I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14847601
Support for monarchy is abhorrent. No living man or woman is my natural superior. The idea of kowtowing to and elevating another living human being to god-like status no matter how fruitious it may prove would inflict on me a level of disgust and revulsion that no reward would soothe.
#14847615
What a strange collection of ideas @Victoribus Spolia .

Your suggestion of rebuilding the old British Empire is untenable. The reason Britain got away with it was that Britain had a burgeoning population and civil and industrial organisational advantages over those places it did manage to colonise. The conditions no longer exist.

The social model you propose makes sense for a strong culture. A conservative society can be a source of collective strength. Yet it goes against prelevant norms in contemporary Western societies. Again the conditions aren’t there.

The political system, based on an inherited sovereign, isn’t completely unworkable. At least constitutional monarchies exist today in successful countries. I struggle to see how anyone would convince the Americans to accept such a thing. Once more, practicality is missing.

The one good debate topic your thread draws attention to, at least accidentally, is why the ‘Anglo-sphere’ doesn’t exist as a trade block or some sort of political union. Other related cultural groups do form a club whereas the Anglo countries seem to be trying to get an Anglo finger in very trade block pie. This wouldn’t be typical Anglo-Saxon sneakiness at work, would it?

Of course there is ‘Five Eyes’ and other such shadowy cooperation between the Anglo states. But no overt political organisation.

Oh well, Australia didn’t sneak into ASEAN, the UK is leaving the EU, and America seems to be pulling away from NAFTA. All much to the disgust of our Anglo-Saxon capitalist betters. Those damn Anglo peasants ruined the Anglo masters cunning plans with their lumpen popularism. I guess there will have to be a plan B.
#14847683

I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist.
You're consciousness having a human experience, entangled inside dimensional sensation.

"A man all wrapped up in himself makes a small package." limited perspective, fixed perspective, information in formation.

foxdemon wrote:What a strange collection of ideas.
Yes, indeed. He's drawing up political cartoons, waiting for a chance to be the dungeon master. Watch him open up his historical guidebooks and recreate dead ideas.

"The future is not what it used to be; neither is the past."

Your suggestion of rebuilding the old British Empire is untenable. The reason Britain got away with it was that Britain had a burgeoning population and civil and industrial organisational advantages over those places it did manage to colonise. The conditions no longer exist.
There's a time and place in space-time for this regressive nonsense, luckily we've evolved away from such a time and place. We shouldn't betray our ancestors.

The social model you propose makes sense for a strong culture. A conservative society can be a source of collective strength. Yet it goes against prelevant norms in contemporary Western societies. Again the conditions aren’t there.
Yes, again, unrealistic fantasy, revived for a table-top text game.


The political system, based on an inherited sovereign, isn’t completely unworkable. At least constitutional monarchies exist today in successful countries. I struggle to see how anyone would convince the Americans to accept such a thing. Once more, practicality is missing.
Actually, science is missing, why would any collective wish to regress toward a failed state of sociopolitical organization in the name of one individual's fantasy?

We must heal our intellectual schism, because the left and right stem from one mind/body. Fear is the absence of love and the mind is the root of all evil.

The one good debate topic your thread draws attention to, at least accidentally, is why the ‘Anglo-sphere’ doesn’t exist as a trade block or some sort of political union. Other related cultural groups do form a club whereas the Anglo countries seem to be trying to get an Anglo finger in very trade block pie. This wouldn’t be typical Anglo-Saxon sneakiness at work, would it?

Of course there is ‘Five Eyes’ and other such shadowy cooperation between the Anglo states. But no overt political organisation.

Oh well, Australia didn’t sneak into ASEAN, the UK is leaving the EU, and America seems to be pulling away from NAFTA. All much to the disgust of our Anglo-Saxon capitalist betters. Those damn Anglo peasants ruined the Anglo masters cunning plans with their lumpen popularism. I guess there will have to be a plan B.
Once you create a cognitive dialectic, one must devalue something in order to create value. This is linear, printed-on-paper logic, it thinks therefore believes in its string of characterizations (paradigm of conceit), and (re)issues a sense of pertinent urgency for those involved in the 'manifesto' or 'doctrine' of intellectual convention. As long as people use platonic 'cave vision' and cling to tribal dogma, we'll continue to divide and separate humanity into comic-book caricatures. Realistically, we're one people, we all live in the same house, we're consciousness having a human experience, and civilization will collapse if allow ourselves to indulge in what I call, a dialectic of the dice: role-players and (r)evolutionaries. History as time-lapse phenomenology, captures tribal images of arrogant peoples attempting to imprint their pattern of reality/perception onto other peoples. In the end, our photo-motion moments (pose for selfish-ies) illustrate death & destruction; collectively going nowhere, chasing our tales, entangled inside a planetary unfolding. Stop playing political dungeons & dragons and love your neighbor as yourself, we're one mind confronting the human condition as it interfaces inside a multi-dimensional happening. :)

"Many a good argument is ruined by some fool who knows what he is talking about."

The working class hero should give peace a chance.

-One Love
#14847716
anasawad wrote:1- Khosrow the first was a Zoroastrian not a Christian.
Yes, he did have a Christian wife, who was not important and did nothing, and his Christian son ended up dead while his Zoroastrian son took the throne. Because Zoroastrianism was the official state religion.
2- Even your own source says that Christianity was never a majority in Iran.
3- Khosrow the second also was a Zoroastrian.
Yes, his wife was a Christian and she used her position as queen to build several churches and end the persecution of Christians (they were persecuted under Khosrow I BTW). He hemself balanced that by building temples and boosting up Zoroastrianism because, and you might already know this, Non-Zoroastrian rulers tended to be killed off once in power.
4-And no, if the Islamic conquest didn't happen, Persia would've been Jewish not Christian since Judaism has much larger and more important presence in Iran than Christianity.
The reason for that is that Zoroastrianism was already in decline after the Parthian empire.

And Final note, one of The reasons Khosrow II had a trouble in his reign and ended up being dead is because his wife tried to convert Persia to Christianity.


Let us remember your original argument before you start playing a bait-and-switch;

anasawad wrote:Persia was Zoroastrian, never was Christian, never will it be.


1. My argument, was NOT that the rulers were leigitimate converts, or whether the majority of the population was Christian, When Constantine I made Christianity the state relgion, his own conversion was dubious (according to many scholars, because he retained the title Pontifex Maximus for a long period of time.) and the Christian population of the entire Roman Empire was under 15% (See Cairns' History of the Christian Church). However, the scholarly consensus would argue that Rome was "officially" Christian in the sense of state-sanctioned establishement from that time.

2. I never claimed, and never would, that Khorsou I or Khorsou II were Christian, so these points are irrelevant.

3. You denied, as shown above, that Persia was EVER Christian in any sense whatsoever, you are wrong. I cited sources that showed that Scholars have argued that Persia was for a short time officially Christian, which is the exact time frame that I originally argued. This was my original claim that you responded to and it is this claim you have not answered legitimately and you are still guilty of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" which you have failed to address since much of your disqualification of my argument was based on the assertion that "it was your country."

Furthermore, the claim that "he continued to build Zorastrian temples" is quite irrlevant, Constantine I continued pagan senate rituals, maintained the office of Pontifex Maximus, and did not cut government funding of pagan shrines for nearly his entire reign (see Defending Constantine by Peter Leihart), and yet both modern scholars and even scholars of the time (see Eusebius's Ecclesiastal Histories) argued that Rome became "officially" Christian. Which is all that I argued by including Persia in the Christendom that was displaced by Islamic conquest. You have failed to show youself as a unique authority on Persian history (as your arrogantly claimed) and you have failed to refute my very simple and basic assertion.

4. Perhaps one of the most absurd claims you have made (and there are many), is that Persia would have more likely been majority Jewish than Christian had the Islamic conquest not occurred. This shows a lack of education in religious studies. Judaism is not a proseltyzing faith in the sense of Islam or Christianity and that is why even to this day it has only a very small group of adherents (relative to world population) despite having (according to their claims) much greater antiquity than either Christianity or Islam. Given, Christianity's average rate of conversion and Judaism's average rate of conversion during this time-period, even with a larger Jewish population, the Christian population would have surpassed the Jewish population by almost seven fold by the target date I gave of A.D. 750. This is called "statistical analysis and projection" I'm sure you heard of it?

anasawad wrote:Actually if you read about the abolitionist movement, you'd know that while the movement (both political and social) began in the early 19th century, slavery didn't end until the late 19th and early 20th century as authorities still often acknowledged slaves and even helped return them to their owners if they ran in many cases.


That wasn't my argument. This is quite irrelevant. We have been talking about British colonialism in Africa. You originally claimed that this colonialism was done for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. This is chronologically impossible (which I pointed out), for the British Empire had ended slavery in itself and her colonies before she even began colonizing the continent of Africa. You have been refuted on this point and this is not argument to get you out of the hole you dug for yourself. So let me be clear about my claim: The British Empire was an abolitionist Empire when it colonized africa, it opposed and ended slavery in its colonies at this time, and ended the practice wherever it met it when conquering Africa. This is a historical fact. Your claim was to the contrary of this, therefore, you are wrong.

This is a bait-and-switch, this is a fallacious line of reasoning, you have failed to account for the objectively errorneous argument that colonialism in Africa was done for the purpose fo perpetuating slavery. This is impossible ( I demonstrated this), whether or not slavery continued in OTHER nations or by OTHER peoples is irrelevant, for we are talking about British colonialism which was the most significant in Africa. British colonialism had ending slavery as one of its cardinal motivations and almost single-handedly ended the Islamic slave trade which was far more extensive and brutal than the European slave trade had been. Indeed, there is no denying that slavery continued in the 20th century, in fact, slavery continues today, but it mostly exists in FORMER colonies in Africa, India, and the middle-east. That is, once the abolitionist colonial powers (in particular, the British) left, these savages returned to their beloved practice of slavery.

anasawad wrote:The British policies magnified the damage from monsoons and other natural events and massively pushed famines further.
Thats why while there were many many famines in the Indian subcontinent before, it did the most damage and the killed the most people in both number and ratio during British reign.
Basically, man made famine on top of a regular shortage or small famine.


1. I already address this argument, the majority of these famines, were NOT exacerberated by British rule, only a few were, but even those were not "caused" by British rule as you had insinuated in your original response to me where you stated:

anasawad wrote:The British empire oversaw several man made famines that killed millions of people.


1. This original claim is patently false, your argument has switched from this orignal claim (such a switch is a fallacy). The claim you made was that the British oversaw man-made famines. NONE of the famines you cited were man-made, all were caused by natural disaster from monsoon-related droughts. On this point alone you are, according to the laws of logic and discourse, refuted. I never claimed that the British did not make bad situations worse in regard to famines, in fact, I admitted this from the start as a failure in ANY government; therefore, you cannot prove a local Mughal government would have done better (in fact, the Mughals arguable caused the worse (intentional) genocide in human history in India).

2. The british "magnified" drought-related famines in some cases, but not in the majority of cases, and in fact, created the greatest attempted solutions to such famines in the history of famine management to that point (an argument you have failed to address.

3. You have likewise failed to address the argument that the British Empire had no interest in intentionally causing famine. The Mercantilist system requires raw goods from colonies to be produced; therefore killing off the source of these goods intentionally would be costly (no "greedy capitalist" would want these people to die, its too expensive). Second, no missionary wanting to convert these heathens to the true faith would want them to die and go to hell, these missionaries want servants of the true faith, not corpses, and the missionary effort was also a major justification for colonialism. Thirdly, the British Empire's global reputation depended on their ability to manage their lands, a terrible and mismanaged famine was a political embarrassment.

The claim, which you made, was that the British oversaw man-made famines has been proven false, just like your claim that they colonized africa to perpetuate slavery! :lol: This is nothing but historical ignorance on display.

anasawad wrote:There were many actually; North western Africa, East African coast, and Northern South Africa all had major kingdoms and empires across history.
Thats why if you looked at the history of for example Nigeria during colonialism, you'd see that colonial authorities used to work with local princes and kings on many occasions.


These were, emphatically, not civilizations. the ability to do ordinary adminstration was pretty remarkable in sub-saharan africa, but this does not qualify as civilization. Name any top ten list that includes any civilization in Africa other than Egypt and possible the Nubians? Name any significant development of administration or technology they created that was not already made better by Europeans. Name any significant influence their philosophy or literature or language has made on the world? Name their great military achievements? How about their contiguous land control? Did they by conquest extend great borders rivaling Rome or even China? No. They did none of these. They were farily prosperous city-states, small kingdoms, or tribal confederations that practiced slavery, genocide, and cruelty and they were dispensed with easily because of their lack of sophistication.

anasawad wrote:The US alone have attacked over 40 nations since WW2 and has directly and indirectly caused the death of around 13 million people in this period alone as well as supporting and installing genocidal dictators all across the world.


Exactly, any list that includes the U.S. as a colonial power beyond its acquistions from Spain, are delusional propoganda, your just proving my point more. I would never condone U.S. foreign policy from a pro-colonialist perspective, because no real colonies are ever established.

anasawad wrote:the introduction of colonial rule drew arbitrary natural boundaries where none had existed before, dividing ethnic and linguistic groups and natural features, and laying the foundation for the creation of numerous states lacking geographic, linguistic, ethnic, or political affinity.


Once again, another reason we never should have left.

anasawad wrote:I'm not, and I do not.


Yes you have been refuted and fallaciously changing the subject of debate won't save you.
#14847717
One African 'artificial' famine you can definitely associate with the British Empire occured during the Boer war in SA.

But really @Victoribus Spolia I am waiting for new topics of political origin rather than historic origin. You are well read in ancient history . Are you just as strong in modern history? What do you think of Donald Trump?
#14847721
@B0ycey,

I really don't think wartime famines are contextually appropriate, you can argue that for almost any war on anyside.

B0ycey wrote:But really @Victoribus Spolia I am waiting for new topics of political origin rather than historic origin. You are well read in ancient history . Are you just as strong in modern history? What do you think of Donald Trump?


I am dealing with historical issues because historical objections are being given, my education is relevant here, my bachelors was a double major in History and Philosophy with academic honors and my masters is in theology and biblical studies, and I am working on my Ph.D., in philosophy of history with an emphasis on moral and political thought.....so i go to what i know. That being said, I am also a working class man, having worked in construction, machining, welding, etc., to support my wife and 5 children (so far) while I go to school and am a Christian who is proud of his heritage and history.....so.... I voted for Donald Trump. I would rather not discuss that decision further because I do not think it is entirely relevant to position. I do plan on discussing contemporary issues in the future.
#14847731
Actually there aren't many wars that intentionally ruin crop or torch land to cause a famine. But natually interception of supplies or food shipments are paramount in war strategy. Also the British Empire caused famine within India by sending food to the UK during poor yield seasons. To say the British empire didn't modernise the nations it colonised would be wrong. But it only did so to benefit either the crown or major corporations - and not the people of these lands.

As for politics, your entrance to PoFo has been impressive but you have yet to venture outside this thread. There is no point discussing things you know as fact. Perhaps discuss an opinion that can be challenged and defended.
#14847734
@Victoribus Spolia
1. My argument, was NOT that the rulers were leigitimate converts, or whether the majority of the population was Christian, When Constantine I made Christianity the state relgion, his own conversion was dubious (according to many scholars, because he retained the title Pontifex Maximus for a long period of time.) and the Christian population of the entire Roman Empire was under 15% (See Cairns' History of the Christian Church). However, the scholarly consensus would argue that Rome was "officially" Christian in the sense of state-sanctioned establishement from that time.

2. I never claimed, and never would, that Khorsou I or Khorsou II were Christian, so these points are irrelevant.

3. You denied, as shown above, that Persia was EVER Christian in any sense whatsoever, you are wrong. I cited sources that showed that Scholars have argued that Persia was for a short time officially Christian, which is the exact time frame that I originally argued. This was my original claim that you responded to and it is this claim you have not answered legitimately and you are still guilty of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" which you have failed to address since much of your disqualification of my argument was based on the assertion that "it was your country."

Furthermore, the claim that "he continued to build Zorastrian temples" is quite irrlevant, Constantine I continued pagan senate rituals, maintained the office of Pontifex Maximus, and did not cut government funding of pagan shrines for nearly his entire reign (see Defending Constantine by Peter Leihart), and yet both modern scholars and even scholars of the time (see Eusebius's Ecclesiastal Histories) argued that Rome became "officially" Christian. Which is all that I argued by including Persia in the Christendom that was displaced by Islamic conquest. You have failed to show youself as a unique authority on Persian history (as your arrogantly claimed) and you have failed to refute my very simple and basic assertion.

4. Perhaps one of the most absurd claims you have made (and there are many), is that Persia would have more likely been majority Jewish than Christian had the Islamic conquest not occurred. This shows a lack of education in religious studies. Judaism is not a proseltyzing faith in the sense of Islam or Christianity and that is why even to this day it has only a very small group of adherents (relative to world population) despite having (according to their claims) much greater antiquity than either Christianity or Islam. Given, Christianity's average rate of conversion and Judaism's average rate of conversion during this time-period, even with a larger Jewish population, the Christian population would have surpassed the Jewish population by almost seven fold by the target date I gave of A.D. 750. This is called "statistical analysis and projection" I'm sure you heard of it?

1- You keep stating that some "scholars" consider it to have been Christian because the queen was Christian. And that one of the Shah's sons was Christian.
The Shah's son got killed when he tried to rebel. And the Shah hemself and his queen ended up dead because she tried to convert the nation, she failed.
The building of Churches might seem as an expansion for the Christian minority, but let me remind you the before Khosrow II time, Christians were being persecuted and no churches at all existed.
Meaning that they went from negative to just zero in regards of their official stance.
Thats not the country being Christian, thats the country tolerating the Christian minority for a couple of decades.
So no, you and all your scholars, which I assume are a handful of Christianity supporters to make the retarded claim that the Persian empire, The empire literally defined by Zoroastrianism, was Christian because it just tolerated them, can shut the hell up about it because apparently you've never heard of logic and administration or any method of interpreting events in history.
Using the same logic, I'd assume half of Europe is Muslim not Christian. Even though yes Europe's Muslim population is low, but it's tolerated so it must be Islamic right ?

2- Judaism was a major religion back then that had much higher numbers than any other religion except Zoroastrianism in Persia at that period, Being the second religion in the empire for around a thousand years. This is why you can read so much about Jewish history in Persian history BTW.
And if you did the reasearch you claim to have done, you'd have known that Judaism was actually on the rise in that Sassanian empire due the decline of Zoroastrianism in it.
Christianity did try to make an appearance, only to be led to the slaughter house across multiple centuries. Then ofcourse with Khosrow II time, not only Christians but even the king and queen going to the slaughter house as well because they were challenging the already existing religions.
Thats why i focused on Khosrow II trying to balance out his wife building Churches with building and supporting Zoroastrianism BTW, this is a very well known fact about his reign for anyone who ever opened a book on it. He knew the consequences and was afraid of them.


That wasn't my argument. This is quite irrelevant. We have been talking about British colonialism in Africa. You originally claimed that this colonialism was done for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. This is chronologically impossible (which I pointed out), for the British Empire had ended slavery in itself and her colonies before she even began colonizing the continent of Africa. You have been refuted on this point and this is not argument to get you out of the hole you dug for yourself. So let me be clear about my claim: The British Empire was an abolitionist Empire when it colonized africa, it opposed and ended slavery in its colonies at this time, and ended the practice wherever it met it when conquering Africa. This is a historical fact. Your claim was to the contrary of this, therefore, you are wrong.

This is a bait-and-switch, this is a fallacious line of reasoning, you have failed to account for the objectively errorneous argument that colonialism in Africa was done for the purpose fo perpetuating slavery. This is impossible ( I demonstrated this), whether or not slavery continued in OTHER nations or by OTHER peoples is irrelevant, for we are talking about British colonialism which was the most significant in Africa. British colonialism had ending slavery as one of its cardinal motivations and almost single-handedly ended the Islamic slave trade which was far more extensive and brutal than the European slave trade had been. Indeed, there is no denying that slavery continued in the 20th century, in fact, slavery continues today, but it mostly exists in FORMER colonies in Africa, India, and the middle-east. That is, once the abolitionist colonial powers (in particular, the British) left, these savages returned to their beloved practice of slavery.


Your argument as you say is that the British empire was an abolitionist empire, which, as i stated and will continue to state, is bullshit because while the authorities "rejected" slavery on principle, they continued to recognize slaves and even returned them to their owners if they tried to run away. They perpetuated many of the local leaders whom held slaves and traded them. Not only in Africa but to some extent also in India. And the places where they "ended" slavery they replaced it with a system that while its subjects are technically not slaves, they're treated like slaves and properties that will work like slaves and stripped of whatever right the authorities deem against its interests meaning they had no rights under the reign of the empire. Thats why its called colonial empire.
So your argument about how great the British empire is just as bullshit as your argument about how Persia was Christian. Full of it.

1. This original claim is patently false, your argument has switched from this orignal claim (such a switch is a fallacy). The claim you made was that the British oversaw man-made famines. NONE of the famines you cited were man-made, all were caused by natural disaster from monsoon-related droughts. On this point alone you are, according to the laws of logic and discourse, refuted. I never claimed that the British did not make bad situations worse in regard to famines, in fact, I admitted this from the start as a failure in ANY government; therefore, you cannot prove a local Mughal government would have done better (in fact, the Mughals arguable caused the worse (intentional) genocide in human history in India).

2. The british "magnified" drought-related famines in some cases, but not in the majority of cases, and in fact, created the greatest attempted solutions to such famines in the history of famine management to that point (an argument you have failed to address.

3. You have likewise failed to address the argument that the British Empire had no interest in intentionally causing famine. The Mercantilist system requires raw goods from colonies to be produced; therefore killing off the source of these goods intentionally would be costly (no "greedy capitalist" would want these people to die, its too expensive). Second, no missionary wanting to convert these heathens to the true faith would want them to die and go to hell, these missionaries want servants of the true faith, not corpses, and the missionary effort was also a major justification for colonialism. Thirdly, the British Empire's global reputation depended on their ability to manage their lands, a terrible and mismanaged famine was a political embarrassment.


The famine is one of the many famines and famine-triggered epidemics that devastated the Indian subcontinent during the 18th and 19th century. It is usually attributed to a combination of reasons and the policies of the British East India Company. The start of the famine has been attributed to a failed monsoon in 1769 that caused widespread drought and two consecutive failed rice crops. The poor infrastructure investments in pre-British period, devastation from war, and exploitative tax revenue maximization policies of the British East India Company after 1765 crippled the economic resources of the rural population. Nobel prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen describes it as a man-made famine, noting that no previous famine had occurred in India that century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ben ... ne_of_1770

In part, the Great Famine may have been caused by an intense drought resulting in crop failure in the Deccan Plateau. But,the regular export of grain by the colonial government; during the famine the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 ton) of wheat, this weaken the rich cultural and economic strength especially of southern India. However, the cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fam ... E2%80%9378

And The entire intro here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Those are a couple of good examples.

As you can note, even under drought there was still significant production the simply didn't go to its own people in all 3 and pretty much all famines that occurred under British rule, and further more trade to reduce the damage barely made effect because it was artificially limited in most cases by British rule. Add to that the fact that there were many monsoons that didn't have famines as a result simply due to the simple fact that Indian empires are large and weren't all affected which meant balance.
You keep talking about the Mughal empire as if its an argument, its not, the Mughal empire nor any previous Indian empire witnessed famines as large or destructive as the ones under British rule.
Infact, in the entire history of India, there were never famines as severe as those under British rule specifically because the British policies, meaning that those famines are considered man made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in ... itish_rule

Exactly, any list that includes the U.S. as a colonial power beyond its acquistions from Spain, are delusional propoganda, your just proving my point more. I would never condone U.S. foreign policy from a pro-colonialist perspective, because no real colonies are ever established.

1- You're arguing for the goodness and superiority of Anglo rule, the Anglo rule includes the US and its policies.
2-You argue the US is not colonial, the general facts is that the US replaced old colonialism with new indirect colonialism. Its that whole regime change and installment thing you know.

Once again, another reason we never should have left.

You should have never been there to begin with.

Yes you have been refuted and fallaciously changing the subject of debate won't save you.

I did not change the subject, so far 'm responding to your points only.
And if you consider your twisting of the facts to exempt your party as refutation, then you clearly don't understand what the word means.
#14847741
@Victoribus Spolia

1. So what exactly are you arguing? If there has never been an Iranian king who has been christian and there has never been a christian majority population, then what exactly are you arguing for? If you are implying that Iran has had Christianity as a state religion then the information you have provided to back up this claim is vague if not irrelevant. The only two pieces of information you have given to support your point is a quote that some scholars (note that your quote didn't even mention scholars at all but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) believe that Iran was officially Christian for a short time and a link that doesn't work. You have not given any information in regards to evidence that these scholars have for this assertion or anything in regards to these scholar's thought processes. You have only given us a vague, potentially taken out-of-context quote that gives no other information or evidence outside of the implication that some scholars think so (which, if you have worked in academia as I have, means jack shit).

This is what you would call an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

4. @anasawad was arguing that Iran would've been officially Jewish rather than it's population or ruler being Jewish for the same reason that Roman Empire changed it's state religion to Christianity. Iran also had a much more better reason to convert to Judaism than the Roman Empire did as Judaism, like @anasawad said, had a larger cultural and societal presence in the Sassanid Empire at the time.

Furthermore, you are projecting modern perceptions of Judaism onto Late Antiquity's or at least the Middle East's perceptions of Judaism. Judaism during the ancient Middle East was just another religion like Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and, later, Islam in terms of conversion. Anyone could convert to it regardless of your race. Yes, Judaism is alot more ethnically-oriented than most of the religions I have listed, but it certainly was much more open during Late Antiquity than later on in Judaism's history. In Late Antiquity Arabia, Jews were considered to have been Arabs and there are many Jewish ethnically Arab tribes such as the Qahtani and Adnani tribes.

https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%8A% ... 9%8A%D8%A9

I apologize for the Arabic Wikipedia link. The English page for Arab Jews talks about Arabs who are also ethnically Jewish which is irrelevant to this discussion. The western conception of Judaism and Jews as heavily ethnically-oriented only came to be during the late 1800s and early 1900s when economic turmoil and increasing nationalism in Europe created a distinction between Jews and white Europeans which lead to the assumption of Judaism being a religion for ethnic Jews. In reality, Judaism is no more for Jews than Islam is for Arabs.

2. Britain ended the slave trade, not slavery itself. Furthermore, Britain didn't single handedly end the Islamic slave trade just as Britain didn't single handedly end slavery all across of Europe suddenly because that's ridiculous. Furthermore Britain didn't end the slave trade due to colonialism. Colonialism encourages slavery because colonialism, in essence, is about gaining resources in the most efficient way possible and ensure that the homeland or country that is perpetuating that colonialism, gets those resources. Due to this, slavery is encouraged because with slavery, you don't have to deal with your workers exercising their human rights and potentially rebelling against the system when you take away those human rights and treat them like literal dirt. Britain ended slavery because some people in upper management took the time to realize that slavery was amoral and executed half-assed attempt at ending slavery.

3. The Islamic Slave Trade was in fact more brutal than the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. However, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade had much more larger societal consequences than the Islamic Slave Trade and had very important distinctions. First, slaves in Islamic territories had larger amounts of social mobility than in European/American territories. Not only that, but slaves in Islamic territories had certain sets of rights that slaves in European/American territories didn't have. For example, in Islamic territories the slave master was obligated to educate you, give you a standard of living comparable to the slave master's, let you have a job, let you go where you want, and give you food and water. If a slave master does not fulfill these obligations the slave can sue the slave master and, if the slave master cannot fulfill these obligations, the slave can have his/her freedom. All of these things are not found in Trans-Atlantic slave trade territories.

Second, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was racial based while the Islamic slave trade did care about what color you were. Because of this, racial tensions were alot more intense in Trans-Atlantic territories in contrast with Islamic territories. Yes, the Middle East does have alot of ethnic tensions however these ethnic tensions are more based on what particular ethnicity has done in the past rather than simply the ethnicity itself. In the West, a white person is more likely to hate a black person simply because they are black not because blacks did something to whites. In the Middle East, a Persian is more likely to hate an Arab because of the Arab conquest of Persia not because Arabs are Arabs.

Due to these two aspects of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, not only is there higher ethnic tensions between blacks and whites, but there is a larger amount of poor blacks and larger amount of rich whites which makes politics and economic inequality even more tense then it should be. In the Middle East however it's possible to see many stories of slaves who managed to become noblemen and even kings due to this social mobility. You rarely see these types of stories in the US or Europe.

4. The British's continuous extortion of goods and resources from India and lack of proper resource distribution to native Indians created these famines. By pressuring Indians to produce more and more goods they eroded and degraded the soil and arable lands of India thus creating these famines. The British didn't intend to do this of course but I won't blame it on the British. Colonialism did this, colonialism sucks and sucks the life out of a place until there is nothing left, then it moves on and looks for another place to annihilate of all life, feeling, and emotion.

The solution was half-assedly executed and ended up failing.

Of course it has no interest in causing the famine. However it did unintentionally cause the famine due to the British Empire's greedy and unsaleable hunger. Also that's just bad economics there. Mercantilism demands that trade and wealth should be made as domestically as possible. Mercantilism is not colonialism and does not require colonialism to function. A modern equivalent to Mercantilism would be Import Substitution which advocates for something similar.

5. There's not enough information on Africa (excluding North Africa of course) to make such assumptions. We don't know enough about the Songhai Empire, the empire of Mansa Musa, the Shaka, or even the Kingdom of Ethiopia to make the assumption that they weren't civilizations. We simply do not have any meaningful knowledge on these civilizations to make any concrete opinion on the quality of those civilizations. There are hints of a wider civilization. We know a little about the Songhai Empire and it's surprisingly advanced clans which functioned remarkably similar to a modern small business and Somalia's interesting polycentric system of law but we don't know enough about these things to truely discuss them.

This is why any discussion about Africa's civilizations and whether or not they are civilizations will immediately fail, because how can you discuss something you don't have any information about.

6. If the Middle East were still mandates the Middle East wouldn't be heaven on earth. It would still be like the present Middle East. Colonialism created distinctions that weren't necessary and that's why colonies were horrible in terms of their corruption and contradictory administration. The only reason why the British Empire's administration was praised is because of how the British Empire managed to keep itself together for so long. If you can talk about how great the British Empire's administration is, I can talk about how great the Ottoman Empire's administration is since the Ottoman Empire managed to survive for a really long time. In reality, the British Empire had loads of problems with keeping it's colonies and many of it's territories were seriously dysfunctional even when the British were there.

Please, stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself in front of all the adults.
#14847761
RhetoricThug wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLy2SaSQAtA
I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist.
You're consciousness having a human experience, entangled inside dimensional sensation.

"A man all wrapped up in himself makes a small package." limited perspective, fixed perspective, information in formation.

Yes, indeed. He's drawing up political cartoons, waiting for a chance to be the dungeon master. Watch him open up his historical guidebooks and recreate dead ideas.

"The future is not what it used to be; neither is the past."

There's a time and place in space-time for this regressive nonsense, luckily we've evolved away from such a time and place. We shouldn't betray our ancestors.

Yes, again, unrealistic fantasy, revived for a table-top text game.


Actually, science is missing, why would any collective wish to regress toward a failed state of sociopolitical organization in the name of one individual's fantasy?

We must heal our intellectual schism, because the left and right stem from one mind/body. Fear is the absence of love and the mind is the root of all evil.

Once you create a cognitive dialectic, one must devalue something in order to create value. This is linear, printed-on-paper logic, it thinks therefore believes in its string of characterizations (paradigm of conceit), and (re)issues a sense of pertinent urgency for those involved in the 'manifesto' or 'doctrine' of intellectual convention. As long as people use platonic 'cave vision' and cling to tribal dogma, we'll continue to divide and separate humanity into comic-book caricatures. Realistically, we're one people, we all live in the same house, we're consciousness having a human experience, and civilization will collapse if allow ourselves to indulge in what I call, a dialectic of the dice: role-players and (r)evolutionaries. History as time-lapse phenomenology, captures tribal images of arrogant peoples attempting to imprint their pattern of reality/perception onto other peoples. In the end, our photo-motion moments (pose for selfish-ies) illustrate death & destruction; collectively going nowhere, chasing our tales, entangled inside a planetary unfolding. Stop playing political dungeons & dragons and love your neighbor as yourself, we're one mind confronting the human condition as it interfaces inside a multi-dimensional happening. :)

"Many a good argument is ruined by some fool who knows what he is talking about."

The working class hero should give peace a chance.

-One Love



You have a point. It is a political cartoon.


[youtube]GBkT19uH2RQ[/youtube]


The dominance thesis @Victoribus Spolia is promoting is just more of the same thing we have been doing for centuries. How many times is it necessary to conquer the world?
#14847904
@B0ycey,

I vow for this to be my last post, as I have become somewhat disinterested in beating dead-horses regarding Persian and colonial history at this point and intend to say my peace on these points against the rising tide of parties interested in levying joint-criticism ad verbosium & ad nauseum.

My next post will be on contemporary political issues, but still not so shallow as “did you see what Trump said this week!” or any other such headline-type political topics (at least for now). My next thread shall be a defense of another unpopular view, a supra-policy known as the Petro-Dollar. It shall be titled “Long Live The Petro-Dollar.” For now, I must dispense with the pleasantries in order to deal with my amusingly arrogant critics as they are currently assembled.

Oxymandias wrote:Please, stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself in front of all the adults.


I must admit I found this bold declaration quite amusing, given that two “alleged” adults-in-the-room decided to coalesce, quit intentionally, in a double-team against the “alleged” inferior-child that was embarrassing himself.

One has to wonder, what sort of child is so child-like that it takes a formal alliance of two adults to put him to bed for the night? Perhaps, like everything else, I am also a superior parent and do not fully comprehend your attempt at a real-life analogy.

But, as you yourself stated, you are here to help out your buddy, as a returned favor of sorts:

Oxymandias wrote:Thank you for your arguments. Yes, I have already liked your posts but I simply want to do something more significant to show you my appreciation.


Given his view is so “in-vogue” in comparison to mine, I hardly see why he needs artificial likes and support, but I, nonetheless, do find it quite noble that you as a servant have come to rescue your master during his time of need. Indeed, he is in need of a lot of assistance as I shall demonstrate below simultaneously against both you and him, for with an abundance of words you have attempted to cover a simple reality of error that was made from the start. (It is a pleasure to be meeting you by the way, for the first time. Greetings.)

That being said, I must ask you a personal question regarding your relationship... I am very curious:

So…..when he blows his load in your mouth, do you require a beverage to wash it down? Or do you prefer a chaser after choking it down? I am legitimately curious as I am not privy to the dynamics of such a relationship.

In all seriousness though, I am the sort of eccentric faculty member who wears a green suit with a purple tie and offends the rest of his fellow academics with “unapproved” ideas and then goes and smokes a cigarette with the janitors on his lunch hour merely because he enjoys the superior company…I assure you, I am immune to your vain attempts at condescension, but bravo for the valiant attempt, I can hear you and your friend’s mutual ass-slapping even through the visual realm of cyber-space.

I will now deal with the main headings as I determine them, in address to your arguments which are a defense of your master's propositions.

I. On Scholarly Citation.

Of the posters involved in this back-and-forth, I alone have cited multiple sources beyond Wikipedia which is generally regarded as an unacceptable source in academia. My own citation of Wikipedia was to show that the same general citation source used by my opponent also made claims that Persia was, for a very short period of time, officially Christian in the sense of state-sanctioned religion (evidence by state funds being used for the building of churches). This was merely to show that my MERE inclusion of Persia with the middle-east and North Africa on a list of places where Christianity was extinguished by early Islamic conquest was not unwarranted. That was all I ever claimed (but I will discuss this later below for my final word on the topic).

However, I find being criticized for this method to be quite rich, as I have cited scholars such as Dr. Peter Leihart who specializes in the classics and ancient history along with primary sources such as Eusebius. I have cited multiple works over-and-over again including the History of The British Empire by Sears, and Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin (the list goes on) and I have also interacted with the citations and articles presented by my opponent; whereas none of my citations have been engaged with and such sources should be in every gentleman’s library. Yet, when there exists mutual disagreement on Wikipedia sources, I am suddenly charged with being “unscholarly.” I’m sorry, but I am not the one who is embarrassing himself, only those whose posts are replete with Wikipedia hyperlinks can be said to be embarrassingly unscholarly and I am manifestly not that person. When I cite some scholarly approval of Christian ascendency to some form of short-lived official status in Persia, I am citing Wikipedia (nothing more and nothing less) just as ALL of the arguments by my opponents were cited. Thus, if my assertion on this point alone is unscholarly, then ALL of his arguments are unscholarly because they were all grounded in Wikipedia. Simple as that, at least I cited something else and therefore will have a leg to stand on in the final analysis. Of course, it would be good to remember, that this is a forum post and not a term-paper and I am well pleased that we are even having this discussion at all.

II. On Persia

Let me be clear on this. I stated, long ago, in a post that did not include any of my current opponents, that the Crusades were partly a retaliation for the loss of Christian gains to Islamic expansionism which included the Middle-East, North Africa, Persia, Much of Anatolia, and Visigoth Spain.

Someone was butt-hurt that I included Persia in this list. That is ALL, and I never defined in my original post what requisite qualities a region must possess in order to make this list. Never. Therefore, the only defense I am obligated to make is that there is in some sense, any sense, that Persia could have been regarded Christian in order to make my list. The state-sanctioning and funding of churches is literally all I need for such a justification to obtain and that has already been conceded by all of my opponents. You can disagree that this makes Persia a “Christian nation” but as the one proposing the argument, according the laws of discourse, I am the one whose definition must be used in validating or invalidating my claims. Using Constantine I was an example, I demonstrated and presented my definition in that the mere state sanctioning of the faith is a sufficient criteria to make my list and that such a simple criteria has precedent in historical analysis, for neither % of the population, nor religious exclusionism, nor the conclusive conversion of the head-of-state can be said with certainty to obtain in the case of Constantine, and yet, that Constantine’s Rome is regarded as having become a Christian state is nearly uncontended not only by modern scholars but even by the primary sources themselves such as with Eusebius.

Thus, I am vindicated by my own historically justifiable definitions to include Persia on my list of Christian regions to have been lost to Islamic expansionism. You may not like it, but this is the indisputable case. I am justified in my original claim. Period.

III. On Slavery.

My opponent made the claim that British colonialism in Africa was done for the purpose of perpetuating and maintaining the European slave trade. This has been shown to be historically false. The barbarity or lasting racial consequences of Trans-Atlantic v. Islamic slave trades is irrelevant. The fact that not all local slave trades were perfectly eradicated or even given some “unofficial” tolerance is irrelevant. What matters is whether the original claim of my opponent is true or false. He claimed that British colonialism of Africa had as its purpose and goal, to perpetuate and maintain European slavery. Is this claim true? No, It is Not. Therefore, I am right and he is wrong. The British did not colonize Africa to perpetuate and maintain European slavery and no one can dispute this claim without attempting to change the definitions. Including migrant labor or local tenant farmers is NOT what we are talking about, permitting or turning a blind-eye to local customs is NOT what we are talking about. The continuation of slavery by other states or other African nations is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about his original claim. His claim is untrue. Period.

IV. On Famines.

My opponent made the claim that the British Empire oversaw man-made famines. Let us be clear, this claim argues that the British maliciously, and willfully, committed genocide via the creation of anthropogenic famines. This is literally the claim being made, for my opponent holds the British responsible for these acts (insinuating some sort of racial animus) and claims that these famines were caused by man. I argued, before any sources started flying around, that these famines were caused by droughts related to failed monsoon rains and that there did exist, in some instances, government mismanagement which exacerbated the situation. All of this has been conceded by my opponents and by all of their own citations. The famines were NOT anthropogenic, they were not man-made or cause by man, they were caused by droughts. That they were not mismanaged by the Empire was never claimed and is irrelevant to the argument made. The question is, whether my opponent’s original claim was true or false. He claimed that the British Empire maliciously and intentionally oversaw man-made famines. Is this claim True? No, It Is Not. Therefore I am right and He is wrong. The British did not maliciously and willfully oversee anthropogenic (man-caused) famines. Such a claim cannot be made without changing the definitions. Including government mismanagement of natural disasters is NOT what we are talking about. Discussing whether or not such famines were the worst in the history of India is NOT what we are talking about. Discussing whether or not the Mughal Empire would have handled such famines, administratively, better than the British Empire is NOT what we are talking about. We are talking about his original claim. His original claim is untrue. Period.


V. On African Civilization.

You have already made concessions that we do not have enough information to demonstrate that these “cultures” were or were not civilizations under the criteria I have proposed. The problem is, that whether or not a culture was in fact a civilization is almost entirely determined by what they have, in fact, left behind as a testament and impact to human posterity. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that these cultures were not civilizations. According to the rules of discourse, you cannot “prove” a negative. It is up to my opponent to prove his “claim” that these were in fact civilizations and if he does not have enough evidence to support these claims, we have no reason to assent to the proposition that “these cultures were civilizations.” The lack of evidence you concede proves the point that we do not have enough evidence to demonstrate they are in fact civilizations, which is my point. I have argued, that there is not sufficient requisite accomplishments (based on what we know, of course) to claim these groups as civilizations. The questions is, is my claim True or False? Yes, It Is True. Therefore I am right and He is wrong. We are talking about my original claim, my original claim was true, period.

Now take your toys and go home, I must be moving on to bigger and better things. 8)
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 02 Oct 2017 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
#14847982
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, you can prove a negative.

Anyway, people who celebrate colonialism are almost always white guys.

Are you a white guy?

Muslims celebrate Islamic colonialism, and they were a lot more brutal than Christians, even the Spanish were a pale shadow in comparison.

One of the favorite methods of Turkish execution was impalement. Here is an account of such impalement by a Genoese merchant named Jacopo de Campi:
As the morning of April 29 wore on, however, the nature of the loss was to assume a more ghastly shape. It transpired that not all the missing men had drowned. Some forty had swum free of their sinking craft, and in the darkness and the confusion of battle they made for the enemy shore and were captured. Mehmet now ordered them to be impaled in full view of the city as a punishment and a warning. In horror the survivors watched the preparations from the walls. What they would have seen has been graphically recorded by Jacopo de Campi, a Genoese merchant who spent twenty-five years trading in the Ottoman Empire at this time:
The Grand Turk [makes] the man he wishes to punish lie down on the ground; a sharp long pole is placed in the rectum; with a big mallet held in both hands the executioner strikes it with all his might, so that the pole, known as a palo, enters the human body, and according to its path, the unfortunate lingers on or dies at once; then he raises the pole and plants it in the ground; thus the unfortunate is left in extremis; he does not live long.
So "the stakes were planted, and they were left to die in full view of the guards on the walls." (Crowley, 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West, pp. 153-154).


http://www.reformation.org/terrible-turks.html
#14847986
SolarCross wrote:Muslims celebrate Islamic colonialism,


I doubt it.

Is there another thread here by a Muslim doing so?

and they were a lot more brutal than Christians, even the Spanish were a pale shadow in comparison.


I see. So you think it is all right for white guys to celebrate oppression because Muslims also do it, and it is bad when they do it, so it is good when you do it.

Such logic!
#14848040
@Victoribus Spolia
II. On Persia

Funding other religions does not cancel the official state religion.
The Persian empire funded pagan temples as well, it is not a Pagan empire.

Jordan currently give funds for churches even though Christians are a minority.
Is Jordan a Christian country because Christianity is sanctioned by the state ?

Your argument is in it self a fallacy.

III. On Slavery.

If we were to ignore all the facts as you seem to want to do; thinking that it would support your argument, It doesn't.
Because of a simple fact, its a colonial empire. And if its claimed position was against slavery, its actions says otherwise, and its nature proves its otherwise.

You can keep circuling around that to deny it, it doesn't change reality.

IV. On Famines.

You clearly haven't understood the previously stated point, but India is a very large place.
And those droughts usually hit one or two provinces or regions, not the entire sub-continent.
So even if one region's crops failed, others make up for it.
The famines were not caused by the drought themselves, because the droughts did not hit all of India nor did it hit its surroundings, just specific provinces. The reason its by the overwhelming majority considered man made is because the famines were result not of droughts but of the intentional seizure of supplies and productions by the British authorities to be shipped back to Britain, which in turn made it that those supplies don't go into the regular trade network and thus not reaching the provinces where the droughts were, which in turn caused famine.

Those are the facts, and the majority of actual scholars and historians agree on it.
You liking it is not a requisite for its validity. And circling around it wont work as hard as you might try.

V. On African Civilization.


Ethiopia across several thousands of years was one of the largest and richest empires in the world and across several centuries played a major role in world trade, Indian ocean trade network all the way to China, Preservation of knowledge and historical records (It was one of the sources for Muslim empires following it), and it played a major role in advancing naval technology during its peak which in turn massively expanded the Indian ocean trade.

Nigeria historically also was a major player, it made major contributions across the Bronze age in innovation and arts, and until the past few centuries was a major connecting point to inner Africa in trade in multiple types of goods and assets.

Ghana and the following Mali empire were also major African empires and were essentially one civilization. Their contribution to the world started with trade, and under Islam, though never was conquered and willfully converted as a nation, played a major role in the Islamic civilization and in science and administration.

Sudan made its civilization in the Iron age and its contributions in science and chemistry made it possible for multiple empires and civilizations to rise afterwords, including the traditional Persian and European empires.

And many more examples of African civilizations can be found. It just takes a little search.
Yes, we don't know much about some of them, and others were so ancient we don't know anything about. But in recorded history, we know quite a few civilizations in Africa and a whole lot about them.

I would've included Carthage but that would be false since Carthage was Phoenician not African.
#14848051
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
My next post will be on contemporary political issues, but still not so shallow as “did you see what Trump said this week!” or any other such headline-type political topics (at least for now). My next thread shall be a defense of another unpopular view, a supra-policy known as the Petro-Dollar. It shall be titled “Long Live The Petro-Dollar.”


Trump has many topics. It gets boring reading the same old responses actually. But the 'Petro-Dollar', now that doesn't come up often. But yes, I expect you will get a hostile response if you plan on defending it.
#14848059
Heisenberg wrote:Abu_Rashid was an ISIS sympathiser and all about restoring the Ottoman "Caliphate".


He also made some videos on YouTube promoting the Caliphate.

I hope he's alright in Syria/Iraq right now and the authorities haven't caught up to him yet.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]