Blasterbot
Well-known member
kek I love that wit. wish more shows had it.
Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
- Status
kek I love that wit. wish more shows had it.
DarthOne
☦️
Not many that are made today do.
The Yuan was a far better neighbor to the Philippines than any other dynasty save Tang. Every single other dynasty invaded the Philippines. 4000 years of Chinese Imperialism tends to impart a deep seated bloodlust against Chinese states in general.
There's a difference between criticism and unhinged ranting/hatred.
Criticize all you want -- I know I do. I think our government structure needs to be basically torn down and completely overhauled from scratch, and that our culture needs a massive course correction from what it's on now.
But I'm not rabidly unhinged about it, nor do I have a distorted view of European and world history that has the UK as some sort of evil empire straight out of some budget anime.
Bruh, you were proverbially frothing at the mouth in that other thread and have such biased views that it makes an unhinged Lefty look sane. You're a fucking nut.
Or do you want me to quote that post that had you saying you want the UK and its people effectively destroyed and replaced by anything including communism and Islam?
Just... sigh.
King Arts
Well-known member
Ok, I have to amend a previous statement I made. The British did TWO good things they got rid of the horrid practice of Sati in India, AND they actually have some pretty good banter and comedy.
I mean I'm not that angry it's hard to tell on the internet when someone uses strong language what their actual tone is.
And yes you can quote that. I think that the UK and it's culture being destroyed is for the greater good. We can use both the Islam and Communism example.
For the first a conversion from Anglicanism to Islam is better for outsiders AND the British themselves. If the British were actual Christians like Orthodox, Catholics, and some Protestants then this would not apply. But Anglicans with their women priests, gay priests, trans priests, etc. are not Christian. So yeah the whole lesser evil hurting greater evil. And normal British people could finally have a police force that does not abuse their rights and regulate them to such a silly degree with loicences for everything. Also the police would actually punish rapists, and English women would stop being whores, oh and another benefit is that English women would have to cover their faces.(Normally making pretty women cover up is a shame that's why I don't want French or German women to wear veils. But maybe there is a reason that homosexuality was so common in Britain historically.
As for the communism this would make the life of British people worse however the reason I'm not a communist is because while the ideology is tempting "All people are equal and everyone gives everything and shares everything and everyone is taken care of and comfortable" it's tempting in the same way a fantasy is. It's not realistic communism would lead to failure and backwardness of the people, I would be perfectly willing to sacrifice the UK for the safety of Europe.
No,feudals have honour and obligations to their serfs.
Current oligarchy is bunch of pedophile covardly slavers.
After 1789/with possible exception of Napoleon/ - agree.
But,England from at least 1700 was making coalitions to start wars against anybody who could create united Europe.
So,to prevent that,they burn Europe every time it could happened.
And,England was also incopetent in doing so.To prevent France from taking over,they created monster called Germany,which started two World wars,and would start third if there were no USA troops there.
In other worlds,to prevent Europe United by France,they created Europe which almost was conqered by germans.
Very smart,indeed.
Rather bad PR.I am old enough to remember commie school,which showed our gentry as drunk monsters who do not cared about serfs.
Some small minority was like that,but rest cared about their serfs,helping them when they lacked food,better even healed them.
We knew that thanks to gentry diaries,which was never intended to be published,where they write about helping.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You really are just determined to be wrong about basically everything, aren't you?
Napoleon rampaged all across the length and breadth of Europe, and that's not even getting into how the seeds of socialism, communism, and first major European attempt at 'modern' secularization all came out of France.
If it wasn't Napoleon it would have been some one else.
Napoleon was the point where an enlightment becomes modernity, he was the transition tyrant that led that change, just like Alexander was the transition for classical civilization. We should be thankful he wasn't nearly as competent as Alexander the great.
King Arts
Well-known member
Tell me are you just stanning for the English no matter what or because of some protestantism or they speak the same language or what?
First of Napoleon did not rampage through Europe many of the European monarchies attacked France first to put the Bourbons back in power because at that point the monarchs were inbred and corrupt just like modern globalists. Napoleon was not some Mongol warlord who burnt everything around him. Many places welcomed him and the administration he set up, his legal code was still used even after his fall. So no the Napeleonic conquests changed things in a good way.
Also everything you posted about socialism and communism was wrong. Germany was where those ideas came from. As for secularization(while I do think French Laicite is far to extreme) aren't you American one that is a Neo Con at that who always gushes about the Constitution? I would think you would support separation of Church and state unless you are a hard core Catholic who think the Church should have secular power?
No we shouldn't, Napoleon was a great man and if he stayed in control his empire would be great, as unlike Alexander he would be a more Caesar figure and not just let everything collapse. Also I would think you would be appreciative towards him since he brought many reforms that allowed Jews to live in Western European societies with less discrimination they could actually be citizens now.
I will give you this, Napoleon was a great man.
He ended the french terror which by itself alone is a great deed, he did help my people yes, but the problem was Napoleon was too ambitious, he didn't know when to cut his losses, and even if he was great there was no promise that his successors would rule nearly as well as he did, and I just dont think the contential system was going to last forever too many people with a vested interest in killing it.
King Arts
Well-known member
Ok this I will agree with you 100% he was too ambitious dare I say even arrogant. But I can think of very few great men in history who did not have this trait/flaw very few of the Great leaders/Kings/Warriors/generals/etc. of history were humble men. SOME were but most were not.
I will say thought that there of course is no promise that his successors would rule nearly as well as he did that will never happen in any nation ruled by mortals. Until God comes and rules the world directly that won't happen we will have great leaders and shit ones. The cycle of empire rise, and fall will continue through the ages. If a French empire lasted with Napeoleon victorious and dying of old age after raising his heir that heir might be good, but the heir of an heir might not. The new leader could be malicious or incompetent.
Buba
A total creep
Wasn't it well over by the time he siezed power?
you still had mad dogs and crazies who wanted to start it back up, napoleon put the mad dogs down, there is a reason why he was so loved he ended the madness.
Typhonis
Well-known member
What do you mean Napoleon was not as competent as Alexander the Great?
Bassoe
Well-known member
He lost. Alexander's empire only fell after his death.
King Arts
Well-known member
Well I mean winning and losing is only looking at a basic level. You also have to look at what they fought and what resources they had. Winning all your battles when you grossly outnumbered the enemy is not as impressive as winning when you are outnumbered.
Well, there was that Russia/winter debacle which fucked him over so badly it was the first domino in his decline.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Arranging things so that you fight as often as possible with the advantage doesn't make you a less impressive leader, it makes you a smart one. Also, Alexander didn't exactly start out with a massive empire. Napoleon is often over rated, with a lack luster record on and off the battlefield. Even compared to contemporaries, such as the Duke of Wellington, who whooped his record and beat him directly.
- Status