He tries to simplify history into authoritarianism = bad and free market = good, social liberalism = good. Also deletes any critique of his videos as well
This. Not even sympathetic to authoritarianism, but his take that Spain is corrupt and poor because of fascism is not true at all. Also hates Bismarck for some reason. He strikes me as the kind of liberal European who thinks they're somehow post-historical now, and European social democracy is the penultimate form of government, which annoys me even as someone liberal-leaning.
He has a hate boner against Franco and seethes about him all the time. You can say that Franco was a despot who killed thousands and restricted civil liberties etc, but his government was never a kleptocracy and oversaw the industrialization and rebuilding of Spain into the modern world. He also always leaves out that it was the both the PSOE and the PP who privatized state companies and it was Franco who created the national health care service etc
>He strikes me as the kind of liberal European who thinks they're somehow post-historical now, and European social democracy is the penultimate form of government
Perfectly put. Lots of these types nowadays. Smug European homosexuals think they've ascended from ideology but they're too moronic to realize they're balls deep in it.
United States of Evropa is happening, chud.
And Kraut, like most YouTube political or historical essayists, just repeats the last book he read. There's usually a well known and respected name behind his opinions, as they aren't really his.
Kek, he will never answer the question “based on what”. Vague and fake shit like social liberalism is a farce. And he will deny colonial legacy being the main fuel for Europe’s success, not feminism.
Makes perfect sense. Byzantium is about the purple, not about the cross.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Forgetting the 1thousand years of christian government with the exception of a pagan larper emperor. > Forgetting that the ottomans did not have the slightest of the roman mechanical or any form government that the roman and the Byzantine had. >Ignoring that the last bureaucrats or competent politicians were either greek phanariots or greek greek slaves that ened up to be second in command.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I am not forgetting anything, and you are just listing differences while ignoring similarities. Byzantium wasn't just the cross. What separated it from other states wasn't it's faith.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The faith along with the institutes is what connects byzantine and roman empire.
The ottoman empire lacked both as similarities. For example, the Byzantine senate.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And, you know, architecture, music, baths, wrestling, sport arenas, urbanism, etc.
The Ship of Theseus sailing between Rome and Constantinople is the same sailing between Constantinople and Istanbul.
2 years ago
Anonymous
When you have till th 1920s a gov that follows the same religion that forbids the
General usage of face in artwork, the official use of alcohol and compare it with the more laxed options of the previous empire that was before it, you will see that the ottomans did not have an empire that had a ship but a camel thatwas able to swim.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Ship of Theseus replaced old parts with newer pieces that were of the same shape, sight and use. When Constantine moved east it was still a singular Rome that moved. When the Ottomans took over they did not continue maintaining the ship, they burned it and replaced it with their own.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Abbasid caliphate was unironically closer to byzantium than Ottomans were. They copied many of its aspects, and were greekophiles.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They also literally invited greeks to administer and rule them. But then, the seljuk Rum was also closer. At one point it was basically a side in an internal Byzantine civil war. And the Ottoman thing basically inherited both of these civil war participants, the greek and the seljuk side. Also inherited the mongol empire through its genghisid vassal in Crimea, and from there the Rus throne. Also it was obviously the inheritor of the Arab empire, through its control of the sacred places and its title of caliph.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize Turkey should rule all of Eurasia and north Africa (at least).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They also literally invited greeks to administer and rule them.
Byzantium was a beacon for tolerance and diversity (not the current meme one), The Middle East paid dearly for losing it. >Turkey
The Ottomans weren't ethno-nationalist, or founded upon it, like turkey. They didn't even impose any language upon their subjects. And their identity wasn't either around Anatolia as it's center, the Levant and Mesopotamia and Mecca were as important, Ataturk killed the Ottoman legacy forever. Modern Turkey is not to be trusted to rule fairly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Ottomans conquered and installed their own prior government on the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire. There was no continuation or inheritance. They conquered meter by bloody meter until it was all theirs. Rome didn't "inherit" the Italian peninsula from the Italics and Celts, they took it by force and made it theirs and most certainly didn't claim a continuation of those tribes.
I just saw his video about the Christian family in Europe and he goes over how the Church was the glue that kept Europe together in place of the Empire, if thats not a successor I don't know what is
Lets be real, "inheritors of rome" is just something people care about because somehow if, say, finland is the "true" successor of the roman empire it grants a sheen of quality to finland. But actually, the title has no real use in understanding history. We know how the catholic church built on roman institutions, how the turks conquered constantinople, how russia led the orthodox faith, how burgers are the global superpower and so on. Who is the "true" rome is irrelevant, since we all know the ACTUAL rome people care and talk about ended over a millennia ago as their empire lost the dominant position it once had.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The roman empire declares war on the roman republic because they are allied with the roman empire who they are going to war with to defend the roman empire who went to war with some bumfrick Illyrians or whatever who assassinated the heir to the roman empire.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also the roman empire and the kingdom of the romans both join in on opposite sides for some reason despite this having nothing to do with them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
then kingdom of the romans and the kingdom of the romans join the side the kingdom of the roman is on despite wavering on which side to join early on. Unfortunately the kingdom of the romans surrendered to the roman empire but then rejoined the day before the war ended.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also the roman empire and the kingdom of the romans both join in on opposite sides for some reason despite this having nothing to do with them.
The roman empire declares war on the roman republic because they are allied with the roman empire who they are going to war with to defend the roman empire who went to war with some bumfrick Illyrians or whatever who assassinated the heir to the roman empire.
>meanwhile, in elysium...
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also the roman empire and the kingdom of the romans both join in on opposite sides for some reason despite this having nothing to do with them.
then kingdom of the romans and the kingdom of the romans join the side the kingdom of the roman is on despite wavering on which side to join early on. Unfortunately the kingdom of the romans surrendered to the roman empire but then rejoined the day before the war ended.
>ARE THERE ANY OTHER ROMES I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think there was a kingdom that used to be the roman empire but they stayed neutral.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No you got it backwards, Rome was the inheritor of the Finno-Galactic Federation after the Hyperwar civilizational collapse just like Han China was the inheritor of the Korean Star Empire.
Look at his last video, he included Oman in the “oil kingdoms” and depicted it funding terrorists. He’s a leftist troony lover that has zero knowledge about history or geopolitics.
Just watched his last video, and the overall theme is solid, even if he got some details wrong. Good comparison and a good argument. Fits well with that Turkish liberal that keeps talking about institutions, institutions, institutions.
>Good comparison and a good argument
Not at all. they aren't comparable at all. Oil isn't running out, and it isn't Saudi Arabia's main problem. Saudi Arabia existed before oil. and will be after it.
That video was just condemnation, because of MbS in video format. With social justice and 'colonialism bad" mixed in it.
>Oil isn't running out
The one which is economical to extract is. As price goes up, consumption will shift away.
>Saudi Arabia existed before oil.
In such a different form, it's basically not the same state or society. You are being intentionally dumb by pretending KSA without oil income will be the same state, if it would exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
MBS is looking to diversify the economy of Saudi Arabia and push it into a tourist hot spot, its why he's conducting "liberal" reforms, I think the Saudis know its an issue regarding relying on oil.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The one which is economical to extract is
Not at the rate as he claims. being replaced as the main fuel for the world is certainly true, but domestic use, and sustainable export will keep the country afloat for centuries. As I said, it's not Saudi Arabia's main problem, Saudi is diversifying, because with oil, it will stagnate, and stop developing, which is absolutely true. Not total collapse at all. The video greatly diminish Saudi Arabia as a country, and exclude many of its aspects in favour of oil. painting as a "banana republic". it tells nothing to people about the state of the country and how it's run, it's in no way descriptive of it.
MBS is looking to diversify the economy of Saudi Arabia and push it into a tourist hot spot, its why he's conducting "liberal" reforms, I think the Saudis know its an issue regarding relying on oil.
>The one which is economical to extract is
Not at the rate as he claims. being replaced as the main fuel for the world is certainly true, but domestic use, and sustainable export will keep the country afloat for centuries. As I said, it's not Saudi Arabia's main problem, Saudi is diversifying, because with oil, it will stagnate, and stop developing, which is absolutely true. Not total collapse at all. The video greatly diminish Saudi Arabia as a country, and exclude many of its aspects in favour of oil. painting as a "banana republic". it tells nothing to people about the state of the country and how it's run, it's in no way descriptive of it.
>An autocracy that is ... meritocratic
This is almost definitionally never the case, since the autocrat is the guy best suited to taking over power, and not the guy best suited to wielding power.
Exactly the same problem as democracy, where people vote for the people who are best at getting elected, and not the people who are best at ruling.
So why don't you tell all Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Hungarians, Serbians, Greeks, Italians, French, English and Irish to get rid of all their borders and simply refer to themselves as "white" from now one?
>Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Hungarians, Serbians, Greeks, Italians, French, English and Irish to get rid of all their borders
That's called Schengen >and simply refer to themselves as "white"
The eu doesn't like the term "White" but eu bureaucrats and ideologues want the people in Europe refer to themselves as Europeans first rather than their ethnicities.
Even in videos that aren't about Turkey Kraut never misses the chance to suck them off. Is he Turkish or really Austrian?
He loves the concept of diversity and the destruction of Europe. He portrays Europeans as moronic "barbarians" and those Asians as enlightenment master race.
He hates nationalism and fascism. He keeps ignoring facts that don't go well with his narrative. His midwit "analysis" comes from the books he read.
Doesn't make sense to even watch him.
Examples; >implied that the population of Cyprus is 1/3 Turkish and not 1/5 60 years ago >implied that the Greek junta was created to counter Turkey even though they were both in NATO and the junta aimed to prevent a possible communist usurpation
>claims that Greece would never be independent without the western powers >neglects that the western powers would never intervene if the Egyptians hadn't intervened first
>unironically believes race is skin deep
Also he gives exactly 0 sources on those claims, the state of "historian" youtubers in Anno Domini 2022.
He used to be very anti-islam when he was a "skeptic". But maybe he seems to have become more and more leftist and anti-white after he left the skeptics. He always was one of these "race doesn't exist" guys. That's also the reason for the drama.
that Greece would never be independent without the western powers
that the western powers would never intervene if the Egyptians hadn't intervened first
Weren't the Egyptians ruled by the Ottomans at that time?
Nominally yes. Realistically, Muhammad Ali Pasha had turned Egypt into his own personal kingdom, and they would only be brought slightly to heel after the Second Turco-Egyptian War with British and Russian help.
He just regurgitates verbatim from some book nobody reads and makes polandball shit for it. I would watch his videos more if he just wasn’t such a self righteous homosexual thinking that if a government doesn’t accept trannies and mass immigration = fascist
Yep. If you've read >Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order, it's obvious how heavily he draws upon it for some of his videos. I don't think this is inherently bad; after all, as you mentioned, most people won't spend time reading a book on political science from the End Of History guy, and it at least condenses it into bite sized, focused segments without having to compare Poland with China as a society. However, it does make you wonder which of his ideas are his own, and ideas are just regurgitations of other books he's read.
to be fair, just outright lifting things a book said and putting it in a youtube video will outright be 100x the quality of the average self-made youtube analysis.
>To this day I still haave no idea what that neoliberalism really is?
Liberalism == We should have market economies everywhere, because in all circumstances they produce better outcomes. Argument for thing because of its utility.
Neo-Liberalism == Okay, markets don't produce better outcomes in all circumstances, but we should have them anyways, because they are inherently morally good and ethnically correct. Argument for thing because BY GOD its the best thing.
Neoliberalism is the opposite of socialism. Smaller government, free laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, less social services, privatization of all government functions.
Just because it has the word "liberal" in it, doesn't mean it's Democrat party line.
I mean, most people today are proletarians
If you instituted genuine democracy you would inevitably end up with communism since they would vote for stuff that benefits them while disregarding the wishes of the wealthy, ending up with a dictatorship of the proletariat
Of course such a democracy is pretty much impossible in practice and the elites aren't just going to let some poors create laws they dont like
It signifies an era of history. The first surge of liberalism was in the 19th century, which was interrupted by wars in Europe, and post WW2 was marked by huge public spending in infrastructure to rebuild the continent; but then came Reagan and Thatcher, and they resurrected the Smithian and Hayekian market ethos, QED "neo", as in new, liberalism.
Ignore the morons.
Neoliberalism was a current of economic thought from the 1930-40s, which appeared as a response to the perceived failure of classical liberals following the 1929 wall street crash. Neoliberals, such as Friedman, von Hayek and von Mises, competed against the other popular new economic theory of the time (in the West), Keynesianism.
Neoliberalism lost, as Keynesianism justified a huge, unprecedented increase in government power, which made it extremely popular among politicians such as FDR or Clement Attlee.
Eventually Keynesianism failed and had it's own crash in the 70s. Afterwards, governments in the West scrambled to find a new theory for economic policy as they struggled to move away from Keynesian principles such as government deficit paid for through quantitative easing (aka inflation). The reduction of government welfare was perceived by the media, sociologists, politologists and later historians (ie all people who don't have an education in economics and had no idea who von Mises was) as a "return" to the pre-Keynes liberalism, thus they called it "neoliberalism" (new liberalism).
Politicians such as Reagan were labeled as "neoliberals" despite their policies having little to do with what the original neoliberals proposed. For example, Reagan's supply-side economics was in several aspects contradictory with Friedman's monetarism.
This is only complicated further by the fact that Americans use the term "liberal" to mean people who support big government and high public spending. So people like FDR and LBJ have been called "liberals" despite them opposing everything the actual liberals stood for.
If you want to see a closer approximation to what the real neoliberals were look at libertarians like Ron Paul.
>*shitty Brain4Breakfast redditball ripoff starts playing* >LOOK AT THIS BOOK I'M HOLDING THAT MEANS I READ IT >*shitty sponsorship plug* >FREE TRADE GOOD >VODKA BAD >MARXIST HISTOGRAPHY BAD >*spends two years making six videos* >PLEASE DON'T SCROLL DOWN MY UPLOADS PAGE >*video ends*
wow, truly the GOAT 'tuber. Thank you Joseph Lanchester for your truly groundbreaking """youtube channel"""
Saudi Arabia will be fine. by the time oil runs out, they will have accumulated a huge sovereign wealth fund, which they can just invest and use dividends as revenue.
Diversity is a bit forced in today's environment and such forced nature is actually somewhat impeding it, since many people then become against it just out of spite.
It is naturally superior to have diversity, it turns out after being forced to be diverse, corporations realized that having a wide array of different cultures, ethnicities and resultantly diverse ways of thinking was beneficial for their business as it tends to result in more effective ideas and solutions.
It's like this in genetics too, those dumbasses getting their panties in a twist over white extinction not realizing that mixed race is genetically superior. Eventually humans will descend towards becoming like the Habsburgs if they only mate with similar genepools.
Yes the socioeconomic climate there is poor, but I'm talking over a much longer time scale from a purely genetic standpoint.
Have you ever noticed that it's always white people with all those weird rare autoimmune disorders? Or that the life expectancy of white people in the US is declining faster than it is for the other races?
It doesn't matter what people actually think about it because "mixed race supremacy" has specifically been tried in latin american countries. Post-independence some latin american countries thought that becoming a single race would be good for national unity so they banned same race marriages for whites. Neither did this result in the creation of a "superior race" it also didn't even eliminate the problem of racism. The natives viewed it as nothing more than a policy of whitening, so mixing it up is not even "defeating white supremacy". It literally solves none of the purported problems it claims it would solve.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It worked pretty well in Paraguay to be honest. Only reason it ultimately failed was because of Solano's chimpout.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>tries to form nation in a singular "superior" united mixed race >leader has delusions of grandeur where he thinks his now superior mixed race can take on three larger countries at the same time
yeah it was working out so great and the latter has nothing to do with the former.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>managed to fend off 3 nations for 6 years on what may be considered the first industrial war in history.
Kind of proved his point.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And completely drained the countries population in the process. If anything that is an argument against the unity mixing supposedly provides as maybe a disunited country would have called it quits much sooner than basically a step removed from complete annihilation
Hey, I have a question that's semi related.
If the Turks can be called Romans, because they took over the lands and destroyed the state.
Can't Bulgarians larp as romans too? Since Tsar Simeon was crowned king of romans in Constantinople, the only foreigner to be crowned emperor of the Romans there.
Doesn't that make them more valid in larping as Rome than the Turks?
Diversity is meaningless, america was never white.
He tries to simplify history into authoritarianism = bad and free market = good, social liberalism = good. Also deletes any critique of his videos as well
>free market = good
That's true though.
This. Not even sympathetic to authoritarianism, but his take that Spain is corrupt and poor because of fascism is not true at all. Also hates Bismarck for some reason. He strikes me as the kind of liberal European who thinks they're somehow post-historical now, and European social democracy is the penultimate form of government, which annoys me even as someone liberal-leaning.
He has a hate boner against Franco and seethes about him all the time. You can say that Franco was a despot who killed thousands and restricted civil liberties etc, but his government was never a kleptocracy and oversaw the industrialization and rebuilding of Spain into the modern world. He also always leaves out that it was the both the PSOE and the PP who privatized state companies and it was Franco who created the national health care service etc
are they any links or proofs about that. i really hate when the libtards are bashing spain when they don't know even half of its modern history.
>He strikes me as the kind of liberal European who thinks they're somehow post-historical now, and European social democracy is the penultimate form of government
Perfectly put. Lots of these types nowadays. Smug European homosexuals think they've ascended from ideology but they're too moronic to realize they're balls deep in it.
He's a brainlet
Anybody who believes in pan Europeanism is not to be taken seriously
United States of Evropa is happening, chud.
And Kraut, like most YouTube political or historical essayists, just repeats the last book he read. There's usually a well known and respected name behind his opinions, as they aren't really his.
Kek, he will never answer the question “based on what”. Vague and fake shit like social liberalism is a farce. And he will deny colonial legacy being the main fuel for Europe’s success, not feminism.
>Why do people take Kraut and his history analysis seriously
they don't
>his history analysis seriously
i dont, i just watch them cause then i dont need to read the wikipedia page
If you look at his Twitter you can see how much of an insufferable moron he is if you can’t already tell by his politicized videos
Least racist liberal in Twitter.
>Racism good
>Racism against Russians bad.
Makes perfect sense. Byzantium is about the purple, not about the cross.
>Forgetting the 1thousand years of christian government with the exception of a pagan larper emperor.
> Forgetting that the ottomans did not have the slightest of the roman mechanical or any form government that the roman and the Byzantine had.
>Ignoring that the last bureaucrats or competent politicians were either greek phanariots or greek greek slaves that ened up to be second in command.
I am not forgetting anything, and you are just listing differences while ignoring similarities. Byzantium wasn't just the cross. What separated it from other states wasn't it's faith.
The faith along with the institutes is what connects byzantine and roman empire.
The ottoman empire lacked both as similarities. For example, the Byzantine senate.
And, you know, architecture, music, baths, wrestling, sport arenas, urbanism, etc.
The Ship of Theseus sailing between Rome and Constantinople is the same sailing between Constantinople and Istanbul.
When you have till th 1920s a gov that follows the same religion that forbids the
General usage of face in artwork, the official use of alcohol and compare it with the more laxed options of the previous empire that was before it, you will see that the ottomans did not have an empire that had a ship but a camel thatwas able to swim.
The Ship of Theseus replaced old parts with newer pieces that were of the same shape, sight and use. When Constantine moved east it was still a singular Rome that moved. When the Ottomans took over they did not continue maintaining the ship, they burned it and replaced it with their own.
The Abbasid caliphate was unironically closer to byzantium than Ottomans were. They copied many of its aspects, and were greekophiles.
They also literally invited greeks to administer and rule them. But then, the seljuk Rum was also closer. At one point it was basically a side in an internal Byzantine civil war. And the Ottoman thing basically inherited both of these civil war participants, the greek and the seljuk side. Also inherited the mongol empire through its genghisid vassal in Crimea, and from there the Rus throne. Also it was obviously the inheritor of the Arab empire, through its control of the sacred places and its title of caliph.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize Turkey should rule all of Eurasia and north Africa (at least).
>They also literally invited greeks to administer and rule them.
Byzantium was a beacon for tolerance and diversity (not the current meme one), The Middle East paid dearly for losing it.
>Turkey
The Ottomans weren't ethno-nationalist, or founded upon it, like turkey. They didn't even impose any language upon their subjects. And their identity wasn't either around Anatolia as it's center, the Levant and Mesopotamia and Mecca were as important, Ataturk killed the Ottoman legacy forever. Modern Turkey is not to be trusted to rule fairly.
The Ottomans conquered and installed their own prior government on the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire. There was no continuation or inheritance. They conquered meter by bloody meter until it was all theirs. Rome didn't "inherit" the Italian peninsula from the Italics and Celts, they took it by force and made it theirs and most certainly didn't claim a continuation of those tribes.
what a moron
I just saw his video about the Christian family in Europe and he goes over how the Church was the glue that kept Europe together in place of the Empire, if thats not a successor I don't know what is
Lets be real, "inheritors of rome" is just something people care about because somehow if, say, finland is the "true" successor of the roman empire it grants a sheen of quality to finland. But actually, the title has no real use in understanding history. We know how the catholic church built on roman institutions, how the turks conquered constantinople, how russia led the orthodox faith, how burgers are the global superpower and so on. Who is the "true" rome is irrelevant, since we all know the ACTUAL rome people care and talk about ended over a millennia ago as their empire lost the dominant position it once had.
The roman empire declares war on the roman republic because they are allied with the roman empire who they are going to war with to defend the roman empire who went to war with some bumfrick Illyrians or whatever who assassinated the heir to the roman empire.
Also the roman empire and the kingdom of the romans both join in on opposite sides for some reason despite this having nothing to do with them.
then kingdom of the romans and the kingdom of the romans join the side the kingdom of the roman is on despite wavering on which side to join early on. Unfortunately the kingdom of the romans surrendered to the roman empire but then rejoined the day before the war ended.
>meanwhile, in elysium...
>ARE THERE ANY OTHER ROMES I SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?
I think there was a kingdom that used to be the roman empire but they stayed neutral.
No you got it backwards, Rome was the inheritor of the Finno-Galactic Federation after the Hyperwar civilizational collapse just like Han China was the inheritor of the Korean Star Empire.
Neoliberal polices are pretty good and being able to recruit skilled workers is pretty massive.
It creates massive societal problems and wealth inequality but the green line goes up
Ah yes the well known equality or pre-liberal society. Also neoliberal =/= libertarian
>Neoliberal polices are pretty good
If you are a publicly traded company, maybe
If you are a normal person they are pretty awful
ACADEMICS PLS RESPOND!
ACADEMICS? ACADEMICS!
I hate the troons he supports
But I like polandball
/thread
not the first time europe was destroyed over poland
Meh, the polandball has become awful compared to it's shitposinng glorydays.
schizophrenia
Look at his last video, he included Oman in the “oil kingdoms” and depicted it funding terrorists. He’s a leftist troony lover that has zero knowledge about history or geopolitics.
Just watched his last video, and the overall theme is solid, even if he got some details wrong. Good comparison and a good argument. Fits well with that Turkish liberal that keeps talking about institutions, institutions, institutions.
>Good comparison and a good argument
Not at all. they aren't comparable at all. Oil isn't running out, and it isn't Saudi Arabia's main problem. Saudi Arabia existed before oil. and will be after it.
That video was just condemnation, because of MbS in video format. With social justice and 'colonialism bad" mixed in it.
>Oil isn't running out
The one which is economical to extract is. As price goes up, consumption will shift away.
>Saudi Arabia existed before oil.
In such a different form, it's basically not the same state or society. You are being intentionally dumb by pretending KSA without oil income will be the same state, if it would exist.
MBS is looking to diversify the economy of Saudi Arabia and push it into a tourist hot spot, its why he's conducting "liberal" reforms, I think the Saudis know its an issue regarding relying on oil.
>The one which is economical to extract is
Not at the rate as he claims. being replaced as the main fuel for the world is certainly true, but domestic use, and sustainable export will keep the country afloat for centuries. As I said, it's not Saudi Arabia's main problem, Saudi is diversifying, because with oil, it will stagnate, and stop developing, which is absolutely true. Not total collapse at all. The video greatly diminish Saudi Arabia as a country, and exclude many of its aspects in favour of oil. painting as a "banana republic". it tells nothing to people about the state of the country and how it's run, it's in no way descriptive of it.
>abdul coping
sad just become a refugee man
who and why does op keep making offtopic threads about him
This is IQfy anon. You can discuss about someones opinions of history or humanism.
An autocracy that is militaristic and meritocratic is vastly superior to a republic or democracy. This is objectively true.
>gets coup'd
>An autocracy that is ... meritocratic
This is almost definitionally never the case, since the autocrat is the guy best suited to taking over power, and not the guy best suited to wielding power.
Exactly the same problem as democracy, where people vote for the people who are best at getting elected, and not the people who are best at ruling.
The real cause is astrology shifting power towards another place. Rome merely moved to Byzantium and then Moscow.
America was at a time 90% people of continental European ancestry.
it was for all reasonable metrics
White.
So why don't you tell all Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Hungarians, Serbians, Greeks, Italians, French, English and Irish to get rid of all their borders and simply refer to themselves as "white" from now one?
>Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Hungarians, Serbians, Greeks, Italians, French, English and Irish to get rid of all their borders
That's called Schengen
>and simply refer to themselves as "white"
The eu doesn't like the term "White" but eu bureaucrats and ideologues want the people in Europe refer to themselves as Europeans first rather than their ethnicities.
By that logic. Modern America is 75% white. Hispanic is a stupid label that encompasses a really diverse set of people.
Even in videos that aren't about Turkey Kraut never misses the chance to suck them off. Is he Turkish or really Austrian?
He loves the concept of diversity and the destruction of Europe. He portrays Europeans as moronic "barbarians" and those Asians as enlightenment master race.
He hates nationalism and fascism. He keeps ignoring facts that don't go well with his narrative. His midwit "analysis" comes from the books he read.
Doesn't make sense to even watch him.
Examples;
>implied that the population of Cyprus is 1/3 Turkish and not 1/5 60 years ago
>implied that the Greek junta was created to counter Turkey even though they were both in NATO and the junta aimed to prevent a possible communist usurpation
>claims that Greece would never be independent without the western powers
>neglects that the western powers would never intervene if the Egyptians hadn't intervened first
>unironically believes race is skin deep
Also he gives exactly 0 sources on those claims, the state of "historian" youtubers in Anno Domini 2022.
He used to be very anti-islam when he was a "skeptic". But maybe he seems to have become more and more leftist and anti-white after he left the skeptics. He always was one of these "race doesn't exist" guys. That's also the reason for the drama.
that Greece would never be independent without the western powers
that the western powers would never intervene if the Egyptians hadn't intervened first
Weren't the Egyptians ruled by the Ottomans at that time?
frick no. the later war for syria proved it.
is like saying the curent day spain control mexico bcs of the colony history
Nominally yes. Realistically, Muhammad Ali Pasha had turned Egypt into his own personal kingdom, and they would only be brought slightly to heel after the Second Turco-Egyptian War with British and Russian help.
Is there some truth to him being a israelite?
He just regurgitates verbatim from some book nobody reads and makes polandball shit for it. I would watch his videos more if he just wasn’t such a self righteous homosexual thinking that if a government doesn’t accept trannies and mass immigration = fascist
Yep. If you've read >Fukuyama's Origins of Political Order, it's obvious how heavily he draws upon it for some of his videos. I don't think this is inherently bad; after all, as you mentioned, most people won't spend time reading a book on political science from the End Of History guy, and it at least condenses it into bite sized, focused segments without having to compare Poland with China as a society. However, it does make you wonder which of his ideas are his own, and ideas are just regurgitations of other books he's read.
to be fair, just outright lifting things a book said and putting it in a youtube video will outright be 100x the quality of the average self-made youtube analysis.
To this day I still haave no idea what that neoliberalism really is?
>To this day I still haave no idea what that neoliberalism really is?
Liberalism == We should have market economies everywhere, because in all circumstances they produce better outcomes. Argument for thing because of its utility.
Neo-Liberalism == Okay, markets don't produce better outcomes in all circumstances, but we should have them anyways, because they are inherently morally good and ethnically correct. Argument for thing because BY GOD its the best thing.
Just think of mass privatization of government services, globalization and reduced trade barriers, low corporate taxes etc
"Democracy is a slippery slope to socialism"
Neoliberalism is the opposite of socialism. Smaller government, free laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, less social services, privatization of all government functions.
Just because it has the word "liberal" in it, doesn't mean it's Democrat party line.
I mean, most people today are proletarians
If you instituted genuine democracy you would inevitably end up with communism since they would vote for stuff that benefits them while disregarding the wishes of the wealthy, ending up with a dictatorship of the proletariat
Of course such a democracy is pretty much impossible in practice and the elites aren't just going to let some poors create laws they dont like
>neoliberalism
It signifies an era of history. The first surge of liberalism was in the 19th century, which was interrupted by wars in Europe, and post WW2 was marked by huge public spending in infrastructure to rebuild the continent; but then came Reagan and Thatcher, and they resurrected the Smithian and Hayekian market ethos, QED "neo", as in new, liberalism.
Ignore the morons.
Neoliberalism was a current of economic thought from the 1930-40s, which appeared as a response to the perceived failure of classical liberals following the 1929 wall street crash. Neoliberals, such as Friedman, von Hayek and von Mises, competed against the other popular new economic theory of the time (in the West), Keynesianism.
Neoliberalism lost, as Keynesianism justified a huge, unprecedented increase in government power, which made it extremely popular among politicians such as FDR or Clement Attlee.
Eventually Keynesianism failed and had it's own crash in the 70s. Afterwards, governments in the West scrambled to find a new theory for economic policy as they struggled to move away from Keynesian principles such as government deficit paid for through quantitative easing (aka inflation). The reduction of government welfare was perceived by the media, sociologists, politologists and later historians (ie all people who don't have an education in economics and had no idea who von Mises was) as a "return" to the pre-Keynes liberalism, thus they called it "neoliberalism" (new liberalism).
Politicians such as Reagan were labeled as "neoliberals" despite their policies having little to do with what the original neoliberals proposed. For example, Reagan's supply-side economics was in several aspects contradictory with Friedman's monetarism.
This is only complicated further by the fact that Americans use the term "liberal" to mean people who support big government and high public spending. So people like FDR and LBJ have been called "liberals" despite them opposing everything the actual liberals stood for.
If you want to see a closer approximation to what the real neoliberals were look at libertarians like Ron Paul.
Correct. Why would you make the effort and post this on IQfy though, it's pearls before swine.
bump
Why are so many "history" YouTubers so horny for Turkish wiener
It’s natural for a gay German
imagine out of all the great cultures, and the vast resources of record history, you choose to simp for turks...crazy.
>*shitty Brain4Breakfast redditball ripoff starts playing*
>LOOK AT THIS BOOK I'M HOLDING THAT MEANS I READ IT
>*shitty sponsorship plug*
>FREE TRADE GOOD
>VODKA BAD
>MARXIST HISTOGRAPHY BAD
>*spends two years making six videos*
>PLEASE DON'T SCROLL DOWN MY UPLOADS PAGE
>*video ends*
wow, truly the GOAT 'tuber. Thank you Joseph Lanchester for your truly groundbreaking """youtube channel"""
you forgot the
>race isn't real
>nationalism is le bad
commie cope
Saudi Arabia will be fine. by the time oil runs out, they will have accumulated a huge sovereign wealth fund, which they can just invest and use dividends as revenue.
He looks exactly like how I imagined him to look
He supposedly lost weight but I haven't seen it
his videos on mexico are pretty good
Diversity is a bit forced in today's environment and such forced nature is actually somewhat impeding it, since many people then become against it just out of spite.
It is naturally superior to have diversity, it turns out after being forced to be diverse, corporations realized that having a wide array of different cultures, ethnicities and resultantly diverse ways of thinking was beneficial for their business as it tends to result in more effective ideas and solutions.
It's like this in genetics too, those dumbasses getting their panties in a twist over white extinction not realizing that mixed race is genetically superior. Eventually humans will descend towards becoming like the Habsburgs if they only mate with similar genepools.
>the mixed race is naturally superior
Have you looked at Latin America?
Yes the socioeconomic climate there is poor, but I'm talking over a much longer time scale from a purely genetic standpoint.
Have you ever noticed that it's always white people with all those weird rare autoimmune disorders? Or that the life expectancy of white people in the US is declining faster than it is for the other races?
Nice one.
>tends to result in more effective ideas and solutions.
source: i made it up
>don't worry about your extinction because what comes after will be superior
>just let yourself be genocided to make way for a superior race
>immigration is genocide
What are you actually losing? Do you feel an existential crisis at the thought of the aqualine nose-shape leaving the gene pool?
Yeah
It doesn't matter what people actually think about it because "mixed race supremacy" has specifically been tried in latin american countries. Post-independence some latin american countries thought that becoming a single race would be good for national unity so they banned same race marriages for whites. Neither did this result in the creation of a "superior race" it also didn't even eliminate the problem of racism. The natives viewed it as nothing more than a policy of whitening, so mixing it up is not even "defeating white supremacy". It literally solves none of the purported problems it claims it would solve.
It worked pretty well in Paraguay to be honest. Only reason it ultimately failed was because of Solano's chimpout.
>tries to form nation in a singular "superior" united mixed race
>leader has delusions of grandeur where he thinks his now superior mixed race can take on three larger countries at the same time
yeah it was working out so great and the latter has nothing to do with the former.
>managed to fend off 3 nations for 6 years on what may be considered the first industrial war in history.
Kind of proved his point.
And completely drained the countries population in the process. If anything that is an argument against the unity mixing supposedly provides as maybe a disunited country would have called it quits much sooner than basically a step removed from complete annihilation
Miscegenation has been the historical norm. Pure races don't exist in reality. Except for master race Han Chinese funnily enough.
Hey, I have a question that's semi related.
If the Turks can be called Romans, because they took over the lands and destroyed the state.
Can't Bulgarians larp as romans too? Since Tsar Simeon was crowned king of romans in Constantinople, the only foreigner to be crowned emperor of the Romans there.
Doesn't that make them more valid in larping as Rome than the Turks?