If nationalism is enough to make Hitler right-wing, then how come Stalin isn't considered right-wing?
>>1397265
Because Stalin was a globalist
It's not an issue of Nationalism rather the role and existence of inequality in their respective ideologies, that leads to the two being defined as left and right wing respectively (though nationalism can be tied to the concept of inequality)
'Right wing' ideologies tend to believe that inequality is not an evil, but something that is to be accepted or in fact a positive (eg: muh motivation to work), while 'Left wing' ideologies see any form of inequality as an evil stemming from power structures established by the bourgeoisie, and aim for a society without inequality (eg; muh from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs)
Because the left/right dichotomy is an inherently flawed system.
Saw a thread here earlier about progressivism and I decided to finally satisfy my curiosity. I don't know much about progressivism and I want to know what's wrong with it and what's right about it?
What do they want and how would you explain their views to someone who is reasonably into politics, but not an expert on modern ideological trends?
we have this exact thread already
also /pol/ is no different from the woman in that comic. if you don't believe me, go make a really mild joke about white people on /pol/. say they can't dance or their food tastes under-seasoned. watch the tears and defense force and infopics pour in.
>I don't know a thing about progressives!
>I just have this handy, skewed political comic for /no reason/
Nope, not a bait thread at all.
Why are general history classes more concerned with specific politicians and movements rather than technological and scientific advancement which is far more important?
>>1397191
>technological and scientific advancement which is far more important?
to what?
>>1397228
To showing the average day to day life of the people who lived during those times and how the world has changed to become what it is today.
If I want to know what the average day for a farmer was, what he used to farm and farming techniques are more important than who was in office.
>>1397191
Because, depending on the specific class, the curriculum is either set by the state which has a vested interest in its political history, a committee of politicians and interest groups which have specific cultural and policy views in mind, or an education department looking to standardize the subject and have students learn to pass their tests first and foremost, which usually focus on memorizing important names and dates.
You know how it is, people on the news referring to Obama as 'this president' and not 'our president', those 'not my president shirts' from the Bush era. Birther-ism. Etc.
Is this just a modern thing, or were presidents from the past also constantly treated like they were not legitimately the president?
That's as old as the office of presidency.
John Tyler had people constantly address him as "his accidency" because he kind of glided into the job.
>>1397189
During the Populist era, there was strong sentiment that the president just represented the interests of the wealthy, so I wouldn't say there's anything new about it. The post-World War II years of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy may be an exception, outside of the few die-hard communists.
>>1397189
Lincoln
>World War 1 involved Britain and Germany, plus sometimes America, never leaving the trenches except to be slaughtered in no man's land
>The French sacrificed millions of men solely because of their believe in the power of elan
>>1397135
>france is a dlc
>because we thought they were so special they deserved their own dlc
>Askaris and their campaigns in Africa will receive no mention whatsoever
>but some ghetto nigga can be a regular solider
This is offensive to the Askaris who put their lives on the line for European ambitions. DICE ought to be boycotted.
What are your /his/ approved documentaries/series/movies?
HBOs Rome is of course a fantastic series if you're interested in Roman civ, albeit obviously dramatized.
I'm lookin for something about feudal Japan (or even earlier, maybe Genpei War era) or something about the Chinese dynasties. Two subjects I really know very little about.
Any recommendations?
I'll bump with some decent art I have in return.
I went through all historical definitions of various religions, but couldn't find mine. Can you name it /his/? What's my religion?
>I believe creator/simulator/god exists.
>However I don't know if he/she/it is "perfect" nor capable to do everything.
>I believe he/she/it/they may or might not be one of the gods that we know, including abrahamic ones. Or even might be god/gods of those gods which has got another god above himself. Or even might be completely different type of ayy lmaos with their technology that we can't even imagine.
>We will never be able to completely "prove" whether if he exists or not with scientific methods.
>It's impossible for us to completely understand his "moral values", purpose or motivation, or even if he is just fucking around with us with our limited capacity. It's impossible to emphasize to him.
>I believe magick/magic might be real, and if they are real they might be glitches of simulation or god's F1 key that has given to the "caster".
>>1397074
Just say you're agnostic.
>>1397090
/thread
Gnosticism?
Just finished Hausu, thought it was pretty good. Made me think about a thing. What do you think should be the relationship between a film and reality?
Hausu is a deeply unrealistic movie, and I'm not talking about how it couldn't take place in reality: it willingly forgoes those mimetic techniques commonly employed in narrative cinema, which are so widespread I almost think it's become almost subconscious. It looks unreal and it feels unreal - but does this detract in any way from its quality of being a good movie?
A map is never *quite* the territory, and even the most perfect image of a thing isn't the thing itself; as much as a movie tries to style himself as a perfect representation of reality, it has a few inherent qualities (montage, fps...) that separate it from that which it's representing - but those same qualities make it a thing unto itself, something with a distinct ontological status than that of reality.
A movie is that which it becomes through the actualization of the possibilities implicit in those qualities - to put it simply, a movie is made up of those things that formally make it a movie, and on those things alone you can judge its "movieness", or beauty, or whatever you want to call it. Realism is an afterthought, or a trait we look for because of the importance of mimesis in western culture. It doesn't add or detract anything.
Dog Star man is a great movie because of its montage, as Mothlight is great because of Brakhage's intervention on every single frame; Benning's movies are incredible because, among other things, they go back to cinema's reason of existance: capturing movement; Clipson's Speaking Corpse is about how to push your medium (which nowadays is both kinoglaz, the camera, and digital post-production) to its limits.
I know I may have put it better, but it's a somewhat improvised reflection. What do you guys think?
[I posted this on /tv/ too, but I don't put too much trust in that board's capability of discourse and what I'm talking about is, albeit in a very simplified and not novel form, philosophy of cinema, so I hope it may fly on this board as well]
I recommend posting this on /lit/, they actually have some good discussions about there.
>>1397081
>*about film there
Is Robert E. Lee overrated as a general?
>both invasions of the North failed
>The Confederacy really didn't need to invade to begin with when it would've been much more advantageous to fight an unorthodox defensive war and break down the North's will to fight, the invasions may have had great outcomes had they been successes but the gambles were ultimately too great and too extreme
>aggressive battle strategies often led to high casualty rates which the resource-strapped South couldn't afford
>while those strategies scored some impressive victories his greatest successes came against cautious, ineffective generals who frequently made asinine mistakes that were easy to abuse
>never could meaningfully capitalize on big victories (both failed invasions of the North came after victorious campaigns) and his other victories came more so due to the mistakes of Union command and having a strong defensive position than any strategy (most notably Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, and The Crater)
I'm not saying he was a horrible commander, no way. He was the Confederacy's best commander and was a primary catalyst for the South holding out alone as long as it did against the overwhelming numerical and logistical and economic superiority of the North and he scored many impressive victories against the odds and defeated an army of the United States on the field of battle more times than any other general in history. It just seems like people here (I live in the South) venerate him as a near-flawless god of the field who lost only because of his resource disadvantage when it seems to me his strategic shortcomings and costly over-aggression only really worked against incompetent generals. Had McClellan pressed Lee with his huge force so close to Richmond in 1862 like Grant in 1864-65 I think Richmond would've fallen and Lee would be forgotten for the most part.
He's overrated as both a general and a man. Jackson and Forrest were both superior commanders on the confederate side and grant was a superior commander overall
Damn good looking fellow though
>>1396976
I mean, he was the best general of the Civil war.
This is because the Northern generals were criminally incompetent the entire way through. Nobody outside of the U.S. Navy even remotely did their jobs in the war to any extent that they can be called competent.
>>1397009
Just a quick little specification, whenever I say best commander I mean in terms of commanders of whole army. I agree that there are scores of Rebel generals who I think would've made great leaders of whole armies or large corps commanders had they had the chance, Patrick Cleburne comes to my mind personally.
But yeah I think that Lee being the stoic, gentlemanly Virginian made him very easy to romanticize and idolize, which Lost Causers to this day never fail to do so. He was by all accounts a respectable man but one whose reality is not so glorified or bloated as his celebrity status paints him.
Speaking of Grant, people call Grant a butcher who used sheer numbers to win but while he did have some bloody offensive failures, that's just not true. His campaigns in the West, especially in Mississippi capturing Vicksburg prove otherwise. A man who entrenched and besieged his foe into submission on two huge occasions is not a mindless butcher. That being said he did what McClellan wouldn't do, and that was use his resources to his advantage to press Lee. He'd get in a bloody brawl and sometimes get straight beat but still keep on the offensive, since he knew that he could replace his losses but Lee couldn't.
Imagine you're woken up in your house at 3:00 AM by a man with a bomb-belt and a gun pointed at you:
>"Anon, how can I know you're not just a pigment of my imagination. That this whole world isn't just a bunch of NPCs computed by my mind? If you can't prove you're not, I will shoot you and your whole family."
How would you prove him wrong?
>>1396969
Katana teleport meme
>>1396979
*BANG*
This isn't /his/.
/thread.
Does eternalism imply eternal recurrence for humans?
It isn't. Just named somewhat the same.
>>1396942
If the block time theory is true, though, that means our entire lives are already laid out, and will remain so forever. Humans experience time linearly; this seems to imply eternal recurrence. Once our consciousness ends, we'll simply loop back around to the beginning and do it all again.
Essentially, if our lives exist eternally, why would we only experience them once? I've always wondered about this - if I'm nonexistent in the future, why/how am I conscious now? I think I've found the answer.
>>1396962
This worries the fuck out of me. My life sucks balls, I can't imagine having to experience it all over again for eternity
What are examples of major tactical victories that were a disaster strategically?
Take the Battle of Coronel for example
>WW1
>British and German squadrons running around South America, don't expect to actually meet each other
>They meet each other
>British squadron outmatched but ordered to fight
>absolutely decimated
>German commander awarded with flowers
>"These will do nicely for my grave"
>British are shocked by the loss and send a proportionately massive force
>Germans wiped out while trying to escape the theater
>>1396840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_n8FRILoYE
Brumpang
>>1396840
>major tactical victories that were a disaster strategically?
The 2nd Iraq war.
Are "azeris" just shia turks?
>all Turkic peoples are the same
You're one of those dumbasses who thinks panslavism is a possibility, aren't you.
>>1396858
So... Which Turk are you?
>>1396881
>Which Turk are you?
Turks are the only Turkish people, you dumbfuck
Literally the only serious secular grievance against King Charles was that he was fighting enclosure. Everything else was religious idiocy over petty shit like rails on the alters.
Dat extraparliamentary revenue tho. If he could gain the majority of his revenue without parliament, he would in effect be an absolute monarch.
>>1396897
He couldn't, that's why he called them.
>>1396897
Also, it wasn't the majority of his revenue, it was the entirety of it as long as parliament wasn't being held.
Since we had a Goering-Tito conspiracy theory thread, what does /his/ think about the various Stalin conspiracy theories? Specifically these two:
>He was an Okhrana agent who infiltrated the Bolsheviks and eventually double-crossed everyone to take power for himself
>He didn't die of natural causes, but was poisoned to death by Tito as a retaliation for various attempts on Tito's life.
I'm sold on the second. The first one is interesting and matches his personality, but there seems to be a lot less physical and documentary evidence supporting it. Of course, Stalin could have just erased it all.
>>1396760
"Stop sending agents to kill me or I will send one man to Moscow and it will not be necessary to send another one"
I believe it
> poisoned to death by Tito
I find the theory about betrayal of other party main figures to be more plausible.
>>1396760
is there anything that supports those claims?
![1100_can_pill_boost_fertility[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Sv8LTbF.jpg "1100 can pill boost fertility[1]")
