>spooks
>not semiotics
don't understand that thread but I love how you can find hand paintings like that all over the world
someone went there thousands of years ago and decided to leave a mark for other people to know
>>1365992
>don't understand that thread
Semiotics. Semantics. Symbols. All have the same place in communication as they do hands on that wall. Ideas communicated less as rationalizations and more what rationalization would look like under a certain set of emotions, themselves simulated. All is symbols.
Spooks are an outdated concept that's far easier to understand, and yet wrong. In fact, falling to semiotics more than anyone by basing it only upon that.
>>1366014
you havent read stirner, have you?
I feel like this would be the best board to ask, I apologise if there is another board where I should have posted this.
I'm starting to make my family tree, so I can learn the history of my family, it's origins, and all that jazz. But I have no idea where/how to start. My living family has next to no information on our past relatives. We have some of their last names, but that's about it.
I've heard ancestry.ca/com is a great website for finding this information. Only problem is, I really don't want to pay that $29.99 a month (money's already tight enough as is). I feel like googling their names is going to give me many different people, with the same name.
I guess my questions would be (as stated earlier) where should I start? And how do you kind folks of /his/ make such an accurate family tree??? Any tricks behind it???
>>1365937
Pro tip: don't even bother. You're a peasant all the way down like 99% of the population.
That aside, most places keep physical records. Your local municipality or whatever, should have some shit archived, although I don't know how accessible it would be.
>>1366123
>tfw this is true to no end
I looked at mine as far back as around 1066, and it was the most boring thing I have ever seen
My mums side is Scottish
>Miners
>Miners
>Farmers
>Some soldiers
Dads side is England
>Soldiers
>Soldiers
>Soldiers
>Farmers
No one who was a solder was even special, just infantrymen who died most of the time
I spent roughly £300 to discover I am of pleb descent (but thanks to them im alive, so you the best)
>>1366123
>tfw wuz actually aristocrats n shiet
How did slavery become a contentious issue in American politics?
I don't want to hear about the Wilmot proviso, Bleeding Kansas and the rest of the roundup of the Civil War. Rather, I am curious why, out of many issues that divided the nation, this one came up the the most important, defining divisions.
>>1365848
If I had to guess, I would say that the biggest problem is that it made the American ideal inherently contradictory. To quote writer Samuel Johnson: "How is it that we here the loudest cries for liberty from slavers?"
Since the 3/5s Compromise, although the precise things being contested varied
What state had it the easiest during the American Civil War? What state had it the worst?
Washington d.c
>>1365769
>What state had it the easiest during the American Civil War?
Tie for every northern state except Pennsylvania.
>What state had it the worst?
Probably Georgia.
>>1365816
I think Oregon had it easier than the rest of the north
>all the way out west
>on top of that they have California as a buffer zone
Does daoism have a pantheon or is it athiestic?
Atheism mostly only exists in the context of Abrahamic religion, the term doesn't make much sense outside of it
>>1365591
It just means that there is no god or gods.
Granted god is a nebulous term and it probably makes more sense to use it in the context of abrahamic religions since monotheism tends to embody significantly better what is meant by god by most people.
>>1365631
>It just means that there is no god or gods.
Again, in an Abrahamic context. For instance, there are a lot of Hindu atheists
Lets talk about the cold war
>most stylish genocides?
>your aircraftu - hard mode no sr71
>your favorite black market
>favorite war
>favorite dictator
>favorite assasinations
>favorite trade vetoes
>favorite speeches
LET US GOOOO
Cold War bibliography:
http://pastebin.com/eEbXk5kp
The sr71 radar didnt work to hide it from nornal positions. It used radar jamming and flairs to throw off heat seeking and radar guided missiles combined with its anti radar chasis and paint. It could evade any manually driven missile.
It should stay decommisioned; although the earlier meme reasons have little foundation, it would be more politically heated today, and advanced missiles may finally be able to shoot it down.
I think we all know that JFK's assassination was the best during this period. If we talk about unsuccessful attempts then let's just go with Castro.
>BTFO by S-P & Prussia
>Loses German Confederation
>Daughter dies
>Son suicides
>Wife assassinated
>Frau Schratt won't even tickle his balls
You're having a better day than Franz.
Franz.. Franz had a hard life.
>>1364629
Oh I suppose...
>>1364629
>BTFO by S-P
Literally when? France and Prussia did all the work, S-P got btfo and had to be handed concessions by France.
Hello /his/, first time poster here.
Do tell me if I'm doing it wrong so I can delete this thread
I'm looking for data and essays about the economic development of the Mediterranean region, specifically the Industrial Revolution. To be clear I'm talking about the whole Basin with maybe a focus on the European side.
Which books should I look into if I want to further my knowledge in this regard?
Thanks in advance
btw, I can into French if some resources are only available in this language.
Shameless self-bump
>>1364611
Industrial Revolution did not really reach most of the mediterranean. You should search for it in Northern Italy and Spain specifically.
Greece for example never had an industrial revolution. They just got a few factories here and there. Think southern italy was largely the same but I dont know.
>>1365550
What about Northern Africa? Did they underwent any industrialisation under colonialism?
Explain to me the Spanish Civil War as simple as you can. Why did it start? Who fought who? What were the major battles of the war? How did the Nationalists defeat the Republicans?
>>1364583
It started short after the II Republic was funded, some veterans/fascist/traditionalists/reactionaries generals such as Franco, the soontobe next big boss, started a rebellion from the canary isles and in different places from the peninsula.
Basically there were two sides: The fascist one composed of veterans, soldiers, "policemen" and extreme right wing such as Falange and the Republican side composed of people who liked the republic, communists, anarchists, some international soldiers and left wingers.
The real major battle was The battle of Ebro, but the major carnages happened in towns and cities. Another important thing was the bombardment of Guernica, which inspired Picasso to make his famous painting EL Guernica.
I don't really know how they won, there are a bunch of different explanations. Some say is because the Republican side was too fragmented and Franco centralized the power on himself, some say is because Feminism is cancer. Look it up yourselves because I, a spaniard, don't even know.
All in all, the spanish civil war more a war of brothers as they say, literal brothers killing eachother because of affiliation to a party or another. It's very sad, not because the fascists won, or because we lost the Republic, but because the whole scope of the war focused on small towns and villages where they didn't even have wheat to farm. It was truly miserable.
After the libertarian organisations defeated the military on July 19 1936, there was possibly the greatest revolution in human history. It shouldn't really be looked at so much as a civil war but as a revolution and counterrevolution. George Orwell's book Homage to Catalonia is a really good account of this repression by what was basically a successful Stalinist conspiracy to take over the Republican government.
This was successful mainly because the other countries had a policy of non-intervention, the excuse for this being an opposition to the USSR, but it became a self-fulfilling prophecy as the USSR was the only country which aided the republic and had a monopoly on the badly needed foreign aid.
The outcome of the war was mainly decided by Britain, who led the other countries with the non-intervention policy while Germany and Italy supplied the golpistas. The British navy intervened in favour of Franco's side to block supplies to the republic, and the American government did nothing meaningful to stop Texaco from sending oil to the fascists.
After the Stalinist counterrevolution there was a forced militarisation program of the anarchist militias, the best account of this is given in A Day Mournful and Overcast. The Stalinists also sent in tanks and sent soldiers from the front to break up anarchist collectives. With governmental authority asserted, there was a massive drop in morale because people were no longer fighting for freedom and the fulfillment of their own desires, and end to years of injustice and social tension.
The republic lost the war, and the Francoist regime broke the back of the CNT and killed hundreds of thousands of people. The liberal powers never helped, not then or after WW2. They even fought beside Franco's Spain on a number of occasions.
This is my very biased view of it, all views of it are incredibly biased so be careful, especially with liberal scholars who we usually presume to be objective.
>>1364620
>Falange
>far right
By the way, you're omitting that the communist barbarians were carrying the Red Terror.
In recognition of the death of Elie Wiesel, let's discuss the historicity of his books.
I read Night in grade school and later came across some accusations that his accounts were partially fictionalized, but I didn't care enough to follow up and more readily dismissed it as /pol/shit. Where do his books stand among historical holocaust works?
>I read Night in grade school and later came across some accusations that his accounts were partially fictionalized
Here's the thing: all memoirs contain elements that are partially fictionalized. This is true across all time periods, all genres, all events. It's not limited to Night, it's not limited to WWII memoirs, it's universal.
The primary reasons for fictional elements in memoirs are:
-For narrative/structural purposes. For example, someone might combine locations or people into one person in order to make it easier for the reader to understand, or eliminate certain parts of the story that might 'bog down' the memoir unnecessarily.
-For personal reasons related to the content of the memoir. For example, someone might not want to admit that they did something or witnessed something that might make them unappealing to the reader or would cause controversy.
-Due to lack of memory and the need for detail. For example, someone will not likely be able to remember exact conversations spanning weeks/months/years of their life, so they may invent them or cobble them together from various conversations to create one cohesive conversation for a part in the memoir.
-For biased reasons. For example, someone may want to encourage a certain point of view by portraying people or events in a certain way. This is more common with revolutions and political upheavals. (see: Royalist memoirs about the French Revolution.)
So, yes, Night contains fictional elements. All memoirs do. It's difficult to gauge just how fictional Night is because Wiesel never specifically told people what happened to him and what may have been fictionalized for whatever reasons. Based on the interviews and speeches he's given that correspond with most of the events in the book, I would personally classify it as a regular memoir. As opposed to a story fictional memoir like This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen.
>>1363472
Man, this sounds naive, but I've often wondered how anyone managed a memoir/autobigoraphy when many I've read had such extreme detail and depth when my own memories seemed to lack the organization of those within a great autobiography.
I thought perhaps I just had comparatively poor memory and when writing about distant personal events, I'd use some of the same techniques you've listed as a crutch, but seeing that it's more common than I imagined is reassuring.
>>1363472
You failed to mention insanity. Several memoirs contain claims that can only be explained away as hallucinations, hysteria or various disorders. Or deliberate lies, I suppose.
The Roman Empire is the only civilization worthy of Respect. They weren't perfect, but they were the best.
You can't prove me wrong.
>>1362611
You're right.
/thread
Ancient Chinese.
Umayyad Caliphate.
>>1362611
Just like european Union.
Why the fuck did American ban alcohol in the 20s?
Like what the fuck
You'll hear a lot of ad hoc reasons but the bottom line was that men in industrialized countries were turning into miserable drunks and so there was a crackdown on alcohol all throughout the West in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was the War on Drugs of its day.
In France they famously focused on absinthe, they just attributed it all the ills of alcoholism and ignored other liquors.
fucking women mang
>>1371328
Yea but banning it? Just tax the shit out of it
>/his/ becoming '/pol/ with dates' more and more each day
Well it was fun while it lasted
Why not make a more constructive thread and see if you can raise the quality level?
>>1370847
This. You should ignore the problem and hope that it goes away.
>>1370847
First step to recovery is acceptance, and we have to address the problem before we fix it.
Problem is it's been addressed too many times.
Is free will real?
Models that posit that it is not are based in mathematics which is an internally consistent logic. Interpretations that attempt to utilize biology and neural circuits imply the conclusion within the premise: life is deterministic.
Yet why do we depend on these models of logic that are circular? Simple refusal of these premises should be sufficient enough to allow for free will to exist?
>>1370360
Image:
>Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). In A, the intuitive model, there is no causal component for will. Will influences conscious thought, which in turn influences unconscious neural activity to direct behavior. In B, a causal component of will is introduced: unconscious neural activity and GES. But now will loses its “freedom.” In C, the model that Cashmore advocates, will is dispensed with. Conscious thought is simply a reflection of, rather than an influence on, unconscious neural activity, which directs behavior. The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior. Credit: Anthony Cashmore
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-03-free-illusion-biologist.html#jCp
>>1370360
Why would they reverse the direction of the dotted and solid lines on C?
Conscious thought is like the internet.
>>1370378
>The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior.
because conscious thought is secondary to background neural activity.
From a purely rational perspective, why can't children have sex (in particular, with adults)?
It seems the number one response is always 'they can't consent'. But what does that mean and what does it entail?
When people say 'they can't consent', how is that true? It can't mean that they can't voluntarily participate as an act of will, because they can. Even if the vast majority wouldn't (for natural lack of sex drive for instance), why couldn't some of them? Usually the 'they don't understand it' argument follows this but why not? Is sex astrophysics? Why can't you explain how it works then tell them it can be dangerous if you don't take a few basic precautions like condoms and generally not pushing your limits? I mean, swimming in a lake could be dangerous too, you could drown for instance, but no one says 'children can't go swimming because they can't consent to it because they don't understand it and it's dangerous!'
I suppose the last resort would be ' it will mentally scar them for life!', but how do we know this isn't due to the social variables and taboo nature of it? Maybe they become 'scared' because they are told after the fact how traumatized they ought to be. Maybe it's all police and courts and therapists that get thrown at them that causes them mental anguish.
The reason that they're considered unable to consent is that we have decided that the brain of a child is too physically immature to reason on certain things. We restrict them from other things (especially medical procedures) for the same reason.
That being said, you obviously haven't researched jack shit regarding this topic considering some of the points you bring up.
>>1368446
Several reasons:
1) Sex is a mean of procreation and kids aren't geared towards it(before widespread legislation kicked in, "if it bleeds it can breed" was a common attitude towards it). Now I don't agree with it fully because casual sex is cool but there is a point in it when you think of what does it mean when you think of paedophiles from this side - kids have very minimal amounts of "sexual" physical characteristics, therefore a person who is attracted to them is at least some heavy case of fetishist.
2) Kids aren't fully conscious of their decisions - you wouldn't let 8 years old to take mortgage. As for your swimming analogy - most parents don't throw their kids into water and tell them "lol, swim", but rather they teach them how to swim or have an instructor to do it.
3) Human emotional development takes much longer than you'd think and, just like "early porn", early sex, especially this early may hinder it. It may, but for sure it'll make their social development much more troubled(which is a case with porn btw.).
4) Our social relations have certain rules to them and intentionally trying to change them is idiotic, especially on individual's level. A 6 years old boy being horny for sex with his 6 year old girl friends(not girlfriends) is bound to have lots of troubles everywhere. Girl would probably get exploited by paedophiles left and right.
And there's more.
Of course the legislation around it in some countries is retarded with some states in the US having legal age set as high as 18 etc. but that's beyond the point.
>>1368446
Children are stupid, to be blunt. Sex is just sex, but unwanted sex is traumatic, if there is the slightest risk of sex being traumatic and no reason to have sex it is unjust. The margin of error shouldn't be in the "grey area".
also this >>1368488
>you obviously haven't researched jack shit regarding this topic
You are obviously that pedophile rumored to spend all day posting this everywhere on 4chan even though you constantly get BTFO. Thankyou for gracing our humble board, I see you brought a picture of that cretin gary glitter.
Disgusting.
