[SolarCross]

Which is why the State, in the form of the Monarch/Tsar, was so helpful in undoing what had been done centuries before (in the case of Russia, during the ''Time of Troubles'' which ended in 1612 AD) and freed the Serfs in 1861 AD.

Not sure private landowners would have done it on their own, then, now, or in the future if this situation reasserts itself (which I think it will). But again in the case of Russia, the Tsar was the ''de jure'' owner of all the land in his realm, everyone else was his tenant, on paper anyway...

That would depend on whether the landowners were Christians. It was under the influence of Christianity that Christian kings banned slavery and it was under the influence of Christianity that they banned serfdom. Serfdom was a kind of halfway house or compromise between full slavery and free labour.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

You forgot that serfdom and feudalism started under Christianity and under Charlemagne no less. I guess Christian influence acts slow.

There was no difference between slavery and serfdom outside of the fine print.

@annatar1914

Except that by that point feudalism didn't exist. It had been phased out by more unitary structures of governance. The fact that serfdom lasted that long after the establishment of unitary governments in Europe is pathetic.

[annatar1914]

SolarCross, you said regarding Serfdom that;

That would depend on whether the landowners were Christians. It was under the influence of Christianity that Christian kings banned slavery and it was under the influence of Christianity that they banned serfdom. Serfdom was a kind of halfway house or compromise between full slavery and free labour.

I don't disagree necessarily, just that grace takes time and some societies dissolve because they fail to respond to the ''Kairos'', or call of their time to do what is just and right.



Oxymandias you mentioned to Solar Cross that;

You forgot that serfdom and feudalism started under Christianity and under Charlemagne no less. I guess Christian influence acts slow.

With Charlemagne in the West, ''Christian influence'' was not ''slow'', it was passing out of existence as the Latin schism and heresy was already in formation and Orthodoxy in the West was dying out.

There was no difference between slavery and serfdom outside of the fine print.

As Abraham Lincoln said, the essence of slavery is; ''you work and I eat''.

And in response to my own talking points;

Except that by that point feudalism didn't exist. It had been phased out by more unitary structures of governance. The fact that serfdom lasted that long after the establishment of unitary governments in Europe is pathetic.

Yes it is, and I connect that length of that Serfdom's existence personally to the Schism in Russia and the ''Westernization'' attempts by force of ''Peter the Great'' and his ''Romanov'' (Holstein-Gottorp Germanic nobility actually) successors. But Prussia and Austria-Hungary had only abolished Serfdom a short time prior themselves.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

With Charlemagne in the West, ''Christian influence'' was not ''slow'', it was passing out of existence as the Latin schism and heresy was already in formation and Orthodoxy in the West was dying out.

I was being sarcastic towards SolarCross's remark that serfdom was abolished due to "Christian influence". I wasn't saying that Christian influence acts slow nor that it even exists. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure SolarCross was referring to Christianity's influence upon the individual (which is why he said Christian influence lead to individual monarchs and tsars to abolish serfdom). I challenged this claim since serfdom and feudalism themselves started under Christian rulers and monarchs.

Yes it is, and I connect that length of that Serfdom's existence personally to the Schism in Russia and the ''Westernization'' attempts by force of ''Peter the Great'' and his ''Romanov'' (Holstein-Gottorp Germanic nobility actually) successors. But Prussia and Austria-Hungary had only abolished Serfdom a short time prior themselves.

You seem to mistakenly think that serfdom is primarily a Russian enterprise. While serfdom is most predominantly associated with Russia, it certainly isn't the only European power to utilize serfs. You yourself mention Prussia and Austria-Hungary of which don't have the excuse of religious schism or westernization to disassociate themselves from their crimes against serfs. I doubt that mere religious schism and westernization is a good enough justification to excuse Russia from it's own moral obligations. Furthermore, shouldn't westernization encourage the leaders of Russia to abolish serfdom? The creators of the idea of "westernization" (i.e. Britain, France, the US) all already abolished serfdom. If Russia was really westernizing it would've set out to abolish serfdom.

[annatar1914]

Oxymandias, you replied to me that;

I was being sarcastic towards SolarCross's remark that serfdom was abolished due to "Christian influence".

When one encounters the Truth, the result is not always positive. Sometimes it is outright hatred, which will actually increase over time, but often especially in the earlier centuries the encounter results in hypocritical lip service and attempts to steer Christian thinking in other directions or nullifying it altogether.

I wasn't saying that Christian influence acts slow nor that it even exists. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure SolarCross was referring to Christianity's influence upon the individual (which is why he said Christian influence lead to individual monarchs and tsars to abolish serfdom). I challenged this claim since serfdom and feudalism themselves started under Christian rulers and monarchs.

I'm not denying Christian influence upon the individual, but again, the world remains the world, and the rulers of this world have a difficult time being both Christians themselves, and being rulers. Power and Wealth alienate people from God in so many ways, including the Envy of the Poor who want power and wealth themselves.

You seem to mistakenly think that serfdom is primarily a Russian enterprise.

No, but it grew there as it was fading slowly out as an institution elsewhere.

While serfdom is most predominantly associated with Russia, it certainly isn't the only European power to utilize serfs. You yourself mention Prussia and Austria-Hungary of which don't have the excuse of religious schism or westernization to disassociate themselves from their crimes against serfs.

I mentioned them for a number of reasons, one being that collective servitude such as Serfdom is not an impediment to a surface Westernization. One can be a Kholoptsy in many ways.

I doubt that mere religious schism and westernization is a good enough justification to excuse Russia from it's own moral obligations. Furthermore, shouldn't westernization encourage the leaders of Russia to abolish serfdom?

''Westernization'' was pursued selectively, in Russia as elsewhere. What was absorbed first were the technological advances, then after the Western ideas of which Marxism and now Capitalism are major examples of.

The creators of the idea of "westernization" (i.e. Britain, France, the US) all already abolished serfdom. If Russia was really westernizing it would've set out to abolish serfdom.

The United States abolished Slavery with victory in the American Civil War, which ended in 1865. Tsar Alexander freed the Serfs of Russia in 1861. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, while Saudi Arabia did so only in 1962, and I think Mauretania only did so if I remember correctly just a few years ago. Progress, if one may use that word, is uneven due to many factors.

Some even still think slavery is not wrong if properly done correctly, and i'm fairly certain slavery will return on a large scale someday, perhaps in my lifetime.

[Rugoz]

Serfdom was a kind of halfway house or compromise between full slavery and free labour.

Here's a good text on the transition to serfdom in the late Roman empire.

Looks like I should read the 100-year old Encyclopaedia Britannica instead of Wikipedia.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Could you please ping me instead of simply writing my name? I cannot immediately view your responses otherwise.

When one encounters the Truth, the result is not always positive. Sometimes it is outright hatred, which will actually increase over time, but often especially in the earlier centuries the encounter results in hypocritical lip service and attempts to steer Christian thinking in other directions or nullifying it altogether.

And this is relevant how?

I'm not denying Christian influence upon the individual, but again, the world remains the world, and the rulers of this world have a difficult time being both Christians themselves, and being rulers. Power and Wealth alienate people from God in so many ways, including the Envy of the Poor who want power and wealth themselves.

Ok, but this doesn't refute my point that they started under Christian rulers and monarchs. Thus, it is ridiculous to claim that Christian influence lead to the abolishment of serfdom (and not how inefficient it is in a modern industrial economy) when the people who instituted serfdom were Christians.

No, but it grew there as it was fading slowly out as an institution elsewhere.

It didn't grow there. Quite frankly it was the opposite. Serfdom was phased out when Russia had to modernize and industrialize it's economy. The thing that makes Russian serfdom different is the fact that a majority of the population of Russia were serfs.

I mentioned them for a number of reasons, one being that collective servitude such as Serfdom is not an impediment to a surface Westernization. One can be a Kholoptsy in many ways.

If you want to modernize your economy, it is. Serfdom, like feudalism, directly impedes the development of capitalism.

''Westernization'' was pursued selectively, in Russia as elsewhere. What was absorbed first were the technological advances, then after the Western ideas of which Marxism and now Capitalism are major examples of.

Yup that's true. Thank goodness you at least know your European history.

The United States abolished Slavery with victory in the American Civil War, which ended in 1865. Tsar Alexander freed the Serfs of Russia in 1861. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, while Saudi Arabia did so only in 1962, and I think Mauretania only did so if I remember correctly just a few years ago. Progress, if one may use that word, is uneven due to many factors.

I mean, the Ottoman Empire abolished slavery in 1834 and Persia did so even earlier than that so clearly the Islamic world doesn't shy away from progress. Saudi Arabia's case is impressive since it only recently became a country and it's a Wahhabist tribal one at that (although this may be in part due to Western influence).

Some even still think slavery is not wrong if properly done correctly, and i'm fairly certain slavery will return on a large scale someday, perhaps in my lifetime.

Well I certainly hope it's not in the Middle East. If Europe wants slavery, feudalism, and serfdom to run rampant knock yourself out. I'll keep my capitalism, freedom, and high standard living thank you very much.

[annatar1914]

And this is relevant how?

Relevant from my Christian perspective I suppose, you may well have a differing viewpoint, but I'm obligated to give you mine under the circumstances.

Ok, but this doesn't refute my point that they started under Christian rulers and monarchs. Thus, it is ridiculous to claim that Christian influence lead to the abolishment of serfdom (and not how inefficient it is in a modern industrial economy) when the people who instituted serfdom were Christians.

Christians in name but not perhaps in deed. However, I find it difficult to judge others given my own difficulty sometimes in distinguishing evils in my own time and circumstances.

It didn't grow there. Quite frankly it was the opposite. Serfdom was phased out when Russia had to modernize and industrialize it's economy. The thing that makes Russian serfdom different is the fact that a majority of the population of Russia were serfs.

Likewise with Slavery in the Americas.

If you want to modernize your economy, it is. Serfdom, like feudalism, directly impedes the development of capitalism.

Perhaps in a certain phase of Capitalism that might be so, but I believe that Slavery is due for a revival as Capitalism, and Modernity, collapse.

Yup that's true. Thank goodness you at least know your European history.

What I know never seems enough, and what I do not know impels me to learn more, I imagine it is so with others.

I mean, the Ottoman Empire abolished slavery in 1834 and Persia did so even earlier than that so clearly the Islamic world doesn't shy away from progress. Saudi Arabia's case is impressive since it only recently became a country and it's a Wahhabist tribal one at that (although this may be in part due to Western influence).

I posit a kind of feedback loop, a synergistic effect, between certain forms of Islam and the Western Elites, and I've hypothesized that Wahhabist/Salafist Islam has been selected by the Western Elites at the highest levels to replace the moribund religion of the Western World.

Well I certainly hope it's not in the Middle East. If Europe wants slavery, feudalism, and serfdom to run rampant knock yourself out. I'll keep my capitalism, freedom, and high standard living thank you very much.

''Keep''? Hmmm, I think maybe nobody will.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Relevant from my Christian perspective I suppose, you may well have a differing viewpoint, but I'm obligated to give you mine under the circumstances.

I meant how it was relevant to the discussion. If it is a different perspective then surely you should be capable of explaining how that perspective is relevant to the given discussion.

Christians in name but not perhaps in deed. However, I find it difficult to judge others given my own difficulty sometimes in distinguishing evils in my own time and circumstances.

So when Christians do something bad it's because they weren't being good Christians but when Christians do something good it's because they're under Christianity's influence? Why not just rid any religious connotations and simply assume that people do bad and good things because of circumstances or traditions or anything other than religion.

Perhaps in a certain phase of Capitalism that might be so, but I believe that Slavery is due for a revival as Capitalism, and Modernity, collapse.

Unadulterated capitalism already requires slavery. Do you mean that people will begin to call it slavery?

Modernity as a concept will collapse because the civilization which created the concept will collapse. The idea of progress, which is universal to all human beings, will not.

What I know never seems enough, and what I do not know impels me to learn more, I imagine it is so with others.

How can you learn more about something if you refuse to learn from others? When you dismiss any information you get that does not conform with your preconceived notions of what you are learning about, you learn nothing.

I posit a kind of feedback loop, a synergistic effect, between certain forms of Islam and the Western Elites, and I've hypothesized that Wahhabist/Salafist Islam has been selected by the Western Elites at the highest levels to replace the moribund religion of the Western World.

There is no such thing as a unified front of Western elites. The super rich only seem to operate as a unified force when in actuality they are only fighting for their own interests.

''Keep''? Hmmm, I think maybe nobody will.

It won't happen in the Middle East especially in the Levant and Iraq which are too busy having their civil wars to succumb to the ultimate consequence of neo-liberalism. Iran won't as well due to the sanctions and thus must achieve it's own self-sufficiency. Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf countries are already feudal all but in name however given how urbanized Gulf life is, there is always the opportunity to phase out of feudalism especially if there is foreign pressure from the likes of a powerful Iran or a united Levant and Iraq.

Now I'm thinking about it, most third world countries which have suffered the worst effects of neo-liberalism and open markets won't end up being feudal since everything going on in those third world countries revolve around opposing those feudalistic structures. Given the innate instability of third world country governments, this gives rebellion movements not only a safe space to grow but also the extra support necessary to get the rebellion into mainstream thought. It is only in the West that the common man rationalizes his own suffering and smile as he sees the world he has known wither away.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

You asked further;

I meant how it was relevant to the discussion. If it is a different perspective then surely you should be capable of explaining how that perspective is relevant to the given discussion.

Let's go back to what I originally said;

"When one encounters the Truth, the result is not always positive. Sometimes it is outright hatred, which will actually increase over time, but often especially in the earlier centuries the encounter results in hypocritical lip service and attempts to steer Christian thinking in other directions or nullifying it altogether."

What I was laying out there is the response of peoples historically to Christianity. With my own belief as that true Christianity being of the Orthodox faith, my narrative is that of earthly success for a time followed by failure in the form of heresies and schisms followed by outright apostasy, leaving behind a Remnant that is not an influence in the world at large.

Not the ''Christianity'' of Charlemagne or of the Crusades. It was in short, a window into contextualizing my other remarks somewhat.

So when Christians do something bad it's because they weren't being good Christians but when Christians do something good it's because they're under Christianity's influence?

Not really. My perspective is that we, Mankind, are all sick as a result of our original anthropological calamity, and yet Christianity is a Hospital for healing, not a courtroom or prison, just a place for sick people needing help.

Why not just rid any religious connotations and simply assume that people do bad and good things because of circumstances or traditions or anything other than religion.

As I have pretty well hinted at, that would not be honest on my part, because I give everything from a worldview that is infused and informed by those religious and spiritual connotations. It's just me.

Unadulterated capitalism already requires slavery. Do you mean that people will begin to call it slavery?

I mean people will once again own other people and the use of their labor in return the slave will get some sort of place to live and food to eat, unless they don't.

Modernity as a concept will collapse because the civilization which created the concept will collapse. The idea of progress, which is universal to all human beings, will not.

I don't fully disagree with that, that people generally wish for things to be better for themselves and their posterity.

How can you learn more about something if you refuse to learn from others? When you dismiss any information you get that does not conform with your preconceived notions of what you are learning about, you learn nothing.

That's a two-way street. And generally speaking I learn from others irregardless of what the other person may think about that...

There is no such thing as a unified front of Western elites. The super rich only seem to operate as a unified force when in actuality they are only fighting for their own interests.

There is infighting, but for the most part the Western Elites are pretty well a Monolith at this point. Winning the ''Cold War'' accomplished that. I see cracks developing, but nothing to break them apart just yet. I think the West and the Oil Sheikdoms are joined at the hip for a multitude of reasons.

It won't happen in the Middle East especially in the Levant and Iraq which are too busy having their civil wars to succumb to the ultimate consequence of neo-liberalism.

One bit of silver lining in dark clouds, that.

Iran won't as well due to the sanctions and thus must achieve it's own self-sufficiency.

''must'', not ''has''.

Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf countries are already feudal all but in name however given how urbanized Gulf life is, there is always the opportunity to phase out of feudalism especially if there is foreign pressure from the likes of a powerful Iran or a united Levant and Iraq.

But that's precisely what all this latest mess is all about, breaking apart the Levant and Mesopotamia, and weakening Iran to the point of collapse.

Now I'm thinking about it, most third world countries which have suffered the worst effects of neo-liberalism and open markets won't end up being feudal since everything going on in those third world countries revolve around opposing those feudalistic structures. Given the innate instability of third world country governments, this gives rebellion movements not only a safe space to grow but also the extra support necessary to get the rebellion into mainstream thought. It is only in the West that the common man rationalizes his own suffering and smile as he sees the world he has known wither away.

The ''worst'' effect will be the result of the global economic breakdown, from the initial economic meltdown to the collapse of the worldwide transportation and communications grids. Autarky will follow as a consequence, breeding feudal and semi-feudal structures once more.

[Oxymandias]

That's a two-way street. And generally speaking I learn from others irregardless of what the other person may think about that...

I don't think you took anything I said and learned from it.

There is infighting, but for the most part the Western Elites are pretty well a Monolith at this point. Winning the ''Cold War'' accomplished that. I see cracks developing, but nothing to break them apart just yet. I think the West and the Oil Sheikdoms are joined at the hip for a multitude of reasons.

They aren't a monolith. There is no large boogeyman controlling all of society through wealth or sheer power. There are only individuals acting within their own self-interest. The global elite only appear to be a monolith because a lot of the policies they advocate for are beneficial to all of them. However, once two or more corporate elites bring their companies to a specific country that is when conflict arises since those special interest groups will be fighting for influence.

One bit of silver lining in dark clouds, that.

It won't be just Mashriq. It will also be Libya, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, the Kurds, Hejaz, India, Armenia, Turkey, Somalia, Ethiopia, the Balkans, Georgia, Egypt, etc.

Any third world country that has faced the full exploitation of neo-liberalism and the destruction it causes will vehemently oppose feudalism since feudalism is merely an expansion of the system of exploitation neo-liberalism has caused. It will be just more of the same and believe me, these countries are tired of more of the same. They are finished with neo-liberalism and it's exploitative nature and are developing alternatives to it as can be seen in Rojava and Somalia for example. These countries will oppose feudalism.

''must'', not ''has''.

I didn't write "has".

But that's precisely what all this latest mess is all about, breaking apart the Levant and Mesopotamia, and weakening Iran to the point of collapse.

That's not working or makes no sense. The Levant and Mesopotamia are in a civil war and thus can't be effectively exploited by other larger powers. Iran, if it breaks apart due to foreign interference, won't lead to a puppet state that can be easily exploited either. It will result in a clusterfuck larger than Afghanistan and Iraq combined which is the worst possible scenario for all major players, especially for Russia and China.

Regardless, if Iran breaks apart naturally, it will only result in the re-establishment of an imperial monarchy which is going to be more anti-Western than the current regime and more expansionist than the current regime.

The ''worst'' effect will be the result of the global economic breakdown, from the initial economic meltdown to the collapse of the worldwide transportation and communications grids. Autarky will follow as a consequence, breeding feudal and semi-feudal structures once more.

Except that breaking apart neo-liberalism is literally what revolutionaries want. It gives them the opportunity to establish a newer, better form of governance and political order. The institutions that revolutionaries will use will thrive under this autarky. All this innovation will be restricted to third world countries however since third world countries aren't as set in stone in their administration as the US or Russia or China. Thus, while third world countries will ironically stabilize, first world countries will fall to anarchy and, eventually, feudalism.

[annatar1914]

I don't think you took anything I said and learned from it.

Everything, and I do mean everything, is grist for my mill.

What I say, I say for very specific purposes, always.

They aren't a monolith. There is no large boogeyman controlling all of society through wealth or sheer power. There are only individuals acting within their own self-interest. The global elite only appear to be a monolith because a lot of the policies they advocate for are beneficial to all of them. However, once two or more corporate elites bring their companies to a specific country that is when conflict arises since those special interest groups will be fighting for influence.

Subject of another thread. There's power, and then there's real power, the power of those who understand the physics of human force. It is good that men are deceived, let the ignorant be ignorant still.

It won't be just Mashriq. It will also be Libya, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, the Kurds, Hejaz, India, Armenia, Turkey, Somalia, Ethiopia, the Balkans, Georgia, Egypt, etc.

well, we'll see, in our lifetimes I'm positive of that.

Any third world country that has faced the full exploitation of neo-liberalism and the destruction it causes will vehemently oppose feudalism since feudalism is merely an expansion of the system of exploitation neo-liberalism has caused. It will be just more of the same and believe me, these countries are tired of more of the same. They are finished with neo-liberalism and it's exploitative nature and are developing alternatives to it as can be seen in Rojava and Somalia for example. These countries will oppose feudalism.

Crusade and Jihad, round and round we go.... Human nature being what it is, there's a phase coming globally that will distinctly resemble Feudalism.

I didn't write "has".

I know.

That's not working or makes no sense. The Levant and Mesopotamia are in a civil war and thus can't be effectively exploited by other larger powers.

What do you imagine war is?

Iran, if it breaks apart due to foreign interference, won't lead to a puppet state that can be easily exploited either. It will result in a clusterfuck larger than Afghanistan and Iraq combined which is the worst possible scenario for all major players, especially for Russia and China.

You're getting warmer with the reasons for it happening.

Regardless, if Iran breaks apart naturally, it will only result in the re-establishment of an imperial monarchy which is going to be more anti-Western than the current regime and more expansionist than the current regime.

Could be, and Zoroasterian to boot, perhaps.

Except that breaking apart neo-liberalism is literally what revolutionaries want. It gives them the opportunity to establish a newer, better form of governance and political order. The institutions that revolutionaries will use will thrive under this autarky. All this innovation will be restricted to third world countries however since third world countries aren't as set in stone in their administration as the US or Russia or China. Thus, while third world countries will ironically stabilize, first world countries will fall to anarchy and, eventually, feudalism.

Wishful thinking.

[Ter]

Regardless, if Iran breaks apart naturally, it will only result in the re-establishment of an imperial monarchy which is going to be more anti-Western than the current regime and more expansionist than the current regime.

That is difficult to imagine.
Iran is, as far as anti-western and expansionist goes, the Olympic champion already.
It might well turn out opposite of what you envision, because many Iranians want peace, comfort, and a higher standard of living.

[Rugoz]

The ''worst'' effect will be the result of the global economic breakdown, from the initial economic meltdown to the collapse of the worldwide transportation and communications grids. Autarky will follow as a consequence, breeding feudal and semi-feudal structures once more.

Not going to happen. Trade had a negligible impact on the income of the average person in the ancient world, not so today. The loss of GDP would be dramatic. At best we'll see autarky of blocs/large coutries like the US/EU/China, but even that is very unlikely.

[annatar1914]

@Rugoz

Not going to happen.

So you say. But you're reasoning appears to be this;

Trade had a negligible impact on the income of the average person in the ancient world, not so today.

Precisely. We're all so interconnected in this global neo-liberal capitalist economy, that the slightest hiccup could set the whole house of cards falling. But what I see is that in the real economy, we've had stagnation for decades, and we're sliding into depression, similar now to the depression that lasted from the late 1870's to the 1890's I believe. And it'll get worse.

The loss of GDP would be dramatic.

You bet it would be.

At best we'll see autarky of blocs/large coutries like the US/EU/China, but even that is very unlikely.

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

I. The Red-Herring Attempt At Tu-Quoque Goals Based on Spurious and Ambiguous Definitions, Continues.

1. That Islam and Christianity had been at war in a civilizational conflict is quite evident from the actions of Islam in the 7th century. Articles describing these events describe it as a violent religious movement; The muslim conquests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests



The Muslims set out, made up of many ethnicities, to conquer the world and largely Christian lands.

Christianity responded as a religion, with alliances and unions between many different tribes, lords, and kingdoms in Europe and the Empire in Greece, etc, etc., all under the banner of Christianity v. Islam. This is not a meme or any other caricature, this is a fact. Islam and Christianity squared off in terms of faith distinctions, nationality was second. That this conflict continued and has continued for 1400 years is hardly debatable.

That certain nations and tribes within these broad banners betrayed their brethren and fought with each other is irrelevant, that the secularized west with both its technological arrogance and loss of religion has forgotten that this conflict is still real, is also irrelevant.

While I understand why you want to believe that Islam and Xinaity have been fighting each other in some sort of civilisational conflict for 1400 years, it is not true.

The early Muslim conquests were about attacking anyone near them that were easy to attack, which is why most of the areas shown on your map are not Christian.

This claim of yours is simply not supported by the facts.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177 ... 1038004004

Abstract
Samuel Huntington's controversial `Clash of Civilizations' argument posits, among other things, that the extent of both international and domestic conflict between `civilizations' will increase with the end of the Cold War. This is expected to be especially true of clashes involving the Western and Islamic civilizations and even more so for clashes between these two civilizations. This article uses the Minorities at Risk dataset, along with independently collected variables, to test these propositions with regard to ethnic conflict, which Huntington includes in his theory under the title of `fault line' conflicts within states. The results are examined from three perspectives: globally, from the perspective of the Islamic civilization, and from the perspective of the Western civilization. Globally, there has been little change in the ratio of civilizational versus non-civilizational ethnic conflict since the end of the Cold War. There has also been little change in Islamic involvement in civilizational ethnic conflict since the end of the Cold War. However, from a Western perspective, the proportion of civilizational conflicts involving Western groups that are with Islamic groups increased dramatically after the end of the Cold War. Thus, the results show that if one focuses narrowly on the perspective of the Western civilization, there is some support for Huntington's claims regarding Islam, but not for a general increase in civilizational conflict. However, from the perspective of the Islamic civilization and from a broader global perspective, there is little support for Huntington's arguments.

2. You are guilty of a Tu Qoque fallacy because your sole intention in this debate is to argue that I am being hypocritical in supporting the Crusades but not land appropriation in South Africa, invalidating my claims on the basis of a perceived hypocrisy is a tu-qoque fallacy. Likewise, you are guilty of a Red-Herring for the discussion of South Africa is irrelevant to the substance of my arguments regarding the Crusades.

I do not care about whether or not the Crusades were justified. That is emotional feels talk.

And since I am not claiming you are wrong because of your inconsistency, it is not a whataboutism.

3. Yes, you were being duplicitous by assuming your own ambiguous definition that you refused to clarify when requested to do so. I clearly defined the protracted conflict as having a militant-manifestation as necessary to it and that though a protracted conflict can exist without the presence of a military, a justified act of retaliation that is non-military (as I TOLD YOU) must be specific. This is because, in the event of a non-military conflict, a non-war, grievances like theft must be individually addressed based of the criteria I laid out; otherwise, the implications would be that any individual infraction would be sufficient to be considered justification for a full-on war (like a black kid stealing a white kid's bubble gum); and that grievances even if previously settled militarily, would still be valid; hence, every single ethnicity on the planet would have some legitimate grievance as all peoples have been conquered at some point in their history. This is why I asked the question for you to clarify, because I KNEW you would do this.

You did not want to be clear on your definition so that you could attempt to claim that blacks and whites in south africa were in a conflict analogous to Christianity and Islam during the crusades so that you could (fallaciously) claim that my own definitions require me to accept the current land appropriations.

However, my definition of protracted conflict precludes this possibility, PERIOD.....Thus, the only way my position could be made inconsistent on this, is if we accepted your duplicitously asserted a definition made after you refused to give the necessary and requisite clarifications as I requested.

If you think I am a liar, you can ignore me. Or man up and just openly call me a liar.

And this is why I asked you if the same justification applies to non-military.

If it does, as you claim, then the defintion of military (which I gave) is irrelevant.

Your incorrect assumptions about my motives are not relevant. They seem to be a tu quoque fallacy and a red herring.

If you now want to move the goalposts and claim this only applies to militart conflicts, then why does it apply only to military conflicts?

4. South Africa is regarding as a single nation and has even been called the Rainbow Nation.

Unless you would argue that ethno-nationalism is valid sociological definition and that the term "multi-ethnic nation" is an oxymoron.

Lastly, if you are not arguing that there is world wide race war between whites and blacks, then the legitimacy of land appropriation cannot be framed merely in black and white, but based on actual grievance between tribes.

Thus, Bantus and Khoisan claims to white lands should be individually assessed for their legitimacy and the whites should be sub-divided between Anglos and Dutch. Thus, unless there is a global race war between all whites and all blacks in a manner commensurate to the conflict between Islam and Christianity between A.D. 700 and A.D 1100, and assuming no other factors, the land appropriation in South Africa would be illegitimate because its too broad and assumes a conflict that does not exist in the way it clearly existed between Islam and Christianity at the time of the Crusades. Heck, even disputes between Bantus and Zulus etc., should result in appropriations and redistribution given this argument.

I am using the Wikipedia definition of a nation. By that definition, any sovereign state, such as SA, can have more than one nation in it. Some countries have many nations in them, like Canada and the USA.

And I have no problem looking at this as San and Khosa and other nations versus English and Boer settlers.

II. Your Failure To Twist My Definitions and Arguments, Made Plain.
Besides the fact that this contradicts they very words of the majority government in 1994 which argued that the new government was an ushering in of a unified South African nation (which is why I called the SA government duplicitious); you are wrong on the other caricatures of my position.

1. I argued that a violation of the NAP justified retaliation so long as the militarily manifested protracted conflict continues without a formal treaty or agreement to co-governance. Thus, Islam as party A and Christianity as party B never made a formal treaty and did not form a single state prior to the Crusades, thus the Crusades were a legitimate act within a broader war that was started by the Muslims violating the NAP.

In the South Africa case, even assuming that the whites initially violated the NAP, that a formal treaty or agreement between the whites (Party A) and the blacks (Party B) occurred formally ended that conflict as militarily manifesting protracted conflict. Prior grievances are clearly to be regarded as "in the past" in this and this was the attitude of Mandela and the ANC upon taking power. Thus, land appropriation is a violation of that agreement and mutual trust.

So, let me be clear, had an agreement to co-governance occurred between Islam and Christianity in A.D. 1000, then the Crusades would have been illegitimate and immoral in my opinion.

Thus, I am completely consistent.

Please quote the words from the SA government at the end of Apartheid that show clearly that this current conflict is unprecedented and contradicts the
position of the government. Bett yet, please provide a link to the formal agreement that makes the current hostilities unjustified.

If you now want to move the goalposts and claim this only applies to military conflicts, then why does it apply only to military conflicts?

III. The Refutation of The Absurd Claims Made Against My Consistent Position.

1. I already addressed this.

2. this is irrelevant because its not substantial to any of my points, I am more than willing to accept the possibility of Europeans violating the NAP for sake of argument and have, but the results are the same. The SA situation is not analogous to situation at the time of the Crusades.

3. Your argument regarding my use of the doctrine Victoribus Spoilia is a false. I argued that in the midst of a protracted, militarily manifesting, conflict which is either a hot war or series of hot battles, that territory and resources gained in that type of conflict are rightfully won by the victors; thus, everything you said was correct in your list UNTIL you got to South African land appropriation, because this action by the ANC is not part of a hot war or serious of hot battles between blacks and whites in a militarily manifested protracted conflict. This action is a violation of a pre-agreed to co-governance into a single state, under a common law and constitution that was promised and sold to the minority by the ANC in 1994 as a new era of multi-ethnic peace and reconciliation.

The SA government has violated this peace. No such peace was made during a war between the muslim and christians prior to the crusades. Which is the point.

If a war were to result from SA actions, between the whites and blacks, at that point only would Victoribus Spolia again apply and then only until the conflict was resolved via treaty or renewed co-governance.

1. As far as I can tell, the whole “Islam vs Christianity” world war for 1400 years meme is wrong. @SolarCross tred to support it and failed completely. His only “evidence” was the ramblings of a physicist.

So, when you say you already addresss it, I hope you mean that you have abandoned this idea.

2. If it irrelevant, then you should not have brought it up.

3. If you now want to move the goalposts and claim this only applies to military conflicts, then why does it apply only to military conflicts?

By the way, you can beleve in the NAP, or you can believe that “to the victor go the spoils”, but not both. Hese seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

Civil wars rarely bring about tolerant and liberal regimes.

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. The fact that Iran is willing to negotiate with the US at all shows that they aren't as anti-western as you think they are. The fact that Iran hasn't tired to take over any territory and the fact that Iran has a besieged mentality will probably tell you that they aren't expansionist at all. If Iran was anti-western and expansionist, they're pretty shitty at doing both.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Everything, and I do mean everything, is grist for my mill.

What I say, I say for very specific purposes, always.

Sure.

well, we'll see, in our lifetimes I'm positive of that.

I'm personally skeptical of it happening within our lifetimes. There aren't any signs of it happening now.

I know.

??????

Iran is already finding and implementing solutions to become more self-sufficient through the usage of vertical farming and regulation oil.

What do you imagine war is?

If you are implying that there is something thing such as an ordered war you're wrong. There is no order in war.

You're getting warmer with the reasons for it happening.

There is literally no reason why these "Western elites" want another Afghanistan or Iraq. It isn't in their self-interest to do so. You can't exploit a country if you cannot access it. These "Western elites" would rather have a neat little puppet Iran rather than a clusterfuck of a civil war that'll bite them in the ass.

Could be, and Zoroasterian to boot, perhaps.

Probably not. Zoroastrian will probably simply be viewed upon as a sacred part of Iranian identity but the ruling dynasty won't be Zoroastrian. There are two main and influential dynasties in Iran currently and they are all Muslims.

Wishful thinking.

This isn't wishful thinking if it's actually happening. If my thoughts are wishful thinking, what do you think your hopes for a return to feudalism are?

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

Sure.

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.

I'm personally skeptical of it happening within our lifetimes. There aren't any signs of it happening now.

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...

??

Iran is already finding and implementing solutions to become more self-sufficient through the usage of vertical farming and regulation oil.

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

If you are implying that there is something thing such as an ordered war you're wrong. There is no order in war.

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

There is literally no reason why these "Western elites" want another Afghanistan or Iraq. It isn't in their self-interest to do so. You can't exploit a country if you cannot access it. These "Western elites" would rather have a neat little puppet Iran rather than a clusterfuck of a civil war that'll bite them in the ass.

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.

Probably not. Zoroastrian will probably simply be viewed upon as a sacred part of Iranian identity but the ruling dynasty won't be Zoroastrian. There are two main and influential dynasties in Iran currently and they are all Muslims.

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

This isn't wishful thinking if it's actually happening. If my thoughts are wishful thinking, what do you think your hopes for a return to feudalism are?

I'm not ''hoping'' for the coming neo-feudalism anymore than i'm hoping for a tornado to hit my town, and for the same reason; it will rearrange things, and people's live could be destroyed and possessions lost.

[SolarCross]

As far as I can tell, the whole “Islam vs Christianity” world war for 1400 years meme is wrong. @SolarCross tred to support it and failed completely. His only “evidence” was the ramblings of a physicist.

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.

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

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.