How do you beat someone who had a 600 year head start

How do you beat someone who had a 600 year head start

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

work for them and learn to copy them in the process

Is it really a good idea to try to beat them? After all, this is the best time so far in human history. Governments, on average, are nicer than ever to people. Liberal values are more widely respected than ever before. The world economy is more powerful than ever. Science and technology are prospering. And, for the last 70 years at least, things have been relatively peaceful.

>Austria
>mentions protestant as the main cultural influence
FUCKING DROPPED

Copy and learn from them. Once you are near parity, diverge with your own direction.

Every great civilization has done this.

This.
The Greeks, The Romans, the Turks, Peter the Great, Emperor Meiji, the list goes on.

t. Percival Rutherford Chesterton III

Egypt has a 600 year head start on the second major civilization. (Huaxing China)
And a 800 year head start on the first to be any threat to them. (Akkadian Empire)
And had a 1400 year head start on the first to conquer a part of them. (Hyksos)
And a 2400 year head start on the first to fully conquer them. (Nubians)

Nah, I'm a middle class working dude. But the thing is, my reading of history has convinced me that you have to be really really careful when you're planning to upset the existing order. The problem is that there's no guarantee it will be replaced by a better one, despite all your efforts. Also, any time you open a political power vacuum, all sorts of brutal types and opportunists rush into it - so even if you're the one who creates the destabilized situation, there's no guarantee that your group is that one which will win out the resulting power struggle.
Don't get me wrong - sometimes it makes sense to fight. If the elites are actually being oppressive, murderous, and so on - then it makes sense to fight. But I don't know if the current situation really qualifies to the point that it would make sense to risk kicking over the apple cart.

You know the answer.

They beat themselves user, but only after when they are finished with us.

Are you genuinely retarded? Ur (and that region of Mesopotamia) was older then Egypt

>Governments, on average, are nicer than ever to people
I can’t believe living memes like yourself are even real.

simple, you move the goalposts

...

But they are on average nicer than ever to people. Never before in human history, at least not since the dawn of well-recorded history, has there ever been a time that the idea of treating people as if they have certain rights that must be respected been so widespread.

Unfortunately, this is a dying foundation as we drift farther from the enlightenment-era Constitutionalism and into the new era of Globalism. In fifty years, if this order survives, the idea of human rights won't even exist in the West.

What are the odds of getting a trips and a pair of dubs in a row?

So far, it doesn't seem to me that globalism is having any negative impact on human rights.

>Mass surveillance state.
>Crackdown of Free Speech
>Discriminatory practices
>Governance by unaccountable agencies.
>Dilution of vote through mass migration
>Tremendous growth of inequality

The rabbit hole goes deep my friend. An American living in the 1960s would be utterly appalled by how the West turned out, just in a mere fifty years. Unfortunately, things are so well established there is literally nothing we can do.

1% * 10% = 0.1%

>Mass surveillance state.
Better technology, yes. The FBI and CIA weren't exactly apolitical in the 60s.
>Crackdown of Free Speech
Minor, and mostly in Europe, not the US.
>Discriminatory practices
Like...?
>Governance by unaccountable agencies.
It's easier to reach government agencies than it's ever been before, and easier to use technology to keep tabs on them, too, and disseminate information about corruption, etc.
>Dilution of vote through mass migration
The migrants are getting closer to having basic human rights, though.
>Tremendous growth of inequality
Only compared to the 40s/50s/60s.

>Like...?
it should be readily apparent.

>easier to reach government agencies than it's ever been before, and easier to use technology to keep tabs on them, too, and disseminate information about corruption, etc.
>migrants are getting closer to having basic human rights, though

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not really an argument. Your life is held together by the order that keeps our passions in check. As soon as that dissolves, you can be damn sure that the chaos will end in your rape/death at the hands of the common man. You don't want to beat order, you want to reform it.

I can't understand trends the post.

The Cold War kept the excesses of powerful in check because people were focused on fighting the Leftist Dystopia of Communism rather than promoting their own Leftist Dystopia of Globalism. Once the threat of Communism subsided, the political elite simply marched straight onto playing their own version stasi; except this time, it's for a 'good cause,' unlike Communism, which was for a 'bad cause.'

>Leftist Dystopia of Communism
Except Marxist-Leninism was far more traditionalist than liberalism.

>sometimes it makes sense to fight. If the elites are actually being oppressive, murderous, and so on - then it makes sense to fight. But I don't know if the current situation really qualifies to the point that it would make sense to risk kicking over the apple cart.

Makes sense to fight if you're a white person and care about getting your fellow whites getting out of the extintion species list. Also the elite are oppressive, murderous and extremely well versed in manipulation since forever, thats their game to sustain power. Might is right and the "give the other cheek" mentality christianity promotes is one of the big causes the west is falling apart. Not the other dude btw

>rather than promoting their own Leftist Dystopia of Globalism
What is this meme that Globalism is a recent trend and not something that has been progressing more or less unabated since the 18th century. In the 1730s in England most people lived in practically an entirely local and self-sufficient economy where the community produces little more than what the inhabitants themselves consume. By the turn of the 19th century most of these local self-sufficient communities are gone and almost everyone is enmeshed in an interlaced global economy performing specialized labor dictated by the market. By the turn of the 20th century there isn't a single 'self-sufficient' nation on the face of the earth-not a single country could close its doors and maintain its present standard of living.

Globalism is the natural result of mass production and the specialization of labor. More goods are produced than can be used locally which necessitates new and bigger markets until that market expands the whole breadth of the Earth and each nation is inexorably intertwined which every other in a global system where prosperity is contingent on cooperation of all parties.

Empires > city-states

...

...

How and on what grounds was that chart compiled?
I get there are connections in the world but that shit seems way too organized for an outsider to make with assurance.

> The migrants are getting closer to having basic human rights, though.
If you really believe that the politicians who bring migrants to have a bigger voter base and cheap labour really care about them then you are clinically retarded

Not to mention that their "humanity" is doubtful

>Except Marxist-Leninism was far more traditionalist than liberalism.
Just because the vocal issues you are exposed to in the West were irrelevant in the East doesn't mean Communists were not re-engineering society. Questions of hiearchy, private property, religion, family or even the whole fatalistic predictions of Marxism are far more important than crap like LGBT rights.

>Except Marxist-Leninism was far more traditionalist than liberalism.

It was only "traditionalist" when compared to liberalism/social democracy as practised in the West, due mostly to the fact that Imperial Russia was much less "socially advanced" than those Western nations. I doubt a former peasant that's only been in Moscow for a decade in 1917 cared overly much about the legal status of homosexuality or abolishing traditional gender roles.

This is also keeping in mind that even if Marxist-Leninism was "traditionalist" as compared with Western socdem/progressive politics, it was still much more "socially progressive" than Imperial Russian society had been (i.e. divorce laws, treatment of homosexuality, etc)

What the actual fuck am I reading.

5 of those things doesn't have anything to do with globalisation, and and unless you're 12 you should remember when leftist parties had to revert their critique regarding inequality since it actually made poor states richer (as opposed of the one-directional exploitation they were afraid of in the 80-90's).

Are you sure you're not confusing globalism with something else?

defeat them by creating technology that decentralizes society.

societies are moved primarily via cybernetics

the invention of gun powder was more impactful than any of the actual bullets it helped fire.

be better/dont let someone else logical fallacy change the goal posts

holy fuck are you real

like all other plans to dethrone a king
like the rosecrucians
like the illuminati
like the freemasons
like Veeky Forums use to be
like so many others

>keep it secret
>keep it safe
>keep the newfags away until its ready

>Makes sense to fight if you're a white person and care about getting your fellow whites getting out of the extintion species list
>since forever

You're supposed to be at least 18 to post on Veeky Forums

t. shlomo shekelstein

Is this chart intended to be fucking incomprehensible and make no sense? I'm guessing its pretty dated but it has the japanese imperial rule assistance association which was disbanded in fuckin 1945 after the war on there, why?

If space aliens arrived on planet Earth, I wonder if they'd be vulnerable to booze.

With a stick or a cane.

Also humans don't live for 600 years.

Globalism is about the end of the nation-state for the international governance order. Of course there was open trade, but in terms of open borders and 'diversity'? Not even a chance. Even when the whole things collapses, there will still be a desire for open trade, but not open borders. You don't understand the trends that are going on.

International governance is replacing Constitutional governance through the use of unaccountable agencies (Like the UN, the EU, or cooperating US agencies) rather than national Democracies which are attempting to resist Globalization efforts (Brexit, AfD, Trump.) Also, the only poor state that are becoming 'rich' is China, which is a centralized planned economy with SOEs, rather than neoliberal free trade economies. Even Mexico went to shit after NAFTA due to Chinese economic superiority.

>China
>poor

>Discriminatory practices
Like...?

Like double standards for native peoples while at the cost of native folk; heck, be it through govermental policy or privwte institutions, ex. Sweden making space for their beauteful natives, Germany doing the same, France, the entire E.U and some very high end colleges

>coffin homes

>but in terms of open borders
Except immigration was more unrestricted in the 19th century than it is today. Literally millions of Europeans flooded into America. At the turn of the 20th century a greater percent of Americans were foreign born than at any other point in the nation's history. The free movement of people is part of the free movement of capital which a modern interdependent global economy depends on.

But notice how the immigrants were

>Western
>Given no Gibs.
>were forced to assimilate.
>And were talented.

That things worked out in the end because America in the 19th century wasn't politically correct and didn't bother with this globalist bullshit of being naively arrogant. Imagine if Germany told their Syrians.

>You have to be fluent in German in nine months.
>No gibs
>You have to convert to Christianity or be Secular.
>And you have to take an IQ test.

I wonder how immigration would've turned out differently?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

Totally the same thing guys. People in the 19th century were globalists just like today.

>And were talented.
They were more often than not some of the poorest people in their home countries with little to lose, not established professionals. There was no background check of valuable skills as a requirement to immigrate in the 19th century and certainly no way to filter highly skilled immigrants from low skill immigrants.

Nativist Americans put forward literally the exact same objections to immigration back then that you're presenting now
they're lazy
they bring crime
they dont speak english
they form ghettos
they dont share our culture especially the papists
they depend on charity
etc...

But now with 100 years of hind sight you're telling me they were all easily assimilated talented hard-working people.

I suspect that probably more than half of the people who talk about how globalism is supposedly leading us to some dystopian nightmare of unelected bureaucracy don't even bother to regularly exercise their existing vote powers.

My argument is that globalism has been the dominant trend because of the specialization of labor for the better part of 3 centuries, not that everyone 100 years ago understood it or practiced it exactly as it is done now. You've presented evidence of its momentary retardation in one area on the grounds of old social customs and racial prejudices, yet in globalism's continuing march we've seen those exact objections trampled underfoot before you were even born.

>But now with 100 years of hind sight you're telling me they were all easily assimilated talented hard-working people.

And do you think that magically happened by accident? And do you naively believe that Americans in the 19th century were open to migration from non-European nations? And do you even more naively believe that these very same immigrants were a net drain on society?

Intelligence is seeing the distinctions in which people fail to see. The fact that supposedly 'bright' people fail to manage immigrants and understand the nuances between a successful immigration program and an unsuccessful one is baffling.

If Immigration was working under Globalism, we wouldn't have to print money and the immigrants would be paying into the system. I may not live to see it, but I will smile when the Federal Government collapses when it runs out of natives to support it's entitlement programs.

Enough of them voted for Trump.

>Federal Republic of Spain
>34% protestant

Globalism marched on for half a millennia before collapsing for a full millennia. Globalism has risen. It has also fallen. Nothing is inevitable.

>the political elite simply marched straight onto playing their own version stasi
Examples? If you're arguing that the modern West is comparable to communist police states, surely you can provide some evidence.
I also don't see how it makes sense to lump together communist police states and globalism together under the single world "Leftist". If two things that are so different are both "leftist" in your view, then what isn't leftist? And don't say "nationalism" - you can have leftist nationalism just as easily as leftist internationalism.

Yeah, probably a lot of them voted for Trump, but I doubt that they go vote in their local and state, etc. elections regularly.

>I also don't see how it makes sense to lump together communist police states and globalism together under the single world "Leftist".

A left-winger is a person advocating change in a system. A right-winger is a person advocating the status quo in a system. Globalism and Communism are Leftist because they both advocate extreme change.

> If you're arguing that the modern West is comparable to communist police states, surely you can provide some evidence.

>Tried to abolish the 1st under "Hate Speech" laws."
>Trying to abolish the 2nd under "crime reduction."
>The government literally monitors all phone calls and internet posts. The 4th is a joke.
>White men don't have equal protection under the law.
>Dilution of vote through mass migration

And that's just the stuff that's openly known. I won't go into the 'conspiracy details' because even I have the decency to know where the lines are drawn.

I don't believe contemporary immigrants are a 'net drain' on society. Legal immigrants start businesses at higher rates than natives do. They're more likely to be higher educated than natives. Make more money on average and pay more taxes. 27 percent of doctors in the US are foreign born.

Of course not. That's the difference between you and I. The problem is that your position is fundamentally skewed because you assume every third worlder is a doctor-in-training. Meanwhile, the US IQ is set to decline 4 points by the end of this century, while it is expected to rise in East Asia by an astounding six points. I absolutely detest what this nation has become, knowing what it was.

>he thinks that legal immigration and illegal immigration are the same issue

You think the Globalists make that distinction user?

No, your problem is that you take abuses and distortions that arise in a general trend as evidence the trend is wrong instead of actually recognizing those distortions not as the fault of the trend itself which works inexorably on internal logic of the market but of the particular privileges and perverse incentives in the law that cause their abuse.

...

You don't have an argument. You have just enough sense to recognize a problem but lack any understanding of how and why it is and you immediately resort to the simplest explanation.

We're probably talking past each other. Can you define what you mean when you say "globalism"?
As for your definition of "left-winger", it's highly contextual. Following your definition, it's possible for there to be two people who have the exact same political ideals, but one person will be a "left-winger" because in his society his ideals would need radical change to become reality, whereas the other person will be a "right-winger" because in his society, his ideals are already reality.
Personally, I view the current liberal order as both status quo and desirable. To me, both far-left hardcore commies and people like you seem like radicals. So I guess both hardcore commies and you are left-wingers, going by your definition.

>someone dares to actually present a contrast to the narrative with reasonable points of argument that could be refuted
>instead dogpiled with "lol retard," racism, retard faces and HAHAHAHAHAHAH
>no one bothers to actually address his points

Honestly not surprising

I hate playing the linguistic game, because all it results in is obfuscation as commonly understood terms are questioned until they become meaningless.

>Following your definition, it's possible for there to be two people who have the exact same political ideals, but one person will be a "left-winger" because in his society his ideals would need radical change to become reality, whereas the other person will be a "right-winger" because in his society, his ideals are already reality.

Exactly. Once upon a time, Free Market Liberal Democracy used to be 'revolutionary' and the Patriots were Leftists of their era. Overtime, their ideas were adopted and became conservative. However, the Globalists like you want to move away from Constitutional nationalism into international authority, which devolves much worse overtime.

No. You've settled for denial, so I'm taking the tactical stance of just ignoring you. All that verbage basically can be summed up as

>"All the evidence is irrelevant user, just look at the trends."

You are like a Communist who claims that Communism is inevitable based on the trends.

Because user, not everyone can be reached. If you are this far gone into the hole, not much more can be said.

t. Neoliberal retard

If thats how you read the post you did not understand it.

> but of the particular privileges and perverse incentives in the law that cause their abuse.

Enlighten me, scotsman.