User Controls
Eurasian race, the one true master race.
-
2018-07-22 at 9:09 PM UTCOK benny, well feel free to take you time and figure out how your search engines or how to get around that big ole firewall and whatever other inane bullshit is keeping you from figuring out what's going on here, and get back to me when you have an actual argument that has something to do with the point I was making earlier.
-
2018-07-22 at 9:13 PM UTCwhy dont you show me the needle instead of pointing me to the haystack.
prove that the term ''muslim golden age'' refers to the golden age of a bunch of people with specific genetics. -
2018-07-22 at 9:33 PM UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
The Islamic Golden Age is the era in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 14th century, during which much of the historically Islamic world was ruled by various caliphates, and science, economic development and cultural works flourished.[1][2][3] This period is traditionally understood to have begun during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate
750–1258
1261–1517
The Abbasid Caliphate (/əˈbæsɪd/ or /ˈæbəsɪd/ Arabic: ٱلْخِلافَةُ ٱلْعَبَّاسِيَّة al-Khilāfatu al-‘Abbāsiyyah) was the third of the Islamic caliphates to succeed the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
-
2018-07-23 at 12:01 AM UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
Basically over 450 years the Muslims made almost no progress in the sciences.
If stagnation is what is called a "Golden Age" what is actual progress called?
Maybe if the Muslims had had 100,000 years they would have gotten to steam power. -
2018-07-23 at 12:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
Basically over 450 years the Muslims made almost no progress in the sciences.
If stagnation is what is called a "Golden Age" what is actual progress called?
Maybe if the Muslims had had 100,000 years they would have gotten to steam power.
What is your metric for scientific progress. How many science units does a civilization need produce to not be stagnant in your mind?
Also scientific advancement isn't a synonym for progress lol. -
2018-07-23 at 1:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What is your metric for scientific progress. How many science units does a civilization need produce to not be stagnant in your mind?
England in the 19th Century comes to mind.Also scientific advancement isn't a synonym for progress lol.
It really isn't.
All the "Islamic Golden Age" did was make the host societies weak.
This produced the following results:
1. The smart people moved to the cities, and didn't reproduce.
Cities consume people, they never maintain their population.
2. The yokels shit out huge quantities of low-IQ children, and started to inbreed.
3. Smarter Muslims became proto-MORALLY SUPERIOR BEINGs, and started hanging at the library more and more.
4. The Muslims decided that they were chosen by God, which made them even more fucked in the head when Genghis Khan, history's only truly sane human being, fucked them hard.
5. Irrigation spread, and then when it wasn't maintained collapsed, because irrigation is a hard thing to keep running, and requires a high trust society.
Meanwhile, in Europe, the smart were joining the nobility and having a lot of children.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-demographie-historique-2008-1-page-15.htm
Basically the Muslim Middle Ages were like the current era. The smart people got high on their own farts, while the dumbest people in society just shit out kids and wound up taking over. -
2018-07-23 at 1:27 AM UTCDuring that time period Islamic thinkers
- Invented much of the mathematics required for modern sciences
- Preserved some of western civilizations most important works which were lost to Europe
- Produced the greatest philosophers of the age while European theology barely even existed and produced zero secular philosophy
- Managed to hold together a massive empire while tiny and weak European monarchies struggled to maintain orderly succession for more a couple of generations
The last two of course change between the early and late medieval period but your "critique" is weak. Like "oh no, urbanization! Weakening of society" in the same post that you hold up 19th century England as an image of progress? Is that a joke? -
2018-07-23 at 6:45 AM UTCooohh, ...
you meant ''islamic golden age'' and not ''muslim golden age''.
Originally posted by Lanny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
The Islamic Golden Age is the era in the history of Islam, traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 14th century, during which much of the historically Islamic world was ruled by various caliphates, and science, economic development and cultural works flourished.[1][2][3] This period is traditionally understood to have begun during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid (786 to 809)There is no unambiguous definition of the term, and depending on whether it is used with a focus on cultural or on military achievement, it may be taken to refer to rather disparate time spans. Thus, one author would have it extend to the duration of the caliphate, or to "six and a half centuries",[8] while another would have it end after only a few decades of Rashidun conquests, with the death of Umar and the First Fitna.[9]
During the early 20th century, the term was used only occasionally, and often referred to the early military successes of the Rashidun caliphs. It was only in the second half of the 20th century that the term came to be used with any frequency, now mostly referring to the cultural flourishing of science and mathematics under the caliphates during the 9th to 11th centuries (between the establishment of organised scholarship in the House of Wisdom and the beginning of the crusades),[10] but often extended to include part of the late 8th or the 12th to early 13th centuries.[11] Definitions may still vary considerably. Equating the end of the golden age with the end of the caliphates is a convenient cut-off point based on a historical landmark, but it can be argued that Islamic culture had entered a gradual decline much earlier; thus, Khan (2003)
note the second part where this so called ''islamic golden age'' only came into being in the later part of the 20th century.
like i said initially, this only happened after the left or liberals propagandized the achievements of the mooseleems to paint a better and a more presentable pictures of islam to the west at the height of US-Saudi relations.
if you care to look at the references, a majority of them came form the 90s and on. its a new academic construct.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-07-23 at 8:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader ooohh, …
you meant ''islamic golden age'' and not ''muslim golden age''.
Yes, these terms are synonyms in this case unless there's some distinction between the two I'm not away of?note the second part where this so called ''islamic golden age'' only came into being in the later part of the 20th century.
So what's your point here? That some historians pick different terms to describe an era than others? If you want to claim the era was not actually a golden age then fine, present evidence to that effect. -
2018-07-23 at 10:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Like "oh no, urbanization! Weakening of society" in the same post that you hold up 19th century England as an image of progress? Is that a joke?
Urbanisation is bad for a gene pool as cities need to continuously import people from the countryside. I never said it was bad for science or business, in the short term at least.
You read a lot that I don't write. -
2018-07-23 at 10:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Urbanisation is bad for a gene pool as cities need to continuously import people from the countryside.
How does that track? Urbanization is amazing for the gene pool because you have a MASSIVELY diverse number of genetic sources all intermingling in close proximity. Cities don't have to "import" outsiders any faster than elsewhere. Contrast that with small towns in agrarian civilization, which are downright incestuous by comparison. You could totally isolate the population of L.A and they would fair far better (genetically anyway) than if you totally isolated the population of a small rural town.
-
2018-07-23 at 10:40 AM UTCLiving in close proximity is also a recipe for disease. Diseases for which the survivor's genes are an improvement to the gene pool. Centuries of urbanization crafted the European immune system and by extension Europeans into plague carrying Trojan horses that depopulated native civilizations with their mere presence. Urbanization is a biologic, scientific, and economic boon.
-
2018-07-23 at 10:50 AM UTCGo to any really old urban centre - London or Istanbul for instance. Urbanisation creates funny looking bug people.
jedis are an example of an urban race. They thrive in cities.
In contrast agrarian societies produce beautiful, independent minded people.
America doesn't really have any old cities besides the Mesoamerican ones, and you can see what the squatemalans look like. -
2018-07-23 at 10:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill Go to any really old urban centre - London or Istanbul for instance. Urbanisation creates funny looking bug people.
jedis are an example of an urban race. They thrive in cities.
In contrast agrarian societies produce beautiful, independent minded people.
America doesn't really have any old cities besides the Mesoamerican ones, and you can see what the squatemalans look like.
So your point wasn't based on anything aside from a half-assed subjective aesthetic assessment on your part, which coincidentally confirms your biases. I see no problem with that. Carry on. -
2018-07-23 at 11:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Living in close proximity is also a recipe for disease. Diseases for which the survivor's genes are an improvement to the gene pool. Centuries of urbanization crafted the European immune system and by extension Europeans into plague carrying Trojan horses that depopulated native civilizations with their mere presence.
This is a great example of an inversion - spinning something that is objectively bad as a benefit.
10 stars of david out of 10. -
2018-07-23 at 11:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS So your point wasn't based on anything aside from a half-assed subjective aesthetic assessment on your part, which coincidentally confirms your biases. I see no problem with that. Carry on.
Personally I don't think it's possible to improve upon hunter-gatherer genetics, and anything that happens from there on evolutionarily speaking is a degeneration. We need a return to barbarism and a burning of the cities. -
2018-07-23 at 11:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill This is a great example of an inversion - spinning something that is objectively bad as a benefit.
10 stars of david out of 10.
Creating an environment which is harder to survive (in certain respects, historically) breeds hardier stock. That isn't inversion, it's a simple fact. Hardship breeds strength.
Originally posted by Cootehill Personally I don't think it's possible to improve upon hunter-gatherer genetics, and anything that happens from there on evolutionarily speaking is a degeneration. We need a return to barbarism and a burning of the cities.
A concept you clearly agree with, but clearly have only a surface level appreciation for. For you apparently this concept boils down to "durr strong men need strong to beat up weak man and hunter gooder". -
2018-07-23 at 11:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS Creating an environment which is harder to survive (in certain respects, historically) breeds hardier stock. That isn't inversion, it's a simple fact. Hardship breeds strength.
Depends on what way it is harder to survive.
China has been in a malthusian trap for thousands of years, with regular famines, and it hasn't produced any sort of ubermensch, yet.
I don't see how something like the black death produces much eugenic benefit. Maybe a predilection for hygiene I guess.
http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=3865
Here's a good interview with Curt Doolittle, on how the west was formed through eugenics (constantly killing the lower class, basically).A concept you clearly agree with, but clearly have only a surface level appreciation for. For you apparently this concept boils down to "durr strong men need strong to beat up weak man and hunter gooder".
To survive in a barbarian society you need to be strong, but also smart, loyal, cooperative, etc. Protec, also attac. -
2018-07-23 at 12:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Cootehill China has been in a malthusian trap for thousands of years, with regular famines, and it hasn't produced any sort of ubermensch, yet.
China is arguably both the longest lasting civilization on Earth and the most important country in the world. What qualifies the ubermenschen if not their actions and deeds? China is a thriving billion-person-strong civilization with a rich history and culture that has spannned thousands of years and is the center of manufacturing for basically an entire planet's economy... that is a pretty strong resumé. Find me another, better candidate for your ubermensch. Nordics surely don't have shit on the Chinese. Even Mediterraneans pale in comparison. Both historically and at present.
-
2018-07-23 at 12:14 PM UTCThe Chinese practically invented martial arts and perfected warfare thousands of years ago. They aren't exactly physically unimpressive specimens either. East Asians are the human race perfected.
