While the Muslim world was advancing human civilization, for like 1500 years the Europeans were busy inventing torture methods and they blamed bathing as the cause of evil spirits and they believed in werewolves. Just a foul time in human history.

the muslim world is still in 2023 a bunch of cavemen lmao


strong cope

Not to mention, the fall of Islamic civilizations has been ongoing for about 150 years…

The dark ages lasted for like…1500 years lol

what fake history are you reading?


they were living in tents in the desert

The Fall of Rome was triggered by the evolution of the Moral Theory of the west that was spurred by Christianity. Rome waned under this new Moral Theory, because it was built and constructed under the old Pagan Moral Theory, which I would roughly describe as "might makes right." Humanity's spiritual evolution made them incompatable with the Roman foundation.

The Dark Ages, and really, the whole interval between the Fall of Rome and now, was a period of rebuilding, and creating a new civilization. Rome was the pinnacle of human civilization, under the previous Moral Theory. We surpassed Rome long ago under the new Moral Theory, despite the fact that it caused a period of loss as we adjusted to this new awakening. A Roman Pagan who thought the world was ending as Christianity came to dominate his culture would drop to his knees in tears at the sight of the modern world.

I tend to believe that we essentially reached the pinnacle of our era sometime in the last century. Soon, mankind will undergo another transformation like the one that Christianity gave us. The cycle will repeat. Everything is going to fall apart. But in the years that follow, our descendents will one day build a new world that is beyond our wildest dreams, something that we could never imagine.

No idea about the blacks

Most people who are called "White supremacists" are actually just White nationalists or regular White people who are racially conscious.

So, around 400 AD, Rome is sacked, effectively ending Roman culture in the west. This resulted in the "Dark Ages" which continued until the High Medieval period which involved the Norman Conquest of England, the Crusades, and the signing of the Magna Carta.

All of these events occurred concurrently with advances in science and math in Islamic lands in the Middle East, which were made possible by the relative stability imposed by their despotic rule. Unfortunately, the despotic rule that gave them the stability to rapidly advance from "caves" to rivalling the west also institutionalized regressivism, and Islamic countries are culturally where they were in the early 1300s to this day. (or earlier)

By contrast, the West emerged from the conflict and unrest of the Dark Ages on a path to the modern nation state having defeated Islamic expansion into France. Rather than follow Islam's regression backwards in the late medieval period, the West experienced the Renaissance, and a cultural awakening that lead to the Enlightenment and the advent of the modern world.

Meanwhile, the Islamic World is effectively a gas station. (In a shady part of town)

Sad.

Enlightenment and renaissance happened because of crusades. Europeans learned how to be civilized and brought it back home.

The moral / society changes are a result of technological changes which alter how humans live. The idea that moral changes cause people to be incompatible with certain forms of govt seem quite preposterous. The psychological changes men in society go through are a result of the diminishment of the power process in which a man provides for his own well being force the changes onto society.

The dark ages were a direct result of the collapse of a system that was advanced enough to have developed technology’s that rely upon the rest of the system to be produced. The disappearance of things like roads and aqueducts was one of the only recorded times in human history where we lost the ability to reproduce a known technology.

It will be one thousand times worse if the globalist system fails.

herp derp, middle ages. Europeans dumb. Hide behind walls....

This retard's never heard of any of the Western empires that existed at the time eg. Byzantine.

And the term "white people" didn't start until the Age of Discovery so during the Dark Ages white supremacy didn't exist cause white peopel didnt exist.

Read Aion by Jung, some Nietzche, or just books in general. What I said isn't preposterous. It's not even controversial. Mankind went from depicting their gods as marble statues, exuding strength and power, to depicting their god as a broken, tortured man that. This isn't trivial stuff. This paradigm shift in the west is woven into every piece of history and you will not be able to ignore it if you have a shred of honesty.

Describing western civilization during Ancient Rome as a "form of government" makes me think that you don't even understand what I'm talking about. This is about the entire collective civilizational framework that naturally arised as a result of mankind's psyche, not about the rules and laws they consciously chose to write down. Yes, if you take a group of people and you drastically change the structure of their moral framework and the way they see the world, their society will undergo massive change. I'm sorry if you think that is preposterous.

How do people who aren't 'white supremacists' deal with this:

> Conquer the entire world
> Invent scientific method
> Industrial revolution
> All the greatest architecture, art, music, philosophy etc

> Somehow not the superior race because 'muh equality'

LMAO

The fact that with the crusades' we basically put them into the dark ages to this day.

The middle east used to be the seat of civilization and then they adopted Islam and went the other way. Interesting during the dark ages Europe was a very hostile wartorn place but for some reason it bred some real innovation and strong people. Despite the advancements in math and science they never really could do anything with it. I suspect it was because the religion you couldn't do anything that might contradict the religion so it went nowhere.

Also interesting is how China was very advanced, but it seems like they got stuck, and never could figure out how to really utilize what they had. For instance, gunpowder. They had it for about a thousand years. They made fireworks with it. They knew if you compressed it, it could explode, but never thought they could put it in a pipe and shoot a projectile at those who wanted the smoke nor did they figure out you could make a bomb with it.

Europeans were smart enough to cast off the theocracy and advance as a secular civilization. It took quite a few centuries because even after the fall, Rome had a lot of wealth and power. But great men like Henry the 8th, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Oliver Cromwell were able to cast off the shackles of Rome.

Muslims are still stuck in their theocratic dark ages.

Europeans tried to civilise the world, something that ethnics to this day resent and can't get over. Unfortunately they didn't realise that civilisation is incommunicable.

"Wahh wahh the white man tried to make me poop in the toilet, wash my hands and eat with cutlery while sat at a table instead of with my chitty hands while sat on the floor!" - ethnics everywhere

IN on full retard thread

I think you miss my point. I view you talking about a symptom as a cause. And the cause for the moral shifts is and will continue to be technological advancement.

Greeks and Roman’s didn’t just shift to Christianity then become incompatible with how they ruled under the new moral guidance. They ran things just fine in Constantinople for a much longer time then say the outward collapse of the empire.

Despite massive coping for the new way of living (because life under Roman rule was completely alien and foreign to how humans have experienced life) humans underwent societal change due to the technological changes in their environment and life.

Massive shifts in human “morality” aren’t a natural occurrence. It has a direct link with technological advancement of society and the needs the technological system has for society.

And as much as I would love picking up Jung or nietzche I’m a little busy with kant, Aristotle,zamyatin, Dostoyevsky and meerlo and quite frankly need to finish some of these. Cheers.

Honestly, there's an opinion aspect but what Chryssipus is saying has solid foundation, and is what Nietszche, and more recently Jung expressed (obviously in much deeper terms than a 'change in morality', but that's what it amounts to)

Even Edward Gibbon (i.e the historian) expressed a somewhat similar view in 'the decline and fall'. I don't think he's confusing a symptom with a cause, i think that you have too much confidence and certainty into what way round the causality is. (I would argue that changing social conditions led to a change to a 'weaker' morality, at least in the sense that it was weaker for the empire than the pagan ideals, i really don't think technology played a big part, Nietszche would call it 'slave morality' whether one agrees or not). The point is that ushering in Christian morals changed the paradigm of the world, and tossed away the old, noble heroic morality of the Illiad, or the Aeneid, and exchanged it for a softer, morality that focused on spiritual development and the 'afterlife', over auctoritas (which was central to the culture of the Republic, and the early principate) and wordly achievements.

Jungs conception of the moral change is very bound up in the symbols of the 'self' (i.e the Christ image being the image of the self, without the shadow, which is where the antichrist image comes from, to Jung at least), and a general moral change expressed via the archetypes in people. Obviously social conditions do play a part, but i'm not really sure there's a great case that technological advancement is what drove the change in morality, at least at the earliest phase, moreso social conditions; an increase in Jewish refugees (and slaves) in Rome and the general issues in Judea after the death of Herod (during Vespasians campaigns and what not, even when Nero was still emporer), and it's importance as a frontier state bordering the Parthians. Since the deification of Augustus and establishment of the principate (i.e rule by one man), monotheism probably seemed more natural, and with less opportunities for Patricians and what not to make moves than in the republic, a morality that helped them deal with the altered hierarchy of society (i.e a move towards 'equality among men', since eminent men had less opportunity vs the republic days) probably helped too. What genuinely new technological innovations came as a result of the principate which dominated the last 500 years of Rome, and ushered in Christianity? Social change was far more important to the complete shift in morals. You talk about this 'technological change', but you don't cite any examples; as far as i can tell most of the technological change was earlier (and social conditions -not driven by technological change -played a larger part). Technological advancement slowed down under the principate, not sped up.

You also point out 'they' ran things much longer in Constantinople, but it was never ever really like the Western empire, and perhaps 'survived' is a better term. Not only this, but Constantinople was largely populated by Greeks (largely greek settlers from Alexanders conquests) rather than Romans (which is in part why the fall of Constantinople, and migration of greeks & greek texts from Constantinople helped spark the renaissance in the west).. the Eastern roman empire in it's later form, was not that much like Western Rome in its day at all; i mean it was essentially founded as a Christian state from the beggining, 'untainted' by paganism, so it's not really a good comparator for the Western Roman empire, which was built on a pagan foundation. By Constantines time, the west had already gone through multiple crisis's, and just because his reign was relatively successful doesn't mean that the decline of Rome hadn't already begun. Augustus, in his will urged Rome not to expand the empire beyond the frontiers he had established (i.e the Illyricum border, and Rhine border; wouldve been deeper into Germanica if it wasn't for the massacre of Teutoberg forest), which with hindsight seems like it probably would've been sound advice.

Is this how ****** and mooslims cope?

Most of what we are told about the dark ages is just a myth. They were basically just like we are today, probably smarter and certainly had more common sense than most dumb ****s you see walking around.

They had courts, lawsuits, investments, glass windows, cathedrals. Similar stuff to what we have today. They didnt just walk around in mud playing flutes with a bunch of sheep.

And what race were the muslims ?

Yes at a time the Middle East were some of the most advanced/intelligent people's on Earth. Unfortunately for them they never really broke past a sticking point and went into a heavy regression.


The thing white Europeans did better then any other 'advanced' civilization before them is enhance science/society pass that sticking point. The industrial revolution changed the world forever.

No. Chengis Khan ended the Islamic Golden Age when he burned Baghdad to the ground as well as its library in the 13th century.
Byzantine was in the East. It was a blend of West and East.

aljazeera shill

The Mongols conquered the most.