Are there any historical examples of civilisations getting destroyed by its own policies and cultural change, instead of conquest? Is this phenomenon unique to the modern era?
;^)
>>810809
Cultural change always played a role in the downfall of large empires. An empire is based on conquest and growth. As soon as it has no more lands to conquer, it stops growing and a recession begins, socially on the inside as well as politically on the outside. This happened with the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans and all the modern colonial Empires as well.
But you're just aiming at the current refugee crisis anyway, aren't you
All the conspiracy theories and disinformation aside, what is the goal of freemasonry? What is it about?
I checked some mason websites, and they often have a FAQ, where they state that they're not a fraternity, and that if you're looking fraternity, you should go elsewhere.
This puzzled by - what exactly is it about, then?
literally a cult for pretentious elitists
>>810573
Made a type, meant "me", not "by"
>>810573
I like how they skip everything between biblical times and the 18th century.
Is Hawaii considered American colonization?
>>810435
America is considered American colonization
>>810435
America doesn't colonize, it liberates.
>>810435
Er, it's not like they had a real choice about the matter.
Redpill me on Hamilton. Worth being put on the $10?
>>810386
>redpill me
First of all, fuck off. Second of all, who really gives a shit who is put on fiat currency? If you're going to start caring, campaign for Jackson to be taken off since it's an insult to the man.
>>810386
Worth putting on every bill.
>>810405
>insulting Andrew Jackson
But thats a good thing
Are there any history at all Anarchism is successful?
>>810332
>all scientific and artistic achievements made by people living under a state can be credited to the existence of the state
>all the best examples of idea X vs. all the worst examples of idea Y prove that X is better than Y
>>810356
Where are you getting that premise from?
So... what the fuck was Wittgenstein's point anyways?
>>810088
Philosophy is a disease yo
>>810136
Then what's the cure
>>810141
Philosophy.
Hey [s]/pol/[/s] /his/,
how backwards do you think Europe would have been by 1900, if it hadn't discovered the New World in 1492? When you think about it, Spanish aside, it took 100 years for them to even get into a good momentum of colonizing it anyways.
So in this alternate history they don't discover it in 1492, because either the reconquista ends, or Christopher Columbus misses the continent and comes back empty handed, or he dies, etc. Something happens.
Maybe they discover the New World, but much later, by at least 200 or 300 years, and then you have that same, or a similar delay for people getting into the whole colonization business. Not to mention attitudes towards colonization might be entirely different after another 200 or 300 years.
Also keep in mind that the renaissance and enlightenment eras were partially fuelled by the discoveries of the new world. We're talking Europe without the integral crop of potatoes. A Europe sans mass-produced, cheap sugar. Inaccessible coffee due to no cheap plantation coffee. No tobacco. Somewhat more expensive imported cotton from India. The European economy would lack the mountains of South/Meso America gold and silver that funded Spain and others. No cassava (terribly important in other old world colonies), no maize.
What do you think it would be like?
they would be muslims way quick bro
overrun
v
e
r
r
u
n
There's no way to push the discovery that far. Fishermen and whalers were already getting closer and closer to Labrador and Newfoundland, and the Portuguese independently discovered the eastern tip of Brazil just a few decades after Columbus while they were sailing around Africa and got blown off course.
>>810051
>Also keep in mind that the renaissance and enlightenment eras were partially fuelled by the discoveries of the new world
[Citation needed]
is there any proof or good source that this guy was a mass-murdering psychopath? literally all i can ever find is stuff written by extreme right-wing Cuban exiles, so of course they're not gonna like Fidel
He sure did put people in jail and still does but no mass murders, altought there were summary executions right after the revolution (happens in every revolution everywhere)
It depends on your definition of "mass-murdering psychopath".
Do you consider Pinochet a "mass-murdering psychopath"? Because he killed way less people than Castro, for example.
I, for one, do not consider him to be one, even though I'm critical of him. I actually think that his worst legacy has been his support of African dictators who were actually mass-murdering psychopaths, such as Francisco Macias Ngema and Mengistu Haile Mariam but not even right-wing Cubans remember that. Who cares about Africans, right? They're not even niggers.
>>809921
No, it's 100% all prop for mindless Americans.
What did Nazi racial eugenics include in the master race? Was Aryan just a propagated term for Northern and Western Europeans?
Were say, the Irish and Scots part of the master race? What of the French and Baltics? I know Hitler really liked England and the English, being admirable of their empire and considering them to be staunch Germanic folk. This makes me curious about their other islander neighbours though, especially since I know already that Hitler found the Italians and Spanish to be annoying and useless (can't disagree with him there).
Obviously it's all batshit pseudo-science with no legitimate biological science behind it, but I'm curious.
This map giving the British Isles Mediterranean background is pretty off tbqh. It would obviously and certainly be the green there instead. Ancient Mediterranean traces in the isles are minuscule.
With today's factual DNA science I think I saw that the Irish were closer to Norwegians than they were to Iberians, so that says a lot (partially probably from Spaniards and Moortugal getting enriched by the Muzzies for generations).
>>809838
The nazi propaganda was 100% phenotype based, and the more celtic parts of Britain can make southern Italy and Spain look scandi by comparison, so not really surprising.
There was no master race, they just thought Germans were the best.
Why Germans suck at war? They lost almost every major conflict in the past 200 years.
pic unrelated
Thread would have been less bait if you went for 100 rather than 200 years
>>809706
Apart from the Napoleonic Wars, they did pretty good, but, of course, Napoleon BTFO'd all the major countries in Europe other than Britain for a long-ass time. He was just something else.
>>809706
They went up against impossible odds and did quite well considering their circumstances both times
How did Russia manage to turn from a mongol-occupied subhuman steppe into a civilized European society with God-tier culture, music and literature then go back into a totalitarian subhuman steppe again?
>>809574
Russian history have been like Kiev kingdom --> Mongol --> Angry guy --> Giant that likes boats --> Germans and Jews (Aka communism) -->Vodka Stalin --> Cyka blyat ((Yelled into bad microphones))
They imported aristocracy from the western countries. That's probably why they were the last to bloom from it.
However, they also imported the Revolution. And it hit them hardest. That counter-enlightenment (that's what it was, romanticism of the plebs) force brought them to totalitarian communism and before repelling to the reactionary strong man we see today.
>>809587
>>809593
Pretty much. Russians eventually got tired of long-running tsarist rule so they put forward communism as something fresh, new and promising, while eliminating old russian spirit and creating a new communist Russian spirit in it's place, and eventually as decades passed the ideas that made-up communism got stale in the eyes of russians, they'd start losing faith in it, so they allowed it to collapse as well. During it's years of existence this communist spirit would start to rot and decompose, and during the last few decades of it's life communist rule in Russia acted as a bubble that contained sealed various puss and maggotry inside, and eventually as this bubble popped all the puss and maggots got freed in the form of "new russians" and oligarchs. This short decade of post-communist Russia is known as Yeltsin's Russia. Russians like to promote Putin as the savior of Russia after Yeltsin's years, unaware of the truth that Putin himself is one of those 90's maggots, that got to power and as such has managed to put himself and all of his buddies in golden chairs all the while utilizing a mix of pre-communist and communist rhetoric to manipulate the casual russian mass.
So in a tl;dr - hoping something better happens, things just gets worse. Expect post-Putin Russia to be an even worse shithole than it is now.
French student here, here is how we set the boundaries of the different eras in History. What are the one you study in your country/you believe are the most accurate?
>>809534
>a really long time ago
>a long time ago
>after when a meme Italian accidentally bumped into some islands
>after le Revolution
Abysmal
In Britain eras were very much defined by the sitting monarch or dynasty for much of history, though things become blurrier after the death of Queen Victoria
There most well defined periods have to be:
Tudor Period: 1485–1603
Stuart Period: 1603–1714
Georgian Era: 1714-1837
Victorian Era: 1837-1901
Honourable mention to the The Interregnum of 1649-1660 which briefly disrupted the Stuart Period
Danish here.
We usually put it like this:
Pre 476: Antiquity
476-1066: Dark ages/Early medieval/Viking age
1066-1453: Middle ages (the transition from middle age to renaissance is usually put in 1453 with fall of constantinoble and end of hundred years' war, but 1492 is also sometimes used)
1453-late 1700's: Early modern/renaissance (Enlightenment is usually covered in other studies than history)
Late 1700's - 1871: Age of revolutions, romanticism, birth of the nation state
1871-1914: Communism, labour movements and early modernism
1914-1989: Modern world
1989: late-modernity
Is deism the most logical position to take if one believes in God?
No, because that still doesn't explain how you go from a proposition like "The universe had a beginning/cause" (this proposition is in itself very dubious, but whatever) to "this cause must possess a conscious will"
>>809531
>if one believes in God
>>809542
Setting your conclusion in advance is not philosophy. That's bullshit
Were there Western terrorists in
1) the 17th century
2) the 18th century
3) the 19th century
?
/pol/tards need not reply.
>>809186
define terrorist, because for example poland was partitioned in late 18th and that partisans were 'terrorist' for germans and russians.
>>809186
Well western governments didn't just invent all those anarchist bombings. Then in the 20th century you had Baader-Meinhoff and all those other USSR sponsored commie terrorist groups.
>>809228
20th century had a whole bunch of terrorists in Europe in general:
>RAF
>Red Brigades
>ETA
>IRA
>EOKA-B
>OUN, arguably
Are Anglos or "The eternal Anglo" to /his/ as Jews are to /pol/?
BANE?
No, because the Anglos literally did rule the world . the Jews have never actually done so.
>>808575
For you
![friend_to_friend1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qU0YvAu.jpg "friend to friend1[1]")
