Being an aggressive, large force is good

woah history is recorded by the victors dude wow profound

File: 1459049743806.png (529KB, 658x960px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 658x960px

>>1607977
>The United States
>subduing of caveman Islamism

>>1607977
Because the Mongols and Huns were so great for humanity...

>>1607991
he or yous trying to say why they are the victors, trying to analyse the common threads
being that axiomatically words mean nothing next to force, physical violence
arguementum ad baculum, speak to your god about it after the fact

society exists only after and not before this force

File: market mechanics.jpg (104KB, 400x298px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 400x298px

>>1608350
in a silver lining way of scarcity resource of time they were in that they created the equivalent of socio/geo/ego thermodynamic pressure in europe as people are shoved against the waves of the water from the east. gave rise to greater chaoticness, combustibility etc - tech arising through concentrated
>"market mechanics"

>>1608363
like entropy high energy flowing to low energy through the topgraphy of the world/steppe in combination or plotted against tech advancement over area spacetime

>>1608371
for every action an equitable and opposite react

>>1607977
I think there's a problem in your reasoning. From what I can gather your argument isn't that violence is good inofitself. You're arguing for some abstract "civilized" quality and then asserting that violence is the most effective means to diffusing those desirable qualities. As such it's not that VIOLENCE or a "domineering force" is 'good' as you contend, but those supposed beneficial forces they can bring about. What if, however, violence isn't the most effective way of diffusing those qualities?

>>1607977
>its' interventionism in the Middle East and subduing of caveman Islamism

But they did exactly the opposite you dumbfuck, Al-Qaeda and ISIS exist because of American interventionism.

what the fuck was Mao's problem

File: Fraulen.jpg (30KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x453px

> Prove me wrong
One word. Mongols.

>>1608387

> le reddite meem

No, actually they exist because of some vague sense of moral offense against the West, due to the Kuwait and Iran-Iraq wars, despite the fact that many nearby Muslim countries were far more involved in these conflicts than the West was. One might say that the groups' genesis lies in the Soviet invasion and in American funding of local insurgents, but even then Saudi Arabia gave more money and more ideological direction than the US did.

>>1607991
OP here. You entirely misunderstood me.

>>1608350
>>1608350

Abstractly, yes, they did. Te fact they embellished the Silk Road to Europe and introduced Europeans to gunpowder catalysed innovation and is what ultimately triggered the Renaissance, then the sequence of events to what is the memenet today. They also possibly carried the Bubonic plague to Europe, which caused a rearrangement of social classes which is how Europe 'woke up' from its' long, theistic and unproductive slumber.

>>1608548
> sequence of events
The entire past was the sequence of events that leads to today world. Collapse of Roman Empire was good for the long term of humanity, so weak states are necessary by the same login. Islam in itself was good because it is also happened, etc.