guess the board
>>868629
i don't want to, just tell me
>>868629
This is almost /phil/-tier retardation. /sci/.
>>868738
>almost
and no
>Disavowed all established gods of ancient Egypt
>Made up his own god
>Started a "high tech" monotheistic religion
>Moved the established capital from Thebes to Amarna, a desert shithole
>After his death, his name and likeness was stricken from all temples and monuments
>His son ends up changing his name to avoid association
Most based Pharaoh
Not the best early historical ruler though
He completely fucked everything up, neglected foreign diplomacy, allowed the empire to crumble, and undermined the 18th dynasty (which ended soon after him).
But I fucking love him anyway. He has to be the single most interesting person from the Bronze Age, and the Amarna period's art is top-notch shit.
What do you guys think about Randal Carson and Graham's theories on Ancient civilizations predating Sumeria and Mesopotamia existing and being forgotten due to then ending of the Ice Age and the sinking of the locations of these civilizations?
I think its incredibly naive to think that there arent civilisations that we have lost completely.
Evola believed that a race of "Nordic" people, anciently emanating from Golden Age Arctic Hyperborea, originally semi-immaterial and "soft-boned", had played a crucial founding role in Atlantis and the high cultures both of the East and West. In Evola's eyes, half-remembered, cryptic memories of a "more-than-human race" once existing in a "northern paradise" constitute the patrimony of the traditions of many diverse peoples. In this occult belief, Evola was additionally influenced by Arctic Home in the Vedas by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, which posited the polar North as the original home of the white Ur-Aryan tribes before their later separation into Western (Hellenic, Roman, Celtic, Germanic) and Eastern (Iranian, Indo-Aryan) divisions.
How about a single shred of evidence for that? Like, one artefact. We have millions of artefacts of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilisations, but not a single one of any civilisation that supposedly came before.
Why didn't certain powers like the Ming/Quing Chinese or Ottomans ever attempt either colonization, exploration, proselytizing, or actual trade/exploitation of t he New World?
I've heard much concerning the Chinese and their relative incompetence for sailing, but the Ottomans? They controlled most of the eastern Mediterranean and were allied with the Berbers of North Africa: surely, they could have mounted a small enterprise to the New World once the knowledge of its existence and of the route to take there had been discovered by the Europeans?
Hell, it's the discovery of the New World that was the largest factor that caused the Ottomans to enter their decline. They lost all their marketing power. Who needs oriental spices when you have all the gold, silver, chocolate, exotic spices, and soon-to-be culinary delicacies like turkey and potatoes from the Americas?
And the Chinese, as well: sure, they traded with the Spanish Philippines, but why not establish their own outposts and bypass the Spanish middle-men? 'Greatest Nation under Heaven' sure sounds like an oxymoron when the 'inferior peoples' (i.e. Spanish) you resent can cross the Pacific and reach the silver of Peru and the gold of Mexico but you yourself can't sail anywhere past the Sea of Japan.
>>868195
Easy.
Why?
Remember that the Brits had to make the Chinese adicct to opium to have something to trade other than silver.
>>868204
That was much later, though. I'm talking about the 15th/16th century when European control of the Americas was barely being consolidated and parts of the place were still un-mapped and unexplored.
>>868195
>They lost all their marketing power. Who needs oriental spices when you have all the gold, silver, chocolate, exotic spices, and soon-to-be culinary delicacies like turkey and potatoes from the Americas
>Ottomans declined due to lack of turkey
How do you interpret mystical experiences? Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
Schizophrenia.
>>868041
>How do you interpret mystical experiences?
Culturally. Someone with a Christian upbringing will probably have a vision of Mary/Jesus rather than rather than Bhaktic devotion of Vishnu's presence.
>Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
I personally don't believe so because the nature of these experiences are always highly subjective and almost always tied to that certain religious cultural background in which one has lived.
Many magical fraternities on the other hand and various Masonic societies do believe in "Secret Chiefs" and claim that they have formulated a link with these. Of course, these claims are highly dubious, but you might find this article interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Chiefs
>>868041
Imaginative human brain, altered states, perceptions of senses.
> Can it be a source of trans-empirical knowledge?
It can be a creative inspiration but I don't think there is any truth to it, how could there be?
It's intellectual quicksand in a fog bank.
So can we safely say by now that World War 1 was the point where everything went wrong forever?
I blame the s*rbs
>>868016
When will this meme end?
>>868009
Wrong for who?
Shit certainly benefitted Communism and our American Overlords.
Are there any powerful arguments against John Locke's posit of the human mind being a "tabla rasa", or have philosophy and psychology pretty well come together to conclude that this is precisely what our minds are at the beginning?
>>867987
OPs mind is still tabla rasa
RIP in peace
>>867999
Sorry, tabula rasa. Just a typo.
>memers on this board will un-ironically attempt to defend or even justify the Sack of Constantinople of 1204
>"M-MUH MASSACRE OF DA LATINS!"
Years of cuckoldry does that to you.
>Eastern
>>867717
My bad, Anon. Truly, I should have simply referred to them for what they were - the Roman Empire.
What did he mean by 'context', /his/?
>it's a Matt skirts around the atrocities committed by the British Empire during the colonial era episode
>>867771
He dun giv a fook
Did you see his video where there's a big Union Jack behind him.
>>867771
ultimately, the world would be a worse place without British imperialism
Why is North Europe so much richer and more productive than South?
Is it because the Southernes don't know harsh winter and never evloved the ability to plan ahead?
>Evolved the ability to plan ahead
Literally ever farming culture ever have had to do that, you mong.
>Poland
>Less corrupt than Ireland
Southern Europe is lazy and unstructured
autism breeds productiveness
Recently I was bored and wanted to watch a documentary on England. So I started watching pic related and find it to be great. I know it is trying to push a narrative of >muh anglo-saxons and >muh rule of consent but I enjoy it nevertheless.
So are there any other documentaries like this out there? Especially ones that don't trigger people with a history degree every 2 minutes. Maybe there is even an essential chart or something.
Please keep History Channel and Guido Knopp/ZDF-history tier docs out of this threat.
>>867106
>thread
Fuck me I need to go to sleep.
bumpidy
"China: A Century of Revolution" is pretty comfy
Is fascism definable?
Edgy ultranationalism with an oligarchy
Enphasis on edgy, you need to randomly invade people and then call it calculated realpolitik
>>866520
It's a more pure national socialism than implemented by the Nazis, mainly because the Nazis implemented the Jew-exterminating part.
>>866520
Fascism is an ideology of absolute etatism, formed around cult of a leader and aggresive youth activism. Ofcourse, because they grow in era when nation state become the norm, they borrow alot from nationalism but reject nationalist egalitarian view that everyone in the nation is equal. The Leader is pinnacle of man, the aggression of party member is an ideal emanating from Him.
>What if Rome had industrialized?
An empire built on slavery cannot industrialize. It could never have happened.
Depends on the type of slavery.
>>866462
How so? Do you mean wage slavery?
>tfw no industrialized Roman communist revolution
>>866451
Slavery is pants-on-head stupid if you're an industrial country
More pictures like this
Which one was smarter?
Who won the war?
>>866037
Stalin gained power from being a secretary. Hitler gained power from being a demagogue.
Stalin, he had to be to win the war