1491 and then Columbus brings Christianity to the West

[muir]

If there is anything such as a "worst" or "less bad" side of Islam, the anglozionist axis is supporting them. Just like it is supporting the economically and otherwise self-destructive Kiev regime. The people in charge don't give a shit about the local population or spreading cultural values, etc.

Absolutely!

And at the same time that they fund these extremist groups they condemn them in their own countries through their corporate media

They feed the bogeyman

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION]
This is such a troll of a question…
To make the assertion that it was a good thing for Columbus to come here and start what will eventually lead to the death and destruction of the native people in the name of religion and money is nonsense.
And what if all your Biblical teachings have been a bunch or well picked over stories to support what the ruling church of the time wanted the people to see?
I don’t think that bringing Christianity to the Americas in force is the right way to do anything…even if people were being sacrificed…it was their right to follow any religion that they see fit to follow. This is the same mentality that has caused so many problems in this day and age…get over it…maybe the Christians are right and maybe they aren’t…maybe the Muslims are right and maybe not. Maybe that crazy homeless guy standing on the street corner in diapers waving signs that the “end is nigh” is right. No one can say 100% for sure…so the best course of action would be to respect one another’s beliefs and stop trying to shove our own beliefs down anyone’s throat.
We have pretty well documented evidence that Columbus was a killer and a rapist - certainly his men were.
Here’s a fairly recent article talking about how the Bible may not in fact be all Christianity cracks it up to be.
Maybe you Sir are following a big fat lie…then again maybe you aren’t…my point is, we all have the right to believe what we want to without someone else telling us we are wrong…and to the more extreme - forcing it upon us with laws bent around it.

"Much to the dismay of the Vatican, an approx. 1500-2000 year old bible was found in Turkey, in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara.
Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas — a disciple of Christ — which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet.

The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place. A report by The National Turk says that the Bible was seized from a gang of smugglers in a Mediterranean-area operation. The report states the gang was charged with smuggling antiquities, illegal excavations, and the possession of explosives. The books itself is valued as high as 40 Million Turkish Liras (approx. 28 mil. Dollars).

Man, where is the Thieves Guild, when you need them? Authenticity According to reports, experts and religious authorities in Tehram insist that the book is original. The book itself is written with gold lettering, onto loosely-tied leather in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. The text maintains a vision similar to Islam, contradicting the New Testament's teachings of Christianity. Jesus also foresees the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would found Islam 700 years later.

It is believed that, during the Council of Nicea, the Catholic Church hand-picked the gospels that form the Bible as we know it today; omitting the Gospel of Barnabas (among many others) in favor of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many biblical texts have begun to surface over time, including those of the Dead Sea and Gnostic Gospels; but this book especially, seems to worry the Vatican.

The Catholic Church wants in What does this mean to Christian-derived religions and their followers? Quite a tight spot. The Vatican has asked Turkish authorities to let them examine the contents of the book within the Church. Now that the book has been found, will they come to accept the it and its evidence? Will they deny it altogether? Call it a “Muslim lie”, as did the “Truth” Magazine, in 2000? To many, this book is a beacon of hope, that believers soon realize that the object of their adoration is arbitrary; and that all text, especially religious text, is subject to interpretation.

What does this mean to atheists/agnostics/secular thinkers? Is the text real? Fake? Does it matter? Hopefully, this news inspires the religious to ask questions, instead of pointing fingers or believing anything blindly. Please, don't go poking fun or tossing around the “I told you so!”s. The biggest danger of faith is when people believe what they want to believe, defending against any and all evidence; especially when that evidence revolutionizes their foundation from the ground up.

And the biggest culprit to that danger is the ego trap: rejecting/criticizing others, for being unlike you. For centuries, the “defense” of blind faith has driven nations to war, violence, discrimination, slavery and to become the society of automatons that we are today; and for just as long, it has been justified with lies. If you know better, act like it. "

 

[Lark]

Well whatever the motives for the thread I think its interesting that the "muslim menace" has been around for so long, I'd always thought that the "war on terror" idea was a result of the US and Russia competing to rally the world in opposition to political islam as a new threat, the next "red menace", ie a distinctly modern development, post-cold war and it seems that instead its a much older process.

 

[Lark]

But socialism and Nazism are very similar, as some of our more astute thinkers (Hayek, for example), have noted.

They are nothing alike.

There's nothing what so ever astute about conflating and confusing various and differing political ideologies which are in opposition to your own into some supposed unified whole. Its rank conspiracy theorising.

 

[Lark]

The history of the Americas is a vague subject to me, but I remember seeing a painting down in Mexico which showed a franciscan priest restraining a pagan priest atop a pyramid, who was trying to sacrifice a terrified looking indian man.

At least on a religious side, it seems from what I have read about the native religions in the more southern areas, people lived in fear of their pagan Gods and constantly sought to appease them. At the opening ceremony of the pyramid of the Sun, apparently over 80,000 people were sacrificed - having their hearts ripped out of their chests before being discarded. I think the displacement of the native religion in the southern areas was a good thing for the people there.

Yeah, I tend to believe that too, there's a kind of guilt complex, I think fomented by very particular secularists, about how the western world's politics and religion devastated those of other parts of the world, on the whole I think it has been an improvement in many circumstances and situations.

 

[problemz]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] - National socialism and socialism are generally speaking totalitarian attempts to control the economy in the name of the nation-state and they turn everyone into an automaton. This is Hayek's central point at least.

 

[Lark]

@Lark - National socialism and socialism are generally speaking totalitarian attempts to control the economy in the name of the nation-state and they turn everyone into an automaton. This is Hayek's central point at least.

I read his book and he conflated all central planning with a single totalitarian ideology, which is bullshit, seriously. To suggest there is moral equivalence between keynesian demand management and the holocaust, which is the logical conclusion and not even argument ad absurdum in this case, is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.

The planning Hayek objected to is just economics. Attempts to test the hypothesis of self-regulating market mechanisms have resulted everywhere and always in market failure, the most recent of which is evidenced by the deregulation of finance in the US which almost destroyed the economies of the english speaking world principally and the whole world consequently.

That is before you get into a discussion as to whether or not there has ever been a consensus among socialists that the state is a legitimate means for introducing or furthering the goals of socialism per se, there hasnt been such a consensus, ever, and that is a fact which Hayek deliberately sought to misrepresent and lie about. So Hayek's central point is someplace between intellectual dishonesty and deliberate lies. Great guy.

 

[problemz]

I don't think you understand his argument quite. He and Keynes were, moreover, lifelong friends, even when they disagreed intellectually. Hayek does allow that any government that experiences a surplus owes something to its poorest. He is not able to say where and when that should kick in. You don't have a very solid understanding of this point at all, and want to substitute outrage for careful thought. That's quite normal in a certain milieu, but it's also to be regretted. You also have a somewhat nutty understanding of the recent collapse of the housing market which was caused by Fannie and Freddie and the reliance by the banks on guaranteed bailouts should the housing prices fail to continue to rise, which would have necessitated the banks calling in their debt. When they did, there was one hundred times the debt that there was supposed to be, and the bubble imploded. But F & F were Democratic initiatives going back to LBJ and his Great Society. It's hard to walk these things back in a paragraph, but the Senate investigation and its report are available online. It's not difficult to read, but is a gruesome process unless you are a doctor of economic wounds and want to see the gaping sores running in so many different directions. I find it hard to fathom how to correct these things. Hayek's attempt to correct them back in the days of World War II (his big book appeared in 1943 when the Soviets and the Nazis were having it out at Stalingrad), correctly showed that each side featured monolithic control of capital. Hayek sides instead with Locke and Smith and argues that unregulated capital (the basis of the free market) were also the only stability as each player can then correct their own capital outlay providing stability for the overall game which would allow the infrastructure to survive even if individual entities ended up living underneath a bridge, as they had in Dickensian times. Both sides are difficult and have risks. This world has no guarantees. Try living in a forest as a bird and see. But I would rather have a living free market than a closed market run by a megalomaniac. One system produces Wall Street tycoons without values living high and without a concern for others. But they do spread wealth. The other system produces (at the worst) someone like Kim Jong On, who lives high, and does not spread wealth. Neither side is exactly pretty. Better than either would be a Catholic or at least Christian system as thought out by Chesterton or Belloc, but that would require a whole buy-in to the Christian way of life - something that the Scandinavian Lutheran societies have perfected, but outside of those areas, have never been seen or understood anywhere else.

Columbus was a bit of a difficult guy, and he didn't exactly have a platoon of saints aboard his ships. He wanted the gold to finance Crusades to free Jerusalem from the yoke of Islam. Islam enforces belief in its system, much like the Marxists. Naysayers face death. Columbus had an elementary sense of freedom and was mixed up perhaps, but he was the best thing going at that time?

 

[Skarekrow]

I don't think you understand his argument quite. He and Keynes were, moreover, lifelong friends, even when they disagreed intellectually. Hayek does allow that any government that experiences a surplus owes something to its poorest. He is not able to say where and when that should kick in. You don't have a very solid understanding of this point at all, and want to substitute outrage for careful thought. That's quite normal in a certain milieu, but it's also to be regretted. You also have a somewhat nutty understanding of the recent collapse of the housing market which was caused by Fannie and Freddie and the reliance by the banks on guaranteed bailouts should the housing prices fail to continue to rise, which would have necessitated the banks calling in their debt. When they did, there was one hundred times the debt that there was supposed to be, and the bubble imploded. But F & F were Democratic initiatives going back to LBJ and his Great Society. It's hard to walk these things back in a paragraph, but the Senate investigation and its report are available online. It's not difficult to read, but is a gruesome process unless you are a doctor of economic wounds and want to see the gaping sores running in so many different directions. I find it hard to fathom how to correct these things. Hayek's attempt to correct them back in the days of World War II (his big book appeared in 1943 when the Soviets and the Nazis were having it out at Stalingrad), correctly showed that each side featured monolithic control of capital. Hayek sides instead with Locke and Smith and argues that unregulated capital (the basis of the free market) were also the only stability as each player can then correct their own capital outlay providing stability for the overall game which would allow the infrastructure to survive even if individual entities ended up living underneath a bridge, as they had in Dickensian times. Both sides are difficult and have risks. This world has no guarantees. Try living in a forest as a bird and see. But I would rather have a living free market than a closed market run by a megalomaniac. One system produces Wall Street tycoons without values living high and without a concern for others. But they do spread wealth. The other system produces (at the worst) someone like Kim Jong On, who lives high, and does not spread wealth. Neither side is exactly pretty. Better than either would be a Catholic or at least Christian system as thought out by Chesterton or Belloc, but that would require a whole buy-in to the Christian way of life - something that the Scandinavian Lutheran societies have perfected, but outside of those areas, have never been seen or understood anywhere else.

Columbus was a bit of a difficult guy, and he didn't exactly have a platoon of saints aboard his ships. He wanted the gold to finance Crusades to free Jerusalem from the yoke of Islam. Islam enforces belief in its system, much like the Marxists. Naysayers face death. Columbus had an elementary sense of freedom and was mixed up perhaps, but he was the best thing going at that time?

Wow…where to even begin…
It was unregulated or at the very least under-regulated capitalism that got us where we are now.
We can thank our good buddy Ronald Reagan for tearing down the regulations and then we can thank Clinton for the repeal of Glass-Stegal.
The housing market collapse was not caused by Fannie and Freddie…it was caused by the banks writing dirty loans to people who couldn’t afford them and then trying to resell shit as gold.
Sorry, but I still believe that we as a nation have an obligation to help the poorest among us…those are the types of values that made us great once.
Try living in a forest as a bird? That is your example of life being unfair?
I understand that in order for a capitalist system to work there needs to be some amount of income disparity…but what we have now is absolutely ridiculous.
Those “Wall Street tycoons” who you say “spread wealth” is an out and out lie…they do not spread wealth…I have statistics to back it up if you would like me to supply them. There is very little actual job-creating investing that they do…they either sit on their money (which doesn’t trickle down) or they invest it most of the time in non-job creating places (which doesn’t trickle down). In fact the whole idea of anything “trickling down” has been shown to be absolute nonsense and untrue.
I like how you blame the Democrats and LBJ and “his Great Society”…but fail to indict the Republicans for destroying all the safe-guards, laws, and regulations that protected our economy from exactly what happened.

 

[problemz]

I don't completely understand what happened. I listen more often now to the Republican side of things, as I can no longer stomach Democrats. I was a Democrat for a long time, but they have slowly sickened me with their reverse racism and reverse sexism and reverse classism. It seems too easy to understand things in that way. I think it makes America weak to constantly find fault with it and with its origins. We have a few problems but I still think Columbus was good, the Monroe Doctrine is sound, our wars have been good, our Constitution is good, our founding principles are fine, and we should get back on our feet and destroy the Chinese next. They suck.

 

[muir]

I don't completely understand what happened. I listen more often now to the Republican side of things, as I can no longer stomach Democrats. I was a Democrat for a long time, but they have slowly sickened me with their reverse racism and reverse sexism and reverse classism. It seems too easy to understand things in that way. I think it makes America weak to constantly find fault with it and with its origins. We have a few problems but I still think Columbus was good, the Monroe Doctrine is sound, our wars have been good, our Constitution is good, our founding principles are fine, and we should get back on our feet and destroy the Chinese next. They suck.

Money...you've heard of it right? You've used it.....you understand how it buys things...

Well it buys people too....

It buys politicians and judges and other influencial people.

And when money fails there are threats.

And when both money and threats fail there is always the otpion of removing the person from the game entirely and replacing them with someone who will accept the money

That's how the game is played and that is why you are now dissapointed with the republicans AND the democrats, because the politicians on both those teams have been bought with money and threats

So if money is power who has the money and therefore the power?

Sure some politicans are millionaires so they have some power but they are not the real power brokers which is why they are only on the power stage for a short time

The real power is with the billionaires and trillionaires....they keep buying people and exerting influence regardless of which political party is in power......they are ALWAYS there pulling the strings

The democrats and republicans are simply two sides of the same BUSINESS PARTY. They are bought and paid for by BIG BUSINESS, big money and they represent the interests of BIG BUSINESS

The wars are not just...they are wars that BIG BUSINESS wants

BIG BUSINESS does not like the constitution which is why the constituion is under threat. The constitution sought to hand power to the people NOT to big business

There is an ex CIA agent who used to work as an economic hitman. he explains the approach i outline above where the CIA (who work for BIG BUSINESS and recruit from them) makes an offer to a politician it wants to corrupt; it offers on one hand to make them very rich if they oblige or to kill them if they refuse. If the politician still refuse to do what they are told then the CIA send in the 'jackals' to take him out

If you love your country and you love freedom and believe that the people should have a say in the running of things then you should recognise that it is not the chinese that are undermining your freedoms but people within your own country: BIG BUSINESS

[video=youtube;aqIHKWd9rSc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc[/video]

 

[muir]

Uprising in saudi arabia:

[video=youtube;c7zgifyiqnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7zgifyiqnA#t=176[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

I don't completely understand what happened. I listen more often now to the Republican side of things, as I can no longer stomach Democrats. I was a Democrat for a long time, but they have slowly sickened me with their reverse racism and reverse sexism and reverse classism. It seems too easy to understand things in that way. I think it makes America weak to constantly find fault with it and with its origins. We have a few problems but I still think Columbus was good, the Monroe Doctrine is sound, our wars have been good, our Constitution is good, our founding principles are fine, and we should get back on our feet and destroy the Chinese next. They suck.

I don’t really care what side of politics people wish to be a part of and follow…just so long as they don’t infringe on the right of any group of people because the majority of their group has a certain line of party (usually religious) beliefs they try to impose on everyone else regardless of what the majority of the nation wants.
Like gay marriage…sorry if you are against it, but the majority of America is not and the more it is being scrutinized we are finding that the religious right who opposes it has no constitutional leg to stand on…it is almost exactly the same with blacks marrying whites in the 1960s.
Columbus was a conquistador or a conquerer…it was his job to go out and “conquer” new lands for his home land and queen, not go make friendly with them. Even since Columbus arrived (though he certainly wasn’t the first, but was the most famous) the systematic slaughter and relocation of the native people hasn’t ceased…even to this day. The Monroe doctrine was just us saying “We colonized it first…don’t try and take our stuff”…it holds about as much weight as the Native Americans did when they said that to the US Government. In other words - it’s bullshit.
As for our wars being “good", you are out of your mind. That could be a whole other thread in itself. If you wish to discuss why they are not “good” nor justified, nor helpful, then we can discuss further.
I have nothing against the Constitution or our founding principles…but once again, people should not try and twist the words and meaning around in them for their own benefit…such as our right to bear arms…that doesn’t mean that criminals and clinically insane people can walk into a gun show and walk out with an AR-15 and 10 clips that hold 30 rounds each. Why is the right opposed to background checks? Is it a slippery slope do they think? You know what else is a “slippery slope”? - Handing an insane and distraught person a gun without any sort of checks alone the way.
“How can we prevent this from happening?!” Cries the news after each mass shooting…yeah, it’s very simple - have stricter background checks. “Oh, but they could just kill someone with a knife if they can’t get a gun!" Says the right…yes…but you can outrun a knife, you can’t a bullet…it’s much harder to kill en mass with a knife…what stupid reasoning…why wouldn’t you do everything possible to make it more difficult for such individuals to have a weapon that can kill rapidly and easily?
As for destroying the Chinese…good luck with that…they could crash our economy with the push of a button…they own us.
Not only that but in an actual war with them we would probably be slaughtered…especially now that we are such good buddies with Russia.
Those two could easily destroy this country if they decided they wanted to…all we could do is fire our nukes and wait for the return missiles.

 

[muir]

 

[muir]

 

[muir]

 

[muir]

Looks like Prince Bandar has outlived his usefullness to the zionist cabal who have thrown him under the bus (or to use Operation Monarch terminolgy: ''thrown from the freedom train'')just like they did with their previous partners Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi

I guess bandar won't be spilling the beans now about how he worked with the Bushes to bring about the 911 attacks

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/02/365262/saudi-spymaster-afflicted-with-poison/

Bandar Bin Sultan injected with poison: Report

Saudi Arabia's spymaster Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz has been injected with an incurable poison, a Lebanese media report says.

Some Lebanese media outlets quoted Saudi sources as saying that the prince was injected with an unknown kind of poison.
Bandar slipped into a coma and was rushed to Morocco and the United States for treatment, the report added.
Medical doctors say various methods of treatment have failed to restore him to health over the past few months, it noted.
The Saudi prince is known to have had close ties with former US President George W. Bush, and was an advocate of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Bandar is also widely believed to be the key figure trying to increase Saudi weapons flow to the foreign-backed militants in Syria.
However, Washington had demanded the removal of Prince Bandar from the Syrian file owing to his mismanagement of the situation in the country, which has been grappling with a foreign-backed crisis since March 2011.
Several media reports confirmed that Bandar had been sacked.
Some unnamed Saudi security officials have recently said the Saudi prince would retake his position as intelligence chief and be in charge of dealing with Syria.
According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies -- especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.
Over 160,000 people have reportedly been killed and millions displaced due to the Syria violence fueled by the foreign-backed militants.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] - National socialism and socialism are generally speaking totalitarian attempts to control the economy in the name of the nation-state and they turn everyone into an automaton. This is Hayek's central point at least.

Well when he's wrong in his central point there's not much hope for any more ephemoral insight is there

 

[Lark]

I don't think you understand his argument quite]

Nope, its not I that's hard of understanding here, I hate that classic libertarian presumption that there opposition are all ignorant.

 

[Lerxst]

Ugh, the OP is all kinds of nasty and wrong. Seriously?

Protestant and Catholic west is as good at it gets? Firstly, those are religions, not cultures. Secondly, those "third world" countries have Protestant and Catholics too. This is most likely just a veiled attempt to say that you prefer White/Caucasians (excluding those pesky Jews) to all them brown/black people.

You love you some cheap ethnic food. I see, so the sum of other people's culture is some shitty Westernized version of their food?

There isn't any point in even trying to answer this stupid ass thread because it is all sorts of shitty. If this isn't TROLL, it sure smells like it.

Welcome to the typical "Every racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ethnocentric, bigoted, sexist, conservative, Tea Party wet-dream opinion I've ever had in life is the only right opinion... but please feel free to post something for me to disagree and argue with you about so I can justify my opinion about how right I am" thread Problemz usually starts.

Seriously man, there's a difference between intelligent conversation and fucktardedness. Guess which one this thread is.