Nietzsche on Islam

[Anonymous No.7762855]

>Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!… The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust—a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very “senile.”—What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won…. The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church—but well paid…. Consider the fact that it is precisely the aid of German swords and German blood and valour that has enabled the church to carry through its war to the death upon everything noble on earth! At this point a host of painful questions suggest themselves. The German nobility stands outside the history of the higher civilization: the reason is obvious…. Christianity, alcohol—the two great means of corruption.

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.7762875]

>>7762855
>the crusades were a form of piracy, nothing more

[Anonymous No.7762889]

>>7762855
yeah I'm sure women in niqab are complaining about how fucking horribly male dominated Western society is, what a load of horseshit this comic is.

[Anonymous No.7762901]

>>7762889
>women in niqab are complaining about how fucking horribly male dominated Western society is
plenty

[Anonymous No.7762903]

>>7762875
didn't the crusaders sack their own holy city

plus why didn't they launch a crusade like 250 years ago or earlier

[Anonymous No.7762907]

>>7762889
>the opinions of women matter

[Anonymous No.7762909]

>>7762901
Explain to me how a society in which women are free to wear whatever they want, from niqab to a dental floss bikini thong, is more male dominated than an authentically patriarchal society where male religious leaders decide what women can and cannot wear.

[Anonymous No.7762912]

>>7762907
My issue is with the male author of the comic, who is somehow implying that western culture is anywhere near as male dominated as the middle east. It's more anti west propaganda from faggot leftists who will be the first to convert once the Muslims outnumber us.

[Anonymous No.7762913]

As a serious Christian I have immense respect for Nietzsche. He is as zealous in his own cause as I am in mine. He gives no quarter. It's invigorating.

[Anonymous No.7762918]

>>7762875
>he analyzes historical episodes from an ideal perspective of "justice" rather than take into account the contenders' material motivations and objectives

[Anonymous No.7762919]

>>7762909
A lot of countries, like France, are banning the burka.

[Anonymous No.7762920]

>>7762909
Where exactly did I say I hold those believes?

[Anonymous No.7762924]

>>7762855
If he had said Greek or Latin culture I would be inclined to agree. Islam not so much.

[Anonymous No.7762928]

>>7762918
>nothing in history was ever motivated by genuine ethics or concern for justice
THANK YOU MARX FOR RUING THE STUDY OF HISTORY

[Anonymous No.7762931]

>>7762924
>The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece

[Anonymous No.7762946]

>>7762931
That's where I disagree with him. Islamic culture builds on the mentally of Arabs and older middle eastern cultures.

[Anonymous No.7762955]

>>7762928
>genuine ethics
>implying they even exist in history
>implying they must be taken into account when it comes to STUDY of history

[Anonymous No.7763010]

>>7762955
If marxists are only concerned about economics, why do they run their nation into poverty every time? I know this board can't believe this because it's full of retards who don't see the irony of being marxists who like The Grapes of Wrath.

You should atleats be able to ask yourself this, why did they go the Crusades at all, if everything happens because of economic motivations? The Crusades cost a fuck ton of money and deprived the feudal cities of valuable labour from their strongest and healthiest men, and there was no hope of ever getting any significant amount of plunder from Jerusalem.

[Anonymous No.7763013]

>>7762855
How many times are you gonna post this?

[Anonymous No.7763023]

>>7762955
>implying they even exist in history
Why wouldn't they? religion does

[Anonymous No.7763040]

Islam is a regressive religion.

It is more apt to waste resources thatn apply them.

Unlike the Gospels which preach a spiritual life and can be obfusucated; the Quaran and other Islamic texts are very clear on the order of society.

Fundamentalism is much more likely to take hold and put restrictions on culture and the induvidual than Christianity.

I do not believe the west could have flourished the way it did without the benefit of the Christian religion.

[Anonymous No.7763074]

>>7763010
Fuck m8, I'm not even a leftist, chill.
Crusades tried to fuck those who cut Europe's supplies of sudanese gold and all types of eastern shit (for example, pepper, which was extremely valuated not only because it was tasty, it worked real good to raise vitality in a fucked up european population after Black Plague). Jerusalem was not the only place where crusades took place. Of course, there was an ideological justification, just as fake and beautiful as any other through history. They ended up being too expensive, so we gave up and tried to get to the East through other ways, and shit happened.

[Anonymous No.7763091]

>>7762955
>implying they even exist in history
So every single person in history was just a cynical, self-interest psychopath?

[Anonymous No.7763219]

>>7762955
>implying they must be taken into account when it comes to STUDY of history
Yes, people's motivations and beliefs should be taken into account when studying history. There's a whole fucking field dedicated to it

[Anonymous No.7763232]

>>7763074
>The Crusades after the Black plague
>lol ideology is just a lie
You should stop talking about things you know nothing about

[Anonymous No.7763260]

>>7762903
Why is nobody replying to this.

The Crusades were always a shitty grab for money and power and the current narrative on this website "we dindu nuffin it was the Muslims they made us attack them centuries later" is a lame twisted narrative the Christfags are using to shift the blame for how barbaric the Crusades and say they had it coming.

They also killed Orthodox Christians.
What did they do to deserve that?

[Anonymous No.7763264]

>>7763260
>What did they do to deserve that?
Not the right kind of Christians.

[Anonymous No.7763274]

>>7763260
>Orthodox
>Eastern European
>Eastern
>East
>Middle East
>Muslims
That's why

[Anonymous No.7763278]

>>7762946

From what I've been reading about (relatively) Islamic culture was a lot less strict within Nietzche's time which is why he may have different views on what happened than us since all the bullshit that's been happening recently didn't occur then.

[Anonymous No.7763280]

>>7763260
>They also killed Orthodox Christians.
It was a one time thing, and it was those greedy venetians faults

And please, how the fuck were the crusades any more barbaric than any other war of those times?

[Anonymous No.7763294]

>>7763274
Really good deductive reasoning right here

[Anonymous No.7763319]

>>7763280
>And please, how the fuck were the crusades any more barbaric than any other war of those times?

They weren't?

I'm just saying you can't skirt over history playing the blame game just because it suits you.

The Islamic world was in a bad place so they decided to expand their lands. Two and a half centuries later when the Christian world was also facing a similar problem they decided to do the same. I'm tired of arguing with the """"Christians"""" on this website who have a constant agenda to keep trying to excuse what happened a long time ago because it doesn't suit their interests. At the end of the day it was human greed/fear that led to the crusades even occurring.

On an another note, the Crusades occurred approximately 250 years after the lands were stolen. That'd be equivalent to the Native Americans bombing the country 8 years from now.

[Anonymous No.7763335]

The Great Heresies by Belloc presents another biased perspective on the subject. It's an interesting counterpoint.

[Anonymous No.7763349]

>>7763335
>biased

In which direction?

[Anonymous No.7763360]

>>7763074
>this post

[Anonymous No.7763368]

>>7763319
I'm not shifting any blame mate, other than on scummy venetians. The crusades were as justifiable as any other war, they were perfectly legitimate on the eyes of medieval society anb blaming it only on greed and fear is ignoring the very real ideological motives for the people involved.

>That'd be equivalent to the Native Americans bombing the country 8 years from now.
There's not really an expiration date for a claim on a land, the jews got Isreal thousands of years after it was last independent, and the greeks still wanted Constantinople hundreds of years after the turks took it

[Anonymous No.7763373]

it means that he and all other atheist philosophers are cucks.

[Anonymous No.7763387]

>>7763319
>That'd be equivalent to the Native Americans bombing the country 8 years from now.

Which I am all for

[Anonymous No.7763407]

>>7762903
Lol, this Popecucks are still pretending like the Crusaders didn't betray the Orthodox and rob Constantinople blind.

[Anonymous No.7763411]

>>7762855
>even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!
Reads too many books, never sees the sun, thinks 'Moorish life' is all sultans and harems and hookahs. Orientalism and being a bit guilty about mercantile imperialism was a thing back then.
Most of what constituted Moorish life in Nietzsche's time was a static sort of 10th century idling.

[Anonymous No.7763416]

>>7763319
I think the crusades are VERY overrated anyways in terms of middle age wars. It was never some terrible bloodbath, it was never a chivalrous defense of the evil muslims, nor was it the evil christians murdering innocent peasants in the name of God either. The crusades just serve as a piece of history for people to shove their ideology into to draw parallels to the "west vs islam" tension there is today. The fucking death count between all 9 crusades were 1-3 million. That is absolutely minuscule compared to the death toll of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.

[Anonymous No.7763420]

>>7762889
Actually yeah, some do. They are brought up to repect modesty as a virtue. The woman in a bikini looks mentally unstable from her point of view, and made that way by men who despise women.
You really gonna watch FacialAbuse clips and argue against that?

[Anonymous No.7763432]

>>7763319
>On an another note, the Crusades occurred approximately 250 years after the lands were stolen. That'd be equivalent to the Native Americans bombing the country 8 years from now.
Half of European national identity is based on centuries old grievances against neighbors. Ever listened to Serbs and Croats talk smack about each other? Or Ukrainians?
You take that shit away as 'all in the past' and they got nothing else but 'we cut peat here since mammoths stomped on it.'

[Anonymous No.7763463]

>>7763368
> is ignoring the very real ideological motives for the people involved.
I'm not syaing people weren't motivated by god. I'm saying they weren't solely motivated by god. Pope Francis offered salvation for everyone who want died... but he also offered the riches from the Islamic cities as well as Knighthood to everyone who went and survived. For very begger/commoner/thief this was the once in a lifetime opportunity to hang their status and make a name for themselves. I read a really nice article explaining this once but I can't find it now so I hope this covers it:

http://www1.cbn.com/spirituallife/calling-for-the-first-crusade

Ofcourse people don't forget about their stolen lands. But choosing a period in history when they were specifically in financial trouble to go conveniently "fight for god" doesn't help their cause right now.

[Anonymous No.7763466]

>>7763349
Hardcore Catholic anticipating the resurgence of Christian (aka Catholic aka European aka White aka Western) conflict with Islam.

[Anonymous No.7763486]

>>7763416
I agree.

The first Pope Crusader also never referred to the Muslims as Muslims. He calls them Arabs and Turks (and other not so nice words). The only religious reference he made was that there would be salvation upon death.

Somehow this became twisted centuries later to "MY GOD VS YOUR GOD".

[Anonymous No.7763495]

>>7763432
Yeah the thing is that's all for a laugh today. Nobody takes any of that serious anymore.

[Anonymous No.7763500]

>>7763466
It's still kinda strange to how 'Western' doesn't really mean white anymore tho.

Not bitching about it but its weird how a concept that ran for millennia/centuries could be changed in just a few decades.

[Anonymous No.7763505]

>>7763411
Yeah, Nietzsche is pretty ill informed on eastern religions other than Buddhism. His issues with Hinduism can be blamed on a bad translation of the laws of Manu though.

Islam he was just mostly ignorant on and purely romanticized it. Schopenhauer appreciated Islam because it treated women like dirt and he was probably the biggest misogynist in western philosophy, which is an accomplishment considering most philosophers at least disliked women.

>>7762913
Ironically some of the greatest theology of the 20th century came out of theologians who accepted Nietzsche's premise of god being dead as true.

Of course when Nietzsche says god is dead, he isn't talking about the death of an entity, he's talking about the west moving away from god and religion as a source of moral values. Nietzsche sees the death of god with a mixture of hope and terror. He hopes that we will recreate pro-human values, create values that allow men to flourish as the ultimate artistic beings. But he's equally terrified that we will fail and see human civilization fall into pessimistic nihilism. Though the west will suffer this first, if the west will suffer it, so will all races of men one day. The west began, just before his time, to invent and appropriate new idols to worship instead. Democracy, liberalism, socialism, anarchism, feminism, humanism, all of this shit was just the west trying to plug the holes in a sinking ship.

Nietzsche is prophetic in his very limited political writings. He essentially identifies that the 20th century would be a century of renewed crusades, but in the name of these ideologies rather than in the name of traditional religion. Fascism vs capitalism, socialism vs fascism, socialism vs capitalism, he said the 20th century would be incredibly bloody.

He said that the west would not seriously begin to address its underlying nihilism problem until the mid 21st century. Most of Spengler's work comes out of Nietzsche's understanding of this course of events.

[Anonymous No.7763513]

>>7763486
>>7763486
>The first Pope Crusader also never referred to the Muslims as Muslims. He calls them Arabs and Turks (and other not so nice words). The only religious reference he made was that there would be salvation upon death.

Is there anywhere to read these documents or where you got that from? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.7763522]

>>7763260
>what did they do to deserve that
Heresy, that's what.

>pic somewhat unrelated

[Anonymous No.7763532]

>>7763513
He's referring to the fact that they called them Saracens (an old word for Arabs). "Mahometan" and "Moslem" didn't come into fashion until centuries later. Even in the Renaissance, Muslims were just called Turks, and conversion to Islam (which oddly enough, a bunch of European pirates did) was called "Turning Turk."

[Anonymous No.7763536]

>>7763522
>"we're better than you"
>still breeds with the inferior race
Okay.

[Anonymous No.7763539]

>>7763522
>the heresy of not adding a completely new, extra-canonical phrase into the Nicene creed

[Anonymous No.7763542]

>>7763522
The Muslims are going to say the same to you when you're done cucking yourselves to death.

[Anonymous No.7763558]

>>7763522
Wow that picture is /pol/ tier edginess.

>>7763532
I'm aware of the saracen part. My question is, were the first crusaders actually fully aware of the situation happening in the middle east at the time with the islamic conquests? Or did they just assume it was just a bunch of strange towelheads invading lands?

[Anonymous No.7763594]

>>7763558
>Or did they just assume it was just a bunch of strange towelheads invading lands?

The latter.

The vast majority of crusaders were poor fucks who didn't know shit about anything barring Christ. They just heard the decree that God HIMSELF had commanded that they 'liberate' the Holy Lands and so they went.

[Anonymous No.7763598]

>>7763558
maybe a few scholars had an accurate concept of Islam as an independent religion, but this knowledge was far from widespread. Islam was, in the best of cases, described as an heretical christian sect, sometimes even a polytheistic pagan cult. eg. in the Song of Roland (11th c.) muslims are portrayed as worshipping idols of Muhammad and Apollo, together with another divinity known as Termagant.

[Anonymous No.7763600]

>>7763558
Most of the medieval texts make it clear that Christians in Europe were not particularly aware of what Muslims believed or did, thus the depictions of them worshipping Apollo in The Song of Roland, worshipping Muhammad's head in several sources, or medieval histories saying that Muhammad was a renegade Cardinal who started his own church after being passed up for Pope.

Also, the centuries-old Muslim conquests we're not really the reason why the Crusades were started. The main impetus was the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Fatimid sultan al-Hakim. Al-Hakim is interesting because he was also hated by Muslims, and was and is universally considered a madman (except by the Druze, who believe he was Allah incarnate).

[Anonymous No.7763977]

>>7762875
>rome itself

[Anonymous No.7764030]

>>7762909
I'll try.

They don't hold on to freedom as in "doing whatever the fuck I want" like we do. Before anything else they put dignity. A good society that is not oppressive for them is a society that preserves their dignity and has men obligated to respect them. They see Western women as dominated by men because men force them to reveal themselves so anyone can see their bare skin for their entertainment.

I hope you can see how they can hold such opinions with that.

[Anonymous No.7764031]

>>7762855
NAH

[Anonymous No.7764044]

>>7763278
You should read more

[Anonymous No.7764048]

>>7763319
Implying they wouldn't try if they could, and they would be right to do so, and whites would be right to crush them, and so on and so forth.

Welcome to history.

[Anonymous No.7764070]

>>7764031
Great response faggot.

[Anonymous No.7764080]

>>7763522
It's like asking the guy who beat you in a game of tennis to apologize.
It's humiliating to be a "minority" nowadays for this sole reason.

[Anonymous No.7764098]

>>7764080
>It's humiliating to be a "minority" nowadays for this sole reason

I don't know man. Being the leader of the free world is pretty sick :^)

All jokes aside, what you said encapsulates why there was such a push decades ago for minorities to be proud of who they are.

Right now (barring African Americans maybe) I don't think you'll find al of people ashamed of their heritage. I would be pretty proud if I was Chinese or maybe even Indian (all designated jokes aside it's amazing how India came pretty far in a few decades).

[Anonymous No.7764174]

>>7762928
I actually agree with the other anon here
Studying history from the viewpoint of "justice" is shit and has ruined history

[Anonymous No.7764186]

>>7763232
>>The Crusades after the Black plague
Literally where did I say that
>>lol ideology is just a lie
Isn't it? Of course, the believer thinks it's true. But he will interpretate the ideology corpus in the way that suits better his lifestyle, needs and ambitions
You saying "lol yuropeans did crusades cuz it was right and they were right" is also ideology

[Anonymous No.7764221]

>>7762955
you fucked up, anon

[Anonymous No.7764236]

>>7764098
* find a lot of people

[Anonymous No.7765066]

>>7762875
>>7762903
Let's be honest here, the motivation for the Crusades was a big fat lie. The land they conquered was lawfully Byzantine, but they refused to give it back. Why?

When Constantinople fell in 1453, which mighty Christian army helped defend it? None. Instead, the Germanic knights were killing fellow Christians in the Baltics. The only reason for the existence of 3 Muslim countries in Europe today (Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo) is the Berlin Congress of 1878, in which Austria insisted those people are not to be expelled or killed. German "defense of Christianity" is a farce, and thereby are all Crusades. The only peoples who really defended Europe from Islam*, where the spiritual and genetic successors of Greco-Roman antiquity: Spain, Southern Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia. And they never crusaded - a Christian doesn't need to crusade, because his live adheres already to the laws of Christ. So much for that.

*i.e. the only peoples who never allied themselves with Muslims against fellow Christians

[Anonymous No.7765107]

>>7765066

If I recall, Alexios was leading the flower of the Byzantine army to relieve Antioch, when Stephen of Blois, who was deserting the cause, met him on the road and convinced him the crusaders were dead.

The Crusaders at antioch would end up having to defeat the combined armies of Mosul alone.

Bohemond would later piss off the emperor, leading to a forced march on Antioch and the submission of Antioch to the empire. As Antioch was the de-jure capital of all Syria, this placed the entire region under nominal Roman jurisdiction.

It wasn't all glory for the Empire, though. Both crusaders and Imperials marched on Damascus, but infighting led to muslim fanatics taking over instead. The Empire bankrupted itself to finance an armada to take Egypt, but the KOJ contingent never arrived.

The failure of subsequent emperors to reign in the barbarians really sheds new light on the ability of Alexius to turn a potential disaster into a win.

[Anonymous No.7765126]

>>7762855
to be fair the medieval era was very pleb tier. only /pol/ call Vikings culture, Babylon was more advanced thousands of years before the Vikings. We have a lot to learn from the near east

[Anonymous No.7765155]

>>7764186
>Crusades tried to fuck those who cut Europe's supplies of sudanese gold and all types of eastern shit (for example, pepper, which was extremely valuated not only because it was tasty, it worked real good to raise vitality in a fucked up european population after Black Plague)
Right here friendo

[Anonymous No.7765253]

>>7765155
Kek. I only mentioned it helped with that AFTER, as an example of it's value for medieval society. You just can't read tho

[Anonymous No.7765322]

>>7762855
>hipsters love Nietzsche
>he was the original hipster
>even has a faggot weird mustache
it all makes sense now

[Anonymous No.7765325]

>>7764030
>I hope you can see how they can hold such opinions with that.
by being retarded barbarian rubes

[Anonymous No.7765339]

>>7764030
But women aren't forced to cover up in the west, they're free to dress modestly if they would like. I know plenty of women who dress modestly.
>preserves their dignity
>get raped
>be stoned to death for tempting the rapist
>dignity preserved

[Anonymous No.7765357]

>>7764030
And women without said dignity are common whores you can and should gang-rape at will, lest you compromise your dignity as a man. Stone them afterwards for fornicating outside of marriage, of course.

Seems good.

[Anonymous No.7765383]

>>7763505

>Schopenhauer appreciated Islam because it treated women like dirt and he was probably the biggest misogynist in western philosophy, which is an accomplishment considering most philosophers at least disliked women.

And yet, he wasn't wrong.

[Anonymous No.7765436]

>>7765066
>When Constantinople fell in 1453, which mighty Christian army helped defend it?

You mean that Constantinople that was lead by a man who literally said, "rather the turban of the sultan, than the tiara of the pope"? The Byzantines got what was coming to them. They obstinately separated themselves from the Christian West to the point that they preferred to be conquered by Muslims than be in union with the pope.

[Anonymous No.7765454]

>>7765339
>>7765357
You know this doesn't happen everywhere all the time and has nothing to do with Islamic law, right? I thought I was on /lit/, not on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7765468]

>>7763505
>Schopenhauer appreciated Islam because it treated women like dirt and he was probably the biggest misogynist in western philosophy, which is an accomplishment considering most philosophers at least disliked women.
Really? He said that the Quran was among the worst books he ever read.

[Anonymous No.7765473]

>>7765454
>nothing to do with Islamic law

[Anonymous No.7765875]

>>7765468
yeah schopenhauer is very disdainful of Mohammedanism. intellectually stunted plebs like the poster you are replying to have never actually read any philosophy and reduce schopenhauers elegant and expansive ideas to uninteresting misogyny.

[Anonymous No.7767857]

bump

[Anonymous No.7767913]

>>7765436
>Pope, "vicar of Christ"
>legitimate

shiggdiggy. Let alone the fact they were all whoremongers by the 15th century. What self respecting Christian could possibly submit to that? There were a bazillion Christian movements in Catholic lands even that defied the Pope. The Pope is a joke.

[Anonymous No.7767957]

>>7765339

[Anonymous No.7767976]

>>7767913
The papacy has upheld Christendom for two thousand years, unbroken. It's not the Church's fault the other denominations faltered and failed.

[Anonymous No.7767999]

>>7767976
Not how Roman Catholics understand it. If you asked Saint Peter to proclaim himself Caesar, he would have been horrified. He certainly never, ever defined dogma on his own, either, he didn't even preside over the Counsel of Jerusalem, Saint James the Just did.

The Roman Catholic understanding of the Papacy is completely fabricated
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

[Anonymous No.7768012]

>>7763091
No, just people in power. That's how they get to power.

[Anonymous No.7768020]

>>7768012
So Marcus Aurelius was a cynical, self-interested psychopath?

[Anonymous No.7768040]

>>7763522
That picture makes some sense as a very idealistic picture of an individual, but it's a fickle justification for the actions of a group of people - a nation, race, coalition, whatever. For instance, look at the response of the united states to 9/11. Nobody here says that terrorists aren't evil. Everybody cries for the victims and writes songs for the heroic firefighters. No group of people are so dominant over another that - and no conflict at any point in history has been so simply bully/victim - that the bully can rightfully claim that they haven't cried and called the victim an evil bully when they punched back once in a while. That picture would only apply if it was europe vs. the rest of the world, europe always won, and never had a reason to complain or complained. Conflict is never so simple that even the victor doesn't moralize its loss at some point. So you're a poor spokesman for Europe.
You're just an idiot when you say "we are europe, our dicks our bigger" and then when someone else has a bigger dick than a European and everyone cries about it, then when your dicks are big again go back to being dicks.
Going philosophically extra-moral can have a case made for it. But it really is more complicated than these guys won these guys lost.

[Anonymous No.7768054]

>>7768040
Anon that picture is made to get people angry and heated up.

Don't look too deeply into it, everybody on some level realizes that it's just bait and that things go much deeper than that.

[Anonymous No.7768057]

>>7763522
Also, the combination of glorification of conquering with reverence to a religion named after Jesus Christ is some of the most dissonant possible cognition.

[Anonymous No.7768071]

>>7768020
Muh exceptions. You knew what I meant.

[Anonymous No.7768079]

>>7768071
That you're edgy?

[Anonymous No.7768141]

>>7767999
What about Orthodox Patriarchs?

[Anonymous No.7768143]

>>7768141
What about them? They sure as hell don't have the power to define dogma on their own, and they certainly are not claiming the title of Caesar.

[Anonymous No.7768174]

>>7762889
>fundamentalist Muslims find it impossible to bear our blasphemous images and reckless humor, which we consider a part of our freedoms. Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture.

[Anonymous No.7768179]

>>7763319
>That'd be equivalent to the Native Americans bombing the country 8 years from now.
they goddamn should, I'm tired of seeing images of alcoholic and depressed Natives sitting on their reservations doing nothing with their lives.

[Anonymous No.7768186]

>>7768179

[Anonymous No.7768188]

>>7763500
Well for a couple decades Irish, Italian, Spanish, etc. weren't considered white.

[Anonymous No.7768193]

>>7767999
This. How anyone could be both Christian and Roman Catholic boggles my mind.

[Anonymous No.7768198]

>>7763522
wew fucking lad

[Anonymous No.7768213]

>>7768186
that's Tommy's son.