[Horus]

By contributing to this thread, you're probably a vile racist. But don't let that stop you! It didn't stop the Conquistadors that conquered the New World and ended widespread human sacrifice. It didn't stop the British as they colonized India and Africa, while in the process significantly increasing the lengths of railways and life expectancy. It didn't stop the British Navy which, within a few years, largely ended the slave trade which had existed among all cultures for thousands of years. It didn't stop the Americans who created an atomic bomb which, although killing hundreds of thousands, ended a war which would have otherwise killed millions more. And of course, there is no reason to mention the contributions the Western world has made to science, philosophy and the arts, because we all know that the West is best and it's not nice to gloat.

Share the reasons why you think Western civilization is valuable and why you think it is worthy of protection and preservation.

Here's my contribution from the Muslim mayor thread:

Quote:

It seems that there has been an awakening in Europe, in Germany, in Austria, in Sweden. People are beginning to understand the damage of multiculturalism and are less afraid to voice their concerns. Because in the end, as people wake up and realise what they stand to lose, this will be a fight, and there might be no other solution.

If you love your right for free speech, you need to fight. If you like freedom of/from religion, you need to fight. If you enjoy the products of the scientific method, you need to fight. If you like the idea of your sisters/daughters leaving the house without being harassed, you need to fight. If you are opposed to homosexuals being killed, you need to fight. If you enjoy rationality and reason, then you need to fight.

Let's forget about the virtues listed above. Because in the big picture, they are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is Western civilization. Without Western civilization, none of the things we love so much and take for granted would be possible. These are only virtues that have arisen in the Western world and have to some extent been adopted by other cultures. These things weren't bequeathed on us by accident - it was the result of thousands of years of philosophy and war and blood.

Western civilization is precious. Europe, the foundation of our greatest ideals, is precious. If Europe eventually succumbs to demographic replacement, civilization as we know it ends.

[Disco_Volante]

Only a handful of white males are the final obstacle to a NWO, totalitarian Regime and the end of any free western civ.

Trump, Putin, and maybe the small portion of 'normal' guys like us who are for limited government. Women are useless. Most are either outright traitors or simply can't even comprehend these concepts to begin with. They can't fight back, at most they'll cry in frustration and join a muslim harem.

Now they're just biding their time until the numbers are a little more in their favor and they can decisively pull the trigger. Still too many white males left but that's maybe 20 years tops. It will be like London where it's a gradual change and replacement until they can finish us off for good. I'm not so sure after a Trump presidency they would just reverse all his policies and actively wipe out whatever conservatives are left in 8 years so there'd never be a challenge to their power again.

[Anabasis to Desta]

(05-07-2016 12:11 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Only a handful of white males are the final obstacle to a NWO, totalitarian Regime and the end of any free western civ.

Trump, Putin, and maybe the small portion of 'normal' guys like us who are for limited government. Women are useless. Most are either outright traitors or simply can't even comprehend these concepts to begin with. They can't fight back, at most they'll cry in frustration and join a muslim harem.

Now they're just biding their time until the numbers are a little more in their favor and they can decisively pull the trigger. Still too many white males left but that's maybe 20 years tops. It will be like London where it's a gradual change and replacement until they can finish us off for good. I'm not so sure after a Trump presidency they would just reverse all his policies and actively wipe out whatever conservatives are left in 8 years so there'd never be a challenge to their power again.

Agreed but I would add the Ayatollahs of Iran and their proxies like Hezbollah and Assad's Syria are one of the biggest bulwarks against globalism along the ones you mentioned which explains the hate Neo-cons and NATO members harbor towards them.

[cubanlinx]

Western civilization, founded by whites, is one of the greatest things to happen in history. I am brown, and i have no problem acknowledging this. I'm a Muslim, and I'd live in a white majority country than anywhere else, barring my home country.
Western civilization is humanity's Golden Goose. Fight to preserve it.
Also, Anabasis is dead right in his post.

[philosophical_recovery]

The continuity of science and engineering, which seems to have originated in Egyptian and Greek cultures, then passed into Roman hands, and which was then rediscovered in the Renaissance, is the greatest accomplishment of humanity for promoting quality of life.

The Declaration of Independence was the peak of Western Civilization., as the greatest "Fuck You" to Tyranny ever imagined. The Constitution of the United States was the start of the decline, which happened to coincide with the French Revolution. This was not coincidental. It was an enormous compromise to enable big government, provide a precedent to allow slavery via the three-fifths compromise, ultimately resulting in the enormous nation state established thanks to the Civil War.

It really went off the rails with Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

However, back to the first point: The sheer momentum brought by Western Civilization's long memory with Science, Engineering, and the benefit, although mostly castrated, of the free market, has enabled a high quality life in spite of the huge injection of socialism and big government in the 20th century.

Preserve that knowledge. I hope that all of the accomplishments and this knowledge collected by Western Civilization is now incredibly robust to destruction, due to the presence of both widespread digital media technology, as well as long-lasting acid-free paper technology.

Further, I hope is to see a rebirth of small government in my lifetime, which would make real progress, in the genuine meaning of the word, that has been lost since the Declaration of Independence.

[Anabasis to Desta]

The greatest single achievement of Western Civilization is the Scientific Method and the formalization of knowledge which led to everything we have now. Mentality-wise ... the greatest advantage Western civilization has had over other cultures (starting with the Greeks & Romans until the U.S.A right now) is the willingness to accept innovation & change.

The Chinese, Persians and Indians had great civilizations rife with innovation & enough wealth and could have easily rivaled or even surpassed western civilization.

But they were always unwilling to accept change. The Chinese, consumed by their own arrogance refused to trade with the world and isolated themselves. Progress in the form of innovation or new ideas was always frowned upon. Anything that might even slightly upset still pond of status quo was quickly discarded ... after-all the Chinese were "perfect" and the center of the Universe. The Indians weren't as arrogant but had the same risk-averse mentality. They also lacked blood-thirst and a martial spirit. The Persians could have done a lot and were historically very adaptable like the West. We might have all be speaking Farsi right now. But then Islam happened to Persia and a once great civilization stagnated for 1400 years.

Western Civilization however always welcomed change. Anything new or foreign that is not useful was discarded. Anything that was useful was quickly adopted, spread and improved upon unlike other cultures who often threw out the baby with the bathwater.

- The Romans adopted almost the entire Greek civilization and built upon it. Other cultures outside the west rarely did that. The Mongols invaded half the planet but brought almost nothing back to Mongolia. They raided, raped and pillaged but never were open to knowledge and progress. Their nomadic way of horseman life was dear to them.

- The Crusaders brought back and adopted the magnetic compass & astrolabe for ships & seafaring, cotton for clothing, windmills, algebra, waterclocks and most importantly ... gunpowder from the Near East. All became households items in Europe within a century.

They also brought back the middle eastern culture of Chivalry and made it their own. (Before the crusades the French were a bunch of extremely violent brutes. I've read that Urban II actually wanted to get rid of excess violent Frenchmen) On the other hand, the Arabs and Seljuk Turks adopted almost nothing from the Europeans. Same unwillingness to change.

- Potatoes were introduced by the Spanish from the New World and became a staple food in Northern Europe in less than 200 years. The Chinese would have died before giving up rice for potatoes. Despite the Ethiopian famine in the 1970's farmers refused to plant Maize which had a higher yield and required less rain then the local staple grain called Teff.

- America now does the same. Mexican food is adopted and given a unique American twist ... Taco Johns, Taco Bell, Chipotle, Qdoba. Radical ideas are accepted and promoted. Twitter ... a website were users post their ramblings with stupid hashtags could only have been made possible in America.

In China, somebody with that idea would have been laughed at and chased out of the boardroom. But Western civilization finds use for even the most outlandish ideas.

Rant over I'm drunk as fuck.

[Paracelsus]

Western, white civilisation: the only civilisation in history that outlawed slavery of all classes not as a matter of pragmatism, but as a matter of principle. Every other civilisation kept it, continued it, or only allowed temporary eradication of it, or only eradicated it in respect of certain ethnicities or social classes.

Even Western civilisation's main progenitors -- the Greek and Roman high periods -- did not achieve this.

[Anabasis to Desta]

(05-08-2016 03:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Western, white civilisation: the only civilisation in history that outlawed slavery of all classes not as a matter of pragmatism, but as a matter of principle. Every other civilisation kept it, continued it, or only allowed temporary eradication of it, or only eradicated it in respect of certain ethnicities or social classes.

Even Western civilisation's main progenitors -- the Greek and Roman high periods -- did not achieve this.

It had NOTHING to do with principle.

Britain abolished the slave trade because of the Industrial Revolution and economic interests. Machines became a cheaper alternative to feeding, housing and clothing slaves. Same in America. Lincoln and the Northerners didn't send 350,000 white men to their graves out of moral principle or love for black people. They just wanted to prevent southern slave owners from expanding their plantations to the new territories out west because Northern Capitalism and free white labor could not compete against a slave society.

The reasons were strictly economic.

[Parzival]

Are you a slave when you believe that you are free? When they sell your slavery as freedom?

Western civilisation got weak and decadent. For what should people fight for? For their slavery where they think its freedom? For the profit of international companies that destabilize countries? Where is your freedom of speech when you have hate speech and get the label to be right wing or even an extremist when you dare to speak against the mainstream agenda? Where are the values of family, tradition and tribe when people scare to lose their jobs? When people have to rise their human capital value and be flexible for the greater economical good? Why do European born immigrants into fanatic Islamist? The West has nothing of value to offer any longer. We have more wealth, more peace and more freedom then ever these days but we did become a poor copy of the old spirit. Unless people realize, there is nothing for free in this world, life is eternal struggle and fight, we will lose the last comfort zone we have at the moment to the barbarians that are already inside our gates.

[fiasco360]

(05-08-2016 03:31 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

The greatest single achievement of Western Civilization is the Scientific Method and the formalization of knowledge which led to everything we have now. Mentality-wise ... the greatest advantage Western civilization has had over other cultures (starting with the Greeks & Romans until the U.S.A right now) is the willingness to accept innovation & change.

The Chinese, Persians and Indians had great civilizations rife with innovation & enough wealth and could have easily rivaled or even surpassed western civilization.

But they were always unwilling to accept change. The Chinese, consumed by their own arrogance refused to trade with the world and isolated themselves. Progress in the form of innovation or new ideas was always frowned upon. Anything that might even slightly upset still pond of status quo was quickly discarded ... after-all the Chinese were "perfect" and the center of the Universe. The Indians weren't as arrogant but had the same risk-averse mentality. They also lacked blood-thirst and a martial spirit. The Persians could have done a lot and were historically very adaptable like the West. We might have all be speaking Farsi right now. But then Islam happened to Persia and a once great civilization stagnated for 1400 years.

Western Civilization however always welcomed change. Anything new or foreign that is not useful was discarded. Anything that was useful was quickly adopted, spread and improved upon unlike other cultures who often threw out the baby with the bathwater.

- The Romans adopted almost the entire Greek civilization and built upon it. Other cultures outside the west rarely did that. The Mongols invaded half the planet but brought almost nothing back to Mongolia. They raided, raped and pillaged but never were open to knowledge and progress. Their nomadic way of horseman life was dear to them.

- The Crusaders brought back and adopted the magnetic compass & astrolabe for ships & seafaring, cotton for clothing, windmills, algebra, waterclocks and most importantly ... gunpowder from the Near East. All became households items in Europe within a century.

They also brought back the middle eastern culture of Chivalry and made it their own. (Before the crusades the French were a bunch of extremely violent brutes. I've read that Urban II actually wanted to get rid of excess violent Frenchmen) On the other hand, the Arabs and Seljuk Turks adopted almost nothing from the Europeans. Same unwillingness to change.

- Potatoes were introduced by the Spanish from the New World and became a staple food in Northern Europe in less than 200 years. The Chinese would have died before giving up rice for potatoes. Despite the Ethiopian famine in the 1970's farmers refused to plant Maize which had a higher yield and required less rain then the local staple grain called Teff.

- America now does the same. Mexican food is adopted and given a unique American twist ... Taco Johns, Taco Bell, Chipotle, Qdoba. Radical ideas are accepted and promoted. Twitter ... a website were users post their ramblings with stupid hashtags could only have been made possible in America.

In China, somebody with that idea would have been laughed at and chased out of the boardroom. But Western civilization finds use for even the most outlandish ideas.

Rant over I'm drunk as fuck.

The only thing that I would add is that the Assyrians were monumental in the building of civilization. The library of Ashurbanipal is considered to be one of the first great libraries that pre-dated the Greeks by hundreds of years, I believe it also had about 30,000 texts that scholars worked on. The infamous Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered in Nineveh and the it is extremely interesting to see the parallels of that story with the Noah flood myth. It is also claimed in old Persian and Armenian texts that Alexander The Great was inspired by what he saw at Nineveh. Furthering that I even believe the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser I had a library himself in Assur about 400 years prior around 1000 BC, though it wasn't as grand as Ashurbanipal's.

The Persians were able to build upon a lot of what was left behind by the Assyrians and Babylonians. After the empire collapsed due to multiple nations rebelling against it, it served as a Vassal state for Cyrus the great.

Even during Arab conquests, there is evidence that a lot of the doctors/scientists were Assyrian/Persian in ethnicity. Assyrians get the reputation as the "masters of war" but during that time frame they also made monumental strides for civilization.

[Paracelsus]

(05-08-2016 04:21 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Western, white civilisation: the only civilisation in history that outlawed slavery of all classes not as a matter of pragmatism, but as a matter of principle. Every other civilisation kept it, continued it, or only allowed temporary eradication of it, or only eradicated it in respect of certain ethnicities or social classes.

Even Western civilisation's main progenitors -- the Greek and Roman high periods -- did not achieve this.

It had NOTHING to do with principle.

Britain abolished the slave trade because of the Industrial Revolution and economic interests. Machines became a cheaper alternative to feeding, housing and clothing slaves. Same in America. Lincoln and the Northerners didn't send 350,000 white men to their graves out of moral principle or love for black people. They just wanted to prevent southern slave owners from expanding their plantations to the new territories out west because Northern Capitalism and free white labor could not compete against a slave society.

The reasons were strictly economic.

Smith v. Browne & Cooper, England. Sir John Holt, Lord Justice of England, rules that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave." Date: 1706.

1723: Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom.
1733-1750 The Province of Georgia in America is established without slavery in sharp contrast to neighboring Carolina. In 1738, James Oglethorpe warns against changing that policy, which would "occasion the misery of thousands in Africa."
1761, 12 February: Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
1772: Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.
1774: Laws of the Marquis of Pombal, prime minister of King José I, prohibiting the transport of black slaves to Portugal and the liberation of the children of slaves born in Portugal.
1775–83: Britain's rebellious North American Colonies ban or suspend the Atlantic slave trade.
1775: Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.
1777: Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal.
1777: Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially banned slavery, freeing men over 21 and women older than 18 at the time of its passage. The ban was not strongly enforced.
1778: Joseph Knight was successful in arguing that Scots law could not support the status of slavery.
1780: Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved for life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states. Last slaves freed 1847.
1783: Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate.
1783: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules slavery unconstitutional, a decision based on the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. All slaves are immediately freed.[35]
1783: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery in Bukovina on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz.
1783: New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1784: Connecticut begins a gradual aboliton of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and later all slaves.
1784: Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1787: The United States in Congress Assembled passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
1787: Sierra Leone founded by Britain as colony for emancipated slaves.
1787: Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain.
1788: Sir William Dolben's Act regulating the conditions on British slave ships enacted.
1792: Denmark–Norway declares transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1803 (though slavery continues in Danish colonies to 1848).
1793 (August): French commissioner Leger-Felicite Sonthonax abolishes slavery in northern Saint-Domingue (Haiti). His colleague Etienne Polverel does the same in the rest of the colony in October.
1793: Upper Canada (Ontario) abolishes import of slaves by Act Against Slavery.
1794: France abolishes slavery in all its possessions. (However, slavery is restored by Napoleon in 1802.)
1794: The United States bans American ships from the trade and prohibits export by foreign ships in the Slave Trade Act.
1798: Slavery is abolished in Malta, while the islands were under French occupation.
1799: New York State passes gradual emancipation act freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in 1827.
1799: The Colliers (Scotland) Act 1799 ends the legal slavery of Scottish coal miners that had been established in 1606.


Industrial Revolution: begins in the late 1700s.

US Civil War: begins 1861, over 150 years after the movement for the end of slavery begins and is championed in the West.

I grant you Lincoln didn't go to war over slaves, he went to war over the secession of the Southern states from the Union. Even during his Presidency he couldn't come out and openly demand full emancipation across the board. But the movement for the end of slavery was not for economic reasons.

[Lizard King]

(05-08-2016 01:49 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(05-07-2016 12:11 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

Only a handful of white males are the final obstacle to a NWO, totalitarian Regime and the end of any free western civ.

Trump, Putin, and maybe the small portion of 'normal' guys like us who are for limited government. Women are useless. Most are either outright traitors or simply can't even comprehend these concepts to begin with. They can't fight back, at most they'll cry in frustration and join a muslim harem.

Now they're just biding their time until the numbers are a little more in their favor and they can decisively pull the trigger. Still too many white males left but that's maybe 20 years tops. It will be like London where it's a gradual change and replacement until they can finish us off for good. I'm not so sure after a Trump presidency they would just reverse all his policies and actively wipe out whatever conservatives are left in 8 years so there'd never be a challenge to their power again.

Agreed but I would add the Ayatollahs of Iran and their proxies like Hezbollah and Assad's Syria are one of the biggest bulwarks against globalism along the ones you mentioned which explains the hate Neo-cons and NATO members harbor towards them.

Agreed, they are nationalists too. They want to be left alone to run their nations how they see fit, and who are we to say otherwise.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I guarantee you that the half a million soldiers that died during the American Civil War didn't give a shit about slavery. Lincoln fought to abolish slavery like Bush fought to recover WMDs and bring Democracy to the Middle East.

Every war needs a sweet, fluffy historical context to paint the victors as selfless heroes, regardless of their actual motivations.

[Lizard King]

(05-08-2016 06:02 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 04:21 AM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 03:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Western, white civilisation: the only civilisation in history that outlawed slavery of all classes not as a matter of pragmatism, but as a matter of principle. Every other civilisation kept it, continued it, or only allowed temporary eradication of it, or only eradicated it in respect of certain ethnicities or social classes.

Even Western civilisation's main progenitors -- the Greek and Roman high periods -- did not achieve this.

It had NOTHING to do with principle.

Britain abolished the slave trade because of the Industrial Revolution and economic interests. Machines became a cheaper alternative to feeding, housing and clothing slaves. Same in America. Lincoln and the Northerners didn't send 350,000 white men to their graves out of moral principle or love for black people. They just wanted to prevent southern slave owners from expanding their plantations to the new territories out west because Northern Capitalism and free white labor could not compete against a slave society.

The reasons were strictly economic.

Smith v. Browne & Cooper, England. Sir John Holt, Lord Justice of England, rules that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free. One may be a villein in England, but not a slave." Date: 1706.

1723: Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom.
1733-1750 The Province of Georgia in America is established without slavery in sharp contrast to neighboring Carolina. In 1738, James Oglethorpe warns against changing that policy, which would "occasion the misery of thousands in Africa."
1761, 12 February: Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
1772: Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.
1774: Laws of the Marquis of Pombal, prime minister of King José I, prohibiting the transport of black slaves to Portugal and the liberation of the children of slaves born in Portugal.
1775–83: Britain's rebellious North American Colonies ban or suspend the Atlantic slave trade.
1775: Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.
1777: Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal.
1777: Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially banned slavery, freeing men over 21 and women older than 18 at the time of its passage. The ban was not strongly enforced.
1778: Joseph Knight was successful in arguing that Scots law could not support the status of slavery.
1780: Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved for life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states. Last slaves freed 1847.
1783: Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate.
1783: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules slavery unconstitutional, a decision based on the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. All slaves are immediately freed.[35]
1783: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery in Bukovina on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz.
1783: New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1784: Connecticut begins a gradual aboliton of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and later all slaves.
1784: Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1787: The United States in Congress Assembled passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
1787: Sierra Leone founded by Britain as colony for emancipated slaves.
1787: Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain.
1788: Sir William Dolben's Act regulating the conditions on British slave ships enacted.
1792: Denmark–Norway declares transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1803 (though slavery continues in Danish colonies to 1848).
1793 (August): French commissioner Leger-Felicite Sonthonax abolishes slavery in northern Saint-Domingue (Haiti). His colleague Etienne Polverel does the same in the rest of the colony in October.
1793: Upper Canada (Ontario) abolishes import of slaves by Act Against Slavery.
1794: France abolishes slavery in all its possessions. (However, slavery is restored by Napoleon in 1802.)
1794: The United States bans American ships from the trade and prohibits export by foreign ships in the Slave Trade Act.
1798: Slavery is abolished in Malta, while the islands were under French occupation.
1799: New York State passes gradual emancipation act freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in 1827.
1799: The Colliers (Scotland) Act 1799 ends the legal slavery of Scottish coal miners that had been established in 1606.


Industrial Revolution: begins in the late 1700s.

US Civil War: begins 1861, over 150 years after the movement for the end of slavery begins and is championed in the West.

I grant you Lincoln didn't go to war over slaves, he went to war over the secession of the Southern states from the Union. Even during his Presidency he couldn't come out and openly demand full emancipation across the board. But the movement for the end of slavery was not for economic reasons.

I disagree. I believe it was 100% economic and political.

You cite the timeline of the gradual phasing out of slavery, and we can see that it takes a long time to filter through to other places. No internet, no electronic transfer of data, culture and information. Things took much longer to spread than they do now(not implying you aren't aware of that).

Also, remember it was the English who stopped it first. They were in direct commercial competition with newly emerging America. Slavery contributed to the productivity, and potential productivity of that emerging nation. Industrial England had to pay money to its workers unlike slaves in the Americas. Someone somewhere figured out they could restrain American progress by abolishing slavery. They could monetize the whole process if slavery was illegal.

The abolition of slavery was probably one of the first 'feelings' based political policies. I'm not implying it was a bad thing, but it was a Machiavellian move. England was on the path to becoming the first ever global super-power, and abolishing slavery did nothing to stop that, as most of the slaves were being used in the Americas.

I acknowledge that my argument is basic and probably lacking some detail, but it's based on my study of it at a left leaning and well known UK university. The materials focused solely on the ideological aspect, despite the fact that we were instructed to use a Marxist based paradigm(historiographically Marxist, not political) of "producers-consumers" for our historical analysis. It got me to thinking that there had to be more than simply 'feelings'(ideology). The burgeoning English middle classes were very principled people at the time, and they were also voters(unlike the contemporaneous Working class), so they had to be appeased by the political class, and slavery didn't sit well with them.

So not only did it accomplish a political objective, it helped to maintain English hegemony in the trans-Atlantic trade that was crucial to the Industrial Revolution. Sugar was the commodity that brought consumerism to the world for the first time(late 17th century onwards), and controlling the trade of sugar allowed the English to dominate global trade and maintain their hegemony.

My argument isn't as solid as it could be, but essentially I'm saying "on the surface it was ideological(slavery is bad), but its pure motive was political and economic(we bust dominate our opponents).

[YoungBlade]

Since this thread is for appreciating Western Civilization, I'll show some of its grand relics here:

[Atheistani]

The only thing worth discussing in this thread is Indo European. All else is irrelevant.

Western Civilization is simply a subset of Indo European Civilization.

To get an idea of just how awe-inspiring these Indo Europeans were, watch this excellent documentary on the Hittites, an Indo European elite that ruled a massive empire in the near east around 2000BC. Watch how they come from nowhere, completely dominate the area, and then simply vanish.

One of the best docs I have ever seen, highly recommended.

[El Chinito loco]

(05-09-2016 05:38 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

The only thing worth discussing in this thread is Indo European. All else is irrelevant.

Western Civilization is simply a subset of Indo European Civilization.

The noblest of cultures.

[Atheistani]

Well, I thought that vid was made by a European Petrov something or the other. Do you even know what Indo European is? Do you deny it is the basis of Western Civilization?

[Atheistani]

delete

[El Chinito loco]

(05-09-2016 06:07 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Well, I thought that vid was made by a European Petrov something or the other. Do you even know what Indo European is? Do you deny it is the basis of Western Civilization?

Maybe you can explain it to us at length with your identity politics dissertations Dr. Patel.

By all means continue to embarass yourself with the chip on your shoulder rim jobbing of your own people. Can't wait to see what new and exciting IRT memes will come out of this.

[Atheistani]

I dont know man, maybe you think I was trying to rain on your parade. I wasn't. My post was clear. The IE were the biggest badasses that ever lived. Full stop. I wish I could explain it but it's just too complex going into detail.

Maybe if you learnt something about the origins of Europe you might understand why it was so successful in the first place. Perhaps you will know better what is going wrong.

[Anabasis to Desta]

^ You come into this thread guns blazing claiming " Indo-European culture is the only thing worth discussing" and post some obscure videos with no input/summary of your own.

When asked to elaborate, you refuse to explain because "it's too complex'. Then you proceed to patronize another forum member.

[Irenicus]

Western civilization is much more than Indoeuropean culture.


Who, for example, invented Christianity, which is one of the most important cornerstones of the West ?

An ethnic Jew called Jesus. Not an Indoeuropean.


Alphabet?

Sumerians did, which were not an Indoeuropen civilization.

[Atheistani]

So what? I got to the point. I didnt diss anyone. No need to get upset. Is that you in the GIF with the tie and flailing arm movements?

Only one video had no summary. The other one was explained and introduced.

(05-09-2016 05:38 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  

Western Civilization is simply a subset of Indo European Civilization.

I dont get what's so complicated here. European history starts with the Indo Europeans. There is no oral or written history before that. Greeks, Romans, Germanic tribes, Celts are all IE. Basque is not an IE language, neither is Finnish, Hungarian or Estonian. All the others are.

The Persians are also IE, so are the Skythians, infact all Iranians are, so are Indians, and Russians, and the Hittites, Kassites and Sea Peoples. And the Mittani. The tocharians too. Blonde mummies found in Western China Xinyang 1800BC, yes IE too. They may have spoken Tocharian, a language with many similarities to Celtic.

Religious and mythological poetry, technology (Chariots), metallurgy, Law, War and Patriarchy. These guys were herders, pastoral, they grew big and strong on milk products. Cattle was the main wealth, cattle raiding common.

Look at how Romans venerated the Chariot, yet rarely used it in warfare. Greeks too. You see statues with them and they were used in processions. The Persians used them alot. South Asian poems speak greatly about chariots. That the Romans respected Chariots but didnt use shows that they were most likely a distant memory for them, from some part of their hoary past. Chariots are closely associated with IEs. The Middle Easterners (non-IEs) were so shit-scared of chariots the Bible even refers to them as Chariots of Fire.

In the Greek Illyad, Homers starts with the word Rage. The poem's main theme is the rage of Achilles. Rage is deliberately the first word. This is echoed so very closely in the Indian Baghavat Gita where the first word is DharmaShetre. Dharma can mean correctness, rightousness, duty, religion and shetre mean field. Both times the writer uses the initial word to 'frame' the story. There is an uncanny resemblance there. It is not a co-incidence, you can read Calvert Watkins "How to Kill a Dragon" for more on IE poetic formula.

In old South Asian myth, a serpent is killed by Indra, a Deva, that serpents mother is Danu. Danu means wetness, moisture etc. In Europe there are all these rivers named Danube, Don, Dneiper from the same root. The Old Irish refer to themselves as Tuatha Danan, Tribe of the Goddess Danu.

Did I mention it was complex?

[Don's D]

Sometimes I wonder how Latin America would be if the conquistadors exterminated the native population similar to what happened in the USA. Sounds harsh I know I am Hispanic myself but I see the negative traits inherited by indigenous population.