When will they apologize for kidnapping all the beautiful Anglo women away ?

t. non-pork-eating dutch

>"'Despite the fact that their wives are very beautiful, [the Brits] have very little to do with them, but instead abandon themselves to a strange passion for other men.

>They usually sleep on the ground on skins of wild animals and tumble about with a bedfellow on either side. And what is strangest of all
is that, without any thought for a natural sense of modesty, they carelessly surrender their virginity to other man.

>Far from finding anything shameful in all this, they feel insulted if anyone refuses the favours they offer.'

Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC)
World History, V.32"

Can't really blame the Scandis considering the above.

Im culturally iranian but im not muslim, thank god

You aren't convinced yet that Morocco is legit one of the portals to hell?

Are you zoroastrian ?
Please say yes

no, my stepmom escaped iran because of religion. My father is kurdish and came here in the 60s. he didnt want to align with other kurds and isnt a muslim either.
religion is a serious issue, you dont become religious as a joke

Based

This meme is just a cope for the less successful countries. I can assure you, personally, that it doesn’t affect me and the men of britain as we enjoy our wonderful lives with our wonderful women. Thank you

kids these days see religion as another consumption product, like a pair of Adidas, or like the football team you root for

Most europeans were gays as fuck until christianity came.

>were
user I..

christcuck detected

>wonderful women

Which part of this godforsaken kingdom do you live in?

>christcuck detected
I think you are being overly hostile, he just stated a fact.

I answer with mesured thought
He actually said that my ancestors were gays, I don't tolerate these allegations, do you ?

Someone make a NORF about this

Attached: 1539587671357.png (1908x726, 506K)

never sounds about right

Well who knows really, I haven't studied homosexuality in France (former name ofc) before the 3rd or 4th century. I cannot answer this.

Diodorus Siculus was specifically talking about the Britons though. Although I agree that degeneracy was the norm all over Europe before Christianity came.

According to french historian Louis Cachet, they followed the vikangz on their own will

You know I would complain but I'm from a heavily Viking colonised area so whatever

Gay is the European standard. Being straight was the deviation.

Ich bin elsässer.

Hohoho for sure, kings and the borgias were straight God's shepherd doing right things for their people, according to Jesus teachings and his death for our sins.
Manichean view at its finest.

We didnt rape them though. The family line was the most important aspect of society, the reason why we named ourselves after our fathers and got sen/son-names

Redheads originated in Sweden

>degeneracy was the norm all over Europe before Christianity came.
Actually, the ancients were mostly (Roman world) very devout and religious to their gods, even before Christianity. We only consider it degeneracy now because it clashes here and there with our Christian morality. They had different morals. Although, this is not an argument for the reversal of these morals, there is a reason why the old was abandoned by our ancestors for the new.

Not talking about the king and nobility (about 0.3% opf the populace), I'm talking about the general population.
You know, quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.

>there is a reason why the old was abandoned by our ancestors for the new
Absolutely nothing to do with Constantine converting to chtistianity I suppose.

>Absolutely nothing to do with Constantine converting to chtistianity I suppose.
Do you think this was the reason why all of Western and Northern Europe became Christian, centuries later? Or why Russia became Christian six centuries later? I'll let you think about that so that you can come up with a better argument.

Well although it is true that many Romans did not want temple whores and certain Bacchal rituals to take place in the vicinity of the city, they saw these things as shameful but necessary as it was ordered by the gods.
Then came the Christians, reaffirming the already popular hellenistic notion that the pagan gods were evil and no examples of virtue at all, and adding to that that these were in fact, devils and demons, fallen angels.

Because it's well known that every citizens of the roman empire or folks of alemani tribes were all pederastrians.
Something tells me you're not being fully honest with me and that would probably annoy John or even Thomas.

>L'essayiste Didier Godard affirme que « la civilisation celtique se caractérise par une liberté sexuelle dont participent les amours de même sexe »[31][réf. insuffisante]. La notion de péché n'existe pas dans le monde celtique et les mœurs sont très libres au sein d'une société dominée par le système matriarcal[32]. La nudité est naturelle et les soldats combattent souvent nus et entretiennent des relations amoureuses entre eux. Nous n'avons pas de témoignages directs car les Celtes ne connaissaient pas l'écriture mais des témoignages d'auteurs grecs comme Aristote ou Diodore de Sicile. Les auteurs nous décrivent des amours masculines multiples[33] et « … ils s'étonnent, d'une façon inattendue, compte tenu de leurs propres traditions, de l'importance des amours masculines dans cette civilisation. Ils nous apprennent que, chez les peuples celtes, les hommes aiment s'ébattre à trois sur des peaux de bêtes[34],[35], et que leur goût pour ces pratiques les amène à négliger leurs femmes, pourtant très jolies ; ou encore qu'ils proposent volontiers leurs faveurs à d'autres hommes et s'estiment offensés par le refus, ce qui semblerait indiquer qu'il ignorent le discrédit attaché dans d'autres sociétés, par exemple chez les Scandinaves, à l'homosexualité passive »[36][réf. insuffisante]. Les travaux de Bernard Sergent montrent que les Celtes partagent avec les Grecs la tradition de pédérastie initiatique jugée indispensable à la formation du jeune guerrier[37]. Selon Aristote[38] encore, les Celtes approuvent les jeux amoureux masculins : la civilisation celte ne connaît pas la répression sexuelle.
Europeans were GAYS

youre right belgiumbro

One of the reasons, de facto, religion has always been a political tool, you can thibk otherwise but it would be wrong.

Platon particularly rejected Dyonisian way of living and as you know there is a hierarchy in Olympus, bad gods represent powerful beings and have to be respected but the good one will always prevail.
The same accepation of the sin can be found in every Church on the world, you won't see sinners taken down for the sake of god, because eeeeh, it appears that the Lord has mercy.
All semantic bullshits.

>religion has always been a political tool
Everything can be used for political means, even a sporting event, a charity, a song, popularity, a name, literally everything, doesn't mean that the matter in question is political. This argument must be dismissed too as it is full of holes.

>selon Aristote, les celtes

OHH TOTALLY NOT FLAWED

>hey look guys the snowniggers are like us so we can also fuck them

Intelligentsia have always been parasited by closet ephebophilian faggots, from Socrate to Camus.

Cope

>beautiful
>anglo
pick one and only one

We can debate about it if you want.
I think that separating things is ontologically false, you can't explain the whole thing without its particularities, and you can't take its particularities one by one to explain the whole painting. This is True for everything. Absolutely everything.
In labs you have to cook with controlled parameters like heat or humidity.
For instance the culture-genetic dichotomy : you can't explain phenotypical traits without the habits of the said social group, like light eyes in low light areas.
And it goes the other way around, culture comes after the birth, it is closely related and can't be exhaustively explained alone. That's why science is multi-polar.

Politics are deeply related to our nature.

>Because it's well known that every citizens of the roman empire
lolno, do you what kinaidei means in Greek?

>or folks of alemani tribes were all pederastrians.
wouldn't surprise me, we're talking about mountain germans after all

Go back worshipping your crypto-marxist

>Politics are deeply related to our nature.
Of course they are, but that does not mean that everything is in essence political. That would be a false conclusion. A letter that you write to your loved ones is not a political tool. The motivation and end of this letter is not political, for example.

>L'essayiste Didier Godard affirme

I prefer the primary sources

Don't they teach you what is irony in your geopolitical buffer zone ?
And by the way, alemani aren't what you think they are, celto germanic mutts are everywhere in the center of europe and not only in switzerland

Note that when Diodorus Sicilus described the open homosexuality of Britons, he added that it was curious they did not find this in any way shameful. What does this say about the Roman perspective on it?

But my love for her would have political background, the langage we're using is a political fruit, even the love itself might be the result of politcal related subjects.
That's the real meaning of politics, litteraly it is everywhere.
Again, you take one particular thing trying to explain a concept
"x is not political"
But "politis, relative to the citizens" clearly says that politics is everywhere people maintain a communication, by a mutual convention.
The civilisation is politic, everywhere you look.

Well Diodorus just wrote what a traveler saw during his journey through gaul, like 4 faggots from the aristocracy having sexual intercourse
It totally means that they were all fags.

>But my love for her would have political background
But would that sill count as love? You are very right in saying that everything can be done in a political motivation, but that rests with the doer, not with the matter itself. A love letter can be written out of love, or out of political motivations. But I, and others surely too, would argue that a love letter written out of political motivations is not a love letter but merely a latter that serves certain worldly purposes. I think this is where we must accept that we cannot agree, due to different definitions.

First§ off it was Britain, and secondly he clearly described it as being a very common thing. You are the revisionist here. Who is more trustworhty, the words of a contemporary, or the words of Louis who interprets the thing from his armchair 2000 years later?

What is love ?

>First§ off it was Britain,
I thought we weren't at one extrapolation close

>and secondly he clearly described it as being a very common thing. You are the revisionist here.
We all are revisionnists at some point, and i'm not doing it, I just give my interpretation of his saying with a contemporary filter, the one that allows me to know that we're on the Earth, in Orion's arm from the Milky way inside the Local group.

>Who is more trustworhty, the words of a contemporary, or the words of Louis who interprets the thing from his armchair 2000 years later?
Don't know really, i still try to figure out how I could turn my tap water into wine
Let me tell you that i still haven't found out

That is certainly an unfair question but I will answer nonetheless. It can be argued that love and politics are polar opposites. While politics are always busy with creating favorable circumstances for oneself or one's own group, accepting to harm or disadvantage others in the process, it can be said that love is primarily selfless giving. What exactly is being given can differ: Care, attention, food, forgiveness, support, etc. It has been written that there is no greater love than giving up your life for your friends. That surely would be one definition. But, I hope we are both aware that by discussing the meaning of love we have left reason, logic, and therefore arguments far behind, and entered philosophy.

>why would the Romans describe their enemies in negative light
Gee I wonder

what enemies? They were already conquered and in the days of Siculus the Brits lived decadent and accostumed to Roman lifestyle.

Reason isn't antinomic to philosophy, quite the opposite if we take in account the etymology of philosophy.
Would've gladly continued the discussion but real life calls me back, thanks for the share of your Weltanschauung.

Sure, likewise. In any case, the definitions of logic and philosophy are quiet numerous. In closing I would like to add that if the Franks and the Greeks were friends instead of enemies, we would live in a different world today.

The Danes settled in the Danelaw, and the Norwegians settled a bit in Cumbria
Now this is BASED

These must have been Celtic Britons though, did Anglo-Saxons do this as well?

No.