WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

The simple fact of the matter is most countries are not good stewards of our collective history. Even china has destroyed much of their history. Egyptian history was likely created by the ancestors of Europeans and not arabs. It definitely wasn't created by Africans. If the British hadn't preserved so much of our collective history it would likely have been trashed by the orcs that now inhabit those lands.

Sadly the leftists in the west might be trending our countries in the exact same direction.

[–] 1 pt

not good stewards of our collective history.

They are a bunch of fucking chimpanzees.

[–] 2 pts

Wait, which one is Britain?

[–] 1 pt

>Historical and prehistorical artifacts preserved in situ >Modern archaeologists dig them all up >Place them in museums >Industrial societies collapses 100 yrs later >All extant artifacts turn to dust within decades from exposure Woopsies, sure glad we robbed all those graves

[–] 1 pt

They should protect Sweden

[–] 0 pt

I wonder why the Muslims came up with the nutty taboo against images of Mohammed? I mean, they all agree that Mohammed is not god. They call him a prophet. If he was just a man, then what's wrong with showing a picture supposedly like him -- of course there are no pictures of Mohammed, or statues of him, so it wouldn't be a real likeness, any more than all the portraits of Jesus are actual likenesses. But I don't see any reason for the prohibition, which is irrational and foolish.

[–] 0 pt

He may have been white with red beard

[–] 0 pt

Probably because he was an exceedingly ugly chronic masturbating pale freckled skitzo with dirty red hair and a gimp ... and totally not something to immortalize with an image.

[–] 0 pt

My guess is that there were multiple Muhammad's, so imagery was banned so any person claiming to be muhammad could be muhammad.