Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

That is about the cause of industrialization, and I already explain that the Arab should also be credited since they transfer science, technology, algebra, and the concept of zero which made all that possible. If England was isolated, by itself, none of that would've been possible. If you say the transferring of technology from the Arab is insignifcant then you're definitely in denial.

 

It's absolutely laughable that you think the Industrial revolution was based on "the zero".

 

You persist in mssing the point. The contribution of the Empire to British GDP is not measured (even by your supposed professionals) by the import of raw materials at preferential prices (this helps) but by the EXPORT OF MANIUFACTURED GOODS TO CAPTIVE MARKETS. This is key and your clear failure to understand this basic fact just shows how ridiculous and ill informed your conclusions are.

As one would expect from someone who beleves in a Jewish conspiracy to destroy America.

 

No, the total contribution from colonies was 10% max. I didn't pull that figure out of my @ss unlike some.

 

First of all, I did not say the Industrial revolution based on the Zero all by itself. However, your implication is not laughable, not at all. I guess you don't understand the importance of the concept Zero in mathematics. Try calculating interest rate, doing algebra, etc.. with roman numeral...
The concept Zero made it efficient, in everyday, which led to the advancement of mathematics, science, and engineering.

You're just downplaying the Arab Muslim's contribution.

 

Of course you can do algebra without a zero. Like the Greeks who invented it in 2nd Century AD.

You can do laws of Physics a la Newton, and you can do Calculus.

You can do measure of power a la Watt. You can use Greek geometry to calculate engine sizes.

You can do all of these things without the Indian zero.

Break out the trumpets for the freaking "zero".

*facepalm*

 

Let me rephrase that: I respect his rights to his view/opinion. However, actions is something else...but we're in a forum, all we do is discuss our views, and everyone rights' to their view should be respected.

 

ok. Let's put your words to the test. Can you write this number in a roman numeral .0526 and round it up for me? Or can you show me some calculus without using the Zero?

I rest my case.

And how can you measure such a contribution from the Arab as a percentage? When it is so valuable and priceless? Again, I am not saying who invented it, I am merely talking who introduce it to the European. There's a difference. You're not given the Arab the credit where it is due.

 

http://www.curiousnotions.com/fractions/index.asp#fractions



The main calculus method of integration is geometric and uses no zeros.

Europeans already had a zero anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals#Hellenistic_zero

*facepalm*

Arabs have no credit for anything.

 

You forgot to mention that Newton used Zero to discover Calculus.

And from the same article:

Zero reached Baghdad by 773 AD and would be developed in the Middle East by Arabian mathematicians who would base their numbers on the Indian system. In the ninth century, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi was the first to work on equations that equaled zero, or algebra as it has come to be known. He also developed quick methods for multiplying and dividing numbers known as algorithms (a corruption of his name). Al-Khowarizmi called zero 'sifr', from which our cipher is derived. By 879 AD, zero was written almost as we now know it, an oval - but in this case smaller than the other numbers. And thanks to the conquest of Spain by the Moors, zero finally reached Europe; by the middle of the twelfth century, translations of Al-Khowarizmi's work had weaved their way to England.

 

Europeans already had a zero. The already had functions approaching nothing. They already had place holders for null digits. They already had a centre point in a coordinate system. They had measuring rods that started from nothing.

This claim is false.

 

That source is from Yale, one of the most prestigious University in America.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of "top scholars" talking crap.

 

Here's a simple rule: just cos you say it, don't make it so.

Simple enough?

Now why don't you explain why you say 10%. BTW I didn't put any figure down but you explained that in your figure the 10% came from raw material imports (which doesn't make sense anyway as imports are not part of GDP, which is a measure of outputs). My point was that any measure of GDP has to include the exports to captive markets, as without an Empire these would not have bought British. And one of the valid complaints of anti-imperialists was that they were forced to develop only raw material production and were impeded from developing domestic industries by the favourable treatement they had to give to goods manufactured in Britain.

Now will you go on repeating yourself or will you actually answer some of these points without insulting me?

 

I'm inclined to agree. But whether this is race or culture remains to be seen.

 

That's exactly the advice you need to take. It's ironic really. I think this is called "projection".

I sourced the figure to a scholar. It includes the total contribution from colonies. That isn't hard to understand right?

Good day.

 

Did someone call the Honey Badger?

Don't attack Jews.

Britain abandoned mercantilism by 1840.

Someone is off by several centuries in his interpretation of the Arab role in the advancement of knowledge. The Arabs never recovered from the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate by Hulagu Khan in 1258 CE.

 

Where is the source? Will this be another fruitless question like the one on Karl Marx where you claimed to have cited a quote from him but kept ignoring requests from me to show where?

It is important to read the source because the woolly lack of clarity in what you mean, makes this a ridiculous discussion. It's better if we go straight to the source to see how you have misinterpreted it.

On a separate note, can you explain why, in your signature, you are seemingly approvingly quoting a member of the "Marxist" Labour Party? And why do you have a problem with the largely "white" immigration he is describing? He is largely talking about slavic immigration from Eastern Europe (Poland for example which has provided about 1 million immigrants to the UK in the last decade), following the opening of borders within an expanded EU. Have you changed your mind about slavs now? Are they no longer part of the "white race". Are you now against "white" immigration?

I want to let you know how stupid British Nazis are (that's the British National Party, a classical Nazi Party in the UK). They recently campaigned against Polish immigrants in true Hitlerite anti-slav style. As is usual with Nazis they fronted this campaign with a mixture of deceit and stupidity. They stole the bravery of British pilots who fought the Battle of Britain against Nazi Germany as the theme of their filthy campaign, equating the repulsion of the Luftwaffe on the same footing as their demand to send Poles back to Poland. That's the sort of nasty, scummy thing people who talk about the "race" do. But here's the stupid bit. They forgot (becauise ignorance is the hallmark of 99% of Nazi racists) that the Polish Air Force had fought alongside Britain in the Battle of Britain, and what is more they used an image of a Polish pilot in their scurrillous campaign.

This is a fine example of how those who talk about the "white race", or the "aryan race" or "Nordic peoples" are both moral reptiles and laughable buffoons. We mustn't laugh too loud though because one day we may have to smash their skulls against the pavement.

Just for clarity of course.
As someone who just rubbishes any source from Yale, I am sure you will be aware that we will be looking for some credibility from your source, so please explain why you place so much faith in him and none in anyone from Yale.

If you can, of course.

 

Hopefully, the Arab Spring can help them rise again from the desert sands like the Egyptian mummies of Hollywood horror movies.

 

The Arabs have been struggling with modernity for a very long time. They have tried fascism, socialism, and pan-Arab secularism. Each approach has failed. Now they are embracing a form of Islamism. This new approach will lead to a dark age that will probably last for two generations. Islamism will fail. Arabs can't cope with modernity.

 

As you know Albert, they need to try liberalism. And America needs to help by not throwing liberalism into the trashcan.

For anyone else I should clarify that I mean "classical liberalism" or "democratic capitalism" which is its other name.

 

What on Earth are you babbling on about? Notwithstanding the fact that you've totally gone off the subject in order to shriek "Nazi" (your one "argument"), why the hell should the British accept one way mass immigration from Poland because the British declared war on the Germans to defend Poland?

Anyway, this is irrelevant.

I provided a source stating that under 10% of UK GDP was from colonies during the Industrial revolution.

You have provided no source that slavery was responsible. And that's because you are obviously wrong. Earlier civilizations practiced larger scale slavery and never had a revolution. Obviously the key factor was British innovation.

You can educate yourself here instead of whining about "evil whitey" who invented everything you see around you right now.

http://industrialrevolution.sea.ca/innovations.html

Enjoy!

 

I never talked about "evil whitey". That is the dystopia you construct for yourself. The Industrial Revolution happened for many complex reasons. Your simplitsic "white is might is right" is where we get the drivel.

Thank-you for the source. I will look at it. I that the bit you quoted does not support the assertion that the Empire only accounted for 10% of GDP. I think you need to google "British Empire" to see how large this entity was. You seem to think it was just the Carribean!

 

The Industrial revolution happened before the conquest of India and parts of China.

Good day.

 

Ha, you think the Industrial Revolution is an event, rather than something that happened over centuries. The ignorance makes the mind boggle.

What was the date then?

Most of the Industrial Revolution happened in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as craft industries gave way to factories. This was precisely the timeframe when the British Empire became global.

Really, this is basic stuff.