[ckaihatsu]

You're doing ballet at a barn raising..

Look, 'LTE' -- you and PTKN are both at your *limits*, because you both can't admit that bourgeois international geopolitical *rivalry* led into the first World War.

Instead you'd prefer to build up your 'hack' credentials by trying to 'culturize' these global top-down power events, to make them seem more 'local', and 'participatory' to the reader.

Very *patronizing*, I'd say.

[late]

Look, 'LTE' -- you and PTKN are both at your *limits*

I've forgotten more about the First World War than you will ever learn.

You are a lightweight, but thanks for the laugh, that was a good one.

[ckaihatsu]

I've forgotten more about the First World War than you will ever learn.

You are a lightweight, but thanks for the laugh, that was a good one.

Hey, bruh, no one voted you *emperor*, so you can take your snide sideshow to the next historical region, at your earliest convenience.

Thanks for intruding, and then forfeiting -- you're like a fucking *stumbling clown*.

[late]

Hey, bruh, no one voted you *emperor*, so you can take your snide sideshow to the next historical region, at your earliest convenience.

Thanks for intruding, and then forfeiting -- you're like a fucking *stumbling clown*.

I'm an intellectual. I not only read Guns, Germs and Steel, I've read several critical essays.

You need to do some homework...

[ckaihatsu]

I'm an intellectual. I not only read Guns, Germs and Steel, I've read several critical essays.

You need to do some homework...

If you're 'intellectual' then where do you *stand* on 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' -- welcome-to-politics, etc.

Your fears made real:

The Russian advance began to frighten the rulers of western Europe, even when they still relied—as did Austria and Prussia—on Russia’s armies to crush revolution in their own lands. Their desire to maintain the Ottoman Empire as a barrier to Russian expansion dominated European diplomacy right up to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, and became known as ‘the Eastern Question’.

British governments were in the forefront of these efforts. Propping up the Ottoman rulers allowed them not only to check Russian power—which they saw as a threat to their own rule in northern India—but also ensured the Ottomans allowed British goods free access to markets in the Middle East and the Balkans.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 363

[late]

If you're 'intellectual' then where do you *stand* on 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' -- welcome-to-politics, etc.

Your fears made real:

It's a good book.

Eh? If history was easy, everyone would do it. They don't, they just think they do.....

[ckaihatsu]

It's a good book.

Eh? If history was easy, everyone would do it. They don't, they just think they do.....

Your prevarication knows no bounds.

I'll leave you to your petty concerns so that I don't become one of them.

[late]

Your prevarication knows no bounds.

I don't need to lie.

About the Diamond book, there are various ways to do history. I prefer an economic approach, where that makes sense.

But history has changed dramatically over the last half century. Nearly every discipline from accounting to zoology has been brought to bear on the study of history. It's been a remarkable ride. Diamond has contributed, as I said, it's a good book. But it's not the last word, because there isn't usually a last word.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't need to lie.

About the Diamond book, there are various ways to do history. I prefer an economic approach, where that makes sense.

But history has changed dramatically over the last half century. Nearly every discipline from accounting to zoology has been brought to bear on the study of history. It's been a remarkable ride. Diamond has contributed, as I said, it's a good book. But it's not the last word, because there isn't usually a last word.

There it *is* -- the prevarication, the equivocation.

Is it *economic*, or it is that 'there isn't usually a last word' -- because it can't be *both*, unfortunately.

Anything to say about *these* (if-you-will):


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

[late]

because it can't be *both*, unfortunately.

There are different schools of thinking in history. In that sense, it is both. There are also differences from culture, and nationality. A history from someone in a different country can be disorienting because it is just so different.

[litwin]

So, recently I've been getting into some discussions with a gentleman on a different forum about the meaning of fascism. He is a marxist who describes fascism as a uniquely "right-wing phenomenon". I'm not sure if I agree. I could be mistaken, but I think that left wingers can be fascists too. And when it comes to a marxist like Pol Pot, he tried to create a mythological idea that agrarian societies from the past were superior to intellectual societies of today, and his goal was to take his country back to the way things used to be. When you combine his philosophy with his role as a totalitarian dictator, doesn't that make him a fascist?

no, he as a dirty commie (sralenist)

[Rich]

Yes and so was Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

The myth of fascism is the foundation myth of modern Salem Liberalism. In modern Liberal mythology, Satan and his witches have been replaced by Hitler and the White Supremacist - fascists. The fact that Hitler was pretty much the opposite, pretty much the antithesis of a "White Supremacist" seems to have escaped these Liberal morons.

[Fasces]

The fact that Hitler was pretty much the opposite, pretty much the antithesis of a "White Supremacist" seems to have escaped these Liberal morons.

Elaborate.