Post: #126

I've kept a tab on this thread but refrained from commenting.

Glad I did, because I gained some valuable history lessons regarding culture and war from both sides of the debate.

Only on RVF does outrage over southern war memorials being taken down become a great lesson in history.

Post: #127

Your arguments "AllOrNothing" were just too illogical.

Agreed that a higher civilization could have been created just as well by China, Japan, Persia or even India. And we all know what held back those countries from steps forward. Some cultures however are very unlikely to move forward due to severely limiting strains like a certain negative religion, adherence to slavery (slavery holds back development because it creates incentives for the elite to suppress technology since that in return devalues their slave value), caste system, illiteracy of the population etc. Persia for example just had the bad luck of being conquered by Islam. India was held back by the caste system and China and Japan remained ossified due to their isolationism. If only one emperor had decided to move boldly out, then he might have changed the course of history.

Still - we should not devalue those hard-won achievements by claiming that these were just some kinds coincidences. The Japanese did not become the powerhouse they are today by adhering to their ways, but by implementing the good stuff from the West while still retaining their culture. That is their achievement and not just coincidence!

Post: #128

(04-26-2017 01:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Sorry man, you have no idea what you're talking about. You've got some facts right, but you're acting like history starts when Constantinople fell.

I focused what I was talking about on 1400-1900 period of world civilization because it is due to that period of time that the European's are seen as a dominant geopolitical force. Before that period of time, the European's were not seen as a dominant geopolitical force as far as my knowledge goes.

I believe it was China that was the big kid on the block pre-1400's. Also, pre-1400's the Arabs and Central Asian nomadic tribes had massive expansions where they beat Europeans like they were a small child.

Russia got their asses kicked by the Mongolians. The Hun's conquered Eastern Europe from what I know, which also pushed the Germanic tribes into Western Rome leading to the Germans ripping the Wester Romans' assholes open.

Quote:Now, here's why the "luck" explanation makes no sense. It was not luck the Spanish overthrew the Moors. It took hundreds of years of resistance, and tens of thousands Spanish lives who fought for freedom. Then they even kicked out the Jews for good measure (because they would not convert to Christianity, it were widely suspected of aiding Muslims behind everyone's back) and became a world superpower for 100 years. That is no coincidence, it took centuries of deliberate action to achieve what the Spanish did.

Was it deliberate action though, or was it just a random population decline of the Moor's due to declining sphere of influence of Arabs and Central Asians after their population expansion had ended?

Also, the Spanish became a world superpower (I believe) due to discovering the America's (purely by accident mind you) and strip mining gold and silver from Central America fueling their economy temporarily before petering out because they flooded global trade with rare metals.

Quote:It was not luck some Greek monitored the stars and discovered the world was round. Anyone had access to stars, yet only a White guy figured it out.

But who developed agriculture, which allowed the Greeks to have an advanced enough civilization such that one could study the stars?

The Greeks should be thanking the Mesopotamians.

Quote:Therefore, your thesis that Whites benefited from luck is completely false and the opposite is true; it was the non-Whites who have been the lucky ones attacking Whites after they were done killing each other which enabled their victory. When Whites are united they rule over everyone as we see during the Roman Empire or the modern Western Empire, but when they fight each other it creates opportunities for the less creative races. That's the pattern easily observed through recorded history.

I am skipping over a couple of your earlier points because that is really stretching my knowledge also I don't believe the r-selected vs K-selected idea is heavily supported by evidence.

Again, the underlying point I am trying to make here is that people are arguing that the success of Europeans is attributable to innate factors rather than a combination of: geographical location, political developments, coincidence, and exposure to external cultures and technology.

Also, do you not recognize how the idea that Central Asians and Arabs could only conquer the Europeans due to luck while when the Europeans conquer other people it is somehow due to innate factors rather than luck shows a level of emotional bias towards one ethnic group over others? This is in opposition to an unbiased recognition of geopolitical developments without revealing affinity to one ethnic group over another.

Post: #129

(04-26-2017 04:10 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Agreed that a higher civilization could have been created just as well by China, Japan, Persia or even India. And we all know what held back those countries from steps forward. Some cultures however are very unlikely to move forward due to severely limiting strains like a certain negative religion, adherence to slavery (slavery holds back development because it creates incentives for the elite to suppress technology since that in return devalues their slave value), caste system, illiteracy of the population etc. Persia for example just had the bad luck of being conquered by Islam. India was held back by the caste system and China and Japan remained ossified due to their isolationism. If only one emperor had decided to move boldly out, then he might have changed the course of history.

Still - we should not devalue those hard-won achievements by claiming that these were just some kinds coincidences. The Japanese did not become the powerhouse they are today by adhering to their ways, but by implementing the good stuff from the West while still retaining their culture. That is their achievement and not just coincidence!

Still, China I believe had a thriving economy and advanced civilization while Western Europe was in a prolonged slump during the Middle Ages. China was considered a far superior society to Western Europe around 1100-1300 AD.

Also, China has always been a dominant geopolitical force throughout human civilization. They only fell during their century of humiliation (1839-1949, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation). The rise of China today into a dominant world power, one that arguably supersedes the EU and United States in geopolitical and economic dominance could arguably be seen as a return to their former glory as one of the strongest nations in the world.

Even though Japan was isolationist they still defeated Russia at the height of European power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japa...aftermath. It was actually the first defeat of a European power in like 400 years.

Post: #130

All or Nothing, would you say you're a big fan of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel?"

G

Post: #131

(04-26-2017 03:22 PM)Fisto Wrote:  It is obvious to me that there is in fact a war on white people in the US.

And I'm winning it!

That's a joke, but is there really a war on white people, or are white people imploding?

In this case, a monument to a white supremacist group was erected many years ago. A white mayor decided it was time to tear it down in the middle of the night, so he sent some white guys. They had to wear bulletproof vests in case white power types got too mad about it. Some white people stood around yelling.

Who is actually against the white people here?

With all these marches about immigration, I usually only see white faces. Look at all the antifa violence threads. Looks pretty white on white to me.

What's very interesting to me, is that my grandpa (who I'm fine with calling a full blown racist) always gave the "haoles gonna destroy themselves" speech until the day he died.

Aloha!

Post: #132

(04-26-2017 03:22 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Repo - maybe you haven't thought it through, but you are the only person pointing out that it's not "all" white people this statue removal is shitting on but somehow the people of the era.

I'm pretty sure that most do not at all make that distinction, and I'm also sure you are well aware of that.

After traveling the world for the last 4-5 years, it is obvious to me that there is in fact a war on white people in the US.

So while this singular action doesn't really effect me, I know the meaning behind the actions, and I won't pretend I don't.

I'm not even saying people of that era, I'm talking about the specific group of people who put up the statue as an acknowledgement of white superiority.

This specific action won't affect anyone because its not actually an attack on all white people. Unless someone stands up and does something like a "dear white people" speech over this, I have no problems.

Post: #133

@kona I think it goes along the long the lines of cultural marxism, left thinking vs. right, PC vs. Truth.

Post: #134

(04-26-2017 12:36 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Algebra was created in the Gulf States.

No, it wasn't, it was created by a certain Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi who was an Uzbeki Persian.

Uzbekistan at that time was Indo-European (read: white) and spoke an Eastern Iranian language. Turks don't arrive until around 1000ad.

In fact, white Europeans had went much further all the way into China, into the Tarim Bassin in the bronze age, get that, bronze age, that's 4000 years ago:



Look at that woman, she is red haired and clearly European skull shape.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakil...71935a3e2c

Quote:"Considering the presence of haplogroups H and K in the Xiaohe people and the geographical distribution of shared sequences, we conclude that the west Eurasian component observed in the Xiaohe people originated from western Europe, and maternal ancestry of the Xiaohe people might have close relationships with western Europeans,"

The circles with red, green and yellow are Indo-European whites. Not only are they white, they are very white, red haired, light skin, they are as European as can be.

That's the area of Uzbekistan by the way.

Post: #135

(04-26-2017 12:13 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:04 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

I hope your realize that the ideology that led to the erection of that statue has no basis in reality. The whole ideology behind white supremacy was formed in the South as a way of maintaining social order and had no basis in observable reality.

The fact is that the South formed a deeply hierarchical system in order to enforce social order, but that does not mean the ideology driving the hierarchical system has a basis in reality.

I would draw a comparison to the Austronesian or Aztec society, which was also heavily stratified and less egalitarian:

Quote:Anthropologists have suggested that human sacrifice gave emotional power to group values and provided a collective catharsis during crises. There were other advantages, too. The Aztecs, who sacrificed for many different reasons, also practiced cannibalism, with victims serving as a source of protein. And then there’s the “social control hypothesis,” which posits that human sacrifice served to subordinate the lower classes. Writing in the journal Nature last April, Joseph Watts of the Max Planck Institute in Germany and colleagues presented evidence supporting this idea.

----------------------------------

This tracing of different paths of cultural development led to interesting conclusions about the independent effect of human sacrifice. They found that the practice had a twofold impact, historically, on Austronesian societies: It made them significantly less likely to turn in an egalitarian direction and significantly more likely to become more hierarchical. In other words, the ritualistic sacrificing of humans seems to have stabilized and deepened social inequalities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/human-sacri...1490379093

When the Aztec elite sacrificed victims to the gods, did that actually bring in rain for the crops?

No. It was pure fiction created by the elite in order to control the masses.

The same goes for the whole ideology surrounding white supremacy. That was fiction created by plantation owners so they could control the masses (poor whites and black slaves).

Hey I agree, white people all over the world and ages building the best cities, the most wealth, colonizing and improving places wherever they have gone, inventing and endless list of things has nothing to do with reality.

Nothing.

Pure coincidence. A luck of the draw.

Everyone is equal and all that.

Honestly it's amazing to hear people that are not white, STILL complain about white privilege as well, when as you know it's not reality.

Especially when white people have taken great and self destructive measures to give power away.

Thank you for pointing it out.

edit - What if the Aztecs were white?

The Aztecs were loathed by the other populations in Meso-America because they would abduct people to slaughter in offerings to their gods by the thousands. The Spanish found many willing allies against them.

The Mayans had a very advanced astronomical calender and could predict the movement of comets and planetary objects with great accuracy. Instead of using it for science or travel, the priestly class only used it to make prophecies to subdue their 90% peasent class.¨

All the mesopotamian populations were stone age, because even if they knew how to melt things such as gold, they only used it for bling bling, preferring to kill each other with hammers made of stone.

Post: #136

(04-26-2017 03:52 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The depth of my understanding of history varies on location and time period. I'll admit that wide portions are shallow, but that doesn't negate the facts that I bring to the table.

You didn't just bring facts to the table.

You presented a weak argument partly based on your shallow understanding of history.

Quote:If you have your own ideas to contribute, it would help to present more information so I can learn rather than mocking my knowledge.

Yes, read more books, especially read books on the same time period from different perspectives.

For example, if you're going to read about American history read a communist's interpretation, a libertarian's interpretation, a nationalist's interpretation, etc.

Don't be the guy who just reads Howard Zinn's History of the United States and presumes to have a profound understanding of American History.

Post: #137

(04-26-2017 01:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  As for the Civil War - Weambulance is wrong. Lincoln was not the aggressor, anyone who studies the Civil War will find that the Southerners were the SJWs of the day. They were violent, irrational, and constantly virtue signaling about their rights as Southerners. They fired the first shots that started the Civil War.

Lincoln didn't want to invade the South, but after the South became more and more belligerent it eventually pissed off the common Northern Man to the point where he wanted to invade and kick their asses. Lincoln was merely channeling the anger.

There was a substantial amount of provocation from the North for long years before the secession even took place, which I see you did not mention. You have a very Northern attitude, which is natural, since you're a yankee like me I believe.

The opening shots were fired in South Carolina. You make it sound as if the South was mounting raids into Pennsylvania. In fact, Beauregard was firing on what he rightly considered an occupying army in his homeland, after offering to allow the garrison to surrender which they declined. The secession of South Carolina happened a full four months before Fort Sumter.

Lincoln sure as hell was no angel in all this. He acted to directly provoke the South after secession. He refused to recognize their legal secession, called it an insurrection, raised an even bigger army and invaded the South. The first Southern invasion of the North didn't happen until after they'd already repulsed the first Northern invasion. It's hard to claim the North was acting righteously when they're the ones who fricking invaded the South.

I don't think the South acted like angels either but saying it was all the South's fault for being belligerent dicks and the North just had to respond is Saturday morning cartoon-level morality tale nonsense.

Ultimately, all the North had to do was leave the South the alone and let them go. It's absurd to say "oh well, they mounted a four year campaign including a draft and continuous naval blockades just because they were ticked off at the south for being such savages."

That falls right into the category of "wildly oversimplifying history" I talked about before.

I don't expect the North and South to ever really agree about the Civil War. I was born and raised in the North. I still sympathize heavily with the South because Lincoln was clearly way out of order by taking such a heavy-handed approach to "maintain the union", and that precedent set the stage quite nicely for the federal leviathan we have now.

Post: #138

I dunno, as a result of keeping the Union together we developed into a worldwide superpower. Would both the North and the South have become superpowers if the South were allowed to succeed? Who knows but I'd like to read that book. What if the North and South took opposite sides in World War I? Fun to think about.

Post: #139

(04-26-2017 07:37 PM)Repo Wrote:  I dunno, as a result of keeping the Union together we developed into a worldwide superpower. Would both the North and the South have become superpowers if the South were allowed to succeed? Who knows but I'd like to read that book. What if the North and South took opposite sides in World War I? Fun to think about.

I believe the book series you're looking for is the Southern Victory mythos by Harry Turtledove, i.e. an alternate universe work of fiction where the South wins the Civil War and then goes on to examine the consequences right through to 1945.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #140

I can't guess what might have happened in terms of superpowerness, but I can say with some certainty that states' rights would not be functionally nonexistent today if Lincoln hadn't decided to flex his muscle and kill more Americans than any other conflict in history. It would have been much harder for the cultural marxists to bring us to the state we're in today if the federal government wasn't so strong.

Interesting fact: in the first 100 years of US history (starting when it became a sovereign nation), about 683,000 soldiers died in various conflicts. Of those, 91% died in the Civil War.

Perhaps the union could've reconciled over time. There were many blood ties to draw the North and South together and who's to say what would've happened over the following decades, especially as other world conflicts sprung up? We'll never know.

Post: #141

^

Supporting evidence for the above claim about cultural marxism:

The original Department of Education was established in 1867, marking the first major involvement of the federal government in primary school.

I have long contended that the subversion of American culture started in the schools. That would have been much harder to manage if there wasn't a single point where the cultural marxists could inject their poison.

Post: #142

(04-26-2017 01:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  As for the Civil War - Weambulance is wrong. Lincoln was not the aggressor, anyone who studies the Civil War will find that the Southerners were the SJWs of the day. They were violent, irrational, and constantly virtue signaling about their rights as Southerners. They fired the first shots that started the Civil War.

Lincoln didn't want to invade the South, but after the South became more and more belligerent it eventually pissed off the common Northern Man to the point where he wanted to invade and kick their asses. Lincoln was merely channeling the anger.

And while it was true the South left the Union because they wanted to spread slaves to states out West, it is not true the North fought to end slavery. The common White man of the North wanted to preserve the country his ancestors had fought and died for against the British, and did not think the South was justified in leaving the Union. Northerners did not see the South's grievances as legitimate, since no Southern state had been forced to do anything against their wills. The only thing the Northerners wanted was to stop the spread of slavery into the American West, as well as put up some tariffs against Britain. The idea that the South could simply leave the Union and start killing anyone who did not think like them was unfathomable to Northerners.

I remember reading a letter from a New Hampshire soldier to his mother. He wrote, "I ain't fighting no war for a bunch of niggers." Sums up Northern attitudes 100%. They were fighting because they viewed Southern behavior as savage and irrational. You even had that Southern Congressman attack the Northern Congressman while in Congress and practically killed the man.

The South was arrogant, and God humbled them. That's all that happened in the Civil War. The Blacks got a chance to prove to the White racists how wrong they were, and for awhile succeeded by taking care of themselves and voting to be free men under the Republican banner. But that only lasted for a hundred years from 1860-1960, and have been voting Democrat ever since in order to get lots of free shit but live under servitude. This supports the old Southern White racist ideology. The Confederates may still get the last laugh.

Black Americans have been voting Democratic since the 1930s, but the vote was split 70-30 and 60-40 until the election of 1964. Free shit is only one piece as to why they vote Democrat.

Post: #143

Personally I think its naive that Southern states would have kept their all their rights. At some point the Confederate government would likely try to gain more centralized power and they would all bow to the central bankers anyway. Who knows, maybe Texas would decide the rest of the States weren't worth supporting, and it would secede and become its own country again. If it tried to do that, would the Confederate States fight to keep their nation together? Impossible to know for sure.

Post: #144

(04-25-2017 10:34 AM)stugatz Wrote:  I have no love for the Confederacy - they seceded pretty frivolously when most of the country would have been just fine with continuing slavery. So many men died over almost nothing (although I guess the question of what would have ended slavery is a valid one).

Two words - Technology and economics

When the technology to work the fields made it cheaper to buy the machine rather than buy the slave, than slaves are obsolete. Look at what happens on a farm now compared to then. This nation can feed about one hundred people based on the produce of one farmer today. Back during the civil war, you were at a ratio of about ten to one at best.

Slaves sold back during the antebellum time was on average of $30,000 in todays money, give or take depending on the slave and other economic factors. As it took hundreds of hands to run a cotton plantation in the south, you would average in the tens of millions of dollars in today's money. The machinery to run the same field costs a few million.

Post: #145

@Repo's last comment

Maybe, maybe not. But saying something bad was inevitable doesn't absolve someone of wrongdoing.

If you murder a stage four cancer patient, you're still on the hook for that murder even though that person was almost certainly going to die within a few weeks anyway.

Fighting the growth of the government never ends, that's for sure. It's bureaucratic entropy. The best you can do is pour in a bunch of energy and hope it doesn't gain ground. But I don't think we should be celebrating handing a big win to the leviathan just because "our side"--the surviving union--won the war and crapped out 150 years of anti-Confederate propaganda.

Post: #146

(04-26-2017 06:07 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The Aztecs were loathed by the other populations in Meso-America because they would abduct people to slaughter in offerings to their gods by the thousands. The Spanish found many willing allies against them.

The Mayans had a very advanced astronomical calender and could predict the movement of comets and planetary objects with great accuracy. Instead of using it for science or travel, the priestly class only used it to make prophecies to subdue their 90% peasent class.¨

All the mesopotamian populations were stone age, because even if they knew how to melt things such as gold, they only used it for bling bling, preferring to kill each other with hammers made of stone.

I think that you mean meso-american. Mesopotamia is what is called the region between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers back in antiquity.

Post: #147

(04-26-2017 09:04 PM)Bluto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 06:07 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The Aztecs were loathed by the other populations in Meso-America because they would abduct people to slaughter in offerings to their gods by the thousands. The Spanish found many willing allies against them.

The Mayans had a very advanced astronomical calender and could predict the movement of comets and planetary objects with great accuracy. Instead of using it for science or travel, the priestly class only used it to make prophecies to subdue their 90% peasent class.¨

All the mesopotamian populations were stone age, because even if they knew how to melt things such as gold, they only used it for bling bling, preferring to kill each other with hammers made of stone.

I think that you mean meso-american. Mesopotamia is what is called the region between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers back in antiquity.

Simple mind fart.

What isn't simple is the annoying size of that image. Resize it!

Post: #148

(04-26-2017 09:16 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 09:04 PM)Bluto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 06:07 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The Aztecs were loathed by the other populations in Meso-America because they would abduct people to slaughter in offerings to their gods by the thousands. The Spanish found many willing allies against them.

The Mayans had a very advanced astronomical calender and could predict the movement of comets and planetary objects with great accuracy. Instead of using it for science or travel, the priestly class only used it to make prophecies to subdue their 90% peasent class.¨

All the mesopotamian populations were stone age, because even if they knew how to melt things such as gold, they only used it for bling bling, preferring to kill each other with hammers made of stone.

I think that you mean meso-american. Mesopotamia is what is called the region between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers back in antiquity.

Simple mind fart.

What isn't simple is the annoying size of that image. Resize it!

Resized for your viewing pleasure.

Post: #149

(04-26-2017 03:38 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 03:29 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  When leftys began to erase the physical elements of history, is because they want to rewrite history. That revisionist of history is one of the main tools from the left. First are the monuments, then the books.

I think the only time whenits ok to destroy monuments is when you destroy´s the legacy of a dictator/s (Lenin´s comes to mind).

Personally I have been travelling around the former communist block and I think that they went overboard by eliminating all the communist effigies of the leaders. They should have kept some which were done well. It is a reminder of dark times - add some explanation to it if you want, but leave it there as a symbol of a period in the history of the country.

I think that the people sometimes are too thin-skinned and want to wipe out everything that triggers them in some way or form. I am certain that millions of people would have wanted to photograph themselves next to a Lenin statue in Prague or Warsaw. History is not always meant to be pretty - sometimes it is better to remember the evil just as well, so that it does not repeat itself.

Agree. As i said, while i can understand (really understand) that people topple the monuments of the regimes that oppressed them, it is always important to remember history, not to risk to repeat it.

Post: #150