How was North Africa like before Arab conquest?
>>1243177
Why is there a statue of Zeus and a Parthenon in this picture of Carthage?
>>1243182
Cultural enrichment.
>>1243177
Lots of Christians and people still spoke Latin.
Heinrich Himmler, influenced by the "Neu-Volkisch" movement of post-WW1 Germany, saw Charles as "the Slayer of Saxons" and idolized the Saxons who fought against him and who tried to save their race and their religion against Judaism/Christianity.
Hitler on the other hand was opposed to that demonization and said that Charles was on the Greatest humans ever beacuse he managed to unite the Germans; and he mentioned to Alfred Rosenberg that it wouldn't be wise to let people demonize him by calling him the "Slayer of Saxons?"
Who was right?
Was he evil for murdering so many Saxons in the name of Judaism/Christianity and to enforce an alien religion upon the white man?
Or was he a great man by doing a step to unite the Germanic people?
>Was he evil for murdering so many Saxons in the name of Judaism/Christianity and to enforce an alien religion upon the white man? Or was he a great man by doing a step to unite the Germanic people?
Rather simple, really. I'd say both. And it's not white, it's Aryan. Whiteness is irrelevant.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvKRbi2ovDY
>>1241224
Saxons are not even human, so it's not evil, but true justice to destroy them.
What was the best time and place to be alive? Is the current year always preferable to the last year?
>>1241210
The best time and place to be alive is the time you're living in right now.
You just have to get off your ass.
Late 19th and early 20th century avant-garde syndicalist circles in Europe.
I like the internet and cellphones too much to ever go back.
People take digital technology for granted too much. It's seriously fucking revolutionary. It's easily the greatest advance since the printing press as far as the spread of knowledge goes.
Was it too much?
>>1239666
No. The mistake was not doing the same with Germany.
>>1239681
yeah Germany didn't lose any territory at all after WWI
Are you implying any of those released territories were Hungarian?
Was 1066 the worst year in English history?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fulford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
Also has anyone seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnC6l6_TaMA
No it was the best.
normans>saxoniggers
Post World War 1 memorials from your country.
oh fuck, wrong board. Never mind.
I don't know how this is a wrong board topic but here's the big horse dick in my town, I can see it from my window.
Serfdom had been gradually dying long before, but Queen Elizabeth abolished it completely. But years later, when King Charles lost the Civil War, the movement against enclosure died with him, and as a consequence the freed agrarian workers were deprived of land to work on, and had to clock to industrial work, which lead to a massive decline in the quality of life. If King Charles had won, it could have lead to the rise of agrarian guilds.
Communists often say this was something required, because though enclosure trampled upon the working class, they say it was necessary for capitalism and economic development. However, I think we have to question as to whether enclosure was necessary for economic development. It lead to an export based economy of things like beef and pork, but it also lead to a tremendous rise of domestic hunger and malnurshiment and people dying at a younger age, which really detracts from labor capacity. It is true that without enclosure, there would not have been as large of a rush toward urban employment, but this could have been remedied by higher compensation to bring workers; certainly employers through the period of urbanization, up to the industrial revolution, could have afforded drastically better standards of living for their employees. What is more, if King Charles had won, it would have caused a centralization of power back in the nobility away from the bourgeoisie, and that would mean some nobles would continue to hold urban environments as their livelihood. For the nobles who did, and gained from it, they surely would have invested in urban development and industrialization as much as the bourgeoisie, but the workers here would have had better lifestyles, and technology would not be oriented as much toward populism, but toward improving the quality of society.
It is true that monarchism is merely argument from authority applied to politics, but isn't that preferable to argumentum ad populum applied to politics? I do not mean to sound like a snob, but popular opinion is terrible when it comes to art and science and theology and, well, pretty much everything, and the idea that popular opinion in politics is optimal, strikes me as counter intuitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSwfrmponQ
im waiting for the part where this becomes a thread about Orthodoxy
>>1251399
England isn't Orthodox
>Called neighbors or non-chinese "filthy barbarians"
>muh country in the middle
>Gets rekt everytime by those filthy barbarians
Explain this.
when will they learn ?
>>1246661
>Outnumbered your enemy
>Still get your ass kicked
Typical chink battle
Those goddamn human wave chinks, when will they ever learn.
>You're a German soldier, looking out at the grey seas and skies of the English Channel one morning, when suddenly a few ships pop into view.
>Then more ships. And planes. And landing craft. And thousands of men heading for your beach.
>You thought you'd got off easily being posted in France. Hundreds of thousands of your fellow Germans were entrapped in Stalingrad a couple of years ago. Thousands more are being torn apart as the Red Army and their tanks surge through The Eastern Front.
>Until now. The wealthiest and most vastly resourced nation in human history, capable of production on a level unparalleled by any other state in the war, is rocking up on your beach.
>With them are British forces, aided by Commonwealth nations, along with allies from Poland and exiled French forces.
>Scheisse.
What do?
Would you run?
Well, I'm already losing the war since 1942, so what's the big deal?
>>1244749
>le hindsight man
People living through events don't have the benefit of knowing how things end up.
Many Germans may still have believed they could turn the tide of the Russian advance in the East, and stall/prevent any Western front being opened by the Allies. Possibly sue for a truce that would keep their nation relatively intact.
The Nazi state didn't properly start falling apart until '45 IMO.
>>1244731
>Would you run?
What kind of stupid question is that?
If original indoeuropeans were tan black eyed semitic looking, and blue eyes developed from nonPIE population, Then why are there light eyed people in the indian, iberian, iranian and afghan populations where the native population was also dark?
>>1244201
>If original indoeuropeans were tan black eyed semitic looking
Nobody believes that. Die in a fire.
occasional mutations and albinism?
>>1244220
Indians and western SJW college professors believe that.
There is no value to philosophy.
In math class, they might say "Newton or Leibniz discovered Calculus". But nobody would ever try to teach you Calculus as Newton wrote it. For good reason, Newton's writings are the obscure, obtuse records of a centuries old genius from a different culture. Not exactly the kind of text that is ideal for students.
Since the time of Newton mathematicians and educators have expanded and refined the field. Advances in pedagogy have made the subject vastly more approachable.
Philosophy is wrong, or indistinguishable from being wrong.
Compare this, on the other hand, to math or computer science. I have never once corrected a mathematician, or found a substantive flaw in the body of computer science knowledge. I’m not acquainted with anyone who so much as believes they have. And yet, every undergraduate philosophy student, at the very least, believes they have found a flaw with some major philosopher.
In this same theme, every time I have found something in math or computer science, or chemistry, or physics, to be challenging or confusing, and my teachers say it is valuable to know, and I push through, I have found these challenges, unfailingly, to cohere into useful, reasonable concepts.
Conversely, I have never found this to be true in philosophy (exception: the one philosophy course my school offered in game theory, which was quite rigorous and also quite clearly a math course in disguise). Sometimes I will read a philosophical text and think:
“Is that what he means?”
Then study, read online, talk with friends about it and…
“I guess…? Maybe?”
Not to mention that the enthusiasm of study is dampened by the field being worthless.
“Aha! This is what he was trying to say. It can’t be demonstrated, has no value and is obviously wrong anyway.”
given your poor physical shape, your unfortunate
colleagues, your pitiful social skills and your alcohol problem – is that
you will not actually solve anything with philosophy.
idiot
great, keep thinking like this, the world needs scientists to specialize in a specific point of research, being a generalist isn't for everyone.
Just to give you a general idea,” he would explain to them. For of course some sort
of general idea they must have, if they were to do their work intelligently—though
as little of one, if they were to be good and happy members of society, as possible.
For particulars, as every one knows, make for virtue and happiness; generalities are
intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors
compose the backbone of society
>>1242550
Brainlets BTFO
Would Communism have succeeded if Western capitalist countries stopped their meddling and trying to make it fail?
>>1246065
Yes.
>communists feeling persecuted
>>1246075
But Western capitalist countries, including the fascists (sorry mates, corporatism is just a form of capitalism), did actively try to make communist countries fail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezaSt0IPrIk
what if germany won WW1 and never caused WW2?
would the world be a better place?
This actually seems to be not a bad scenario.
The thing I always get triggered by is people calling Germany the "bad guys" because they don't understand that Nazi Germany didn't exist in WW1.
WW2 was not "nazislap 2: electric boogaloo" but it was a far different war with much less "moral" shit to fight for/against.
Can't speak as to what would happen if they'd won. We'd all have cooler helmets, I guess.
Well that depends. What kind of peace treaty would it have resulted in? Germany wanted colonies, so I assume France wouldn't have been fractured too hard, just lost shitloads of African holdings. Assuming that would be the end of it and no WWII happens, would the colonial powers manage to keep hold of said colonies or would they break free anyway?
what are some of the best flags/logos/symbols of factions across history?
VIVA
LA
FRANCE
Why is Muslim morality such garbage /his/?
>You are forbidden to masturbate, but you can have sex with sex slaves if you own them
Do people unironically support this, or are they just retarded? I mean, at least the 10 commandments make sense.
>>1237784
Musso morality is the same basis as any holy scriptures
DONT BE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE
>Muslims can use condoms
Already better morality than cathoshits
>>1237784
You obviously paid no attention to the rest of the Old Testament. YHWH doesn't outlaw slavery, he simply makes a few rules. YHWH had no problem with incest until Moses came along. Maybe Moses was a false prophet who didn't like the old rules and made up his own. And don't forget that YHWH had Joshua kill everybody (and take virgin sex slaves), just like Allah told ISIS.
(People act civilized and surprised. Oh my God would never be like that. Duh! YHWH killed all but 8 in the flood, including the innocent children)
(Pic related)
