well /his/?
>a fucking leaf
Shit's fucked yo
>>2085534
An examination of Canadian history will reveal to you a distinct pattern, a pattern of the Canadian people being perpetually obstructed by an incredibly dysfunctional and obtuse governmental system yet somehow, likely by sheer luck alone, managing to apathetically glide past any potential turbulence with any effort at all, turbulence that has torn other past nations to shreds seems to narrowly miss us despite nobody really steering the country in any discernible direction. We have somehow, completely blind, deaf and dumb, navigated a fairly extensive minefield of potential turmoil that many other nations couldn't navigate even with the most sophisticated mine detector.
I mean we really should not exist as a country right now, but we do.
Who was history's "evilest man" before Hitler and Stalin kicked in the door?
Gaius Julius Caesar
Remember the one million
Atilla the Hun
>>2085090
Napoleon, remember the 6.5 million goy
What's the /his/ consensus on Mao?
>>2085058
my mommy daddy says im not asposed to like the bad communist man
real talk: I wouldn't even share my eral opinion it seems like anyone who isnt a neoreactionary gets steamrolled in this hugbox
>>2085066
>neoreactionary
Haven't heard that one in a while.
Even by Communist standards he was an incompetent chucklefuck.
ITT: copy paste the bibliography/works cited page of your last paper
Works Cited
>Bahr, Ehrhard. “Nazi Cultural Politics: Intentionalism vs. Functionalism” In National Socialist Cultural Policy edited by Cuomo, Glenn. 5-22. First Ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
>Beevor, Antony. Stalingrad The Fateful Siege 1942-1943. New York: Penguin Books, 1999
Müller, Rolf-Dieter and Ueberschär, Gerd R. Hitler’s War in the East, A Critical Assessment. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002.
>Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
>Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, A History of Nazi Germany. Simon and Shuster: New York, 1960
>Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political. Expanded Ed. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2007
>>2084857
FAAAAR too little works cited
what the fuck are you doing fucken fresher
>>2084863
this is actually the longest works cited page i have for this semester, and my papers have, so far, not been graded below a A-.
i know diversity of sources is vital but i'm not a history major and i cant justify going through so many sources with so little time, especially just for a dinky little 12 page paper.
>>2084877
if you were my student I'd fail you
>protip for your future endevours: Read the Introduction, read the conclusion, decide if it's useful, then use the index for specifics
How the fuck did they do it?
>>2084322
By using horses to be at an incredibly hihg speed
>>2084322
>Finland wasn't part of the Mongol Empire
What did they mean with this?
muh horse archers
what has/is going on with Antarctica?
i have so many fucking questions about that place i don't know where to start.
Why is it so ignored?
has gone on*
what a great way to start this already shit thread
The official story is penguins and occasionally people researching penguins. Jury's still out on whether or not ayys/reptilians/jews have a secret base there.
It is the current home and base of operations for the:
>new
>holy
>roman
>empire
>Shia
>Muslim
>Monotheist
PICK ONE
>>2083806
>>2083809
>>2083810
So how do I go about becoming a Christian? Do I just go to the nearest church and say "I want to be a Christian now?"
>>2082962
"hello father. I was born and raised and such and such, and after some searching, I've thought long and hard, I've decided I want to convert to xxxxx Christianity. Could you offer any guidance or information?"
That would prob work.
I know alot of 3-8 out of ten chicks that hang out with 1/10 beta nerds once a week at bible study so find one and have fun.
>>2082962
What kind? Catholic, Orthodox, or heretic?
So tell me /his/
Why has Subsaharan Africa lagged so fervently behind the rest of the world in terms of civilization, inventions, prosperity, etc. for most of history?
Sure, there were points in history in which they prospered, namely the Kingdom of Axum in Ethiopia and the Mali/Songhai Empires in West Africa. But that's as far as it goes, correct?
Why is it that Subsaharan Africa never developed as many noteworthy civilizations despite being a resource haven?
>>2082446
Cause they couldn't domesticate zebras
They didn't get universities up by turn 110.
>>2082450
Even pre-Columbus South America had a myriad of civilizations, notably the Mayan, Inca, and Aztec civilizations. In Peru, there are some archaelogical sites that might even predate the Pyramids in Egypt, and these are in areas that had almost no domesticated animals to speak of (other than llamas, of course).
Africa may not have been able to domesticate zebras, but they sure as hell had camels, chickens, pigs, lamb, goats, etc.
They're definitely not lacking in that department.
How do you feel about the calendar being changed to 12016 HE? Honestly, I'm for anything that gets people to stop using "CE."
>>2081997
Why can't we just start calendar from the beggining of times.
>>2081997
>Honestly, I'm for anything that gets people to stop using "CE."
Why?
Weird thing to give a shit about, honestly. It's not like anybody's trying to abolish the use of AD.
>It's not like anybody's trying to abolish the use of AD
Is Islam an inherently violent religion? More so than say, Christianity or any other major religion?
>>2081004
Yes. It was born out of violence.
>>2081004
Yes
Mohammad was a conquerer. The acts of Christians in war go against biblical teachings
sure a lot of ISIS shit goes against the quran, like killing other Muslims, but jihad and Sharia are violent as fuck
Mohammad was also a pedophile, so sexual violence is inherent to the religion as well
>inb4 the Old Testament laws
you don't know anything about Christianity lmao
I dunno
I wouldn't call it a religion of peace though.
What was their endgame?
One wanted to rule the world
the other sought to get carried through World Domination raid
the last one were simply rabid slant eyed dogs seeking approval from the "master race"
>>2080215
>One wanted to rule the world
No, he didn't. He wanted to serve the bourgeoisie while throwing his people a bone, conquering the world would mean destroying economical assets belonging to the very bourgeoisie he tried to serve. The tiny bones he threw to his people was far to generous for the capital holders, that leading to his downfall and rise of the modern oligarchy EU and spread of propaganda about the great National Socialist holocaust. There's no coincidence you will always hear about Hitlers great socialist-like projects but never about his close cooperation with various capitalists simply because those who beat him wrote the propaganda. The man in the east tried too, first as their plant but then he turned against them and focused solely on fighting for his people at which they assassinated him and replaced him with some uneducated useful idiot
>>2080004
Harmony and peace all over the world
Atheists call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they think the term exonerates them from the burden of proving their claims to be true--such as "God almost certainly doesn't exist"--but the term is entirely incoherent.
If "atheism" remains as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the denial of the existence of God, or as the belief God doesn't exist, then to call one's self an "agnostic atheist" is to say one doesn't know if God exists and believes God doesn't exist--which is logically incoherent as not knowing requires not believing and one can't believe and not believe at the same time--or it is to say one doesn't know if God exists and denies the existence of God. The term "denies the existence of God" can be taken to mean "believes God doesn't exist," in which case the latter is logically incoherent for the same reason as the former, or "doesn't believe God exists," which can be taken to mean the same thing, or "lacking belief that God exists."
If "atheism" is defined as "lacking belief that God exists," and one who calls themselves an "agnostic atheist" also lacks belief that God doesn't exist, or the necessarily existent propositional negation of God's existence, then that person lacks belief that God exists and lacks belief that God doesn't exist is therefore an agnostic, not an "agnostic atheist." Such a person could just as easily define themselves as an "agnostic a-atheist," using the classical definition of "atheism," meaning one who doesn't know if God exists and lacks a belief that God doesn't exist.
If an "agnostic atheist" doesn't lack belief that God doesn't exist, which is the same as their having belief that God doesn't exist, which is the same as believing God doesn't exist, then that person is an atheist, not an "agnostic atheist."
tl;dr "Agnostic atheist" is nonsensical gibberish used as an excuse not to support one's claims of the non-existence, or unlikely existence, of God.
Agreed, they should just be honest and call themselves apatheists.
ur a fag
>as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jesus Christ, what is this, a high school essay?
What do you fear the most?
drowning in a submarine is up there
>>2078485
brush strokes that eerily represent a man at my doorway.
ego death
Probably been asked here a million times before so forgive me, but how historically accurate is Rome?
>>2076416
It's actually not too bad. One of the more accurate shows around for sure
it's reasonably accurate but it's a TV drama not a documentary so they had to make choices about characterisation
Fairly. The stuff they did change is pretty obvious and done for story reasons (like Cato being an old man to fit with his role as the last true Republican).
It's the little touches I like, though, like Lucius freaking out that they're crossing the Rubicon.