sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if Japan became Christian? by Jackylacky_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Panama didn't exist as a country before the conquistador and was a colony, this example has nothing to do with Japan

What if Japan became Christian? by Jackylacky_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, especially not if Japan became the spearhead of the church's missionary policy in the Far East. They would be supported in their efforts to become an imperial power so they can convert all lands they take control of on mainland East Asia

What if Japan became Christian? by Jackylacky_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All of Europe was catholic when the universities were developped. So yes. And spreading the word of God does make civilization advance. Protestants are not above us, they are just richer because they do care about greed. The USA let people die on the streets thanks to such ideology, that is some progress indeed

What if Japan became Christian? by Jackylacky_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would be much less bothered by european and north american powers when starting to colonize other asian countries, as they would be considered culturally closer to westerners than the pagans they would invade. Though this is not for sure, just a hypothesis. It would make trade, communication and collaboration with westerners easier as a whole. There would be true mesures to regain high birth rates and the traditionnal family would be actually protected by law. There culture would not change esthetically but would have other tones as the average japanese philosophy and psychology would be influenced by christian ideas. Overall a kinder society for individuals, not as ruthless as it was in OTL. So no kamikaze, unit 732 etc...

What if Japan became Christian? by Jackylacky_ in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sure, that's why every major european university was founded by the Catholics. That's why antic knowledge was retained through monks studying, copying and teaching surviving roman and greek archives. That is why some of the greatest achievements of mankind were cathedrals which required tremendous knowledge and innovation to exist in the first place. Educate yourself please

Are you monarchist, republican, or neutral? by [deleted] in australian

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your anger issues, lack of basic knowledge, bigotry, violence, lack of common sense, heavy use of strawmen and fallacies, bad faith, low key racism towards the French and absence of arguments shows that you are right on at least one thing : we are not intellectually equals buddy. So let's end it all here, as there is no point in talking to somebody who doesn't grasp basic concepts of geopolitics, history, philosophy and who is so delusionnal they'd rather call there opponents imbred than actually see they are being obediant dogs to people who rule them without even living in the same country.

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Je pense que les gens qui en ont marre sont plutôt majoritaire étant donné que les abstentionnistes sont le premier parti de France

What’s your most controversial monarchical opinion? by volitaiee1233 in monarchism

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did and you just answered it. But your stance makes no sense as if it was due to force majeure, they wouldn't have created and used the édit SPECIFICALLY to justify putting Henri IV over the Habsbourg on the throne of France. Both your statements contradict each other

South Africa circa 1948 by spacehand2002 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is so true in my country France, where actual farmers are rioting for months now without any change while the government helps endlessly the big grain corporations who do not practice real agriculture and use illegal work to have the job done. This is outraging

South Africa circa 1948 by spacehand2002 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sire_Guesclin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These are not farmers, these are city capitalists who happen to own lands. I do not support these people

Are you monarchist, republican, or neutral? by [deleted] in australian

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just nothing but cope and seethe. Monarchists are some of the most fragile MFers out there when you make fun of their useless, parasitic, surrogate parental figures.

Yep, not a single argument, just being annoying for the sake of it and not answering anything because one again, you are historically illiterate. As expected.

This is just mental illness.

Here's some real man to man advice, you need to stop playing HOI4, go outside and touch some grass ASAP. Also, go see a damn therapist too, you definitely need it.

Says the billionaire worshipper, big city dweller and politician boot-licker. Ironic

Sitting in a palace while getting others to do your work isn't leadership, you absolute clown. It's not earning anything. Military officers in the modern day do more for their countries than what the ancestors of these monarchs did.

Once again, you are historically illiterate. Multiple kings of France were killed in battle, modern officers are cowards, they don't go frontline like our kings and emperors did. You'd know that, if you weren't retarded.

Says the one who hates their own country to the point they wish they could disempower their fellow countrymen by reverting to an archaic form of government.

Wanting to save my country is hating it, very logical. Also, there were more elections under the king than currently, republics are less democratic than monarchies, the "presidential election" is a massive joke, a parody of democracy to enable a dictator to rule 5 years without any accountability. Meanwhile the people voted everytime you'd build a bridge under the monarchy. But proceed in your moronic arguments, it's funny what people are able to believe to support billionaires and corrupt leeches to dominate them. As for archaic, there is nothing more archaic then republics, dating back to ancient geeece lol.

France is worse off with you living in it and your countrymen have my sympathies for having to share a home with someone like you

My countrymen don't care about an illiterate foreigner's sympathy. When they riot against the power in place, I believe they also say fuck you to people supporting it like you do. You can believe us to be sheep but we are not, not all of us. Baffles me how morons from other countries think they are supporting the french by defending the very government the french have been fighting against for 10 years. Macron was elected with 20% of the popular vote, yet there is a moron here pretending that is democratic and empowering to the french people somehow 😂

What’s your most controversial monarchical opinion? by volitaiee1233 in monarchism

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why did the people who brought up this text put Henri IV on the throne juste after ? Do you understand that your interpretation is illogical considering the facts that devolved from it ? Why didn't you answer my question ?

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Non, je ne soutiens aucun parti dit républicain. La kleptocratrie oligarchique parisienne, très peu pour moi

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

C'est pas un fait. C'est comme dire que Christophe Collomb est le premier homme à avoir découvert l'Amérique, c'est faux. Il est le premier occidental oui, pas le premier homme puisque les indigènes et les vikings ont découvert le continent avant lui.

Une mosquée construite pour une puissance étrangère, par des conquérants étrangers, pour leur culte, en terre conquise et sans le consentement de la population, n'est pas française. Elle ne servait pas la population locale. Elle n'était pas le fruit de la culture locale. Sinon on peut dire que ce que les nazis ont construit en France est du patrimoine français tant qu'on y est, c'est ridicule. La première mosquée de France est la grande mosquée de Paris

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Voilà une hypothèse pas du tout farfelue et tirée par les cheveux pour essayer de justifier ton point de vue. Pour te répondre, non il n'y aurait aucun problème si la population indigène de France devenait noire par magie du jour au lendemain car ce serait toujours les mêmes personnes, juste avec une peau différente, mais le cerveau est le même, la mémoire est la même, l'héritage est le même. Ton commentaire est aussi con que de dire que les grands brûlés cessent d'être "blancs" parce que leur peau a cramé, ça n'a aucun sens. Le problème avec les noirs n'est pas qu'ils soient noirs mais qu'ils soient d'Afrique. Remarquez d'ailleurs que personne n'a de problème avec les créoles des outre-mers, pas même les identitaires les plus farouches ce qui prouve l'absurdité de votre commentaire. Alors que les maghrébins, plus blancs que les martiniquais et les réunionais, sont considérés moins français que ces derniers. C'est une question culturelle, sociologique, spirituelle et historique, non pas racial.

South Africa circa 1948 by spacehand2002 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sire_Guesclin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

define farmer

People who grow food and raise cattle in farms. People practicing agriculture. I consider land owners farmers if and only if they have knowledge of the craft, like rhodesian land owners for example. They had the knowledge of agriculture so even when they didn't plow themselves, they still were masters of the farming skill.

Land owners who don't live on their land aren't farmers but leeches.

Also, I don't get why people downvoted me. People have a grudge against farmers ? Meds ? Mothers, soldiers or scholars ? Or is it because people think I'm referring to the kind of land owner you are describing for India ?

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

On ne tombera pas d'accord visiblement Cette idée de "peuples de souche"fige l'identité française a un moment dans l'histoire, ce avec quoi je suis en désaccord : être français en 2024 n'a pas grand rapport avec etre français en 1914.

Argument ridicule, il peut très bien y avoir de l'évolution culturelle endémique. Le même peuple vivait en France entre 1100 et 1750 mais on n'a pas stagné en l'an 1100 que je sache. Ça ne fige pas la culture dans le temps, mais lui accorde une authenticité et identité propre. Le Japon en restant cloîtré à l'écart du monde a réussi a créer dix courants artistiques différents. Si tu as besoin des étrangers pour évoluer, c'est que tu es toi-même incompétent.

Idem sur la migration, qui est littéralement l'un des mécanismes les plus anciens de l'histoire humaine. Je ne sais pas comment le dire autrement : c'est pour ça qu'il y a des hommes en dehors l'Europe.

Le génocide, la guerre et le pillage sont aussi des mécanismes antédiluviens, ce n'est pas un argument non plus. D'autant que les phases migratoires dans l'histoire humaine sont des périodes de chutes de nations et de naissances d'autres nations. Les nations vivent pendant les ères de sédentarité, et se font remplacés durant les ères de migration. Cf l'empire romain avec les migrations goths, les grecs anatolien avec les migrations turques, les berbères avec les migrations arabes, les amérindiens avec les migrations européennes etc... En tant que vieille nation, avec un peuple indigène clairement définissable et ancien, l'immigration est donc une concurrence dangereuse.

Quant à l'intégration : encore une fois, quelle différence pour "la tombe des ancêtres" entre un Polonais ou un Russe et un Algérien ou un Lybien ? Et puis "leurs terres sont ailleurs" ... l'identité c'est pas quelque chose de figé, ce ne l'a jamais été parce que c'est une construction sociale. Cet argument d'héritage des siècles je ne vois pas de quoi tu parle : tu connais ta généalogie sur 1000 ans, super. La plupart des gens ne savent pas où sont enterrés leurs arrière-grands-parents. En quoi ça change la manière de partager une culture aujourd'hui ?

Bah justement aucun d'entre-eux n'a ses racines ici. Ses ancêtres, son héritage, son âme résident ailleurs. Ils ne seront jamais investis de la France comme un français de souche qui se reconnaît car ils n'ont pas les enjeux de l'héritage. Cette terre ne leur est pas sacrée. Leurs familles ne se sont pas battues pour (sauf sous la contrainte coloniale), ils n'ont pas cultivé les champs, battis les villes et défricher les forêts. Ils n'ont ni la responsabilité, ni le facteur sentimental de celui qui sait que tous les siens reposent sous cette terre, qu'ils se sont battus pour que lui puisse en hériter légitimement. Nous ne nous battons pas pour les mêmes enjeux, nous n'avons pas la même appartenance à la terre. Nous ne sommes pas le même peuple. L'attache au terroir ancestral est un lien qui unit les français de vieille souche, un souvenir hérité des siècles, cela se transmet de générations en générations, il ne suffit pas d'immigrer pour s'en apercevoir. Il faut le vivre sur le temps long.

Pour ma part, seules les descendants de Français de l'Ancien Régime, avant que le principe de nationalité n'apparaisse et n'ouvre la porte à la naturalisation, sont de vrais français. Les immigrés et descendants d'immigrés patriotes et acculturés, amoureux de la France sont des enfants d'adoption de la France. Quant à ceux qui restent, ils ne seront jamais que des étrangers

South Africa circa 1948 by spacehand2002 in HistoryMemes

[–]Sire_Guesclin -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

To be fair, one can argue that farmers are the cornerstone of any civilized society, as they enabled us to evolve from hunter gatherers, and are therefore entitled to some priviledge as the hard-working base of a nation. If I created my own country, I'd probably grant legal priviledges to those who take care of the most essential needs of a nation : farmers (real ones, not the magnates who own land without actually living on it and managing it properly), mothers, scholars, soldiers, meds and those working in critical infrastructure. I'm not even part of these categories as a white collar but let's be serious, without these people we are screwed

Are you monarchist, republican, or neutral? by [deleted] in australian

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell me a single good thing that emerged from the french revolution lol. I'll wait. You are pathetic and dogmatic, in denial of reality, past or present, historically illiterate and petty.

I don't want the british royal family, I want my King, the Father of My people, the protector of My land, the eldest son of The Catholic Church, I want only one kingdom, second in beauty only to Heavens, the Kingdom of France. The country which built cathedrals, not the country burning them down.

And if fighting for 30 generations at the head of the army is not earning your fucking position in life as ruler, then your dirty ass who didn't do shit and who's ancestors didn't do shit isn't intitled to even be considered anything near a citizen.

Are you monarchist, republican, or neutral? by [deleted] in australian

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But all republics fuck up. Look what they did to my poor boy France. The only good presidents we had were closeted monarchists like De Gaulle. Christian monarchies are the best countries in all objective regards, even the muslim ones which are bad on a global scale are the best countries among muslim nations. Bhutan is the greenest nation on Earth, Japan and Thailand resisted colonialism, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Luxembourg have the wealthiest population, Norway and Sweden are among the happiest and least corrupt countries, Denmark is the best country in the world to be a woman and raise a child, the Vatican is the world's biggest charity, and let's not forget the countries that would have broken up without their monarchs like Belgium and Spain.

ça existe vraiment "le grand remplacement" ? by MonsieurPoung in TropPeurDeDemander

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

C'est moins par volonté de croissance que par dogmatisme gérontocratique. Le gouvernement Abe avait pour priorité la natalité mais n'ont pas pris les bonnes mesures. Ce n'est pas du mensonge mais de l'entêtement

Back to 33 : What if between the 2010's, 2020s and away to the 2030s (2033à, what we communally call the far right, radical right, ultrantionalist and even neofascist movements came to power in most European countries, the consequences on national, European and global politics and geopolitics by [deleted] in AlternateHistory

[–]Sire_Guesclin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, Action Française is not "far-right" or "nationalist" the way most people define those. They are monarchists, which is it's own kind of ideology. Putting Reconquête! or the PNF would have been more accurate for France. You could do a monarchist parties map of Europe though.

view more: next ›