MGRA: Make Great Reason Again!

Europe is an emerging phenomenon, now towering over the entire planet, from her possessions, colonies (Africa, Americas, Oceania, much of Eurasia), culture and mental grip (world culture, United Nations, etc.) Hey, don’t flaunt European colonization of the entire planet too loud, that’s not PC! Instead watch with glee the Islamists being crushed in Iraq and Syria by European proxies…

Europe was initially named from a Phoenician princess. (That, per se, is revealing: Europe came from the Middle Earth!) Europe, as a cultural phenomenon articulated by progress, is thousands of years old.

The Romans had long been technology dependent upon the Celts for metallic military equipment (a domination which was to last 3,000 years). When Caesar invaded “Long Haired Gaul”, and reached the Atlantic, he was stunned by the thousands of tall, ocean-going warships that the combined Celtic Navy had mustered (Roman ingenuity devised a specific device, the Corvus to turn the superiority of Celtic tall ships into a way to defeat them). 

Circus Maximus, 20 centuries ago. Still the World’s Largest Stadium. On the left side, the Imperial palace on the Palatine Hill (significantly larger than all the palaces of all present Western leaders combined!)

Circus Maximus, 20 centuries ago. Still the World’s Largest Stadium, More than 600 meters long. On the left side, the Imperial palace on the Palatine Hill (significantly larger than all the palaces of all present Western leaders combined!)

Contrarily to the usual myth, European superiority did not start with English superiority in the 1700s (that was mostly the fruit of English and Dutch conspiracies which turned out well, while the female Prime Minister of France overturned all the alliances, insuring French defeat in a seven-year world war!)

But Europe did not emerge by accident, but from culturally inherited moods, thus epigenetics, more than 100,000 years old. Yes, the climate, and the geography played a role, lighted the fire, and keep re-lighting it, from Enlightenment to Enlightenment. The fire of progress.

Unsurprisingly, regressive potentates put into question “Occidental values”, suggesting they are yesterday’s intrinsic evil. Sergey Lavrov, the powerful, long-standing Russian foreign minister declared in February 2017, that the time had come for a “post-Occidental world order”. According to Lavrov, one should wipe up all international institutions and replace them, Trump-like, by negotiations, state to state (as Russia is by far the world’s largest state, with the largest nuclear force, one can see how it would profit from it! The same holds for the USA.) This cannot end well. Russia is fundamentally a European colony (as the USA is). It should not forget how Europe got so rich. It happened through the universalization of advanced values.

Ah yes, because Europe is rich: In territory, Europe, through its (“ex”) colonies, owns much of the world: the Americas, Oceania, and all of North Eurasia are European colonies. Civilizationally, legislatively, Europe owns the world, with the possible exception of North Korea, and the irritant of a few (partly) Muslim Fundamentalist states.

Let me rephrase this, lest it gets misunderstood: the United Nations Charter is basically an improved rewriting of the Declaration des Droits de l’Homme of 1789. In turn, the French Revolution basic constitution was a writing of practiced established by the Franks, a full millennium earlier (including the outlawing of slavery, mandatory education, and the subservience of religion to state).

How did this happen? How did Europe achieve supremacy?


Did the “Protestant Ethics” Make Europe Rich?

This is an opinion Anglo-Saxon supremacists love to claim. It’s mostly BS. First, the “Protestants” introduced only a minority of the inventions which made Europe strong and innovative.

Second, the presence of the easiest to exploit, richest coal beds in the world surfacing in England and North West Germany have nothing to do with “Protestant ethics”, but everything to do with steam-powered industrialization.

Third, one would have to define “Protestant”. Hint: it’s a French word. The “Protestant” movement started shortly after the fascist Christian church tried an encore with the First Crusade (after having nearly collapsed civilization in the Fourth Century already). Thus, the Protestant attitude and ethics is very old, and a reaction to Roman and Christian fascism… but not at all what Anglo-Saxon superiority maniacs have in mind.

The Greco-Romans were number one in trade and work ethics. 10,000 cargo ships plied the waves of the Mediterranean, every day. Later Italian and Alpine republics under the protective umbrella of the Frankish Roman empire invented most of the present “capitalist” set-up, complete with state bonds to finance Florentine armies, etc.  


Did Colonialism and Slavery Made Civilization Rich As The Haters Of Progress Claim?

The traditional Politically Correct, Europhobic, European hating point of view is that slavery and colonialism made Europe rich: This is, erroneous, even ridiculous, on the face of it: the region of the world, Europe,  which outlawed slavery within, 13 centuries ago, would have been made rich from slavery.

However, in energy usage, per capita, Europe was the richest in the world, by 1000 CE. Actually some of the richest parts of Europe had no contact whatsoever with slavery and colonialism, for example, Switzerland (and many parts of France, Germany, italy).

The truth is much simpler, much more human: the exponential of understanding in Europe, and its subsequent mastery of nature, was the engine of European wealth. Europe succeeded better, because it was the part of the world where the essence of humanity, understanding and mastering nature, was able to express itself better.



It started with smarter laws, and the mentality of respecting them (“Dura Lex, Sed Lex” said the Romans; Law Hard, But [it’s the] Law). So institutions and moods were in place for European supremacy, 25 centuries ago. Those characters were the direct cause of the astonishing ascent of the Roman Republic.  

Rome got blocked in its eastward expansion by the Greco-Persian empire in the Iranian plateau. Factors in Rome’s failure to conquer Persia: Caesar was killed, the Republic caged (by Augustus and the plutocracy he headed). More importantly, Persia was part of the West, in the deepest sense. Babylonian kings (Hammurabi!) had imposed the notion of universal (republican) law, a full millennium before Roma became a village. Also Mesopotamia had invented and used much of the fundamental alphabet, science and mathematics, which spread westward.  

Rome itself was a baby fed, and educated by colonialists: the Etruscans, who had last come from present-day Syria, and the Greeks, who had colonized south Italy, including Naples (a deformation of the term New Town in Greek: Neo-Polis).

Not that all of the inventive mentality of the Occident started only around the Mediterranean, its Fertile Crescent and Egypt: the Indo-European colonizations started from Central Asia, targeting both Europe and India. The Amazons, a most anti-sexist civilization, was part of it, way back (more than 4,000 years ago), and we inherited some of this anti-sexist mentality (which may well have influenced anti-sexist Crete, as Crete was in trade with the Northern Black Sea region, where the Amazons thrived.

India played the crucial role in inventing the modern numeration system. Meanwhile, in the West, the drive to ever more powerful technology had ruled for at least 100,000 years: Neanderthals and Denisovans could only survive in north Eurasia through extensive technology. So they invented pants, dogs, and the usage of fossil fuels (already 80,000 years ago).


European Progress Mentality Is At Least 100,000 Years Old:

Cro Magnon men lived in present day France, then a tundra which was fully surrounded by enormous glaciers, and the icy sea. Cro Magnons survived in the same way Neanderthals and Denisovans did before: using the maximal high-tech they could develop. They may have inherited few Neanderthal genes, but they inherited in full the mentality of the Neanderthals.

This is an important point: mentalities, even culture, can pass down the generations, even when genes do not. In particular, the importance given to culture, progress, understanding can live in a landscape, partly from the landscape itself.

The mentality of progress, with the advent of agriculture, became ever more crucial, as the ecologies got ruined, and new ones had to be manufactured.

It is the gigantic scale of severe, yet profligate Eurasia, a demanding, yet technologically rewarding environment, which made the evolution of superlative ideas possible, more than anywhere else, by constant interbreeding of exotic facts and logics.   

It is western Eurasia, North Africa, and the Middle Earth (all the way to India) which provided the best, largest incubator. Therein the Occident, but it is nothing without the mood of progress at nearly any cost.

That mood barely survived Christian fascism. Yet, the Franks were able to found civilization again, on a better basis, within two centuries of the Roman collapse, using superior ideas (no slavery, mandatory education, the church as a tool of the state, elections, etc.)

This was the first Enlightenment, post-Greco-Romans. That superior institutional set-up made the “West’ by the year 1,000 CE, not only richer than Rome, but richer in energy use by inhabitant, than any other place in the world. By then European technology and science was leading (even the invention of “black powder” was a complicated story, where Mongols and Europeans, not just the Chinese, played a role). As Europe became ever more technology dependent, the urge to understand things for sure (“science”) became ever more important.

A succession of “Enlightenments” went on… to this day. The acceleration after 1500 CE was just part of the singularity of understanding we all share into today. in many ways, it just repeated, and re-imposed, constitutional reforms which were made first in the Seventh and Eighth centuries, by the Imperium Francorum (soon to be relabelled “Renovatio Imperium Romanum”).


PC Is The Perfect Con Against Humanity:

Right now the core of the machinery of what made civilization progress and be ever more superior is threatened. Friends have told me Trump threatened “reason”. Well, their reason (they tend to be in the 1% or serving the 1%, those “friends” of mine). There are many facts and possible logics to animate them, out there.

Consider Brexit logic: it is sheer madness, the madness of rage unbound. As in Trumphobia, Europhobia is motivated by a deep pain which arose from earlier events. (Clinton fanatics hate Trump because of the pain Clinton, Bill, Bush, and Obama, inflicted on them.)

An Arabic scholar wrote to me, saying there was no reason for progress (yes there is, just as on a bicycle). A Jewish (real) friend pointed out that many of the attacks against Europe also stealthily promoted the annihilation of Israel (correct).

The rabid, hateful, anti-European logics out there have doubled as outright attacks against honorable reason. Accusations of racism have been hurled, just to avoid debates (both Trump and your truly were subjected to this; many attacks against me were made snapchat way: erasing the fighting words full of hatred within minutes, after they were widely distributed, a method to practice defamation… without being able to prove it).

All we need to know is that never before in the history of the biosphere has the potential be greater for extreme catastrophe. Or extreme progress towards more mastery of nature by life. In any case, superior reason will adjudicate.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , ,

47 Responses to “How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    I love your essays but sometimes, well for me, the clarity of your central message gets overrun by a stream of historical events.

    Thus is your proposition in this essay that superior reason will be responsible whether we experience extreme progress or extreme catastrophe? Surely superior reason will prevent catastrophe?

    Also, would you expand on your premise that the Neanderthals “invented” dogs 100,000 years ago? Are you referring to the domestication of a small number of grey wolves? While there is a scientific consensus that the domesticated dog evolved from the wolf I have not come across any evidence that it was back in Neanderthal times. Would love to have this confirmed.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Sometimes I write essays with (some) deep links. Sometimes, I use a faster, more superficial brush. The dog question was developed in one essay, years ago: there is a dog around 36,000 year old, in Belgium. It is so far removed from wolves, that wolves would have been turned into dogs well before 40,000 years, that is well before Homo SS came around.

      Scientific consensus is different from educated guess. Scientific consensus arrives after the battle.

      It is indeed the case that superior reason has become the engine of creation, and responsible, whether we take-off, or crash…

      • Paul Handover Says:

        Thanks Patrice.Did you ever find time to watch the hour-long BBC Horizon programme on dogs? The Secret Life of the Dog. It may be seen here:

        The Horizon episode goes into great detail of the genetic changes that have taken place in the domesticated dog.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Lots to do. I have print/digital subscriptions to Nature, Science, Scientific American, New Scientist, Sci Am Mind, among others… Plus plenty of digital access… I read thus many hours of general science news a week…
          I have followed the dog genetic story… which has been all over the places (as with man).
          Anyway thanks for the link, will try to find the time.

          I also talk with a number of top scientists, live, on this sort of subjects. Major math mistakes were made in the past about genetics (“eve” bottleneck, etc.)

  2. EugenR Says:

    The European industrial revolution can be explained only by joined appearance of several events. Scientific and intellectual curiosity, and competing statehoods existed also in the Greek world for 500 years until the Romans took over and there practically continued the intellectual openness until the Christianity took over the cultural and political scenery. What the classical Greeks and Romans did not have was technological solutions to increase the economic productivity.

    The usual claim, that the slavery reduced the need for technological breakthrough. I disagree. Rome needed military technology, as well as it had a huge logistical problem supplying with food and other merchandise its big cities like Rome​, Alexandria, that had larger population than London in beginning of the 19 century. Let us not forget, the first steam powered machine was built in 1698 to help to pump water out of coal mines, what was a pure economic need. Thomas Savery, who built his machine was not a scientist but a military engineer. The Romans and Greeks had those too. Wasn’t Archimedes a military engineer?

    The scientist Denis Papin failed to introduce for economic purpose his steam engine and it could have been forgotten as all the ancient Greek steam engines were not utilized. But very soon after Papins death Thomas Newcomen, who was a merchant and not a scientist again, introduced to the mine industry his steam engine based on Papin’s ideas.

    The rediscovery of steam engine, and its introduction to everyday life, started a process that within hundred years ignited the industrial revolution with the James Watts improvements. From there on, the industry was not about production of textiles, but about production of machinery, that could produce machinery, etc.
    The wonders of steam engine arouse very soon the scientific question, from why steam machine works. The answer was the second law of thermodynamics. These scientific discovery was more applicable than the Copernican revolution. And again new questions came about magnetism, etc.
    The critical turning point to my opinion was the connection of steam technology to the mining business, that was essential for the Londoners to heat their homes.
    This revolution couldn’t happen in France, in spite of being France scientifically much more advanced than England, because they had wood to heat their homes, and their water mills supplied eno

    Was this development predetermine or rather contingent? Why in the Greek-Roman classical world didn’t make this breakthrough? Why other civilizations, like the Muslim civilization, the Chinese or the Indian civilization didn’t do it? Probably because the contingency in human cultural development is the predominant phenomenon. Today we are on the step door of a new world with all the new technologies, and still we can’t be sure, to where all this is heading. There are destructive forces in the world, who try to stop this process and they may have the upper hand.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Fascism blocks civilization.
      It happened to Europe too, even after the remarkable Athenian Enlightenment (caused by total democracy).
      First fascism in the “Hellenistic states”, then, after 27 BCE, Roman fascism, blocked inquiry. In all ways. In particular scientific and philosophical inquiry.
      Then, after the long paralysis of Roman imperial fascism, came the disaster of Christianofascism. Nearly all books got destroyed. The Franks took command in the nick of time, rescuing 150 intellectual works of Antiquity (out of 700 known to have existed). Then things turned around, starting with:
      0) Putting an end to Christian, and tribal, terrorism
      1) Creating powerful monasteries, recipient of knowledge
      2) protecting the Gallic church from the Pope and other fanatics
      3) Making everybody a Frank, under secular Salian-Roman law.
      4) Outlawing slavery
      5) Nationalizing the church
      6) Creating an army of free, professional, well-paid soldiers. Using it to destroy the invadsing Islamists, until the Damascus Caliphate fell (750 CE).
      7) Forcing the church to teach secularly (Eighth Century).
      8) Conquering Europe outside of France and Germany, re-imposing a new, better Roman empire, with a sound currency resting on Eastern European silver mines..
      By then European tech innovation was roaring ahead: the Tenth Century was full of beans, windmills, water wheels, new breeds of domesticated animals, and fleeing Muslims…

      The Europhobes are going to cry… Those of Anglo-Saxon sort always want to talk about colonialism and slavery, so they can forget the horrible holocausts the Americas and Australia committed.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Denis Papin’s boat did 100 kilometers under steam power, then was destroyed by monks… A tale which tells it all.

  3. EugenR Says:

    To finish the sentence above,
    ………….and their water mills supplied enough energy for their needs.

  4. SDM Says:

    Speaking of reason, what do you make of Trump’s recent 77 minute press conference? “Fine tuned machine”, chaos, or perhaps a meltdown of a man who bit of more than he can chew.
    Facts mean nothing to him, he creates his own reality and some are willing to blindly accept. Is it because he has tapped into a confused and angry mood and he is able to project those feelings back in echo chamber fashion? Even so, his standing in the polls shows shows leaves him with lowest approval among the populace of any elected president.
    Do you see any of the resistance against him leading to a more reasoned faction to avert potential catastrophe? The corporate media is taking aim at him and he seems to enjoy the battle but there is an absence of how this would thwart more plutocratic and/or authoritarian rule. One major theme that pervades the situation appears to be limiting the voting rights of the population and more control of the minority (1%) by manipulation of the representation (gerrymandering) in Congress. The illusion of voter fraud is being used to strip away fundamental rights.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The greatest problem with Trump is not Trump himself, but the nature of the opposition to Trump. What is proposed to us is that increasing plutocracy is better. It’s not.
      I was at the heart of the Obama presidency, and what I saw was worse than the worst which is in print anywhere.

      All right, except for the fact Trump is alleged to be insane. On Friday a 46 year old Swede Arab REFUGEE got life, in Sweden, for mass murder (google). I listened to the conference of Trump. After hearing for days he had gone bersek. I did not find so when I listened to the thing…

      My psychology has changed on all this: If I could go back 10 years, I would never have helped Obama as I did. He basically betrayed (and so did many members of my family who became supertight with him during his presidency). In the last 3 months I was the object of vicious cyber attacks (there again from people I know, used to be friends, got in the media, and climbed up there for decade(s)) Basically I was told explictly that they knew I was not what they said I was, but they had to, to stop me. They never said why they had to “stop me”… I was blacklisted on some media before I ever posted a comment there. In one case, a Pluto contact of mine was able to ask the editors what was going on, and the blacklist was removed (I had been put in the “Jihadist” category, by some element of the Deep State).

      So Trump crazy? The situation was and is crazy, and not democratic. More later…

  5. red Says:

    You are looking back, and deducing. In other words, confusing results and causes. History is a good story book, at best a useful cultural device. Not to be used for scientific study, or precise understanding.

    A better method is to use science. Or observe nature. Europe is nothing special, same natural principles apply there.

    There is a much simpler explanation for Europe. Thing of villages and cities, anywhere on the planet. How does a city come to be a city, how does it grow and evolve? The mentality of its inhabitants..Thier need for rule of law, need for education, need for freedom etc. Villagers are the victims of their own closed culture. Europe just happens to be at the center of mishmash of countries/cultures becoming city to speak. Again, just naturally occurring phenomenon. Nothing special.

    There are lessons to be learned here though…but not from history, Or , some guy or sect getting some sudden enlightent or some BS.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, results came from causes, no? Results become new causes, no? No wonder I am “confused”. (By the way in differential equation theory, a big difference is made between the driving equation, aka “causes”, and initial conditions, aka preceding results. Changing one or the other is dramatic.)

      Here is an example, deliberately chosen outside of the political madness:

      Einstein’s over-ambitious pontificating, within his (CORRECT, luminous!) explanation of the photoelectric effect. That pontification (that Quantum of Light, Lichquanten, are localized in space when travelling) has, in MY opinion, hainted physics ever since: it leads to the Many Worlds/Multiverse madness…

      • red Says:

        History is bad at telling us the causes, because it focuses on the results more (however imperfect that is). There is lot of bias built into these results as well…its much worse for the causes.

        So if you cite historical results, and use them to back-up your thesis, you are not using a faulty device in the first place. And your conclusions, suggesting somehow there was an inherent greatness or somesort of specialness in europe or its sects, is now horribly biased, and wrong.

        • red Says:

          **you are using a faulty device in the first place**

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          What YOU (and many others!) call my “thesis” is not part of my theses. As Kevin said in his rage, it pushes buttons, but that is not my problem, if people come, full of buttons that one should be careful not to push.

          The area between Ireland and India invented pretty much all that civilization uses today (aside from semi-details such as agrumes, chicken, tomatoes, potatoes, etc.)

          I did not speak of “inherent” greatness. Fact that Neanderthals used COAl 80,000 years ago is not exactly singing the praises of the French “race” (there is no French “race”; France is, so far, the ultimate melting pot, being at the carrefour of the three sea level trans-Europe trade routes).

          Instead, I am explaining why it happened. Basically, because of the ease of transport, from North Korea to Hungary (there is a continuous steppe!) and from Ireland to India (an the spice islands): there were fast, safe, continuous sea travel, for more than 10,000 years.

          When I say this sort of things and people don’t get it, but instead go into the insulting mode, I see the work of plutocrats, who have molded younger generations into an inability to reason.

          I write many essays, they are like a web. To roll out “conclusions”, that supposedly I would have drawn is not really appropriate, when done in a simplistic manner.

          For example, what do I think of my friend Barry Obama? Many things. I liked it to have my hand on his shoulder. I liked it less, when he went to the dark side of not meeting a plutocrat he did not love. But what’s my “conclusion”? Beats me!

          • red Says:

            Let me put it this way: your article is similar to how humans think they are the genius in all of species. Did they plan themselves ? Like the europe or its INHABITANTS, did for 3K, or 30K, years , like you suggest in this article ??

            Other than that, we mostly agree, thanks for clarifying.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            De-nestled, and answered! Actually I am writing an essay to answer more thoroughly, as I got a lot of flak from plenty of people (off this site, in other places of the Internet)

          • red Says:

            one more thing, all the old civilizations thought the same too at their peaks.

            speaking of species/humans in my previous post, long time ago dinosaurs thought something similar.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Answered as de-nestled comment (read the last comment/reply). Replying too much makes comments in same chain unreadable! METACIVILIZATION!!!!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      That history is (not yet) scientific in a (precise) way, was already covered by Asimov in his Foundation Trilogy:

      One day, all of history will become similar to the entire universe, itself an historical display: we will make precise theories about it.

      That Europe, or more generally the Middle Earth, India to Ireland, is special is proven aplenty. Jared Diamond tried to prove otherwise, telling lots of lies, fake news, and silly theories in the process (and I love his lying books…). Diamond basically said it was a sheer accident that New Guinea did not invent civilization… However, he conceded, explicitly and implicitly, that location made a difference. To start with, Diamond sat in the New Guinean HIGHLANDS (which are more hospitable).

      You tell me: “…how does it grow and evolve? The MENTALITY OF ITS INHABITANTS..Their need for rule of law, need for education, need for freedom etc. Villagers are the victims of their own closed culture. Europe just happens to be at the center of mishmash of countries/cultures…”
      My point entirely! So we agree!

      Need for the rule of law, and not just law, but a law rejecting cannibalism (Aztecs, Polynesians), or human sacrifices (Mayas, Incas, Carthage, Abrahamism, which is quasi-cannibalistic and certainly holocaustic…)
      Rome sent Senatorial delegations to the capitals of China, and had counters and barracks (!) in India (in particular, Kerala). Carthage had counters in Black Africa.

      Greater Europe goes from Ireland to India, from Mongolia to Morocco, and, thanks to quick sea transports, has been a cultural whole for 12,000 years. Italian farmers came from the Fertile Crescent. Indo-European languages came from Central EuraAsia. This is why more than 95% of what was invented, and matters today, was invented there.

  6. Gmax Says:

    It’ awesome how people confuse their own devils with what you write. Speak about distortion!

  7. Red Says:

    Let me put it this way: your article is similar to how humans think they are the genius in all of species. Did they plan themselves ? Like the europe or its INHABITANTS, did for 3K, or 30K, years , like you suggest in this article ??

    Other than that, we mostly agree, thanks for clarifying.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Plan”? I am sure that, when Eurasia became much colder, 32,000 years ago, entering a glaciation that was going to last more than 20,000 years, Eurasian people (Neanderthal, SS, and Denisovan hybrids, whose genes are more than a bit of a mystery to us) planned to the best of their abilities. Technology was obviously the answer, complete with coal, dogs and arrows.

      • Red Says:

        red Says:
        February 21, 2017 at 10:01 pm | Reply edit
        one more thing, all the old civilizations thought the same too at their peaks.

        speaking of species/humans in my previous post, long time ago dinosaurs thought something similar.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dinosaurs got outsmarted. By mammals. Pre-simians existed 65 million years ago: see Disnay (hahaha) or recent science.

          What we have now is a META CIVILIZATION. It’s all over, outside of the cities, and it’s just one, and it (mostly) came from Greater Europe. There is not two, whatever North Korean bloody tyrant Kim thinks, and there will be no second chance.
          The “black” US 4 star general facing Kim, a few meters away is ready to use, as he put sardonically, “whatever force it takes to overwhem you”.
          That general is under UN mandate, and People’s Republic of China just started to turn away NK’s coal…

      • red Says:

        my point is that, its just impossible for a single person to have and commit to that kind of long term plan, let alone a group. Just look at global warming thing, which you write a lot about.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The subject of planning, conspiring, plotting, etc… although part of civilization (what are laws, except the fruit of planning?) is a sub-category to civilization.
          An unplanned civilization is nearly impossible. And it’s not what we have. Plans for a Society of Nations started in France in 1916 (Wilson grabbed it next). Plans got rejuvenated by 1942… As the UN… Formalized in San Francisco in 1945…

          • red Says:

            Intelligent design ?

            You are contradicting yourself…on the one hand you say Europe just happened to be at the right location, right cultural mix etc, and in other hand you suggest an unplanned civilization is nearly impossible. Which is it?

            Obviously there are causes for the current European state…But those causes came to be due to prior causes, on and on. There was no single person, or sect, or even a country, responsible for it, all by itself, by some kind of grand plan.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            No intelligence, no design…
            There is no contradiction. When the Sumerians set a bicameral system, they planned. When Hammurabi set a universal law throughout the empire, the Babylonians planned.

            Location encouraged intelligence, plannification. Worldwide, the leading civilizations rend to spread from temperate regions (often tropical high altitude). It’s a question of having no low hanging fruits, but making machines to get higher ones. Also the difference between Chimps and Bonobos…

            As I said, it spanned probably millions of years, most of Eurasia. Actually Homo Erexctus got to Georgia, 2 million years ago, and survived, thanks to the fur fashion… From there to runways in Paris and Milan… ;-), a dialogue between location and intelligence…

          • red Says:

            Sumerians and Hammurabi didn’t wakeup one day and plan those. Lot of stuff/causes leading up to it. In other words, it is not random or sudden intelligence, or some innate superiority.

            And also, they might have tried 10 other things which were provably 10x more dumber, but history only records that one thing.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Indeed, it took centuries. The historical evidence is that they tried a lot of other institutions prior, and then settled to these optimal solutions (quite a bit is known about their history now).

            Hammurabi put monoliths engraved with the laws all over the empire, it was obviously viewed as a superior solution. Universal law was certainly not innate: they worked hard at it. Ultimately Sumer was destroyed in a spectacular catastrophe, then Babylon (probably stuffed with Sumer refugees) took the torch of progress, Lady Liberty style… However the memory of Sumer’s bicameral system was preserved. Even many of the 60 Gallic nations equipped themselves not just with the god of trade Mercury, but with Senates… As Rome did.

  8. hazxan Says:

    Europe? Superior? For a start, there is no such homogenous entity as “Europe” .Scandinavia is very different to The Med. And the UK is closer to the US and Australia, culturally. All the regions hate each, hence the regular wars over the millenia.

    And have you seen any actual Europeans recently? The are mostly overweight, mostly miserable, working at unfillfilling jobs that involve staring at screens all day. Or low paid work serving those who stare at screens at all day.

    Sure, some Europeans did art, music and science in the past. But I can assure you that the vast majority are incapable of any of that. They can’t get away from their mobile phones, social media and celebrity gossip long enough to write a limerick, let alone a book.

    Logic and rationality are alien to them. Many other cultures are far more confortable with maths and engineering than Europeans.

    My total guess prediction is that the centre of the world will move back East, to where it’s been for most of the past 5,000 years. And Europe will return to the ignorant backwater of small time warlords that it’s been for most of the past 5,000 years.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My next essay (after the one of today on the Deep State) is Europa, Phoenician Princess. UK is part of Europe: a French colony, longer so that the USA was of Britain…
      Australia, USA, Russia: all European colonies.
      India: part of the Indo-European ensemble (just ask Hitler, he has a Svastika to show you” said Svastika made it from India to Greece, and Scandinavia, 2,500 years, before Hitler….)

      Europhobic conceptology is common, and may well be justified by the future. We will see. But that Europe was a backwater is not true: actually the Celts had thousands of ocean going ships, which left the Romans aghast… Said Romans then worked hard to claim the Celto-Germans were nothing. However, in 400 CE, they surrendered to the Franks, a German Confederation…

      • hazxan Says:

        “UK is part of Europe: a French colony, ”

        Ouch! I like your style, but that statement alone could have you banned from the UK for inciting hate speech!

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          That’s a sort of truth based *”hate“* speech they deserve!

          One date is enough: 1066 CE. And what did the Normandy Dux do, once in? He outlawed slavery, because slavery had been outlawed in the Imperium Francorum, 410 years prior by queen Bathilde’s government.

          If that’s any solace, Bathilde was English-born, and English enslaved (before being purchased by a Frankish plutocrat, from whom she escaped, but was ultimately noticed by the young son of the Frankish king; she was high born, very educated, so, after her re-capture, the future king purchased her, then freed her and married her…)

          I have only contempt for Brexit, but it may help Europe, actually. Better England of the plank, left free to swim behind the boat, rather than keep on sabotaging the works…

      • hazxan Says:

        Is Europe the land mass? The people on it? The land mass and the people at a specific time? Any time? If 100 million Africans moved onto the geographical area currently known as Europe, do they become European or does Europe become African? How many millions does it take before a continent moves?

        Or is it all endless variations on the Mighty Whitey trope?

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The official wisdom/science, since Charles Darwin, has it that we are all Africans.
          A point of mine is that this remains to be proven: my bicephalic Neanderthal Disappeance Theory begs to differ.
          Another point is that this is irrelevant: the conditions of Europe were always such that the immigration-innovation factor was always stronger there.
          “Europe” has also to be defined. Arguably, it’s a giant crescent extending nearly from Korea, all the way to Iberia, North Africa, and back to India. This is demonstrated culturally, linguistically, and now genetically.

          I am preparing another essay on this, I wrote some in the distant past.

          It is not to be wished that 100 million Africans go to Europe. That would be the fruit of too much unhappiness. My proposal, instead, is to move 100,000 European soldiers in Africa, and re-establish correct administration (aka “colonialism”). On the other hand, both Africans and Europeans should be able to move back and forth (I am fundamantally an African in more way than one…)

          I am tired of the accusation of racism brandished right and left. The people I know who proffer them are such racists themselves that, when I counter them reasonably, they “block” me. Fundamentally because they are liars. They live off this (fake) racism they loudly condemn. The 4 star US general facing North Korea is “black”, as I already said. So is the CEO of Merck, etc.

          Racism is so yesterday…

  9. How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR? « Defense Issues Says:

    […] Source: How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR? […]

  10. picard578 Says:

  11. Picard578 Says:

    How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?

    Posted by picard578 on February 23, 2017

    One important aspect in Europe’s domination was its fragmentation. Combination of cultural diversity and political fragmentation enabled it rapid advancement, which placed it into position to culturally and politically dominate the world. It did lead to conflicts, but without conflicts there is no change. Today, Europe is working on a self-annihilation, spurred on by mentality caused by the guilt complex forced onto Europe by modern progressives. That guilt complex is caused by not knowing the history, and permeated by plutocracy’s interest in destroying advanced culture. Multiculturalism leads to cultural and societal annihilation, returning humans to stupid animals they were long time ago. Yet any protests against multiculturalism are met with accusations of xenophobia and racism, in order to prevent a reasonable debate. Dogmas and dogmatics do not like the debate, because it might force them to become enlightened. So they stop it through ideology and political correctness. Today’s West is on the road of self-destruction, precisely because it does not have the diversity, primarily diversity of ideas, that it once had.

    Ancient China is a good example of progress through fragmentation. It developed huge array of technological devices, many of which were – much later – independently developed in Europe. Gunpowder rockets, printing press and many other advancements were developed. But that development stopped, and China got conquered – by Mongols, and then by Europeans. Reason? Formation of the empire. China united, became big and powerful… but it also became sluggish and unresponsive. Its size protected it from reality and from change. In the end it collapsed on itself. Same thing is happening in Europe today, the ever-increasing political integration of the continent through the European union is throwing the continent into political, cultural and economic regression. This integration was largely helped by the US plutocracy, and looking at Brexit one can see how many plutocrats tried to prevent it. Especially George Soros, the most visible plutocrat and the most extrovert agent of plutocracy, cried bloody murder about British exit. This is indicative of how plutocracy feels about integrations in general. They do not want independence, they do not want national self-determination, and they especially do not want the advancement.

    Latin Roman Empire did not advance much. Their advancements were taken from the huge number of small(ish) tribes they fought. Roman sword, gladius, came from Spain (it is often called the “Spanish sword”). Another sword, spatha (cavalry sword, later adopted by infantry), was taken from the Celts. The entire concept of iron working and iron weapons originated with the Celts, and later was adapted through the known world. Greece made impressive advances in natural sciences, culture and philosophy, and was divided among city-states for the most of its ancient history. Cultural and political pluralism produced pluralism of inventions. Similar thing occured in India, where huge number of small kingdoms competed among themselves – “Arabic numbers”, algebra, and many other inventions were made in India, only to be stolen by Muslim conquerors and then brought to Europe. Muslim empires on the other hand can boast of no progress, other than what they stole from others. Even the car bombs were invented by Western terrorists. Part of the reason is certainly religious dogmatism, but more important was cultural homogeinity created by Islam. Islam is a perfect war religion, and it imposes single culture and single mind upon the conquered people. This singularity then halts any progress in its tracks. And what Islam had done for the Arabic world, multiculturalism is doing for the West.

    European colonialism, which is now threatening to destroy Europe, was not the cause of the European advancement. It was a consequence of the advancement, originating in the need for resources and markets that said advancement produced. But today’s people care not for truth or history; and so it became politically correct to believe that everything bad came from the West, and that Western civilization has to be replaced. Political correctness is in fact the enemy of advancement. As noted before, advancement can only happen through plurality and pluralism. This is because cultural pluralism produces the plurality of ideas. The more different ideas are produced and explored, the faster the advancement happens. But any idea, especially a new one, is insulting to somebody. If one fears insulting other people, one will not express new ideas and may not even produce them. This fear of insulting and being insulted is the very basis of political correctness, it is in fact a definition of political correctness. And just like any other kind of (intellectual) fascism, it is lethal to any sort of advancement.


    MGRA: Make Reason Great Again! Europe is an emerging phenomenon, now towering over the entire planet, from her possessions, colonies (Africa, Americas, Oceania, much of Eurasia), and mental grip (w…

    Source: How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hey Picard, thanks for reblogging this essay. I knew you had posted something, but I was super busy (including writing about the TRAPPIST planetary system of seven Earth sized planets!).
      Your own comment/essay on it is very interesting, especially the perspective about China, that it was so big and fat…I did not think of it this way, but now that I do, I have further remarks, amplifying yours. China was then at least three empires. Genghis destroyed the Xia quickly: they had enslaved him. North China took more doing, and influential Mongol generals offered to Genghis to make it into a large Mongolia, through TERRAFORMING… Genghis declined the offer. South China was left to his successor.
      Well, anyway, your work requires an essay of its own to reply properly to it…
      I will momentarily drop my other activities, and do just this…

  12. No Conflict, No Change | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] “How Did EUROPE Become So SUPERIOR?” Picard578 on February 23, 2017, […]

  13. Bald Eagle Says:

    I come here from defense issues. Europe is not superior it is US lap dog. Russia is not a european colony and it has never been. OK they have similar culture to Europeans but saying Russia is a European colony is completely wrong. In fact if the US didn’t come and save europe all of you would have hammer and sickle on your flags. European superiority started with industrial revolution (before then it has a history of eastern invaders) and ended with rise of the US

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Bald Eagle, and welcome, and thanks for the bold comment!
      When I said that Russia was a European colony, I wanted to point out that was overlooked.
      A millennium ago, Russia in the present sense didn’t exist. Ukraine did, though.
      Ukraine was founded as a state by Eastern Swedes. First colonial event. OK, Eastern Swedes (Viking) were not Christian at the time. But they sure were Europeans.
      Vladimir of Kiev, in the Tenth Century, converted to Christianism (when the Eastern variant, Orthodoxy, was not yet full of hatred for the Western one, Catholicism). Second (self-imposed) colonial event. A bit similar to Africans adopting Arabic, French or English as language (with the superstitions or secular religions attached).
      In the following century, the Princess of Kiev, Anne of Kiev, who was by then highly cultured and spoke six languages, became queen of the Franks, and had tremendous influence, she signed as “Anna Regina”. (Queen Anna)
      She famously wrote to her cosmopolitan father:
      “What a barbaric country you have sent me to! Houses are gloomy here, churches look ugly, and people have terrible manners.”

      Soon the colonies of Kiev to the East and North East would grow into what would become Russia. Long story where the Mongols, the Khans, played a fundamental role to bring Moscow to prominence (Moscow was founded by the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky…)

      Western Europe was never seriously conquered. True the Huns got to Toulouse, as allies of Rome against the Goths. But when the Huns seized Orleans (Aurealium), they got defeated, shadowed by the Frankish army, and then crushed by a Franco-Roman-Gothic coalition. When the generals of Genghis Khan got to Hungary, their advanced points got all the way to Croatia and the Adriatic. However, in their estimation, they would be defeated by the Franks (the victory in Hungary had come at a heavy price). So they decided to not go further west, and the death of the Great Khan provided an excellent excuse. However they left the Golden Horde behind, which would terrorize Ukraine and Russia for centuries… Until the greater terror of Moscow’s Ivan the Terrible reversed the tide…

      So the point is that Russia is a colony of Europe, in mentality. Putin said just this for years… Peter the Great thought the same… Catherine the great was a German princess…

      And the US is certainly a European colony in all senses of the term.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: