I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - Page 3 - 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.
#14847309
SolarCross wrote:Founder monarchs choose themselves with the backing of a military and as such are invariably military men themselves, generals. If the US republic were to become a kingdom or empire then the founder monarch would necessarily be a Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Reza Pahlavi and not some hippy-dippy.

The only way the US could start with a hereditary monarch would be if they were to fall under Queen Elizabeth II (or as it may be King Charles III) as the heir to King George III.


A founder monarch is unlikely to be some hippy-dippy, yes I agree with that. But as the Windsors prove, over time you can have any wet offspring ruler. We are not in GoT. The age of the sword to choose 'gods chosen ruler' has gone. At least with a democracy you can choose your leader and oust him out if he is shit.
#14847316
I am consciousness having a human experience. Nice to meet you, Paleo-Colonialist Monarchal-Imperialist. I didn't know biological creatures could become intellectual conventions! :eek: I see you're building a nice little text-box, laying brick in the wall of perception, playing a fantasy game like dungeons and dragons, pretending to be anything other than genetic expressions. I suppose you're slowly becoming the encyclopedia, as you embrace the human genome. Bio-accumulation can be a bummer, dude. I'm curious... before you discovered role-playing games, did you look in the mirror and realize what you are?
#14847327
@SolarCross,

Thanks for your response,

We have a lot in common. At this point though, its like 10 against 1 on this thread (which is fine), so I would rather not engage in real debate on our disagreements at this point. Your post did help me get an idea of your views and I will give just a brief explanation and then we can go forward beating up our common enemies and plan to have a gentleman's duel at a later time. 8)

1. Suffice to say, I am a Phenomenal Idealist (Berkeleyan Immaterialist) and so I am incredibly skeptical of Physicalist Materialism, Darwinism, and Scientism. I would love to debate this sometime in the future for its is also the grounds for my proofs for the Existence of the Trinitarian God (specifically) from plain reason).

2. As for why I believe Christianity is a good Imperial cult, that is based on its precedent as an Imperial Cult for the greatest Empire in human history (the British) and the majority of the top ten Empires in world history (the European Colonial Empires). Christianity is the number one adhered-to religion in the world because of its compatibility with colonial domination, no other religion has ever shown this sort of converting and civilizing power. None. Likewise, if an Empire were to be realistically revived, I do not think "science" could bring the level of passion and zeal for the cause as a Divine initiative. If that were the case, atheistic scientism would have had real converting and staying power in the nations that made it their imperial cult (e.g. The Soviet Union, China, etc.), but we have seen that it could not cut the mustard to hold the hearts of the people (in fact, they became more Christian in response). Realistically, a populist revolution would likely revive Christianity, not displace it, and if a Caesar came to power in the Anglo-Sphere he would likely revive Christianity (what Spengler calls the second-religiousness), just like the Caesars in Rome revived the old Roman religion and assumed the office of Pontifex Maximus. But we can discuss these points in private or elsewhere. But that is WHY Christianity would likely BE the Imperial Cult (historically speaking).

3. On Fecundity, I think the matter is less about cannon-fodder and more about social vitality. No civilization that has expanded sexual opportunity to women has long survived because it loses its vitality through a diffusion of sexual energy (the domination impulse). Check out J.D. Unwin's "Sex and Culture" for more on this, it is the best book I have read in the last ten years (and I read a LOT of books), It is out of print, but you can get it online and on PDF. I have a toner printer so I just printed myself....excellent. Likewise, I could logically argue that pregnancy prevention is a form of murder (which I will post in a future thread sometime). All of this melds well with my theory of the Domination Impulse which is basically Nietzsche's "Will-to-Power."

3. On Eugenics, I think the proof is in the pudding that arranged marriage worked just as well for the Eugenic effect. The Mid-Victorians were the healthiest (controlling for child mortality) and the most intelligent people in human history as far as I.Q. (medical evidence supports this) and this was a pre-eugenic society. They ate balanced and naturally grown seasonal foods, had low sugar intake, and had arranged marriage which prevented bad genetic unions from occurring. Most parents who live in a society that practices primogeniture and other inheritance-based patriarchal practices have a vested interest in good genetic marriages that produce healthy heirs and increased family wealth, and it clearly worked and didn't necessitate a contempt for life. Indeed, children with down-syndrome etc., were put to work in menial jobs that otherwise would have to be done by healthier and more intelligent folks (which is a real waste of resources), and the very low levels of retards that are totally disabled were either cared for by women who were already at home anyway, or in church-funded facilities. I personally think this historically proven alternative would make eugenics and its moral consequences unnecessary, even though I emphatically agree that we should promote an increase of healthy and intelligent offspring. We can debate this is in the future also...

These are just some thoughts for you to ponder.

For now, we are allies on this thread, so lets just continue what we monarchists do best......Confound our enemies with our clear superiority. ;)
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 29 Sep 2017 16:37, edited 1 time in total.
#14847333
@Victoribus Spolia

I rolled a HARF1... Now what happens? You're the dungeon thread master here, right?

Confound our enemies with our clear superiority
Neat, it's fun fighting variations of yourSELF. :roll:
#14847345
RhetoricThug wrote:I am consciousness having a human experience. Nice to meet you, Paleo-Colonialist Monarchal-Imperialist. I didn't know biological creatures could become intellectual conventions! :eek: I see you're building a nice little text-box, laying brick in the wall of perception, playing a fantasy game like dungeons and dragons, pretending to be anything other than genetic expressions. I suppose you're slowly becoming the encyclopedia, as you embrace the human genome. Bio-accumulation can be a bummer, dude. I'm curious... before you discovered role-playing games, did you look in the mirror and realize what you are?


I don't believe we are biological creatures, I do not believe in physical causation. The rest of your argument is border-line unintelligible. It is a virtue in argument to attempt clarity in your propositions, otherwise they slip into rhetorical fallacies such as ambiguity. FYI.

I don't fight with poets and rhetoricians because in real life I don't hit girls and its the same principle. So do not find it shocking if I ignore posts that lack a clear and concise argument.
#14847357
@B0ycey,

Hey, I am not going to reply again about overpopulation and resource management because we are clearly talking past each other and I would be beating a dead horse.

Likewise, I apologize for getting too personal in my last response to you that involved some name calling. I was retaliating to you calling me stupid, but since you have complimented me on being well-read and well-educated, I have no reason to be mad, but that does not excuse personal attacks. Sincere apologies it was bad form.

Otherwise, your last question to me about strong men has been answered well by @SolarCross,
#14847360
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@B0ycey,

Hey, I am not going to reply again about overpopulation and resource management because we are clearly talking past each other and I would be beating a dead horse.

Likewise, I apologize for getting too personal in my last response to you that involved some name calling. I was retaliating to you calling me stupid, but since you have complimented me on being well-read and well-educated, I have no reason to be mad, but that does not excuse personal attacks. Sincere apologies it was bad form.

Otherwise, your last question to me about strong men has been answered well by @SolarCross,


I already respect you actually @Victoribus Spolia, and I can tell straight away that even though I know we will not agree on anything, you are very smart and a fine addition to PoFo. The fact you have written this means you are a very worthy opponent.

As for being stupid, I said that you are either sexist or stupid. You are not stupid. So make of that as you will.
#14847362
@mikema63,

mikema63 wrote:What? We are clearly biological, I've not even heard creationist loons argue that we aren't biological.


Well, this is not a philosophy forum, but by "not-biological" I am referring to the entire system of physicalism and physical-causation. I am a phenomenal idealist and Berkeleyan Immaterialist. I am a Creationist, but I do not hold to creation-science because it is full of the same fallacious presuppositions as secular science. That is completely off-topic though, so I will not address any argument addressed to me on that point here.

Here is a wikipedia article on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
#14847369
What is your view of the Glorious Revolution, VS? I only ask because you seem to believe in some kind of hybrid of theocratic government and the British imperial system. To call Christianity - or even Anglicanism - an "imperial cult" strikes me as a gross overstatement, given that Anglicanism in particular was always an uneasy compromise between wildly different views, from Puritans to Anglo-Catholics. In any case, by the time the Empire was reaching its height, there were vast numbers of non-conformists, particularly in the Liberal Party - not to mention the influence of Scottish Presbyterians. The idea of some unified Imperial Christianity at any point in the Anglosphere's history is pure fantasy.
#14847391
Cum one, Cum all, share second hand history and discuss second hand thoughts!

This crazy little thing called love blood...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't believe we are biological creatures, I do not believe in physical causation. The rest of your argument is border-line unintelligible. It is a virtue in argument to attempt clarity in your propositions, otherwise they slip into rhetorical fallacies such as ambiguity. FYI.
That's because you're looking for an argument. Figurative language and metaphors can be difficult to interpret when you're a literalist. I brought my dice and encyclopedias, I thought you wanted to role-play and exp(lore) (y)our fantasies. It's not fair (life's not fair, RT, shut the fuck up), you built a paleo-colon/monarch butterfly character and re-rolled historical stats, but you're not allowing me to play as a self-aware happening? What kind of thread master are you? :down:

I don't fight with poets and rhetoricians because in real life I don't hit girls and its the same principle. So do not find it shocking if I ignore posts that lack a clear and concise argument.

No. You don't hit girls (because it's not nice) because in your imagination you're bound by words/intellectual concepts like phenomenal idealist/immaterialist. Believe me, I read your quicki-link, and I understand why you wouldn't wish to spar with a poet.

I am a phenomenal idealist and Berkeleyan Immaterialist. I am a Creationist, I am... I am... I am... and therefore you be

No. You're consciousness having a human experience. Stop being arrogant. The universe is an undivided whole happening now... now... now... You're entangled in the moment, enfolded in the unfolding, limited by dimensional sensation. Individuality is an abstraction, individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness. Stop dividing and judging sensation for your table-top text games. We're one mind, for it is self-evident- everything you think you 'know' must be a derivative of the human experience.

@Victoribus Spolia Thanks for sharing a limited perspective of reality. What is your opinion on the Kardashian fashion line?

@SolarCross Cute, you two should form a tribe and stage a situational comedy for tomorrows second-hand history lesson.

EDIT Perpetual evolution
EDIT ... people&events
EDIT Perpetual evolution
EDIT ... people&events
EDIT Perpetual evolution
EDIT ... people&events
EDIT: Loading... Connecting... Holy human condition POFO, reality will not stop happening... How can I keep up? “Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events," ugh, the other end of intelligence seems rather noisy today, Echo-echo-echo... Maybe I should post some second-hand thoughts and ignore this present moment. :lol:

/thread
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 30 Sep 2017 01:28, edited 12 times in total.
#14847393
Heisenberg wrote:What is your view of the Glorious Revolution, VS? I only ask because you seem to believe in some kind of hybrid of theocratic government and the British imperial system. To call Christianity - or even Anglicanism - an "imperial cult" strikes me as a gross overstatement, given that Anglicanism in particular was always an uneasy compromise between wildly different views, from Puritans to Anglo-Catholics. In any case, by the time the Empire was reaching its height, there were vast numbers of non-conformists, particularly in the Liberal Party - not to mention the influence of Scottish Presbyterians. The idea of some unified Imperial Christianity at any point in the Anglosphere's history is pure fantasy.


This is actually a wonderfully enjoyable topic for me, so thank you for bringing it up.

I am an Establishmentarian, I recently converted to Confessional Lutheranism and was formerly A Covenanter (Scottish Presbyterian) who held to the Solemn League and Covenant., so that gives you some background to the "spectrum" from which I am coming from. I think Oliver Cromwell was the embodiment of evil and view that Charles I was misguided, but still the rightful king and his execution was a high crime. I view the Glorious Revolution as a necessary evil because James II was an apostate and traitor ( I do not think Charles I was), I am NOT a Jacobite Monarchist; However, that being said, The Glorious Revolution gave too much power to Parliament (which is what really led to the American Revolution) and created issues in the United Kingdom that would plant the seeds of secularism for the future to reap.

That being said, the Monarchy in England did identify the king as head of the church in the temporal not eternal sense and James I rightly stated that episcopacy and monarchy are corollaries. Emperor Constantine is my preferred Archetype, so inasmuch as a future monarchy attempts to model this image, I am generally in favor. You may not like the "language" of Christianity being the imperial cult of England, and it does not compare to how Paganism was the imperial cult in early Rome as far as "fusion," but the Church of England was headed by the head of the state of England and Christianity's spread (including non-comformists) was promoted by the British Government in its colonial endeavors. The British Navy frequently supported and defended missionary efforts, paid for missionary work through taxes, and corresponded with missionaries in geographical endeavors and to change local populations to a more amiable state. Colonialism is and was defined by the three "C"'s which are: Civilization, Christianity, and Commerce.

Call it theocracy, or not, this symbiotic relationship between the state and the faith that lasted long after the Glorious Revolution through the Victorian era is exactly what I am proposing. I think this ethos in the Imperial government of Empire satisfies the pragmatic way I would define an Imperial cult, because its the civic effect of the cult that really matters. I am not even convinced that an end to sectarian differences in Christianity will ever happen, but to have the sufficient unity to accomplish for Christianity and the Empire what was accomplished in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and India is exactly what I want to see again, so long as it is orthodox and not heretical or liberal, and I do think that could realistically come again.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 29 Sep 2017 18:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14847397
Victoribus Spolia wrote:These are just some thoughts for you to ponder.

That I will do. :)
Victoribus Spolia wrote:For now, we are allies on this thread, so lets just continue what we monarchists do best......Confound our enemies with our clear superiority. ;)

Ad Victoriam!
#14847406
anasawad wrote:Persia was Zoroastrian, never was Christian, never will it be.

When colonial rule was in Africa and south and south east Asia, the largest famines in history took place because imperial rule intentionally took away supplies from the people to use for other purposes.
Along side the fact that most of Africa and large parts Asia, under colonial rule, were built not for people to live in and act as a country, but rather as an resources mining and extraction colonies with slaves as workers.
The main reason many African nations today are suffering is directly linked to the fact that they have artificial borders, drawn by colonial empires, that doesn't represent their actual nations. And the other fact that these state structures weren't designed to be nation states as mentioned before; Thus resulting in entire generations who did not have any experience in leadership or administration since those were killed off early on under colonial rule and no new ones were trained and most people weren't skilled enough to build an actual economy. Not because they didn't want to or because they were inferior (i.e the regular bullshit your type says), but because they were intentionally deprived of the ability to obtain and learn such skills. Other than the ones required of them by the enslavers ofcourse.
So Africa is the way it is because of colonialism and imperial rule and thus you and your Imperial rule can go shove it.


There is a whole host of historical inaccuracies and oversimplifications, not to mention omissions and is typical of post-colonialist drivel, so let me address some of this in succinct manner.

1. Persia was officially Christian under King Khosrau I until the Islamic conquest of Persia which was finished around 655 A.D. I believe. So you are just wrong here.

2. The British Empire had an official position of abolition, as state policy, at the time of African colonization and one of it missions in Africa was to end the Arab slave trade, which it did everywhere it went. The great missionary endeavors of Stanley and Livingstone were largely promoted for the very end of ending the slave trade. So this is also a historical inaccuracy.

3. The British Empire created a tax system to create storehouses in India for peasants to have access to food and seed during times of major drought and famine during times when the monsoons did not produce the requisite rain that normally did on an annual basis. This sort of measure was unprecedented in the entire history of India which is actually recorded through Mughal records etc.

Africa, to the contrary, does not have accurate records pre-colonialism and we do know from geological evidence that massive famines happened in many of the sparsely populated areas of tribal Africa, so to say that British Empire created worse cases of famine due to mismanagement (which I am not denying happened on occasion) either cannot be proven or is just plain false.

4. The majority of "native" party leaders following British de-colonization were educated and trained in British, American, and European Universities. Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire handed over its former colonies to pygmies in grass skirts? Have you actually read post-colonial literature? I have......these rebels and advocates for independence had some of the best education available from the same universities that British administrators would have received their education, in many cases.

5. Post-Colonialism can shove it, with a claim to care for the peoples of the third world it intentionally leaves them in darkness and misery while shaming the only people that can actually help them. It is my position, not yours, that shows real compassion and altruism.
#14847432
@Victoribus Spolia
And the bullshit begins from points one

1. Persia was officially Christian under King Khosrau I until the Islamic conquest of Persia which was finished around 655 A.D. I believe. So you are just wrong here.

First, you're talking about Khosrow the second not the first.
No, his wife was Christian, he was a Zoroastrian. Persia was in the first half of its history a Zoroastrian empire and in the second half an Islamic empire. Never once was it Christian nor Jewish nor had a majority of either at any stage of its time.
When Persia was not Zoroastrian nor Islamic, it was secular with majority Zoroastrian population.
You should try reading history a little more. Specially when you try to talk about my country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin
2. The British Empire had an official position of abolition, as state policy, at the time of African colonization and one of it missions in Africa was to end the Arab slave trade, which it did everywhere it went. The great missionary endeavors of Stanley and Livingstone were largely promoted for the very end of ending the slave trade. So this is also a historical inaccuracy.


The abolitionist efforts in the British empire came at the end of the slavery era, and the damage was already done as 10s of millions were already enslaved and stolen from their homes.
Date manipulation and the likes of it don't work here, don't use it.

3. The British Empire created a tax system to create storehouses in India for peasants to have access to food and seed during times of major drought and famine during times when the monsoons did not produce the requisite rain that normally did on an annual basis. This sort of measure was unprecedented in the entire history of India which is actually recorded through Mughal records etc.

The British empire oversaw several man made famines that killed millions of people.
That was done by simply taking the food supplies to feed its army and also its own people.

Here is a timeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... itish_rule
Look at each one and 'm sure you can see the British empire role in them.

Africa, to the contrary, does not have accurate records pre-colonialism and we do know from geological evidence that massive famines happened in many of the sparsely populated areas of tribal Africa, so to say that British Empire created worse cases of famine due to mismanagement (which I am not denying happened on occasion) either cannot be proven or is just plain false.

While some regions of Africa were indeed populated by tribal nomads that had tough times over the ages. It also had vast wealthy nations with organized governments and plenty of resources spread across of it and not only the Islamic ones.
Eastern African coast nations and city states were also part of the Indian ocean trade lines and have a rich history.
Their conditions only saw a decline after being conquered by various European colonial empires. With many of their civilizations being destroyed or subdued.
So yes, for those, and they're many, European colonialism was and is the main reason for the collapse and the following suffering of their nations.

4. The majority of "native" party leaders following British de-colonization were educated and trained in British, American, and European Universities. Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire handed over its former colonies to pygmies in grass skirts? Have you actually read post-colonial literature? I have......these rebels and advocates for independence had some of the best education available from the same universities that British administrators would have received their education, in many cases.

The ones who did study in Britain and in Europe turned into the dictators and puppets whom are pro- UK, pro-US,pro-France, etc and astoundingly oppressive and genocidal towards their people.
The general public were in the overwhelming majority deprived from gaining and developing new skill sets for a modern economic system through education, which is why poverty is rampant across the continent.
This is all recorded history with countless evidence standing behind it. You'll find attempts to maneuver your argument around it generally useless.

5. Post-Colonialism can shove it, with a claim to care for the peoples of the third world it intentionally leaves them in darkness and misery while shaming the only people that can actually help them. It is my position, not yours, that shows real compassion and altruism.

It is your position, not mine, that continues to kill 100s of thousands and millions of people around the world till this very day, destroying dozens of nations in its path and ruining the lives of 10s of millions of people in the process.
#14847454
SolarCross wrote:@Politiks

If we are imagining empires forming up around religious affiliation I am not sure how you bundle the Greeks up in the Catholic Empire, would not an Orthodox Empire forming up around Russia, much of the Balkans be a more natural fit for the Greeks?

Image


First, I like to note I mentioned a Latin Empire, the fact they are mostly Catholic countries is just a point not the reason for the Empire to be.

Second, Western culture, the Western World is also Greek. Most people forget Western Culture is Roman Catholic-Greek-Judaic. USA stole the term for themselves after WW2 making Western Civilization be about industrialization but in reality, culturally and historically, the Western World is Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Bavaria (now Germany) and Jewish as they are part of the formation.

Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy share way more than extremely corrupt Governments, actually even that they have in common. Greeks could easily be part of both Empires without having issues for doing so.

A Latin Empire has more chances to have decent relations with a Asian/Euroasian Empire than the Anglo-Saxon one.

The key country would be Germany: What corner would Germany go?
#14847525
Politiks wrote:First, I like to note I mentioned a Latin Empire, the fact they are mostly Catholic countries is just a point not the reason for the Empire to be.

And the Greeks are not Latins, the term Latin is like Arab a mostly linguistic rather than racial term and the Greek language owes nothing to Latin. A Mediterranean complexion has nothing to do with it. The French are more "Latin" than the Greeks.

Image

Politiks wrote:Second, Western culture, the Western World is also Greek. Most people forget Western Culture is Roman Catholic-Greek-Judaic. USA stole the term for themselves after WW2 making Western Civilization be about industrialization but in reality, culturally and historically, the Western World is Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Bavaria (now Germany) and Jewish as they are part of the formation.

If you are talking about cultural historical contributions then we all, anglos included, appreciate the monumental contribution of the Greeks. Up until the industrial revolution an English gentleman's education would be centered around the "Classics" and languages of the Classical civilisation: Latin and Greek.

Moreover the US as heirs and contributors to western culture certainly may take their place in the western cultural story. The industrial revolution which started in England is also another contribution to the story of the west which is at least as important as Greek philosophy, Roman politics and Judiac morality.

As an aside you, like a lot of people, downplay the influence of Nordic, Celtic and German culture on the West. You celebrate Christmas I'd bet whilst completely ignoring that the festival is 99% pagan Nordic in origin: decorated fir trees, feasting and elves? Father Christmas is a culturally appropriated Odin.

What of German Music? The west is overflowing with music of all sorts but the very pinnacle of world, never mind western, music is dominated by the Germans: Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Strauss, Wagner, Holst, Orff, Brahms, Handel!

What of English Science? Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Turing, Dawkins, Hawking etc?

If you want to widen "Latin" into "Western" to awkwardly include the Greeks you will end up including Anglos, Germans and Nordics too. How "latin" will that be?

Politiks wrote:Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy share way more than extremely corrupt Governments, actually even that they have in common. Greeks could easily be part of both Empires without having issues for doing so.

Have you asked a Greek that? You are assuming too much.

Politiks wrote:A Latin Empire has more chances to have decent relations with a Asian/Euroasian Empire than the Anglo-Saxon one.

I doubt that very much, in terms of the elements of western culture from which they benefited then English Science, Engineering and Commerce is what they most wanted to emulate, they don't care at all for Rome's religion and politics. The Latins were first to the far east but left behind the Philippines while the anglos were amongst the last to find their way to that part of the world but left behind, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Politiks wrote:The key country would be Germany: What corner would Germany go?

Culturally and ethnically the Germans are brothers to the English but they still resent us for foiling them in two world wars, so I guess they could go any which way. I suspect they could even fall into the arms of the Islamists :eek:
#14847544
@anasawad,

anasawad wrote:First, you're talking about Khosrow the second not the first.
No, his wife was Christian, he was a Zoroastrian. Persia was in the first half of its history a Zoroastrian empire and in the second half an Islamic empire. Never once was it Christian nor Jewish nor had a majority of either at any stage of its time.
When Persia was not Zoroastrian nor Islamic, it was secular with majority Zoroastrian population.
You should try reading history a little more. Specially when you try to talk about my country.


Khosrou is an alternative spelling used by the same main source that you referenced, wikipedia. So you are wrong. Such alternative spellings are common for oriental names transliterated into english, but I am sure you are aware of that, another alternative spelling is Chosroes.

Likewise, I am referring to Khosrou I that reigned during the time of Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire A.D. 527-565. For Justinian I offered aid Khosrou I's son Nushizad in a rebellion. Khosrou II reigned from after A.D. 590.

He (Khosrou I), like Khosrou II, had a Christian wife. (notice the alternative spelling in the following book is Chosroes). Which, like I said, is common.

https://books.google.com/booksid=IFdOAA ... on&f=false

You also failed to do your "research"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran
This article states:

"Persia is considered by some to have been briefly officially Christian. Khosrau I married a Christian wife, and his son Nushizad was also a Christian."

Which was my exact point, over-and-against your claims which were that Persia was "never" Christian . I claimed it was briefly Christian from this time frame, until the Islamic Conquest. Khosrou II even funded the building of churches, etc in his state and was arguably no less consistent in his views of state religion than the early Constantine I during the time of the Edict of Milan. Had Islamic expansion not taken out Persia and had the Mongols not converted to Islam, Persia would likely have been a Christian state by A.D. 750.

anasawad wrote:The abolitionist efforts in the British empire came at the end of the slavery era, and the damage was already done as 10s of millions were already enslaved and stolen from their homes.
Date manipulation and the likes of it don't work here, don't use it.


British colonization of Africa did not begin until after slavery was ended in 1833, it only had legal possession of the cape colony of South Africa (concretely) in 1814 (see Sears' History of the British Empire) which was its first real African possession and marked by historians as the start of British colonial endeavors in that land, but Britian was not involved in slavery in that roughly 15 year interim because of the efforts of William Wilberfoce.

I am defending an Anglosphere empire, a revitalized British Empire. British colonization of Africa was post-slavery and anti-slavery. This is called "accurate dating." The greatest colonial empire in Africa, the one that people think about when they think about colonization in Africa is Britian and it was abolitionist during its entire colonial history of that continent. You claimed otherwise, you are wrong. Its okay, people are wrong all the time, don't be so sensitive about it.

anasawad wrote:The British empire oversaw several man made famines that killed millions of people.
That was done by simply taking the food supplies to feed its army and also its own people.


Actually, did you read these, at all? The majority of these famines were caused by monsoon droughts, like I argued in my previous post to you, NONE were caused by British activity, and many if not most of them saw the British trying to get aid to the population which led to the British creating a store-house system to help the population when such monsoon-failure droughts occured (Once again, see Sears' History of the British Empire). Likewise, I did not deny that occasional mismanagement exacerbated the situation, in fact I admitted this did happen, but this also happended under every government rule. The Egyptians mismanaged famines, The Mughals mismanaged famines (worse than the British, i might add, who pioneered a non-discriminatory system of sub-continent wide aid and farm relief), and this happens because the scale and issues involved are massive in any famine. But the British tried to aleviate famines, they had no financial interest in the death of the local populace, the Christian missionaries had no interest in the death of the local populace, and the reputation of the Empire had no interest in the death of the local populace, your claims are ludicrous and conspiratorial.

anasawad wrote:While some regions of Africa were indeed populated by tribal nomads that had tough times over the ages. It also had vast wealthy nations with organized governments and plenty of resources spread across of it and not only the Islamic ones.
Eastern African coast nations and city states were also part of the Indian ocean trade lines and have a rich history.
Their conditions only saw a decline after being conquered by various European colonial empires. With many of their civilizations being destroyed or subdued.
So yes, for those, and they're many, European colonialism was and is the main reason for the collapse and the following suffering of their nations.


Well, the majority of this post is not a denial of my claim, but let me just tell you, civilizations did not exist in this region, there were no Empires in this region during the time of colonization, and they often lived in a constant state of war and ethnic cleansing of other rival tribes and kingdoms. These tribes did not have the technology, language, literature, music, military tactics, metaphysical complexity or concepts of mercy and charity that are seen in the massive empires of Europe that represent actual civilizations. Most North African and Ivory Coast kingdoms propogated the slave trade which the Europeans merely took advantage of in their early colonial history (about 300 years), which they had practiced for as long as we have any record. They were savages and that is why they were wiped out with such ease. You see, your assumption is that conquest is ipso facto immoral, which I deny. Conquest is perfectly moral, why else do you think I call myself "Victoribus Spolia."

anasawad wrote:The ones who did study in Britain and in Europe turned into the dictators and puppets whom are pro- UK, pro-US,pro-France, etc and astoundingly oppressive and genocidal towards their people.
The general public were in the overwhelming majority deprived from gaining and developing new skill sets for a modern economic system through education, which is why poverty is rampant across the continent.
This is all recorded history with countless evidence standing behind it. You'll find attempts to maneuver your argument around it generally useless.


What? Name the independent nations whose administrators had no foreign or western-style education whatsoever that were granted independence peacefully? Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe was western educated and was anti-western and fought a rebellion against Rhodesia and remains a genocidal racist lunatic. This is not a pro-western regime. Education did not help him or his country and after casting out white farmers his country went into chaos and poverty. They can't figure out how to farm the fertile African soils after thousands of years when we have farmed successfully in near artic conditions in Northern Europe and North America? Please. The people had NO skills before colonialism as mainly hunter-gatherers, but they are still not to the level of civilization, perhaps if we had stayed longer they could have been better trained (which is my fucking point). But this is still no excuse, most Europeans were illiterate when our Empires took over the world. What is Zimbabwe's excuse? They need us and would be in a better state if we were there.

anasawad wrote:It is your position, not mine, that continues to kill 100s of thousands and millions of people around the world till this very day, destroying dozens of nations in its path and ruining the lives of 10s of millions of people in the process.


Yeah, those numbers are fictious delusions of post-colonial propoganda. The British did not cause famines, you are wrong about Iran, you are wrong about British colonialism in regards to slavery, and you are wrong about African independence in relation to African education. You stand refuted.
#14847586
@Victoribus Spolia

Khosrou is an alternative spelling used by the same main source that you referenced, wikipedia. So you are wrong. Such alternative spellings are common for oriental names transliterated into english, but I am sure you are aware of that, another alternative spelling is Chosroes.

Yes, and 'm using an alternative spelling. How exactly did you get, from me saying that you're talking about the second not the first, that 'm talking about spelling ?

Likewise, I am referring to Khosrou I that reigned during the time of Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire A.D. 527-565. For Justinian I offered aid Khosrou I's son Nushizad in a rebellion. Khosrou II reigned from after A.D. 590.

He (Khosrou I), like Khosrou II, had a Christian wife. (notice the alternative spelling in the following book is Chosroes). Which, like I said, is common.

https://books.google.com/booksid=IFdOAA ... on&f=false

You also failed to do your "research"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran
This article states:

"Persia is considered by some to have been briefly officially Christian. Khosrau I married a Christian wife, and his son Nushizad was also a Christian."

Which was my exact point, over-and-against your claims which were that Persia was "never" Christian . I claimed it was briefly Christian from this time frame, until the Islamic Conquest. Khosrou II even funded the building of churches, etc in his state and was arguably no less consistent in his views of state religion than the early Constantine I during the time of the Edict of Milan. Had Islamic expansion not taken out Persia and had the Mongols not converted to Islam, Persia would likely have been a Christian state by A.D. 750.


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.

British colonization of Africa did not begin until after slavery was ended in 1833, it only had legal possession of the cape colony of South Africa (concretely) in 1814 (see Sears' History of the British Empire) which was its first real African possession and marked by historians as the start of British colonial endeavors in that land, but Britian was not involved in slavery in that roughly 15 year interim because of the efforts of William Wilberfoce.

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.

And if we were to take it from a social perspective, slavery didn't really end until the 20th century in Africa as slavery-like conditions of work and life remained long after the political abolition.

Actually, did you read these, at all? The majority of these famines were caused by monsoon droughts, like I argued in my previous post to you, NONE were caused by British activity, and many if not most of them saw the British trying to get aid to the population which led to the British creating a store-house system to help the population when such monsoon-failure droughts occured (Once again, see Sears' History of the British Empire). Likewise, I did not deny that occasional mismanagement exacerbated the situation, in fact I admitted this did happen, but this also happended under every government rule. The Egyptians mismanaged famines, The Mughals mismanaged famines (worse than the British, i might add, who pioneered a non-discriminatory system of sub-continent wide aid and farm relief), and this happens because the scale and issues involved are massive in any famine. But the British tried to aleviate famines, they had no financial interest in the death of the local populace, the Christian missionaries had no interest in the death of the local populace, and the reputation of the Empire had no interest in the death of the local populace, your claims are ludicrous and conspiratorial.

Yes, i did. Thats why i said this:
Here is a timeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... itish_rule
Look at each one and 'm sure you can see the British empire role in them.

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.

Well, the majority of this post is not a denial of my claim, but let me just tell you, civilizations did not exist in this region, there were no Empires in this region during the time of colonization, and they often lived in a constant state of war and ethnic cleansing of other rival tribes and kingdoms. These tribes did not have the technology, language, literature, music, military tactics, metaphysical complexity or concepts of mercy and charity that are seen in the massive empires of Europe that represent actual civilizations. Most North African and Ivory Coast kingdoms propogated the slave trade which the Europeans merely took advantage of in their early colonial history (about 300 years), which they had practiced for as long as we have any record. They were savages and that is why they were wiped out with such ease. You see, your assumption is that conquest is ipso facto immoral, which I deny. Conquest is perfectly moral, why else do you think I call myself "Victoribus Spolia."


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.

What? Name the independent nations whose administrators had no foreign or western-style education whatsoever that were granted independence peacefully? Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe was western educated and was anti-western and fought a rebellion against Rhodesia and remains a genocidal racist lunatic. This is not a pro-western regime. Education did not help him or his country and after casting out white farmers his country went into chaos and poverty. They can't figure out how to farm the fertile African soils after thousands of years when we have farmed successfully in near artic conditions in Northern Europe and North America? Please. The people had NO skills before colonialism as mainly hunter-gatherers, but they are still not to the level of civilization, perhaps if we had stayed longer they could have been better trained (which is my fucking point). But this is still no excuse, most Europeans were illiterate when our Empires took over the world. What is Zimbabwe's excuse? They need us and would be in a better state if we were there.

Ignoring all the bullshit about Africans having no skills even when they literally formed many empires along their history.
Yes actually many were granted independence without significant or any violence to that matter.
Some others had it through revolutions as well.

Read this
https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... and-africa
You'll get an idea of what the major damage colonialism did and why i stated colonialism is one of the major reasons for African problems today.
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.



Yeah, those numbers are fictious delusions of post-colonial propoganda. T

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.

The British did not cause famines, you are wrong about Iran, you are wrong about British colonialism in regards to slavery, and you are wrong about African independence in relation to African education. You stand refuted.

I'm not, and I do not.

The energy demands of the developing world, wher[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]