Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (8/11/14 - 8/17/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
And modern history has recast the Middle Ages in a more positive light than your outline of an entire, centuries long period of European history that cannot easily be generalised regarding things such as nutrition. But technologically, Europeans never entered into long periods of stasis like the Classical or Chinese civilizations did and the 'backwardness' of the Medieval European technology is one of the most common myths about Europe's past.Quote:
The image of the monarchist Middle Ages you're presenting is a demonisation of the Catholic past by Protestant then Enlightenment historians, no civilization could have functioned as the popular image of the Middle Ages suggests things were. In fact the combination of demonization and romanticisation is the same kind of thing Christians like Snorri Sturluson and the Irish monks did with northern paganism.
Quoth Jean Gimpel.
"Events have proved that Spengler's view was an oversimplification, but while one may disagree with his scholarship, his dogmatism, and his metaphysical theories, he nevertheless projected some astonishing insights into the future of Western civilization. Spengler's interest in technology led him to infer that the foundations of our present technologically oriented society were laid not in the Italian Renaissance or in the English Industrial Revolution, but in the Middle Ages. This is the main theme of my study.
The Middle Ages was one of the great industrial eras of mankind. It should be known as the first industrial revolution in Europe. The scientists and engineers at that time were searching for alternative sources of energy to hydraulic power, wind power, and tidal energy. Between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, western Europe experienced a technological boom. Both that boom and the subsequent decline can now be seen to offer striking parallels to Western industrial society since 1750, and to the present situation in the United States in particular. Some of the features that accompanied this first industrial revolution seem strangely familiar."
"In the ninth century - around the year 845 - on the twenty-three domains belonging to the monastery at Montieren-Der, in the arrondissement of Saint-Dizier in the Haute-Marne, there were eleven water mills on the river Voire, three of them separated by less than 6 kilometers. In the same century, on the land owned by the famous medieval monastery of Saint Germain-des-Pres - now renowned for its literary cafes the Flore, the Lipp, and the Deux-Maggots - there were no less than 59 water mills. The majority of these mills were built on quite small streams. Aqueducts were no longer needed to drive the waterwheels. The corn-grinding industry had been decentralized and there were to be no more Barbegals.
The rate of expansion of the water mills in the succeeding centuries was spectacular. There was nothing comparable in antiquity. For example, on the banks of the Robec, which joins the Seine at Rouen, there were 2 mills in the tenth century, 10 in the thirteenth century, and 12 at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In the department of l’Aube, 14 water mills are mentioned in the eleventh century, 60 in the twelfth century, and over 200 in the thirteenth century.
Thanks to the Domesday tax collectors’ scrupulous attention to fiscal detail, we have an exceptionally clear picture of English waterpower in the later part of the eleventh century. The commissioners, whom William the Conquerer sent out in 1086 to make the survey, had a number of questions to be answered, and one concerned mills, which were regarded as an important source of revenue. The commissioners covered roughly thirty-four of the English counties and reported on 9,250 manors. They found that there were 287,045 tenants and occupiers of land, and if each of these is taken to have been the head of a family of 5, we reach a population figure for the area covered by the Domesday book of approximately 1,400,000."
"The engineers of the classical world - men like Hero of Alexandria - knew the use that could be made of the cam, but applied it only to animate toys or gadgets. Although the Chinese operated trip-hammers for hulling rice as early as A.D. 290, the use of the cam evidently failed to spread to other industries in the following centuries. In fact, it is a feature of Chinese technology that its great inventions - printing, gunpowder, the compass - never played a major evolutionary role in Chinese history. The introduction of the cam into medieval industry, on the other hand, was to make an important contribution to the industrialization of the Western hemisphere. Today practically every automobile coming off the assembly line has a camshaft.
In Europe, from the end of the tenth century the cam enabled millwrights to mechanize a whole series of industries which up to then had been operated by hand or by foot. In France, one of the first mills for making beer is mentioned in a document related to the monastery of Saint-Sauveur at Montreuil-sur-Mer between 987 and 996; water-driven hammers seem to be operating as early as 1010 at Schmidmuhlen in Oberpfalz in Germany. Hemp seems to have been treated mechanically in the Graisivaudan in 1040. Th earliest mentioned fulling mill operating in France was in a village in Normandy about 1086. A tanning mill is mentioned in an 1138 document belonging to the chapter of Notre-Dame de Paris. Paper, which was manafactured by hand and foot for a thousand years or so followings its invention by the Chinese and adoption by the Arabs, was manafacturing mechanically as soon as it reached medieval Europe in the thirteenth centuries. This is convincing evidence of how technologically minded the Europeans of that era were. Paper had traveled nearly halfway around the world, but no culture or civilization on its route had tried to mechanize its manafacture."
I did say that National Socialism was tinged by Marxism and by certain anti-elitist sentiments in general. Personally I prefer aspects of the far right regimes in Italy, Japan and especially Spain myself, and I'd have sided with the German Conservative Revolutionaries who Hitler purged if I was there, but the fact still remains that Nazism was a better form of government than liberal democracy (individualism) or Communism (collectivism), both of which the Nazis fought. So sorry if I don't see the Germans as monsters like a Pavolv's dog. And Axis expansionism was a response to their situations, to redress the balance of power in their own favour and away from more powerful empires such as the British, French and (yes) Americans. The Axis states were also subject to economic sanctions at the time.Quote:
Once more, opinions someone disagrees with are dismissed as 'conspiracy theories'. And the ill-defined and therefore meaningless smear word 'racist' as though I'm supposed to accept the guilt (and the concept) of 'racism' like a Pavlov's dog.Quote:
"Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt." - Nietzsche
And the fact France took the lead in the bombing of Libya changes nothing about what I said because America has been responsible for most of the anti-Moslem aggression in general, not France. America was still involved in the bombing of Libya, Hillary Clinton found footage of a man's lynching to be hilarious, and either way the first thing the Libyan 'rebel' scum did was set up a central bank.
There is no single romanisation in print, you're just trying to present yourself as more of an authority than you are. And I know what a 'hard k' is, and an aleph and an ayod... I do know a bit about Afroasiatic cultures and linguistics without reading or speaking in Arabic.Quote:
Yes I have read some Marx, but there was little worth remembering lol. The whole vision of history presented by Marx and Engels was presented as a scientific theory but its predictions were not supported by the available facts at the time it was written, Marxism merely appealed to people who thought of themselves as rational but weren't. Communism justified a course of action in the present on Communism's not yet present behalf, like Evangelical Zionists preparing the way for the Messiah. Without any factual basis for Communist theory, it was a faith.Quote:
Since when has Hegel been a scientist? That isn't why Marxism was a pseudoscienctific theory.Quote:
No there wasn't, because there was no reason to believe the prediction. What you mean is that people had hope for Marxism - like many naive and educated Romans had for Christianity. And Marxism didn't make men any more equal than Christianity made them good.Quote:
Which has nothing to do with the fact we're discussing - the National Socialists disinfected the decadent culture of Weimar Germany, which people selectively remember in a positive light because Weimar Germany was 'free'. World War 2 has nothing to do with it and we know why you're bringing it up lol.Quote:
---------- Post added at 02:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 AM ----------
If the common man's vote really changed anything then they wouldn't let you do it. Think about how insignificant any one individual vote is, and how even the effect of an individual encouraging others to vote is minimal compared to the effect of media in shaping public attitudes and voting practices.
"Voting is a supremely irrational act." - Satoshi Kanazawa, psychologist
Labelling things as meaningless and childish is a smear tactic because it doesn't address the point he made, even if he could have made it a little better. You know full well that HK's criticism doesn't just apply to direct democracy.Quote:
In other words, it was down to earth and realistic.Quote:
Last edited by faintsmile1992; January 30, 2012 at 01:27 AM.
You're kidding aren't you
I do not even know how to respond to something so ridiculous
You win, the argument is yours. The middle ages were a wonderland of hyper efficient paper mills and water wheels, an idyllic age of milk and honey, abounding with happy, long lived, literate, peasants
Seriously though: I fucking hate when the ignorant insult my intelligence.
You're fucking kidding right? Do you understand how ignorant that statement is? There is absolutely no way to be nice about a statement of such unsurpassed, horrifying ignorance. How can the Nazi party deposing the Weimar Republic have nothing to do with the rest of World War IIQuote:
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard another human being say. You should be embarrassed for even thinking that, let alone typing it
Are you fucking serious? Do I really have to explain this to an adult? Read this real slow so it sinks:
The consequences of the Nazi party seizing power in Germany was World War II. Deposing the Weimar Republic was the first step to war and can not be separated from the subsequent history.
Now please justify 70 million dead in the War, as that is the direct consequence of the cleansing of the Weimar. One can not be praised without praising the other.
And nobody thinks highly of the Weimar Republic My god. They are best remembered for massive incompetence and hyperinflation. They teach primary school children about how bad the Weimar Republic sucked. Where the fuck do you get your facts? If you actually think that the Weimar Republic is well remembered you need a new source. And to be less gullible. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell, interested?
I can't be fucking bothered to respond to the rest of your post. You clearly do not know anything about Marx, Marxist Theory, or political events from when it was written. You clearly have a predetermined opinion about Marxism without actually knowing anything about the philosophy (not a pseudoscience, a philosophy). The truth is that Marxism is discredited for a reason, only you know to little about the subject to actually say why. Instead you use big words like pseudoscience to cover your lack of knowledge. So, I'll take your challenge then: what pseudoscience was Marx based on, where in the Communist Manifesto was this pseudoscience cited (I need page numbers, I have a copy and can cross reference myself). And please do not google random revisionist historians as a source. While I am thrilled to learn that the water wheel was brought to perfection during the middle ages I would still prefer actual relevant facts as to why Marx was a pseudoscience. derp.
And I am well aware that Hegal was a philosopher, not a scientist
The point was that Marx's primary intellectual influence was a philosopher, not quack science.
No one said it didn't, but we were referring specifically to the Nazi policies on culture. Why do you feel a need to misrepresent what I said, in order to win an argument?Quote:
Kaiten, why can't you win an argument without being rude?Quote:
Of course it can't, however your statement is irrelevant to whether Nazi policies regarding culture were good for Germany.Quote:
Nonsense, that is a logical fallacy called non sequitur. Learn you fallacies!Quote:
Of course people say there were problems with Weimar Germany, but they still condemn the Nazis for censoring its art as degenerate, because they see Weimar artistic freedoms as good whilst Nazi censorship is bad.Quote:
Marx and Engels explicitly claimed to have a scientific theory. If it wasn't really a scientific theory, then this makes it a pseudoscience.Quote:
Why is rejection of Marxism "clearly have a predetermined opinion about Marxism"? Why not "clearly an open minded rejection of Marxism?"
Really? I've just described why it was pseudoscience, it wasn't based on pseudoscience, it was a pseudoscientific claim itself. Its predictions for the future were not a scientific prediction, because no known society had attained Communism. It isn't just that the prediction failed, there was no need for anyone to treat the unfounded prediction seriously.Quote:
'Revisionism' in that sense of the word is a mainstream scholarly practice of historians, its simply the re-examination and re-interpretation of evidence. Modern Medieval studies naturally rejects unrealistically negative images of the Middle Ages because they don't fit the available evidence and were invented to smear Catholicism in contrast to Protestant 'progress'. You are trying to smear my mainstream source by association with 'holocaust denial' because you're trying to present yourself as an expert on history in this thread, but when it comes to Medieval technologies, I showed you don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
He and Engels ought not to have presented Marxism as a science, then.Quote:
Funny how 'some people' chastise anyone praising even aspects of Nazi Germany but you cling on to defending Marxist loons even when you reject the theory yourself, because you share a belief in the principles they stood for. Well, you asked me to justify how many people the Nazis killed just because I praised some of their censorship, how many more people were killed in the USSR, PRC and elsewhere by dreamers inspired by Marx and Engels. But because that's in the name of equality so you get to defend the Communist Manifesto as though its different from defending Mein Kampf. Just like an academic's career can be over because of an accusation of 'Nazism', even if its unfounded, but the sort of people who used to wear Che Guerava imagery and quote Trotsky back when they were students in the 1960s (and they knew the Soviet Union was terrorizing millions of people at the time), are still allowed to teach with no stigma to this day. The hypocrisy called equality knocks me sick.
Last edited by faintsmile1992; January 30, 2012 at 01:25 AM.
Moderator message by: HegemonKhanPolitics is quite passionate, as one's beliefs are quite personal and precious. Debating and arguing why you disagree is quite fine, but let's try not to get personal, and remain respectful no matter how much you disagree and think the other person is wrong (whether they actually are wrong or not, they have their reasons for thinking-concluding on the things that they do, and these factors used, are not wrong nor uniformed, whereas their conclusion belief may be), respect is still in order, as we are all making informed beliefs and conclusions, as we all are humans, rationally applying our own knowledge and experiences, for every thought and action that we humans do, including debating over politics, morals, philosophies, and/or worldviews. I think a deep breath by everyone, myself included, is needed here. Civility Please!!
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 30, 2012 at 01:26 AM.
Eh? Marx is in my fourth year of high school philosophy book, I have only read some of his essays but it is very clear he was inspired by philosophy, when I asked my philosophy teacher to clarify what Marx exactly is she said he was a law-man, then inspiration from philosophical ideas of Hegel and his own teachings are also one of the basis of SOCIOLOGY. So all of these are not pseudoscience, btw do pseudoscience is weird people like Uri Geller and his bunch, I hardly see the connections of such people with Marx.
And if someone used pseudoscience as inspiration it was the Nazi's, their Eugenics plan with Dr.Josef Mengele is mostly based on as I said some weird Darwinian misinterpretation backed up with philosophical ideas of Voluntarism. Seriously how can one cut the unborn baby's of the Jewish moms in the concentration camps and not be called a "Witch Doctor", plus they argued that the Jewish people, then the Slavs and all non-German are basically "untermenchen" and the Germans are "ubermenchen". How can one actually prove this is beyond me. :/
Huh? Mengele wasn't responsible for the Nazis embracing eugenics, which is simply the same science as livestock breeding and whether or not people believe in eugenics, it can't be a pseudoscience because the same kind of selective breeding obviously works upon other species of plants and animals.Quote:
And yet the Nazis were in general anti-abortion for the German people, whilst Weimar Germany had been pro-abortion because of Communist agitation promoting the "master of my own body" idea, including the dissemination of 'facts' that were already known to be untrue such as the foetus being a part of the mother's body. And there was nothing sentimental about Nazi morality, unlike the 'right to life' movement today. This is the aspect of Nazism that I like, its their unsentimental updating and aggressive promotion of social conservatism as a response to the social threats from the left.Quote:
Actually Nazism wasn't based on such racial theories, which were common outside Germany at the time, but on the idea of the volk.Quote:
---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------
I posted this as a VM to someone else over on Mangafox.
"And don't forget once you discount the 'right' to sexual permissiveness and outright public drunkenness, most people would have more freedom under an Axis regime than we do today.
In particular, which females actually benefit from living in tolerant societies, except for career-first family haters, deranged 'womans rights' fanatics, lifestyle lesbians who don't now to keep their strange sex lives in private, murdering foetus killers and unclean sluts who spread diseases? Good females who long to be devoted to one special man, cook for him and make many babies are discriminated against in favour of the above. The supposedly 'antiquated' social mores of the past that even 'conservatives' have turned their back on, actually protected women from being taken advantage of by unvirtuous men.
Even if religion is nonsense, traditional value systems are the best for good men, good women and their children and fascism represents an update of those social values."
He was not, though he executed a lot of the plans they had, "good death" being one of them. As I said it is some perverse Darwinian view that I see you are going from. We can think that sets us apart form animals. The say that humans are animals is fine but to say that because we are animals we are not human and thus take in barbaric and animal like behavior as "Nature" is simply not right for humans who DO have common sense.Quote:
Again, this justifies Eugenics? Which is a devious crime against humanity, what RIGHT have those scientists to decide for the mother if she keeps or does not keep her baby? And even more vile the idea that THE GERMAN PEOPLE will not have abortions, but it is alright for everyone else who is not German? This is clear racism.Quote:
They took Nationalism way to far.Quote:
Plus if it is not based on racial theories then why did Hitler say these things:
"The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy." - Adolf Hitler
"The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time." - Adolf Hitler
Here's a quote from monarchist Julius Evola, who thought the Fascists and the National Socialists weren't hardcore rightist enough.
"It would not be a matter of imposing a single regime-type on every European nation; however, even if in various forms appropriate to local conditions, the general principle to apply has to be organic, hierarchical, anti-democratic and antiindividual." - Julius Evola
---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------
The word 'human' is a zoological label, and nothing more. Whilst I don't wish to defend Mengele's experiments, which had little to do with Eugenics as described by Galton, most of the people objecting to human experimentation are just fine with experiments in which animals suffer for human curiosity.Quote:
Who was justifying anything?Quote:
Personally when a matter of life or death is involved, I'd rather that the decision belong to the government. After all, the difference between a government decision and a personal choice is what makes the difference between the death penalty and murder. And your use of the word 'racism' here simply means ethnocentrism and all cultures recognise their own kind as different to outsiders and treat them with a different set of standards. And no, I don't agree with abortion either. But I'm also against the ideal of 'reproductive choice' in general, which places the individual over the group.Quote:
I disagree, the flaws of Nazism were that they were too influenced by the left in their political outlook IMO.Quote:
Those quotes are nothing to do with racial theory, but I didn't deny the Nazis were influenced by racial theories of the time, I only said that the influence of those theories upon Nazism is exaggerated.Quote:
Doesn't matter that democracy allows ppl to make more mistakes, cause this is just an unavoidable part of having the right to choose...there is always a chance of being wrong. but obliterating that very option of choice means that even the right things are meaningless.
Someone's decision to vote for a candidate (or not to vote at all) won't significantly affect how or whether or not other people will vote either, because most people don't have the reach to influence enough others, because only a few people get to promote their candidates, parties or political issues through mass media
And nothing possesses 'meaning' anyway, so saying something like "even the right things are meaningless" is like dismissing things as 'soulless'.
Well, at least democracy would give a chance for change, a monarchy does not provide that in the least... There is also no way in hell that things in general were better before than now, that is plain absurd in any conceivable way (specially in regards of monarchy vs democracy).
Obviously 1 vote is not something that makes that much of a difference however democracy is not about "1" vote. Democracy is all about the collective will of the people so to speak. In a coherent world it wouldn't even be about the majority imposing itself over a minority either as the very principles on which you vote in general would protect the minority (that is the ideal case which obviously does not apply 100% however I do think we are slowly -very slowly- getting there).
Politics is like religion, people take part because it gives them a sense of hope, and their desire to believe in something is why they end up being used by the people bringing the messages of hope. Like with religion, the only way to free yourself from these people is to reject their existing political system and its parties.
Happy Birthday Elisabeth :-)
Indeed your vote is pretty much unsignificative but what I find important is the debate that takes place before the election. That is a moment where people talk with eachother on their belief and what they want to and in the end the results is not always the one expected.
Of course I don't deny that oligarchy you are talking about (especially in France where most of the politicians are issued from the same school), but is it better with other system. An authoritarian regim won't free yourself (unless you are the head of state :-), they always end with a high degree of coruption and people who only think their own benefit and family.
Who is Elizabeth?
And in hereditary governments, there's much less of a specific form of corruption, the freeloading career politician who's only in it for the money, is extremely open to influence from any pressure group or corporation, and then quits or retires without consequence because they aren't in it for the power. Just think of the MPs expenses scandal for an example of how these freeloaders behave like chav benefit frauds.
But the fact that there was a scandal shows that some sort of counter power exists and that is what help decreasing corruption.Quote:
As for hereditary governments, you will also need something to legitimate your son place. It's not like nobody would like to take the place once you die.