Why did city-states fall out of fashion?
You'd think that with deracinated, influential global cities such as New York and Dubai, they'd be more popular and know better than to swear loyalty to a nation-state that they can barely relate to.
>>2161688
You underrate the benefits of belonging to a larger network of urban centers, reaping the output of very large areas of farmland, mineral rights from all over, etc. All other things being equal, large nations outcompete small nations, simple as that.
>>2161716
Hong Kong and Singapore vastly outcompete everyone else in the region by a large margin, and they would not be in their current position had they been dragged down by China and Malaysia, respectively.
Similarly, cities have different political outlooks and different demographics. Current examples like London being pro-Remain and advocating for London visas after Brexit, or New York City voting over 80% against Trump make it clear that such cities don't resemble their countries politically, ethnically or culturally.
>>2161742
Safety from foreign agression is a benefit, even if it's protection from their self-appointed protector (e.g. Hong Kong prefers to belong to China than to be agressed on by China until it comes to belong to it anyway).
I stress material and historic motives against fleeting politcal, ethnical and cultural motives. Losing that EU cash will be a blow to London, but harming it's economic ties to the rest of the UK and it's national mythos would be bigger blows.
Why was Hitler such a Finnaboo?
allies against USSR, fool
Hitler wanted the Sampo
>>2161603
More than just that, he always openly spoke of admiration of the "brave finns"
Probably cause they were a tiny irrelevant Nordic people that managed to somehow hold back the Slavic Bolshevik hordes of the soviet union
Which person has personally killed the most Muslims in history?
>>2161407
This dude's campaigns are estimated to have killed some 14 million people, almost entirely Muslims.
>>2161407
>Sami flag
>on horseback
They're afraid of horses believeing them to be the carrier of death because the southerners rode horses.
>>2161423
Nigger tier logic.
What would he think of Germany today?
>needs more Prussia
>>2161162
People often think that Bismarck would disapprove of what Germany is today, but I absolutely don't think so. He'd probably feel bad about what happened to Prussia but he was no German nationalist. Within the European context, Germany has never been more powerful than today and he'd well likely respect that.
>>2162196
You ever heard of the Third Reich?
Why does the "Hitler hated Christianity" meme exist?
Is it just another way to further demonize him?
>>2160990
>Hitler
>Human
Tell that to his 11 million victims
>>2160992
Yes, the 11 million. We can't ever forget how Hitler gassed 12 million jews at Auscwitz. This number is of course just part of the 13 million jews who died in total. Never forget the 14 million.
>>2160992
Kys
>*record scratch*
>*freeze frame*
>Yup, that’s me,The Ottoman Em-- ohh ... Yea.
>You’re probably wondering how I ended up in this situation. First, we have to go back, back to a place called Manzikert...
>>2160771
>Oh how embarrassing, my partitions are showing
>>2160771
this map makes me so hard
>>2160771
>bodies of water are grey
>land that isn't part of the map is white
>countries are blue
Holy shit, fuck off
At what point in history did Jews gather significant influence over the western world?
>>2160736
1945
>>2160744
well, no. i think you're confusing cause and effect
>>2160736
I'm curious to know this too.
I know vikings are romanticized constantly, but HOW and WHY were they so good at travelling, settling and expanding rule over other kingdoms/countries/communities?
Was everyone just shit or were the vikings just savage as fuck? I know it's a simplistic argument which I hope someone can answer correctly, but it seemed very much a viking's world back then and everyone else was just living in it
crude diagram very related.
INB4 someone posts those screenshots.
It was those sick ass horns on their helmets.... Scary shit
>>2160710
They were once apex men.
Now, not so much.
The """Virgin""" Queen, Elizabeth 1.
Was she really a virgin.
If not, who was the first to tap that and why did she never become pregnant?
Any other famous historical virgins?
>>2160603
She was just beat as fuck.
Mary was actually good looking in her youth at least.
>>2160603
It depends on how you define Virginity. I heard she was sexually assaulted at a young age. This is why she never had sexual relations as an adult. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider someone to have lost their virginity in the case of sexual assault, believing in a more spiritual and mental definition of virginity. If you take a purely physical approach I imagine she wasn't.
>>2160603
most likely she was
women don't need to fuck like men do, especially if their total reputation is on the line and they're busy running a country, not worth throwing that away for some dicking
powerful women are bone dry anyways
Why should I support others having opportunity if it limits my own chances of success? Affirmative action, immigration, gender and racial equality are only justified by spooks.
WOW WhOA
ANOTHer PIECE OF GReAT INSIGHT FROM A STIRNER POSTER
>>2160596
what is a spook
>>2160607
Not an argument.
Society would be better if the average person weren't involved in politics.
Do you agree?
>>2160545
No, ruling elites can become isolated from their subordinates, leading to worse living conditions, inefficiency, and rebellion.
No, people should've more involved into politics both national and local, it's people who barely know who they are/what are they voting for that are the problem.
>>2160545
Not at all, in fact I think people should be a lot more involved. The problem is that people get caught up in the presidential horserace and then stop giving a shit as soon as it's over. They treat it like a team-based sport.
If you think the problem is that the average person isn't educated enough, that's just an argument in favor of more education, especially of the civics variety.
How did people study before Universities were turned into daycares for alchoholic sex-addicts? For example, what would an average day be like for somebody studying law in 1824 France?
Putting a bunch of relatively young people in the same place will have similiar results no matter the time. Students have always had somewhat wild lives during their studies.
>>2160530
This, in medieval time, the faculty and students of universities could be so unruly that the local population would drive them out.
>>2160536
Apparently in the 14th century students in at the University of Paris were under the jurisdiction of the King only, because of technicalities in the French legal system. They had a reputation as being essentially a criminal gang.
Honest question here.
What is the problem with food stamps, welfare, social security, and other socialist benafits. I would say that capitalism benafits a lot off these things.
Here me out.
On foodstamps, you are taking taxes from people as a whole and giving an amount of the tax money for a person to invest in food. Thats literally all you're doing.
The poor person would not have money other wise to invest in food meaning the store they buy the food from would get less money and the workers might as well.
Why are right wing capitalists so against food stamps. Could you even imagine how many business would lose profit, lose customers and have to close down making more people lose jobs?
This is just one example.
I believe this mostly has to do with the fact that socalism has gotten such a bad rap ever since it was a threat to money hoarders.
Ever since the russian revolution elites have been trying to turn people off of the idea.
Now obviously i get it.
taxing people to feed poor people is "not right" for workers but give me one good reason outside of personal issues how social/government benefits dont only help people, but capitalism and society as a whole
>food stamps, welfare, social security, and other socialist benafits
>socialist
They are bad because they force low-income workers to live off the government, rather than collectively organize to increase their income.
They threaten the hegemony of the upper class.
Everything after that is catchy marketing jingles designed to get the proles to vote against their own self interest.
>>2160213
>Ever since the russian revolution elites have been trying to turn people off of the idea
Opposite actually. The Russian Revolution spooked the rest of the west into trying to stifle revolutionary activity through handouts.
Doesn't the Spanish Miracle disprove liberal theory that their ideology and economics is what led to the post-war economic boom in the West?
Spain is a poor shithole compared to Germany though.
I think all European economies boomed in the years after the war irrespective of the particular ideology being held in each country. When there's room to grow, the country will grow. Today there is an excess of people (which means high unemployment), no sources of growth and nobody has a plan.
It's further proof actually. Franco's Spain was a poor backwater till he liberalized industry and trade. In the late 50s/early 60s Franco turned away from fascism and hired a bunch of neoliberals to fix the Spanish economy. It still wasn't what I'd call "capitalist", but it was steadily moving in that direction.
Why no one dared to openly attack? There were just some sporadical shellings and the French initially captured some buttfuck-nowhere German border town, but they withdrew quickly. It seems strange considering how the war developed later.
>>2160137
It's generally hard to attack in winter. Even on the Eastern front, the pace of the combat slowed down noticeably when the snow started flying. In the Western front, it was far more pronounced a phenomenon.
Furthermore, from the British and French perspective, the two of them had enormously more resources and long-term military potential than Germany did. A hell of a lot more population, a lot more resources that could be used to construct arms. Why embark on a risky winter attack, especially since neither had even fully finished mobilizing? Time is on their side, not Germany's.
>>2160143
So the French were basically so full of themselves and their superior defences that they didn't even bother fighting?
You know what. i think German success in 1940 wasn't even that much of a thing of German superiority, as it was of Allied incompetence and stupidity.
>>2160180
>So the French were basically so full of themselves and their superior defences that they didn't even bother fighting?
Not exactly.
More that the French had the advantage in a long war and they knew it. Why risk everything on a throw of the dice in a winter attack when in a year from now, they'll be stronger vis a vis Germany, and a year further from that, stronger still?
>i think German success in 1940 wasn't even that much of a thing of German superiority, as it was of Allied incompetence and stupidity.
Well, yeah. This is hardly a revolutionary thought. Franco-British war planning in the interwar years was generally predicated that the next big war would be a lot like WW1. Extremely limited mobility. Extremely long duration of conflict. Industrialized output being the key to success, along with balancing arms production and home front stability.
When they didn't get that kind of war, they were badly unprepared.