Sea Peoples were vikings done right.
>>552914
But who were they? Until that question is answered they are a meme culture.
>>552953
meme culture that rekt more shit than vikings aka ''I killed some farmers and now I'm running away from the soldiers who counter attacked I'm le berserkir xD''
>>552914
you mean Vikings were degenerated sea peoples
I studied the USSR a few years ago, but I've mostly forgotten the details. I am in search of a couple *well-respected, peer-reviewed* books by renowned historians in the field to give me an in-depth understanding of the USSR.
Thanks.
>>552909
Simon Pirani. (1917-1921)
Sheila Fitzpatrick. (1920s-1940s nomenklatura)
Vladimir Andrle. (1920s-1940s proletariat)
Erich Strauss. (1917-1940 economic history) https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/
After that fucked if I know.
Don't read conquest, read fitzpatrick instead.
>>552939
cheers!
>missed traveling to the USSR in person by one measly generation
feels bad.
>>552939
thanks man
Sometimes, i wish i want to live in the roman empire during its golden age, to be part of one of the greatest empires in the world seems like a thrill to me.
I'll grant you that wish but you have to live in Africa.
You're literally doing it right now... The west is essentially the largest empire on earth, a continuation of the roman empire and you're living in it, but you can't see the forest for all the trees, i guess.
>>552895
You only have a comfort life if you born into a roman noble family, else it would be pretty shitty for the commons, million times worse than our time's condition
Anyone else admire this man? He was horrible, yet his utter disregard for humanity can't be discounted. He was so brutally effective that you can't help but admire his power.
>>552639
he's a manlet. he's like 5 foot 6. i could crush him like a bug.
>>552639
I can't say I admire him, because it didn't take much to be "brutally effective". He wasn't a genius or a visionary whatsoever. He was lizard brain on overdrive.
His modus operandi was manipulation.
Had he not been supported by pleb enforcers, he would have soon got clocked like the fat manlet he was.
Burning in hell.
It's widely known that the loss of Constantinople led to the Age of Discovery, which led to European domination of the world.
Suppose the Turks never took Constantinople?
What would have happened to the New World, and European global hegemony?
>>552638
>Turks don't take constaninople
>turks still control the balkans
>turks still control the suez
>turks still control the silk road
>turks still control eastern mediteranean
The only difference is they don't hold that one city. It would have played out the same way.
>>552655
fall of Constantinople was the nail in the coffin
>>552669
That changes nothing of what I said.
The rest still applies.
/his/ are films inspired by comic books the result of a desire of people to escape the physicalist world view?
As religion is dying out in the west, people seem to feel like a mechanistic physicalist world view is inescapable and comic book inspired films might be a form of escape to a reality where gods do exist and the perceived determinism of human and social life can be transcended.
I myself would love to know what can we propose that would make space for this new kind of freedom. The freedom from a deterministic world that incorporates human life completely within it, including concepts like free will.
Are there already tools for creating this mental freedom that i am simply not aware of?
A society that sees itself as one big biological network of machines, within the huge machine we call the universe needs to restructure many fundamental concepts in order to satisfy the desire to escape the conclusions of the contemporary world view.
>>552488
No, they are entertaining, they follow familiar, comforting structures and conform to the current ethos.
Supers are basically Greek heroes adapted to modern sensibilities.
>>552488
>Are there already tools for creating this mental freedom that i am simply not aware of?
This is either a good question or some extremely good bait.
Take the bread pill, anon. Once you open up yourself to a relationship with the Infinity, no amount of movies or le edgy fedora nonsense can dissuade you that there is more to existence than this physical world and the physical world is only an incredibly small part of creation.
People always make fun of HURR JEBUS XDDDD, but Jesus Christ was the Divine in flesh, walking the Earth to show us how to have a relationship with the Divine and transcend the power of sin. Just as He conquered his death, He can conquer our deaths and, therefore, Death itself. It is only possible when you are exposed to the truth that the material world is an incredibly weak and small part of creation as a whole, and holds nothing compared to the power of God.
Jesus Christ lived and died to show you this truth that the material world is an illusion which serves only to affect the changes in us necessary at this stage of our creation.
>>552529
No.
JEEBUS is an idea that cannot return as it was. It had its time and place, much like greek and roman polytheism.
We need new tools that are appropriate for our time to create a place within the modern world view and ideology for freedom from a mechanistic physicalist world view.
What does it mean to be an artist?Does it mean not to rely on popular conventions? Does it mean making decisions about what you do that are the result of your own personal ideas?
How can this distinction be made if all of us are the result of the societies we live in?
What is the ideal artist? Is it a person that builds structures and opinions about the world (that do not rely too much on popular opinions and conceptions but also do not become too personal and obscure) and uses those structures of ideas to create things inspired by these ideas?
Art IS usually identified with something personal, often complex, requiring thought.
Entertainment is usually associated with ideas everyone can understand and process with almost no thought.
What do you think?
Should an artist work by creating things intuitively without much thought? is an artist simply a channeller of secret social desires and conflicts?
If art is the product of a combination of intuition and technical skill should an artist then live life a certain way to ensure he is in tune with the zeitgeist? Is an artist an artist inherently and completely(to be an artist you must be a certain kind of person leading a certain kind of life) or not at all?
Art is what women like
And should "complex" art be appreciated as an ideal to strive towards or is it simply art adjusted for the developed tools and standards of criticism(i.e. works that are designed specifically to be analyzed by those analysis theories that are available?) mastered by art critics?
If so what is its opposite? A piece that is completely unplanned created quickly at a moment of inspiration?
>>552420
If the common folk find it beautiful and are amazed, then its good art, imo. I think the art "culture" personifies itself as some high brow elite circle. I think this kills art.
If an average joe can look at art and immediately feel it, then the artist is a genius. The measurement of ones art should be based on those who know nothing about technique, conceptions, structures.
Art these days feels like its in its own bubble, which is not good. This is why I think art, such as tattoos and graffiti, have grown in appreciation over the years.
Why is God referred to as He (a male)?
I'm not some feminist or anything, but I wish to know because I write a book and this sole piece of information might help me solve a dilemma.
/his/ is obviously the best place to ask.
because all forms of civilization has been lead by men
>>552356
Because human psychology.
And God's characteristics are gender neutral in the hebrew bible.
Speaking of feminism, one of the names of God is:
Elohai Sara, Elohai Rivka, Elohai Leah ve Elohai Rakhe(God of Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel)
Because the domestic order maintained by a father is analogous to the cosmic order sustained by God, although actually insisting God really is male somehow is Sunday school-tier
Despite losing the election, Hitler was made Chanceller. Who did that and why?
God, because He willed it.
The old Chancellor, who was senile as fuck and figured that Hitler was a political lightweight, and it was better to keep anyone actually important from having the job.
>>552138
Syndicats, Junkers, Generals.
TL DR
OP found some old diaries from his pawpaw
Old thread
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/60868484/
What he has scanned so far
https://imgur.com/a/gWzhX
bumping.
Book 1:
https://imgur.com/a/gWzhX
http://imgur.com/a/REdfE
OP posted this on /pol/ btw.
I thought you /his/cucks would be drooling all over this
>>552064
This is a possible undiscovered historical primary source and you cucks would rather shit post about /his/ humour?
What is /his/ opinion about Vendeen Genocide(War in the Vendée). Does Republican forces were too brutal?
>>552050
>Genocide
fuck off
>What is /his/
What is /his/'
>Genocide(War
Genocide (War
>Does Republican forces were too brutal?
Were the Republican forces too brutal?
Look up who benefitted from the assignats and how land was redistributed to the nascent bourgeois farmers.
Martyrs
>>552062
>Look up who benefitted(...)
I am asking about your fucking opionon man, not what i should search up.
I read a study that said atheists tend to rate disproportionately higher on tests for autism or something like that.'
While obviously not all atheists are what medical science would deem autistic (to say nothing of 4chan's understanding of the term), this did make me wonder if famous atheists or agnostics in history display any behavior that we'd consider legitimately autistic in their lives or writing.
People who can't into the sacred and beautiful, and scoff at the spiritualists' appreciation for this life that was given to us inexplicably and unsolicited are joyless autists, go figure
in my experience Newton is the only historical figure you can legitimately bet on maybe having had autism imo, so go figure
In general I don't think it's very fruitful to speculate either way.
>>552018
>tfw I am increasingly identifying with this statement
I used to be full fedora
now I'm debating which ikon to buy
How come when Africans were colonized they weren't almost wiped out like Native Americans?
>>551702
The Africans were immune to European diseases? Unlike the natives, Africans were in close promity with Europeans/Middle Easterners. They also didn't want to take and settle on the lands in Africa but rather exploit the resources.
White people weren't interested in moving into that shithole.
There were also a shitton more Africans than there were Indians.
To what extent can one believe in Christianity if they do not believe that Adam and Eve existed at all?
I am not necessarily referring to the account in Genesis. Bar a few protestant churches most people have clocked on to the fact it's allegorical.
That said, even Catholics are required to believe in them as historical figures:
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
From what I understand, the Orthodox and Anglican positions are less defined but overall similar to the Catholic stance. After all, where else could ancestral/original sin come from? I've recently started going to church again and this is something I still can't get my head around.
Interested in what /his/ thinks.
its only allegorical to people without strong enough faith
there is no missing link, we aren't related to those apes of which we have found fossils.
>>551674
lol
>>551674
>two humans literally ate a fruit and that's how evil entered the world
It's only literal to people whose God and vision of reality is so small they don't understand the fall is an allegorical depiction of the dawn of the limited, discriminating consciousness, the descent from Being to Becoming
Let's educate people on historical misconceptions. Explain one popular case of history that is incorrect.
When Karl Marx writes that "Religion is the opium of the masses", he does not merely bully the religious. Opium here refers not to the popular 19th century image of London opium dens where the privileged go to entertain themselves. Nay, Marx is speaking of sedation as a suppressant of pain. Marx considered religion to be a human invention created to heal the wound created by the alienating world. Most of his philosophical influences at the time, while being phenomenal and intelligent men, were in Marx's opinion hiding behind the guise of religion and abstract philosophy in order to avoid having to condemn the state and society that produced the wound. In their weakness, all of them aside from Feuerbach would fall back to Christian obscurantism, rather than social critique. their fear of tearing the veil protecting the Prussian society being so strong. All this is apparent from the quote in context.
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Unlike your average documentary or history teacher tells you, the medieval economic system was a very efficient apparatus given all of its limitations and issues. Also, serfs were not slaves and they couldn't be somehow freely be executed by noblemen. In fact, all the nonsense Game of Thrones et al presents about direct hierarchy and all that did not exist. Landlords were in practise neutered mafia bosses, who didn't govern the villages but collected the reaps. The most they usually did was sometimes bullying the farmers and create insecurity with land grants. But that's about it.
Despite the claim that 6 million Jews died in the holocaust there is no evidence for it. Anti-Semitic historians have attempted to keep the number low in order to trivialize Jewish suffering. The actual number is closer to 20 million
>>551581
why u gotta be like that man
