Can somebody recommend me some introductory books on economics?
What's the /his/tory of Newfoundland?
Theoretically, if you wanted to raise a GREAT MAN as understood in the historical context of a great mover and changer of events, how would you do it? are there any commonalities in the childhoods of great men?
Let's be clear here, I'm not asking how you would raise someone who's actually a well-rounded, successful person. I'm not even asking how to raise a genius. I'd even argue that most dictators, staggeringly successful warlords and so on tend to be quite unstable.
Also it's just hypothetical so don't get too pissy.
>living your dreams through your child
you are no better than those fucking fashion show moms
I am sure your child will be a GREAT MAN if you go to the local zoo and have him fight the lion with a butterknife
Why do people say Khruschev is a revisionist?
What did he do wrong?
>Athenians will defend this bitch
Horrible person and horrible goddess
>female deity of wisdon
How fucking drunk on wine do you have to get to even come up with something as ludicrous as that?
So ive read quite a bit about free will and still cant wrap my head around it. Ive read all the greeks, a lot of theology and some phenomenology and I cant put any meaning on the concept of human agency as metaphysically independent.
So /his/, how can any event (such as an individual taking a decision) be anything else than A) Issued from prior event exterior to the individual
B) somehow not caused by any prior event, both cases not being describably as free? Seems to me freedom can only be defined in relation to the thing one is free from, and therefore cant be used in...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Those prior events can be events in my consciousness, so based on how just something makes me feel, it's pure image in my consciousness and only that, I can make a decision based on this event, and so free will is not so much outside of determinations but that which determines itself, through itself.
I really liked the comment in a thread yesterday that went something like.
>People would rather believe a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth.
That's free will. Which one will you choose.
Sorry I suck at explaining myself on the internet
>le free will is an illusion xP
you are your own will, there's nothing secretly behind your actions but yourself, you are as embedded in the causal chain as a stone, but that causal chain is a lot less restrictive than determinists would have you believe because absolutely everything about you - your sense of self and freedom - is sourced in this chain, and so there's no magical deterministic force outside of yourself keeping you in your rut, you are the universe and the universe is you
In guys opinion,who was worst?Himmler or Goebbels?
Ok,I know that the two we´re monsters.But,who was the true psychopath?
As much as I hate the Nazis, it's unfair to see them as merely monsters or psychopaths. Himmler in particular can be argued to be a dutiful man who sought to purge his country of enemies. This vision was completely polluted of course.
Goebbels having his whole family committing suicide always sends chills down my spine, so perhaps the edge is given to him. Then again Himmler probably would have done the same thing.
Did the general population give a shit about politics back in ancient times? Seems like the modern era is the era where the general people are most actively involved in politics, reading up on political drama and forming political opinions.
Did the general population care if Julius Caesar was assassinated or if Rome became an empire? Or was it all a sport to them, something that entertained them?
No. Popular politics as we think of it wasn't possible before the invention of printing. the ancient world had a much smaller population, and its democracies were limited to a certain privileged group within each city. The great majority of the population either lived from the land outside the cities,where they couldnt even hear about whats going on, or they were slaves and women and werent allowed to participate. The cosmopolitan political life we hear about from the greeks and romans was not the situation of...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
What went so gloriously right?
>*blocks your path*
>he walks on the road
Have fun paying your road tax, normicus barbaricus.
How badly did the 60s ruin your country?
US, pretty much JUST
What do you believe led to the development of Witch-hunting in the 16th-17th centuries? Personally I think it was the Reformation bringing the diabolical conspiracy of Devil-worship to unprecedented levels so as to provoke a severe Christian reaction.
Life was scary for setters in New England the new world was dark and unknown added with fear of India attacks they were extremely paranoid. Protestantism was the only thing that made them feel safe, anything that strived little away from it was seen as dangers and so treated as such.
A lot of it had to do with misogyny. Men were rarely accused of being witches (John Proctor being the most notable exception thanks to The Crucible). And women accused of being witches were usually older women who were seen as useless and they were not valued in society. Typically these were women who had lived long enough that they had outlived their husbands and so they were head of household, and the idea of a woman being in charge of anything was a scary concept for puritans. Life in the New World was tough and people looked for scape-goats. Crops failed? Blame the ugly old lady down the street.
What did he mean by this?
Merkel was given the kalergi price by the paneuropean institute two years before she started flooding europe with shitskins
Also the statue of kalergi within the jewropean union parliament is only visible in the area closed to the general public
These pure (((coincidences))) really make you think
stoned ape theory is real lel
dude dxm lmao
dude gorilla arms lmao
dude english major lmao
My father claims that throughout history, much of progression has been a result of Jewish influence, from religion to science to philosophy and the arts, he claims it is mostly because of Jewish thought and invention and that Jewish persecution is just barbarians (or plebs) in 4chan lingo feeling inferior and attacking them for no reason.
Is this true?
Are historical Jewish conspiracies the result of inferiority?
Should I bite?
The influence is there. The attacks more often than not have an economic aspect to them. People who are threatened by Jews usually believe displacing the better well-off (and the least well-off, because a dangerous cunning is atributed to them) Jews would empower them. Often because Jews hold more wealth (proportionately to their populations) than others. But poor Jews were also victims at times. You don't see them now, but there used to be Jewish ghettos.
Judaism is different from christianity and islam, jews dont believe in punishment for their acts, oy vey we jew, we go heaven, thats their belief, therefore they do shit that the majority of people cant...
Its intressting actually, because the majority of noble prize winners are jews?
Are they really superior or is it because of wealth generated by jewish banking that in some way manipulate stuff and support other jews, because i know that jews support each other throught out history.
yo /his/, what are good movies with historical setting to watch? I need to kille some time, I just watched Alatriste and liked it a lot. Can you recommend me something?
Keitel plays the smugest asshole, ever.
>Daily reminder that Martin "the eternal German" Luther foiled then plan of Charles V. to unite Europe into one Catholic state with his cucked reformation.
>Celts = Masterrace
What happened here?
Why were the Americans so concerned with the possible casualties of Operation Downfall? Apparently only 100,000-200,000 actual deaths were expected, with the other casualties being wounded. This doesn't seem like a lot for a country of 200-300 million. Why the hell did they care so much about "MUH CASUALTIES" and "MUH MORAL" if it meant winning the war?
Because you don't measure acceptability of casualties on a basis of how many of your population base is killed.
You measure it on a basis of how much the cost is compared to what the objective is and what your alternatives.
Eliminating a mostly beaten enemy at that cost isn't a great idea, especially when you have alternatives available.
is this really a question? Japanese civilians were seen to commit mass suicide after the Japanese soldiers occupying the island were defeated, they displayed an utter disregard for their personal lives that of course the US was worried
Because "yeah, we could have ended the war months earlier with this new bomb we built, but we decided to get an 200,000 of your sons and husbands killed fighting the japs up close instead" probably isn't the best campaign slogan.
>The Richmond publisher A. Morris printed Cannibals All! Or, Slaves without Masters in 1857. Endeavoring in the preface "to treat the subjects of Liberty and Slavery in a more rigidly analytical manner," George Fitzhugh charts productive classical and historical accounts of slavery and cites the Bible as evidence. Referencing the French proletariat, various Gypsy peoples, and the Irish peasantry as groups oppressed under capitalism, Fitzhugh likewise presents the poor working and factory class conditions in England as evidence that the southern...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Were they ethnically closer to modern Turks or to modern central Europeans?
And in true communist spirit we need to have another one for equal distribution of the shitposting.
How can we prevent dictatorial power from being abused? Is there any precedent for such a safeguard?
Is a just revolutionary dictatorship possible?
An oligarchical council that can control him. The Members of the council are from various backgrounds and states/counties of the nation, and they are elected by the people every 6 years.
Full on authoritarian dictatorship is impossible.
Who was god talking to in this passage? Was he talking to marty from true detective?
Can anyone tell me who this wojack is based on?
The deadliest conflict after WW2 and it is barely mentioned in much of popular historical discourse. What triggered it and why so many died? How did it relate to the first one?
Don't give me that "a bunch of niggers died who cares lol" pol shit.
>he literally got cucked by god
>Jesus is actually his wife's son
really makes you think
everyone loves joseph, he was descended from king david, shut the fuck up. i would rather raise god's son than my own, too. fucking heretic. get fucking smote by the edge of my sword.
>cuckdom is actually a central part of christianity
that explains alot
Was the civil war really about 'State's rights'?
no, it was about whitey killin whitey so I could go and fuck yo great great grandmama boi
Who was the Epic of Gilgamesh's audience?