[ness31]

As far as the ancient collections, I agree that it is a great loss and that what remains should be preserved better.

But if you think about it, part of the allure of the ancient civilisations is precisely because of the fact that we know so little about it despite their great achievements and ordeals.

Now imagine a civilisation 3000 years from know, studying our era and our actions. Don't you think they would be less allured by our civilisation if all our records were preserved, including the digitally records of all our silly thoughts and activities on email, youtube, whatsapp, facebook, snapchat and whatnot?!

They would be tempted to call it the second middle ages.

But there really may be a dark age looming as digital records have a limited lifespan and much of it may be lost forever:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 43516.html

No. I think destruction or purposely not allowing humans to fully understand our inception, birth and ancestors is cruelty. We are all a cursed and scattered people

That is why I think any entity studying our civilisation will be astounded at how we WILL have managed to bypass archaic record keeping that can be easily lost and or destroyed. I’m not a quantum science person, but I can observe readily enough that our elemental brains are outstripping technology. This threat to our existence (not knowing our past and therefore our future) has caused us to cope in other ways. We’re simply amazing

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

There was not a hint of satire in your post. It seems to me that, either you don't know what satire is, or you don't know how to actually write satire.

You cannot occupy and rebuild a modern country that is as aggressively anti-American as Iran without having a centralized core. You have to go full on "Turkish occupation of Anatolia" in order to even somewhat control it and that'll be even more difficult when you are over a thousand miles away from the US, a country that can't even effectively distribute resources to it's own states let alone distribute the amount of resources necessary to rebuild an entire country. This is, as I stated before, ridiculous. Colonialism "worked" before because back then, the West had a clear technological, cultural, and institutional advantage. This is not present in the 21st century since things now are much more evened out. It requires so much more resources and work to occupy a country now that it ever did before. It's easier to economically dominate a country (i.e. China) than outright conquer and occupy it.

I never stated I refuted you. All I said was that I won't address the rest of your statements until you address my response to your first one since that is the main foundation and source of plausibility for your post. If you are able to argue that the US can effectively occupy Iran from thousands of miles away and rebuild it without having to cost the US and it's citizens billions of dollars and resources then I will discuss your other points. I never said I refuted you, that is up to whatever argument you come up with and I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed with your current argument.

Like I said, I never stated I refuted you. If you are truly offended by what I allegedly said then please quote the section that offended you. I will be sure to promptly apologize.

[Libertarian353]

Which wave of feminism were you referring to when you made your critique of Christian white men? First, Second, or Third? It doesn't rally matter to me, any defintion which permits women to abandon their primary role as childbearers is societally destructive.

Women throughout history in pagan and roman times were never primarily childbearers. I do not know what reality you're living in.
And it never destroyed society. But what you're saying is no better than the Islamic sharia law. You're proving the meme that white males are oppressive. I do not want to be a living meme.

Thing is, Christianity is a patriarchal religion that prohibits women from certain activities and Islam does as well, so your contrast is a false one.

Well that's why Christianity should have no place in government and females have the right to hate it. You deny them rights, I can see why the meme of us being oppressive evil people is accurate. I support the Soviets in this case of smashing Christianity and all other religions.

http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/compare.html As you can see Islam was soft on women rights til late 20th century throughout history compare to Christianity.

If Islam is masculine because it teaches the restriction of women, so is Christianity and vice-versa. If you view such restrictions as feminine, then both are equally feminine, but that is so counter-intutive we might as well switch the meaning of black and white.

Christianity is feminine it made us europeans are girly men. We feel victimized and emasculate, we're jealous and spiteful, we demand glamorous things. we boast and feel envy, we gossip and we've become clingly and hypocritical. We feel the sense of being better than everyone, that we strive to deny minorities and females rights in fear of them being better than us. We whites want to be pamper, to be worship, to be on the pedestal. We become weak.

“The Christian faith is from the beginning a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

That's what have we become, in the Wild West days, women were more equal and free. One state even threaten to not be in the union unless we allow women to vote. And Men were still heroic and masculine more than today. Look at us, we voted for trump, trump of all people. Are we whites that desperate? Are we that weak and cowardly, that we have some beast of burden in office?

Do historically Christian nations or historically Islamic nations have a higher rate of female employment and female political leaders?

I didn't talk about Europe, I was talking about America. Besides you consider that a bad thing, so you should agree with Islam.

Looks awful "grey" in the muslim regions so it looks like you are wrong. It is the west that has more female leaders which is something you defined as manly for some reason.I say its weak and feminine to allow women to rule and is symptomatic of abandoning a religiously justified patriarchy. Thus, given that the west is allowing women rulers in violation to its historic Christian roots (which I defined as masculine), it follows that the west has become "emasculated" in the sense that I used the term and therefore my argument has been justified as I originally posted it, but even if we followed your convoluted argument, you would still be wrong.

Well does Eastern Europe look feminine to you? Do they look like they lack Christian Values? I dare you to tell some Eastern European that he's escalated cause his country has a female in power.

Ah yes, lets use generalizations about white people in America.....Russia is considered Eastern Europe and it is attempting to restrict female employment and provide financial incentives for women to stay home and have children (so how does that fit your generalization about Eastern Europe?)....As for Africa? Here is a generalization; have you ever thought that the women there make more money because the men are fucking lazy? Now that was not very nice was it? Perhaps we should both just stay away from hasty generalizations....shall we?

Why not? You make generalizations about Islam and females, why can't the same be for you? Why are us Whites off limits? Why are you afraid of being criticized? Why do whites cry racism when it affects them, but ignore when we affect blacks? Russia is a shithole, they were manlier and better under the Soviets. Now they're bitches. And for the lazy trait meme of Blacks to work it must include all genders. But I like how you empower females with that statement. I guess at the end of the day, racism is more important than sexism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Women throughout history in pagan and roman times were never primarily childbearers. I do not know what reality you're living in.
And it never destroyed society. But what you're saying is no better than the Islamic sharia law. You're proving the meme that white males are oppressive. I do not want to be a living meme.

In Monarchal and early republican Rome childbearing was considered a virtue and the sexual opportunity of women was restrained. This was the case in ancient Greece, Sumeria, Persia, etc, etc. All of these civilizations reached their zenith and at that apex extended sexual and civil opportunities to women and fell within 4-5 generations. Every. Single. One.

I do not really carer about your feeling or emotions on the matter. I don't care if you want to compare my views to Sharia as an attempt to criticize, those are all fallacies. I want civilization to continue, sexual and civil opportunity is always correlated with its destruction, so I cannot support such. I don't care about being a meme. That is not an argument.

Well that's why Christianity should have no place in government and females have the right to hate it. You deny them rights, I can see why the meme of us being oppressive evil people is accurate. I support the Soviets in this case of smashing Christianity and all other religions.

Very NAP and Libertarian of you, crushing Christians.

Likewise, The Soviet Union started out opening sexual opportunity to women and ending "marriage" as a permanent contract. In only a few short years they began to re-extol the virtue of wifedom and giving awards to women based on the number of children they had. They did this because they risked wrecking their society.

I didn't talk about Europe, I was talking about America. Besides you consider that a bad thing, so you should agree with Islam.

Sure, but Europe was historically Christian and White and you have claimed that Christianity is the "emasculating" factor that has prevented women from entering leadership in the same way as in Islamic countries, which is pretty fucking absurd.

Either way, if "Christianity" is the emasculating factor, then by your own premises, any country that had Christian majorities would be equally anti-women in government. Thus, your argument would be false that historically white-Christian societies are less progressive regarding women in governance.

However, if you are talking about "just" America since Europe and other western nations clearly show progressive attitutudes towards gender, then there must be a different factor than Christianity involved because the other "white-Christian-western" nations share the white Christian aspect but not the anti-women aspects; hence, Christianity fails to be explanatory factor in the case of America by process of elimination. At this point, you are wrong either way: You are either wrong that Christianity is the issue preventing female-opportunity because the majority of female leadership comes from historically Christian nations, or you are wrong that Christianity is the issue preventing female-opportunity because America's alleged exception to the matter of female opportunity cannot be explained by the Christian commonality it has with countries that are more progressive. Not to mention, that your argument that Christianity has made the west (including America) less inclusive of women than Islamic countries cannot be substantiated by any statistics whatsoever. Likewise bringing up pre-20th century Islam will not help you because that would be a bait-and-switch as we are talking about "modern emasculation" and even if we were talking pre-20th century there have been more Christian monarchs that were women than Islamic monarchs that were women historically speaking, so you'd still be fucking wrong.

Not to mention that your identification of "manliness" with "pro-feminist" is not accepted by anyone on either the left or the right. Feminism condemns "masculinity" and "the patriarchy" and those who advocate "patriarchy" are opposed to "feminism" your arguments do not make sense when you play with words that way.

Besides you consider that a bad thing, so you should agree with Islam.

Correct. So what?

ell does Eastern Europe look feminine to you? Do they look like they lack Christian Values? I dare you to tell some Eastern European that he's escalated cause his country has a female in power.

Some eastern European countries yes, others no. I have no problem telling people who's nations are feminized that they are emasculated as a culture. To their face. It doesn't bother me in the least. These are not arguments. How eastern european people look is not an argument. whether or not they lack Christian values is not an argument (and you are being inconsistent on this point anyway), and whether I am or am not afraid to tell a Eastern European he is emasculated or not is irrelevant. This is not logic, this rhetoric.

Why not? You make generalizations about Islam and females, why can't the same be for you? Why are us Whites off limits? Why are you afraid of being criticized? Why do whites cry racism when it affects them, but ignore when we affect blacks? Russia is a shithole, they were manlier and better under the Soviets. Now they're bitches. And for the lazy trait meme of Blacks to work it must include all genders. But I like how you empower females with that statement. I guess at the end of the day, racism is more important than sexism.

None of this is an argument. If the Soviets were so manly they would have beaten the "girly" west. I generalize Islam and Christianity because they both have stated dogmas and doctrines on these matters, that is not a generalization, that is taking them at their word. Calling whole groups of people "bitches" is not acceptable and asserting that I am a racist for satirically criticizing your use of generalizations against white people is also unacceptable.

Your praise of the Soviet Union, anti-white rhetoric, use of ad-hominems, clear confusing of terms, and tone make me wonder whether you are a libertarian at all., or have any future on this forum.

Christianity is feminine it made us europeans are girly men. We feel victimized and emasculate, we're jealous and spiteful, we demand glamorous things. we boast and feel envy, we gossip and we've become clingly and hypocritical. We feel the sense of being better than everyone, that we strive to deny minorities and females rights in fear of them being better than us. We whites want to be pamper, to be worship, to be on the pedestal. We become weak.

We do these things because we are spoiled hedonists and egalitarians.

“The Christian faith is from the beginning a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit, at the same time enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.” –Friedrich Nietzsche

That's what have we become, in the Wild West days, women were more equal and free. One state even threaten to not be in the union unless we allow women to vote. And Men were still heroic and masculine more than today. Look at us, we voted for trump, trump of all people. Are we whites that desperate? Are we that weak and cowardly, that we have some beast of burden in office?

What the fuck is this shit? Wyoming only offered suffrage to women because they could not get women to move out to wyoming, it was a ploy, the majority of the "wild west" opposed women's suffrage, we still had the Comstock laws which banned contraception and pornography. adulterous women were often shot in the backyard. Were they freer? Yes., because they were mostly child-bearing housewives in the 19th century.

I am also glad you quoted Nietzsche, one of my favorites, who also believed women should be stripped of political enfranchisement and subdued into a role of childbearing. I actually agree with most of Nietzsche's criticisms of the Christianity of his day...but my Christianity is far older. Can you say "Deus Vult."

[Libertarian353]

In Monarchal and early republican Rome childbearing was considered a virtue and the sexual opportunity of women was restrained. This was the case in ancient Greece, Sumeria, Persia, etc, etc. All of these civilizations reached their zenith and at that apex extended sexual and civil opportunities to women and fell within 4-5 generations. Every. Single. One.

Sources?

I do not really carer about your feeling or emotions on the matter. I don't care if you want to compare my views to Sharia as an attempt to criticize, those are all fallacies. I want civilization to continue, sexual and civil opportunity is always correlated with its destruction, so I cannot support such. I don't care about being a meme. That is not an argument.

Yet you confuse your feeling as scientific historical fact. No those are actual arguments, you're no better than Shara. You haven't even give an argument how it affect economic/political destruction.

Very NAP and Libertarian of you, crushing Christians.

If Christians are aggressive and actively disrupting NAP, we have a right to crush them. But you're not a christian at all, so mute point.

Likewise, The Soviet Union started out opening sexual opportunity to women and ending "marriage" as a permanent contract. In only a few short years they began to re-extol the virtue of wifedom and giving awards to women based on the number of children they had. They did this because they risked wrecking their society.

Stalin did this for economical reasons, he was pragmatic.

Sure, but Europe was historically Christian and White and you have claimed that Christianity is the "emasculating" factor that has prevented women from entering leadership in the same way as in Islamic countries, which is pretty fucking absurd.

Yes, Christian Europe was never christian just really a poor dirty society, meanwhile Islamic countries was innovative improve female rights and economics. They were stronger and they had women in power.

Either way, if "Christianity" is the emasculating factor, then by your own premises, any country that had Christian majorities would be equally anti-women in government. Thus, your argument would be false that historically white-Christian societies are less progressive regarding women in governance.

You just proved I'm right. Historically white-christian societies and in some cases, Black/Latin/Asian countries are less progressive with women.

then there must be a different factor than Christianity involved because the other "white-Christian-western" nations share the white Christian aspect but not the anti-women aspects;

False, Western Christianity is becoming irrelevant while females are gaining more rights.

Christianity fails to be explanatory factor in the case of America by process of elimination.

Are you kidding, Christianity is the root cause of anti-female thought in America.

You are either wrong that Christianity is the issue preventing female-opportunity because the majority of female leadership comes from historically Christian nations

Again Western Europe isn't Christian so mute point.

or you are wrong that Christianity is the issue preventing female-opportunity because America's alleged exception to the matter of female opportunity cannot be explained by the Christian commonality it has with countries that are more progressive.

So are you defending that Christianity is pro-women now or you arguing that America secular law gave women rights?

. Likewise bringing up pre-20th century Islam will not help you because that would be a bait-and-switch as we are talking about "modern emasculation" and even if we were talking pre-20th century there have been more Christian monarchs that were women than Islamic monarchs that were women historically speaking, so you'd still be fucking wrong.

What do you consider modern emasculation? I see pussies in both the left and right in america and the west, all is due to christianity. So really Islam should be more appealing to you.

Feminism condemns "masculinity" and "the patriarchy" and those who advocate "patriarchy" are opposed to "feminism" your arguments do not make sense when you play with words that way.

Wrong, masculinity is irrelevant to feminism, it involves the self. Patriarchy affects females.

Some eastern European countries yes, others no. I have no problem telling people who's nations are feminized that they are emasculated as a culture. To their face. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Then your ass is grass.

These are not arguments. How eastern european people look is not an argument. whether or not they lack Christian values is not an argument (and you are being inconsistent on this point anyway), and whether I am or am not afraid to tell a Eastern European he is emasculated or not is irrelevant. This is not logic, this rhetoric.

I'm saying are they unchristian or lack manly values?

None of this is an argument. If the Soviets were so manly they would have beaten the "girly" west. I generalize Islam and Christianity because they both have stated dogmas and doctrines on these matters, that is not a generalization, that is taking them at their word. Calling whole groups of people "bitches" is not acceptable and asserting that I am a racist for satirically criticizing your use of generalizations against white people is also unacceptable.

And now you're on the defensive by accusing me of generalization. I said that Russia is a shithole and lack their manhood because of Christian values. The men are bitches, cause they're poor and allow themselves to be exploited by the government and church.

Also your generalization against Blacks are also unacceptable, so tit for tat.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Sources?

J.D. Unwin's "Sex and Culture" 1932. Unwin was a liberal and progressive British ethnologist and cultural anthropologist and he found this universal correlation much to his own horror.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/157 ... nd-culture

Yet you confuse your feeling as scientific historical fact. No those are actual arguments, you're no better than Shara. You haven't even give an argument how it affect economic/political destruction

This doesn't make any sense, I was responding to that fact that you don't want to be a "meme" about patriarchy and that you think i'm no different than sharia in my outlook. This is not a valid response unless it becomes substantive. The ball is still in your court. You claimed that i'm no different than sharia and you don't want to be a meme, i said that was not an argument, its up to you to prove you have an argument or shut the fuck up.

If Christians are aggressive and actively disrupting NAP, we have a right to crush them. But you're not a christian at all, so mute point.

Marxists, according to the NAP, are in violation of the NAP in light of their very principles of governance. The Bolsheviks took control of Russia by force and then persecuted the Christian populace which, even under the NAP, would of had the right to rebel anyway. Whether i'm a "christian" or not is irrelevant. To say my point is moot because of your allegations regarding whether i am actually a Christian or not is a fallacy, tu qoque (appeal to hypocrisy) and is therefore invalid. Care to try again?

So are you defending that Christianity is pro-women now or you arguing that America secular law gave women rights?

I am not positing anything, I am addressing the inconsistency in your own convoluted premises. If Christianity is anti-progressive, then explain European progressivism. If you say America is an exception, but shares Christianity as a common factor between Europe and America, then Christianity cannot be the cause of America's sexist issues because it did not result in the same "sexist" issues in Europe. That is, your argument fails on both fronts.

What do you consider modern emasculation? I see pussies in both the left and right in america and the west, all is due to christianity. So really Islam should be more appealing to you.

emasculation is anything non-patriarchy. Masculinity is defined by sexual virility, dominance, and authority under my position. Any worldview that permits women to do whatever they please is feminine. Any position that allows others to be the dominant race, nation, class, sex, etc is weak. A masculine worldview seeks to subjugate and dominate.....everything else is weak. Anything less than victory, dominance, and superiority as a goal is weakness.

I disagree with Islam because it a false religion, a heresy, and can be proven to be metaphysically lacking in its concept of unitarianism.

Wrong, masculinity is irrelevant to feminism, it involves the self. Patriarchy affects females.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... c-masculi/

Feminism seeks to teach men about their male privelage and eliminate what it views as toxic masculinity.

Then your ass is grass.

haha. Not an Argument.

I'm saying are they unchristian or lack manly values?

This needs rephrased, its unintelligble as is.

And now you're on the defensive by accusing me of generalization. I said that Russia is a shithole and lack their manhood because of Christian values. The men are bitches, cause they're poor and allow themselves to be exploited by the government and church.

Also your generalization against Blacks are also unacceptable, so tit for tat.

No, I did not generalize Africans, I gave an example of me generalizing Africans as an example of something clearly unacceptable to teach you that the generalization you had already been actively engaged in was unacceptable. That was not a statment of my position, but of what not to do, which you seem to have no problem doing. Such generalizations will get you kicked off of PoFo. Seriously....

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia

There was not a hint of satire in your post. It seems to me that, either you don't know what satire is, or you don't know how to actually write satire.

"6. The U.S. government will also own and offer its own tourist company giving discounted vacations to U.S. citizens to the Caspian sea region as long as they sit through a seminar on the business opportunities available in Iran...."

You don't see the satire there? REALLY? I mean.....like all good humor it has tinge of truth, a bit of actual desire on my part, but NO.....it was not meant to be taken to serious except perhaps to provoke some discussion of colonial ambitions, but seriously bro....a seminar-trap tourist trip? Seriously?

You cannot occupy and rebuild a modern country that is as aggressively anti-American as Iran without having a centralized core. You have to go full on "Turkish occupation of Anatolia" in order to even somewhat control it and that'll be even more difficult when you are over a thousand miles away from the US, a country that can't even effectively distribute resources to it's own states let alone distribute the amount of resources necessary to rebuild an entire country. This is, as I stated before, ridiculous. Colonialism "worked" before because back then, the West had a clear technological, cultural, and institutional advantage. This is not present in the 21st century since things now are much more evened out. It requires so much more resources and work to occupy a country now that it ever did before. It's easier to economically dominate a country (i.e. China) than outright conquer and occupy it.

My point v. Your assumptions.

M: Militarily Defeating Iran Would Not Be Difficult.
Y: Militarily Defeating Iran Will Be Difficult (Iran is On Par With China After-All)

M: Occupation Would Be Easier if Decentralized.
Y: Occupation Would Be Too Hard Because It Would Require Great Centralization.

This is just some of the issues, and even though most of my post on this was simply meant to get a "rise" out of some folks on here in the hope of sparking interesting conversation, it can serve as a rough outline of my general frame of thought.

You see, if you want to understand how I think a modern colonialism could work, you must first throw out how we've bee doing it, in every sense, for the last 60-80 years. Period.

My model combines merciless military oversight over a model that involves the large movement of non-Iranian populations into Iran and the encouragement of economic investment in the country. The only "modern" additions I make are really the environmental ones. Otherwise, its a combination of wild wild west style free enterpise, brutal military oversight, the importation of foreign workers and U.S. citizens, the latter being incentivized by the availability of profit, conversion, nice weather, and exotic women.

[Libertarian353]

J.D. Unwin's "Sex and Culture" 1932. Unwin was a liberal and progressive British ethnologist and cultural anthropologist and he found this universal correlation much to his own horror.

He was born in the late 19th C. and working in the early 20th century, I suspect that his work suffers from the same Eurocentrism that much work of the time (and sadly, some still) does. Let's not forget that Social Darwinism as a notion was still very much alive and prevalent through the colonial era.

Simply put (and again conjecturally, but a fair connection to consider based on his contemporary historico-cultural episteme): likely, his own biases were shaping his observations and conclusions, and more than likely the question he sought to answer at the start. I'd take his ideas with a shaker of salt.

Besides, give me recent sources.

This doesn't make any sense, I was responding to that fact that you don't want to be a "meme" about patriarchy and that you think i'm no different than sharia in my outlook.

It is cause you confirm their assumptions about evil christian white men, and I want no part of that. Don't get it twist it, this modern day tumblr feminism is cancerous, no doubt about it. But what you're implying is a rape culture and denial of women's rights and that's violating the NAP.

You claimed that i'm no different than sharia and you don't want to be a meme, i said that was not an argument, its up to you to prove you have an argument or shut the fuck up.

But that is an argument. You're bitching about Islam disrespecting women, while wanting a christian version of it.

Marxists, according to the NAP, are in violation of the NAP in light of their very principles of governance.

Marxists don't adhere to it, so it shouldn't concern them, only me.

The Bolsheviks took control of Russia by force and then persecuted the Christian populace which, even under the NAP, would of had the right to rebel anyway.

Cause the Christian populace was also persecuting minorities/Jews etc, so they also violating the NAP. Again the Russian revolution is just more bloodier American one. But Proletariat killing bourgeois.

Whether i'm a "christian" or not is irrelevant.

Yes, cause you can't be a christian and have an ideology like this. Why would Jesus want you?

To say my point is moot because of your allegations regarding whether i am actually a Christian or not is a fallacy, tu qoque (appeal to hypocrisy) and is therefore invalid. Care to try again?

But it's a good argument. Now if you were Muslim, this would be different.

If Christianity is anti-progressive, then explain European progressivism.

I never said that, your institutions and culture is "anti-christian". But all you have are the personalities of a female. Progressivism is in nature more Christian.

If you say America is an exception, but shares Christianity as a common factor between Europe and America,

Are you kidding, the christianity of america is so not of Europe, I doubt we can call it Christian. American Christianity is to Europe or Christianity in general as Nation of Islam is to Islam or Africa.

then Christianity cannot be the cause of America's sexist issues because it did not result in the same "sexist" issues in Europe. That is, your argument fails on both fronts.

I say it's more than that, it's republican capitalism in America mix with religion that's the cause. You also forget there was no mass liberalization in america.

Masculinity is defined by sexual virility, dominance, and authority under my position.

So you violating NAP. Also you're a slaver in a sense.

Any worldview that permits women to do whatever they please is feminine.

But men should also do what he please right? Including rape?

Any position that allows others to be the dominant race, nation, class, sex, etc is weak. A masculine worldview seeks to subjugate and dominate.....everything else is weak. Anything less than victory, dominance, and superiority as a goal is weakness.

So if females rule males, they have a right to, cause might is right? So if white males submit to white females, they deserve it for their weakness.

I disagree with Islam because it a false religion, a heresy, and can be proven to be metaphysically lacking in its concept of unitarianism.

You disagree because whites don't control it. See religion is a business, you hate others but promote your own. If Islam ruled Europe and whites control it, you would say to hell with Jesus.

Feminism seeks to teach men about their male privelage and eliminate what it views as toxic masculinity.

But you don't deny any of it, so why complain?

This needs rephrased, its unintelligble as is.

Are the Easterners not christian cause they have a female president or lack manly values.

No, I did not generalize Africans, I gave an example of me generalizing Africans as an example of something clearly unacceptable to teach you that the generalization you had already been actively engaged in was unacceptable. That was not a statment of my position, but of what not to do, which you seem to have no problem doing. Such generalizations will get you kicked off of PoFo. Seriously....

But you generalize women as weak creatures without rights. You think of them as property, yet when I mention our race, you unironically bitched. How dare you criticize my generalization, while you also generalized women?

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Actually I didn't see that. That's some pretty fucking good satire. It gave me a chuckle. I officially give that post a 9.99/10 since I want to be as objective as possible. Anyways, I apologize for not seeing your post as satire, you see there are alot of wackos here in PoFo, more wacko than me I assure you and it's pretty hard to differentiate what is satire and what is not. 90% of all post here on PoFo can be considered satire or some form of sarcasm.

I did not say that Iran was on par with China completely. Rather that it is on par with China in terms of modernization. Iran is just as modern as China in terms of it's infrastructure, institutions, government, etc. Also aren't they both assumptions since you have not given any evidence to support the claim that the US can effectively occupy Iran (I never said that the US can't militarily defeat Iran on it's own soil, just that it would take too much resources and coordination to do so)

The issue is that wild west free enterprise cannot work when you're trying to rebuild and develop a country. Absolute no-barriers free trade would devastate local businesses and enterprises in Iran and if you're conservative you obviously care for the little guy even if he is brown and has a relatively big nose. To rebuild a country you need a healthy dose of protectionism while incentivizing local business to compete and grow and innovate similar to how Japan, China, and South Korea jumpstarted their economies. Eventually these local businesses will become large corporations capable of competing in the global market.

Another issue is that brutal military oversight is impossible to accomplish when you're thousands of miles away in a country that's as large as half the US and that has good professional army (something colonized nations didn't have) that, in turn, has good understandings of logistics, strategy, and modern military operations (something colonized nations also didn't have). You'll get continuous rebellions and revolutions as Iran is heavily anti-American (yes, American movies are popular in Iran but that doesn't mean that the US as a country is loved) and the US will simply be unable to have both the resources and the ability to distribute those resources quickly enough to deal with all those issues. The US would lose more rather than gain more if it tried to occupy Iran.

The absolute worst thing you want to do when trying to rebuild a country is bring in foreign workers and especially skilled foreign workers. By doing this you'll take away jobs from the local population and stagnate the economy because migrant workers often are focused on providing economic activity to other countries rather than providing economic activity to their current country. This will especially be the case with US workers who would probably just work in that country to gain money while simply consuming that money in the US. You need to limit immigration while you're rebuilding a country because the labor market of that country will not be able to compete with the foreign labor market.

Just look at Dubai which needs to pay businesses to hire the native Dubai population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiratisation

Emiratisation (or Emiratization) is an initiative by the government of the United Arab Emirates to employ its citizens (the native Emirati people) in a meaningful and efficient manner in the public and private sectors.

Or look at Saudi Arabia with half of it's population homeless and in poverty due to being unable to compete with foreign workers, or how about Egypt, it's untapped labor market, and it's neoliberalism which resulted in one of the largest unemployment rates in the modern world. All of these things destroyed these countries before they even had a chance. The only reason why Egypt, Iran, and Turkey didn't end up this way is because they all practiced protectionist policies. The policies of Nasir, Ataturk, and regrettably Khamenehi did in fact grow these countries and build them up to be the semi-civilized powers you see today. Had they only continued these policies to the extent that East Asia did they would've eventually reached civilized power status and successfully modernize.

[Victoribus Spolia]

He was born in the late 19th C. and working in the early 20th century, I suspect that his work suffers from the same Eurocentrism that much work of the time (and sadly, some still) does. Let's not forget that Social Darwinism as a notion was still very much alive and prevalent through the colonial era.

Simply put (and again conjecturally, but a fair connection to consider based on his contemporary historico-cultural episteme): likely, his own biases were shaping his observations and conclusions, and more than likely the question he sought to answer at the start. I'd take his ideas with a shaker of salt.

Besides, give me recent sources.

Modern sources are tainted by errorneous presuppositions as well. So now what?

Genetic Fallacy.

His work deals mostly with primary source material, his opinion is almost never used. In fact, it is one of the most objective works I have ever read in my life.

It is cause you confirm their assumptions about evil christian white men, and I want no part of that. Don't get it twist it, this modern day tumblr feminism is cancerous, no doubt about it. But what you're implying is a rape culture and denial of women's rights and that's violating the NAP.

I don't support NAP. I don't really care what I confirm in their deluded minds. I do not advocate rape as defined as a violent and forcible violation of a woman against her will, I do not believe men and women have the same rights because I do not believe people have the right to do something that if practiced en masse would destory the civilization.

But that is an argument. You're bitching about Islam disrespecting women, while wanting a christian version of it.

This is false, I only pointed out that your argument was false to say that historically Christian states were less progressive than Islamic states. Whether I agree more with the Islamic notion than the progressive notion is irrelevant. My personal belief is irrelevant as I am addressing your argument not mine. I have not presented my position in detail.

Marxists don't adhere to it, so it shouldn't concern them, only me.

You supported and praised their conduct, so the issue does concern you.

Cause the Christian populace was also persecuting minorities/Jews etc, so they also violating the NAP. Again the Russian revolution is just more bloodier American one. But Proletariat killing bourgeois

It was not just the "church" persecuting the Jews, but the entire state at the time, but that is irrelevant, the Bolsheviks did not claim their persecution of Christians was revenge on behalf of the Jews, they claimed their persecution of Christians was due to the fact that Marxism teaches religion to be a poison that prevents the advancement of worldwide socialism.

Yes, cause you can't be a christian and have an ideology like this. Why would Jesus want you?

My idealogy is based on Historic Christianity and The Word. The hippy-bitch Jesus of America is NOT the Christ of Scripture and that religion is NOT Christianity.

I never said that your institutions and culture is "anti-christian". But all you have are the personalities of a female. Progressivism is in nature more Christian.

I don't understand this, please rephrase.

Are you kidding, the christianity of america is so not of Europe, I doubt we can call it Christian. American Christianity is to Europe or Christianity in general as Nation of Islam is to Islam or Africa.

It depends on how you mean, there are radical differences between "Polish" and "Dutch" Christianity too, so what? See the problem with generalizations yet?

I say it's more than that, it's republican capitalism in America mix with religion that's the cause. You also forget there was no mass liberalization in america.

Well then why didn't you say that to begin with? Maybe we would have a more accurate debate then!

So you violating NAP. Also you're a slaver in a sense.

Sure. NAP is crap, I disagree with it, big whoop. Now what?

But men should also do what he please right? Including rape?

That doesn't follow. The premise that women should not be able to do whatever they want does not necessitate the conclusion that men can do whatever they want. I do not think men can practice infertility or any willfully anti-procreative sexual conduct any more than a woman. I do not think Rape is permissible in civil society. Biblical law strictly forbids it.

So if females rule males, they have a right to, cause might is right? So if white males submit to white females, they deserve it for their weakness.

My position is Will-to-Power, a patriarchal and theocratic imperialism, it is not cultural relativism. I will bethe first one to say that if women rule over men then we get what we deserve for letting it happen, so in that sense alone I agree, but such a state is self-destructive and the moral state I advocate is self-advancement. Any form of feminism is collectively self-destructive.

You disagree because whites don't control it. See religion is a business, you hate others but promote your own. If Islam ruled Europe and whites control it, you would say to hell with Jesus.

Thats a presumption of racism and is not an argument. Islam is false because a unitarian conception of deity fails to account for the paradox of eternal self-satisfaction at the psychological level in regards to the divine nature. Race has nothing to do with it, i'm not even against interracial marriage per se., as long as its the males of my people marrying the females of others out of a sense of dominance.

But you don't deny any of it, so why complain?

Deny what? I do not understand what you are saying here.

Are the Easterners not christian cause they have a female president or lack manly values.

Not all easterners have female presidents, so this is an invalid question. But, in the case of women in governance, I believe such a political practice is inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Thus, a nation that claims to be comprehensively Christian and zealously dedicated to Scripture cannot have women in power if they are consistent with their stated principles.

But you generalize women as weak creatures without rights. You think of them as property, yet when I mention our race, you unironically bitched. How dare you criticize my generalization, while you also generalized women?

I never generalized women as a class in a descriptive sense. I only asserted in propositional form that their enfranchisement has historically been detrimental to civilizations. This is not stereotyping a population via observation. I am drawing a conclusion from recorded fact, the causal basis for this can only be speculated over. I never said women were "weak," etc., Indeed I would say men and women are equal in worth and importance, but if the pursuit of different gender roles is necessary for the success of a society, then I do not think we have the right to abandon those roles (thats all I am really saying). Men and women are equally essential, but for different reasons. A civilization needs women as much as it needs men, but it needs women for childbearing, childrearing, and civil-charity, it needs men for labor, leadership, and war. Both men and women are made in the Imago Dei.

[Libertarian353]

His work deals mostly with primary source material, his opinion is almost never used. In fact, it is one of the most objective works I have ever read in my life.

So it's true cause it caters my feelings so I say so.

I don't support NAP. I don't really care what I confirm in their deluded minds. I do not advocate rape as defined as a violent and forcible violation of a woman against her will, I do not believe men and women have the same rights because I do not believe people have the right to do something that if practiced en masse would destory the civilization.

Ok how does women voting or being payed the same destroy a civilization.

This is false, I only pointed out that your argument was false to say that historically Christian states were less progressive than Islamic states. Whether I agree more with the Islamic notion than the progressive notion is irrelevant. My personal belief is irrelevant as I am addressing your argument not mine. I have not presented my position in detail.

But they were less progressive that's the issue. And your personal belief is relevant, we're discussing how can you reconcile christianity with your unchristian thoughts?

It was not just the "church" persecuting the Jews, but the entire state at the time, but that is irrelevant, the Bolsheviks did not claim their persecution of Christians was revenge on behalf of the Jews, they claimed their persecution of Christians was due to the fact that Marxism teaches religion to be a poison that prevents the advancement of worldwide socialism.

One thing socialists got right.

My idealogy is based on Historic Christianity and The Word. The hippy-bitch Jesus of America is NOT the Christ of Scripture and that religion is NOT Christianity.

So you're reading a different book, cause that "hippy-bitch"(he really wasn't but close enough) Jesus was the one of the scripture and he was christianity. You're just a white nationalist using christianity as a front for white ethnic power. Again none of you say is of the bible. Give me scripture that what you say is of JEEBUSZ?

I don't understand this, please rephrase.

I meant to put in the comma, I guess I am becoming more like EM. Anyway, I meant even though your institutions and culture is anti-christ, you have the negative traits of Christianity morality. How it's made us white males more feminine like.

It depends on how you mean, there are radical differences between "Polish" and "Dutch" Christianity too, so what? See the problem with generalizations yet?

What? Their differences are a thin line and the American/Europe christianity is like the Golden Gate Bridge.

Well then why didn't you say that to begin with? Maybe we would have a more accurate debate then!

But Christianity was decline after ww2, more secularization means more female empowerment.

That doesn't follow. The premise that women should not be able to do whatever they want does not necessitate the conclusion that men can do whatever they want. I do not think men can practice infertility or any willfully anti-procreative sexual conduct any more than a woman. I do not think Rape is permissible in civil society. Biblical law strictly forbids it.

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-hom ... the-bible/

EHHH...

My position is Will-to-Power, a patriarchal and theocratic imperialism, it is not cultural relativism. I will bethe first one to say that if women rule over men then we get what we deserve for letting it happen, so in that sense alone I agree, but such a state is self-destructive and the moral state I advocate is self-advancement. Any form of feminism is collectively self-destructive.

So is any form of masculinity, think about it. Society always fall due to masculinity.

Thats a presumption of racism and is not an argument.

You're a christian nationalist base on ethnic values. Egro racist.

Islam is false because a unitarian conception of deity fails to account for the paradox of eternal self-satisfaction at the psychological level in regards to the divine nature. Race has nothing to do with it, i'm not even against interracial marriage per se., as long as its the males of my people marrying the females of others out of a sense of dominance.

See you're racist, and why would dominate Black females genes want to touch us regressive folk? If anything Blacks should have our women, if we mate with theirs.

Not all easterners have female presidents, so this is an invalid question. But, in the case of women in governance, I believe such a political practice is inconsistent with Biblical teaching. Thus, a nation that claims to be comprehensively Christian and zealously dedicated to Scripture cannot have women in power if they are consistent with their stated principles.

Where in the scripture women can't be leaders? If females can be Queens, why not presidents.

I only asserted in propositional form that their enfranchisement has historically been detrimental to civilizations.This is not stereotyping a population via observation. I am drawing a conclusion from recorded fact, the causal basis for this can only be speculated over.

Sources?

I never said women were "weak," etc., Indeed I would say men and women are equal in worth and importance, but if the pursuit of different gender roles is necessary for the success of a society, then I do not think we have the right to abandon those roles (thats all I am really saying). Men and women are equally essential, but for different reasons. A civilization needs women as much as it needs men, but it needs women for childbearing, childrearing, and civil-charity, it needs men for labor, leadership, and war. Both men and women are made in the Imago Dei.

You deny females in political office, yet say their not weak. Which is it? Females in Africa and ancient Europe have survive without gender roles that us white christians arbitrarily decide. Their empires were grand and powerful. And the Soviets had females in labor, war and leadership. Hell even the females were in the military during the Tzar.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So it's true cause it caters my feelings so I say so.

Unintelligible Statement.

Ok how does women voting or being payed the same destroy a civilization.

This is actually the topic of the book I already cited and its not merely civil rights, but sexual opportunity. If women (and men too) are permitted to use contraception or other forms of anti-procreative sexuality, they usually will especially if the society is no longer expansive and supportive of patriarchal values. When civilizations extend female rights the birth rate drops and male involvement in the society likewise drops resulting in more women in power. Women at far higher rates then men support foreign immigration (due to hypergamy) and this immigration becomes necessary for the labor force because of the increased infertility. The people that are brought in are almost always of a more patriarchal culture with a high birth rate, but because of that, they have more aggressive and expansive energy and eventually take over the already declining culture.

This happened in Rome. There was a great deal of rights extended to women regard marriage-and-divorce, civic participation, land and inheritance rights, etc., likewise homosexuality and other deviant sexual practices became rampant. The birth rate dropped and men became less and less interested in pursuing families, public welfare and divorce laws no longer incentivized them to be participating and active bread winners. The high costs of welfare in Rome for the elderly and fatherless was high with low labor participation due to low birth rates. The Romans brought in hyper-patriarchal Germanic peoples to fill the labor force and armies and at the same time, Christianity was pushing its own patriarchal revolution (slowly) from within.

The Empire fell to these germanic tribes in course of time. This same pattern is seen in every civilization that ever fell. We are exhibited the same qualities. We extended the vote and political and sexual rights to women between 1920-1970. The birth rate has plummeted as a result, male participation in labor has been dropping, civic interest and voter participation has plummeted, patriotism has plummeted,and the need for foreign workers has resulted in the importation of very patriarchal high-birth-rate Muslims in Europe and Mexicans in the U.S. Public welfare and divorce laws that disproportionately favor women have created a marriage crisis in the west resulting in men opting out of marriage altogether at alarming rates. Contraception, homosexuality, and gender confusion, are all generally accepted and pedophilia and bestiality are also becoming increasingly popular.

This is exactly what happened in Rome, Greece, Sumeria, etc. The extension of sexual opportunity and political opportunity to women has always resulted in these trends and the fall of the civilization within a few generations. The sublimation of male sexual energy through strict religiously-justified monogamy has always led to a great deal of social vitality leading to expansion and cultural development. When a culture stops expanding, that sexual energy is turned inwards and results in a culture deconstructing itself.

But they were less progressive that's the issue. And your personal belief is relevant, we're discussing how can you reconcile christianity with your unchristian thoughts?..... Where in the scripture women can't be leaders? If females can be Queens, why not presidents....You're just a white nationalist using christianity as a front for white ethnic power. Again none of you say is of the bible.

Bible teaches that contraception is wrong (Gen 38), that women are men and women are to reproduce and take dominion of the earth (Gen 1-2), the women are to submit to their husbands in all matters (Eph 5), that Law of God remains binding in the New Testament (Matt 5), that the magistrate is to punish all unrighteousness with the sword (Rom 13), that women are to be keepers of the home (Tit 2), and are not to usurp authority over men and are to have children as their primary life goal (1 Tim 2). Nations are defined by patriarchal delineations named after their male heads and defined in terms of these kindred relations (Gen 10). Christ is regarded as King (Acts 2, Heb1-2, 1 Cor 15, Psa 2) and all nations are to submit to His authority. All nations are to be baptized and converted (Matt 28). Isaiah 3 teaches that women and children rulers are a judgment from God.

These are the grounds of my position.

What? Their differences are a thin line and the American/Europe christianity is like the Golden Gate Bridge.

Polish Catholicism and Dutch Calvinism are almost opposites dude. Dutch Calvinism is way closer to mainstream Calvinism in the U.S. than Polish Catholicism. You need some education.

But Christianity was decline after ww2, more secularization means more female empowerment.

Agreed. So what?

So is any form of masculinity, think about it. Society always fall due to masculinity.

But didn't you just extol the "masculine" eastern europeans with female leaders? Which is it? Is masculinity good or bad, your all over the map with your assessment and I can't make sense of your argument. I'm starting to think your just a troll.

EHHH...

It would take a separate threat to debunk all of that website's bias errors in taking texts out of context, but i'm confused, I thought you were "defending" Christianity from my non-Christian positions, or are you against Christianity? I thought the bible was about hippy Jesus? Your so confused I don't even know where to begin. I'm on PoFo to have intellectual debate. You are not qualified.

As to my position, I am against raping a women, as I defined the term, which Deuteronomy 22:25 punishes with the death penalty. Warfare events in the OT are historical descriptions of events and not always approving of the conduct of the soldiers involved, but the Bible does authorize "war brides" which is not considered rape in the bible, but the spoils of war and has nothing to do with the laws that govern the conduct of a nation. American soliders who brought back Korean women in the Korean war as the spoils of war would often view rape as immoral. My great aunt was a Korean war-bride and ended up perfectly happy, so there is a distinction. Also the NAB translation they use of the violating of virgin is bad. That text has to do with pre-marital sex. If a man has premarital sex with woman the act is called a "violation" but is not considered rape as in Deuteronomy 22:25. The man who has sex with woman before marriage must either marry the woman or pay a fine to the father as the father will lose money on the bride price because his daughter will not go for as much if she is no longer a virgin. But Rape as a violent act commited in civil society is punished with the death penalty in scripture. The false accusation of rape is also punishable in the OT (we all know how common that can be.)

See you're racist, and why would dominate Black females genes want to touch us regressive folk? If anything Blacks should have our women, if we mate with theirs

No, I define a nation is terms of historical self-identification based on patrilineal descent, not genetics. Thus, I disagree with the Alt.Right that is against all forms of interracial marriage because any "new" genes would destroy the national identity by definition. My view defines a nation by patriarchal identity, so the father's national identity always defines the identity of both his wife and children. Hence, regardless of skin color, a dominant man who marries a woman has in essence made that woman of his own people and their children will be of his own people. This is how some nations have eliminated whole peoples, by taking all of their women (as the Angles did in lower Britain). This being the case, that nationality is asymmetrical, to marry off one's daughter to another nationality is for her and her children to no longer be of "your" people but now to be of her "husband's" people and thus is a net loss that should be avoided.

So no, I deny genetic racialism, but I also deny the social contract theory which denies the significance of race altogether in considering questions of national identity. I think both are false extremes.

You deny females in political office, yet say their not weak. Which is it? Females in Africa and ancient Europe have survive without gender roles that us white christians arbitrarily decide. Their empires were grand and powerful. And the Soviets had females in labor, war and leadership. Hell even the females were in the military during the Tzar.

Which is a greater show of strength: Giving birth to a child or digging a ditch? Raising a house full of babies or signing a difficult piece of legislation? Are you saying that women being child-bearers is a weak position? Who is really sexist here? I am extolling a woman's greatest strengths, that which is unique to their sex and their natural gifts, without which, civilization cannot continue. I am maximizing human potential with my position, you are diluting it.

Sources?

Same one I have been using in this conversation. But a good additional source would be the former Harvard Professor, and late, Carle Zimmerman's "Family and Civilization." Excellent read.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually I didn't see that. That's some pretty fucking good satire. It gave me a chuckle. I officially give that post a 9.99/10 since I want to be as objective as possible. Anyways, I apologize for not seeing your post as satire, you see there are alot of wackos here in PoFo, more wacko than me I assure you and it's pretty hard to differentiate what is satire and what is not. 90% of all post here on PoFo can be considered satire or some form of sarcasm.

I appreciate it. There were some other gems in there too, like advocating for a colonization policy because Persian women are hot.....lol, I'm surpised you missed all of that to be honest.

Trust me though, The shorter the response I post the more likely it is to be cynical or sarcastic or not-serious. The odds of me being dead serious increases based on the amount of time I put into a post. I do not think humor is worth a 1,000 words of writing and 30 minutes of source-checking and research. I'm not that into being funny. Plus, I find the best wit to be that which is subtle and sophisticated, yet succinct. Long jokes put me to sleep. I almost always sprinkle truth in my barbs and jokes too, so they can be offensive.

Rather that it is on par with China in terms of modernization. Iran is just as modern as China in terms of it's infrastructure, institutions, government, etc. Also aren't they both assumptions since you have not given any evidence to support the claim that the US can effectively occupy Iran (I never said that the US can't militarily defeat Iran on it's own soil, just that it would take too much resources and coordination to do so)

Thats fair, at least in the sense that we cannot "prove" a hypothetical. But that is my point, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume the U.S. could defeat Iran and with a major invasion force, occupy it. Like I said though, this would require a major change in ideology and strategy on the part of the U.S. I do not think that such is impossible though, that would be just as extreme of a claim as saying it will be a cake-walk without causalities. Both would be extreme.

The thing is, if you want to have a "hypothetical" conversation, you have to at least let me in the door with the scenario. We need to assume certain factors. Making Iran a colony assumes a prior military victory, so we can't discuss the logistical details of a colonial government in Iran unless you first concede the "possibility" that the U.S. could defeat and then bring in an occupying force to Iran. Even if you think this is a slim chance scenario, and it may never happen, if we want to discuss the notion of American colonization in Iran as a hypothetical, you have to atleast give me that unless you have a really GOOD reason to say such a victory by the U.S. is impossible.

Work with me here!

The issue is that wild west free enterprise cannot work when you're trying to rebuild and develop a country. Absolute no-barriers free trade would devastate local businesses and enterprises in Iran and if you're conservative you obviously care for the little guy even if he is brown and has a relatively big nose. To rebuild a country you need a healthy dose of protectionism while incentivizing local business to compete and grow and innovate similar to how Japan, China, and South Korea jumpstarted their economies. Eventually these local businesses will become large corporations capable of competing in the global market.

Another issue is that brutal military oversight is impossible to accomplish when you're thousands of miles away in a country that's as large as half the US and that has good professional army (something colonized nations didn't have) that, in turn, has good understandings of logistics, strategy, and modern military operations (something colonized nations also didn't have). You'll get continuous rebellions and revolutions as Iran is heavily anti-American (yes, American movies are popular in Iran but that doesn't mean that the US as a country is loved) and the US will simply be unable to have both the resources and the ability to distribute those resources quickly enough to deal with all those issues. The US would lose more rather than gain more if it tried to occupy Iran.

The absolute worst thing you want to do when trying to rebuild a country is bring in foreign workers and especially skilled foreign workers. By doing this you'll take away jobs from the local population and stagnate the economy because migrant workers often are focused on providing economic activity to other countries rather than providing economic activity to their current country. This will especially be the case with US workers who would probably just work in that country to gain money while simply consuming that money in the US. You need to limit immigration while you're rebuilding a country because the labor market of that country will not be able to compete with the foreign labor market.

If you are willing to atleast concede the possibility of America, or preferably an Anglo-Sphere Alliance, defeating and placing enough forces in Iran to occupy it, I would love to defend the above points here, but I want us to get past "getting in" to Iran before I waste time discussing why I would do what I would once there....See what I mean? Its up to you, but I think this could be an interesting conversation if you let me get to first base on this one, as its all hypothetical anyway, but I don't want to debate ten different points and scenarios all at once. Lets keep it simple. If your game, i'm game.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I appreciate it. There were some other gems in there too, like advocating for a colonization policy because Persian women are hot.....lol, I'm surpised you missed all of that to be honest.

Trust me though, The shorter the response I post the more likely it is to be cynical or sarcastic or not-serious. The odds of me being dead serious increases based on the amount of time I put into a post. I do not think humor is worth a 1,000 words of writing and 30 minutes of source-checking and research. I'm not that into being funny. Plus, I find the best wit to be that which is subtle and sophisticated, yet succinct. Long jokes put me to sleep. I almost always sprinkle truth in my barbs and jokes too, so they can be offensive.

Can you please give me comedy lessons? You seem to have pretty good comedic taste.

Thats fair, at least in the sense that we cannot "prove" a hypothetical. But that is my point, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume the U.S. could defeat Iran and with a major invasion force, occupy it. Like I said though, this would require a major change in ideology and strategy on the part of the U.S. I do not think that such is impossible though, that would be just as extreme of a claim as saying it will be a cake-walk without causalities. Both would be extreme.

The thing is, if you want to have a "hypothetical" conversation, you have to at least let me in the door with the scenario. We need to assume certain factors. Making Iran a colony assumes a prior military victory, so we can't discuss the logistical details of a colonial government in Iran unless you first concede the "possibility" that the U.S. could defeat and then bring in an occupying force to Iran. Even if you think this is a slim chance scenario, and it may never happen, if we want to discuss the notion of American colonization in Iran as a hypothetical, you have to atleast give me that unless you have a really GOOD reason to say such a victory by the U.S. is impossible.

Work with me here!

Alright how about this, I'll agree with you and make the assumption that the US can in fact conquer and effectively occupy Iran to such an extent that it can effectively rebuild it so you and I can discuss exactly how an American colonial government will function while I will, in the mean time, find out a really GOOD reason for why America cannot possibly occupy Iran effectively and debate with you on that.

The game's yours my friend. Let us discuss with wine.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The game's yours my friend. Let us discuss with wine.

Preliminary Thoughts Submitted For Your Review Before We Debate The American Shah In Depth.

I. Methods of Colonization and Conquest.

Before I begin, let me be clear that there are several methods of conquest and colonization that have been independently pursued in the history of the world. I will describe such now, in brief. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list.

1. Violent Genocide (self-explanatory).

2. Permanent Humiliation (think Carthage).

3. Total Conquest, Exilic Displacement.

This was actually a common method among old empires such as Babylon and Assyria, but also among the Romans. This method conquers a people and exiles its natural inhabitants to other parts of the world, leaving the region either barren, or the empire will import new populations as a replacement. Often this means enslaving the exiled population, but it can be a simple exile that prevents them from returning, or, even a diasporan scattering.

4. Total Conquest, Non-Violent Genocide.

This was a method employed by many Germanic tribes in Northern Europe and entailed subjugating a population, killing or enslaving the men, and taking the women for reproductive uses. The net effect is that the patriarchal rule of a nation is broken and the women (and their subsequent offspring) are absorbed into the conqueror’s gene pool.

5. Settler Colonization.

This method imports settlers under the protection of an empire to a region, the settlers cope with the native populations and displace them if necessary, and violently if absolutely necessary. That which belongs to the settlers belongs to the Empire.

6. Authoritarian Colonization.

The conquest of a region which is followed by a specialized and predominantly military occupation. (the British Raj would qualify under this). Such a colonization makes use of existing native infrastructures, but under the authority of the colonial office and the military. The importation of imperial peoples to the occupied land is usually of temporary laborers, soldiers with their families, businessmen, and specialists (like archaeologists etc).

7. Defeat and Leave (self-explanatory).

8. Nation-Building and Puppet Governance.

This has been popular with Americans, arguably since the Civil War. This method begins with a clear military victory and then a highly militarized occupation; wherein, contractors, businessmen, and politicians rebuild the nation to a governable state and create a puppet regime, or install an ideologically similar regime; thus, enabling the conqueror to leave while retaining both influence and an ally.

9. Locust-Style Conquest.

This method was more or less unique to the Mongolians and was the most “hands-off.” Typically done to secure trade or capture women, etc., The Mongolians would utterly obliterate an enemy’s military, commit limited-controlled genocide, usually on one or two cities as a punitive measure, and take what they wanted as the spoils-of-war (which was often A LOT) and leave with very little imperial bureaucracy or oversight in the nation they had just defeated.

10. Cultural Assimilation.

This method was done most successfully by Islamic conquerors who would assimilate peoples into Islam after conquest by using a combination of incentive, persistence, taxation, caste, and coercion.

I believe aspects from several of these are important to use together in the American Shah.

II. The Preconditions of Anglo-American Empire.

Several preconditions are to be assumed for this hypothetical:

1. That there is an Anglosphere alliance of sorts between the United States, The United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

2. That the unified coordination of these powers is expansionist in outlook.

3. That the nations have seen a revival in Christian fervor and family values.

4. The Anglo-Sphere populations are highly patriotic and committed as a society to the Imperial cause.

5. The Anglo-Sphere is free to govern a colony as it pleases without international repercussions.

III. The Nature of Islamic Populations.

There is a tendency among Americans today to view Islamic populations as ungovernable, but I disagree, because history disagrees. Islamic peoples have been colonized by European Christians and in many cases have lived quite peaceably with their colonial overlords. This is especially true of the British Rule in various areas formerly under Ottoman reign. Now, there are exceptions to this which will be discussed under point #2 Below. These are my terms.

1. Progressive Muslims. These are not necessarily even liberal per se, but are, at the very least, tolerant of divergent approaches and opinions on a wide swath of issues and ideologies. In the colonies where the British were successful this was very much the case. In these colonies the locals were even upset that the British had left. They wanted the prosperity, technology, and advancements brought by such an empire. Some were liberal and even inconsistent with Islam, but not all per se. Though liberal and lax Muslims are comprehended under this category, progressives in this use of the phrase is broad enough to include conservative Muslims that amiable to western ideas and innovations and are generally amiable towards the west because of such ideas and innovations.

2. Fundamentalist Muslims. These are not necessarily radicalized or extremist as the modern west uses the term, but refers to those Muslims who are wholly committed to a strict interpretation of the Qur’an (1) and (2) believe that its influence and applications are both universal and wholly comprehensive in one’s life. These Muslims are the sorts that often begrudge even fairly innocuous changes in society, let alone those which could be said to be actually inconsistent with Islam. They are therefore generally intolerant to cultural change on the whole and tend to disapprove of anything foreign or non-conforming.

3. Progressive Muslims will embrace colonialism so long as it is not heavy handed; whereas, fundamentalist muslims will never embrace colonialism and require a heavy hand. This creates a dilemma for any power, but not one that cannot be solved.

IV. Going Assumptions about Iranians for Purposes of Colonial Rule.

1. Iran has become primarily a fundamentalist Islamic nation, but contains sizeable progressive Muslim populations.

2. Persians are ethnically related to whites.

3. Iran has plenty of resources and cultural contributions to offer the west.

4. Iran has a diverse and difficult terrain, much of it is arid and not suitable for agricultural purposes.

5. Iran has strategic value in Empire building, for the Anglo-Sphere.

6. Iranians are strong-willed and proud, but much of their population can be agreeable, and many, even if not all, can be broken.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I'll agree with those assumptions, regardless of their validity. The entire point of this discussion is to be a thought experiment and it is a thought experiment whose basic assumptions I disagree with but I find it interesting so I'll tolerate it. The only criticism I'll offer is that in section IV you have use propaganda to make people aware of such things. For example, campaigns that point out the similarities between whites and Persians both in "home" (i.e. the US) and in Iran or campaigns that compliment Iranians in their strong-willed and proud nature. Also pointing out similarities between Islam and Christianity are a must.

Anyways I don't really care about the actually conquest. The main reason I wanted to do this debate in the first place is to discuss simultaneously how Iran as a society can be governed using both your western perspective and my Iranian perspective. I think this would be very beneficial when discussing Western and Persian interactions. So in a nutshell I think we should get into the most important part. Under these sets of assumptions and these techniques, yes Iran can effectively be conquered so going through the process would just simply bore me. Military theory has never been my point of interest. Even in my line of work I focus more on diplomacy and economic advising than anything military related.

EDIT: BTW, Cultural assimilation works the best in Iran. Doing anything too violent would lower the popularity of American culture which is already popular as it is in Iran. You could use the other methods but they are A. often expensive especially in this modern era and B. you lose lots and lots of potential capital that does not require any outside influence to function.

[Hong Wu]

I'm not certain that non-hardliners exist in a significant way in a country like Iran. Liberalism basically requires democracy and a presumption in favor of less limited speech, neither of these pre-condition for liberalism seem to exist in the middle east.

It's kind of like how some western people can't comprehend why Chinese like Trump more than Obama. Here Obama is softer with them and they treat him worse than Trump. It's because non-"hardliners" (e.g., professional guilt troopers, that was a typo but I'm leaving it in) have no real voice in a country like China. They respect strong and straightforward people, not weak people or slight of hand because unlike in the west, such people don't get very far in their society.

[Oxymandias]

@Hong Wu

If the Chinese really liked Trump due to that fact then why are they so quick to make fun of and insult Trump due to his lack of a strongman appearance. One of my Chinese friends told me that Trump is "a snobby kid who likes to pretend that he's Napoleon" and that he was a "try-hard". When I was sitting in a bar with some buddies watching the 2017 election on the TV there and it was finally shown that Trump would be the president of the US suddenly what was a quiet bar boomed with discussions and murmurs. One drunk guy even started laughing.

China loves Trump because to them, it's proof that democracy doesn't work, it's proof of American incompetence when, in a Chinese person's view, America has elected a literal despot, the complete opposite of the Confucian ideal of a good ruler. He is a representation of China's dominance in governance. That is why China and Chinese people like Trump.

[Hong Wu]

@Hong Wu

If the Chinese really liked Trump due to that fact then why are they so quick to make fun of and insult Trump due to his lack of a strongman appearance. One of my Chinese friends told me that Trump is "a snobby kid who likes to pretend that he's Napoleon" and that he was a "try-hard". When I was sitting in a bar with some buddies watching the 2017 election on the TV there and it was finally shown that Trump would be the president of the US suddenly what was a quiet bar boomed with discussions and murmurs. One drunk guy even started laughing.

China loves Trump because to them, it's proof that democracy doesn't work, it's proof of American incompetence when, in a Chinese person's view, America has elected a literal despot, the complete opposite of the Confucian ideal of a good ruler. He is a representation of China's dominance in governance. That is why China and Chinese people like Trump.

I'm sure there are differences of opinion regarding Trump in China but I think we can also see a very clear difference between how the government treats him and how the government treated Obama.

[Rich]

China loves Trump because to them, it's proof that democracy doesn't work, it's proof of American incompetence when, in a Chinese person's view, America has elected a literal despot, the complete opposite of the Confucian ideal of a good ruler. He is a representation of China's dominance in governance. That is why China and Chinese people like Trump.

Trump is way, way better than Mao and I expect he will be removed form office way, way before the time that Mao lasted in office. But it is true that America is a very poor form of democracy. Executive presidencies are very poor, a demented Prime Minister could be removed in days, of course that won't save you from a demented parliamentary majority, but no system is perfect.

Proportional representation is best. Weimar showed how utterly brilliant proportional representation is. in 1932 the majority voted for dictatorship twice, but so brilliant is proportional representation that even that wasn't enough to overthrow democracy. No it required the Communists to be so demented that they preferred to let the Nazis in rather than support prop up a minority democratic administration. Even the Commies recognised what idiots they had been hence why they changed to the popular front policy afterwards.

This is why I prefer Nazis to Commies, the Nazis would never have let in a Commie government if the positions had been reversed. Nazis are less of a threat to democracy that commies.