Why is open marriage tolerated but polygamy isn't?
>>1355926
The alimony payments will kill you.
>>1355926
From a religious standpoint, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that is okay with open marriage.
From a legal standpoint, I'm sure there's a tax issue or some bullshit.
Personally I don't think open relationships are a good idea. I've known a few people who've been involved in them and they usually devolve into some form of jealousy.
One of the two will get laid more than the other and it always causes problems.
>>1355926
Open marriages are not coded or sanctioned by law, they're taken as the expression of free will between between the two partners. The open marriage agreement happens privately, and it is considered by society as a private matter.
I think that is because the institution of marriage, as the representation of a particular societal order based on a nuclear or patriarchal family, is on the decline. The economic structure of western society has less use for traditional family structures and this is why it is eroding.
Regardless, the polygamy taboo still exists in our culture and law. I think the law will eventually support polygamy, but it will require a different group to support it. Open marriage people are enacting a very liberal set of values. And, in general, those values don't necessarily center around the importance of marriage as an institution. People that are for polygamy usually believe in a patriarchal system and are devoted to a conservative-religious set of values. Those people are less and less in western society, they will have to make polygamy acceptable through religious freedom legislature, not through "common sense" cultural believe in freedom of choice.
TL/DR: open marriage is private, non-sanctioned, and secular. Polygamy is a public contract (a form of marriage), usually religiously motivated, and patriarchal. All societal forms of decreasing strength and popularity.
How did they get away with this?
Hon hon hon, le pay no attention to this, let's talk about le evil oppressive German invaders instead mon ami.
>>1355925
Because if you do it over 250 years no one will care
People only really care if you go full retard and annex half of Europe in 10 years
>>1355956
Well, European powers cared during Louis XIV's conquests
But they were simply no match
Hey /his/ i was just wondering:
Why is it so important for human history the time when people started buriyng their deads?
>>1355834
-cultural ceremony
-Under standing that other person was meaningful. not just something to mate with or be contact with because of hormones or genes determine it.
I cannot think anything else nor am I expert on this issue.
>>1355834
nice skull.
It reduced disease and cannibalism Im sure.
Did Jesus accept homosexuality?
>"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”" (Matthew 19:11-12).
Is clear that he used the word "eunuch" in three different meaning. Two of them are pretty obvious, but the third (people born eunuchs) is interesting. It probably refers to all people who don't take women because they were born such.
into the lake of fire you go
>>1355333
Trips confirm.
I was about to use this extract.
>>1355333
>>1355344
Trips and dubs. The lord has spoken.
Why were native fighters so terrible. I'm not talking disease...I'm talking about the actual battles.
>5,000 Incan soldiers
>80,000 more not far away
>Under 200 Spanish
>All 5,000 Incans killed with Atahualpa taken hostage
>No spanish killed
How the hell can anyone take the Inca or Aztec seriously when they were BTFO so easily?
Talking in general, Spaniards had shitload of native allies.
Besides that, they had steel weapons, firearms, steel armor, even war dogs.
Don't forget, Spain was literally Total War: The Country for centuries. They had long and awesome martial tradition.
>200 Spanish
all vets of wars against the moors and the french
>5000 Incan soldiers
never seen an horse a gun a culverin in action
The same thing happened in Africa 300 years later
Military discipline and higher technology
And also the biggest cojones in all history
>>1353508
>icans
They were poor warriors indeed, look up for how they were organized, basically they had huge armies with poor training.
>Aztecs
these were actually good warriors, but they were doomed by the tech gap plus lots of enemies, plus what they believe (prophecies of their own end and stuff like that)
Natives in S.A had some success when they learned to ride and shot. Check out charruas, and Lautaro (pic related) he was some kind of strategy wonder boy.
Remember that one time when longbowmen rekt everyone? Oh wait that's every time they were deployed.
>>1352021
Joan of Arc, i don't need to say more
>>1352021
Then how come England lost the 100 years war?
>>1352021
Battle of Patay.
Why is architecture so lifeless and artificial nowadays, compared to other ages?
>>1350919
le function over form meme
Sometimes I wonder if in a few centuries people will look back and admire our architecture for whatever reason.
I can imagine some pretentious student going on about its "stoic simplicity" or something.
Of course it's just as possible everyone will look at the late 20th/early 21st century as an artistic dark age.
>>1350919
>I only go between my office and suburban house so the only buildings in the world are the ones I see while on thr bus
What did Evola see in him, /his/?
>>1348003
he was actually good
>>1348003
>Reactionaries
You can do better.
>>1348003
he had the most coherent programme for fascism
Where does the 'Divine right of kings' come from?
I must have missed that part of the bible.
>>1363151
Schizophrenia
Well it's pretty explicit in the old testament in several places, but it's most overtly laid out in Romans 13
>>1363173
No tripfriends please.
why
He answers that extensively in his work.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
He romanticized death
Buddhism works because it offers two ways to end suffering in rebirth.
One, lead an ascetic life.
Two, accumulate karma by good works.
Catholicism works because it offers two ways to enter heaven.
One, imitate Christ directly by joining the church or becoming a saint.
Two, by avoiding sin and performing good works.
Protestantism leads to cultural suicide because it rejects good works.
All protestants know how to do is eat porridge, mutilate genitals, censor artwork, and cuckold themselves sullenly.
>>1358770
Where does it say that non-Christians can enter heaven? Works aren't enough.
>tfw no Anglicanism
Oi mate, me porridge and twenty hour days at me fact'ry's good a work 's any o' them Roman cunts, ya hear? Cat'lic an' reformed, good works 'n porridge, there's a good lad.
>Protestantism leads to cultural suicide because it rejects good works.
Find one Protestant confessional statement which rejects good works. Every Protestant church -- Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican -- teaches good works. What they do not do is make good works an instrument of justification. This and no more.
You might be thinking of the Antinomians and the Socinians/Unitarians.
Whats the history of traps?
I know I can't post it somewhere else because it would turn into a porn thread.
Looking for serious answers here.
I have read that some native cultures boys would grow up as girls and would be treated as women etc.
Was any of that true, or is this an agenda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society
I assume you meant these natives?
>>1358434
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society
never even heard of them. i was referencing native americans
>>1358455
Native Americans have a zillion genders is a myth. However, the Bugis do indeed have five genders where boys are raised as girls, girls as men, and some to be androgynous. Most are still heterosexual men and women, though.
was there any chance for the pagan religions of Europe to hold out and never convert?
or was it inevitable after the roman empire converted from Hellenism?
No, even before Christianity, sol invictus, paralleling Akhenaten's cult in Egypt, was on the rise. Even if Christianity never arose, polytheism would have declined in favor of monotheism. Christianity did, however, provide a great deal of depth to the monotheism which it otherwise would not have had, allowing it to endure as a paradigm far longer than it otherwise could have.
>>1358294
>polytheism would have declined in favor of monotheism
What is Hinduism.
from my understanding. kings and other rulers would convert to Christianity but the common people would still hold onto the pagan traditions for years to come. which is how many of those traditions spilled into Christianity (Easter being a prime example)
pretty hard to find reliable sources on this topic though.
The Druidic priesthoods of Europe were founded by the scattered tribes of Israel and are based on Hebrew traditions.
Best World War 2 generals that were not Commonwealth, American, or German. Japanese welcome.
Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Chuikov, Yeryomenko were all great generals. I'm on the fence about Semyon Budyonny. His defense of the Carpathians was incredibly important to soviet supply lines, but I wouldn't br surprised if anyone could defend such a geographical area against an army depleted by the battle of Stalingrad.
>best WW2 generals that were not the best WW2 generals
Ok
>>1358161
If you want another circle jerk thread about Rommel so be it.
>>1358129
The influence of generals was marginal. Only the material substructure truly mattered.
Any books on Norse Paganism? Any of you practicing pagans?
Who eradicated the European pagans? Was everything they had destroyed? Do we have legit sources of their lore today?
>>1356733
You can get laid by pretending you believe in witchcraft . That's the only practical use for it
The asa believers of today are totally out of touch with the historical belief from which they derive their watered down wicca mix.
Frankly, I'm dissapointed.
>>1357132
Care to elaborate?
