[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

One should not make assumptions, although it's human nature to often do so. It's not necessarily something that I want to happen, what I see developing, but I can't do anything about it either. So I look, and observe, and analyze.

Your entire thoughts on Islam are based on assumptions.

You know what, it doesn't matter. You can say whatever you want to say.

Oh, it's happening. The increasing privatization and personalization of governments and their functions, the increasing power and influence of corporations into daily life, non-state actors having a disproportionate role as time goes on, tariffs and the breaking down of multinational treaty organizations, etc...

Those aren't the signs of feudalism coming. When we get to that point, we'll know.

So in other words, implementing the Autarky that you deny is happening elsewhere.

Feudalism isn't characterized by autarky. Neo-liberalism, the things which will cause feudalism, is the antithesis to autarky since it maintains that only in an economy in which everyone is dependent upon another will prosperity occur.

I'm implying that the Atlanticist powers want Eurasia weak and divided. War tends to do that.

The West needs third world countries to be stable since third world countries are their peripheries. You can't exploit the labor of Syria if it's in the middle of a civil war. Similarly you can't exploit Iranian labor if Iran won't open up to Western businesses.

That's not what they're thinking about, ''accessibility''. At least not yet. I'm not saying they're correct or even sane, but seeing it as they see it and not as I would have it be can be clarifying.

So Western elites apparently act irrationally because you decided that they act irrationally? If "ze Western elites" existed how the fuck would you know what they're planning or what they want?

Are there any Qajar or Safavid claimants to be Shah, besides the Pahlavi? Or am I missing a dynastic family?

You are missing the Afshar and Zand although they aren't particularly influential.

Nope. To do so now would be both political suicide and go against everything both Qajars and the Safavi have done for ages. Both Qajars and Safavi have held influential roles in the government and in politics; both in history and in the present and have historically fought the Pahlavi Dynasty.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

1. The Muslim wars against Byzantium were due to trying to get Rum or Constantinople. The city was famous for being the impenetrable capital city of the Roman Empire and thus was highly valued. Everyone and their mother were trying to conquer, not just Muslims. It wasn't out of a religious motivation either, it was simply out of prestige. Hell, technically the Crusaders were the first to capture the city and I doubt you would call Christians inherently violent for doing so.

2. Read my first point.

3. Read my first point. The fact that three of your links of supposed "proof" that Islam wants to conquer Europe and is violent is Byzantium, of which everyone wanted to conquer and the Crusaders conquered first, is very pathetic.

4. The territories gained there were due to trying to conquer all the territories within the Byzantine Empire. It's like saying that Christians are violent for taking over Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

5. The Barbary wars were out of revenge for the destruction of Al-Andalus. It's not a coincidence that most famous Barbary pirates were Andalusian.

6. The Armenian genocide was lead by secular nationalist Turks, not Muslims or the Caliphate.

7. Yeah, of course a civil war that was split between Muslims and Christians is going to involve Muslims but that doesn't make Muslims any more violent than Christians. Hell, the entirety of the Lebanese civil war was started because of both Israel's occupation of Lebanon and a Christian militia group called the Phalangists.

8. Clearly a rebellion in a majority Muslim part of the Philippines that was due to exploitation of those Muslims is an example of world-wide terrorism by Muslims against Christians. Clearly.

Can you at least read your own articles before you post them?

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

Regarding Islam;

Your entire thoughts on Islam are based on assumptions.

You know what, it doesn't matter. You can say whatever you want to say.

It appears that our mutual somewhat sympathetic picture of Islam does not coincide or intersect on the same things. I'm somewhat respectful of the traditionalism that still exists in the Islamic world, while you like many Western Liberals use Islam as a stick to beat Europeans and European Americans with.

But that's alright, that day is turning to dusk.

Those aren't the signs of feudalism coming. When we get to that point, we'll know.

Earlier collapses into feudal and semi-feudal societies took centuries to develop. I believe that ours being no exception, most people will not know what's happened until the new phase has been well underway. I think that the entire 20th century worldwide is a good sign in itself. And calling to mind the relevance to the OP, we'll be getting our Crusades and Jihads back, having got back the kind of societies that they grow from.

Feudalism isn't characterized by autarky. Neo-liberalism, the things which will cause feudalism, is the antithesis to autarky since it maintains that only in an economy in which everyone is dependent upon another will prosperity occur.

Neo-Liberalism ''causes'' feudalism in the same sense that a dead body ''causes'' decomposition. Confusion of causes and effects that we could go round and round on.

The West needs third world countries to be stable since third world countries are their peripheries. You can't exploit the labor of Syria if it's in the middle of a civil war. Similarly you can't exploit Iranian labor if Iran won't open up to Western businesses.

Syria was the planned trap for Russia and Iran, with Damascus being the bridge to war with Iran, and war with Iran providing opportunity to sow chaos in Central Asia.

So Western elites apparently act irrationally because you decided that they act irrationally? If "ze Western elites" existed how the fuck would you know what they're planning or what they want?

Anyone with an ounce of goodwill can see these bastards aren't normal human beings, their position papers can be read, their interviews in the media watched.

You are missing the Afshar and Zand although they aren't particularly influential.

Nope. To do so now would be both political suicide and go against everything both Qajars and the Safavi have done for ages. Both Qajars and Safavi have held influential roles in the government and in politics; both in history and in the present and have historically fought the Pahlavi Dynasty.

Not entirely ignorant of Persian history, although my era of interest in Persia covers the Arsacid and Sassanid periods more than the Achaemenid or Islamic eras, at their point of contact with the Greco-Roman world.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not even sure your Islamic masters would appreciate your faithful shilling for them because at this point you are denying them some of their greatest achievements such as the smashing of Byzantium and the taking of Constantinople. Moreover by Islamic thinking any place they conquered in the past in some sense remains their property even after they lose it, so by you denying their conquest of "Andalusia" and the Balkans ever happened you are denying their current claims on those places too. You can't have your cake an eat it, either they conquered Byzantium and the rest or they didn't conquer those places and thus their claims on them are false.

You, as always, are wildily incorrect about most of the things you think about me.

It actually reminds me of Rei.

Perhaps you can tell us which of these wars that everyone including Muslims themselves acknowledges did happen did not in fact happen?

629–1050s Muslim-Arab wars against Christian Byzantium

I van tell you this one had nothing to do with the religion of whatever lands the Muslims were conquering. This is the wiki article that @Victoribus Spolia used for the map he cited to claim there was this civilisational conflict.

Please note that the vast majority of land conquered by the Muslims in this era were not Christian. And those they did conquer that were formerly part of Byzantium, such as Roman Syria, did not end up with enslaved Christians or with their death or exile.

You seem to be arguing that any conflict between Christians and Muslims is an example of this supposed civil8sational conflict between religious views. Sometimes it is simply two empires squabbling over land.

1048 to 1308 Muslim-Seljuq wars against Christian Byzantium

1265–1479 Muslim-Ottoman wars against Christian Byzantium

1371-1853 Muslim-Ottoman wars against Christian europe (mostly in the balkans)

1801-1815 Barbary Wars muslim-pirates against Christian shipping and the Christian reprisals

1914–1923 Muslim-Ottoman genocide of Christian Armenians

1975 to 1978 Lebanese Civil War Muslim arabs against Christian Lebanese.

1969 to present Islamic terrorists against Christian nationals.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. Also it focuses solely on aggressive wars against christians and leaves out all the aggressive wars and genocides against hindus, buddhists, jews and pagans of all kinds.

We can look at these after we look at the one I already discussed.

If they are as valid as the first link, we will find that they do not support your claim.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

It appears that our mutual somewhat sympathetic picture of Islam does not coincide or intersect on the same things. I'm somewhat respectful of the traditionalism that still exists in the Islamic world, while you like many Western Liberals use Islam as a stick to beat Europeans and European Americans with.

But that's alright, that day is turning to dusk.

I don't use it as a weapon and I don't bring upon false or rosy-tinted depictions of Islam. I only give the truth. If anything, western conservatives seem to be using Islam as a way to push their increasingly protectionist, chauvinist, and expansionist agenda.

Earlier collapses into feudal and semi-feudal societies took centuries to develop. I believe that ours being no exception, most people will not know what's happened until the new phase has been well underway. I think that the entire 20th century worldwide is a good sign in itself. And calling to mind the relevance to the OP, we'll be getting our Crusades and Jihads back, having got back the kind of societies that they grow from.

Jihads occur in the Middle East for completely different reasons than they had in the past. The concept of a jihad has changed.

Neo-Liberalism ''causes'' feudalism in the same sense that a dead body ''causes'' decomposition. Confusion of causes and effects that we could go round and round on.

Neo-liberalism isn't a stage in humanity and time certainly isn't cyclical.

Syria was the planned trap for Russia and Iran, with Damascus being the bridge to war with Iran, and war with Iran providing opportunity to sow chaos in Central Asia.

That is a simplification of the causes of the Syrian Civil War.

Anyone with an ounce of goodwill can see these bastards aren't normal human beings, their position papers can be read, their interviews in the media watched.

Alright I'll just leave you to it. If you think Western elites exist, then all the power to you.

Not entirely ignorant of Persian history, although my era of interest in Persia covers the Arsacid and Sassanid periods more than the Achaemenid or Islamic eras, at their point of contact with the Greco-Roman world.

Ok. I don't think anyone who is knowledgeable about Middle Eastern history would have to reassert their knowledge to others.

[Rugoz]

When we get to that point, the rest of the world outside of those Blocs won't have a chance. Who will buy and ship their resources? Will indeed, a new set of ''Crusades'' and Jihads be fought over the more scarce resources, not just the Oil but also Water?

I'm certain it will happen.

There might be conflict over resources but that has nothing to do with feudalism.

Furthermore, Iran isn't as anti-western and expansionist as you think it is. If it was, it would taken parts of Iraq and Syria by this point and literally declare war on the US.

That would be suicidal, the Mullahs aren't that stupid.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

I don't use it as a weapon and I don't bring upon false or rosy-tinted depictions of Islam.

I believe that you believe that, so I'll let that drop for now.

I only give the truth. If anything, western conservatives seem to be using Islam as a way to push their increasingly protectionist, chauvinist, and expansionist agenda.

There is the matter of the whole oil being the fuel of the modern era thing, and most of the last of the easily recoverable oil being in Muslim-majority areas of the world.

Jihads occur in the Middle East for completely different reasons than they had in the past. The concept of a jihad has changed.

I find that hard to believe for a majority of Muslims.

Neo-liberalism isn't a stage in humanity and time certainly isn't cyclical.

I didn't say that it is ''cyclical'', but history does follow some rules, because human nature hasn't changed, has it? Modernity and the Neo-Liberal System which makes Modernity possible, isn't sustainable in the long term. I don't give it another 100 years, probably closer to 40.

That is a simplification of the causes of the Syrian Civil War.

It has the virtue of being true, while allowing for the addition of other factors.

Alright I'll just leave you to it. If you think Western elites exist, then all the power to you.

We know them by their effects, and they suffer not the slightest if we deny a conscious aim to the actions taken, they actually prefer that it seem senseless and chaotic instead of ''creative destruction''.

Ok. I don't think anyone who is knowledgeable about Middle Eastern history would have to reassert their knowledge to others.

I agree.

You missed my point, in your own obsession with instructing others, displaying and reasserting your own knowledge of Middle Eastern History ,you missed that I was saying that there is a gap in my knowledge of Persian history where I am not as learned as I might like, and I hardly think that were I arrogant about it I would have made that admission. You make many assumptions.


@Rugoz

There might be conflict over resources but that has nothing to do with feudalism.

The necessity for economic autarky is the beginning of feudal type arrangements, IMO

[Rugoz]

The necessity for economic autarky is the beginning of feudal type arrangements, IMO

Nobody but a few freaks want to live from subsistance farming in autarky. Forget it, the world has moved on.

[SolarCross]

I van tell you this one had nothing to do with the religion of whatever lands the Muslims were conquering. This is the wiki article that @Victoribus Spolia used for the map he cited to claim there was this civilisational conflict.

Please note that the vast majority of land conquered by the Muslims in this era were not Christian. And those they did conquer that were formerly part of Byzantium, such as Roman Syria, did not end up with enslaved Christians or with their death or exile.

You seem to be arguing that any conflict between Christians and Muslims is an example of this supposed civil8sational conflict between religious views. Sometimes it is simply two empires squabbling over land.

We can look at these after we look at the one I already discussed.

If they are as valid as the first link, we will find that they do not support your claim.

So the muslim conquests begun by mohammad and continued by his immediate family and supporters and in later periods by people raised to believe in Mohammad's mission to take over the world as the most important thing has nothing to do with religion? Amazing POD you'd put any ostrich to shame.

[annatar1914]

Nobody but a few freaks want to live from subsistance farming in autarky. Forget it, the world has moved on.

Note that I did not speak of anyone who wants to live from subsistence farming, but my suggestions have been consistently been about people someday having to live from subsistence farming, while a few others live off of them in exchange for protection. Human nature does not change, collectively speaking.

The world has not ''moved on'', we can see from the 'tragedy of the commons' that individual self-interest does not lead to greater collective good, but rather the contrary, it's collapse.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

So the muslim conquests begun by mohammad and continued by his immediate family and supporters and in later periods by people raised to believe in Mohammad's mission to take over the world as the most important thing has nothing to do with religion? Amazing POD you'd put any ostrich to shame.

Do you have any proof that A. Mohammed wanted to take over the world (the only expansionist thing he has ever said was in a hadith where he said he wanted Muslims to take over Constantinople) B. that his family and successors were raised to believe that he wanted to take over the world and C. that it has anything to do with religion?

Also being Caliph isn't a hereditary position, it's an elected one.

I find that hard to believe for a majority of Muslims.

I would like you to prove that the meaning of jihad has not changed. If you know anything about Islamic history (which you have confirmed that you do not) you would see the obvious difference between the nature of jihad now and the nature of jihad in the past.

I didn't say that it is ''cyclical'', but history does follow some rules, because human nature hasn't changed, has it? Modernity and the Neo-Liberal System which makes Modernity possible, isn't sustainable in the long term. I don't give it another 100 years, probably closer to 40.

Human nature does change and human nature is governed by ones own environment. Modernity and it's connection to progress are fabricated.

It has the virtue of being true, while allowing for the addition of other factors.

It isn't true since the Syrian Civil War wasn't started directly by any foreign powers, elite or otherwise. The only argument you can make is that it was indirectly caused by Western meddling in the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire but even that doesn't hold water when you consider that the situation in the 19th century Ottoman Empire is irrelevant to 21st century Syria.

You missed my point, in your own obsession with instructing others, displaying and reasserting your own knowledge of Middle Eastern History ,you missed that I was saying that there is a gap in my knowledge of Persian history where I am not as learned as I might like, and I hardly think that were I arrogant about it I would have made that admission. You make many assumptions.

If sharing knowledge with someone who is ignorant is reasserting then the word "reasserting" becomes meaningless in this context. I have only given you information to fill those gaps but you have only challenged that information and refused to believe it. You are very selective in what you believe is true. I doubt that, if I were to give you information on Islamic Persia, you would like it.

@Rugoz

If Iran was expansionist it would do so. Furthermore, conquering Syria and Iraq is perfectly possible after the Iraq war. Iran could've simply occupied Iraq, destroy the government, integrate it into Iran, and be done. It didn't however since it doesn't care about conquering others. It's not in it's agenda so to speak.

[Rugoz]

Note that I did not speak of anyone who wants to live from subsistence farming, but my suggestions have been consistently been about people someday having to live from subsistence farming, while a few others live off of them in exchange for protection. Human nature does not change, collectively speaking.

Given that an industrial economy comes with far greater military power, there's no reason to believe people will be forced to live from subsistance farming again.

If Iran was expansionist it would do so. Furthermore, conquering Syria and Iraq is perfectly possible after the Iraq war. Iran could've simply occupied Iraq, destroy the government, integrate it into Iran, and be done. It didn't however since it doesn't care about conquering others. It's not in it's agenda so to speak.

Utter nonsense. The US wouldn't allow it.

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

That doesn't matter for an expansionist country. If a country is expansionist, it'll just fight whoever won't allow them to expand. This is why Iran isn't expansionist.

[Pants-of-dog]

So the muslim conquests begun by mohammad and continued by his immediate family and supporters and in later periods by people raised to believe in Mohammad's mission to take over the world as the most important thing has nothing to do with religion? Amazing POD you'd put any ostrich to shame.

Yes, they had nothing to do with the religion of the people that were conquered.

Again, I was not discussing Islam. I was discussing the religion of whatever lands the Muslims were conquering.

So, even if we assume that Islam was the defining motive of Muslim conquests (and not something as rational and self evident as power, wealth, and land), what is irrelevant is the religion of the people they were conquering.

Is that clear?

[SolarCross]

Yes, they had nothing to do with the religion of the people that were conquered.

Again, I was not discussing Islam. I was discussing the religion of whatever lands the Muslims were conquering.

So, even if we assume that Islam was the defining motive of Muslim conquests (and not something as rational and self evident as power, wealth, and land), what is irrelevant is the religion of the people they were conquering.

Is that clear?

Tell that to the Christians getting nailed to crosses then.

[annatar1914]

Given that an industrial economy comes with far greater military power, there's no reason to believe people will be forced to live from subsistance farming again.

@Rugoz

Rugoz, I think that you must not get the main thrust of what i'm saying. There will be, in a historically short period of time, no industrial economies to speak of. Too many people, high demand for finite resources, and the gears of the machinery will grind to a halt. Most of humanity will die.

After that, it'll be back to the religiousity that a pre-modern life had, and more serious talk that takes Crusades and Jihads more seriously than possible in our godless and un-serious age.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Except that Muslims don't believe in the crucifixion of Christ. Muslim societies have never used crucifixion as a punishment and I doubt that the picture you linked is actually from the Middle East.

[Pants-of-dog]

Tell that to the Christians getting nailed to crosses then.

Do you think that is a photo from the era?

That image seems to be from the Armenian genocide.

[Oxymandias]

@Pants-of-dog

Of which was orchestrated by secular Turkish nationalists.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

Regarding the Armenian genocide and the proper blame;

Got to give credit where credit is due, you're right, the ''Young Turk'' government of the time was responsible for the genocide of the Armenians and Pontic Greeks, etc... During WWI, because Turkey was allied to Germany and Turkey was fearful of a 5th column supportive of Russia. This Turkish regime was the one out of which Talaat Ibrahim, Enver Pasha, and Kemal Ataturk made their careers.