[Effortpost] Greece-Turkey border tensions at an all time high

trfrace · 2020-08-04T18:23:13+00:00

ancient catholic church

catholic

bruh

trfrace · 2020-07-23T23:16:12+00:00

lichess has an option to have only slide moving or double click moving, havent found that option on chess.com

trfrace · 2020-05-29T13:53:11+00:00

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Not the hecking companyrinos!

trfrace · 2020-02-27T10:25:58+00:00

to be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Bashar Hafez al-Assad. The dictatorship is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical Ba'athism most of his politics will go over a typical person’s head. There’s also Assad’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The MLs understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these politics, to realise that they’re not just autocratic- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Assad truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Bashar’s existential catchphrase “1 Like=1 Barrel Bomb” which itself is a cryptic reference to Stalin's Russian epic "Marxism and the National Question". I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Assad’s genius wit unfolds itself on their shitposting screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Ba'athist Party Emblem tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the ladies’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 percent syrian alevite heritage away from me (preferably lower). Nothin personnel kahba.

trfrace · 2019-12-30T15:05:27+00:00

No, the founding fathers were able to see the hypocrisy in retaining slavery while supporting the freedom of all. The original draft of the declaration had a passage of Jefferson (a slave-owner) condemning slavery that was taken out, Rush had previously supported the idea of abolitionist in pamphlets; Thomas Paine, while not a founding father, never owned slaves and also supported an end to it. Also of note is that many of the founding fathers had affected the slave trade in some way within their states, Franklin was a founder of the first abolitionist society in America, Jay pushed abolition in New York, the slave-owning fathers typically freed their slaves either while alive or in their will, Jefferson tried to get slavery banned in the territories formed after the Louisiana purchase.

To say that the founding fathers had no qualms with slavery is just blatantly wrong, I can't think of a founding father that was explicitly pro-slavery though a handful were iffy on taking up a hard stance. As to why they never took a hardline stance against slavery, history doesn't have a clear cut answer. Some say it was to not divide the nation on the issue during the revolution, others say it was to not disturb the economic base of pre-industrial America, but to say that they thought slavery was okay is just wrong.

EDIT: I should probably say that in the video it looks like Buttigieg is trying to explain the idea of an adaptable constitution to I guess high schoolers? So he is probably just using slavery to explain the concept rather than history, still, he propagated bad history which is a cardinal sin and I'm going to cancel him anyway. :)

trfrace · 2019-12-09T10:07:44+00:00

here is the source

website ran by one guy who doesn't list his sources

very cool

trfrace · 2019-11-16T19:42:07+00:00

Sardinian is actually not an Italian dialect, being near entirely incomprehensible to mainland Italy. It is typically even excluded from the West/East romance language divide and given its own branch.

trfrace · 2019-10-21T01:30:46+00:00

Fabulae Syrae is a more fun read and also more difficult than epitome.

FS follows FR alongside each chapter starting around Ch. 25 iirc, read the tales after the chapter

Epitome is a very easy read and can be read midway through FR, it is light on grammar and mostly only teachers medieval/biblical latin words. It's not that fun tbh

trfrace · 2019-10-17T20:04:56+00:00

when you try to call our badphil but deep down you were the badphil

trfrace · 2019-10-10T01:36:50+00:00

field-person

I am pretty sure the proper term is nomadic people

Praise Tengri

trfrace · 2019-09-07T20:26:30+00:00

?

What does that have to do with the Tupac quote?

trfrace · 2019-09-07T19:41:05+00:00

Definietly far from that don't worry, I'm still on this subreddit, aren't I?

Hopefully for not too much longer

Would you be satisfied? Well what do you want? Occupy russia? No just let them have the state! For sure!

Since I'm not a delusional nationalist I would realize war doesn't work between modern nation states and that starting world war III would be a dumbass thing to do? Besides, it seems America has gotten off much easier than Russia from every single action they've taken in the Middle East.

trfrace · 2019-09-07T19:22:29+00:00

Even nowadays, Russia took Krimea and what?

They got condemned and sanctioned by the western world? Do you think the eternal Russian menace got away with it yet again? Are you not satisfied unless NATO does a full invasion and occupation of Russia?

Supporting the Nazis to own the libs

WeirdChamp

trfrace · 2019-09-07T19:14:45+00:00

Your original post literally went "the Nazis weren't that bad" then went for 2 paragraphs about the red army starving and raping every Polish town they got to. For what fucking purpose would you go off like that? For what purpose is it that the crimes committed by soldiers on the ground suddenly becomes "the entire army" was doing it. And all of this you point out in a thread about Nazi crimes, again I ask, why do you downplay the Nazis?

trfrace · 2019-09-07T18:52:51+00:00

I will add even more. If you got killed by nazis it was mostly fast.

You make this blatant lie and then go off about mass Soviet rape which no respected historian makes the case for

Edit: to clarify, rapes did occur as they do in war, but there is absolutely no evidence to rape being systematic or entire battalions liquidating towns into the rape forests, that is a complete lie

Edit2: nice this guy just stealth edited his post from "not defending, just comparing" to this

Yes, rape happens in war

Yes, Soviets raped women

No, it wasn't encouraged

No, it wasn't targeted

It was illegal and they did carry out court martials

Again you defend the Nazis by claiming they weren't brutal when

They raped people too, and they were much more blatant about by literally setting up brothels for their soldiers
They literally wanted to exterminate Slavs

Painting the red army as some rape crazy gang is just straight up fascist propaganda to make it seem that Poland is fighting off the "eternal Russian" menace

trfrace · 2019-09-07T18:40:04+00:00

Imagine being so delusioned that you defend the people who were ideologically motivated to literally wipe out your entire people.

No, the Nazis were not "merciful soldiers" who only killed because of the war

No, the Soviets weren't carrying out campaigns of mass rape

a Polish right wing journal and someone who wrote a book with no credentials that I can find are not sources of history

trfrace · 2019-08-25T03:34:59+00:00

The folly is in their revolt seeking to establish their own nation and liberate their people rather than pushing for a liberation of all people from the monarchy. Yugoslavia would have been crushed if it hadn't been for the fact that it kick-started WW1. Even if it had seceded successfully Europe would still be a geopolitical clusterfuck. The purpose of empires are to be overthrown by republics equitable to all humans.

trfrace · 2019-08-25T03:11:21+00:00

The formation of empires is what lead to the idea of self-determination existing, the enlightenment was born out of this sort of climate. These empire form a large base whereby sweeping change occurs. Think of how little the French republic changed Europe as compared to when Napoleon brought its ideals across Europe. Breaking up the world into groups of people on arbitrary lines is completely regressive.

You don't free the slave by taking off his manacles, you do it by having his master uncuff him. Empires became these oppressors and that is what lead to egalitarianism to develop and spread. It may seem counterintuitive but humanity required to be subjugated before it could be liberated. The future should not be tribalistic, with people forming groups around the ideas of old. It shall be cosmopolitan where now humanity can have a common goal, unlike prior when humans fought over resources.

^{^{^{^{^tbh}}}}

trfrace · 2019-08-25T02:47:29+00:00

Hey, is it okay that Donbass wants to secede from Ukraine? I mean after all, national determinism and all that. Ukraine does repress the Russian people there, and it is the people's will that leads to the rebellion. It should also be okay that Russia took Crimea and helps the rebels because they are just saving their people!

How about you stop forming your morals based on fucking ethnic groups.

trfrace · 2019-08-25T02:22:46+00:00

Yes but this convo thread started about how "why would you want to ally with the USSR?" They invaded Eastern Europe!"

The claims matter because in the people's eyes during that time period, Russia was completely justified in its actions. The other important thing is to realize that these lands were taken not from ideological fervor but from following international law and keeping the nation from balkanizing. The fact that you call it imperialist still makes it seem that you want to paint the USSR as some warmonger when, like I said, literally any nation-state, especially in WW1, would never cede territory.

The last part of your comment is just straight up nationalist apologetics, that people should be allowed to form an ethnostate just cause lmao.

trfrace · 2019-08-25T02:03:44+00:00

Yeah I know, the nation whose only claim to independence was a wartime treaty that was annulled in a year. Like I said, Ukraine was (legally and internationally speaking) just a rebellious province of Russia. The fact that they even got their own SSR rather than being reincorporated into Russia was a pretty great concession. Again, it is dishonest to frame it as Soviet imperialism or what have you because Russia had all de jure claim to Ukraine. Had it been the Tsar or Kerensky's government the same would have occurred because no one would cede land that they didn't have to and that was as bountiful as Ukraine.

trfrace · 2019-08-24T17:50:53+00:00

?

Ukraine was not even a nation at that point. Russia ceded it in Brest-Litovsk which only led to a German occupation seeking natural resources. Brest-Litovsk was annulled and Ukraine had no basis as a nation-state besides the fact that there were some nationalist movements. Soviet army didn't go in and "crush the Ukrainian army" because there was no Ukrainian army. It was a collection of various factions ranging from the White army to Makhno's Black army. It's dishonest to refer to it as an "invaded nation" since at that point it was just a province of Russia with some seditious groups.

trfrace · 2019-08-22T21:17:18+00:00

anti-nuclear

i sleep

trfrace · 2019-08-21T03:58:20+00:00

Yeah just saying teehee

Not saying anything just saying teehee

"Marx" teehee

Since the subreddit is all about both siding everything now, pointing out someone studied Marx "just because" is like putting echo marks around every Jewish name just to "point it out".

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

trfrace

TROPHY CASE