Et voilá!
>>923166
I made this yesterday.
Julius Evola was a cool guy.
>>923166
>tfw Revolt against the Modern World is literally unattainable in my country now
>>923400
What country is this? Germany or Sweden?
>studying algorithms
>this comes out
>>(kudos to you if
you can recall what happened each year)
>couldn't recall everything, my autism kicks in and I must find out
Could you, /his/? Bonus point if you aren't American.
Well, the only hard one is 1804, probably the purchase of Louisiana
>>923030
That's my first guess as well, but it was in 1803.
Non-American here.
Easy
1918
1941
1945
2001
Guessable
1492
1776
1865
Had to check out
1783
1804
1963
How did being hacked to death and eaten alive by wild animals feel like in an ancient Roman gladiatorial match /his/?
It would be very painful
>>922973
They were big guys
>>922982
For you.
As the title suggests are there any reasons from a philosophical standpoint to believe that there is an afterlife or some sort of continuing consciousness?
>>922575
do these like scientific type books count??
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Near-Death-Experience-Consciousness-Survives/dp/1594773564/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1459588751&sr=8-3&keywords=consciousness+past+death'
there are tons of them
>>922585
>Near-death experiences
Not that shit again.
>>922575
Same question, other way around:
From a philosophical point of view, is there any reason to believe in death? Why would the mind be affected by the body no longer working?
"The mind is in the brain!!!11!" is no argument because you can not prove it and you certainly can't assess what happens to the mind once the brain dies, you can only guess.
People seem to see physical death being the end as the default position but it is really not, that is only because of the natural scientifically oriented culture we live in. Belief in an afterlife is also kind of arbitrary and stems from our christian roots.
The true default is the buddhist perspective of not believing in death at all. There is no reason to believe that physical death affects the mind.
I posted this to /k/ but have a feeling I will get better responses here...
If somebody wanted to teach themselves how to become a capable military commander, what would be the best way to go about it?
Please note, when I say commander, I mean someone who can plan campaigns, has a strong grasp of logistics and supply chains, is skilled in both tactical and strategical thinking, and preferably have an understanding of basic statecraft.
I have been largely focusing on contemporary Guerilla leaders such as Võ Nguyên Giáp. I also have been delving into the histories of Caesar, Guderian, Alexander, Subotoi, and anyone else who strikes my fancy.
Thank you for your help or anything you may add
>>922566
What do want to do with this knowledge?
Go to Military School
pic unrelated
With all the recent support of the Gay Rights movements, hearing most arguments used, it would seem they would be the exact same that polygamists would use, so why are polygamists still looked down upon, are people just sub consciously brainwashed into thinking they are backwards and demented people if they don't support Gay Rights? Why do people generally dislike Polygamy?
note, I am not a polygamist, just interested by the hypocrisy.
Our very concept of romantic love is monogamy. I think most people just have an instinctual revulsion to the idea based on that. And then there's of course the conservatives, usually christian, who insist this would be some great moral evil equal to marrying beasts or children.
Personally I don't care. Although I don't think I'd go for it myself.
>>922396
But I hate gay """"""""""""""""""""""rights""""""""""""""""""""""""" too
>>922408
where do you get that from?
Hi /his/
What is the problem of my Country? What do you think?
Personally, i came at the conclusion that it is a cultural problem, mainly.
And if i'm right, or almost-right, what is the cause/are the causes of all the problems that there are in my culture?
(the late political union? mmh, is this really fundamental?)
((and sure that that fucking Duce has ruined us all, and a good slice of my people worship/adore him like a fallen god... oh dear!))
>>922379
who tf is Cedric Hanson? O.o
>>922380
oh, so if I put as a name "Anonimo" it generates random nicks... mh, cool
>>922384
It does so for everyone, you mong
"In twelve years from now, you will not recognize Berlin" - Adolf Hitler (1933).
>>922189
Truly a prophet of his time.
>They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
John Sedgwick's last words
>"what are you gonna do, stab me?"
-unknown stabbing victim
Why do we only criticize the historical accuracy of movies, and not of any other art?
How come I never see threads on this board like:
>Excuse me Petipa, The Sleeping Beauty is set in a baroque-era French court. Women would not have danced ballet, and no one would have danced en pointe.
>Excuse me Shakespeare, why is a Renaissance-era Danish prince dating a Roman guy's daughter?
>Excuse me Wagner, but knights were not known to ride swans into battle.
Why do people want to hold movies to a standard of realism that we don't care about in other art?
>>922070
people now days have the internet and libraries to research.
presumably shakespeare couldn't go on to his computer and google that shit.
>>922078
You seem to be implying that Shakespeare gave a shit about historical accuracy in his plays.
Protestantism is a heresy and a sin under every historical interpretation of Christianity up until its own emergence, proving it is a false religion.
Prove me wrong (you can't).
>>921915
Christianity is a heresy and sinful under every historical interpretation of Judaism up until its own emergence, proving it is a false religion.
Prove me wrong (you can't)
>>921915
doesn't matter because christianity isn't true
I write historically-inspired fantasy as a hobby, and so enjoy speculating about these things.
For instance.
Photography. We knew about the camera obscura for thousands of years, and Albertus Magnus played with photochemical materials like silver nitrate hundreds of years before Thomas Wedgewood made his proto-photographs.
I genuinely subscribe to the hunch that the shroud of turin was an example of photochemistry that was covered up for the sake of preserving faith-based culture.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/orvieto.pdf
>great read
IMPORTANT:
Before this thread derails into wild alt/his/, When I say something "could've been invented earlier" what I generally mean is that the prerequisite technology/fabricated materials were available, and what was lacking were a few small insights and/or the gathering of the prefabricated tech. in one location to be assembled into the new tech.
I think rudimentary photography, with weeks of exposure, like the very earliest photograph, could've been done as early as the middle ages.
>>922170
Don't you have stupid vampire books to write?
>>920641
>Things that could've been invented earlier but weren't
The written word?
How do you think Iraq could have won the first Gulf War? The Second?
>>920466
Not fallen for American bribes.
Republican Guard was winning until America bribed those generals.
The ancient gods destroy the coalition armies with lightning from the heavens
>>920484
This.
>he thinks alchemy was retards attempting proto-chemistry and not a ciphered language referring to the process of spiritual perfection
>Not realizing that it was both
It's satanism.
Literally demonic witchcraft.
>mostly cryptic language for writing down guild secrets
Like the bitch of armenia being the blue dye they used to color the silk (lion of khorezm) coming from china
Since this is a humanities board, what does /his/ think about the fact that "nerds" are always portrayed as STEMfags and never history majors, English majors, philosophy majors, etc.
That it gives rise to cancer but it is idiotic to obsesses over what retards do.
>>920361
Because people in the humanities are not always "nerdy". They are more intellectual than the nerds. Every scientist I've met has been a complete normie.
The whole concept of a "nerd" is flawed. Whenever media portrays something as nerdy they're showing such a small, niche group of people that it doesn't bother me.
Who's to blame /his/? How could it of been avoided?
It seems to me the Russians can take a lot of the blame, their intervention and mobilization is mainly what forced Germany to mobilize, which in turn forced France to mobilize which eventually brought about the intervention of Britain. I assume this is a very simplistic view and may well be wrong, the fault for the war could well be attributed to the systems and institutions of the time more than any single nation or individual, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Also July Crisis/World War I thread.
Bad shit happens when Germany gets too powerful
>>927056
So the war was a necessary and guaranteed event due to Germany becoming too groß?
Didn't theRussians start to mobilize because Austria declared war at Serbia?
Which they did because Germany's blank check?
