What causes this? Why do only the British isles and Scandinavia have extremely low lactose intolerance?
>>16552242Isn't the former a result of the latter?
>>16552866It's not a 100/100 correlationeg Spaniards being more north western euro shifted than north Italians but overall darker
>>16550394The only guy I know as tall as me who loves milk as much as me is U106 kekt. I1
>>16552244It's not true at all. They quite wealthy, due to the Amber and tin trades in Scandinavia and Britain respectively. But also based on physical anthropology. They were extraordinarily well developed compared to other populations in Europe at the time that lactase persistence was becoming common. It was founder effects. >genomicatlas.org/2022/07/15/from-stone-to-bronze-recent-developments-in-scandinavian-archaeogenetics/amp/>https://www.nature.com/articles/094657a0#:~:text=The men who invaded England,fair in hair and complexion.
>>16550609It's incredible to me how people who thought of these matters were in the 18th and 19th centuries, even up to like the 1960's and how certain they were that there was life and civilization on Mars. Absolutely incredible lads.
is this true?
Philosophy, particularly continental, is largely useless drivel and an artifact of the underdevelopment of cognitive and behavioural sciences.
is there a way to improve my character as a swarthy balkanoid?
Is there a church that combines the music and cathedrals of catholicism, but rejects the pope and veneration like protestantism?
The National Symphony Orchestra holiday chorus series?Quit trying to retain culture while rejecting its traditional source!You can't pick and choose!
>>16552792Anglican/Episcopal is what you're looking for. It's Protestantism that larps as Catholicism.
>rejects venerationAm I just not supposed to have reverence for anyone at all? Not even my parents?
>>16552836Or Lutheranism because no veneration (Anglicans pray to saints, Lutherans just celebrate and recognize them)
>>16552836Or is it Catholicism that larps as protestantism?
This doesn't make sense. It's obviously a helicopter.
How do Assyrians take pride in their heritage when the Assyrian empire was one of the most evil empires that existed
>>16551658from Sennacherib to the conquest of Babylon there is some severely underrated turbosemitism going on in the background which culminates in putting Assyrian Nabonidus on the throne of Babylon while his son Belshazzar ended up with virtually all the wealth Nerglissar had consolidated through his own acts of turbosemitism.20 years later or so an Armenian LARPed as Nebuchadnezzar IV and got a ton of the old influential Babylon city families killed.As I said, supremely underrated turbosemitism
>>16549736no. Whatever you say it’s a no, you are a putrid subhuman nigger and will always be reminded of it
dumb roach nigger sat there, reported my posts individually whilst waiting 60 seconds and typing the captcha like a cuckold each time. kek, you can never ban me or stop me, seethe and cry all you want
>>16545353Jesus Christ, people: Take the fucking Amazon-bought flag out of the package and iron it BEFORE its intended use.
>>16545353Who they were 2500 years ago does not define their culture today. They accepted Christ and his teachings. They're willing to forgive others as they should be forgiven. This is why they should have pride in their heritage. It's a great redemption arc.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTRWoSySDE8
I'll start
>>16552914Chudhairy Ratmat Ali may he be struck down by Krishna and curse place upon his bloodline
Tought it was an Pakistani co prosperity empire until i noticed the outline of India
>According to his writings, "Indianism" meant emphasizing the abode and culture of the "caste Hindus" as the primary and essential constituent of a subcontinent-wide nation. It was in his view Indianism was "the designation of a State created by the British for the first time in history", citing that the All-India National Congress being established in 1885 as evidence that Indianism originated in the hands of the British in the service of British imperialism. He criticizes the notion of the unity of "the country of India"; instead he considers it a continent with a wide variety of nations, ethnicities and religions, and that the Muslims, Sikhs, the Marathas, the Akhoots (untouchables) and the Rajputs were in fact separate nations, on whom the fetters of "Indianism" were fastened by imposing on all of them this "preposterous prefix of All-India".[27Was he right?
>>16552965It's obviously right. India is like if you took Europe and divided it into 3 countries based on religion two-three other small meme states. But that's a good thing, they made a Hindu superpower for the first time in history.
>>16552965Yes, and that's why literally every other successful Asian society has abolished their caste systems at least officially. Codifying it leads to the divine right of bolshevik middlemen to rule, which is beyond stupid. Imagine if every time you wanted to make a change to society you had to consult Clintonites who say they have millennia of knowledge so you aren't shit. The BJP today exists as a response to the mismanagement of that minority, but they'd never figure it out because they're too busy eating cow dung and murdering people for eating meat.
You might not like it, but this is what an ubermensch aryan fighter ace looks like.
>>16552827would
Would Kurdistan exist without the genocide of Armenians?
>>16550501>the genocide of Armeniansnever happened, but it should have
>>16552198>gets called out>starts seething
>>16551264Kurds have at least contributed a few things to human history such as Saladin and Zyzz (born in 1989 we're all gonna make it brah). Additionally, Kurds have apologized for their roles as Turkish henchmen during the Sayfo genocide. https://ado-world.com/en/kurds-apologize-to-armenians-and-assyrians/Turks are worse than Kurds by a large margin. Just kek at Turks complaining about Kurds.>oy vey these subhuman kurds that did everything we wanted for 400 years. How do we get rid of them now?https://youtu.be/DkPvrWQXghQ?t=110
>>16552856ntaroaches and kurds are literally the same people, kurds just suck zionist cock and exclusively marry their cousinsmodern kurds act like israelis in the region, pedos and ethnic cleansers why do kurds always showcase young girls as champions for their female brigades? they NEED to fight for independence as a small minority in every country they are given autonomy in!! fighting for independence means displacing small arab villages!!
>>16550546roach spotted. All the Afghans and pakis in your Syrian ummah are out breeding you. Better look out for Somalis too kek. I can of raid to gas you and your kind to get the job done. This is for all roaches in this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbykPtlz3gk&ab_channel=Schwerpunkt
>>16552430As some anon mentioned on one thread a while ago. He may have more content than a modern library but I can't be bothered to watch him with that unarticulated ESL accent. Part of being a good History content creator is how well you can narrate the events in question to get the viewer more interested.
>>16552430he's literally the only good /his/ youtuber other than History Matters
>>16552430I've been a subscriber of his for 2 years and I still haven't watched a single video
He thought Romans were Germans/Nordics
>>16552430He's great but his accent kills it for me.
Why didn't USSR make their own "Austrian People's Republic" or give their zone to Hungary?
Is it just a meme myth that all medieval peasants had shitty lives?
>>16552185>They had guilds, labor union-like institutions which defended them against the abuses of the powerfulPeasants weren't part of guilds nor were they like unions. They were epxressely expressly interested in only their members, especially the high ranking ones, you couldn't just join one, you were born into it. They mostly regulated the practice of a craft, often to the detriment of everyone outside of the top of the practice.
>>16551950You're confusing the peasantry & serfs.
>>16552177>so up to 1200 AD roughlyOver 90% of people were unfree in the reign of King John and by the death of King Edward it had only decreased to some 60-70%. >to the independent and free yeomen in later periodsSokemen only ever made up a smaller portion of the non gentry which only stopped in the Early Modern Period.>who could even own the land they worked.The only people who 'owned' land were Barons, you payed rent to them for using their land. Regardless of your status as free or unfree.
>>16552895The vast majority of peasants were serfs. Otherwise you'd only be counting some 8% of the population
>>16552915They're distinct categories (free vs. bound), unless you're making up your own that are different from anyone else's understanding.
The British Empire brought education, technology, law and democracy to the four corners of the globe. It also brought prejudice, discrimination, cultural bigotry and racism. Was it worth it?
>>16545784It's the natural order for a higher race to govern a lower race.
>>16552530Darwin kool aid drinkerIQ obsessor (minds are not representable by numerals)Eugenic dreamerProto Monster extremely low self esteemMinimal grasp of historyReliance on large narrative structures without a critical evaluative capabilitySad
Obviously the British empire didn’t bring racism and discrimination to the countries it came to dominate, if anything it lessened those traits. My answer however is no, the British empire was not worth it. The world would have been a better place if savages were left undisturbed in their ways and Britain could have remained white.
>>16545784If not them, then someone else.At least they all got their independance given in the end - and didn't have to fight for it.
>>16552723>The world would have been a better place if savages were left undisturbedYou’re just prolonging the inevitable.
England's power and prestige were growing under the Tudors, who ran out of heirs and were compelled to accept personal union with the Scottish Stuart rulers in 1603. Scotland had been twice humiliated by the English on the battlefield in the previous century, at Flodden and Solway Moss, and after their alliance with France proved less useful than they'd hoped had much to gain by the union and Anglo-Scottish relations were further troubled by the beheading of Queen Mary in 1587. However, it was Mary's son James VI who took the English throne as James I following Queen Elizabeth's demise in 1603. England and Scotland had the same king, but for a century to come would still be separate polities with their own laws, currency, Parliament, foreign relations, and armed forces.
The integration of the other polities proved less smooth. Wales was shired by Henry VIII and accepted union with England without complaint, but Ireland proved a barrel of dynamite. The distraction of the English civil wars in the 15th century had allowed Irish chieftains to reassert independence. But beginning in 1541, Henry VIII decided on the reconquest of the Emerald Isle. Although Irish chiefs were granted titles of nobility by London, it meant little when forced Anglicization was still imposed. The Protestant Reformation further aggravated tensions and Ireland erupted in the Nine Years War of 1592-1601. English troops under Lord Mountjoy brutally suppressed the revolt, removing the separation between the Pale of Settlement and Irish lands, abolished Irish law, and began settling English and Scottish colonists on the island. A peaceful 1630s when Anglo-Irish relations were amicable and Ireland enjoyed economic prosperity was horrifically reversed in the following decade when the Irish took advantage of the English civil war to rise in revolt. The revolt was once again brutally crushed in 1649-51 and around 30% of Ireland's population was killed.During the 17th century, England's international prestige further grew as she began to colonize North America beginning with the Jamestown colony in 1607. Jamaica was taken from Spain in 1655 and New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664. After the Navigation Act of 1651, Dutch ships were expected to salute English ones. It was a sign of growing English hubris.
Scotland was embroiled in major political and religious strife. John Knox had founded the Presbyterian Kirk as a harsh Old Testament-style theocracy but the Scottish court chafed at this idea and tried to clip the Kirk's wings. After Knox died in 1572 the Kirk was forced to accept bishops, resulting in continued extremely bad relations between church and state, and in 1610 James I was forced to have three Scottish bishops consecrated by their English counterparts so as to safeguard the apostolic succession. In 1618 he imposed his Five Articles which insisted on several practices such as kneeling at communion. He suspended the Kirk's General Assembly until they agreed to the changes, causing considerable resentment.In 1637 Charles I imposed a modified version of the Anglican liturgy and prayer book by fiat and without mentioning the General Assembly. The liturgy was unveiled that July 23 in Edinburgh and caused a riot. In due course it led to the formation of the Tables, a revolutionary committee of all estates, and in early 1638 to the signing of the Covenant. The members recruited an armed league which vowed to defend its statutes to the bitter end, to protect the Kirk from the King and bishops and Scotland from England. They set up a parliament without royal permission and sent an army across the border into England in August 1640.
And so the brouhaha in Scotland became enmeshed with the long-running feud in England between king and Parliament. The Tudors had been staunch autocrats who reduced Parliament to little more than a body that existed to rubber stamp the crown's edicts, and it was not until the House of Commons won political initiative under James I that Parliament reasserted itself. During the 1630s, when Charles I ruled by fiat, nobody could oppose him but in April 1640, the Scottish civil war forced the king to summon Parliament to ask for money. Charles's attempts to invoke the divine right of kings was countered by Parliamentarians citing the Magna Carta. A Grand Remonstrance charged the king with numerous grievances and abuses of power. His chief minister the Earl of Strafford was impeached by Parliament and Charles had to accept his removal.Ireland now became a factor. Strafford had brutalized the Ulster Protestants almost as severely as his predecessors did to Irish Catholics. He'd begun raising an army in Ireland to use against the rebels in England and Scotland but after leaving the island in June 1641 and leaving unpaid troops behind, a mass uprising started. A Scottish army landed in Ireland to protect their Protestant co-religionists and multi-sided war raged unchecked. Charles then decided to emulate Henry VIII by having troublemaking members of the House of Commons arrested but could not do so; he was forced to go to London and raise a call to arms. The king decided on war, a war that would ultimately result in his death. Not for another 47 years would an acceptable compromise between the crown and Parliament be reached.
>catholicism is a cultatheists might need to re-examine their dictionary sources
>>16552288It was a cult in some time and places, but not universally. Also, some religious orders like Opus Dei or Neocatechumenals are 100% cultish.
>>16552288WHY IS SAUDI ARABIA JUST GONE
>>16552288This is not related to the topic, but series, why can’t we have more Religious Maps like OP? We have Maps that make the Majority Religion in a country always make it look larger then they are. Some Countries have land that are empty and uninhabited. https://youtu.be/M81nyLGJGDk?si=N_7TgNx2TmhK0_Cy
>>16552435catholicsm does not exist there to such an extent the percentage is in the negatives
>>16552288The Pagan Nations.
Tell me, does morality come from God or does God follow what's moral?If God commands something that's immoral is it suddenly moral?Who chose the laws of what's moral or not? Is God bound by them?
God determines what is good or evil, humans must get in line. You can't play word games (ie moral philosophy) with the Almighty.
>>16552577Reading Euthyphro?
>>16552577Omnipotence and omniscience has nothing to do with morality. Omniscience means God can identify the world that would be maximally satisfying to him and omnipotence means he can create the world that would be maximally satisfying to him. The fact that the world he created is a retarded miserable world of suffering is proof that God is an evil sadist because that's the world that he identified as maximally satisfying to him.
>>16552577That is the point of the story of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain.Abraham should have said no, but his fanaticism to follow whatever God says led him to follow an idiotic order.To this day you have people who say it was a test of Faith.Faith in what? Kill your son because God somehow needs him?Moral is inside all of us a as a group, we fall and rise and find what is good or bad, as men and women, as humas, with the help of God, but no his word, because in the Bible, that God of the Bible used words to ask to Moses and Aaron for too much gold and blood at the Tabernacle. God asked for idiotic things like part of your penis in exchange of power and lands.That is no moral, that is no God, that is the word of greedy and degenerated men.
>>16552686God wanted to know if Abraham truly feared God because he was about to hand over the entire world to his children and make them the most blessed people above all other people. God was the one who gave Isaac to Abraham, Abraham knew this for a fact because God waited until he was a hundred years old to go personally to him and tell him that he was going to give him Isaac by his 90 year old sterile wife and that he was going to turn Isaac into a great nation.Abraham had already seen God's power, saving him time and time again, keeping all his promises and blessing him for 25 years, making him super wealthy and famous trough all the lands of Caanan and making him prosper in everything he did. Abraham had many reasons to trust God, He was the one who gave him his son and he made him a promise that requires his son to be alive, so he decided to trust God. And it paid off.
