Is or was there an Anglosaxon world-domination?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

As Vollgraff points, Anglosaxons (northern Germans, Englishmen, Americans, Duch, Australians) are attempting a world domination. The tool of them is economical, not military like that of the Normans for example. Even before 1000 years the Anglosaxons were only auxiliary soldiers of other German tribes.

What drives or drove them to the world domination is the passion to earn money and therefore so many inventions.

But the question is, where are they 150 years after Vollgraff? In my opinion, a domination is healthy only if it comes from overabundance, and if there is no greed for the sake of pleasure, and if the foundation of the future - the family - is stable, if there are family values, because without that there is no future, no reproduction, no affirmation of life.

We remember the decadence which started in the 50’s, where housewives have gradually became soldiers of the economical progress - students - and students have finally invented the dirty mind of the 60’s, because this mind is not beautiful. Or can someone explain to me how this can still save the purity of the Anglosaxon tribe/race and how those educated women are good mothers and bear many children? If a race loses strength, is this not then decadence?

This race for earning money also forces other nations to do the same: to earn as much money as possible, i.e. to invent and produce industry in order not to remain without money. When this happens there is inflation.

If we finally look at the world-map of fertility, birthrates, divorces and the like, do we see a sustainable world-domination of those Anglosaxons?
Are their birthrates, which are as I remember all more or less around 2 children per family, and are highest among the white nations, are those birthrates sufficient, or do they include mostly the birthrates of the non-Anglosaxon immigrants? Because we know that educated women have problems with fertility and sexuality and if you ask me, what has revolutionized since the 60’s is more or less lesbiality, but also all possible sexual vices.

If you ask me this Anglosaxon domination is not a sustainable one, but if you tell this to a decadent, will he care that there is no accumulation of his vital strength, of his future?

What if this world-domination was only a way of Christianity to break strong races?

2

How do you get millions of strangers to conspire??? I would love to learn this ability, it sounds handy.

3

Racists be racist.

4

It’s been going on for thousands of years.
Most of the participants don’t know the scheme and from their perspective, they are only telling small, insignificant lies or merely leaving out relevant information so as to mislead. It is really pretty easy to accomplish.

“Pride and Prejudice”

5

Or sense and sensibility.

6

James, then they are not participants, they are tools. They would not be conspirators in any way.

7

I don’t think any one race has dominated the world. And I think people who think that one should are narrow minded, fear-infused bigots and I feel sorry for them.

8

The need for earning money (Habsucht) has been developed eventually in Persia, because all passions are developed in a homogenous society, i. e. under a belief in a society. When this belief is broken during several political misfortunes (Persians were defeated at least 3 times by the Greeks) then this belief ceases, but the passions remain. Some could gain this belief back successfully, like the Goths and Normans, and some could not, like Anglosaxons and Franks.

Let us remind that Germanii are registered by Herodotus in Persia and for the first time in Europe around 300 BC where they took Belgium.

9

Wealth is a part of most people’s community , country etc. Be it paper, rocks, sheep, plants, etc. Wealth and status is a part of the world even in animals to a point. Dominant attitude is a part of this world human and animal. If Anglos are kicking butt right now, such is the world. Tomorrow it will be another.

10

The problem is that decadence is coming from the highest races to the lowest and so will humans perhaps reach the animals and turn back into the monkeys.
Accordingly, the next tribe which will aspire something like domination will most probably be even more primitive than the seemingly cowardly anglosaxon domination.

So, why rely on that if we have the spirit of the higher races?

According to Vollgraff this was a higher race:

(Roman statue 330 BC after a Greek original)

11

Of course there is the precedent of the Romans conquered by lesser societies. As were the greeks were by the lesser Romans, and the low middle ages stopped the seemingly ceaseless downward tumble.

How? Institutional memory.  In that case the church retained it, and if were to happen again, now it's on virtual reality.  Even if the technology is lost by ever increasing and unencompassable retention by a renaissance man, a renaissance would automatically start, with the all encompassing virtual memory, perhaps even now hidden in very deep, nuclear strike safe areas of the world. It's even conceivable that copies were/are being sent to other planets like Mars.  Information assuredly will not be afforded a possibility of being lost.  There is no question to a total human regression into total animality.
12

It’s so nice to read you all again, even though I may disagree with what’s being said.

Historyboy, there’s only one race. There are myriads of sub-cultures within that one race, but a sub-culture does not a race make. As long as your initial premise is faulty, your entire argument is equally faulty.

Start with a one race premise, please, and go from there, please. Thanks.

13

There is no “please” in philosophy. We are not beggars. If you can’t endure the truth, it is probably because you are a lower race. We are all slaves of Christianity which means Jews were probably a higher race than Europeans. At least Vollgraff classifies them higher than all Europeans.

14

The human race is only a marketing fabrication of global capitalism, one used to expand markets and build empires. One only has to look at the record of hominid fossils to see that no such thing ever existed, that its existence, in fact, would directly contradict evolutionary theory.

The whole of a species does not evolve together, but its evolutionary path is determined by its environment, both natural and artificial, and more importantly by its already existing genetic structure and its genetic drift.

15

A dog is not a horse, dog race is not horse race. Human race has breeds just as many animals do. A dog is a dog, a human is a human. The human race is one.

16

A grouping of a species in any particular area grows as the conditions are favorable, but because of its size evolution is very slow. When the conditions become very unfavorable quickly, it will quickly be reduced in numbers, leaving only the most fit. Then when the conditions become favorable again, it will regain its numbers, now more evolved.

The problem is that it may not get the chance to regain its numbers before a large group of the less evolved version of the species overruns it due to numbers alone. There will still have been some evolution when that happens, due to interbreeding, but there will have been much less than if the first group was left alone to retain its numbers.

The world is full of bad ideas, but that doesn’t mean those ideas were every willing approved by high humanity. High humanity did what they could within the overwhelming large numbers of low humanity. High humanity is not represented by a “race”, its numbers are very small and scattered. I’m not going to get into detail of how one can differentiate the few numbers of high humanity from the rest of humanity, and at the moment I can only speculate, but I would like to know if anyone can dispute the principal of my argument itself.

17

That’s all you have to say about that? Where do you get your information? Compared to you the average slack jawed, inbred white supremacist doesn’t look nearly as moronic.

If you weren’t a braindead simpleton, you may have written something such as I did in my previous post.

(Goddamn, do you really represent knowthself.forumotion.net? They’ll take anyone as long as they have teeth protruding through their cheeks and flipper hands.)

18

Races are the evolutionary pathways that eventually lead to separate species. But the less intelligent hominid phenotypes just don’t seem to last long enough for that to happen anyway. Kind of suggests there might be other forces involved. 8-[
Never mind the science though, I’d much rather hear how Americans suddenly decided blacks were human after several centuries of slavery, and this is now an obvious fact which has nothing to do with economics. That story never gets old.

19

Hey look, it’s miserable Stu.

What’s life like in that nihilistic toilet you call a world Stu?

Hint: look at the fossil record and use it as a starting point.

20

Women usually think with their genitals only.