>Watching this show called ''Sacred Places >It gives a brief history and architectural details about the various churches and temples for the world's "most popular" religions >Episode on the Kikes and synagogues >Hey, did you know that Kikes and Mudslines were best friends since the beginning and share some of the same folklore? <No... >Well, let's talk about the Iberian Peninsula then. Back in the 700's, the Mudslimes came in and over threw the Christian rulers. And, the people who helped this insurrection where the Kikes. <What? >Oh yeah. In fact, the Mudslimes were so grateful, they placed the Kikes in positions of power. It was one of the most glorious times in Jewish history. That is, until the evil Christians came in to retake their land. The Kikes were shattered, their temples were destroyed, and were given the ultimatum of convert or die. Isn't this all tragic? <Kikes and Mudslimes were best buds since the beginning of time <Kikes helped the Mudslimes to take over Europe and create the Dark Ages <The Christians fought back the Mudslimes, and executed the Kikes for helping them <Tragic Fuck the Kikes everywhere they live!

>>7165 >Yeah, Islam makes more sense when it comes to theology. They're both shitty fucking religions though. <I'm a dumb faggot who doesn't know how fucking nonsensical goatfuckers are

>>7168 <I don't know how to read and I know fuck-all about either one

>>7170 >>7166 Excuse me, jackass, how about, instead of posting a series of non-replies, you actual explain where his reasoning is incorrect?

>>7174 Sure. Muhammed would blatantly makes shit up to justify the random bullshit he does. like how it was considered fine for him to fuck his adoptive son's wife. This even extends to the angels in the Quran; apparently Michael the angel is scared shitless of a fucking dog. Christianity, for whatever it's supposed issues it has, doesn't have a part where God shits his pants over a dog and tells Abraham to chase it out of the house or show Jesus blatantly making things up to satisfy his own personal desires and using religion as an excuse.

>>7177 So how does Christianity "solve" this problem, from what you know of it?

>>7180 >Basically, Christianity closes its fucking eyes and says that evil doesn't exist despite the fact that the world is created in such a way that cruelty and violence are some of its basic components (For example, Survival of the Fittest). 1. that should only count for Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole, as you yourself pointed out that this is supposedly a Catholic belief. 2. Christians themselves have argued about what good and evil are for centuries, but from my understanding this is nowhere near close to the consensus; Catholics seem to believe that evil is a natural occurence that arises from our corruption when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. >Another Christian idea is the concept of best of all possible worlds, the idea that God created the best possible world that could exist and that suffering as it is was necessary for the completion of creation of humans. That sounds like load of nonsense that unfortunately some Christians do indeed think. The reality is that the world we are in now was very much not God's intention. In regards to the problem of evil, the Catholic (if not overall Christian) answer is that while God created good and evil, he didn't create things exactly as they are now; he created creatures with the ability to choose to do either good or evil things. For instance, Satan chose of his own free will to deceive Adam and Eve and to tempt others, such as Jesus, to sin ever since. He wasn't created to be this way, he was just created with the capacity to choose to be either good or evil. >Otherwise the only answers I've seen were mostly just "Trust God, he has an answer you can't understand LMAO" which is just ignoring the fucking question. All other theodicies so far were either denying the Problem of Evil or making a really bad fucking argument for it. Again, I've unfortunately heard of people who actually have believed in something close to this; but from my understanding of Christianity (or at least, Catholicism) this is false.

>>7202 > If God just fucked up in some way... then he can be forgiven for many of the unnecessary suffering in the world like the suffering and death of children. Beause he made a mistake. If it was all part of his plan, then... he better have a really good fucking explanation for this shit. If God is omniscient then he knew perfectly well what he was doing even before he created Adam and Eve, which means that he knew that they would fuck up for the human race. If he isn't fully omniscient, this problem is not a problem because he simply didn't know. If he is omniscient, then he couldn't have created the world the way it is without engineering everything, at least to an extent where he accepted that the creatures he creates are going to commit an evil act even before they do that. He couldn't have created them without knowing that. The way I've come to understand this is that what God sees is every possible path everyone can take any every point in time from birth to death, all at once. Meaning, although he can see every single thing we could do at any given moment, the choice to do any of those things is still ours and not necessarily locked in.

>>7204 Except God is all powerful and created this particular world, this particular timeline. He just as easily could have any other timeline happen, but he has this one, knowing exactly what would happen in it. He chose it, over choosing the other ones. So your free will is an illusion. It was locked in when God chose this series of events to happen over every other possible series of events.

>>7233 Not true at all; timelines aren't anything mentioned in the Bible or the Quran, and even when you just mean in a general sense, I don't think God chooses timelines, he is just able to observe every timeline possible at once.

>>7234 The post I was responding to is the one that talked about timelines, albeit without using that particular word. God is all powerful. He knew everything that would happen in this world when He created it. He could have created any other world, but He chose to create this one. That means he knew you would do every action you ever do, that you would have every will you ever have, and He could have created any number of other worlds where you will and do different things, but He chose to create this world. He chose for you to do these things. Your free will is an illusion, or else God is not all powerful.

>>7240 I don't see where you get the idea that because God created everything, free will is an illusion; nothing that we could do is something He couldn't see, but we still have the freedom to do something or not. If he didn't, then He may not have commanded Adam and Eve to not eat from the forbidden tree or tell us to follow Him, because he would've known exactly who of us would do so and who wouldn't.

>>7241 I'm a bit conflicted on it myself. It seems it may be that free will is an Illusion He created...I mean with reverent respect to Him and His Ways. For example, in Ezekiel (I am rusty on which verses or if it was one of the other major four prophets) He mentions that Israel sacrificing children to Baal or Molech "never entered His mind" so that certainly implies free will. On the other hand in Jeremiah (or maybe Ezekiel again lol sorry) He says He did do evil to Judah implying that He led them to put idols in the Temple to show it is bad...I mean no disrespect to Him just trying to understand. It is progressive revelation of course and we use discernment (i.e., God does not tempt) but that free will thing doesn't seem Biblical but I don't freak out if people try to show it is. tl;dr If we really do not have free will until after our resurrections but we are still held accountable for our actions I do not have issue with that or think God is 'doing things wrong' I have no issue with reconciling the two. tl;dr too long lol.

>Watch a doc about Jack the Ripper >The original evidence and eye witness accounts point to Jacky possibly being a Kike >English police proceed to silence and remove any public acknowledgement or awareness of this because it may cause "Anti-Semetism" >All current theorists agree that Jacky was a Kike Some things you cannot make up.

>>7609 The holocaust isn't one of those things.

>Watching this British series about the history of the Celts >Talks about how they sacked Rome during the 3rd Century BC >Then went on to talk about the Celts ran roughshod over the rest of non-Mediterranean Europe <Know about how the Carthaginians eventually employed Gaul mercenaries as part of their army <And, how that became important later on during the Punic Wars <Want to hear about how the Romans eventually chased the Gauls back into the mountains, established a treaty, and laid the groundwork for why they joined Hannibal's army after helping to kill a fraction of his army >Now we're going to skip over ALL of that to talk about Caesar's Gaelic Wars.' <WHAT?!? Why do these history series (Especially those designed around "new evidence") leave out SO MUCH FUCKING HISTORY?

>>992 There had been air raids via zeppelin against Britain in wwI. Poison gas had been used to devastating effect. There were advances in aircraft by 1939 and the high command reasonably believed Hitler was going to drop poison gas on major British Cities. The decision to evacuate the children was in fear the children were they not evacuated would be exposed to chlorine mustard phosgene or some new variant of gas and likely die or be maimed for life.

>http://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdF36SJiMqTCkCqB4XrRh4tnJ517SxqyfSeGzdTpQfbc2/Cowboy - Wikipedia.html >TIME Magazine referred to President George W. Bush's foreign policy as "Cowboy diplomacy",[129] and Bush has been described in the press, particularly in Europe, as a "cowboy".[130] So he was unaware of the "cowboy diplomacy" connotation of "cowboy" and showed it? Is that true?

Quick question: Was Athenian Expedition into Sicily during the Peloponnesian War equivalent to the U.S. going into Afghanistan?

>>8097 >bongs thought Hitler was going to fly zeppelins over London I guess I shouldn't be surprised they were thinking about zeppelins considering the bongs made one of their own islands completely uninhabitable because they wanted to try out dropping anthrax-infected sheep using hot air balloons.

For the /his/ Anons, I remember being told that murder mysteries have been a thing since the Roman Empire, so I was wondering if anyone knows of any "collection" of old world mystery stories. As in, stories that were actually told and written back then, not modern writers making stuff up.

>Reading a book on the history of the Middle East >The writer keeps moving heaven and Earth to talk about how Islam "benefited the Middle East" >Talks on one hand about all the literature and education that flourished under Islamic control <While also mentioning that it was only possible because the people in charge of the regions ignored Islamic law whenever and wherever they could >Talk about how Islam persecuted "both" Christians and Kikes <Never mention how the Kikes were persecuted <Only mention that they achieved some of the leadership roles in territories, so they were not oppressed <Meanwhile, the Christian children were kidnapped by the state to be trained as foot soldiers for the national army <Justify this by stating that it was an "honor" among Muslims to be in the army >Moving onto the start of the 20th century >Islamic world is falling apart because of how Europe came to naturally control much of the world stage >Nationalistic tendencies are arising within territories to secure their domains <Declare that such ideals of Nationalism are "evil European-sourced ideals" <Blame it on the Christians for being the ones who "taunted" the "innocent Mudslimes" by introducing Nationalism to them despite having lived and experienced much of the same international issues as the Muslims <Proceed to ignore that Islam was ALWAYS a nationalistic religion <Treat it as evil that the Christians and the Muslims in the regions finally decide to unite for nationalistic purposes to secure their lands And, that's where I'm going to stop reading. Probably could get the rest of reading through the various encyclopedias that I have. Unless you guys know of a better source. Pic related is the book that I was reading.

>>13032 I had no idea. I'll have to look around and see if I can find anything. >>15721 I really do not understand why they are so dedicated to sucking off islam all the time when the religion and it's followers are absolutely in conflict with all the left's favorite issues.

Myron C. Fagan was based and redpilled, he fought the good fight for decades. has a lot of work archived that we can learn from today, still relevant over 50 years later. https://archive (dot) org/details/themyronc.faganfiles-satanicplottoenslavetheworld-audiopdf/ and regarding a few decades earlier... >>994 >Based US anon knows about the real German death camps Eisenhowers Rhine Meadows Death Camps: A Deliberate Policy Of Extermination https://archive (dot) org/details/EisenhowersRhineMeadowsDeathCampsADeliberatePolicyOfExtermination Other Losses - a film by James Bacque https://www.bitchute (dot) com /video/iFV11guqdv3Q/

>>15721 have this

>>15726 last one of those, i remember having another by some other anon, but can't find it

>>1087 as long as there is no haplogroup schizos it's all fine

Why do so-called "historians" treat the Mudslime like they're great "philosophers, historians, and scientists"? Their entire society is still living in the iron-age structure that Muhammad conquered 1200 years ago, with the only advancements to it being a result of the Europeans literally selling technology to them (Even forcing it upon them on some instances).

>>19074 My understanding is the North African/Middle Eastern Golden Age was under Zoroastrianism, not Islam

>>19074 >>19075 Just did a bit more research. The acronym I meant to use was MENA, although Zoroastrianism was never popular in North Africa

Look at this US president ranking chart and sort it by party. Only 2 democrats before the civil war rank low, even Woodrow Wilson ranks high. Compare to republican ranks. Historians are objective? Lol https://en.m.wikipedia(Please use archive.today)/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_summary Found while exploring eisenhowers camps. Never heard of them before.

>>19074 Both hate modern civilization, so, enemy-of-my-enemy. University historians are sociologists, which is worse than a pseudoscience. Sociology is just Marxism, which is reactionary to modernism (17th and 18th century), the founding ideology of the US. Jihadi Islam is a primitive theocracy which also hates modernism and wants to return to a medieval society. They ideologically have nothing in common, but want to destroy modern society more than anything, so historians think they can be useful allies. Thats the only reason they cater to and apologize for them. Also why all on left do the same.

>>19074 It's obvious, anon. They're trying to diminish the accomplishments of Whites and mis-attribute it to non-Whites. The main thing the MENA contributed to civilization was preserving some ancient European texts, not much else. It's the same with pretending blacks invented and built everything, completely made-up horse-shit: https://tightroperecords dot com/Black-Invention-Myths.htm

https://archive.is/hUsQP >People have been asking me lately, "Why Dubois?" >Why is W.E.B. Dubois the "father of American Marxism". Wasn't he just a liberal? Didn't he say some random stuff pulled out of context? >Carlos Garrido recently wrote a brilliant paper on this, but unfortunately, it's behind a pay-wall. (Academic journals are the worst, and we're not allowed to re-publish it.) >So let me explain in brief: <Marxism, or Marxism Leninism if you want to be technical about it, is universal. It is the universality of all society moving forward, gives us the laws of development. <What Dubois gives us is the particular - Black Reconstruction in America shows us, if not THE primary particular form, then one of the most important particular forms of American class struggle. It gives us an analysis of the color line, of how race and class function, from that Marxist Leninist universal understanding - from the historical materialist viewpoint. It gives us the category of the black proletariat as a class of enslaved workers, and of the second American revolution they waged against the slaveocracy, of the dictatorship of the proletariat that was the Reconstruction South - the freedmen's bureaus backed by the power of the Northern armies. <But that isn't all Dubois gives us. He gives us the materialist view of racism; proving that it wasn't racism that created chattel slavery, but instead chattel slavery that created racism, that the relations the white proletariat had with the bosses, and with the black proletariat, all of this functions as an outcome of slavery. There is a lot of talk in Marxism about the steam engine, the spinning jenny, and other technological drivers of industrial capitalism, but underlying every bit of it was chattel slavery feeding the British textile mills with cotton. Without chattel slavery, capitalism would never have lasted a day. Capitalism is, very literally, built on a foundation of THE most brutal forms of oppression, of enslavement of man by man. <Every view of American history from the Marxist perspective must begin with Marx and Engels and with Lenin and with Dubois. There is no other way to arrive at a detailed Marxist analysis. Without this, we are lost, and we are able to be manipulated into all sorts of "left" deviations and dogmas. I've even heard "left" anti-immigrant sentiment these days. Dubois cuts through all of it in one go, and gives us a concrete foundation for our work today. <Lastly, I have to say: read Dubois yourself. Don't go in bits and pieces taken out of context, as you'll find in the bourgeois academy, that attempt to turn Dubois into something he's not. Just as you read Marx yourself, read Dubois yourself.