/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17221066]

>be Qutb
>comes to America during its trad peak in the 1950's
>says it's materialistic degeneracy with no spiritual qualities and is run by Jews

Can someone explain this?

[Anonymous No.17221086]

>capitalist secular cuckservativism is somehow a trad peak.
May ALLAH have mercy on your soul.

[Anonymous No.17221125]

>>17221066
>be Hamsun
>come to America late XIX century
>identify the same cultural problems that are still prevalent today

[Anonymous No.17221140]

Yeah, the Industrial Revolution really did a number, huh?

[Anonymous No.17221251]

>>17221066
>be Qtub
>LARP AS Islamist
>Wear western clothes
>Be clean shaven except for Western facial hair and haircut
>Have uncovered head

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.17221273]

>>17221066
Can Qutb 's existence be used as an argument against the claim that Islamic theology wasn't violent before the US set its hands in the Islamic world (Afghanistan and after)?
I keep hearing the claim that before the West got involved, the Middle East was a peaceful place and so were Islamic beliefs.

[Anonymous No.17221315]

mfw I was taught by the guy who wrote this

[Anonymous No.17221339]

>>17221273
That's obviously horseshit. "Peace" in the Middle East was, for a time, ensured by the Ottoman Empire enforcing an economy rooted in keeping thing stable and extracting as much wealth as possible from the populace. The entire Empire collapsed in revolt literally every decade as every single one of the Caliph's dozens of sons began murdering each other for who got to take his place. The Ottomans eventually succeeded in ending this practice of mass fratricide by having the Caliph imprison every son except one in a giant prison, that the dominant son could then use to slaughter all of his brothers when his father died. The country still broke out into civil war every decade, but no long over fratricide. This is to say nothing of the constant religious violence of the Muslims against literally everyone (and, to be fair, the Christians and Jews against each other and their Muslim oppressors) over incredibly minor doctrinal points.

One of which was the fact that the Ottoman Empire was run by alcoholic pederasts, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Slavs, and Persians, all of whom completely rejected the Arabic cultural supremacy of Islam. For a long time, prayers were, as per state enforcement, done in Turkish, not Arabic, despite the Quran literally saying that prayer has to be done in Arabic.

Qutb's problem is that he hated niggers (this isn't the problem) and when he came to the US, his fellow boipucci enthusiasts recommended him to some good Muslims, who turned out to be Nation of Islam types. Qutb blew a gasket at the idea of nogs praying and making up all sorts of whacky bullshit and calling it Islam. Whenever Qutb talks about the decadence or corruption of the US, understand that half of what he's saying amounts to
>they let niggers lead prayer and say Muhammad was a black spaceman

This is not a defense of the US involvement in the Middle East (which, let's be honest, is just Israel existing by proxy), of course, but rather an explanation that the violence against a foreign body (The US, not Israel) was just directed at native bodies instead.

[Anonymous No.17221345]

>>17221339
>The Ottomans eventually succeeded in ending this practice of mass fratricide by having the Caliph imprison every son except one in a giant prison, that the dominant son could then use to slaughter all of his brothers when his father died.
How is that the best thing they could come up with lmfao

[Anonymous No.17221432]

>>17221273
>I keep hearing the claim that before the West got involved, the Middle East was a peaceful place
Lmao. The middle-east had peace and it had war just like everywhere else and like everywhere else the philosophies waxed and waned and degenerated and grew. In times of prosperity and peace some of these societies grew fat and liberal (fun fact: Turkey legalized homosexuality in 1868) and this is reflected in the historical record. Then times get hard and people turn to religion for guidance and you get islamic fundamentalism (ie "radical Islam") because being fat and liberal led their country to shit. You can see this in Afghanistan; it was doing pretty well for itself in the 20th century and then the Soviets invaded, it turned into a war-torn shithole and people turned back to the gospel of "REEEE FUCKING KUFFARS GET OUT OF MY MOUNTAINS" because that was what they knew and what served their interests at that time. Of course, the hard-liners didn't just relinquish power when the crisis passed and so here we are today.

>and so were Islamic beliefs.
Lmao. Islam was founded on unrelenting conquest and violence against anyone who refuses to convert and/or surrender their valuables and women. When that was no longer necessary because everyone around them was already muslim or too weak to conquer them, the "live by the sword" aspect became obviated and ideas softened. When living by the sword becomes necessary again, ideas harden and you're back to the equivalent of raiding merchants outside of Medina.

[Anonymous No.17221455]

>>17221345
Islamic inheritance laws do not accept the possibility of Primogeniture; all sons share their father's possessions equally. Additionally, Islamic conceptions of sovereignty worked differently than Catholic ones. Essentially, an Islamic sovereign is on the one hand "just" a very rich man, but he's also the enforcer of Islam in an area. His position as the latter is purely a pragmatic one. There never develops a Divine Right of Kings because of this; a Sultan (a rough approximation of what a King would be; a Caliph is technically something more akin to a Warrior-Pope) is just "a guy". He gets some theological leeway in a lot of ways (for example, he can have unlimited wives; holy men also get this), but he's still "just a guy". His sovereignty is also only ever guaranteed by the personal force he can levy, whereas in Europe kingship was legally and, at least theoretically, spiritually, endowed in an individual.

That "unlimited wives" thing came to be a problem because you had to have a male heir, but every birth has a 50% chance of being a woman, AND marriages were expected for the purposes of alliances. And if you weren't impregnating someone's daughter, you were in trouble. So the entire Islamic world had a constant problem of Surplus Men. This isn't a bad thing, because you just give them weapons and tell them to go fuck off and spread Islam by the sword, but when you run out of places to do that (or lack the capacity to gather up all of the Surplus Men in your territory), those men who can't get laid who have no prospects in life quickly become a problem.

They also have a habit of joining whacky religious sects. ISIS, and all Islamic fundamentalist groups (not all "Islamic Terrorism" is this, such as the Taliban, which technically follows Pashtun Nationalism), are composed of two types of people: goat fuckers who have been taking potshots at foreigners since Alexander marched through their territory and dunecoon incels being used as cannon fodder by them.

[Anonymous No.17221462]

>>17221251
It actually shows he wasn't larping. Indeed even though he was incarcerated for assassination attempt they offered to release him if only he would retract his views which he refused to

>>17221339
Afghanistan didn't make Islam violent, rather it revived transnationalism and jihad as ideas, whereas before they had mostly erased by massive colonialist pozzing.

The Ottomans really had the most issues because they tried to modernize, for example they legalized sodomy in the 19ty Century. They incurred serious anger. They were also extremely brutal, contrary to most narratives they were actually harsher than even ISIS which as far as we know gives protection to Christians who pay jizya whereas the Ottomans continually kicked them around. Not due to fanaticism of course because they kicked around Muslims too. Nonetheless they did help keep things relatively unified.

The civil war you portray was not constant and actually pretty mild compared to the Roman Empire.

The Ottomans did the prayer in Arabic, the call to prayer was forcibly switched to Turkish under Kemalism until he died. The Ottomans wrote in Arabic script. The rulers were corrupt but there was quite an Islamic culture outside the decadent

Qutb hated jazz, which he associated with primitive Africa, but the song that disgusted him was Baby it's cold outside played at a dance of white school teachers who were his peers, he called it jazz which it is. He didn't have any serious disgust with black people and actually considering Islam opposed to nationalism saying the first Islamic state had Arabs, blacks, Persians and Romans (whites)

[Anonymous No.17221485]

>>17221455
>There never develops a Divine Right of Kings because of this; a
That's incorrect, see Madkhalis

>for example, he can have unlimited wives

No, he can have unlimited concubines (slave girls), as all can, unlimited wives is corruption and not technically legal

A khalifah has full authority unless he orders something haram. He has the right to choose his successor, the original ones were not corrupt so they didn't choose sons, but most did later. If he forgoes Shari'ah he becomes illegitimate otherwise his power must be respected. He has to be confirmed by a shura of scholars who give bay'ah, the oath of loyalty

[Anonymous No.17221502]

>>17221432
>Lmao. Islam was founded on unrelenting conquest and violence against anyone who refuses to convert and/or surrender their valuables and women.
No if a people pay the tribute their women cannot be touched except by marriage with approval of their father

[Anonymous No.17223135]

>>17221066
>decide to read Whitman for the first time this year during the summer
>read the first dozen poems or so
>they're all about how America is brimming with potential and is such a great country, with even some flourishes of proto 'diversity is our strength' sentiment
>check the news - every city in america is still burning and the CDC is officially declaring white racism a deadlier pandemic than COVID
>get sad, realize America was a mistake
T-thanks Walt!

[Anonymous No.17223248]

>>17221066
1950's America was rotted from the inside. The sexual revolution was only a matter of time.

[Anonymous No.17223321]

>>17221502
Yeah, and dhimmis are "protected minorities". Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

>>17221462
>They were also extremely brutal, contrary to most narratives they were actually harsher than even ISIS which as far as we know gives protection to Christians who pay jizya whereas the Ottomans continually kicked them around.

It's interesting because here in Hungary we're taught that although being a dhimmi was hardly a pleasant experience anywhere and anytime, ottomans were the only muslims who managed to calm their autism about christians and jews to the point where they understood the importance of not chimping out about them constantly if they wanted to keep expanding their empire.

>>17221066

The remembrance of the 50s in the US is a weird thing. In a sense the 1950s represent the Garden of Eden of modern consumerism. It is the time when new consumer technologies started rolling around and be widely adopted and the only time when technological development looked like it might not entirely upend the social order. The only time when technology, economy and the general society walked at the same pace and seemingly towards a brighter future. Also : political and social stability, a clearly defined racial hierarchy, significantly higher level of ethnic homogeneity, apparent harmony and lack of internal conflict between institutions and citizenry, effortless economic prosperity, social trust and cohesion . All things which contemporary America sorely lacks. The mistake here is a failure to understand the causality - this supposed lost Eden was never something that could be maintained in a steady-state but rather it was a transitional phase in the development of capital/modernity. It's an illusion to see departure from it as a lapse, of norms and standards and values, when the event itself was a side-effect of productive forces in the arc of capitalism's/modernity's development toward globalization.

Its romanticization is therefore a very understandable, if severely misguided phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.17223329]

>>17221086
/fuckin thread

[Anonymous No.17223791]

>>17221066
The usa started being run by Jews in 1913. The process was only completed in the 1970s but intelligent men already saw what was happening.
The 1950s are not a trad peak. They just look "trad" (at least superficially) because it came before the true madness in the 1960s. People remember it too much by the family postcard esthetic. It's like remembering the 80s as the time of neon lightning and the 90s for the leather trench coats. Sure people didn't bow to niggers and socialists had a bad reputation but those aren't high bars.

[Anonymous No.17223894]

>>17221273
al-Qaeda and ISIS are glow ops actually and unironically run by people who are literally Jewish

[Anonymous No.17223933]

>>17221339
do you have a source for the black people stuff, shit sounds hilarious to read

[Anonymous No.17223979]

>>17221455
>composed of two types of people: goat fuckers who have been taking potshots at foreigners since Alexander marched through their territory and dunecoon incels being used as cannon fodder by them.
very interesting, quality thread.

[Anonymous No.17224045]

>>17223321
>Yeah, and dhimmis are "protected minorities". Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?
I think of the two of us you're the one who has willful and blatantly made up nonsense like the Ottomans praying in Turkish

The goal with dhimmis is to woo them to Islam, so yes they gain a good deal of protection, this is why St. Catherine's monastery of Mount Sinai still keeps Muhammad's ﷺ dhimmi contract, because to this day has kept them safe from harm (monks who enter into dhimmi status are not required to pay anything l, unlike private citizens, they just have to not incite war against the Muslims or participate or aid such war).

>It's interesting because here in Hungary we're taught that although being a dhimmi was hardly a pleasant experience anywhere and anytime, ottomans were the only muslims who managed to calm their autism about christians and jews to the point where they understood the importance of not chimping out about them constantly if they wanted to keep expanding their empire.

You can be taught that but your national experience wouldn't have taught you better. The reason Salahuddin was so respected by Christians is because he was very fair in subjugated ones. Sure he often beheaded captive knights, but he was very religious unlike the Ottomans

>>17223894
This is incorrect and a symptom of the west thinking no one in the world, for good or evil, has any agency but them. Al-Qaeda is run by Zawahiri and ISIS is or was run by former Saddam's Iraqi intelligence agents who were left with no place after America ended his career and so joined Iraqi al-Qaeda which split off until ISIS

[Anonymous No.17224082]

>>17223321
>here in Hungary

well explains why you’re taught a bunch of weird made up shit about the ottomans that’s amalgamated from a lot of different aspects

[Anonymous No.17224128]

What did Max Weber see?

[Anonymous No.17224136]

>>17221066
>1950’s America
>Peak trad

[Anonymous No.17224169]

>"Jews are responsible for the degeneracy of the country!!!!"
>remove the Jews and the degeneracy persists because the source of the degeneracy is actually Anglo-Saxon liberalism.

[Anonymous No.17224195]

>>17224169
>source of the degeneracy is actually Anglo-Saxon liberalism.
This.

[Anonymous No.17224202]

Is there a Christian equivalent of Sayyid Qutb?

[Anonymous No.17224205]

>>17224202
Joseph de Maistre.

[Anonymous No.17224218]

Sayyid Qutb was very much the prototypical islamcel railing against american men with broad chests and "of muscles" (chad) and women with loose sexual morals (Stacy) while he remains frail and a bachelor. Most western islamic terrorists are like this.

[Anonymous No.17224223]

>peak trad 1950s
Americans won't want to admit this but the reason it is perceived that way is because it was the last decade before the Civil Rights Act

[Anonymous No.17224226]

>>17223248
think the sexual revolution goes back quite a bit m8 just look at marquis de sade

[Anonymous No.17224245]

>>17224223
They do admit this though. I''ve traveled extensively in the U.S and they will never say it in polite company but behind closed doors the most bleeding heart liberal will imply strongly that they too find blacks horrible just as much as the loud racist does. But unlike the loud racist, the bleeding heart's racism is cloaked behind several layers of bourgeois morality.

You can see it when they talk about Mexicans too. They gladly invite them to the country, but the idea that they should be doing any other job than mowing lawns,paint houses or drive Ubers is an insult.

[Anonymous No.17224247]

>>17224169
It's not exactly. It permitted things like Hollywood but if you look at the Gilded Age it certainly wasn't degenerate in many respects just cruel toward labor

>>17224202
I don't think there is one, it would be like a Christian saying we must reestablish the Holy Roman Empire and conduct unrelenting revolution throughout Europe until that's achieved

>>17224205
Joseph de Maistre is closer to Zarqawi but it's apples to organges, Maistre was in favor of restoring fallen regimes whereas Qutb wanted to incite revolution against the Arab monarchies. That is because for Maistre they were guardians of theocracy whereas in Qutb's eyes they are just puppets who are hampering it, he had a big impact on Khomeini I think.

[Anonymous No.17224260]

>>17224245
>"You're absolutely beneath me, but I need you here to so I can have someone to show performative care for to signal my holiness to my peers."
is an encapsulation of their mindset imo

[Anonymous No.17224264]

>>17224218
Most of Qutb's corpud has zero to do with America, America is like small portion of it, most of it is commentary on Islam generally and most of the critique of contemporary society is criticizing the Arab world. Where With does criticize America outside of the little essay he did on America he tends to contrast America and the USSR as two sides of the same materialist coin

[Anonymous No.17224268]

>>17224260
Deeply entrenched protestant mindset

[Anonymous No.17224273]

>>17224260
Sure, but purely materialistically they also love having a bunch of Mexican nannies and gardeners they can pay shit wages.

Never underestimate the power of looking wealthy even if you aren't *that* wealthy.

[Anonymous No.17224285]

>>17221339
If I remember correctly, one of the things Quebec hated about America was jazz.

[Anonymous No.17224286]

>>17224273
Yeah but the oil sheiks have foreign workers too, they just don't develop a bizarre moral complex over it. There's nothing even wrong with being a nanny, it pays a lot better than most of one's options in LatAm and is easy in comparison.

[Anonymous No.17224290]

>>17224264
I would argue that his inability to find a sufficiently devout wife, compounded with his experiences in america of being a scrawny bookish pencil neck are enough to fully categorise the man as an eternal INCEL and no I won't be backing this up further.

[Anonymous No.17224305]

>>17224286
I think there's something wrong with a society that accepts nannyjobs being a fulltime job with shit wages in order that the parents can work 80 hour corpo jobs and never see and raise their children themselves.

The problem with Mexican immigration to the U.S isn't the Mexicans themselves, it's that it makes labor so cheap that people who make 80k a year can have a house full of servants just like the planter class in the antebellum South.

[Anonymous No.17224344]

>>17224245
I noticed this, too. The thing that surprised me the most is the implicitly forced class/race divide. When I was chatting with people of lower "classes" many of my "upper class" friends or acquaintances turned deeply uncomfortable or cold. Sometimes I even got pulled aside so that they can leave or move away. Really confused me at first until I connected the dots.

That country is just fucked. If I were black I would chimp out too, if that is my daily experience.

[Anonymous No.17224358]

>>17223321
I understand why they were hopeful but also feel like they were morons for not seeing it coming. The US hedged its bets on a new consumerist economy that paid off incredibly well at the time but entailed a social transformation the country clearly wasn't ready for leading to extreme political polarization and national fragmentation. Of course when you put all your chips into one basket, when you accept this new technology and way of life, you accept all the unseen consequences with it. It's interesting to think of 1950's America as having the same optimism Europeans did before the wars, when the masses too thought life was finally getting better.

[Anonymous No.17224361]

>>17224082
Nobody is going to argue that the ottomans were less tolerant than, say, the umayyads.

[Anonymous No.17224362]

>>17221066
>trad peak in the 1950's
Don't trust memes to educate you on stuff.

[Anonymous No.17224371]

>>17224358
Yeah, I suppose 50s america is what the belle époque was to Europe.

[Anonymous No.17224392]

>>17224344
If I was black I would move from the United States immediately tbqh.

[Anonymous No.17224413]

>>17224305
A lot of those guys earn far better wages than you'd think. Some farm workers earn like $30 an hour and much of it is under the table.

[Anonymous No.17224417]

>>17224413
Really? So why don't white Americans do them?

[Anonymous No.17224420]

>>17224392
To where? Unless they move to a poor country, afro-Americans will face the same problems of unemployability and high crime rates without the sympathy that American liberals have for them.

[Anonymous No.17224429]

>>17224417
Unironically laziness and ability to get a government or desk job due to having a degree. Picking crops in a hot climate sucks, Mexicans deserve a high salary for it if they want to do it. I wouldn't trade a $25/hr desk job for a $30/hr farm job.

[Anonymous No.17224443]

>>17224429
I think you're wrong. I think it's because corporate deskjobs are associated with higher status by everyone in the country, and often perceived status matters more for your future opportunities than just a simple high paycheck does.

Class isn't reducible to how much money you are paid, if it was, then an electrician would be more a powerful person than a journalist since he's paid more, and yet we all know that's absolutely not true.

[Anonymous No.17224448]

>>17224420
There are plenty of countries in Europe where blacks would have a better time than the U.S.

[Anonymous No.17224462]

>>17224448
Probably. It's not easy to get in though. Heritage is out of the option for them so they'd need a good degree.

[Anonymous No.17224465]

>>17224448
So basically move to one of the vassals of the US instead of the US? Do you think Nigerians are having a grand old time in Germany?

[Anonymous No.17224475]

>>17224465
>Do you think Nigerians are having a grand old time in Germany?

Absolutely? Nigerians who emigrate are usually extremely well educated and have zero problems getting good jobs.

[Anonymous No.17224481]

>>17224169
Oh yes, 1760 Philadelphia, home of degeneracy.

>>17223321
>>17224358
You are way overestimating the inevitability of such transformations. It is always easy to pretend, after the fact, that things were doomed from the start. The post 1950s societal transformations were not some external constrains put by "consumerism", they were a series of choices, entirely contingent. Germany fell for ultra consumerism too and followed quite a different path, so did Singapore, etc.
The problem of the 1950s were different and even more fundamental. Even had the post 1950s turned into the Jetsons World instead of the gay negro worship, it would still be condemnable. There is a lot of similarity between those glorifying the 1950s in the US and Japan recently (even outside anime weebooism). Those countries are cohesive (because homogeneous), functional, with lower rates of various issues, etc. They are still both utterly soulless. Just because a place/time has fewer of the negative aspects we face doesn't mean there was much positive instead.

[Anonymous No.17224484]

>>17224462
>It's not easy to get in though.

Agreed, depending on the country obviously.

Point I was trying to make anyway is that emigrating from the U.S might honestly be the only way they'll actually see any social mobility the next 500 years.

[Anonymous No.17224490]

>>17224475
Yeah, because they're in the upper crust of Nigeria. The same is true of Nigerians in the US where they're in the top 10 of so wealthiest immigrant groups. Black Americans are not well-educated or even well-behaved compared to upper crust Nigerians kek

[Anonymous No.17224491]

>>17224475
>>17224465
Nigerians coming to Germany are typically poor asylum seekers. Not the highly educated immigrants coming to the US.

[Anonymous No.17224495]

>>17224481
>Oh yes, 1760 Philadelphia, home of degeneracy.

Facetious faggot.

[Anonymous No.17224517]

>>17224490
>Black Americans are not well-educated or even well-behaved compared to upper crust Nigerians

Of course not. That's the whole point. Black Americans could be like upper crust Nigerians today if white Americans wanted them to be, but they didn't. They wanted them to be at the bottom of society and be anti-social criminals so that's exactly what they got.

[Anonymous No.17224524]

>>17223321
The 1950s is the "Baseline state" of post-WWII America. It's like the Garden of Eden, essentially: the earliest point in time in which the world can possibly make sense. American history officially begins with the Holocaust, and the 1950s are America's reward for stopping the Holocaust.

Ameicans as such cannot help but view it as the standard and the norm, as it is what America is at its core. It is the Platonic Form of America. It's why danger-hairs will dress in rockabilly styles, but then talk about the dangers of heteronormative trans-unaccepting patriarchy, all the while fantasizing about spending all day in a dress baking waiting for daddy to come home and fuck them.

As you point out, this is obviously ludicrous on many levels, and anyone with a brain sees this, but Power says it must be so, and it is.

>>17224392
>>17224344
>>17224245
The creeping, horrid, sinking truth is that Blacks aren't actually Africans at all: They're Irish. This isn't a meme, essentially all of "Black Culture" is just heavily consumerist Irish culture. Even fucking rap music ultimately derives from Irish ballads. Blacks exist as a way to codify a class distinction, not a racial one (which the Puritan origins of American Liberalism completely reject the very possibility of). In order to get around this, creating a racial under class requires creating an economic under class. Are Blacks at the bottom because they're poor, or are the people at the bottom poor because they're Black? The answer to both is "yes". This is necessary to defend the institution as a whole, because it means that the problem can never be resolved except through the destruction of "Blackness". The racial angle means Blacks can never be economically uplifted, and the class angle means that Blacks can never be racially uplifted.

There's a growing trend of "WOKE Lovecraft", which is basically just taking Lovecraft stories, making all of the good guys pavement apes, and then talking about DAYUM WYPIPO SCAYREE. A genuine "Black Horror" film would involve a Black man going to Africa, only to realize that he's not actually African at all, but is instead a crude abomination made made by Dark Gods in mockery of an African. He'd then turn into an afro-topped tentacle monster.

[Anonymous No.17224526]

>>17224491
>>17224475
>Nigerians in Germany
Meanwhile in reality.

Also, I don't know how the conversation got sidetracked to Nigerians. They represent a miniscule portion of melanin enriched Americans.

[Anonymous No.17224530]

>>17221086
based

[Anonymous No.17224532]

>>17224481
Social cohesion is a positive thing, and it's something the current US has none of.
I am curious though how in your mind the US chose its fate in this way.
To me it seems mostly inevitable.

[Anonymous No.17224562]

>>17224524
>A genuine "Black Horror" film would involve a Black man going to Africa, only to realize that he's not actually African at all, but is instead a crude abomination made made by Dark Gods in mockery of an African. He'd then turn into an afro-topped tentacle monster.

This reminded me of the weird phenomenon that most african negroes tend to be even more racist towards american negroes than the overwhelming majority of whites and mexicans.

[Anonymous No.17224569]

>>17224517
>Black Americans could be like upper crust Nigerians today if white Americans wanted them to be, but they didn't.
No, it's because blacks have an average IQ of 85 so only ~2.5% of them can become Educated Upper Crust. If the US wanted them to be antisocial criminals why does it spend so much money on black upliftment initiatives?

[Anonymous No.17224581]

>>17224526
I am German. I have nothing against Nigerians. I am just saying the immigration patterns are different.

[Anonymous No.17224589]

>>17224526
U juss rayciss

[Anonymous No.17224612]

>>17223135
It is your fault. Walt is right

[Anonymous No.17224628]

>>17223135
QUAKER influence to blame. Everyone harps about the Puritans while ignoring the Quakers as the real originators of American leftism. They just do Quakerism in a Puritan way if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.17224630]

>>17224481
>>17224532
What is the value in social cohesion?

[Anonymous No.17224635]

>>17224562
In the majority of the world lines are drawn based on ethnicity and cultural background, so that is not surprising. A south African has not much in common with a west african and they will gladly tell you that. The US is fairly odd with their racial divide.

[Anonymous No.17224638]

>>17224532
I didn't imply it isn't a good thing. Just that it's not even close to enough to glorify a place, time and people. Some morons in Papua have societal cohesion (inb4 primitivism or tedniggers).
>I am curious though how in your mind the US chose its fate in this way.
They chose it when they refused to enforce their own homogeneity. That societal cohesion rested on migration restriction, bullying the migrants allowed into conforming, and isolating segments of the US population that wouldn't fit that cohesion (mainly segregating blacks).
I know some here are prone to push the narrative of every societal decision being consumerism in disguise (as opposed to Jews who, if anything, would be a slightly more realistic culprit), but no amount of dialectical bullshit will show a hard link between the two. Many eastern countries have fallen even deeper into consumerism while keeping or even increasing the consciousness of their cohesion.
It may seem inevitable in the sense that only few people explicitly decided for things to turn out this way, to the rest it came passively.

[Anonymous No.17224646]

>>17224635
Africa is an example of where you're wrong. Lines were drawn based on imperialists, not ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Every country in Africa has multiple cultures and ethnicities which has become problematic.

[Anonymous No.17224654]

>>17224646
But diversity is their strength too. What are you asking for? Ethno-states?

[Anonymous No.17224670]

>>17224635
Yeah, but in their case there's even the fact that they unwillingly get washed together in the eyes of non-blacks solely because both african and american negroes are of a similar colour. Most african negroes IME absolutely detest everything that has to do with the ghetto gangbanger shit that most people associate with blacks, although there's definitely a class divide thing going on since the blacks leaving africa to study and whatnot usually come from the richer classes of their respective countries.

[Anonymous No.17224695]

>>17221432
>Islam was founded on unrelenting conquest and violence against anyone who refuses to convert and/or surrender their valuables and women.
I need historical insyancea that prove to be the norm and not exceptions (like turks)

[Anonymous No.17224703]

>>17224526
>Nigerians 3 murders per 100k
>Lebanese 23 murder per 100k

Nigerians are like ethnic Swedes lol, good job proving my point.

[Anonymous No.17224704]

>>17223321
>Yeah, and dhimmis are "protected minorities". Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?
They are, stupid poltard please please please read the Qur'an and Islamic law.

[Anonymous No.17224720]

>>17224704
Constantine, that you?

[Anonymous No.17224738]

>>17224703
>those rapes, body harms, fraud
>still above poles
>look, some sand people are murdering more than them
Swedes aren't even represented. What is exactly your point? Nigerians aren't even close to the model migrants as you portrayed them as.
Not that it even is he point of the thread. Chinese actually don't cause issues but will still crash your societal cohesion.

[Anonymous No.17224760]

>>17224475
Educated Nigerians have a good time in the US, too.

Dolt.

[Anonymous No.17224762]

>>17224305
>people who make 80k a year can have a house full of servants
I’ve never met someone like this in my life, where in the US does this happen

[Anonymous No.17224769]

>>17224762
It can't. Maybe you can hire a mestiza nanny in Texas or something but you can hardly have a house full of servants.

[Anonymous No.17224770]

>>17224720
Nice argument.

[Anonymous No.17224772]

>>17224738
>Chinese actually don't cause issues but will still crash your societal cohesion.

They do though, they are just better at not being busted by the cops. In my country we have Vietnamese gangs and they often run illegal gambling operations and sell drugs, but since the average Vietnamese goes to work and pays their taxes and is a cultural Christian like everyone else, nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.17224775]

>>17224770
So yes?

[Anonymous No.17224825]

>>17223321
>Yeah, and dhimmis are "protected minorities". Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?
Yes they were, by definition. What is your standard for what a protected minority should look like? Affirmative action and gibs?

[Anonymous No.17224864]

>>17224825
By Islamic law they were protected minorities and no amount of Turcoman pogroms can deny that.

[Anonymous No.17224918]

>>17224864
Turks massacred Muslims as well, there's a reason they suffered a lot of rebellion

[Anonymous No.17225037]

>>17224646
But that is exactly what I am saying? I think you misunderstood my comment about "lines". I meant it in the sense of how tribes form, not how state lines are drawn.

[Anonymous No.17225065]

>>17221086
holy based

[Anonymous No.17225135]

>>17221066
>Another thing that struck me was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood. The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro. American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe.

[Anonymous No.17225152]

>>17224864
>By Islamic law they were protected minorities

Islamic history cannot be separated from Arab supremacy lol, anyone who thinks this is delusional.

[Anonymous No.17225159]

>>17225152
The capital wasn't even in Arabia by the fouth Caliph

[Anonymous No.17225189]

>>17225159
Doesn't change the fact that it's an open secret that Arabs consider themselves a superior race of people since Gabriel decided to reveal himself to Muhammad.

Arab Muslims don't treat other kinds of Muslims with the same respect, this is just a fact, and I have seen it with my own eyes in real life.

[Anonymous No.17225216]

>>17225189
Generally speaking it has to do with level of piety. Less religious Arabs look down on others, more religious ones don't, that's why you have people like Bin Laden who moved away from Saudi Arabia because he said they were too decadent and lived in Sudan and built roads for then etc and then if course he was loved in Afghanistan. Secularist leaning Arabs are more nationalist and see themselves as Arab first, Muslim second

[Anonymous No.17225232]

>>17225216
Epic cope.

[Anonymous No.17225260]

>>17225232
Wdym? Turks are also this way

[Anonymous No.17225289]

>50's
>trad

[Anonymous No.17225290]

>>17225260
If your bullshit thesis was true, very pious Arab Sunni Muslims wouldn't hate the Shia Muslims in general and the Iranians in particular as much as they actually do in practice.

[Anonymous No.17225318]

>>17225152
Arabic (wrong) customs != Islam

[Anonymous No.17225327]

>>17225290
The Shia originated in Arabia and always had beef with Sunnis. In fact the Shia were established in Persia under the Safavids who brought in Arab Shia and killed the Persian Sunnis. You don't really know what you're talking about, Iraqi Shia and Sunni also hate each other, Saddam gassed the Shia Kurds because the Sunni Kurds requested it

[Anonymous No.17225334]

>>17225327
>"Historical injustices legitimize my racism, shut up kufr."

[Anonymous No.17225381]

>>17225334
I'm not making a statement of justice or injustice. I'd also say Persian nationalism and supremacy is a big thing but Persian Sunnis are supported by Arab Sunnis

[Anonymous No.17225573]

>>17225135
the most unanswerable BTFO of America in history

[Anonymous No.17226286]

>>17224305
>I think there's something wrong with a society that accepts nannyjobs being a fulltime job with shit wages in order that the parents can work 80 hour corpo jobs and never see and raise their children themselves.
I fully agree, anon.

[Anonymous No.17226310]

>>17224524
kino post

[Anonymous No.17226380]

>>17224344
>I noticed this, too. The thing that surprised me the most is the implicitly forced class/race divide. When I was chatting with people of lower "classes" many of my "upper class" friends or acquaintances turned deeply uncomfortable or cold. Sometimes I even got pulled aside so that they can leave or move away. Really confused me at first until I connected the dots.
Could you expand on that, is that common among left- and right-wingers; is it something one can see only in cities in the US?

[Anonymous No.17226396]

>>17224524
>[American] Blacks aren't actually Africans at all: They're Irish.
Based. Basketball Americans are micks with fucked up genetics. There is nothing "African" about them (as if there was one African culture, but that doesn't matter since they have none of the African cultures).

[Anonymous No.17226427]

>>17226396
>There is nothing "African" about them
yet the women still perform the traditional mating dance

[Anonymous No.17226453]

>>17226427
This one must run very deep in primal instinct, like birds of paradise.

[Anonymous No.17226659]

>>17226396
>There is nothing "African" about them
DNA tests would like to disagree

[Anonymous No.17226929]

>>17226396
like most bantus the women do all the work and most kids are raised "communally" , the father being a sperm donor at most

[Anonymous No.17227676]

>>17224524
>they used to say the irish are niggers
>now they say the niggers are irish

I don't know what to make of this