>>987464 The same way any religion explains away bad things happening to good people and good things happening to bad people.
The bad things happened because we didn't believe enough or those other guys had the strength of [Insert Religion's Devil Here] backing them up and ruined it for us. But don't you worry God has a plan and we'll get rewarded eventually.
The good things happened because we didn't believe enough or those other guys made a vile deal with [Insert Religion's Devil Here]. But don't you worry God remembers and they'll get just punishment eventually.
>>987489 Yeah in this context its applying to religion but really its common for any human to find some bullshit excuse of the other side cheated in some way and that's how they got ahead or they sabotaged me and that's why I'm behind and I'm going to stick to my current beliefs instead of considering I may be wrong.
>>987464 I put this question to a Kazakh I knew in college. He was very active in the Muslim student's association, and prayed 5 times a day. He told me Muslim society dysfunction was the result of Satan being more active in Muslim societies. He said Satan doesn't bother with kaffir nations because they're already lost and debauched, and not worth the trouble.
If you have met anyone from the Levant (ie less tardier muslims) you'd know they are well aware of their problems and have some very very heavy, depressed complex and hard reconciliation issues in their mentality and intracultural talk.
The rest either makes it up with money from oil, or with going with muh honour.
>>987464 What you claim only takes last few decades into account.
After the reorganization in 1850s Ottoman Empire was pretty much any European constitutional monarch. And in some aspects (although certainly not modern) on par with some world powers. What was different from Europe was that all the Ottoman regions became puppet states of Western powers. And we're still watching the chaos ensued afterwards.
Like a lot of complex dynamics in the region it does not have much to do with religion at all. For example ex-Soviet Union countries in Central Asia were ruled with man made law but they're still not so well developed. It shouldn't be a religion thing.
Anyway I think I have a better question, why didn't you open this thread in /pol/? You would've gotten more responses in a shorter amount of time.
>>989244 As humanity inevitably mixes together over the next several centuries, European peoples, their genetics, and their cultures will be a tinier and tinier percentage of the overall mixture, and will therefore be subsumed by the genetic and cultural influences of other, larger groups. This has nothing to do with /pol/. I never even said I give a shit, but it is what will happen. It's just numbers.
In an oversimplified hypothetical example, if 90% of the planet was Han Chinese, and 10% of the planet was European, and both groups mixed together over the course of, say, 500 years, the Han would be certain to maintain more of their population genetics than the Europeans, and would likely retain more of their culture as well. It wouldn't be strictly correct to say that anyone was "wiped out" though, but you can get lost in the mix so to speak to the point that its hard to identify your own contribution to it.
>>989264 I honestly could not care less about how many gay bars there are in the Muslim world. Persecuting them is bad, I guess, but that's not what I meant in my original post. Plus, it doesn't prove your point that they are homogenous and monocultural
>>989307 >>989351 And if you don't believe it, tell me what the status of the Manchu people in China is atm. The Manchu were a distinct ethnic and linguistic group with different genetic origins to the Han. The Manchu ruled the whole of China for centuries, and now the Manchu have been virtually entirely assimilated into the general Han Chinese population, and lost their language, and any real sense of being a distinct people from the Han. In fact, most Manchu now are so mixed that they simply identify as Han. Manchu are effectively wiped out. This happened though they were ostensibly a ruling elite, not a beleaguered underclass minority. The same will happen to Europeans relative to the coming global civilization.
>>989399 Would like to point out that the history of Europe is a history of assimilation and dilution. Invaders all across the continent were assimilated by the conquered and both cultures melded into something new...and not just the cultures, there is no such thing as ethnic purity anywhere. Get over it.
>>989503 I never said there was such a thing as ethnic purity. In fact, I explicitly stated that future human civilization WILL be further mixtures of human cultures and ethnic groups. I have nothing to get over. I simply pointed out that whatever that mixture will be, the relative proportional contributions of different cultures will result in certain groups changing more or less than others, and contributing more or less lasting influences than others.
>get over it This just seems self-evident to me. It's as if you think merely stating population trends in a matter-of-fact way is ideological in and of itself. I wonder why you would think someone who notices these things would automatically be resentful of it. That implicit association you seem to have is interesting. Maybe it says something about what YOU think of these trends.
>>989503 Oh, so suddenly the argument goes from: >No no no, nothing is happening. It's paranoid and irrational to even talk about peoples changing or being "diluted, assimilated, conquered, and melding into something new".
and changes to: >Well, yeah, OF COURSE you're getting diluted, assimilated, conquerd and changed, but it's totally normal, so shut up about it and accept it.
>>989399 That's not really the same situation though, is it? The Manchus were a political elite in a kingdom that was united by northern tribes migrating south to rule over the Han minority. So it's applicable to, say, South Africa and Rhodesia. But that hardly works the same way on a global scale where there is no global Han nation where other cultures only exist as niche minorities.
Muslim fundamentalists and Muslim liberals usually agree with the West that the Islamic world is backwards and needs to modernize but attempt to show that Islam and modernism, science and progressive ideals are compatible
The Muslim traditionalists argued either that the Muslim world was just fine without adopting anything from the West or that if Muslims took anything from the West, it should be in a slow and careful manner so as not to upset the stability they believed already existed in Islamic society and had existed for centuries. If the West had anything useful to offer, the Muslims could take it, but it was unlikely that the West could offer too much that the Muslims didn't already have or couldn't produce for themselves in a better fashion. Even if the West created a "stable" society and I use the word stable here lightly the "stability" may have been suitable for the Christians of the West, but was not necessarily taken as suitable for the Muslims of the East who had to work within their own framework. As a result, appropriation of Western science and technology by the Muslim East was a slow process, if it was a process at all. Plus, there was a common perception of the West, or Franjistan as it was called, for many years that was little more than a land of warring barbarians whom the Ottomans would probably just conquer anyway. It wasn't until the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt that the Muslims realized how far it had allowed itself to lag behind and this when you begin to see movements like Wahhabism and secularism.
One main reason the Muslim world fell behind was mostly because of negligence, as the Muslims failed to take quicker notice of the developments happening in the West due to old prejudices and traditional, mostly Sunni Muslim authorities even downplaying the threat of the West in order to reassure the Sunni society that the Ottoman sultan was still top dog in the world when it was becoming more evident that he wasn't.
>>989631 The example was meant to show how disproportionate populations will eventually cause the smaller population it be consumed by the larger one, even if the smaller population is a ruling one. In the case of the future global scale, you're right, it will be multiple groups, but still only a few racial groups, which are more proximate cousin relationships than higher levels of human association, and what people tend to default to when ethnicity becomes difficult to determine (see social trends among ethnically diverse, but racially similar immigrant groups in other countries). South Africa is a good example actually--eventually "white solidarity" became more immediately important for maintaining power than remembering that the English tried to genocide the Boers. The point is simply that social construct or not, people form associations based on race even when they differ ethnically.
So, considering UNICEF projects that Africa will have 4 billion people by 2100, (I doubt the number will be quite so high for reasons of sustainability and mortality), while the native European populations, are declining, I think it's reasonable to assume these population disparities, combined with known realities of tendencies towards forming associations based on racial similarities, will have effects on a global scale so long as we have a global civilization with relatively free movement of people.
I think these dynamics are real, and interesting, and I can't help but notice how discussions of this topic always seem to devolve into dismissive denialism (I'm not necessarily talking about you specifically), or sort of proxy arguments for unrelated internal political debates that currently exist in western countries.
The Shi'a world, that is Iran and parts of India and Central Asia under Shi'a control, didn't seem to have as much antipathy for the West, but were noted by Europeans as being more interested in the intellectual sciences, mathematics and philosophy and law than say, engineering. Europeans noted that the Iranians had a great passion for mathematics and astronomy, but when it came to technology from the West, except when it came to a few guns. They also tended to be very isolated, with not much interest in what was going on outside Iran or India. But some Shi'a in India before British colonialism hit the fan, seemed to have had a healthy respect for the British parliamentary system.
The Sunnis, who were closest to the West and controlled the most territory, were a lot more reluctant to adopt anything new and admit the West's power. Part of this is due to a common perception among the Sunnis that the proof of Islam lies in its being triumphant in terms of power and wealth over all other faiths, something which may have felt true in the Abbassid period, but was becoming less and less self-evident as the Ottoman period carried on. For the Shi'a, there was never any pretension that the Shi'a were bigger and stronger than anyone else, as their entire identity was characterized by the self-awareness they were an oppressed minority, which was one cause of their isolationist tendencies motivated by a desire to defend their religion from Sunni outsiders. The Shi'a were more concerned for a longer time with the potential threat of the Ottomans and other Sunni powers taking their lands than they probably should have been about the West and Russia and in the beginning both the Ottomans and the Safavids pursued alliances with the Western nations against one another.
Seems pretty relative though when you put it that way. I think we have a very idealized sense of the stability of the West since the modern era, especially since you have the European wars of religion, Napoleonic Wars, World War 1, World War 2 and so, not to mention all the revolutions of Europe which only really occur in a society that is unstable and unhappy. If anything, you could make an argument that the West despite being "stronger" militarily is also far less "stable" because it has behaved so much according to rules like might makes right which create bloody struggles for power which are made even worse by modern military tech and also rules like white man's burden which basically wastes the wealth of countries in maintaining expensive and resistant colonial territories which has negative effects at home. The instability of Muslim societies also is partly a result of the Western aggression against them which has left deep political and psychological wounds for many Muslims who remember French people slicing off the ears of Algerians or British soldiers slaughtering villages of Pashtuns or French people propping up Christian minorities over the Muslim majority of Lebanon and things like that and the arbitrary division of former provinces under larger Muslim empires followed by the introduction of the concept of the nation-state in a part of the world where it hasn't really existed before the last century.
>>989704 >The example was meant to show how disproportionate populations will eventually cause the smaller population it be consumed by the larger one, even if the smaller population is a ruling one. But again, while true for minorities within countries, it's not a model that works when it comes to a continental or global scale. The Han overtook the Manchus, but they didn't overtake the Japanese or Koreans, nor the Indonesians, nor the Australians. Cultural and demographic trends don't scale up beyond the regional or national level. So even though the proportion of people of European heritage has shrunk, that does not translate into European culture becoming subsumed and assimilated the way Manchu culture was. The numbers game is only a small part of demographic shifts and assimilation, for the same reason the rise in European population in the first place did not mean the disappearance of well-established cultures in the Old World. The only exception was North America, and that coincided with an apocalyptic and collapse of the native population followed by several centuries of aggressive expansion and suppression.
>>989908 >So even though the proportion of people of European heritage has shrunk, that does not translate into European culture becoming subsumed and assimilated the way Manchu culture was
It does if humanity is moving to a trans-global civilization in which human capital moves freely between borders at the speed of modern transportation. That hasn't been the case since the migration period, and never at this speed of course.
Sure, China, India, Japan, Korea, and others may or may not embrace this, but at the moment, at least Western Europe, and North America seem to be moving in that direction. Considering the movement of peoples is pretty one way with regard to those societies, comparative fertility, and population growth (Africa was mentioned earlier) they will be subsumed by other larger populations eventually if the trend continues indefinitely. It doesn't even matter if it one larger group, or a dozen groups. The European elements of those societies will shrink as a percentage and lose genetic, cultural, and even linguistic influence of anyplace where those massive population shifts happen. As people said, these things have happened to other societies in the past through war, conquest, and mass migrations, and they'll happen again--now aided by modern intercontinental transportation.
>>989908 To spell it out: >We are becoming one global society >White European ethnicities are a global minority >Therefore whites will be a minority in this new, trans-national, border-less global society >Global populations will travel freely within global society >Whites will be subsumed like any minority
National borders will no longer divide human populations, at the very least not in the west. The jury is still out on Asia.
I don't know if you're directing that at me or what I was responding to, but apologism or not, if the argument is that the West is "more stable", there are some problems with this assertion
1. There are plenty of examples we can use to show that the West has not been very stable. I don't know anyone who says that the Reformation and Counter-Reformation are periods of European stability, or that the French Revolution is an example of a stable period. And certainly WW1 & WW2 are more recent examples of an extreme breakdown in stability that is unprecedented in history. If you're going to argue that the West has been more stable, when and where does this stability begin
2. The argument that the Muslim countries are unstable due to their own inherent flaws unrelated to the West's involvement seems like real dindu nuffinism. The effects of the breakdown of major Islamic empires, the colonization of Islamic countries by the West and the resulting cutting up of borders and the rapid introduction of new ideas and technology into the Islamic world from the West deeply shook the traditional foundations of Muslim society which had previously been a key to their relative stability. Rapid urbanization, new forms of communication, new ideologies and the fall of traditional institutions in favor of new ones based usually on Western models all play a role in the stability or lack thereof. Most importantly too, the West was nothing like those who had conquered that region before before. The Mongols and Turks came as nomadic peoples and embraced Islam to justify their power and authority to the Muslims they conquered while also importing their own cultural ideas into the Islamic world. The Europeans were a more developed people who came to rule over those they generally saw as primitive and had no intention of converting to Islam and instead began a process of setting up new schools and funding missionaries to indoctrinate them to Western ideas.
>>987464 >How do Muslims explain man made law made such well-developed and stable societies in the West
If they're so stable why do they have such shit demographics and need minorities to come in to fix it? Why was one of their leading nations so short sighted and incompetently led in the immigration department that they're now the rape capital of Europe?
The West isn't stable, it's currently getting tied to the table to be raped while going on about how pretty its hair is. We're going to fuck you in the ass and blow our load all over your back
>>990512 Modern western nations have been the most egalitarian and fair nations in history. Especially when compared to such bastions of morality, tolerance and diversity as Thailand, Korea, China or any nation in Africa or the Middle East.
>>990539 Yeah, a continent that struggles providing clean water for it's own people surely has the capacity to take on the United States military. Most of the smaller nations are in our pocket, so is AIDS ridden Brazil the Latin savior?
>>990563 >take on the United States military No one is even going to bother you dumbasses. We're going to just move there and take over your military. Hell you're already letting women into combat, it won't be long now before your soldiers would rather fight themselves over who gets vagina than anyone else.
>implying I used implying wrong >implying you weren't suggesting that egalitarianism was a merit in the West's favor, to which I implied through my pointing out what you were implying that it wasn't >implying you're not just trying to save face >implying you're not new
>>990606 >implying large amount of illegals are allowed to join the military >implying the poor men who left your shithole nation and granted opportunity by ours can be motivated to stage yolo Viva La Revolución
>>990686 So your best plan for Viva La Revolución is just changing our voter demographics? They'll still be Americans. Many if not most immigrants I know are more patriotic than a gun store owner, so good luck convincing them to cater to our future Brazilian overlords.
>>990712 Venezuelans are patriotic too, their country is still shitty. We're looking at the long game anon. You will become Brazil, you will become Bolivia. There will not be a climatic battle, there will not be a long war. You will simply be colonised and your people replaced by the same people you hate, the same people that did what they did south of you but they will do it there, in your home, where they will wave the American flag from the great favelas of Washington DC.
>>990756 The fact that it's your governments that let us in and rolled out the red carpet and are still doing it only proves how inept you all really were. Good or bad we do what we do, you're the ones that opened the door.
>>990432 >even Marx knew what was up The irony here is that Marx said this in a newspaper article published the day after the start of the Crimean War, about the Russians, British, and the French all trying to force the Ottomans by gunboat diplomacy or invasion to surrender its traditional control over its Christian citizens and churches, thereby proving >>990371's point.
>>990793 So? Yeah, westerners are making dumb decisions but the point that the followers of the allegedly true religion are a pretty shitty bunch of people overall still stands and you seem to agree with it yourself as you're suggesting that it would have been smart to avoid their influx
>>990869 I agree that our cultures are incompatible, whether something is "shitty" or not is a matter of perspective and largely opinion. It's my opinion that a nation that kills itself by letting in a more potent culture couldn't have been all that great to begin with. It's my opinion that a culture that can't control it's women, that has men that actively seeks the endangerment of their women, isn't really even worth defending.
By that metric, really how great is western culture?
>>991019 So do you think the double digit % demographic changes that have taken place in western countries over the last 50 years are going to magically stop at some pre-ordained proportion? That is a HUGE population transfer in a historical blink of an eye. There is an infinite supply of human capital to move into these societies, and the new populations have significantly higher fertility than the indigenous populations. So you can see the change happening in real time living memory, and you're telling me teleconferencing and EMAIL is going to arrest this process, and make Africans and West Asians stop moving to western societies!?
This is not rocket science, nor is it scare mongering propaganda. And when people stop denying it, they immediately shift to excoriating people to simple accent it. Everyone knows this is happening at least to Western European derived societies. And the process isn't just going to suddenly stop in its tracks for reasons.
>>992449 >and the new populations have significantly higher fertility than the indigenous populations.
no they dont, the first generation might have, but how much people breed is always a question of culture, so they breed at higher rates if they maintain the exact culture they came from, which they dont, its impossible, and in a couple of generations their demography comes down to local birth rates
in fact a lot of them wouldnt even breed at all if it wasnt for welfare child support
the problem is not how much such imported populations breed or not, the problem is that local populations in many developed nations have sub replacement birth rates for decads now, othervise the whole issue woul not exist at all
even if you close the borders tomorow shit wouldnt get better, not untill you get a average of 3 kids per couple, and not even the higher birthrates of first and second generation imigrants cant help fix those statistics, populations are decreasing and aging rapidly, its as absurd as it is fucked
>>992698 >in fact a lot of them wouldnt even breed at all if it wasnt for welfare child support
Indeed. Also, I was also speaking to the fertility of the source societies for these migrant populations being higher, which is what makes them an essentially infinite supply, so assuming nothing changes in the west, they will always be there to feed the attempt to address demographics that you rightly point out is doomed either way. However, the way course they have chosen has the added detriment of inter-ethnic tensions.
Money and imperialism is what developed and stabilized the West, not its laws
God's law was around at the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" as well as Europe's so-called "Dark Ages," and now when the situations are reversed. Money was the only thing that exchanged hands, not the correct implementation of God's rules
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.