Post things about the past which you think were misconstrued or wrong. i.e. Nero never burned Rome or played the fiddle.
Also anything regarding events or people during WW2 is forbidden!
>Robespierre was right
The revolution could only reach it's goals if they refused to stop for anything. Innocent but non-committed people were unfortunately caught in The Terror too but Robespierre was attempting to reign in the unjust elements of The Terror when he was killed. Half the Thermidor conspirators were criminals only interested in silencing Robespierre to keep their attrocities under wraps.
Without people utterly committed at the helm the revolution floundered and fizzled out and now 200 years later we still don't have liberty, equality and fraternity all over the world and France never became a shining example of how to build a state, but instead a lesson on how to avoid chaos.
I recently read Jesus: King of Edessa by Ralph Ellis. The premise is that the gospels were actually an account of the Jewish Revolt of 66AD, and that Jesus was the leader of the rebellion. I don't believe all of Ellis' claims, but he did a good job shaking up the accepted beliefs about the historical Jesus.
McCarthy was right, there was a communist conspiracy, and they won.
>we still don't have liberty, equality and fraternity all over the world and France never became a shining example of how to build a state, but instead a lesson on how to avoid chaos
Basically we would be living in utopia.
>Without people utterly committed at the helm the revolution floundered and fizzled out
it always ends up this way. once shit hits the fan someone has to step in and take control over the situation usually some psychopath i.e. Napoleon.
I like the idea that Caligula wasn't a crazy bastard, but instead a cool dude making fun of Senate and how corrupted it was, so senators later paid Gaius Suetonius to write his biography as if he was a complete nut.
Most presidential assassinations were not committed by lone crazed gunman and were politically motivated, JFK especially. Roman history is like one long list of politically motivated murders, thinking modern Americans are somehow above it all is absurd.
Even before him the problem was the average Frenchman. The people of Paris were revolution crazy in 1789 but by 1794 were mostly done. Only hardcore types like Robespierre and Saint Just were willing to unwaveringly give their all to the cause.
Side-question, was Robespierre a high-functioning autistic? Danton's comments on his character make me think it's possible.
Not "it is" goals, "it's" as in goals that belong to the revolution. Like "John's pen." You can do that with "it" can't you? Or is it incorrect grammar for an "it" to posess something? I really don't know.
And I'm Australian.
He that wishes to know truth will know it.
He that desires to stay ignorant will have his wish granted.
you have an entire board just dedicated to that shit. spread your self pity somewhere else.
I remember reading about McCarthysim and wondering how such a lunatic could ever hold any influence or be taken seriously.
Then I realized years later, he was in the right, he was just up against a far larger and far more deeply rooted adversary than he understood. And to continue to mock and criticize him is in line with the goals of those who have silently and swiftly subverted our country and our institutions over the decades.
>Also anything regarding events or people during WW2 is forbidden!
The next thread you're going to say that we're at war with Eurasia and the next one you're going to say that we've always be at war with Eastasia and allied with Eurasia and anybody that denied that is a traitor to the party and to Oceania.
Hillary's pro-oligarchy as fuck. Her campaign is basically "I'm a woman and not a republican, please don't look at my record". Sanders is a socialist - who the people of Vermont elected because they like his views.
McCarthy was the tumblr of his day, but with "communism" instead of "misogyny". Same bullying demeanor, same willingness to ruin lives on scant or outright false evidence, because everyone who dislikes capitalism is part of a Soviet spy ring.
thats like saying the chicken went before the egg. the industrial revolution made 16 hour workdays a thing in a factory until unions decided 8 hours was teh limit. 1/3 work 1/3 rest 1/3 sleep
No, Marx had some interesting ideas but I think Slavoj Zizek is probably the only sane, living Marxist and he called the communist experience of the 20th century "an ethical, political and economic disaster." I do think that in its current state the world is heading for bad times but I don't think Marx had the answers, I disagree with his view of history as class struggle.
If I were to identify with an ideaology it would probably be a pussy one like humanism, I think we can unfuck ourselves, we just need to cooperate and never stop striving for higher things.
Feminism and leftosm has never been more widespread in America than today. S JWs have gained a massive foothold into our government. Shaming people for being white is the norm now. Black lives matters is a thing.
Fucks sake, whites in America are going to be a minority in 2043. Enjoy more spics, niggers and refugees from the middle east.
Wake the fuck up and smell the coffee friend. We are becoming Sweden 2.0
Honestly though, it doesn't bother me as much now since I finally have an easy and painless method of suicide. I plan on checking out in less than ten years time anyways.
This country is fucking dead.
America has essentially been taking the Menshevik approach as opposed to the Bolshevik approach.
But we have seen a rise in the end of religion, the creation and widespread growth of the welfare state, the slow and creeping rise in feminism, and essentially the left's "egalitarian" values.
"Feminism" is widespread because it's become an authoritarian social movement more about thought policing and censoring the internet to stop "misogyny" than actual rights for women or anyone else.
Authoritarian social movements always get support from people in power, because if people are purging the nonbeliever (whether a communist or otherwise) they're not going after the oligarchy. The rich are richer than before FDR's time - how is that communism?
And if it was communism, how does that exonerate McCarthy? The people he accused were rarely actual communists, and any spies he found were only by coincidence!
To explain my point to the people who are unaware of what the Mensheviks were/are
>The Mensheviks subscribed to an Orthodox Marxist view of social and economic development, believing that socialism could not be achieved in Russia due to its backward economic conditions, and that Russia would first have to experience a bourgeois revolution and go through a capitalist stage of development before socialism was technically possible and before the working class could develop the necessary consciousness for a socialist revolution. Thus, the Mensheviks were opposed to the Bolshevik idea of a Vanguard party and pursuit of socialist revolution in Russia.
>Neither side held a consistent majority over the course of the congress. The split proved to be long-standing and had to do both with pragmatic issues based in history, such as the failed revolution of 1905, and theoretical issues of class leadership, class alliances, and interpretations of historical materialism. While both factions believed that a "bourgeois democratic" revolution was necessary, the Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate and were more positive towards the liberal opposition and the dominant peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary party.
>Menshevism was finally made illegal after the Kronstadt Uprising of 1921. A number of prominent Mensheviks emigrated thereafter. Martov, who was suffering from ill health at this time, went to Germany, where he died in 1923. However, before his death, he established the paper Socialist Messenger. The Socialist Messenger would move along with the Menshevik centre from Berlin to Paris in 1933 and then in 1939 to New York City, where it was to be published until the early 1970s.
>Nero never burned Rome or played the fiddle.
Pretty much all of the stories about crazy roman empires were written by their rivals.
2000 years from now people will tell similar stories about the first Muslim washington of the western British empire.
People who were in communists now occupy positions of great influence of society, while the ones who opposed them are discredited and ignored.
What are the most powerful institutions in the United States, right now? Government agencies, corporations, churches? Any of these answers are wrong, the most important institutions not only in the United States, but in the entire world, are the universities, because they are the ones who create the accepted worldview and educate the future generations. And western universities are at the hands of the communists since the 1960s, that's not even conspiracy theory, that's fact, look where the "Students for a Democratic Society" came from.
So what you have is people like Bill Ayers educating our children. I grant you something, they haven't collectivized the means of production, I don't know if they will, it's better to use the central government to direct them anyway.
Want further proof that communism won and McCarthyism lost? Before every FIFA World Cup game, there's a banner with the phrase "Say No to Racism". If McCarthyism had won, the phrase would be "Say No to Communism", and communism would be banned on /his/, not racism.
I wouldn't say Menshevik, I think Antonio Gramsci, Saul Alinsky and Ernesto Laclau are greater influence among American communism.
The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic. The Pope always had more power, but some made more concessions to the eastern bishops. Their scheming eventually made the two churches part ways.
Every reformation movement was political. Be it the Dutch who fought for freedom under the guise of God, the French who fought a class war with the face of a religious civil war, or the German Princes who sought freedom through Luther, none of the wars of religion were at all religious.
Marco Polo made it to China but brought less back than people claim.
80's Serbia did nothing wrong.
Lenin was a scumbag who hijacked a popular cause to wedge in his own untested and esoteric ideas and then he compromised his beliefs to stay alive and win at the cost of what he was fighting for.
People need to stand by their beliefs, I don't think party vanguardism is necessary or even good, I think that the problem with the French and many other revolutions and movements is that people gave up their ideals. Robespierre would never compromise for his own sake and that's why I respect him. He was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity right to the end.
The holodomor didn't happen, the famines were caused by a combination of the British blockade of grain into russia during the 1920's, the strain on agriculture due to the civil war and the kulaks hoarding grain in order to drive up the prices, and then when the Soviet government went to requisition said grain they burned it and their livestock.
I didn't mention /pol/ and I din't mean to refute your points. I think this place has given you a skewed worldview, I'm from Melbourne, supposedly the "SJW capital of Australia", the average person here doesn't give a fuck about feminism or transgender muslim awareness or any of that. A handful if pink-haired weirdos with bullhorns don't represent popular trends in your country.
Nobody can say for certain if Robespierre was the one who blasted his jaw off or if it was a national guardsman and even if he did I don't think it discredits him. By that point the city was out for his blood so the difference would just be a day or so of pain and humiliation if he didn't do it.
I know I make too much of Robespierre and that he was just a neurotic lawyer with a prominent name in textbooks and that my absolutist views are totally unrealistic, but does that make them wrong?
Robespierre's ideas on the "ideal citizen" and the "ideal society" and "virtue" might have been wholly unrealistic, but can you say they weren't as close as people could get to "ideal?"
Studying the revolution is frustrating because not only was the goal to improve France, for some it was to attain the ultimate improvement, to build a utopia, but then it all fell apart in so many stupid ways. I know it's totally unrealistic and even dangerous to aim for a perfect world but I still have to admire them for trying.
They're probably just going through a phase and are too blinded by first world privilege to know how petty they are. If I'm wrong and these people end up running your country and still feel as they do now and start trying to cull CIS white men then it's time to get angry and concerned. I'm sure nobody but them and you takes them seriously.
Also you told me off for using a personal anecdote and then refuted with your own. Show me something real, how many votes are your local "DIE CIS SCUM" party getting?
>They're probably just going through a phase
Universities are places of learning not teenage girls anon.
This is not, nor is any political shift, a "phase", and the sooner people start realizing this the better.
We're discussing happenings at universities that are also talking points of presidential candidates for fucks sake.
You're not giving me much to go off of. I've read "leftism," "feminism" and "SJW" but what do mean by these things? How are they widespread? How are they in the government?
Young women inclined to collect grievances and get upset a lot are just drawn to feminism, Robert Anton Wilson identified this decades ago, it's just frustrated young women doing what frustrated young women do and if politicians are paying attention it's because they want votes is all, they'll make a token effort to please them if anything.
I don't see this as a legitimate problem to be concerned over. Give me something I can really mull over if you want to convince me.
The citizens who freed him were a handful of hardcore sans-culottes, he wasn't popular. And if he wasn't freed he'd have died, that just seems obvious to me.
I know about the vendee and the representatives on mission and all the rest but I can still relativise it all away. Robespierre was calling back the representatives en mission because he'd heard of their injustices and attrocities and wanted to end them and punish the perpetrators. The people of the Vendee declared themselves "The Royal and Catholic Army", they were openly challenging the government and intended to wage war until they were gone.
Sidenote: I don't actually think what happened to The Vendee was justified, I'm treating this as more of a thought exercise now.
It is a legitimate problem when those politicians are literally basing their policy around it and passing fucktarded laws because of it.
You really have to stop keeping your head buried in the sand m8. Look at Germany and its refugee crisis.
commies flooded universities. it was easy for them to do, meanwhile we couldn't really do the same to them because they were tight with their borders
it's the reason why western europe is overran by liberal politics (germany and sweden, lel) and all the former soviet bloc eastern euro countries aren't completely c ucked
what, people arguing about which source is better? that's all it is. i went on /r/askhisotirians and it's just people who only accept sources which conform with their liberal worldview
they're all about "give me le proofs, le burden of proof" but when you actually give them some sources suddenly they're not good enough
that kind of source autism is cancer
>Want further proof that communism won and McCarthyism lost? Before every FIFA World Cup game, there's a banner with the phrase "Say No to Racism". If McCarthyism had won, the phrase would be "Say No to Communism", and communism would be banned on /his/, not racism.
Communism, or at least anything explicitly called communism, is dead and everybody knows it. Racism is still much more of an issue.
>communism is a legitimate ideology; it's not a flimsy feel good ideal pushed by the elites to idealistic youths so that they can never engage in the intellectual rigour required to depose the oligarchs, I swear!
come on mate, just look at the results. You think that people with international sway wouldn't co-opt cosmopolitan political and economic rhetoric, all the while using cheeky divide and conquer tactics to usurp their usurpers and maintain their dominance?
>believe the far left orthodoxy
>otherwise we'll ban you from /his/
>and delete all your posts
>because you're obviously a giant faggot
i don't know, anon. what exactly was expressed in those posts that was banworthy, exactly? surely there must be some reason.
Nice quads, I'm the one he was replying to and I'm very confused. Maybe you can help me.
Are you saying that /his/ mods want to purge indulgents? The other guy's posts didn't strike me as volatile or vitriolic, I thought he was raising fairly valid points.
i don't know. i'm just asking the question. but here's what i suspect. they may ban me for this.
>as for the rest, that's the exact reason that moral relativism is wrong. it leads you to doing exactly what you just did. you rationalized the mass murder of french people by their own government, which was tyrannical and out of control, merely because they opposed it for being tyrannical and out of control.
>you also demonstrate why idealism is a bad idea. you take justifying mass murder as a thought exercise.
that's an expression of ideological interpretation rather than historical analysis. and the faggot SJW mods on this board have shown themselves to be VERY ideologically prejudiced. you have to believe in lock step what they believe, or they'll ban you and delete your posts. they don't have free speech here. they're basically as bad as plebbit.
well, the only other thing that i can see there is that he mentioned tyranny. perhaps the faggot SJW mods are attempting to suppress any discussion of tyranny except what they control, since they are tyrants.
if you look at the other boards, there are PLENTY of examples of anons b&evading and posting about how out of control the mods are here. they'll even ban you for saying nigger.
>I'll take any excuse to discuss revolutionary France.
sure, so long as you have exactly the same opinions on it as the mods. otherwise? you're toast and your posts are deleted.
>McCarthy was the tumblr of his day, but with "communism" instead of "misogyny". Same bullying demeanor, same willingness to ruin lives on scant or outright false evidence, because everyone who dislikes capitalism is part of a Soviet spy ring.
Most people think this
The yes means yes laws in California for one.
Then the president parroting the 1 in 5 women sexual assault thing. Also, Parroting to myth of the Wage gap.
These things are effecting polices and laws in a very real way.
>say kill all nobles
>wonder why they all flee the country
>wonder why they take all their money with them
>wonder why the few of them who are actually on your side turn on you
>call them criminals
>they execute you for breaking the law
The notion that Leonardo was ostracized by his father for being a bastard is absolutely retarded.
While it's true that he was not included in his father's will, it should be noted that he was already rich and famous when Ser Piero died.
I find that it's much more likely that he was excluded so that his less notable half brothers could inherit a bigger share of Ser Piero's estate.
i wish the communist party won
we're going to experience massive social unrest here as the jobs all disappear with the rise of automation. Nobody will have any money and we have no social safety net or plan for when computers absorb 1/3 of the jobs all at once
>These things are effecting polices and laws in a very real way.
Slacktivism and 'moral support' from elected officials will effect precisely nothing on any level, you're too far gone in interacting with the world thinking everyone either believes everything you do or they believe everything you do but in reverse, because they're evil and have sinister(that's latin for leftist!!!1) intent.
Look at the patterns of thought in many political movements or religious sects past and present and recognize your symptoms, you're making the same mistakes and getting caught up in the same paranoia and wrongheaded persecution complexes.
People invest far too much passion into their beliefs and narratives, you're no different from your "enemies"
Nope that's why marriage, traditional gender roles and white American culture have been attacked mercilessly so as to destroy society's binding institutions and make it more susceptible to revolutionary action.
Sardinia has never been colonized by Carthage nor it has ever been part of its "empire".
Everything that's been attributed to the carthaginians like the maritime city-states (Tharros, Nora, Karalis, and others) was actually done by the Sherdens, one of the Sea Peoples
FDR was a liberal. He wasn't a liberal, he was a populist who thought government spending was a good way out of the crisis of the great depression. Looking at some of the policies he enacted indicates this. He was tough on immigration. He cut government spending in regards to veteran and federal worker pay. He promoted maintaining the nation's rural and wildlife areas. These are things that should be considered populism over liberalism.
Not that anon, but many universities have stagnated in their prowess because of their more open admissions policy. The largest and most selective unis are fine. The influx of a large number of people entering college has really caused the value, and meaning, of a higher education to deteriorate. I am not meaning this in a conspiracy way, but it is disheartening.
The idea that Greece itself was ever "western" and "European" as we know it, which is a myth built up through Rome's influence over Europe, the Renaissance and classicism in general.
The ancient Greeks were a part of the near eastern neighborhood. Most of their contacts, influences and conquests were in that area. Probably a significant demographical contribution too.
The Byzantines, besides being like the ancients as well, were like today's Russia, a tsundere great power caught between west and east.
The irony is that the moderns are probably the most westernized of them all due to globalization.