Just watched a lecture of his in which he said that the Chinese and the Indians were far superior to the West in...

Just watched a lecture of his in which he said that the Chinese and the Indians were far superior to the West in economic culture and technology. He then suggested that the backwardness of these two countries is largely a result of Western imperialism, from which they are now "coming back."

I don't know much about history, but this sounds like batshit insanity, especially coming from one of the most respected men in academics.

Did we "steal" the technology of the glorious eastern kangz, or is he losing it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-6Wu0Q7x5D0
youtube.com/watch?v=EL6w4Emwyi4
youtube.com/watch?v=QaWK4GGRMx0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

He is a piece of shit who is going to die of old age soon. Nobody will talk about him anymore than Bobby Kennedy.

He's exagerating but asia was incredible advanced way before the west.

Marco Polo leveled the situation and the decade of the great european empires followed through, before that they were pretty backwards.

he's right. whites (europeans) always relied on non-whites such as jews and persians to help them (re)start their economies and develop their culture.

a reminder that civilization didn't reach the germanics until 500 AD, the middle east had it in 2500 BC

youtube.com/watch?v=-6Wu0Q7x5D0

It's true, yurope ended up on top basically by getting lucky
Yuropoors were first barbarian morons and will return to being barbarian morons

China , if I recall properly, was more advanced in many areas during the Han Dynasty (200 BCE - 200 CE) than the Song Dynasty (~950-1200 CE), going through a regression due to instability and chaos. China going through a few centuries of stability under a strong Dynasty then decades of chaos and civil war that take a long time to recover from (it's easier to burn a field or kill a man than get a new one)

When the Europeans came, many of the technologies they brought were ones China previously had but fell out of common use.

>He's exagerating but asia was incredible advanced way before the west.
>Marco Polo leveled the situation and the decade of the great european empires followed through, before that they were pretty backwards.
Forgot to mention, his claim is that they were superior as recently as 200-300 years ago. I know they were superior to us, culturally, in the remote past.
It's statistically likely that the man on the left has an iq below 90.

>he's right. whites (europeans) always relied on non-whites such as jews and persians to help them (re)start their economies and develop their culture
I don't know of any Oriental work that tops Homer or Aristotle.

200-300 years ago it's a valid timeframe, the west didn't really advanced until the industrial revolution, before that most people lived under feudalism or something similar and large scale country wide projects were rare.

>200-300 years ago it's a valid timeframe,
You believe that India was culturally superior to Britain in the year 1770?

Chinese/Indians better

But got colonized, makes you think?

no we absolutely did not.
They had glorious natural resources and an easy life which gave them vast cities and big groupings and achievements, while we had scarce resources and so gravitated to smaller communities as the land could not support as many people as easily because of the ice age.
But by the time we got to them they had essentially stagnated for about 2000 years, and still hadnt even thought about the possibility of toilets.
They were both great in prehistory, but as soon as the ice age ended and we started to congregate in larger communities, we surpassed them by a country mile in about 50 generations.
So no. we literally took no technology from them whatsoever. But we gave them electricity, medicine, roads, transport, shit anything beyond about 1000ad.
We took their resources, that's literally it, and in return we gave them representative democracy and ended the untouchables caste system.
So they can shut the fuck up with their whineing

Considering that 1770 indian culture it's still popular, while british culture of the same period it's not so much.

More people probably follow the teachings of Laozi than Aristotle today.

The only worthwhile thing Chomsky has done politically is Manufactured Consent.

>1770 indian culture it's still popular
what the fuck are you talking about

>we gave them representative democracy
Look where that has gotten us all.

the man is a cocksucker

Except you didn't source or sage

Welcome to modern western culture.

>More people probably follow the teachings of Laozi than Aristotle today.
So what?
>Considering that 1770 indian culture it's still popular, while british culture of the same period it's not so much.
The Indian culture of that century is completely irrelevant today, while the British had Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith. In America, there were Hamilton and Jefferson, would probably had more influence than all of India during that century.

>persians
>non-whites
kek, literal aryans

Pretty much this.

Democracy is just like Communism. A naive idealist meme.

>if everyone did their fair share of work, Communism would work
>if no politicians tried to game the system and force us to choose among the same shitty options, democracy would work

Well Europe has been the shit part of the world for most of history. We we're just better at other stuff, like being smarter.

>white boiis were pathetic and behind in everything
>somehow manage conquer the world defeating all of the superior people
Man that really activates my neurons

youtube.com/watch?v=EL6w4Emwyi4

Modern Indian/western culture it's based in the first reports from the british expansion.

All the westernized budhism, hinduism, healthy lifestyle practices, ascetism, veganism, etc...

Originates from this period, you may not like those things, but to deny their impact in the modern culture it's dishonest at best.

user, this is the one thing that pisses me off about this site, is none of you recognise just how important this is.
The governemnt being accountable to th people is literally responsible for your ability to think. It is called an internal or an external locus of control - whether you view your actions as responsible for their outcomes or whether you believe it just fate and nothing you do makes any difference. It is the difference between knowing you can change your own life or thinking you are a powerless nobody that just has to plough on not affecting anything.
If you value yourself, that is thanks to your ancestors fighting to be recognised as people instead of numbers. More specifically it is thanks to your english ancestors.
If the government decides it wants to be all powerful, and can kill you at any time and take all your stuff for itself, what can you do about it? Nothing. The fact that governemnts are prevented from doing that, is purely the threat of revolt from the people, because the people do not want to be slaves. If that threat is removed, the governemnt can do whatever it wants, like is happening in the EU with the slide of government supremacy.
In north korea, if you criticise the government you get shot. So who criticises the government? Noone.
If your ancestors has not fought the king's armes and won that right. you wouldnt even conceive of being free. You would just KNOW that if you argued, you die. So you would have no freedoms whatsoever, and be no better than a north korean.
In england we had to fight for representative government every generation from 1066 til 1642 when we finally won again.
Then the american settlers took that spirit to america, thomas jefferson gave it to the french and then it spread to europe in 1848.
It is the fundamental thing that all of what we imagine to be "modern" society rests on.
That's why it's the one thing communists are desperate to subvert, as it is what keeps a country free instead of drones

He's not that well respected, he's just very often cited. That's for two reasons, it seems. #1 he has been consistently anti-American on every single issue related to anything that has ever happened for his entire career which spans decades, #2 he wrote a book on media interpretation which is somewhat correct, except he has the villains all wrong. He basically says that the entirety of the mainstream media is a capitalist plot that exists to prop up American imperialist hegemony. Well, he's right that the media do collude to present a unified message, but it's run by and props up the jew, not America.

As for history, the man is an utter dolt. Remember, his field is linguistics, and apparently his theories there didn't even really pan out. So he's completely over rated. But essentially every historical argument he has ever made was flat out wrong, because they're just his ideological political bias being expressed as revisionism to paint the West and America as evil. For instance, Chomsky's contention is that the allies did nothing in WW2. The Soviets won the war, and all America contributed was firebombing Dresden and nuking Japan out of pure maliciousness because we are evil. He has been BTFO so hard by actual historians that it's a wonder anyone pays attention to him any longer, but I suppose that's the advantage being a jew will get you.

To put another example. When the Khmer Rouge first started massacring people, Chomsky's original position was that it was media lies. Then when the murders were undeniable, he argued that they were good because they prevented more killing that would follow a counterrevolution. Then when it was flat out fucking genocide and the entire American zeitgeist was horror over the episode, he quietly backed away and shut up about the whole thing for like ten years. Never issued a retraction on any statement.

Then he popped up later and argued that actually the genocide was America's fault because we're imperialist.

Adelard of Bath knew this too

>All the westernized budhism, hinduism, healthy lifestyle practices, ascetism, veganism, etc...
Only Hinduism and Buddhism do. And they haven't really had a great cultural impact, they're mainly just memes for middle aged women.
>ou may not like those things, but to deny their impact in the modern culture it's dishonest at best.
Don't try to hide your weak arguments with shit like this. Give me facts.

Chomsky was talking 250 years ago, or so. Long after the death of Adelard.

How many oriental works do you know, period?

Most of the West didn't even know of Sun Tzu until after the Vietnam War. Hell, they still don't know.

It's idiotic. The idea that Europe first had nothing and then stole wealth and power from superior civilizations through military force is patently wrong, the only colony that was profitable for the British Empire was India, and only then over the long term. and even that is debatable.

The chief utility of colonialism was not the wealth extracted from those colonies by force, but the fact that they acted as harbors which facilitated trade. What of the Chinese trade which brutally exploited everyone to the west by refusing to give up silver and gold, while exporting fucking bug-vomit? Is this fundamentally different from forcing the Chinks to allow the trade in gold? How long did the opium trade last?

The entire history of China was ruthless economic exploitation of its neighbors and of distant countries, they got a taste of their own medicine from the Bongs and even they aren't crying about it anymore--but the Jews are.

The west borrowed form China and India very highly before and in the middle ages, but post enlightenment and scientific revolution the West far surpassed both in every way. We were reliant on them in the far past, that much is true, but imperialism came as a result of superior technology, not as a cause of it.

Because Chomsky and Chomskyites are simpletons who only understand how to project onto any field they attempt to wade into. His viewpoints are ahistorical and sourced in an intentionally malicious cherry picked fashion.

>Most of the West didn't even know of Sun Tzu until after the Vietnam War. Hell, they still don't know.
And nothing in his tome of cliches tops the great military commanders of the West.
>How many oriental works do you know, period?
Why jump to this? Stand on your arguments or admit inferiority.

>Millionaire Noam Chomsky who calls for Communism
>Being taken seriously
>By anyone rational
>At any point
>Ever

>they haven't really had a great cultural impact, they're mainly just memes for middle aged women.

youtube.com/watch?v=QaWK4GGRMx0

What did I tell you about being dishonest.

It wasn't western imperialism that made Chinese bureaucrats of the mandarinate bury advances like the mechanical clock in favor of studying Confucian literature for exams. China was an earthy, stable "center of the world" with no need for the kinds of wares a Leonardo would pedal to contending European states. China had renaissance men like the author of the "Dream Pool Essays", but their work was neglected by the established order and so the West would have Newton, calculus, modern physics, and so on.

Needham's massive "Science and Civilization in China" documents everything they invented, along with "Needham's Paradox" of why China never invented modern science, as above. How Chomsky is ignorant of this is ridiculous.

Again, you're only posting a meme phenomenon. Le new age shit was popular in the sixties. But it's another thing entirely to actually spread Hinduism into a country.

I'm talking significant, lasting cultural impact to good purpose. You've given me a drug addled pop band diving into contemporary crazes

well said

this. Often we cannot see the wood for the trees.

Pop culture it's modern culture.

He's just autistic. He's also Jewish so he has a huge chip on his shoulder because West is the yiddish term for "Christendom" or else he wouldn't even legitimize the conceptual idea of any country as valid if he opposed "imperialism". He's pretty astute and red pilled about other things though, such as the use of false presuppositions for mind controlling group consciousness.

new age hinduism is not real hinduism

>Pop culture it's modern culture.
Great, but we're arguing which was culturally superior. Moreover, your example is only a small, temporary facet of pop culture.

If the East was much advanced economically and technologically then they would have colonized Europe hundreds of years ago. So what happened? India got colonized and China got OPIUM'D and had Hong Kong taken away from them.

It doesn't has to be traditional hinduism to be directly related.

The Beatles and Indian culture it's a lot.

Chomsky is a linguist

thankyou based argentina

>>More people probably follow the teachings of Laozi than Aristotle today.
>So what?
It's just one example of Asian philosophy that has had serious impact on the world. Not sure how else one could try to neutrally judge a philosopher.

Vedanta and the Upanishads are too much for normie followers of garbage like Deepak Chopra to follow.

>It's just one example of Asian philosophy that has had serious impact on the world
Whose talking about "impact?" If you think that actual judgement is impossible, then simply decline to judge at all. Of course there are more readers of Asian philosophy, there are more Asians in general.

I don't see how anyone could put Laozi above Aristotle of all people.

lol no, they are not only not directly related, they are simply not the same

new age is westernized eastern philosophy, its a vehicle for the perennial philosophy, which is western esoterism, its superficially eastern, only using the symbols due to their appealing exotic "mystic" nature, and subverting them to support the syncretic ideas of the Beat-New Age-LSD-Ufology movement

its actually one of the only examples of things i could call cultural appropiation, alongside us/uk "latinamerican socialists" who turn peron/chavez to examples of a perennial lefty cosmovision to further their own bullshit when they are actually something else entirely

>The Beatles and Indian culture it's a lot.
And which top 40 bands are following this diluted version of hindusim today? Pop culture is highly transitory.

>tome of cliches

wew lad

>In 2010's Think Like a Champion, Trump weighed up Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

>"One book that I would suggest to you, because it is valuable for business and managerial strategies, is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It may sound like an unusual business school recommendation, but believe me, it isn't. It's valuable and worth your time. By comparison, another famed book is Machiavelli's The Prince, which is more about political conflict and qualities necessary for leadership than war or business, but its emphasis on power becomes a negative factor. Ethics and integrity seem to get lost somewhere in the shuffle, and therefore the word Machiavellian has become a pejorative term. It's a better use of your time to read The Art of War."

>Members of his cabinet are disciples, too. Trump has nominated General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, a Sun Tzu quoting jarhead, to serve as his Defense Secretary. "The Marine Corps," said Mattis approvingly, "has always been more Eastern-oriented. I am much more comfortable with Sun Tzu and his approach to warfare."

Chomsky is a armchair anarchist, a phony, who lives in a cushy ivory tower.

You are making a cartoon of new age beliefs, for perfectly fair reasons, but that doesn't stop people from learning proper hinduism

Pic related.

>Pic related.
user, that's some bimbo pretending to be a hindu, it has no effect on wider culture, even on pop culture.

Is she even top 40 anymore?

She married the most british man alive in India, seems very influential to me.

So we're just basing it on how much you like them? What are we basing this on?

1. everyone steals from everyone ALL THE TIME. that's a fucking fact throughout history, except, we're the first to be stupid enough to feel guilty about it.

2. when we originally arrived in India, there was literally fucking nothing there. tribes, living just miles away from others, thought they were alone in the world, due to the heavy, dense forest. we built roads, educated the Indians, but apparently, we "oppressed" them, and did nothing good whatsoever. whatever.

3. the Chinese always were very insular, and arrogant. yeah, opium wars blah blah fucking blah, but what about the other hundreds of years where we barely heard anything out of China?

4. Chomsky's a fucking moron.

>So we're just basing it on how much you like them?
We can just base it on what they've done. What has Laozi added to the history of ideas? How many great men's ideas has he influenced?
>seems very influential
What are you talking about? This is the last reply your clownass is getting from me

>we want to steal the riches of an entire nation
>looks like we'll need to build some roads and rails to get our loot to port
>looks like we'll need to train the natives and propagandize so they can cooperate with our taking all their shit
>but why are they so mad about this?

>4. Chomsky's a fucking moron.
good point tbqh

>There was literally fucking nothing there.

Triggered.

>we want to steal the riches of an entire nation
>so we educated them
Wonder why you conveniently left that part out

Neither were superior to Western culture, otherwise they wouldn't have been colonized by them.

At different points in history both were more advanced than the West. India stagnated long before Western intervention and China collapsed prior to Western domination.

He's historically retarded and has no fucking clue about the subjects he discusses beyond the media and how it functions, which is why Historians and Economists regularly blow him the fuck out.

Also genocide apologist.

I didnt. They educated them enough so they could be useful.

I remember him naming every genocide including the commie ones in his text about 9/11.

India wasn't superior unless you go back THOUSANDS of years.

China was superior very recently - only a few hundred years ago. But they had an internal collapse and forced stagnation (by their ruling elite looking to maintain power) prior to whitey pushing their shit in.

>I didnt. They educated them enough so they could be useful.
I see. So India should have been left untouched then?

Speaking of Aryans, China didn't become civilized until the Aryan migrations brought with them the chariot and domesticated horse. I'm not saying wewuz yellow emperors and sheeit but I am stating a historical and archaeological facts.

He's a fucking beta. I can't take him seriously since he isn't able to enforce anything he is thinking.

>China was superior very recently - only a few hundred years ago
I have a hard time believing this senpai. Maybe in some respects. I don't think there was a Chinese person on the level of da Vinci or Newton a few hundred years ago

Chomsky is a linguist. His work on the modern media is fantastic.

His work on politics, history and economics is idiotic and conspiracy theory tier.

Also, he unironically supported Pol Pot.

A standard of living higher then anyone else's in history?

>Chomsky is a linguist. His work on the modern media is fantastic.
I've always wanted to read his linguistics, but his other stuff really put me off. It's as you said, quite literally as bad as Alex Jones

So the choices are steal all the country's wealth for a couple hundred years, or leave them completely untouched? If you run across some rich guy on the street, is your first inclination to just take all his stuff?

>So the choices are steal all the country's wealth for a couple hundred years, or leave them completely untouched?
Didn't they give back more than they stole? What's the other option, convince thousands of Englishmen to do charity work pro bono?

>the Chinese and the Indians were far superior to the West in economic culture and technology

In 1492, the Muslim empires of north Africa still sat in Spain. In 1529, Vienna resisted a siege of the Muslim Ottoman empire.

Westerners have a funny view of things, but during the Dark Ages, the west was way behind the Muslim countries, the Indus Valley civilization, China etc.

It was only in the past few centuries the west began pulling ahead (and starting in the 20th century, the lead of the west has been shrinking every year).

> the backwardness of these two countries is largely a result of Western imperialism

England purposefully wrecked the Indian textiles industry when it colonized India. With China there were the Opium wars etc.

I mean you can see it in Europe - Poland and Ireland were colonized countries and the colonizers saw to it that all advancements happened in the imperial centers, while the farm work be done in the colonies. I mean England still has troops stationed in Ireland, they might put up border walls in a few months (which will sooner or later if they try to put the internal border up in Ireland probably revive the IRA).

Of course there was. Their list of inventions is not Kangz tier.

They had advanced mechanics for the time, but as an user pointed out, they would sell these to the west and refuse to use them at home because their feudal system was terrified of progress.

At one crucial point they had ships that were more advanced than Western ships in some ways, and began rapid exploration and expansion...only for the Emperor to burn all the boats and make it a capital offense to build or sail them. He believed they should stay at home and work and not concern themselves with the rest of the world.

China had movable type printing in the Song dynasty, around the same time as the Guttenburg Press...and of course the Chinks forbade it's use among most people.

>Then when it was flat out fucking genocide and the entire American zeitgeist was horror over the episode

What a laugh. From 1979 on the US fought for the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, to retain control of the Cambodian seat at the UN. The US began arming the "Khmer Rouge" in the mid 1980s. "American zeitgeist in horror over...the genocide" - what a laugh, Reagan was bankrolling and arming the "Khmer Rouge" - it was reported in the times, Peter Jennings did reports on it from Cambodia.

Chomsky is one of the only real dissidents left in the West.

Great stuff, but it's not at all relevant to the thread which, if you'd bothered to read, is concerns itself with the past 200-300 years.
>It was only in the past few centuries the west began pulling ahead (and starting in the 20th century, the lead of the west has been shrinking every year).
Mainly as a result of Eastern peoples learning from the West. It's not as if there is some great oriental country making progress on its own.
Who's the Chinese Newton then?

Opium Wars came after China's stagnation and collapse.

England ruined India's textile trade by inventing superior technology and producing better and cheaper products.

Most of the Islamic scientific dominance stemmed from preservation of European knowledge. If it wasn't for secularists like Attaturk, Islamic nations would still be in the dark ages.

In Europe, there was a scientific revolution in the seventeenth century, followed by the proliferation of different scientific disciplines in the eighteenth, and an industrial revolution (mainly in Britain) which resulted in a huge number of technological innovations and a definite advance over any other existing civilization.
Nothing comparable happened in any other civilization ever, but before this complex sequence of events, economical and technological superiority in China and India is believable.
In short: we did not "steal" technology, but invented new technologies along with a scientifically oriented culture which strongly supports inventions.

"white bois" didn't conquer any of asia, they used rival kingdoms and basically backstabbed their way to power in India and then used that influence to weaken china and the surrounding nations

Old socialist is socialist.

He does tell a lot of truth in among his lies, Chomsky is a waste of time. Read the material he cites, not his opinions.

Also anyone from the old media can't be trusted

Dunno. Someone like Su Song I guess. Another flaw in Chinese civilization - no one seems to like individuals taking credit for their work.

>Mainly as a result of Eastern peoples learning from the West. It's not as if there is some great oriental country making progress on its own.

It's a bizarre notion that all innovation spilled out of the west, and nothing spilled in. As I said, at the turn of the 16th century the west was a basket case, with Muslim empires at the gates of Seville and Vienna. The west was importing its knowledge from the Muslim world - like algebra (an anglicization of the original Arabic word for it - جبر ).

Beating back the Muslim invasions at the turn of the 16th century, the Renaissance and Enlightenment etc. were a turning point, and for about a century and a half, the west did grow in power. That began changing at the beginning of the twentieth century and for the last 70 years the lead of the west has been shrinking.

>asia was incredible advanced way before the west.
No, Asia was simply behind the West chronologically, and progress in the West's medieval period is underappreciated.

If the Roman Empire somehow existed on another continent from medieval Europe, until it was conquered by modern Europe, people would be saying that Romans were way ahead of Europe. It's superficial thinking, believing that Europe went backwards, and then a miracle happened and suddenly they had science and modernity out of some culture lottery. Europe threw things out that weren't working.

The West evolved beyond the stultifying primitive large-empire stage, to a more dynamic and competitive system of organization, which maintained long-range order through the Church while letting local cultural, technological, and genetic evolution move forward.

At the dawn of modernity, Asia looked about like Europe had a thousand years before.

holy shit I didn't know bongs could be this dumb

It's insane. The Chinese under the Qing were stagnant, same with India under the Mughals. The social stratification that both employed didn't help matters. The fucking Qing were still using swords and spears as their main weaponry in the mid-1800s. The Japanese also went about modernization much better: after the Restoration most of their government went on an 18-month world tour, they did everything they could to learn from western governments and military and incorporate them into the Japanese culture. The Qing didn't really do that.

...

So smart they got raped.

>Did we "steal" the technology of the glorious eastern kangz,

Guns were made from Chinese fireworks

He's the high elf of jew-marxist propaganda. His life's work could be summed up by saying "this man got famous and rich by writing about how shitty his local country is, while the citizens of that country gave him money."

When he dies I'll celebrate desu

>The west was importing its knowledge from the Muslim world - like algebra (an anglicization of the original Arabic word for it - جبر ).
The word "algebra" is from Arabic. The concepts, however, were nearly all developed in the West. What was imported from the Muslim world was a distant echo of ancient Western teachings, preserved from when they conquered parts of the Roman Empire, in the lands where the air is dry and written works keep through longer periods of neglect.

The Muslim world was importing its knowledge from Europe. They could threaten Europe only because of European defectors, who sold them things like cannon technology in order to be rich and be able to have things like sex slaves.

Ancient Rome was a TON more productive then china in GDP and real production. Steel production alone was greater in Rome by a factor of 10.