Native Americans were patriarchal as fuck. See these reports in Brazil:

I really hate all abrahamic religions. Europe was dumb as fuck to change their traditional culture to Christian one.

1 - All treat women like trophies
2 - All worship women
3 - No sexual freedom to men

We had all this in the Americas and then Christians arrived...

are you a nigger?
how do you not know about the purpose of columbus' voyage?

I really don't understand why Portuguese keeped being Christians. Women were second class citizens in Brazil and men owned everything, unlike Portugal were they must obey queens and worship women.

If you knew of it you would know he was looking for India and that is why they were referred to as the Indians.

That's like going to your friends house and calling his dog a table and refusing to correct yourself after realizing its a dog.

Men KEKED

stfu injun

idiot

Are you suggesting that European paganism was matriarchal?

'Cause it wasn't. There was some worship directed towards feminine forces governing things like fertility and the hearth/home (regardless of the specific form of paganism) but pre-Christian Europe was almost invariably patriarchal. The mentality of female divinity was, for the most part, transferred and adapted to the Cult of Mary.

nope
it's like if you've never seen a table and never even heard of a dog
you're trying to visit a furniture shop, and you're told that there are tables there, which are brown and have four legs
then on the way you wander in to a pet shop, and you spot brown dogs, which, of course, have four legs
you naturally assume that they must be tables because they're in the right place and meet the description, as far as you're aware
and besides, what else could they be?
so you then act on the assumption that you have duly arrived at the furniture shop and found some tables, and refer to them accordingly
it's only much later that anyone invents the word "dog", and even though you know that the "tables" you found weren't actually tables, the name is convenient and well-recognised, with no risk of confusion in most circumstances,
so there's no need to switch to "dog", even though a bunch of autistic retards keep screeching about it and insisting upon its use
you laugh at them and continue to call the american tables tables, indefinitely

indiota

native american values varied per tribe

gender inequality wasn't so bad in some tribes

I wonder in how many languages this happens. In the 5 major colonial powers (Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French and English), at least:

Indians from India are called "Indianos"
Indians from America are called "Índios"

At least the Brazilian ones were extremely patriarchal.

>with no risk of confusion
you're literlaly referring to americans as indians, those are two different countries on opposite sides of the world

No. I don't deny that. Italy, Greece and Germany were patriarchal.

your both gay

>those are two different countries on opposite sides of the world
which for rather uncomplicated and easy-to-understand historical reasons which are well-known,
were for a time confused with each other,
the result of which is that the native tribes of one are called the same thing as those of the other,
but due to context are not typically misunderstood to be the same people

what is difficult here?

But you are saying that the arrival of Europeans is responsible for the replacement of your fem-dom fetish fantasy with Christian patriarchal civilisation, right?

So if European cultures were patriarchal before Christianity, and remained patriarchal after Christianity, what difference, exactly, would the survival of European paganism have made?

you're actually retarded

Attached: 1522088330932.jpg (600x600, 18K)

Christians are not patriarchal.

It's because of Christians everyone see gays as inferior, everyone look down a man being obsessed with another man or think another man is handsome.

Meanwhile lesbians are not considered inferior. This is why feminism is growing and they will devour all of our nations. Men will be hated for just cheating women or just look women in a dirty way.

Thanks Christians.

Attached: muj.jpg (640x366, 74K)

Are you quite sane?

Totally agreed.

Can you see this amount of men united?

No. Because another men would think it's "gay" and therefore "inferior" due to Christians.

You can't restore patriarchy anymore thanks to Christians.

It's not Christianity that is the source of this rot (at least not directly, though I grant a good case can be levelled against low-church types: Puritans, Quakers, Universalists, etc., and the tendency they represent). It's just that the mainstream sects of Christianity have absorbed the mainstream ideologies that are current in society. You will see that the things you identify are much worse among the secular/atheist segments of society; if anything Christianity is a mitigating factor and a constant target of attack from these types.

In fact it was quite normal in the 19th century to describe a man as being handsome or well-proportioned without a hint of homosexuality. It is only a very recent thing that masculine camaraderie began to be cast in that perverse light - you can look at the 1980s American film "Top Gun" for an example of something that would, to-day, be considered utterly homosexual. So where do you get this idea that it is Christianity's fault, given that the deformity of public morality in such a way took 2,000 years to come to fruition?

The Christian view has always been that homosexuality is sinful and unnatural; and while man is fallen, no specific sin is inherent in any specific man, especially if he truly repents and accepts Christ. To talk of "gays" as though that is some essential, defining factor that could delimit a group for purposes of establishing inferiority or superiority is essentially un-Christian. This applies to men and women alike; sin is sin.

In the same way adultery, fornication, and other sexual perversions are sins. They are sins because they corrupt the proper relation between the sexes, which is represented in marriage under God. And in a Christian marriage it is known that the man is master of his household. This is a patriarchial norm. You then, aside form any specific teaching, have centuries of Christian history wherein man was master also of the state and of politics, of the church, of the arts, of the trades, of war, of pretty much everything except those specific interests and duties that are peculiar to the womanly half of the species.

It sounds to me, quite frankly, that you are paederast sodomites bitter that your chosen vice remains is reviled while myriad others go unpunished for now. Most of your type attempt to cast their lot in with the feminists and other perverts, so it surprises me that you do not. I'm having trouble understanding your line of argument because it is so divorced from the reality of things and from the common line of arguments taken by anti-Christians.

The media has enforced the idea that gatherings of men are homoerotic. You can't blame Christians for Khazarian ideas.