>be catholic
>realize that while Italy was street shitting tier, protestants were colonizing North America and creating the best society the world has ever seen since the roman empire
Are the protestants better than us? They created America while we attempted civilization in South America and failed.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Catholicism peaked in the Renaissance. That's also when Italy stopped being relevant
Anything good from the enlightenment onwards was because of protestants
Brazil and Argentina had the same potential the USA had by 1900.
>Brazil and Argentina had the same potential the USA had by 1900.
By 1900's the US were already a global superpower.
youtube.com
The biggest determinant of a country's succes is it's geography and not the way their forefathers worshipped some dead kike.
Brazil could have been a superpower, its geography and demography supports it.
Argentina has too few people for superpower status, but it did manage to be filthy rich by the 1900s and even develop its own car companies and jet fighters by 1947. (5th nation to develop a jet fighter after Germany, the US, Soviet Union and France)
The average Spanish colony is more developed than the average Anglo colony.
Stop pretending India, Burma, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and so on have nothing to do with Britain.
>Are the protestants better than us?
Only because they gave up fundamentalism quicker than Catholics. While Americans were drafting (limited) freedom of religion and thought the Catholics were holding inquisitions in Spain - murdering people for their false god and self-righteous egos.
For example, Isaac Newton was not without persecution by the Church of England, but at least he was never really in mortal danger from them. If he had been from Italy or Spain the danger would have been considerably greater.
is this bait?
Nope, India is a British mess just like native-majority Guatemala is a Spanish mess.
Did you ever hear of the tragedy of the Spanish empire? I thought not. It's not a story the bongs would tell you.
While the other European powers grew more powerful and centralised, the Iberians were weak. Their lands divided, and invaded by muslims. 700 years they fought to liberate their rightful clay from the invaders, but even then they could not beat the French. And so the Spanish decided to expand west, find a new way to India and become rich from trade like the Italians. But they found something greater: a brave new world. They fought with the savages of this land, conquered them, made them followers of Christ and spared them from slavery and exploitation.
They would only grow in power until the king of Spain gained the title of a Roman emperor and created the first empire in which the sun never sets. He decided to finally assert his dominance over western Europe and conquer France. But the desparate French choose to betray their religion and ally themselves with the Ottomans, who had conquered Anatolia and the Balkans just as the caliphate once did to Spain. The French won this war, and split the kingdom of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. But this was not the end.
The Spanish still had their colonies, their trade, and the Netherlands. But after the war they would slowly decline, as the enormous ammounts of riches from the new world inflated their economy. They would seek money from the Netherlands, where were the richest provinces of the kingdom. But with the help of the anglo the swamp people of that land, made rich by the Spanish trade, would rebel against the king(they followed the new protestant faith, while the Spanish were strict catholics). But it was not over yet, while the war was raging the king of Spain decided to attack the English and land a foreign army on the isles for the first time in 500 years. But the english, just as the french, used unholy methods...
Cont.
The queen of England had employed the help of pirates to steal the wealth of the new world from its rightful owners, and even command their fleet in the battle against the Spanish armada. In the end the english won, but that was just the beggining. This was a battle the english are proud with to this day, but not so many know that even with this victory there was a real possibility of a Spanish army setting food on the island. Spain would send 2 more armadas, each one bigger than the last, but both would be sunk. Not by the English, but by the storms of the channel. In the end only a small contingent of troops landed on the shores of England and quickly left when they realised they were alone.
From this point on the Spanish empire would only be in decline, unable to maintain it's economy stable and develop a burgher class like the Netherlands. English and the Dutch would take their place as the biggest traders and piece by piece they would fade away from the world stage, until they had to be saved from the French by the protestant English themselves.
Truly a tragic end for the conquerors of the new world.
>Are the protestants better than us?
Yes, that's usually the case when one religion supports the mass rape of children and one doesn't.
Latin America is a shithole not because of religion but because it's filled with shitskins. Do you think it would be just as shitty if it was populated with nothing but Swiss and Bavarian Catholics?
Also niggers in the USA are total shit and they're mostly Protestant.
t. Protestant
America is more of a shithole than several Latin American nations.
Did you know even fucking Costa Rica has a higher life expectancy than the United States?
All of the New World is sewage except for Canada which is the designated cuckold country.
you're a bit of an idiot lol.
>Fleet gets sunk
>Empire goes into terminal decline
Hmm, sounds like they didnt deserve to be an empire
God is better than the devil.
The children of God are better than the children of the devil.
The Christians are the children of God.
The Catholics are the children of the devil.
filthy cuckolded heretic. have fun being bred out of existance.
free market is the biggest determinant. no amount of geography can reverse government cancer
How so? Spain is no more related to the Mayan indians in a shithole like Guatemala than Britain is related to the streetshitters in India.
Yet somehow Guatemala is "Hispanic" whereas India is not called "Anglo". Sounds like a double standard to me.
>The biggest determinant of a country's succes is it's geography and not the way their forefathers worshipped some dead kike.
wrong
Hispanic means Spanish-speaking and Guatemala is Spanish-speaking. India speaks mostly Hindi and assorted streetshitter languages, English is only secondary.
>Rome in XVIIth century
>Street shitting
I recognized you Jackson DeWayne.
how exactly are protestants being bred out when it's thriving in South America and taking over catholicism
America has a higher GDP and HDI than any other Latin American country brainlet
>Guatemala native majority
What? eurangutan and african genes have fucked them over for centuries and the ethnicity reports lack rigor
>PROTESTANT
>WORK
>ETHIC
?
Amerindians had a higher development rate than europeans. In other words Amerindians have more civilization potential than europeans.
How is this even questioned?
Fuck off mutt. Your entire continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego is one gigantic shithole.
Europeans settle Europe: 40000BC
Amerindians reach North America: 15000BC
European crops, most of which they got from the Middle East, date from 8000BC.
Amerindian crops date from 6000BC.
Europeans getting bronze from other cultures around 3000BC.
Amerindians reached the bronze age in 500BC approximately.
Then let's compare:
Europeans lurking around as nomads: 30000 years.
Amerindians lurking around as nomads: 9000 years.
Europeans reaching the bronze age from other cultures after the Neolithic stage: 6800 years.
Amerindians reaching the bronze age by themselves without the influence of a culture thousands of years ahead of development: 5500 years.
Let's check how many years humans have interacted with the horse population and environment: 37000 years.
Let's check how many years have Amerindians affected the camelids of South-America, when the spaniards came: 15000 years. They had less than half the time, yet they already domesticated diverse species for food and wool.
And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writing from north-african nor middle-eastern nor central-asian cultures.
As their higher development demonstrates, Amerindians are superior to europeans.
>t. José Garcia Gomez
>Americas 5000 years ago: shithole
>Americas 1000 years ago: shithole
>Americas 500 years ago: shithole
>Americas now: shithole
Yawn.
>filth
Yes, yes you are.
Issac Newton was also an occultist heretic who delved into hermeticism in an attempt to create the philosopher stone... but that gets glossed over pretty often.
This is completely historically illiterate. Guns Germs and Steel is not a proper source.
t. Guns Germs and Steel brainlet
>>Americas now: shithole
the nice suburban areas of the US are the greatest place to live on the face of the earth. It's imply the closest we have ever gotten to a Utopian society
Those are meme stats when you have several developed Latin American countries where people live longer and have less crime than the US. I'd rather live in a place like Uruguay, Argentina, Chile or Costa Rica than get shot in America and I'm saying this unironically.
Fact is, the US has no right to call anyone a shithole when it has two of the 20 most dangerous cities on Earth.
i've never known anything other than the richest of suburbs. i can't complain but i think i would enjoy life in rural ireland more.
irishmen of rural ireland, is it comfy?
>i've never known anything other than the richest of suburbs
> but i think i would enjoy life in rural ireland more.
oh you poor sheltered cunt
Life expectancy is all you have? Cuba has a higher literacy rate, but would you rather live there than in American
i mean he's not complretly wrong, i'd rather live in buenos aires or mexico city than a shitty meth filled Appalachian town
>butthurt Italian blaming all of Spain and Italy's problems on Catholicism
>meanwhile France stayed competitive with the proddies the entire time
lol get over it losers
The key difference is that the English formed most of the population in their North American colonies whereas in India, Burma, and to a more moderate extent the Southern African colonies, there was already a large established society with millions of people. You can't compare them to an area that was sparsely inhabited by people who were still hunter-gatherer spear chuckers, certainly not the Asian colonies at least.