#history-server (Discord ID: 423672101250269187) in Nick Fuentes Server, page 1
700 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/3 | Next
and it was volatile by its very nature of being a representative, meritocratic organ of gov't
you could think it was a matter of time before they overthrew an ineffective or unpopular king
but how would you have it any other way?
which episode is this?
the first 15 or so
I think I'll start on it tomorrow
and a lot more relevant than Roman history
I think roman history is relevant too
in a general sense
Not in the sense that you can relate to modern politics though
you begin with a state that had the political strength to survive the loss of 200,000 of its strongest, bravest men
and still come out on top
produce leaders like cincinnatus, construct a navy from scratch, produce an innovative system of gov't that worked for 400 years
not as relevant compared to Revolutions
only to degenerate into nigger tier coups, extralegal exceptions, street fighting, and civil wars
like the podcast lol
I think it's very relevant given that Rome was a republic for half of its history
and I think that all republics have to deal with authority, distribution of power, constitutionality, and the rise/decline of the institutions over time
Well for sure, the lessons that Rome taught were incredibly important
Yeah but the details are nowhere near as important
yeah the details are only there to inspire general theory
But you can say the English Civil War was directly influential to America's founding
but I don't think it makes it any less important if you're really trying to understand politics
what do you think inspired Locke to write his two treatises of gov't?
people really underestimate how influential locke was to the American colonists, also how disproportionately influential he was
That's one thing they get right in school
there was all sorts of thinkers at the time, with all sorts of works of varying popularity circulating the colonies, but for such an age of enlightenment, people weren't really as well read as the period is often portrayed
I remember looking at some primary documents about harvard students in the 1700s
a dorm burned down and the school was filing claims to restore property to the students
so you could see what every student claimed as his property, including the books that they had
lots of bible
lots of random textbooks
some john locke
everything else in very small quantities
honestly, it's kind of like today
in a sense
though replace the bible with some random social media bullshit or maybe the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy lol
people like james madison, benjamin franklin, alexander hamilton, and james madison were one out of a thousand
You have any book recommendations on European history?
Or should I just get a textbook for something like that?
I have a good recommendation of a "textbook"
Patrick O'Brien's World History Atlas
Alright fellas, what should we set this week's topic for?
Whatever you want
Should we follow a podcast or book?
Alright, because we are Amfirst, we'll do the American Revolutionary War as our very first topic.
The war was between American Rebels, and the British Empire lasting from Apr 19, 1775 – Sep 3, 1783, get to chatting fellas!
Do you think it was more miraculous that America won its independence, or was it inevitable?
Horatio Gates - big gay, or giga faggot?
Seems like a queer from what little I'm reading of him.
If you looked at the political climate of the time period with the age of enlightenment it wasn't too amazing
But the if it weren't for the Seven Years War it would not have happened
But I mean militarily, do you think it was any amount of difficult or unlikely?
I hold the personal belief that we were very, very fortunate.
Militarily I'd say it was pretty miraculous
yeah which battle was the turning point? Trenton?
I'm not too well versed in specific battle of the revolution. I know quite a few from the civil war,
but I need to brush up on my revolutionary history.
Thankfully we have the History-Server™
I'll read up
But im clocking out fellas
The official slogan of the History-Server™
I'm not sure of the revolution was inevitable--I think that if the British were more open about sharing representation with the United States and allowing more free trade, then the colonies would have eventually fallen in line
The UK gov't was a lot more liberal than, let's say the Spanish gov't
Though if the UK didn't budge in the long-term, the American Revolution would have happened again
If not during the 1770s, then during the Napoleonic Wars
Also, has anyone heard of a hypothesis that the founders also took influence from Pre-Norman England?
and it could have been far more brutal
Washington almost died about 3 times in the Revolutionary War
GOD WILLS IT
AMERICA WILL BE
Is larping as a continental army soldier good or bad optics
larping in general is bad optics
Larping is fine for military reenactments
That's about it
when he looks at the bust of pompey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiqO2h9hFJA HEY YOU CHEEKY YANKERS HAVEN'T PAID YOUR BLOODY BUTTERKNIFE TAX
Imagine a government that literally makes it illegal to carry plastic eating utensils in public because they view it as dangerous.
Holy shit I'm so glad we rebelled...
I imagine if we didn't rebel and stuck with the crown there is a fair chance we would be like modern Canada
Not that our situation is any better
we should own canada by now
The Yukon is rightful American clay
this is true
🇮🇪 TIOCFAIDH ÁR LÁ POTATO NICKERS 🇮🇪
daily reminder that the only reason america gained independence was because of the french they so love to berate
Never again lads. We may rib each other about our nations, but at the end of the day we're brothers and everyone else wants us dead. Never again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9g7FvmWDgs
fellas my american revolution (((professor))) has made it very clear he is openly liberal. he claims time and time again the revolutionary war was not truly about human rights and breaking from a tyrannical government, rather it was an elite few conspiring against the british so they could maintain their smuggling of goods into the colonies. does he have a point?
olive branch petition shows we wanted to be a part of british and a lot of pamphlets that were written were by the elite under the pen name of commoners...
We were an incredibly scarce minority. But your teacher is a faggot, and whatever the reasons we broke away, we did. Fuck the crown, fuck the king, and fuck the loyalists. And y’know what? In spite of being an ideological minority, we still tarred and feathered loyalists from fucking Albany down to the Carolinas.
Yeah, we traded slaves, yeah, we wanted cheaper prices. All of this was within the crown’s abilities to address. And it still fell short. We weren’t about to pay for the economic fuckup of a bunch of barely literate cunts three thousand miles away.
It wasn’t about human fucking rights,
it was about telling a pompous faggot with no true authority over us to go take his undeserved globus cruciger, and shove it clean up his dementia-ridden prematurely senile, barely royal, ASS.
Tell your teacher to grow a sense of pride and a pair of nuts.
Now see, that seems logical, but how in the hell could we discern that for certain? I wish there was some type of hard number we could review and go off of instead of having to resort to multiple different contrasting figures.
I think we need to post about Mike Enoch since he will go down in history as the savior of the white race
Michael “Shark Eyes” Peinovich, God King of The Ethnostate, and Eternal Autarch of Awkwardly Holding Ranch Dressing
American revolution was completely unjustified t b q h
Britain almost bankrupted itself during the 7 years war getting the territory the colonists asked for
and when the tax rate in the colony goes up (still far lower than that in England) to pay off this debt they sperg out and declare independence
granted it all turned out great for the Americans in the end
(they hold world hegemony, foremost power etc)
but the entire revolution was unwarranted
American revolution was to protect the liberties against the Westminster absoutism
And the American identity
Americans self-identified as Americans rather than British decades before the revolution
that's a bit of a generalisation, many colonists saw themselves as english transplanted to the Americas
sure some of them adopted a national identity when and after the revolution
but a lot of them (for example the loyalists who moved to canada) considered themselves british first
after the revolution, loyalists migrated (actually got kicked out) to Canada
but that was after the revolution took place
this is the conflict of identity
talking about the initial reasons for it
no way than actions of warfare can solve it
it will happen sooner or later
Americans will never be willing to vote for some representatives in Westminster
none of those living in the colonies wanted direct rule, but they were willing to wait for devolved powers to be granted to them
the Canadians, Australians and kiwis got dominion status sometime in the 30s
they didn't use violence to try and take those powers
fair enough, the Americans did
i just don't think it was worth spilling the blood of their fellows over
at first it is quite mild
but all the time things suddenly got heated
no one planned a revolution from the beginning
but in the end, it had to be like this
i'd agree with that
the countries under britain's control only remained there for so long as britain had the power to keep them
as soon as british power waned every colony was pushing for independence or more autonomy
it's the fault of the british government for losing the power and influence required to maintain the empire
and another thing
founding fathers may first identify as proud subjects of British crown
but then they realize that the British tradition is corrupted
so they decide to segregate from that
at least britain and america have remained allies
been listening to the history of rome, fascinating stuff
very frustrating to look our statesmen and politicians today, when compared to even the most mundane leaders from history, no will to truly lead
i think in america this problem stems from our decaying homogeneity
how can you even earnestly lead a country like america and appeal to "the people" when half of them will eventually never agree with the interests of the other
in recent months i have grown further and further anti democracy
i think the most reasonable return into a real republic is to set maybe wealth and military service requirements for voting and serving an office
this wont completely eliminate minority and women voting but will reduce it
a repeal of race/gender suffrage directly would never pass for along time
The feasible way to do that is to limit the franchise to taxpayers
If you don't pay taxes you don't vote
even that is too broad i think
are all republics democratic?
maybe certain tax brackets
democracy =/= republic
republics can have democratic tendencies
but are not truly democratic
i think the ideal republic would feature a senate:
consisted of members of the highest class
voted for by the highest class and upper middle class
A sort of tribune of the plebs made up by upper middle class, voted by upper middle class and representatives from the lower classes
Republic originally meant "a public matter" didn't it? There needs to be some type of democracy so that common people have some power in government
i think that version of the "tribune of the plebs" would have less power than they did in rome
this would limit democratic influence over most things yet still allow all citizens have some stake in the govt
but thats just off the top of my head
I've been wanting to look into Roman government to learn from their mistakes for a while but haven't gotten into it. I think American government is a fine system we have been decaying as a society
it was fine when we had limited franchisement
Yeah wasn't it land owning men back at the founding?
i think in the coming years we will have a crossing the rubicon moment
im not really siege pilled
but i think we will have a sincere leader with Faustian spirit sieze control thorugh a constitutional crisis, not trump though.
i think we will lose 2024 then in 2028 we will win and i think thats when it will happen
Eh I don't see something like that happening imo. It depends on how divided the country is by that point and just how big of a crisis there will be.
I couldn't see something like that happening given the current lack of interest most have in politics
i dont know, i get kind of blackpilled sometimes about stuff, like how nobody in our government cares at all about us
same. Fuentes and his America First stuff has been a whitepill for me though. Telling people to go to county GOP meetings, living good lives and starting families is the best way to turn things around.
If the culture can shift the politics will get better
Best of all it's a realistic goal
There's no larpy "rise up!" message
oh and btw all this crossing the rubicon stuff is not good optics, we should n't advocate for it at all, just a prediction about the future
I gotcha it's not an unreasonable prediction
yeah its not unreasonable to say that our current situation is not tenable, but le read siege is terrible, nobody should want a real civil war
it would not go as you think
we would just get invaded
if one did start then maybe events would transpire as i described as a way to end it as quick as possible
Even if the balance of power were even it would be horrible
It may even be worst. If an actual war with modern weapons was waged in America the infrastructure would be destroyed
there would be no balance of power if a real open civil war started russia or china would just invade pretty quickly
oof well we just shitted up history chat
back to history
Would you have supported Caesar in the civil war with Pompey?
The main thing is stop our New Rome sinking to the step that we have to choose between Caesar and Pompey
SPQR is already dead in the era of trilogy
do you mean very limited suffrage, i.e., only a small portion of the people get to make the decisions?
I asked the question because I wanted to know if there is a republican form of government without any type suffrage
Or if all republics have some degree of democracy
The closest you can get to that is what we originally had.
White male landowners who had actual stock in the country they were voting to rule.
do what the Holy Roman empire did,
except on a much larger scale,
have inheritated positions of power which are capable of voting.
I'm asking more of a question about definition
is it possible for a republic to not have suffrage
It is not.
or would it just be an oligarchy or aristocracy
@Hektor#9849 well how do you have a legitimate transition of power
without any form of suffrage or hereditary right
trial by combat
There's a lot of nascent republics that don't have any democracy
but that seems like a transition period
i.e., the English Protectorate, the French Directory
@Hektor and even if the leader isn't elected in a republic, the legislature almost always is
@Hektor#9849 Why can't I ping you?
Hitler was gay
ur mom gay
no ur mom and dad gay together
@Deleted User Would they even be a republic if there isn't suffrage though? How can government be a public matter if there is no voting?
There are degrees of publicness and differences in how legitimacy is drawn
But you're right in that it's very hard to have a republic without a mechanism for public feedback
The examples I mentioned weren't monarchies
and relied on an elected legislature while not having an elected executive
700 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/3 | Next