The Anglo-Germanic people (Anglo-Saxon, Saxon, Teutons, and other Germanic people) comprise of about 5% of the worlds population. However they hold an overwehlming percentage of the worlds power and economy.

Some would say: "They got lucky with the right inventions, mainly gunpowder"

I can refute this. By 1400 they (Anglo-Germanics) were already the most powerful people on earth, only rivaled by the Chinese. Yet they still wielded crossbows and mounted knights in battle. Iron and steel tempering has been around for hundres/thousands of years. Certainly other people with the same level of intelligence could have done that too?

I know it sounds unethical to begin with but I concentrate on the facts. Sure, they were assholes at some point, but that's what they did. How they achieved this is a whole other story. Its not just about lucky findings. From the onset of the dark ages, they started to slowly but surely surpass all other cultures. In technology and then economy. Of all things they know how to put up a good fight and mostly win.

I have analysed the stategy for quite some time. It seems to revolve around a notion to defend, not attack. Western-Europe is quite small when compared to other regions of struggle and strife. Thus the only way to protect ones assets is to fortify them. During Medieval times Europe was in virtually a constant state of warfare. This taught them a level of ruthlessness and cunning unrivaled by any other. After peace and stability had settled, the waring states soon realised that their way of life has come to pass. However their military might was to expensive to maintain. From thereon there are two options for a state. Either to disband much of its armed forces or to keep on conquering others and using the loot and economic wealth to pay for the army and economical expenditure.

It was with the crusades that the Western Europeans got their first taste of large scale conquest of foreign lands. First the enter the land with seemingly peaceful intentions. As long as they are still few they will not provoke the host country. They will engage in commerce and diplomacy. Then they will claim a small piece of land for themselves. Much to the astonishment of the locals they will built a mighty fortress there and some sort of link-up to the home land, mostly a harbor.

This fortress will be garrisoned by ample of professional soldiers. Hardened veterans and mercenaries from the wars back in Europe. They're method of fighting is the same as their method of conquest. To defend, they wear thick armor and wield ferocious weapons. Their arsenal is specifically designed for the job, to cause tremendous injury, even when the enemy is protected by thick armour themselves.

After completion of the first steps, building a fortress and establishing a direct link to home, larger armies will start to be shipped in. At first they are to protect the many merchants and traders coming in. But before the host nation realises it and they try to expell the invader, the Europeans can muster an army far superior to his and often outnumber him too.

Gradually the Europeans will claim more assets from the host nation until they control everything. Another option is to first amass inside a neighbouring nation that was first siezed or otherwise allied to them. When the Europeans are weak in numbers they are still cunning diplomacist' and will utilize bribery and enemies of the target nation to their advantage. Ofcourse when the target nation is done with the allied nation will fall to the Europeans gathered might soon after.

This strategy has remained largly unchanged even in modern times and the 21st century. Only the invention of the proxy war is a deviating path.

In terms of technology its really a matter fo having the right mindset and having your priorities set right. First off, you need to think strategically, not tactically. That way even if the enemy is stronger on the field, you can still beat him in the long run. You need to have ample of leaders with no ethics whatsoever. Lets just face it, cruel leaders that butcher the enemy by the thousands gain more conquest then benevolent leaders that sometimes even let the enemy go free after capture.

A very large lower social class from which armies can be mustered helps too. The majority of Europeans in medieval times were very poor. They were used to a cold and very harsh way of life. They're bones deteriorated very quickly and they lived a live of hard work and almost constant pain. This hardens them, makes them resilient to almost any situation and most importantly; makes them desperate enough to follow some crazy moron on some suicide quest in the hopes to earn some money.

By the time of the 1600' it was decisive. Western-Europe was going to rule over the world for a very very long time to come. Even with the USA's rise to superpower after the First World War, its still Anglo-Germanics that rule the scepter there.

Anglo-Germanic inventions:
Printing press
Electricity
Eugenics
Flight
Powered flight
Cryonics
Internet
Automobiles
reusable Firearms
Anti-Biotics
MRI scans
Computers
Telephone
Telegraph
Tanks
Robotics
Jet powered flight
Central banking system
Stock market, bonds, etc
and many more

Lets face it, the Anglo-Germanic people are the rulers of the world and they deserve to be.

Have you ever considered that in order to build an empire the majority of people must be stupid pawns that follow orders? But you are supposed to have your ego wrapped up in the empire and be a PROUD PAWN.

It only takes a very tiny percentage of people to create the inventions but how many Americans can't tell you the distance to the moon even though the US put men up there.

Why is it that double entry accounting is 700 years old and yet all of these people running around saying education is so important don't suggest everyone know accounting? The workers are supposed to be dummies that don't accumulate wealth for themselves. They are supposed to be DUMB PAWNS that can be manipulated to serve THE EMPIRE.

Do what Vader says Neo.

A very large lower social class from which armies can be mustered helps too.

Just make sure they stay dumb. Don't give them internet access so they can read The Art of War. That Chinese propaganda must be stopped.

http://librivox.org/the-art-of-war-by-sun-tzu/

DT

http://www.amazon.com/screwing-average-man-David-Hapgood/dp/B0006W84KK

It's called resources you stupid fuck.

They conquered the world because they were fucking rich out of their mind with resources.

Wood, coal, iron, fertile land, etc.

If blacks were in Germany and whites in Africa, it would be the other way around.

Africa and the Middle East are shit holes because they are deserts.

It's called resources you stupid fuck.

They conquered the world because they were fucking rich out of their mind with resources.

Wood, coal, iron, fertile land, etc.

If blacks were in Germany and whites in Africa, it would be the other way around.

Africa and the Middle East are shit holes because they are deserts.

Incorrect. Monetarily speaking the Middle East was many times richer then Europe in Medieval times. The japanese per example set a perfect example that having very few recourses of your own doesn't mean you're the weaker party. Its all a matter of allocation.

Your tone in your opening sentence is a sign of low intellect. Prove me wrong on that (low intellect) by participating in the discussion on a civilized manner.

Really you're doing this by race as opposed to by nationality. Some of these inventions were made in places other than Germany, by Germanic people whose loyalties were with nations other than germany. example Powered flight: the wright bros. were US nationals, regardless of germanic descent.

White power :cool:

White power :cool:

But you are supposed to have your ego wrapped up in the empire and be a PROUD PAWN.

DT

Your tone in your opening sentence is a sign of low intellect. Prove me wrong on that (low intellect) by participating in the discussion on a civilized manner.

I could say the same about your inability to spell "blackness".

Japan
Japan did and does well due to LARGE amounts of investments from the Europe and the USA.

Middle East
Yeah, because they were middle men. They didn't need resources. In fact, that's why they call it the Middle East (it is between Europe and Asia). But after the middle ages Europeans invented caravels and other long distance ships, so they didn't have to use the Arabs to get goods from Asia.

The two regions didn't do well because they allocated their funds correctly, they prospered because of Western influence.

Today, Saudi Arabia is doing nicely because they have oil. A resource. Once the world no longer needs oil, SA will become a desert wasteland.

It's ALL about the resources.

It's ALL about the decisions each population makes.

fixed

Resources are important but there is no one single thing that makes a nation more powerful than another. A lack of say, manpower, can be made up with good organization and efficiency. The Germans have very few resources compared to Africa (Africa is actually quite resource rich) but are better at allocating what they have and making up for what they lack.

After all when Spain "discovered" the Americas the wealth and resources they obtained were astounding, but because they expelled their merchant (arab) class and banking (jewish) clash all that wealth they obtained quickly ended up leaving the country and in the pockets of other European monarchs. Spain was already in deep decline not even a hundred years after Cortez conquered the Aztecs, whereas England has stayed a major power for the past 400-500 years.

You cant underestimate other factors either like geography, climate, leadership, stability, government/economic systems, and dozens of others. England's geography and relatively stable government have no doubt played significant roles in its history as a major power

Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond it contains his theory on why this happened, all backed up by scientific inquiry.

Basically he argues that it was pure dumb luck that gave Eurasians the upper hand in world affairs. It was not hard work, genetic predisposition to success, or higher intelligence, but a series of factors that date back to the time of the neolithic revolution.

Eurasia was able to domesticate around 15 species of large animals in order to help w/ the creation of agri-based societies which then lead to the organization of government, (due to food surplus which gave a higher percentage of the population more time to do things other then hunt/gatherer- division of labor, economic growth, etc.). Eurasians and people from the Middle East had advantages in this area, and although Native Americans grew corn - no other areas of the world were able to domesticate animals (look at Africa)..I think south America had the llama and that was it. Geographically speaking many areas in Europe have similar climates so plants/animals could be readily transplanted from one area to another. So already Eurasia is at a big advantage and this is 12 000 years ago.

Europeans were also able to develop heightened immune systems towards certain diseases due to their dense cities - unlike the Native Americans who we basically wiped out w/ our smallpoxes and etc.

Interesting book; there has been some criticisms of it but it won a Pulitzer and I think it brings up some good points...I'm sure there are a few on totse that will still cling to their racially based views though...

Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond it contains his theory on why this happened, all backed up by scientific inquiry.

Basically he argues that it was pure dumb luck that gave Eurasians the upper hand in world affairs. It was not hard work, genetic predisposition to success, or higher intelligence, but a series of factors that date back to the time of the neolithic revolution.

So basically you're saying the US is the most powerful nation of the world by accident or by luck because their ancestors domesticated large animals.

You don't build an empire by sheer luck and large cattle hardly make a difference.

It takes ambition, knowledge and, more than anything else, management (also leadership). Culture also plays a significant role. You would be surprise at the number of cultures around the world that don't encourage theses attributes (like the Bushmen tribes of Africa or the Inuit).

This is an important subject very much debated in archaeological theory. Of course environmental played a role but it's hardly the only one. I'm not a fan of Jared Diamond: as a professor of geography he should stick to his field witch is geography and not evolutionary anthropology or archaeology. Even if he does have scientific studies to back him up, it's as easy to find studies that contradict him (the first thing I learned in grad school is that you can prove anything you want from generalized facts).

You don't build an empire by sheer luck and large cattle hardly make a difference.


i think the reason why the british got into the industrial revolution (cementing their power for a long time) was due to the large amounts of coal that existed there at the time. comparing this with other countries, they did quite well

So basically you're saying the US is the most powerful nation of the world by accident or by luck because their ancestors domesticated large animals.

Fuck i just wrote a massive reply then had a 1 second power cut. Anyway...

By the time the Americas were significantly populated it was because of European settlers and not because of indigenous peoples. The settlers already had the guns, germs and steel and hence it was just a matter of using these tools to extract the resources from the land.

And Domesticated animals and plants play a massive role. With out these it is impossible in most circumstances to have civilisation (i.e villages, towns and cities) because there is simply not enough food to go around. With agriculture you can make more food, this means more people, bigger armies and this means more power. With surplus food some people can stop working in the fields and develop into other professions as we would call them expanding there power further.

You don't see hunter gatherers societies becoming powerful countries do you?


I know Diamond made a big thing in the book about the climatic conditions due to the axial arrangement of the continents. The Americas and Africa 'stretch' vertically, this means they cover a large array climatic conditions so it is difficult to spread the knowledge gained in one area to lots of people because of climatic barriers. Example could be domesticated animals which didn't spread to South Africa for along time because they cannot survive in the Desert/Tropic regions of central Africa.
The Eurasian continent is spread much more horizontally, this means there are many regions that have similar climatic conditions and hence the same crops and animals can be raised through out the continent.




i think the reason why the british got into the industrial revolution (cementing their power for a long time) was due to the large amounts of coal that existed there at the time. comparing this with other countries, they did quite well

Indeed the prevalence of natural resources such as coal and iron in the British isles put us on a good footing although places like Germany had similar reserves. Interestingly one of the reasons why the industrial revolution started was because our (relatively) small country was being deforested at a rapid rate people started turning to burning coal. As more coal was needed, mines went deeper but they filled with water so an engine had to be built to pump the water out, no prizes for guessing what the engine was powered by. Being an island also helped as it is extremely difficult to invade. Even with these advantages it is still amazing how a small island of the north west coast of Europe managed to rule the waves and 1/4 of the Earth's surface.

im black and i have listened to minister farakahn and like him. i'm very pro-black.

white people do seem to be the creators of civilization in the old days. i dont believe blacks built egypt, i say that to get people mad. even the asian people cant create like white people did in the past, and asians are supposed to be the smartest. but today i dont believe whites are what they were then. they aren't as smart as asians (some are who would have more pure bloodlines like people in iceland). so maybe hitler was onto something. because other whites aren't as smart as those from countries where the people are more nordic.

but as a whole, today i think asians of advanced further than white people because of they are pure. any asian will have a higher iq than an italian (because an italian is white, and god knows what else). asian countries are the most advanced because they keep to themselves. like everyone should do. look at mexicans. you had the asian indian, mixed with what was back then a fairly pure white people, and you got mexicans who have iq's far less than both. your average americanized white kid doesn't have much to brag about. first because your not the supreme white race of creators hitler was talking about, and you have iq's less than asians, and second because you dont even seem to have the will to survive, like us stupid black people.

Well unlike Bobapan I still feel that the neolithic revolution was something of a big contributing factor to the way the geo-political world developed...and the folks who posted after me only cemented that fact.

Your basic argument seems to be 'nahhh...I don't believe that'...Why don't you weigh in with your own theories?

Presumably ATL is a troll, but I commend him for his love of Asians! Very inclusive of you. But I must disagree with your claims that Asian countries are the most advanced - presumably your talking about China, Japan, and India...I don't think they have caught up economically to the United States or other Western countries yet and it may be awhile (if ever) for that to happen. Also I think you should deal with your obvious self-loathing. Newsflash - Scott Rushton's theories on race vs. IQ have been thoroughly discredited, anybody with the correct drive can be as intelligent as they want to be! Good luck, I hope in educating yourself further on these topics you can truly come to live a self fulfilling and enjoyable life free of racial blanket stereotypes and self-hatred.

Christianity brainwashed the populations into being mindless pawns.

Holy Roman Empire
British Empire
Nazi Party
America

Christianity is based upon ruling through fear, corruption and hatred. It needs to be purged from this planet at once.

Hey look at me! I'm a lowlife but I should be put above accomplished people of other races simply because some dude who couldn't give a second shit about me and has the same skin color has done something with his life! It doesn't matter how you interpret history. No race has a monopoly on knowledge anymore. An immensely interconnected social infrastructure has been put in place. Every year there are more and more places in the world where individual aptitudes(through scholarships and the like) allow more and more people to prosper. What this has shown us is not a constant, parallel bell curve that should exist. As more places develop and modernize, you are seeing strong overlap in academics. Some white kids are smarter than some non-white kids, and some non-white kids are smarter than some white kids. The overlap is the elephant in the room that no skinheads want to address. China has over 300 million people that have an IQ above 130. That is, for every phd, doctor, and redneck and every other person in america, there is someone with a high IQ to match in china. I'm also curious about the mensa situation, because the upper 2% of the population there would be 20 million strong. Staggering. So how about this, Asshole, let the most qualified rule the world, and let the less-achieving people of all races, including white, rot in their self-fulfilled castes?

above

Good post.

OP, you fail miserably.

human history: bearly 6000 years

anglo-german "supremacy" 300 years, say 400 if you want.