would probably have been proud of.

I'm sorry, I was at one point being deluded by the revisionist crowd myself, but the Nazis were as bad as their reputation.

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:15 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

People who come to this forum should be able to hold any political view they like. Don't get strict and authoritarian about people who appreciate strict and authoritarian political systems.

OK cool. Let's try this one: "homosexuality is completely normal and equal to heterosexuality". Can I preach that here? "I think Jihad is a perfectly fair political position". That OK? "Women should be treated like angels and all men should be their white knights"...

So no. This isn't 4chan. If you want to be able to say literally anything then go there.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

You're in no position to call his posts 'feelings based garbage' when he clearly has a far more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the history involved than you do.

Quote: (11-28-2016 04:53 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

What does that mean for minority allies such as us ?

I'm NOT playing the victim card in any circumstance - but purely asking - Where the hell do our cards lay on such a vast table ?

I don't think it's that unclear though.
- The "alt right" are fascists, because that term was coined by a textbook fascist -- the Spencer guy.
- We are reactionaries.
- Since we are reactionaries, and not fascists, we are not "alt right".
- There are some fascists here, and threads like this are part of the game that pushes them away, and preserves this forums position, instead of it drifting towards stormfront territory.

Frankly if the day ever came that this forum becomes "white nationalist" and fascist, I'd already be gone.

Questions regarding nationalism vs Christian nationalism vs white nationalism.

Would you take 100k brown immigrants if they had provable 150IQs?
Would you take 100k white immigrants if they had provable 90IQs?
Would you take 100k brown Christians or 100k white muslims if you had to choose?

You may regard this as a a pointless hypothetical, but the answers are not pointless in regards to your motivations.

No prior judgement here. Just food for thought.

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It's kind of hilariously [triggering] that you think Jewish religion or culture saved Europe. Jews were a (ostracized) minority in every country where they lived, it's absolutely absurd to pretend that their culture somehow influenced - much less SAVED - Europe.

It's doubtful you would even know about Greeks or the Romans had they not been preserved by the Christians (and the Jews who birthed them).

The monks of the early middle ages played a key role in preserving texts. Parchment could only last so many years before falling into ruin.

You are claiming that such preservation is either unique to christianity or that the efforts of the christian monks were exceptional.

But there have been scribes for all of history. In ancient egypt, it was a profession and you were considered part of the royal court.

The Library of Alexandria was built by the Greeks in the third century BC: it was dedicated to the Muses. There were official scribes on government payroll. Everyone knows the story of how visiting merchants would have new books confiscated, transcribed, and the copies returned while the originals were kept in the library. This same group of people would periodically transcribe every book in the library regardless of its content.

One could argue that a religion with a book as its most holy object (and not, for example, a tree) leads to a higher respect for literacy. I can see that argument, and it has merit.

But monks monopolized the scribing market. They had to be prodded by Charlemagne to transcribe anything non-religious: I recall a story where one monk thought the diaries of Julius Caesar were satanic.

A simple argument by economic theory points out that non-religious texts were more expensive to manufacture and maintain than they would otherwise have been.

What if the tithe paid to the monks had gone to the local nobles like in Ancient Egypt and Rome? Instead of thirty five volumes of Livy and a collection of gilded bibles we might have all one hundred fourty two volumes and who knows maybe it might have taken fewer than eight hundred years to translate Archimedes from Greek into Latin. It certainly didn't take that long to translate the bible from Greek into Latin.

On that topic, take a look at Euclid's Elements with its triangles and circles. It may well have actually been the original inspiration for a satanitic grimoire. Here is one of the Problems:

Quote:Quote:

If a straight line is bisected, and a straight line is added to it in a straight line, then the square on the whole with the added straight line and the square on the added straight line both together are double the sum of the square on the half and the square described on the straight line made up of the half and the added straight line as on one straight line.

To a medieval monk, it must sound an awful lot like some sort of nonsense incantation.

And yet the knowledge in the Elements was crucial in constructing the Hagia Sophia, an engineering marvel of its time.

As to your point:

Quote:Quote:

It's doubtful you would even know about Greeks or the Romans had they not been preserved by the Christians

I wonder why you would make this claim.

All literate civilizations have had scribes and all great ones libraries.

Libraries reliably kept books for hundreds of years in many places outside of christendom.

Indeed it was from the arabs, in arabic and in 1200 AD that Europe learned the science of antiquity. The monesteries of the west imported vast volumes of theology from across the med but had no copies of any of the Greek works.

That is exactly what you would expect to get when you put monks in charge of libraries.

Finally, you have things like this:

Quote:Quote:

The Archimedes Palimpsest is a parchment codex palimpsest, which originally was a 10th-century Byzantine Greek copy of an otherwise unknown work (!!!) of Archimedes of Syracuse and other authors. It was overwritten with a Christian religious text by 13th-century monks.[1] The erasure was incomplete, and Archimedes' work is now readable after scientific and scholarly work from 1998 to 2008 on images produced by ultraviolet, infrared, visible and raking light, and X-ray. All images and scholarly transcriptions with metadata are now freely available on the web at the Digital Palimpsest, now hosted on OPenn [2] and other web sites for free use under a Creative Commons License.[3][4]

The Palimpsest is the only known copy of "Stomachion" and "The Method of Mechanical Theorems" and contains the only known copy of "On Floating Bodies" in Greek.

That is the image of the christians preserving knowledge. A monk finds a precious unique manuscript by the most famous scientist in all of history. Writes over it with some religious text.

At best, it is reasonable to say that christianity as a religion based around a book ultimately boosted literacy. At worst catholic monks in their obsession with writing religious treatises and their monopoly as scribes did the poorest job of preserving knowledge of all scribe cultures in history.

I see a lot of christian apologists on this board and it is very surprising.

The Christianity vs Pagan Europe is more than enough material for a thread of its own, but if such a thread was made, no one would bother to read it.

Rome didn't need Judea, Greeks didn't need Judea and insofar they went there, they were by far the most advanced. Christianity had a domesticating effect on Northern European certainly, but we can't say if it wouldn't have happened anyway. The Northern Europeans had always been in contact with the Southern Europeans, in fact launching wave after wave off military conquests southbound: Vandals, Goths, Cimbrians, Rus, Normanns. The latter, who were Vikings, became the most dominant force in Europe, launching the various templar factions and almost single handedly driving back Islam from Europe. The Normanns were known for their fierceness in battle but also the deep devotion to their faith.

The Normans military conquests and later political power simply can't be understated, they made modern Europe what it is today and they were 'primitive' Nothern Europeans, a generation removed from huts made partly of cowdung.

The retort to Samseu is thus: If Christianity is such a great bringer of civilization and success, why are most Christian countries outside the West complete dumps?

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:10 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 05:09 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

Hitler was a massive failure and you can't call yourself "right-wing" if you support socialism. ....Hitler was an asshole. Socialism is a recipe for economic failure.

Hitler was a success until he went to war. After taking France in 3 weeks he thought he was a military genius. It was downhill from there.
National Socialism was good for Germany until they went to war, not because Nat Soc was flawed, but because Hitler had aspirations beyond his ability.

And no, I'm not a "Hitler lover",

So was years of anti-Jewish diatribes OK with you, and the mass murder and and persecution that started well before the invasion of Poland with Kristallnacht?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

Nothing like setting "high" aspirations for yourself, like exterminating all men women and children of a whole ethnic group.

That's really reaching for the stars.

Realize National Socialism's policy only worked to rebuild Germany because it was used to build a war machine and with rapid industrialization/subsidy to the arms industry. Not to mention a usury free currency that was actually worth something(the only thing Hitler did correctly for the long term).

Hitler needed to go to war eventually so his country's economy could keep running. There was nothing long term going for Nazi Germany until it won a major war, and by that point a fair portion of Europe's Jews and other minorities would have been wiped out(this would have included dark skinned French, Slavs, Gypsies, Central Europeans, etc.).

There is no question that Hitler would have ethnically homogenized much of Europe if possible. The question being at the end of the day the degree of killings that happened during the war itself and not from Typhus. And how many concentration camps were actually concentration camps.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:10 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

National Socialism was good for Germany until they went to war, not because Nat Soc was flawed, but because Hitler had aspirations beyond his ability.

Socialism is flawed because it punishes people for "having aspirations beyond their abilities". The nationalism is right, but the socialism is wrong. How does one know the limits of his ability? Capitalism allows you to figure that out by trying and failing until you succeed and so learn your limits. Socialism places arbitrary limits on your success so that you become bitter and angry at being held back and eventually turn into a mad dictator bent on global ethnic cleansing. Sad!

America's economy vastly out-performed Germany's during this time period because America embraced nationalism AND capitalism. America was and remains vastly superior to Germany. That's why Patton kicked Hitler's ass. That's why the socialism part of "Nat Soc" is flawed. Spencer and his crew like to keep the combination of nationalism and socialism that Hitler coined because it is a squirrel that distracts from the flaws of socialism. The bottom line is, Hitler was a socialist. He detested capitalism. And he was a failure because of it.

Socialism in all variants suck, I prefer American brand capitalism with true Americon heros like Mr. Henry Ford, the great man of the industrial revolution, creator of personal automobiles, champion of the working man.

Quote: (11-29-2016 10:52 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

There is no question that Hitler would have ethnically homogenized much of Europe if possible. The question being at the end of the day the degree of killings that happened during the war itself and not from Typhus. And how many concentration camps were actually concentration camps.

Attempting to answer this question will get you persecution and jail time in Germany. Historical revisionist Germar Rudolf was sent down for over three years after publishing his research. https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/persecut...c-disaster

Quote: (11-28-2016 10:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:15 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

People who come to this forum should be able to hold any political view they like. Don't get strict and authoritarian about people who appreciate strict and authoritarian political systems.

OK cool. Let's try this one: "homosexuality is completely normal and equal to heterosexuality". Can I preach that here? "I think Jihad is a perfectly fair political position". That OK? "Women should be treated like angels and all men should be their white knights"...

So no. This isn't 4chan. If you want to be able to say literally anything then go there.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

You're in no position to call his posts 'feelings based garbage' when he clearly has a far more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the history involved than you do.

Quote: (11-28-2016 04:53 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

What does that mean for minority allies such as us ?

I'm NOT playing the victim card in any circumstance - but purely asking - Where the hell do our cards lay on such a vast table ?

I don't think it's that unclear though.
- The "alt right" are fascists, because that term was coined by a textbook fascist -- the Spencer guy.
- We are reactionaries.
- Since we are reactionaries, and not fascists, we are not "alt right".
- There are some fascists here, and threads like this are part of the game that pushes them away, and preserves this forums position, instead of it drifting towards stormfront territory.

Frankly if the day ever came that this forum becomes "white nationalist" and fascist, I'd already be gone.

We can discuss stuff that we disagree with and this place won't turn in to a "White Nationalist" forum.

I expected there to be a bit more discussion than "alt-right=fascists", because there is more to it than that.

I think it needs to be explained that under the umbrella of the term alt-right, not everyone wants a racially pure fascist state. I don't think it's fascist to want one's own ethnic group to be the majority, and I don't see any other significant movements opposing mass migration in my country. Identitarian is probably a better term than alt-right. The current demographic trends present worrying problems, so why is it unreasonable for people of White European heritage to want to preserve what the societies they have? Shouldn't the people of those societies have a say in what happens? I'm not suggesting you should agree with me, just pointing out that much of the hardline nationalist feeling is an inevitable consequence of demographic changes that have taken place in the West recently.

Quote: (11-29-2016 12:34 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 10:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:15 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

People who come to this forum should be able to hold any political view they like. Don't get strict and authoritarian about people who appreciate strict and authoritarian political systems.

OK cool. Let's try this one: "homosexuality is completely normal and equal to heterosexuality". Can I preach that here? "I think Jihad is a perfectly fair political position". That OK? "Women should be treated like angels and all men should be their white knights"...

So no. This isn't 4chan. If you want to be able to say literally anything then go there.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

You're in no position to call his posts 'feelings based garbage' when he clearly has a far more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the history involved than you do.

Quote: (11-28-2016 04:53 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

What does that mean for minority allies such as us ?

I'm NOT playing the victim card in any circumstance - but purely asking - Where the hell do our cards lay on such a vast table ?

I don't think it's that unclear though.
- The "alt right" are fascists, because that term was coined by a textbook fascist -- the Spencer guy.
- We are reactionaries.
- Since we are reactionaries, and not fascists, we are not "alt right".
- There are some fascists here, and threads like this are part of the game that pushes them away, and preserves this forums position, instead of it drifting towards stormfront territory.

Frankly if the day ever came that this forum becomes "white nationalist" and fascist, I'd already be gone.

We can discuss stuff that we disagree with and this place won't turn in to a "White Nationalist" forum.

I expected there to be a bit more discussion than "alt-right=fascists", because there is more to it than that.

I think it needs to be explained that under the umbrella of the term alt-right, not everyone wants a racially pure fascist state. I don't think it's fascist to want one's own ethnic group to be the majority, and I don't see any other significant movements opposing mass migration in my country. Identitarian is probably a better term than alt-right. The current demographic trends present worrying problems, so why is it unreasonable for people of White European heritage to want to preserve what the societies they have? Shouldn't the people of those societies have a say in what happens? I'm not suggesting you should agree with me, just pointing out that much of the hardline nationalist feeling is an inevitable consequence of demographic changes that have taken place in the West recently.

I don't think it's facist to want one's ethnic group to be the majority" is not facist but is racist. That type of delusion is something I would expect from a SJW but not somebody on this forum. What difference does it make if someone has a different racial background that you. They are GENERALLY going to have different values than a white American but that is why LEGAL immigration is important. We vet people from different cultures to make sure they have these same values. If some Indian kids from India can be more productive for a tech firm than some American white kids can and they have the same values, the Indian kids should get the job and be able to be Americans. Their should be restrictions on how many we let in at one time, but we should welcome the best the world has to offer regardless of race.

Quote: (11-29-2016 12:34 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 10:56 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:15 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

People who come to this forum should be able to hold any political view they like. Don't get strict and authoritarian about people who appreciate strict and authoritarian political systems.

OK cool. Let's try this one: "homosexuality is completely normal and equal to heterosexuality". Can I preach that here? "I think Jihad is a perfectly fair political position". That OK? "Women should be treated like angels and all men should be their white knights"...

So no. This isn't 4chan. If you want to be able to say literally anything then go there.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:56 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

Sorry, but that is a lot of feelings based garbage.

You're in no position to call his posts 'feelings based garbage' when he clearly has a far more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the history involved than you do.

Quote: (11-28-2016 04:53 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

What does that mean for minority allies such as us ?

I'm NOT playing the victim card in any circumstance - but purely asking - Where the hell do our cards lay on such a vast table ?

I don't think it's that unclear though.
- The "alt right" are fascists, because that term was coined by a textbook fascist -- the Spencer guy.
- We are reactionaries.
- Since we are reactionaries, and not fascists, we are not "alt right".
- There are some fascists here, and threads like this are part of the game that pushes them away, and preserves this forums position, instead of it drifting towards stormfront territory.

Frankly if the day ever came that this forum becomes "white nationalist" and fascist, I'd already be gone.

We can discuss stuff that we disagree with and this place won't turn in to a "White Nationalist" forum.

I expected there to be a bit more discussion than "alt-right=fascists", because there is more to it than that.

I think it needs to be explained that under the umbrella of the term alt-right, not everyone wants a racially pure fascist state. I don't think it's fascist to want one's own ethnic group to be the majority, and I don't see any other significant movements opposing mass migration in my country. Identitarian is probably a better term than alt-right. The current demographic trends present worrying problems, so why is it unreasonable for people of White European heritage to want to preserve what the societies they have? Shouldn't the people of those societies have a say in what happens? I'm not suggesting you should agree with me, just pointing out that much of the hardline nationalist feeling is an inevitable consequence of demographic changes that have taken place in the West recently.

Look, I agree with you on a lot of things, which is why I think you're a confused reactionary and not an actual fascist. I think most people here don't have a problem with the notion that multiculturalism is bullshit and ethnic majorities should remain such in their homelands.

The problem is that there is this fascist element, and they actually do want the crazy things like genociding people that don't fit their arbitrary "master race". Sure, they may agree with us on things, but they will always take things too far. Does that mean we need to actually repress them and cave to Leftists to prove we're not fascists? Absolutely not. However, that doesn't mean we ever let these guys get close to claiming leadership or any semblance of authority either.

The left has the same problem with Communists, it's just nobody forces them to ever have to renounce Communism and say people like Stalin were evil because of bias. However anyone who is a normal left winger and isn't a radical knows damn well that having Commies around does nothing good for them in the long term.

I don't think the "new right" is going to turn out to be the language police. If anything it's the opposite. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words.

Quote: (11-29-2016 09:23 AM)storm Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 01:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It's kind of hilariously [triggering] that you think Jewish religion or culture saved Europe. Jews were a (ostracized) minority in every country where they lived, it's absolutely absurd to pretend that their culture somehow influenced - much less SAVED - Europe.

It's doubtful you would even know about Greeks or the Romans had they not been preserved by the Christians (and the Jews who birthed them).

The monks of the early middle ages played a key role in preserving texts. Parchment could only last so many years before falling into ruin.

You are claiming that such preservation is either unique to christianity or that the efforts of the christian monks were exceptional.

It was exception - most of them did it for FREE (or very little), out of love for their Neighbor, and it was a practiced that continued until the Catholic Church became rich enough to pay for it. And even then - most monks live a life without cash.

Quote:Quote:

But there have been scribes for all of history. In ancient egypt, it was a profession and you were considered part of the royal court.

And as soon as the money dried up the knowledge was lost.

Quote:Quote:

The Library of Alexandria was built by the Greeks in the third century BC: it was dedicated to the Muses. There were official scribes on government payroll. Everyone knows the story of how visiting merchants would have new books confiscated, transcribed, and the copies returned while the originals were kept in the library. This same group of people would periodically transcribe every book in the library regardless of its content.

Library burned down and lost to wars. According to Wikipedia, it was first burned down during a Roman civil war, then by Muslims utterly later on.

So much for Moors "preserving" ancient knowledge

Quote:Quote:

One could argue that a religion with a book as its most holy object (and not, for example, a tree) leads to a higher respect for literacy. I can see that argument, and it has merit.

But monks monopolized the scribing market. They had to be prodded by Charlemagne to transcribe anything non-religious: I recall a story where one monk thought the diaries of Julius Caesar were satanic.

They monopolized the market? Bro they did it for FREE. The rest of Europe fell into barbarism and illiteracy.

Julius is satanic in many, many ways, but that did not mean his texts aren't worth preserving. A good Christian knows this - "God sends the rain down on the just and the unjust."

Regardless if they did not preserve the texts because it went against their moral beliefs - one cannot fault them, no one else was doing the job!

Quote:Quote:

A simple argument by economic theory points out that non-religious texts were more expensive to manufacture and maintain than they would otherwise have been.

What if the tithe paid to the monks had gone to the local nobles like in Ancient Egypt and Rome?

What tithes? That was not present until much, much later. The foundational part of Europe was between 400-600 AD. That was the true dark age of Europe, and Christians literally reformatted White civilization during this time. The holy men of this time had some power, but money - nothing by today's standards.

Quote:Quote:

Instead of thirty five volumes of Livy and a collection of gilded bibles we might have all one hundred fourty two volumes and who knows maybe it might have taken fewer than eight hundred years to translate Archimedes from Greek into Latin. It certainly didn't take that long to translate the bible from Greek into Latin.

On that topic, take a look at Euclid's Elements with its triangles and circles. It may well have actually been the original inspiration for a satanitic grimoire. Here is one of the Problems:

Quote:Quote:

If a straight line is bisected, and a straight line is added to it in a straight line, then the square on the whole with the added straight line and the square on the added straight line both together are double the sum of the square on the half and the square described on the straight line made up of the half and the added straight line as on one straight line.

To a medieval monk, it must sound an awful lot like some sort of nonsense incantation.

And yet the knowledge in the Elements was crucial in constructing the Hagia Sophia, an engineering marvel of its time.

And yet, none of this stuff really matters. It's just icing on the cake. Without a strong moral core, there is no civilization of which to support greater achievements. The holy men focused on preserving the most important things that would improve the virtue of their neighbors. For things they could not understand, for things they were never taught, who could blame them for not preserving things in greater detail?

The facts remain virtually uncontested that these men preserved the vast majority of what we know, especially the Byzantine scholars (who admittedly were not working for free). The Byzantines preserved the more esoteric knowledge, while the Western Europeans had to start from scratch.

Quote:Quote:

As to your point:

Quote:Quote:

It's doubtful you would even know about Greeks or the Romans had they not been preserved by the Christians

I wonder why you would make this claim.

All literate civilizations have had scribes and all great ones libraries.

Libraries reliably kept books for hundreds of years in many places outside of christendom.

Indeed it was from the arabs, in arabic and in 1200 AD that Europe learned the science of antiquity. The monesteries of the west imported vast volumes of theology from across the med but had no copies of any of the Greek works.

Popular myth but not true. Arabs most likely burned down the Library of Alexandria (it was them or during the Roman civil wars the library was burned down).

Without Christianity we would have almost no knowledge of antiquity.

Quote:Quote:

Quote:Quote:

That is exactly what you would expect to get when you put monks in charge of libraries.

Finally, you have things like this:
[quote]The Archimedes Palimpsest is a parchment codex palimpsest, which originally was a 10th-century Byzantine Greek copy of an otherwise unknown work (!!!) of Archimedes of Syracuse and other authors. It was overwritten with a Christian religious text by 13th-century monks.[1] The erasure was incomplete, and Archimedes' work is now readable after scientific and scholarly work from 1998 to 2008 on images produced by ultraviolet, infrared, visible and raking light, and X-ray. All images and scholarly transcriptions with metadata are now freely available on the web at the Digital Palimpsest, now hosted on OPenn [2] and other web sites for free use under a Creative Commons License.[3][4]

The Palimpsest is the only known copy of "Stomachion" and "The Method of Mechanical Theorems" and contains the only known copy of "On Floating Bodies" in Greek.

That is the image of the christians preserving knowledge. A monk finds a precious unique manuscript by the most famous scientist in all of history. Writes over it with some religious text.

One bad monk and now they're all guilty?

By the way Copernicus and Galileo certainly didn't need the "most famous scientist" to do their work. All they needed was Aristotle, who is actually the most famous scientist of antiquity, and whom you can thank the Byzantines for preserving.

There is no European Renaissance without the Byzantine scholars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_scho...enaissance

Quote:Quote:

At best, it is reasonable to say that christianity as a religion based around a book ultimately boosted literacy. At worst catholic monks in their obsession with writing religious treatises and their monopoly as scribes did the poorest job of preserving knowledge of all scribe cultures in history.

I see a lot of christian apologists on this board and it is very surprising.

At bare minimum, your entire existence, and everyone else in the West, is a product of a Jewish man named Jesus Christ.

At best, people will return to the salvation of Christ and take the Bible seriously again, and the West will flourish once again like never before.

More realistically, civilization will be able to hobble along carrying Christ's message in a watered down format.

At worst, our civilization, unmoored from its Christian past, is totally doomed like a giant skyscraper without its foundations.

Quote: (11-29-2016 10:05 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

The Christianity vs Pagan Europe is more than enough material for a thread of its own, but if such a thread was made, no one would bother to read it.

Rome didn't need Judea, Greeks didn't need Judea and insofar they went there, they were by far the most advanced. Christianity had a domesticating effect on Northern European certainly, but we can't say if it wouldn't have happened anyway. The Northern Europeans had always been in contact with the Southern Europeans, in fact launching wave after wave off military conquests southbound: Vandals, Goths, Cimbrians, Rus, Normanns. The latter, who were Vikings, became the most dominant force in Europe, launching the various templar factions and almost single handedly driving back Islam from Europe. The Normanns were known for their fierceness in battle but also the deep devotion to their faith.

The Normans military conquests and later political power simply can't be understated, they made modern Europe what it is today and they were 'primitive' Nothern Europeans, a generation removed from huts made partly of cowdung.

Normans - also one of the most eager groups of Europeans to convert to Christ. Amazing people.

Quote:Quote:

The retort to Samseu is thus: If Christianity is such a great bringer of civilization and success, why are most Christian countries outside the West complete dumps?

Because you aren't comparing what is comparable.

If you compare for example, Black Christians to Black pagans, you'll see that the Christian Blacks did much better overall. The best example are the Ethiopians, who converted to Christianity perhaps before any other country on the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Ethiopia

The only African nation to successfully resist colonization. Currently one of the strongest economies in Africa, despite being landlocked. Home to arguably the most beautiful women in Africa, as reported by many traveling players on this forum. Right next door to beautiful Ethiopia is fucked up mirror-image Somali, an Islamic nation.

What else needs to be said?

You guys are losing sight of what's important.





Let's at least keep the ones with great tits, big lips, and wide hips.

I am getting a kick out of the "but Hitler was good for Germany" crowd. Yeah, he was great unless you were handicapped, invalid, suffered from a chronic illness, were Jewish, were a socialist, owned a business, was a merchant, were gay, were a politician, or were a soldier. If you didn't tick off any of those boxes, you had the advantage of living in a authoritarian police state which stamped out individualism and replaced it with a cult of personality and the cult of the state. The hollow economy was simply one of the most egregious military-industrial complexes of modern history and if that wasn't bad enough, you had seven years of total war to look forward to which included frequent massed heavy bomber raids by the allies, the loss of millions of young men on the front lines, blockades and starvation, and the eventual raping, pillaging, and dividing of your country by the allies.

Yeah, living under Hitler sounds great.

Getting back on topic, here's a podcast Spencer released today talking about Heilgate:

https://soundcloud.com/radixjournal/hailgate

He understands the need for private meet ups, which we learned a few months before. The whole debacle shared him up.

He talks about Mike and PJW starting at 41 minutes.

Sorry Cowboy 0/10 WNB any of them, not Blonde Hair Blue Eyed Aryan Nation Master Race

I kid, but yes back on topic, I'm going to listen that podcast, thank Roosh.

Quote: (11-29-2016 02:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Getting back on topic, here's a podcast Spencer released today talking about Heilgate:

https://soundcloud.com/radixjournal/hailgate

He understands the need for private meet ups, which we learned a few months before. The whole debacle shared him up.

He talks about Mike and PJW starting at 41 minutes.

I think saying that people who are on the alt-right who saw the salutes knew it was a joke is disingenuous. I didn't think it was a joke, and for *some* in there at that conference I don't think it as a joke at all ( but they can be considered irrelevant extremists, unlike other extremists who've proven that they are not irrelevant at all, they actually kill people ).

I do have doubts about that picture with the two jewish guys giving the salute as being "just a joke" however...which one of the jewish guy claims. I can not help but think that that was a plan, I just can't help it. The picture is perfect for news fodder, i.e. "guys, go in there, do the salute, we'll splash it all over the papers, and we'll link Spencer to Nazis".

The jewish guy had his very very long excuse posted here: https://colonycollapsesite.wordpress.com...te-w-tila/

but I now see that the site no longer exists. I think he got real scared, very. I also have doubts as to the sincerity of his explanation, it was too perfect, almost like it had been thought up beforehand.

Also, Richard Spencer raised his glass, it was not a salute, it was a glass raise after his speech, then some audience members did a salute. I believe some were sincere, and some were plants...why? because the two jewish bozos who "just wanted to see what the NPI conference was about" actually did the full salute with Tila Tequila and got a nice fat photo for the press to use. So, if they could potentially be disingenuous, so could other audience members. They fucked up the credibility of the other saluters.

I gave it a listen, Spencer seems more down to earth than I expected.

Quote: (11-28-2016 06:48 PM)Meister Eckhart Wrote:  

Barbarossa failed in part because of the genocidal mentality the Nazis had. If Hitler was this Anticommunist generic reactionary warlord revisionists say, then an invasion of the Soviet Union could have gone a lot better. If say, the Imperial German government was in control, then it'd be highly likely that the average Soviet would be inclined to see this as a genuine chance to topple Stalin who had been oppressing them. Some did historically, there was the Russian Liberation army and other collaborators. However, this failed for that exact reason, most people aren't going to collaborate with an occupying power whose clear intentions is the extermination of your people.

That's not emotional, that's hard facts. The people playing fast and loose with them are the 1488 crowd who want to whitewash themselves.

So...Hitler lost because he put identity politics on a pedestal? Seems like a good conclusion to me.

Quote: (11-29-2016 11:20 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

That's why Patton kicked Hitler's ass.

The Germans were vastly outnumbered, but even more dramatically outgunned. Patton's job was a piece of cake (But he was still a good tactician nevertheless).

Spencer also released this 15 minute video a few days ago covering the fallout and the future of the Alt-Right.

Quote: (11-28-2016 08:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (11-28-2016 07:12 AM)Zep Wrote:  

This wasn't happening here when there was a common enemy.

Are you kidding me? Before the migrant crisis you couldn't even criticize muslims here without getting an insta-ban. Even slightly jew-critical speech would also get you an insta-ban.

The issue back then wasn't the "criticism" but that it was often ill-conceived race trolling at best, often posted in the completely wrong places like the Travel forum (which was the most prominent way back). No one got banned for penning a well-thought out and sourced post on muslims.