The Problem with Andrew Tate (and Incel Radicalization)

[Apocalyptic Haven]

You do realize that the quote you're citing alludes to the nonexistence of gay men as a distinctive social or political class, right? Your argument here is quite different from asserting that some men had same-sex relationships - in point of fact we know this for certainty (CHAD EPAMINONDAS probably) - and actually asserts something about broader social attitudes that isn't supported by the available evidence.

Your understanding of this quote also ignores the large body of countervailing historical, oratory, dramaturgical, and literary evidence suggesting a more nuanced and less "enlightened" perspective on same-sex relationships among the Classical Greeks. In point of fact, it appears to have been seen as both shameful and inappropriate for adult male citizens to assume a passive role in such relationships, in both Greece and Rome, especially when their more active lover was a slave or was of a lower social class. Which your quote does actually state, more or less, outright. And that's before we get into Plato, laws penalizing men who "prostituted" themselves, or the actual social function of pederasty as an institution. The mere existence of terms such as "kinaidos" is revealing.

At this point, to avoid further thread-jacking, I'll ask you to post another thread if you really want to discuss how gay pagan Europe was. I think it could be illuminating to strip away a decent portion of modern pop history on the subject. Seriously though, this isn't the place to drop poor pro-pagan propaganda.

---

On the subject of Islam, Andrew Tate claims to have converted and several people have confirmed this. I will say, based on reports that he's engaged in sex-trafficking, still drinks alcohol and smokes tobacco, and may have eaten pepperoni/pork, he's not a very dutiful Muslim.

I mean, that is similar to fundamentalists. Not the specific crimes, but the glaring hypocrisy and “moral values” informed by malice rather than anything from their religion. If you look at the extreme end, fundamentalist terrorism is bankrolled in part by sex trafficking, abductions for ransoms, the drug trade, extortion, and other morally questionable crimes.

All religions have fanatics, though the Abrahamic cults are far more prone to that kind of irrational zeal and barbarism. Protestant Christians and Muslims are more prone than the other Abrahamic types.

[Fahran]

All religions have fanatics, though the Abrahamic cults are far more prone to that kind of irrational zeal and barbarism. Protestant Christians and Muslims are more prone than the other Abrahamic types.

Right... Abrahamic faiths are uniquely fanatical and barbaric. Yep. And, no, I'm not looking at a few individuals with the cited examples. These religions all had institutional levels of irrational belief and what you might well term fanaticism or barbarism.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

All religions have fanatics, though the Abrahamic cults are far more prone to that kind of irrational zeal and barbarism. Protestant Christians and Muslims are more prone than the other Abrahamic types.

Right... Abrahamic faiths are uniquely fanatical and barbaric. Yep. And, no, I'm not looking at a few individuals with the cited examples. These religions all had institutional levels of irrational belief and what you might well term fanaticism or barbarism.

All of these are bad, but you could combine them and not equal the total bloodshed committed in the name of Abrahamic faiths. From the Thirty Years' War to the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Turkish Wars to the persecution of Hindus by the Delhi Sultanate to the brutal subjugation of the Americas and forcible conversion to Christianity, to the Inquisition, obviously much of this being intramural slaughter of members of one Abrahamic faith by another, well, you'd be hard-pressed to match that, even on the most brutal day in an Aztec temple or a Druidic shrine. Even the Carthaginians and the Moloch cult of Ammon didn't butcher half so many folks. Nasty stuff, all of what you listed, but in terms of scale, not half as colossal.

[Celritannia]

Right... Abrahamic faiths are uniquely fanatical and barbaric. Yep. And, no, I'm not looking at a few individuals with the cited examples. These religions all had institutional levels of irrational belief and what you might well term fanaticism or barbarism.

All of these are bad, but you could combine them and not equal the total bloodshed committed in the name of Abrahamic faiths. From the Thirty Years' War to the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Turkish Wars to the persecution of Hindus by the Delhi Sultanate to the brutal subjugation of the Americas and forcible conversion to Christianity, to the Inquisition, obviously much of this being intramural slaughter of members of one Abrahamic faith by another, well, you'd be hard-pressed to match that, even on the most brutal day in an Aztec temple or a Druidic shrine. Even the Carthaginians and the Moloch cult of Ammon didn't butcher half so many folks. Nasty stuff, all of what you listed, but in terms of scale, not half as colossal.

*Squints to find anything relevant to the thread*

[Fahran]

All of these are bad, but you could combine them and not equal the total bloodshed committed in the name of Abrahamic faiths. From the Thirty Years' War to the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Turkish Wars to the persecution of Hindus by the Delhi Sultanate to the brutal subjugation of the Americas and forcible conversion to Christianity, to the Inquisition, obviously much of this being intramural slaughter of members of one Abrahamic faith by another, well, you'd be hard-pressed to match that, even on the most brutal day in an Aztec temple or a Druidic shrine. Even the Carthaginians and the Moloch cult of Ammon didn't butcher half so many folks. Nasty stuff, all of what you listed, but in terms of scale, not half as colossal.

Well, you're talking about two religions that encompass the majority of the global population at the moment. You're also boiling often complex events down to pure religious motivation. If we did a similar thing with the Romans alone, we'd get millions of people dead for religious reasons. I say that because, for the Romans, war was a matter they always consulted their gods about. They'd engage in augury, either by looking at birds or the intestines of slaughtered animals, to figure out if they would even be permitted to declare war. Often, at the close of a triumphant campaign, they would ritually strangle war captives to death in the hundreds in front of a temple in an event that was totally not a human sacrifice. And that's just one example. This narrative that Christianity and Islam are inherently more violent than other religions isn't really born out by facts when we scratch beneath the surface at all.

[Fahran]

*Squints to find anything relevant to the thread*

Fair. I need to stop taking the hooks.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

All of these are bad, but you could combine them and not equal the total bloodshed committed in the name of Abrahamic faiths. From the Thirty Years' War to the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Turkish Wars to the persecution of Hindus by the Delhi Sultanate to the brutal subjugation of the Americas and forcible conversion to Christianity, to the Inquisition, obviously much of this being intramural slaughter of members of one Abrahamic faith by another, well, you'd be hard-pressed to match that, even on the most brutal day in an Aztec temple or a Druidic shrine. Even the Carthaginians and the Moloch cult of Ammon didn't butcher half so many folks. Nasty stuff, all of what you listed, but in terms of scale, not half as colossal.

Well, you're talking about two religions that encompass the majority of the global population at the moment. You're also boiling often complex events down to pure religious motivation. If we did a similar thing with the Romans alone, we'd get millions of people dead for religious reasons. I say that because, for the Romans, war was a matter they always consulted their gods about. They'd engage in augury, either by looking at birds or the intestines of slaughtered animals, to figure out if they would even be permitted to declare war. Often, at the close of a triumphant campaign, they would ritually strangle war captives to death in the hundreds in front of a temple in an event that was totally not a human sacrifice. And that's just one example. This narrative that Christianity and Islam are inherently more violent than other religions isn't really born out by facts when we scratch beneath the surface at all.

I don't recall there being any Roman or Hindu or other polytheistic texts commanding wholesale genocide or demanding ritual cannibalism or vampirism or prophesying an apocalyptic battle that would usher in the massive cleansing of Earth by fire and blood, with millions of souls cast screaming into pits of fiery sulfur, but okay. As someone noted, this has become a digression from the main topic. And sure, there were other factors, no doubt, but religious zeal was always a major component, for everything from the Mormon Wars in North America to the Thirty Years' War to the War of the Three Henries in France to St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre to the Pilgrimage of Grace (and its fearsome suppression) to the atrocities of Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus himself. Even now, ISIS has taken a huge toll of human life, as has the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And no doubt, the atrocities of the Nazis and Stalinists and Leninists and Maoists and Khmer Rouge were even worse, but that was almost entirely political butchery rather than religious in nature. Nazi occultism aside (not exactly full approved by Hitler himself, merely given the wink and nod through Himmler), fascist atrocities were secular (aside from in say, Croatia with Pavelic and his Catholic Ustasi).

And again, I acknowledge that it's a universal of all faiths...and some far more understandable than others. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to John Brown's abolitionist zeal, for instance, even if I differ from his views on other matters. The activities of the Danite Band in Utah, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre in particular (though heavily through a third party), well, that was far worse. I would point out that the Romans didn't exactly seek to convert anyone, nor did the Vikings or Celts. Conversion wasn't really a motive, so that's a key difference right there. Proselytizing by force has always been a major motive of at least the Christians and the Muslims, though I acquit you and your fellow Hebrews of that offense.

This will, however, be my final word on the issue on this thread, honoring the wishes of those who seek to return to matters more germane to the salient issue.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Right... Abrahamic faiths are uniquely fanatical and barbaric. Yep. And, no, I'm not looking at a few individuals with the cited examples. These religions all had institutional levels of irrational belief and what you might well term fanaticism or barbarism.

Now you're making my point for me. ;p

But in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that Tate's religious beliefs are motivated by his fascism and not the other way around. Religiosity is a symptom, not the cause, of this particular branch of toxic masculinity.

[Stylan]

Right... Abrahamic faiths are uniquely fanatical and barbaric. Yep. And, no, I'm not looking at a few individuals with the cited examples. These religions all had institutional levels of irrational belief and what you might well term fanaticism or barbarism.

Now you're making my point for me. ;p

But in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that Tate's religious beliefs are motivated by his fascism and not the other way around. Religiosity is a symptom, not the cause, of this particular branch of toxic masculinity.

Tate isn't a fascist, he's a sub-100 IQ moronic conservative at best.

[Techocracy101010]

Now you're making my point for me. ;p

But in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that Tate's religious beliefs are motivated by his fascism and not the other way around. Religiosity is a symptom, not the cause, of this particular branch of toxic masculinity.

Tate isn't a fascist, he's a sub-100 IQ moronic conservative at best.

being an idiot does not prevent you from being a fascist

[Fahran]

Tate isn't a fascist, he's a sub-100 IQ moronic conservative at best.

being an idiot does not prevent you from being a fascist

On the contrary, it’s quite conducive to it. But, yeah, I don’t think the pimp and sex trafficker who openly rebels against traditions like marriage, monogamy, sexual propriety, and family while encouraging fellow men to do the same is exactly a conventional conservative. His views on hierarchy are definitely vaguely right-wing, but his ideal man has more in common with the fascist conception of masculinity that the conservative conception.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Andrew Tate: Judge explains extended detention of 'dangerous' influencer

A judge in Romania has described the "particular dangerousness" of Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan in terms of their ability to target women. He also pointed to what he called their "capacity and effort to exercise permanent psychological control over the victims… including by resorting to constant acts of violence".

Welp looks like the Romanian justice system isn't impressed at all over what Tate's been up to...

[Apocalyptic Haven]

being an idiot does not prevent you from being a fascist

On the contrary, it’s quite conducive to it. But, yeah, I don’t think the pimp and sex trafficker who openly rebels against traditions like marriage, monogamy, sexual propriety, and family while encouraging fellow men to do the same is exactly a conventional conservative. His views on hierarchy are definitely vaguely right-wing, but his ideal man has more in common with the fascist conception of masculinity that the conservative conception.

For once, you are right about something. He isn't a conservative in the usual sense. That is, he doesn't advocate what traditional conservatives advocate. I frankly disapprove of both positions, but I disagree with them as what they are, not what they aren't.

[Bovad]

Can the Romanian police please reintroduce their old protocol of "line them up against a wall and shoot"?

*** Warned for advocating death ***

You aren't a mod

[Romanic Imperium]

Can the Romanian police please reintroduce their old protocol of "line them up against a wall and shoot"?

That's very..... 1984

[Roavin]

Can the Romanian police please reintroduce their old protocol of "line them up against a wall and shoot"?

*** Warned for advocating death ***

And that's a *** warning for impersonating moderation staff ***. Leave the moderating to the moderators, as per the rules.

[The Grand World Order]

All of these are bad, but you could combine them and not equal the total bloodshed committed in the name of Abrahamic faiths. From the Thirty Years' War to the Crusades to the Reconquista to the Turkish Wars to the persecution of Hindus by the Delhi Sultanate to the brutal subjugation of the Americas and forcible conversion to Christianity, to the Inquisition, obviously much of this being intramural slaughter of members of one Abrahamic faith by another, well, you'd be hard-pressed to match that, even on the most brutal day in an Aztec temple or a Druidic shrine. Even the Carthaginians and the Moloch cult of Ammon didn't butcher half so many folks. Nasty stuff, all of what you listed, but in terms of scale, not half as colossal.

imagine buying the same propaganda that was used to send these people into war lol, it's not like these wars had anything to do with nobles and monarchs competing with each other, resources, or trying to acquire capital or anything, geopolitics become a lot simpler when everyone involved is centuries-dead, you know

Their home societies aren't worth a damn more often than not. It is filled with LGBTQ+ nonsense and women who have a princess mentality. Of course the bar is going to be too high to meet unless they move elsewhere. Generally speaking, only a "Chad" who has high game or a big earner is truly competitive where women are out earning more money than used to be the case. They usually still want the man they're with to be at or above their income level at minimum.

It's genuinely not hard to be a right winger, even a far one, and get along with women in western society, and my intimate life was actually a bit more exciting before I started earning six figures. I don't consider myself super attractive, I don't get approached by women or anything like that and yeah, I've been rejected in pretty fucked up ways like any other guy. I don't think incels understand that going off on an Alex Jones-style rant about how everyone except you is a degenerate who belongs on a cross isn't just unappealing to women, it's unappealing to anyone who might befriend you, kind of like how immediately going on about super in-depth Star Trek lore to a stranger is probably going to make anyone who's not a Trekkie think there's something wrong with you. Women love Fascists, you ever heard someone fantasize about getting tied up by a liberal? They don't, however, like someone who's completely socially inept, can't read a room, refuses to participate in basic hygiene, and/or take care of themselves (not saying or implying that's you, I'm speaking to incel "theory" in general. "You" is a general term.)

I know this all gets handwaved as "well you're the exception" but it's really not. Ironically, it's like with a lot of LGBTQ+ folks: normal people don't dislike you because of who you are, but the obnoxious way you conduct yourself. Whether that's grating, constantly over-sexual personalities or screaming about how all women are whores who need to know their place, the problem's probably not the other people. If either side looks around, there's plenty of open LGBTQ folks who get along well with people around them because their personality isn't solely rooted in proving how flamboyant they can possibly be, and there's goober ass dudes living in trailers who have absolute dimepieces with them, probably cause they're fun to be around and don't act weird.

Further, what does it say about these societies that, homogenous as they are, their women flock to men who are different and, thanks to cost of living differences, comparatively wealthy? What would it say about me, as a Fascist in love with my nation and dedicated to being a strong individual to strengthen my community, to scurry off to the third world because "it's too hard" and because I want to be a materialist gremlin in another nation?

Kind of reminds me how a lot of Tate's followers see a certain tribe of people.

Harvey Milk wasn't murdered over "nonsense."

Harvey Milk was shot because of a dispute over Dan White's former position on the San Francisco City Council, after White quit and tried to come back; George Moscone was also killed in this event, so it's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK because he was a racist, or something. Harvey Milk also, as a 34-year-old man, repeatedly had sex with a 16-year-old boy named Jack McKinley, making him flat out a pedophile and someone that the LGBTQ should probably distance themselves from. Re-evaluating and removing the idol status of "problematic" folks is kind of the in thing these days, after all. I digress, though, it's another line of discussion for another topic.

On the contrary, it’s quite conducive to it. But, yeah, I don’t think the pimp and sex trafficker who openly rebels against traditions like marriage, monogamy, sexual propriety, and family while encouraging fellow men to do the same is exactly a conventional conservative. His views on hierarchy are definitely vaguely right-wing, but his ideal man has more in common with the fascist conception of masculinity that the conservative conception.

A rootless, anti-nationalist, materialistic sex fiend is not the Fascist ideal of manhood. He's more fitting as a libertarian.

[Australian rePublic]

Andrew Tate is an absolutely fruit loop. He unironically said that the solution ro all of the world's problems (yes, ALL) is for men to walk around the house carrying a sword. Now he's a full blown ISIS sympathiser. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought that he's either lying or a satirist, but sadly, he's serious.

As to why boys are attracted to him- it's simple. Boys, especially white boys, have been told their whole lives that they're oppressors, overly privileged, that they deserve to be discriminated against in the jobs market, etc. Many young boys in the west have never known a life where discriminating against them wasn't justified. And here comes someone who values men and values boys. Young men have also spent their whole lives being lectured about toxic masculinity, being told that men are predators, etc. What do you think's gonna happen? White men aren't more genetically predispositioned to be far-right than anyone else. No body is born more prone to be far right than anyone else. Something obviously drives them to that cause, and all who were driven to that cause then turned away share the same story- we're sick of left winged identity politics. Ask someone who was drawn to the alt-right and then drawn away, and they'll more likely than not tell you that- they're sick to death of identity politics

As much as the general NSG community likes to deny it, the left has a lot to answer for when it comes to becoming so ridiculously extreme that they deter rational people away from the cause and into the embrace of the far right. It's really time that the moderate left stopped living in denial, held the extreme left accountable and saying that the extremists don't represent the left as a whole. But as long as the left lives in denial, nothing will change and people, especially young men, will get more and more radicalised

People need to see how pathetic he is

Here's the thing. All the things you accuse the left of are blatant lies. The only people being g called oppressors are the actual oppressors (Bull Connor, Alexander Stephens, etc.) and no one outside of a fringe minority is teaching this sins of the father nonsense you seem to think they are (and if anyone was in a school setting, I'd expect a.massive stink.to be raised). If this is actually happening, then you better have some damn solid sourcing well beyond a few YouTube videos showing isolated incidents. Think research papers and the like

That goes for your misrepresentation of how toxic masculinity is taught and handled as well.

The things you claim are a result of the extreme left having so much power simply have no basis in reality as far as I've seen, and sound more.like make-up justifications for far right beliefs that themselves are exceedingly toxic. Treating LGBT people as if they deserve to be scorned, abused, and never.knowing a life where discriminating against them wasn't justified until recently being a major example.

Let's call your bluff. What sources do you have that disprove actual testimonials? If someone's testimonial is so easy to debunk, let's see your sources

Well, you're talking about two religions that encompass the majority of the global population at the moment. You're also boiling often complex events down to pure religious motivation. If we did a similar thing with the Romans alone, we'd get millions of people dead for religious reasons. I say that because, for the Romans, war was a matter they always consulted their gods about. They'd engage in augury, either by looking at birds or the intestines of slaughtered animals, to figure out if they would even be permitted to declare war. Often, at the close of a triumphant campaign, they would ritually strangle war captives to death in the hundreds in front of a temple in an event that was totally not a human sacrifice. And that's just one example. This narrative that Christianity and Islam are inherently more violent than other religions isn't really born out by facts when we scratch beneath the surface at all.

I don't recall there being any Roman or Hindu or other polytheistic texts commanding wholesale genocide or demanding ritual cannibalism or vampirism or prophesying an apocalyptic battle that would usher in the massive cleansing of Earth by fire and blood, with millions of souls cast screaming into pits of fiery sulfur, but okay. As someone noted, this has become a digression from the main topic. And sure, there were other factors, no doubt, but religious zeal was always a major component, for everything from the Mormon Wars in North America to the Thirty Years' War to the War of the Three Henries in France to St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre to the Pilgrimage of Grace (and its fearsome suppression) to the atrocities of Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus himself. Even now, ISIS has taken a huge toll of human life, as has the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And no doubt, the atrocities of the Nazis and Stalinists and Leninists and Maoists and Khmer Rouge were even worse, but that was almost entirely political butchery rather than religious in nature. Nazi occultism aside (not exactly full approved by Hitler himself, merely given the wink and nod through Himmler), fascist atrocities were secular (aside from in say, Croatia with Pavelic and his Catholic Ustasi).

And again, I acknowledge that it's a universal of all faiths...and some far more understandable than others. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to John Brown's abolitionist zeal, for instance, even if I differ from his views on other matters. The activities of the Danite Band in Utah, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre in particular (though heavily through a third party), well, that was far worse. I would point out that the Romans didn't exactly seek to convert anyone, nor did the Vikings or Celts. Conversion wasn't really a motive, so that's a key difference right there. Proselytizing by force has always been a major motive of at least the Christians and the Muslims, though I acquit you and your fellow Hebrews of that offense.

This will, however, be my final word on the issue on this thread, honoring the wishes of those who seek to return to matters more germane to the salient issue.

What about the vikings who sent anyone who didn't die in battle to hell? And in either case, you do realise that many atheists have bastardised religion to commit malice? The religions themselves aren't to blame, but people who use those religions to commit atrocities in the name of God. I mean, I can't speak for Islam, there is a reason why many Christians believe that using God's name to commit violence is the unforgivable sin. People will manipulate other people to start wars, and religion is just a toll used by the irreligious for that purpose. I mean, Putin is trying to use his religion to justify the war in Ukraine, even though he almost certainly doesn't believe in the faith himself, and those of us who actually follow the faith and aren't forced to buy his propoganda are condemning him harshly. And that's if you completely ignore the historical context behind the Crusades in the first place. Also, my friend, raw numbers mean nothing. Of coarse there would be more Christians that commit atrocities than non-Christian pagan, sheerly because of numbers. Even if 0.01% of all Christians were violent extremists, that would still be significantly more people than the Manson family cult, but would you then suggest that your average Christian on the street is more violent than the Manson family? Of coarse not. That's ludacris. There just happens to be significantly more of us. Ditto for Islam. If you don't know how numbers and percentages work, then that's on you, pal

I see. Yes, radical Islam is similar to NAZIism and in that they're both fascist.

I could say the same thing about Christianity: “Positive” Christianity & Clerical fascism!

And why are you being Christianophobic now? What has Christianity got to do with this? Yes, many radical Christians are fascists. Many NAZIs are Christians. If you pay attention, I condemned all NAZIs, irrespective of whether or not they're Christian. Some NAZIs were Catholics. They weren't any less condemnable fot being Catholics. Hitler was probably an atheist, but a significant proportion of his followers were Catholic. Most modern Christian fascists to tend to be some kind of NAZI. Why are you being Christianophobic by pointing out Christianity specifically? And in either case, the last time that any widescale violence was comitted in the name of Christianity was during the troubles, and even then, it was more political than religious. The lttest example of widespread violence in the name of Christianity happened in the 1800s. What have 19th Century genocidal nut jobs gotta do with the modern world?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Ok, I’m gonna suggest we stop the threadjack of “Religion = Fascism” and keep talking about the crazed sex-trafficking misogynist

[Neu California]

Here's the thing. All the things you accuse the left of are blatant lies. The only people being g called oppressors are the actual oppressors (Bull Connor, Alexander Stephens, etc.) and no one outside of a fringe minority is teaching this sins of the father nonsense you seem to think they are (and if anyone was in a school setting, I'd expect a.massive stink.to be raised). If this is actually happening, then you better have some damn solid sourcing well beyond a few YouTube videos showing isolated incidents. Think research papers and the like

That goes for your misrepresentation of how toxic masculinity is taught and handled as well.

The things you claim are a result of the extreme left having so much power simply have no basis in reality as far as I've seen, and sound more.like make-up justifications for far right beliefs that themselves are exceedingly toxic. Treating LGBT people as if they deserve to be scorned, abused, and never.knowing a life where discriminating against them wasn't justified until recently being a major example.

Let's call your bluff. What sources do you have that disprove actual testimonials? If someone's testimonial is so easy to debunk, let's see your sources

I don't recall there being any Roman or Hindu or other polytheistic texts commanding wholesale genocide or demanding ritual cannibalism or vampirism or prophesying an apocalyptic battle that would usher in the massive cleansing of Earth by fire and blood, with millions of souls cast screaming into pits of fiery sulfur, but okay. As someone noted, this has become a digression from the main topic. And sure, there were other factors, no doubt, but religious zeal was always a major component, for everything from the Mormon Wars in North America to the Thirty Years' War to the War of the Three Henries in France to St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre to the Pilgrimage of Grace (and its fearsome suppression) to the atrocities of Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus himself. Even now, ISIS has taken a huge toll of human life, as has the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And no doubt, the atrocities of the Nazis and Stalinists and Leninists and Maoists and Khmer Rouge were even worse, but that was almost entirely political butchery rather than religious in nature. Nazi occultism aside (not exactly full approved by Hitler himself, merely given the wink and nod through Himmler), fascist atrocities were secular (aside from in say, Croatia with Pavelic and his Catholic Ustasi).

And again, I acknowledge that it's a universal of all faiths...and some far more understandable than others. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to John Brown's abolitionist zeal, for instance, even if I differ from his views on other matters. The activities of the Danite Band in Utah, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre in particular (though heavily through a third party), well, that was far worse. I would point out that the Romans didn't exactly seek to convert anyone, nor did the Vikings or Celts. Conversion wasn't really a motive, so that's a key difference right there. Proselytizing by force has always been a major motive of at least the Christians and the Muslims, though I acquit you and your fellow Hebrews of that offense.

This will, however, be my final word on the issue on this thread, honoring the wishes of those who seek to return to matters more germane to the salient issue.

What about the vikings who sent anyone who didn't die in battle to hell? And in either case, you do realise that many atheists have bastardised religion to commit malice? The religions themselves aren't to blame, but people who use those religions to commit atrocities in the name of God. I mean, I can't speak for Islam, there is a reason why many Christians believe that using God's name to commit violence is the unforgivable sin. People will manipulate other people to start wars, and religion is just a toll used by the irreligious for that purpose. I mean, Putin is trying to use his religion to justify the war in Ukraine, even though he almost certainly doesn't believe in the faith himself, and those of us who actually follow the faith and aren't forced to buy his propoganda are condemning him harshly. And that's if you completely ignore the historical context behind the Crusades in the first place. Also, my friend, raw numbers mean nothing. Of coarse there would be more Christians that commit atrocities than non-Christian pagan, sheerly because of numbers. Even if 0.01% of all Christians were violent extremists, that would still be significantly more people than the Manson family cult, but would you then suggest that your average Christian on the street is more violent than the Manson family? Of coarse not. That's ludacris. There just happens to be significantly more of us. Ditto for Islam. If you don't know how numbers and percentages work, then that's on you, pal

I could say the same thing about Christianity: “Positive” Christianity & Clerical fascism!

And why are you being Christianophobic now? What has Christianity got to do with this? Yes, many radical Christians are fascists. Many NAZIs are Christians. If you pay attention, I condemned all NAZIs, irrespective of whether or not they're Christian. Some NAZIs were Catholics. They weren't any less condemnable fot being Catholics. Hitler was probably an atheist, but a significant proportion of his followers were Catholic. Most modern Christian fascists to tend to be some kind of NAZI. Why are you being Christianophobic by pointing out Christianity specifically? And in either case, the last time that any widescale violence was comitted in the name of Christianity was during the troubles, and even then, it was more political than religious. The lttest example of widespread violence in the name of Christianity happened in the 1800s. What have 19th Century genocidal nut jobs gotta do with the modern world?

Sorry. Not how it works. You made the positive claim, it's on you to back it up. That's how burden of proof works.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Let's call your bluff. What sources do you have that disprove actual testimonials? If someone's testimonial is so easy to debunk, let's see your sources


What about the vikings who sent anyone who didn't die in battle to hell? And in either case, you do realise that many atheists have bastardised religion to commit malice? The religions themselves aren't to blame, but people who use those religions to commit atrocities in the name of God. I mean, I can't speak for Islam, there is a reason why many Christians believe that using God's name to commit violence is the unforgivable sin. People will manipulate other people to start wars, and religion is just a toll used by the irreligious for that purpose. I mean, Putin is trying to use his religion to justify the war in Ukraine, even though he almost certainly doesn't believe in the faith himself, and those of us who actually follow the faith and aren't forced to buy his propoganda are condemning him harshly. And that's if you completely ignore the historical context behind the Crusades in the first place. Also, my friend, raw numbers mean nothing. Of coarse there would be more Christians that commit atrocities than non-Christian pagan, sheerly because of numbers. Even if 0.01% of all Christians were violent extremists, that would still be significantly more people than the Manson family cult, but would you then suggest that your average Christian on the street is more violent than the Manson family? Of coarse not. That's ludacris. There just happens to be significantly more of us. Ditto for Islam. If you don't know how numbers and percentages work, then that's on you, pal


And why are you being Christianophobic now? What has Christianity got to do with this? Yes, many radical Christians are fascists. Many NAZIs are Christians. If you pay attention, I condemned all NAZIs, irrespective of whether or not they're Christian. Some NAZIs were Catholics. They weren't any less condemnable fot being Catholics. Hitler was probably an atheist, but a significant proportion of his followers were Catholic. Most modern Christian fascists to tend to be some kind of NAZI. Why are you being Christianophobic by pointing out Christianity specifically? And in either case, the last time that any widescale violence was comitted in the name of Christianity was during the troubles, and even then, it was more political than religious. The lttest example of widespread violence in the name of Christianity happened in the 1800s. What have 19th Century genocidal nut jobs gotta do with the modern world?

Sorry. Not how it works. You made the positive claim, it's on you to back it up. That's how burden of proof works.

Again, regardless of opinions on “Christianity/Religion = Fascism/Nazism and cultism”, we’re talking about a deranged crappy Jordan Peterson. So how about we focus on the dangerous misogynist first, and create a thread on that later.

[Australian rePublic]

Let's call your bluff. What sources do you have that disprove actual testimonials? If someone's testimonial is so easy to debunk, let's see your sources


What about the vikings who sent anyone who didn't die in battle to hell? And in either case, you do realise that many atheists have bastardised religion to commit malice? The religions themselves aren't to blame, but people who use those religions to commit atrocities in the name of God. I mean, I can't speak for Islam, there is a reason why many Christians believe that using God's name to commit violence is the unforgivable sin. People will manipulate other people to start wars, and religion is just a toll used by the irreligious for that purpose. I mean, Putin is trying to use his religion to justify the war in Ukraine, even though he almost certainly doesn't believe in the faith himself, and those of us who actually follow the faith and aren't forced to buy his propoganda are condemning him harshly. And that's if you completely ignore the historical context behind the Crusades in the first place. Also, my friend, raw numbers mean nothing. Of coarse there would be more Christians that commit atrocities than non-Christian pagan, sheerly because of numbers. Even if 0.01% of all Christians were violent extremists, that would still be significantly more people than the Manson family cult, but would you then suggest that your average Christian on the street is more violent than the Manson family? Of coarse not. That's ludacris. There just happens to be significantly more of us. Ditto for Islam. If you don't know how numbers and percentages work, then that's on you, pal


And why are you being Christianophobic now? What has Christianity got to do with this? Yes, many radical Christians are fascists. Many NAZIs are Christians. If you pay attention, I condemned all NAZIs, irrespective of whether or not they're Christian. Some NAZIs were Catholics. They weren't any less condemnable fot being Catholics. Hitler was probably an atheist, but a significant proportion of his followers were Catholic. Most modern Christian fascists to tend to be some kind of NAZI. Why are you being Christianophobic by pointing out Christianity specifically? And in either case, the last time that any widescale violence was comitted in the name of Christianity was during the troubles, and even then, it was more political than religious. The lttest example of widespread violence in the name of Christianity happened in the 1800s. What have 19th Century genocidal nut jobs gotta do with the modern world?

Sorry. Not how it works. You made the positive claim, it's on you to back it up. That's how burden of proof works.

Nope. Not how it works. You made the positive claim that Testimonials are wrong. I could show you testimonials, but you would reject them simply because they are on YouTube. If you don't wanna accept Testimonials, then the burdon of proof is on you to prove that they're wrong. I can show you testimonials. You're the one claiming that the testamonials are false, so you have to prove that testimonials are false. I am willing to show you YouTube testamonials. If you reject them, the burdon of proof is on you

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

*sigh

STOP THREADJACKING!

[Neu California]

Sorry. Not how it works. You made the positive claim, it's on you to back it up. That's how burden of proof works.

Again, regardless of opinions on “Christianity/Religion = Fascism/Nazism and cultism”, we’re talking about a deranged crappy Jordan Peterson. So how about we focus on the dangerous misogynist first, and create a thread on that later.

I was specifically talking about his response to me, which has little if anything to do with religion, not the rest of the stuff. It's a giant pain in the ass to cut the rest of the quoted stuff on tablet is all.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

Again, regardless of opinions on “Christianity/Religion = Fascism/Nazism and cultism”, we’re talking about a deranged crappy Jordan Peterson. So how about we focus on the dangerous misogynist first, and create a thread on that later.

I was specifically talking about his response to me, which has little if anything to do with religion, not the rest of the stuff. It's a giant pain in the ass to cut the rest of the quoted stuff on tablet is all.

Stop responding to threadjack!

Anyhow, my opinions are clear, in that the Tate brothers need to be thrown out of a window.