Donations to the archive
would be appreciated to help fund our server hardware & storage drives. We are looking for developers to help build new software and archives,
Search will be down for a day or two for maintenance.
Threads by latest ghost replies - Page 6
>be italian >laze in the countryside all day >flavour of the week conqueror from some northern barbarian shithole comes >peacefully annexts the duchy your live in after losing 450k men back in bavaria or something >asks you the same tithes than before >yeasure.jpg >builds and maintains forts, roads, sewers, aqueducts from his own pocket because your taxes can in no way pay for all that shit >bleeds money everywhere and even makes a baroque cathedral to ingratiate some cardinal banker >becomes flat broke >gets rekt by another foreign power >forced to retreat back to his country >new conqueror comes >rinse and repeat Call them stupid.
this has never happened in history though
Nah it happened all the time in high medieval Italy
>>15198611 >be schizo ariana grande poster >makes strange barely comprehensible threads about italy all day >rinse and repeat >>15199743 >>15198611
get killed you piece of shit
I probably shouldnt have said most, what I meant was that whenever a woman look like OP pic, there is an overwhelming possibility shes a stone cold marxist Ung Vänster member.
I've seen my share around uni. It's such a common trait.
Also just look at marxist journalists like Cissi Wallin.
>>15002943 >Ung Vänster
nnon swedish here,
is this like the communist party of sweden?
Ung Vänster (young left) is the youth wing of Vänsterpartiet (the left party), and they are fucking commies, although nowadays they claim to merely be "democratic socialists".
German women (presumably scandis as well) look like men. I quite like it, DESU. Makes it easier to respect them.
Is this philosophy just a cope for depressed incels, or should I take it seriously?
He's an atheist. They can only think of everything as meaningless mechanical exercises.
The fact that 'anti-natalism' can exist as a concept is what creates the distinction between our universe/realm of reality and potential realities. Because it places the act of reproduction under a decision-making process rather than a purely automatic one. That's what it means. That's the whole debate, in fact.
Each one of us gets a small piece of that journey and learns from those who came before us.
I don't see why I need to be immortal to find pleasure in that.
Doesn't matter because anti-natalists don't get chicks anyways lmao
Antinatalism doesn't have much to offer in terms of putting their goals into practice, mostly due to a refusal on the part of most antinatalists to acknowledge the endpoints of the philosophy.
If conception is wrong because it violates the consent of the born child, who will inevitably face pain and suffering in their lives, why do few antinatalists come to the logical conclusion that forced sterilisation is moral? Is it immoral to stop a rapist or a murderer from harming children? The argument of "it would violate bodily autonomy" does not hold scrutiny because we don't focus on the consent of the perpetrator, we focus on the person they are forcing themselves upon. Consent ends when it intrudes upon the consent of someone else - which conception DOES.
That is why I personally do not subscribe to the antinatalist framework.
There is no more inspiring and uplifting message than the good news of Atheism. It can turn everyone's life around.
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then, something exploded in the nothingness, and it was good. Then, galaxies, stars and planets formed out of this something, and it was good. Then, on one ordinary planet of one ordinary galaxy, some slime appeared in the sea, and it was good. Then, slime turned into worms and worms turned into fish, and it was good. Then, fish crawled off the sea, climbed a tree and became a monkey, and it was good. Then, monkey fell off tree and became a man, and it was good. Then, man stood up, said: "THERE IS NO GOD" and chopped off his dick, and it was very good. Then, all stars and galaxies burned out and all something that was there dissolved back into nothing, and it was the best.
>>15376369 >Then, man stood up, said: "THERE IS GOD" and chopped off his dick, and it was very good.
That a large swathe of all humanity is content to licking the soles of a bunch of deities is shocking to me considering how much we collectively revile indentured servitude, tyrants, and generally having to do things we don't want to out of our own interest. Its made even more pathetic by people making religion their "interest" just to cope with the fact they believe they are evil/unworthy/powerless to the whims of some jackass higher up the rung than they are.
>but they are all-powerful and can smite us with ease
sure doesn't stop any rebellious figures from rising against insurmountable odds just to be able to taste their own free will. I'd rather die a rebel for 10 seconds before I'm smitten from existence than spend what few years in this realm I have wasting away trying to please an unpleasurable jerk who presumably made me just to suck his toes. its his fault for giving me free will if he has such a problem with it. next time don't do that to your vanity project.
Then how would religion answer that same question of "modernity"? How does the belief in a God, souls, or an afterlife answer modernity, outside of using them as an out to believe that their suffering in the material world had meaning, that their sterile conformist lives held meaning, and that they will live on after death as ethereal spirits in a realm of bliss, and that their enemies burn forever as punishment?
In the first place, I doubt many philosophers or historical figures live up to what they write about life, nor do they have an obligation to uphold those writings. The ideas should not control them, rather, they own those ideas, and thus should be able to control them or discard them whenever they no longer serve their wants or needs.
Regardless of one's opinions on the "Eternal Return", there probably won't be a personally-relevant difference between it and an existence where it isn't the case. If everything literally plays out the exact same way, then that means we come into the world that very same way (i.e unbound by our old experiences), because the presence of said memories would mean that things would HAVE to play out differently, as that is a necessary outcome of reorganising or introducing information into a system.
What can you tell me about my ancestral groups?
my mother is irish and my father is italian/polish so not at all
no i'm not norwegian at all, actually german/irish/english/scottish, i guess it was west german tho mostly (either that or really old german that probably isnt there anymore)
i think it's just from viking rape in the british isles honestly
Seems like you're a complete and utter Anglo, there are worse things to be
So who is right about this shit? Trying to ignore the politics, did slavery pave the way for the 2nd industrial revolution and SLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVES built the country or was it dogshit and we would have built our shit faster without it?
To be fair, here's a Chud take and a lefty take.
Which of these two videos is appealing to your innate desire to be part of the cool kids club by attempting to paint the other as cringe and weird? That will give you a clue.
desu they both do it in different ways.
shauns video paints everyone on the right as antisemitic gigaraycists blah blah blah the usual breadtoob snark
Mentis paints the leftists as "useful idiots".
>>15385708 >shauns video paints everyone on the right as antisemitic gigaraycists
Quote 3 examples.
I can see your huge nose from here.
Hey faggot Jannie this thread wasn't violating any of the rules.
etween 1940 and 1960, around 7 million Appalachian people migrated to the northern Midwestern cities, primarily coming from Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee, this increase of internal migration was the result of the decline of the coal industry and the 1924 Immigration Act forcing automotive companies to seek workers from within the country rather than immigrants.
Poor Appalachian people who arrived in the metropolitan Midwestern cities were often looked down upon with disdain. In a 1953 survey conducted by Wayne State University, Detroit residents were asked to identify "undesirable people" in the city; "Poor Southern whites" and "hillbillies" were tied at the top with criminals and gangsters as the most undesirable, being considered more undesirable than "Negroes", "drifters", and "transients". They were thought to be "quick with a knife", prone to criminal behavior and coming from intensely rural backgrounds, unaccustomed to the restrictiveness of urban living. Labor unions and police departments acted against Appalachian migrants, harassing them, excluding them from unions and civic organizations, some landlords and apartment complexes would even refuse to house any white with a "southern" accent. This discrimination led poor Appalachians to unite with the most unlikely of demographics; urban blacks. The most notable example of this occurred in Chicago, when white Appalachian youth in street gangs from Uptown united with the Black Panthers to protest, march and strike for housing rights, an end to discrimination against both Appalachian and black residents of Chicago, inclusion in unions and other issues negatively impacting both communities. This eventually grew into the Rainbow Coalition, a revolutionary Maoist group with ties to the SDS and Weather Underground, representing the White Appalachian, Black and Hispanic communities of Chicago.
I call it Ironic cause I assume the average appalachian is harden confederateboo.
Typing that out reveals you to be a gigantic faggot who should not be taken seriously.
Eh not really. Honestly see more confederate flags and apologia in Ohio than I do west virginia
either or. Some are cool, some are megabots, basically any post industrial place in the u.s will have that mix.
Seething Bantu scab.
This can't be real...
it's in fact more based since he is black. makes you realize we are not so different after all
>>12574210 >turns his whole country into what's described as the "African dachau"
He doesn't need to be white for this to be based.
>>12574106 >and once had soldiers with machine guns wearing Santa Claus outfits execute his political opponents in a stadium while amplifiers were playing Mary Hopkin's song "those were the days"
Holy mother of kino. I'm supposed to hate this guy?
Hello I call him based
You don't have to be white to be based, Pol Pot was based, I'm going to build him a skatepark in iceland
Is the Le based Third Worlders meme just a right-wing version of the noble savage myth?
>Whites are having more children What is the source on this? And what is defined as White? Censuses count anyone under the sun as White.
This. If environment didn’t matter Russians wouldn’t exist since they are overwhelmingly white (despite the memes) and still have a completely different mindset than Scandinavians.
There was a small but significant bump in the white birthrate during the COVID lockdown coupled with stagnation of the black and hispanic birthrates in the US. People would need unpack that to learn anything useful
>>15328612 >>15328657 >Whites are not even gone from central asia, and that was entirely mediated by White males taking non-White females for repeated generations.
Entire Central Asian ethnic groups like Kazakhs and Hazaras have majority non-white male haplogroups like C2 and Turkmen with Q with caucasoid maternal mtdna.
Do you have any idea WTF you are talking about?
Also even the "whitest" Central Asians like Pamiris are majority swarthoid in phenotype and would get called churkas by Russian neo nazis.
What if the Nationalists had been voted out of power sometimes between 1976 and the late 1980s (or indeed if the Nationalists had removed apartheid from their platform). Would it have been possible to reverse apartheid legislation, while maintaining white sovereignty? After all, this had been the previous status quo before 1948.
>>15323170 >In Rhodesia they tried a hybrid model where only land owners could vote
It was intentionally made to bar Africans form attaining land lol. Try reading the requirements and the logic the state had behind them.
>>15323716 >You'd still have a ton of Blacks and Coloureds getting voting rights
Why necessarily? Suppose sometime between 1948 and 1980 a different political party had come to power, and repealed the Population Registration and Group Areas Acts, along with some of the more draconian security laws. Doing so wouldn't by itself necessitate changing the composition of Parliament, or the qualification to vote in general election (being white). Again, it was only the National Party that came up with this idea that the only moral alternative to black majority rule was apartheid and separate development. South Africa had done without either for 50 years, and if we include the colonial period, 300 years.
>>15323734 >Doing so wouldn't by itself necessitate changing the composition of Parliament, or the qualification to vote in general election (being white).
and that would have the non-whites still protesting that. Just like they did earlier on during the colonial South Africa years.
They protested, but they were (for the most part) not granted the ballot*.
Except for a time in Cape Colony only where some Natives were given the vote, but that was before the establishment of the Union, and was a brief experiment in any case. Also, some Coloured voters surprisingly did actually have the vote until 1968, but not enough to materially effect the outcome of any elections.*
Why are /his/ jannies like this?